Ronnie O'Sullivan v Matthew Stevens - Semi Final

[montoya10]

U never know what ronnie will turn out to a session let alone a 3 day match but for me if he carries on as he has he'll win the title easaly. he looks real cool, calm and collective. he's changed his game alot which people are not giving him much credit for.

He's not moving anywhere near as much on the shot, staying down well after the cue balls been played. His long pots, although not the highest sucess of the tournement have been up there with the best, something we all know ron has struggled with for many years, and his saftey has been unreal. The amount of real difficault snookers he's laid behind bulk colors from the other end of the table this tourney! He's also willing to try win a frame when a few snookers are required something he's never bothered with and of course, when he is in the balls, he's still so deadly, there cleared up in 4 or 5 minutes. Cant see Stevens coping and hoping he doesn't really, Stevens has a few more years in him but like Hendry I think Ron will be giving up shortly, the are a lot older now and dont want the huge playing schedule with all these PCT events. And lets face it, although ron has won 23 ranking events, thats still a massive underachievement, if he wasn't a bit mental, know one would have touched him the past 15 years!

I don't think an attacking player like Stevens can win it after he turns 35. Only John Higgins won it as an older man, and he's one of the best tactical players ever. So, no, he doesn't have a few years more in him.
And Ronnie isn't a massive underachiever. When someone wins 20+ ranking events in an era when he had likes of Higgins, Williams, Stevens, Hunter, Ebdon, Doherty, Hendry playing, and wins the big event three times, you can't call him a massive underachiever.
That said, he could still have won more, I agree. However, the massive underachiever in this match up is, without a doubt, Stevens, who could and definitely should have won a lot more.

[doorag]

If Ronnie is an underachiever then so are Higgins and Williams. im sure a lot of people dont agree but I think they're all about equally talented.

I dont think any of them are underachievers.

[Ronnie's tip]

If Ronnie is an underachiever then so are Higgins and Williams. im sure a lot of people dont agree but I think they're all about equally talented.

I dont think any of them are underachievers.

It's strange how all 3 of this generations 'special' players have all had their problems. Ronnie's problems are well documented, Higgins went through a period when he started to drink a lot (I think?) and didn't win anything for a while and Williams lost all his motivation.

Williams has never really been able to get back to where he was from around 99-2003. Higgins' peak was from 07-11 IMO. Ronnie's never really had a peak period. He's amazing for a year, then loses his head. 2 years later he'll become untouchable again followed by another loss of motivation ect.

Had either one of those 3 had Hendry or Davis' attitude they would have won a lot more, though I think Higgins is the closest to Hendry mentally.

Even those who were slightly underneath that level had problems. Paul Hunter obviously wasn't able to reach his peak, Stevens lost his motivation ect.

That's why I don't buy this "the standard is so high nowadays" stuff. I think the general standard has become a lot more squeezed. The top players aren't as good as they were, but the 'second tier' players are much better and there's more depth.

Robertson, Selby, Trump, Murphy, Ding ect all all great players, but are they as good as a prime Hendry/O'Sullivan/Higgins/Williams? No chance. They're about as good as Stevens was before he dropped down.

[michelleken]

Is there a new cloth on the table for the semi-finals?

[Ronnie's tip]

Is there a new cloth on the table for the semi-finals?

I think so, as Steve Davis was criticizing the speed of it today.

[montoya10]

If Ronnie is an underachiever then so are Higgins and Williams. im sure a lot of people dont agree but I think they're all about equally talented.

I dont think any of them are underachievers.

Yes, main problem is their careers ran through the years together. Probably the standard they set will never be equaled by any other generation.
60-odd ranking event titles, 9 world titles between them, calling any of those three an underachiever is a bit harsh.

It's strange how all 3 of this generations 'special' players have all had their problems. Ronnie's problems are well documented, Higgins went through a period when he started to drink a lot (I think?) and didn't win anything for a while and Williams lost all his motivation.

Williams has never really been able to get back to where he was from around 99-2003. Higgins' peak was from 07-11 IMO. Ronnie's never really had a peak period. He's amazing for a year, then loses his head. 2 years later he'll become untouchable again followed by another loss of motivation ect.

Had either one of those 3 had Hendry or Davis' attitude they would have won a lot more, though I think Higgins is the closest to Hendry mentally.

Even those who were slightly underneath that level had problems. Paul Hunter obviously wasn't able to reach his peak, Stevens lost his motivation ect.

That's why I don't buy this "the standard is so high nowadays" stuff. I think the general standard has become a lot more squeezed. The top players aren't as good as they were, but the 'second tier' players are much better and there's more depth.

Robertson, Selby, Trump, Murphy, Ding ect all all great players, but are they as good as a prime Hendry/O'Sullivan/Higgins/Williams? No chance. They're about as good as Stevens was before he dropped down.

Williams at his peak was the closest to dominate out of the three for a couple of years. Higgins had the best B-game to rely on, therefore taking world titles in his late thirties. O'Sullivan was always the one that everybody feared the most.
All in all, all of them had their ups and downs, and if Hendry arrived at the scene together with them, there was no way he would be winning as many as seven world titles. He would be robbed at some point, in my opinion.
And I exactly agree that standard has significantly dropped. It's because all those players at the top are now pretty close to each other that makes the things harder to win. Golden Four of the snooker at their primes would steamroll today's players by far.

[montoya10]

I think so, as Steve Davis was criticizing the speed of it today.

Especially Maguire struggled mightily with the table speed today.

[dpcw_wsm]

I don't think an attacking player like Stevens can win it after he turns 35. Only John Higgins won it as an older man, and he's one of the best tactical players ever. So, no, he doesn't have a few years more in him.
And Ronnie isn't a massive underachiever. When someone wins 20+ ranking events in an era when he had likes of Higgins, Williams, Stevens, Hunter, Ebdon, Doherty, Hendry playing, and wins the big event three times, you can't call him a massive underachiever.
That said, he could still have won more, I agree. However, the massive underachiever in this match up is, without a doubt, Stevens, who could and definitely should have won a lot more.

Most player who are of a good tourney standard would love to win 23 tourneys but it will never happen for some, and some may get the odd 1 or 2 or even a handful. The point I was making is Ronnie has under achieved for the natural born ability he has.

Thats not just my opinion. Everyone involved in snooker thinks it, the spectators, fans, players and even ron him self has admitted he's under achieved.

We all know Hendry is the most successful player on paper but we also all know that if ron didn't have all those physiological issues and personal melt downs he would have blasted all Hendrys records and achievements out the water. Hendry himself has also said this on many occasions, so yeah im sorry, as much as i love ron he has underachieved. But through no fault of his own, ie lack of effort or commitment, its just the way he's wired.

[montoya10]

What a great opening frame it was.

[Masterdoctorgenius]

this frame had it all:noise, great pots, nerves,steal

[Masterdoctorgenius]

the cloth is mighty past

[Masterdoctorgenius]

fair play to mattew after snookering behind the yellow

very sporty

[wake_up_bomb]

These may be famous last words, but...I can't see Stevens beating O' Sullivan. As far as I can see Ronnie is superior in every department, with the possible exception of long potting, but he seems to have been knocking in a few of them recently.

[Masterdoctorgenius]

What an escape that was

[breakman16]

Assuming Ronnie goes 2 0 Stevens is gonna struggle to stay with him I think, it's too important to bother about how you win, loving the semis so far, was at work today so saw most of the match but couldnt get on here this afternoon, working tomorrow too!