Ssb - ronnie o'sullivan wins ptc1

[tris]

Higgins wins when it matters. In the 2009/2010 season they played 6 times and Higgins won 5. Don't even dare to put Ronnie in the same league as Higgins.... the scot is a different class.

century breaks made speak for themself, aswell as maximuns and ranking titles. ronnie has far more centuries. ronnie can call when he is going to make a 147,confidence or arrogance, either way, higgins cant do the same. he can make a break from nowhere. hes won the premier league 9 times and has won far more non-ranking titles than higgins. ronnie is in a different league, and if his head hadn't been so screwed up over his life, he would be worlds better than any other snooker player ever. higgins is more level headed and thus has won more, but ronnie is a better player, and the majority of pros would agree.

[mick 142]

ronnie on his game is unbeatable ,hopefully he will get sorted this season and put higgins in his place .

[wildJONESEYE]

century breaks made speak for themself, aswell as maximuns and ranking titles. ronnie has far more centuries. ronnie can call when he is going to make a 147,confidence or arrogance, either way, higgins cant do the same. he can make a break from nowhere. hes won the premier league 9 times and has won far more non-ranking titles than higgins. ronnie is in a different league, and if his head hadn't been so screwed up over his life, he would be worlds better than any other snooker player ever. higgins is more level headed and thus has won more, but ronnie is a better player, and the majority of pros would agree.

who are you trying to convince us or yourself ??

a bit of rambling there if you dont mind me saying

[Theguywithaplan]

century breaks made speak for themself, aswell as maximuns and ranking titles. ronnie has far more centuries. ronnie can call when he is going to make a 147,confidence or arrogance, either way, higgins cant do the same. he can make a break from nowhere. hes won the premier league 9 times and has won far more non-ranking titles than higgins. ronnie is in a different league, and if his head hadn't been so screwed up over his life, he would be worlds better than any other snooker player ever. higgins is more level headed and thus has won more, but ronnie is a better player, and the majority of pros would agree.

That is very fanboyish. Every pro I know (admitedly not THAT many) put Higgins over Ronnie.

[Ronnie's tip]

That is very fanboyish. Every pro I know (admitedly not THAT many) put Higgins over Ronnie.

Steve Davis considers Higgins the best player ever. Dennis Taylor thinks it goes Hendry, Ronnie, Davis. Jimmy White and Ray Reardon (I think) have said that Ronnie is the best player ever.

All down to opinion really. Higgins is Ronnie's worst nightmare because he's so consistant. Even when he's having a poor session he usually remains within touching distance.

[nrage]

That is very fanboyish. Every pro I know (admitedly not THAT many) put Higgins over Ronnie.

It all depends what Q you're asking. If you're asking who is better at winning tournaments, matches, etc then I think Higgins is the correct choice, specifically because he is so consistent. But if you're asking who can play the most amazing snooker, then the answer is/was Ronnie because when he is on form he is unplayable.

[wildJONESEYE]

It all depends what Q you're asking. If you're asking who is better at winning tournaments, matches, etc then I think Higgins is the correct choice, specifically because he is so consistent. But if you're asking who can play the most amazing snooker, then the answer is/was Ronnie because when he is on form he is unplayable.

by sheer definition of that John Higgins has in fact been unplayable more often thats why hes 4 times WC.

[nrage]

by sheer definition of that John Higgins has in fact been unplayable more often thats why hes 4 times WC.

True, perhaps the point I'm trying to make needs more explanation. Imagine there is a scale between 1 and 100 which measures perfection in snooker. Ronnie hits 99, sometimes, but mostly sits around 92 or similar. Whereas John averages 94 and can reach 97 or 98. In other words Ronnie can be better, he just isn't most of the time. So, you could say that any player playing at 95 and above could be considered unplayable at that time. Consistency wins in snooker, whether it's consistency in a long game, or performing well consistently week in/week out. Ronnie has never had consistency, only brilliance.

[wildJONESEYE]

True, perhaps the point I'm trying to make needs more explanation. Imagine there is a scale between 1 and 100 which measures perfection in snooker. Ronnie hits 99, sometimes, but mostly sits around 92 or similar. Whereas John averages 94 and can reach 97 or 98. In other words Ronnie can be better, he just isn't most of the time. So, you could say that any player playing at 95 and above could be considered unplayable at that time. Consistency wins in snooker, whether it's consistency in a long game, or performing well consistently week in/week out. Ronnie has never had consistency, only brilliance.

YES i understand both Ronnie and Hendry has played to a level John Higgins has never reached and never will..

[ace man]

"when on form he is unplayable" - very subjective term which doesn't really mean anything and could be said for many players.

They are very very close to each other. Always have been. This is how I see them.

Ronnie's edge over John:
- break building (John very close)
- cue ball control (again John very close)
- developing reds, breaking clusters (nobody touches him here)
- a bit smoother cue action; seems like his arm never gets stiff, never ever snatches even under pressure and adrenaline rush and gets unbelievable action on the cueball with such little effort at all times
- his left hand isn't as good as right, but can reduce usage of rest


John's edge over Ronnie:
- mental department, fighting qualities (coming from behind etc), sits out centuries without any problem
- long pots
- safeties, laying snookers
- rest play (Ronnie's good with it too)
- escaping from snookers (extremely important part of the game)
- doubles (overlooked part of the game)

What do you think? Have I missed something?

[trains]

[QUOTE=wildJONESEYE;585633]YES i understand both Ronnie and Hendry has played to a level John Higgins has never reached and never will.. [QUOTE]

Approximate quote off Joe Johnson after J Higgins won his first world title in 98, 'Higgins is playing at a level I've never seen'.
He must have just watched the 69 break in 82

[wildJONESEYE]

[QUOTE=trains;585664][QUOTE=wildJONESEYE;585633]YES i understand both Ronnie and Hendry has played to a level John Higgins has never reached and never will..

Approximate quote off Joe Johnson after J Higgins won his first world title in 98, 'Higgins is playing at a level I've never seen'.
He must have just watched the 69 break in 82

commentators and pundits get caught up in the moment and a lot of them in that moment talk crap.

[trains]

[QUOTE=wildJONESEYE;585674][QUOTE=trains;585664]

YES i understand both Ronnie and Hendry has played to a level John Higgins has never reached and never will..

commentators and pundits get caught up in the moment and a lot of them in that moment talk crap.

Didnt think it was off tbf,other sessions of note the first v O'S in the UK 09 sf,run of the ball or not you can hardly play better tbf.

[wildJONESEYE]

[QUOTE=trains;585675][QUOTE=wildJONESEYE;585674]

Didnt think it was off tbf,other sessions of note the first v O'S in the UK 09 sf,run of the ball or not you can hardly play better tbf.

well he made 14 centuries but John Higgins played better in 1999 than he did in 1998.

[trains]

[QUOTE=wildJONESEYE;585681][QUOTE=trains;585675]

well he made 14 centuries but John Higgins played better in 1999 than he did in 1998.

Couldnt resist your MJ plug j/k