World Championship 2013 Draw & Gossip

walshb

Bruthal wrote: »

He looks more uncomfortable than ego filled in them situations at times.

I disagree. That's the impression they want to give off, but they are absolutely full of themselves. Like Sinead O'Connor and Colin Farrell. The exact same silly messing and picking and quirky (manufactured) mannerisms. It's nothing to do with being nervous or uncomfortable IMO. They are just so into themselves. Posers. Out and out posers. Oh, and extrenely cocky and sure of themselves. It's all an act.

Ronnie the player. I have not ever seen such a naturally brilliant player.

zack01

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

2/9 would be odds on, it's even or less if I remember right

Ooops sorry, but 9/2 is in my book a nailed on favourite for a snooker tournament the size of the worlds.

KERSPLAT!

zack01 wrote: »

Ooops sorry, but 9/2 is in my book a nailed on favourite for a snooker tournament the size of the worlds.

Oh yeah definitely the favorite after this year's performance and the fact he was out for 11 months

loyatemu

zack01 wrote: »

Ooops sorry, but 9/2 is in my book a nailed on favourite for a snooker tournament the size of the worlds.

"Odds-on" has a specific meaning - rated at even money or less to win

genuine question - to what extent can we excuse Ronnie's behaviour based on his mental issues? That clip with Mark King above - he comes across as a total d*ck and seriously disrespectful to his opponent.

zack01

loyatemu wrote: »

"Odds-on" has a specific meaning - rated at even money or less to win

genuine question - to what extent can we excuse Ronnie's behaviour based on his mental issues? That clip with Mark King above - he comes across as a total d*ck and seriously disrespectful to his opponent.

My apologies, when I said odds on I'm meaning he's almost a certainty to win it again next year. Sorry to upset the bookies out there, but if O'Sullivan is at 9/2 it's more or less he a strong fav

messinkiapina

Hulk Hands wrote: »

The GOAT debate will rage on. O'Sullivan at his very best, is probably the best player ever. However, people simply forget just how dominant Hendry was during the 90's.

True. Hendry was like a machine in the 90s. As a Jimmy White fan I both despised him and was in awe of him. I never saw anyone as consistently brilliant as Hendry was, it must have been demoralisng playing a guy who never played bad.

I'll give Hendry a lot of credit too for the way he talks about Ronnie, he never seems the slightest bit bothered by people saying that Ronnie's the greatest ever, and he couldn't be more flattering when he speaks about Ronnie himself.

Hulk Hands

zack01 wrote: »

My apologies, when I said odds on I'm meaning he's almost a certainty to win it again next year. Sorry to upset the bookies out there, but if O'Sullivan is at 9/2 it's more or less he a strong fav

But if he's almost a certainty to win it, then come the time next year you should empty your account on the likely 4/1 on offer. 4/1 gives him a 20% chance of winning it, which would probably be a fair reflection of his chance should he turn up. I'd say he's very far from 'almost a certainty'. He's been in better form in the past than this week and been beaten. This week had some major disappointments in the form of Selby, Robertson, Higgins, Allen, Maguire and Ding. Even Trump wasn't at his best

Turtwig

loyatemu wrote: »

"Odds-on" has a specific meaning - rated at even money or less to win

genuine question - to what extent can we excuse Ronnie's behaviour based on his mental issues? That clip with Mark King above - he comes across as a total d*ck and seriously disrespectful to his opponent.

We don't know. The only people that can make an appreciative answer are the professionals who help him. Yet, theirs will only in essence still be a guess. It might excuse some of his behaviour or it mightn't excuse any of it. Personally, where I draw the line is whether people are making an effort to manage their condition. If they're not and it's clear that the condition isn't blinding their decision making - a terrifyingly hard conclusion to draw- then you can count certain behaviour inexcusable.
Mental health works both ways : People have a responsibility to be open and understanding towards it but those with mental health issues have a responsibility to minimise, as best they can, the negative consequences that may arise from their condition.

zack01

Hulk Hands wrote: »

But if he's almost a certainty to win it, then come the time next year you should empty your account on the likely 4/1 on offer. 4/1 gives him a 20% chance of winning it, which would probably be a fair reflection of his chance should he turn up. I'd say he's very far from 'almost a certainty'. He's been in better form in the past than this week and been beaten. This week had some major disappointments in the form of Selby, Robertson, Higgins, Allen, Maguire and Ding. Even Trump wasn't at his best

Maybe the folks who had him at 7/1 and 8/1 and even 9's may think differently?

Glenman

zack01 wrote: »

O'Sullivan is already odds on favourite to retain his crown next May, he will play during the new season and rankings into consideration he may even make the Masters in January which i know personally that he loves playing in.

Ronnie said in the post match interview on worldsnooker.com that he gets a wild card to the masters after winning the worlds. Can anyone confirm if this is true?

wonderfullife

zack01 wrote: »

Really have to disagree with that statement, it doesn't matter how a player cues or how he delivers the cue through, the fact is a kick can happen anytime to any player.

Yes a true kick can happen to anybody, regardless of cueing.

However some of the so-called "kicks" were caused by bad cueing. They were not actual kicks at all, rather balls bouncing on contact due to bad cueing.

EnterNow wrote: »

Plus they still don't really know on a scientific level what causes a kick either as far as I know. Chalk, moisture, dirt, spin, cueing or a combination of all...

They've looked into all sorts from chalk, static electricity, the referrees gloves etc. To my mind chalk is the least likely explanation. Purely because chalk (on the balls or on the table) is present in most shots. Also you've had countless incidents of kicks between 2 balls which were cleaned by the ref before the shot.

zack01

Glenman wrote: »

Ronnie said in the post match interview on worldsnooker.com that he gets a wild card to the masters after winning the worlds. Can anyone confirm if this is true?

Unless they have changed the criteria for the Masters because the top 16 make up the Masters. Ronnie is currently ranked 19 after last nights win.

wonderfullife

zack01 wrote: »

Unless they have changed the criteria for the Masters because the top 16 make up the Masters. Ronnie is currently ranked 19 after last nights win.

The Masters has always had 2 wild cards since 1990. 1 being the winner of the old Masters qualifying tournament and the other a wild card chosen by World Snooker.

They always play the 15th and 16th seeds on the first day of the tournament.

They dropped that in 2011 for 1 year.

Previous wildcards have included the likes of Jimmy White, Ding Junhui and Luca Brecel.

zack01

wonderfullife wrote: »

The Masters has always had 2 wild cards since 1990. 1 being the winner of the old Masters qualifying tournament and the other a wild card chosen by World Snooker.

They always play the 15th and 16th seeds on the first day of the tournament.

They dropped that in 2011 for 1 year.

Previous wildcards have included the likes of Jimmy White, Ding Junhui and Luca Brecel.

Since 2011 the Masters features only the top 16, the same format has been used in 2012 and 2013


The qualifying rounds were removed in the 2011 Masters along with the wildcard places.

wonderfullife

zack01 wrote: »

Since 2011 the Masters features only the top 16, the same format has been used in 2012 and 2013


The qualifying rounds were removed in the 2011 Masters along with the wildcard places.

Yes, but the defending World Champion is always seeded number 2 (if he is not world number 1) for the Masters regardless of Ranking. So Ronnie will be seeded 2 despite not being in the top 16, so he has a "wildcard".

For example in 2010 John Higgins was seeded 2 in the Masters by virtue of being 2009 World Champion but was world ranked 4th at the time.

So Ronnie goes straight in at Number 2 seed for the tournament. So if there are no further changes to the wildcard system, the world number 16 will miss out if Ronnie is outside the top 16.

zack01

wonderfullife wrote: »

Yes, but the defending World Champion is always seeded number 2 (if he is not world number 1) for the Masters regardless of Ranking. So Ronnie will be seeded 2 despite not being in the top 16, so he has a "wildcard".

For example in 2010 John Higgins was seeded 2 in the Masters by virtue of being 2009 World Champion but was world ranked 4th at the time.

So Ronnie goes straight in at Number 2 seed for the tournament. So if there are no further changes to the wildcard system, the world number 16 will miss out if Ronnie is outside the top 16.

I see exactly where you are coming from, but if Ronnie is not in the top 16 he doesn't receive an invite, unless as I've mentioned the organisers have changed the criteria since the last Masters.
If for example Ronnie was ranked 7 in the world he would been seeded two at the Masters that's how they seed it.
As for the worlds if he enters next year and is say ranked 14 he will go in as number one seed.

Confused ?

I am !

strassenwo!f

You can't deny that O'Sullivan is a great player. But it's a pity he doesn't have a bit more style when he is being interviewed. That "whore's drawers" thing was crass and something which you would never have heard from the other great champions, who were aware that they were not just representing themselves but also the game. Poor.

And do we have to go through this thing with the child being held aloft every time some sports person with offspring wins a competition?

Frankly, I find it nauseating.

SarahBM

Can I ask a really stupid question??

Do women play in separate tournaments to the men? Snooker doesn't seem to me like a sport that should be separated into mens and womens.

mickmackey1

SarahBM wrote: »

Can I ask a really stupid question??

Do women play in separate tournaments to the men? Snooker doesn't seem to me like a sport that should be separated into mens and womens.

Stephen Hendry was once asked what was the reason women can't play snooker well and he said 'well there are two reasons actually'

wonderfullife

strassenwo!f wrote: »

You can't deny that O'Sullivan is a great player. But it's a pity he doesn't have a bit more style when he is being interviewed. That "whore's drawers" thing was crass and something which you would never have heard from the other great champions, who were aware that they were not just representing themselves but also the game. Poor.

And do we have to go through this thing with the child being held aloft every time some sports person with offspring wins a competition?

Frankly, I find it nauseating.

Ronnie gets a lot of stick so i'm just gonna make a case for the defence.

His dad locked up when he's 16, his mam sent down for a year at 17, he's left as a teenager trying to look after his sister on his own and oversee the Sex Shops until his mam gets out. By the time he was 18 he was already on anti-depressants and that's only months after winning the UK Championships. He met the mother of his kids in Narcotics Anonymous trying to get off the Coke.

A good quote of his:

" People are quite ignorant about mental illness. They think “you moany old sod, why don’t you just cheer up.” Sometimes I think, "yes I am a moany old sod" and I play that character and get a sense of happiness out of it. The worst thing someone can say is “jack yourself out of it”; in the end I tell them “do you think I enjoy being like this?”. "

At the end of the day he's a mercurial talent and supreme player. And yes he does wind people up the wrong way with some of his comments and antics. Every time i hear him say he wants to retire i think the same as everyone else - 'do it or shut up' - But for all that he's lived a tough life out in the public domain and i don't think it's very fair to judge him by the professionalism standards set by the likes of Hendry, Federer or O' Driscoll.

If you combine Ronnie's talent with Hendrys personality, you would have had an absolute killing machine on the table who would have set unbeatable records. As it happened, he's more Alex Higgins than Hendry and we're left with some amazing snooker and some annoying outbursts.

People having a go at Ronnie would do well to remember he's not been well for a long time. Just take his eccentricity with a pinch of salt and enjoy his talents, we won't see the like of him for a long time.

zack01

wonderfullife wrote: »

Ronnie gets a lot of stick so i'm just gonna make a case for the defence.

His dad locked up when he's 16, his mam sent down for a year at 17, he's left as a teenager trying to look after his sister on his own and oversee the Sex Shops until his mam gets out. By the time he was 18 he was already on anti-depressants and that's only months after winning the UK Championships. He met the mother of his kids in Narcotics Anonymous trying to get off the Coke.

A good quote of his:

" People are quite ignorant about mental illness. They think “you moany old sod, why don’t you just cheer up.” Sometimes I think, "yes I am a moany old sod" and I play that character and get a sense of happiness out of it. The worst thing someone can say is “jack yourself out of it”; in the end I tell them “do you think I enjoy being like this?”. "

At the end of the day he's a mercurial talent and supreme player. And yes he does wind people up the wrong way with some of his comments and antics. Every time i hear him say he wants to retire i think the same as everyone else - 'do it or shut up' - But for all that he's lived a tough life out in the public domain and i don't think it's very fair to judge him by the professionalism standards set by the likes of Hendry, Federer or O' Driscoll.

If you combine Ronnie's talent with Hendrys personality, you would have had an absolute killing machine on the table who would have set unbeatable records. As it happened, he's more Alex Higgins than Hendry and we're left with some amazing snooker and some annoying outbursts.

People having a go at Ronnie would do well to remember he's not been well for a long time. Just take his eccentricity with a pinch of salt and enjoy his talents, we won't see the like of him for a long time.

Top notch post.

Summed up Ronnie superbly, personally I think he's one of the nicest guys on the circuit, always has time for you and good fun to be around.

wonderfullife

SarahBM wrote: »

Can I ask a really stupid question??

Do women play in separate tournaments to the men? Snooker doesn't seem to me like a sport that should be separated into mens and womens.

Reanne Evans is a female professional (or was) - she's Mark Allens ex-girlfriend and mother of his child. She didn't have any success on the tour and is trying to re-qualify in Q School.

One problem facing women is breasts. For the men, there are usually 4 points of contact with cue and body. Hand, chest, chin, hand. For men the cue can go through the chest area a lot more seamlessly than for the women.

Still, that's only a small reason and not a massive problem if a girl is talented enough. There's social issues too - it's still very much a "boy thing". Lads of 9/10/11 going down the snooker hall with their dads or mates, it's not really a sport that girls tend to go for. Most girls of that age, if given a choice, would sooner choose hockey, camogie, football or rugby than snooker.

Funding is also a massive problem. Reanne won the female world title the other week. She made 2 century breaks in the final. But she got £500 for the winner. 500! pounds! Ronnie got £250,000..... so there is no incentive there for women to pursue it professionally as a career in the female-only event and without good competition at under-age levels, they will find it hard to become pro-standard for the mens tour.

Same arguments can be made for Darts though, there should be top level female darts and snooker players but there isn't. One day i firmly believe a girl, likely from China, will become a top 32 snooker player.

zack01

wonderfullife wrote: »

Reanne Evans is a female professional (or was) - she's Mark Allens ex-girlfriend and mother of his child. She didn't have any success on the tour and is trying to re-qualify in Q School.

One problem facing women is breasts. For the men, there are usually 4 points of contact with cue and body. Hand, chest, chin, hand. For men the cue can go through the chest area a lot more seamlessly than for the women.

Still, that's only a small reason and not a massive problem if a girl is talented enough. There's social issues too - it's still very much a "boy thing". Lads of 9/10/11 going down the snooker hall with their dads or mates, it's not really a sport that girls tend to go for. Most girls of that age, if given a choice, would sooner choose hockey, camogie, football or rugby than snooker.

Funding is also a massive problem. Reanne won the female world title the other week. She made 2 century breaks in the final. But she got £500 for the winner. 500! pounds! Ronnie got £250,000..... so there is no incentive there for women to pursue it professionally as a career in the female-only event and without good competition at under-age levels, they will find it hard to become pro-standard for the mens tour.

Same arguments can be made for Darts though, there should be top level female darts and snooker players but there isn't. One day i firmly believe a girl, likely from China, will become a top 32 snooker player.

Only saw Reanne play for the first time at the cue zone in Sheffield, a really decent player as was Ronnie's cousin Maria. The hard honest truth is they are simply not good enough to compete on the men's tour. Reanne played in several of the UK based PTC's last season and correct me if I'm wrong but won only two matches. She does however practice at the South West Academy and her practice partners amongst others include Barry Hawkins.

In the late 80's Alison Fisher was a regular on the men's circuit and was a member of the Barry Hearns Matchroom team, a regular practice partner of Steve Davis and a century maker she too struggled on the men's tour as did Karen Corr. Those two now make a fortune playing on the women's 9 ball circuit in the States.

As for the future of women's snooker, I believe the next big player will come from mainland Europe rather than China.

wonderfullife

zack01 wrote: »

Only saw Reanne play for the first time at the cue zone in Sheffield, a really decent player as was Ronnie's cousin Maria. The hard honest truth is they are simply not good enough to compete on the men's tour. Reanne played in several of the UK based PTC's last season and correct me if I'm wrong but won only two matches. She does however practice at the South West Academy and her practice partners amongst others include Barry Hawkins.

In the late 80's Alison Fisher was a regular on the men's circuit and was a member of the Barry Hearns Matchroom team, a regular practice partner of Steve Davis and a century maker she too struggled on the men's tour as did Karen Corr. Those two now make a fortune playing on the women's 9 ball circuit in the States.

As for the future of women's snooker, I believe the next big player will come from mainland Europe rather than China.

True but it's worth noting that Reanne didn't disgrace herself either. In one of those PTC events she lost 4-3 to Neil Robertson. I know it's still a defeat but make no mistake you don't push Neil Robertson to 4-3 in a best-of-7 without being very very good.

The problem she faces is there are so many good snooker players. Even a quick look at the Irish Amateur ranks will testify to that - in the South we have Goggins, McCrudden, Davy Morris, David Hogan, Mick Judge, Brendan O' Donohue, Colm Gilcreest, Joe Delaney and in the North you have the likes of Jordan Brown, Ray Fry, Julian Logue, Joe Swail, Joe Meara.

Of those 12 players, 8 of them are ex-pro, all have made a Max in competition, and any of them with a bit of luck could have made better careers as professionals.

So the problem facing Reanne is this - she's picked a very bad time to be one of the best female players in history. The standard she plays to now would have been top 32 in the world in 1990. Given she is a mother as well, she will need a lot of luck (sponsorship, practice partners etc) to make it as a pro but it would be great for snooker if she did make a breakthrough.

SarahBM

Thanks for the replies, very informative.

zack01

wonderfullife wrote: »

True but it's worth noting that Reanne didn't disgrace herself either. In one of those PTC events she lost 4-3 to Neil Robertson. I know it's still a defeat but make no mistake you don't push Neil Robertson to 4-3 in a best-of-7 without being very very good.

The problem she faces is there are so many good snooker players. Even a quick look at the Irish Amateur ranks will testify to that - in the South we have Goggins, McCrudden, Davy Morris, David Hogan, Mick Judge, Brendan O' Donohue, Colm Gilcreest, Joe Delaney and in the North you have the likes of Jordan Brown, Ray Fry, Julian Logue, Joe Swail, Joe Meara.

Of those 12 players, 8 of them are ex-pro, all have made a Max in competition, and any of them with a bit of luck could have made better careers as professionals.

So the problem facing Reanne is this - she's picked a very bad time to be one of the best female players in history. The standard she plays to now would have been top 32 in the world in 1990. Given she is a mother as well, she will need a lot of luck (sponsorship, practice partners etc) to make it as a pro but it would be great for snooker if she did make a breakthrough.

Add the fact that on average the cost of playing the full tour will cost on average £32K in expenses per season.
That figure was given to me by Judge & Morris.

Unless she has a sponsor or indeed any upcoming player has a sponsor its an impossible task.


* sleep time for me, the weekend in Sheffield has caught up on me !
Catch you later.

Ps . You know your stuff wonderfullife, where you a player ?

wonderfullife

This makes interesting reading:

http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/40/bc/0,,13165~179264,00.pdf

It's the prize money list for the previous 2 years up to now.

Just shows that despite the big improvements under Barry Hearn there is a long way to go.

Jimmy White down in 57th place at 37k. That's £18,500 a year before tax, i say before tax - im not even sure that reaches the tax threshhold. Jimmy is an exception as he is likely sponsored but that 37k probably doesnt cover travel and hotels over a 2 year period.

So you have a lot of players on that list making a loss or breaking even at best and even some of the players at the top of the list are not making fortunes. Stuart Bingham has had an amazing couple of years but it still only works out at about 65k a year after tax and expenses.

Ok 65k a year is good for a job but for a top sportsman it's not exactly brilliant.

zack01

wonderfullife wrote: »

This makes interesting reading:

http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles/40/bc/0,,13165~179264,00.pdf

It's the prize money list for the previous 2 years up to now.

Just shows that despite the big improvements under Barry Hearn there is a long way to go.

Jimmy White down in 57th place at 37k. That's £18,500 a year before tax, i say before tax - im not even sure that reaches the tax threshhold. Jimmy is an exception as he is likely sponsored but that 37k probably doesnt cover travel and hotels over a 2 year period.

So you have a lot of players on that list making a loss or breaking even at best and even some of the players at the top of the list are not making fortunes. Stuart Bingham has had an amazing couple of years but it still only works out at about 65k a year after tax and expenses.

Ok 65k a year is good for a job but for a top sportsman it's not exactly brilliant.

It's a huge increase on what the players were earning before Hearn got involved. Whereas before perhaps only the top 4 would only earn over £200K over two years now that stretches down to the top 16.

No surprise really with Jimmy earning so little, he's hardly won a match over the last two years yet still he's earned £37K, mind you Jimmy is earning plenty off the circuit through the legends tour and his numerous exhibitions, last season alone he played 13 in Ireland and at €1,500 per night he's doing ok.

With money list soon to determine the rankings more and more earning opportunities will be available.
For instance 9 events next season where the 128 players all start at round one, if you reach the last 16 of all 9 events players are guaranteed a minimum of £90stg.

The prize money is up throughout every event next season and let's not forget that those little patches on a players waistcoat also brings on revenue too.

The expenses are substantial but the rewards are there and are increasing each season

oneillMan999

Don't forget Higgins had a moan about burnout as well Zack!
In the end of the day its just a cop out.
As far as OSullivan winning it...well lets break it down, he had a journeyman in the 1st round (Campbell) a player who is afraid to beat him in the 2nd round (Carter) an woefully out of sorts Bingham in the quarters, a disappointing Trump in the semis.
So he never got tested really and i know u can only beat what's in front of u but this can't be ignored.
Then the final and congrats to Hawkins for making a game of it but lets face it, he's no Selby Robertson or Higgins.
So all in all this was the least impressive world crown of Ronnies imo.

Regarding the old who's the greatest debate well its simple enough for me..
Who would win between Hendry at his best and Ronnie at his best?

Still Hendry for me...

mikehammer67

oneillMan999 wrote: »

Don't forget Higgins had a moan about burnout as well Zack!
In the end of the day its just a cop out.
As far as OSullivan winning it...well lets break it down, he had a journeyman in the 1st round (Campbell) a player who is afraid to beat him in the 2nd round (Carter) an woefully out of sorts Bingham in the quarters, a disappointing Trump in the semis.
So he never got tested really and i know u can only beat what's in front of u but this can't be ignored.
Then the final and congrats to Hawkins for making a game of it but lets face it, he's no Selby Robertson or Higgins.
So all in all this was the least impressive world crown of Ronnies imo.

Regarding the old who's the greatest debate well its simple enough for me..
Who would win between Hendry at his best and Ronnie at his best?

Still Hendry for me...

ronnie at his best?

i'd be very surprised