O'Sullivans Latest Interview!

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122607231#Comment_122607231

To be fair to Ronnie you can't pick your parents. One was a convicted murder the other was jailed for tax evasion.

I don't think O'Sullivan is entitled at all. He only kept going at the snooker to please his auld fella who was "banged up". And he worked his bollocks off on his game. Ken Doherty tells the story of how he was brought in to play a young Ronnie at home.

Doherty was walloping him. Ronnie said he had homework to do. Ken forgot his extension. Only to find Ronnie back practising on his own. That seems like anything but "entitled" to me.

To me "entitled" looks like this - 1990 World Championship - Mr Alex Higgins

https://youtu.be/mTcMhcd8lJM?si=m6e1pbQYGRyat95E

Saying he "made the game" giving the impression that those in charge were expected to constantly put up with his outrageous behaviour off the table etc

Even Barry (H)earn would not touch him as manager he was just too volatile a character. A wreck of a man really.

Look at Mark Allen's story about his interaction with Alex. Allen was aged 15 and his mother got a call in the middle of the night looking for money. Because the local newspaper had claim Allen could be the "next Alex Higgins"

https://youtu.be/lvrWdg03ZnY?si=CnS3lnTP2wZFvCuL&t=153

What a lovely guy Alex was….great ambassador for the sport

The Golden Miller

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122607295#Comment_122607295

I know, I heard Doherty's interview on the radio, which is why I said he'd tell you Ronnie practices more than anyone. But his dad did hand him everything, and he's always been entitled and felt he was better. Even as a teenager, felt he was superior to Doherty.

Higgins was entitled too, but was working class, lacked education etc. But the game has risen and fell with him, only for a golden period in the late 90s/early 00s. No one is bigger than the game, but it's hard to argue Alex wasn't in this case.

You asked what did Alex do between 72 and 82, the whole popularity of the game was built on his back, even moving to the crucible. Without Alex, Hearn would be nobody, yet cut him out. The game has risen and fell with him, as a premier sport in the general publics eyes, bar a brief early 00s spell.

Snooker would of never even entered the mainstream without him, and has generally struggled since his exit from the game. He is by far snookers most important player, in terms of any mainstream success it had. He did "make the game" as a mainstream sport, and the Hearn "dynasty" owes everything to Alex!

The Golden Miller

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122607295#Comment_122607295

Simply put, how highly do you rate his natural ability? Compared to say Ronnie. I'm not talking about anything else, other than raw natural ability

drury..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122607315#Comment_122607315

Higgins would never in a million years do that 5 minute 147

The Golden Miller

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122607417#Comment_122607417

The Higgins we got wouldn't, but if he learned how to play right, a Higgins at full potential might!

I think it's hard to dispute, that for all his faults, Higgins is the best potter ever. No one had his eye for a pot.

Hendry said when he died, "people don't actually realize how good he was". What he meant by that, for all we seen of him, he could simply do things no one else could, and Hendry seen first hand just how talented he actually was!

The Golden Miller

I've actually read Hendry's book, and there was an interesting piece on his match v Higgins where he lost in the Irish Masters. He said if he was potting heavy, would of beaten Higgins well, but couldn't find routine, but accepts Higgins was over the hill anyway.

What put him off was he couldn't get any rhythm. Higgins, as usual, would miss a hard shot on a break as he ran out of position. But kept leaving Hendry hard "tempters", awkward shots but you felt you had to take them on, and then miss himself. He noted though, Alex would come back, and be left and equally challenging "tempter", but he'd always sink that sort of shot without fail, and win a frame in two breaks then. Alex had a great strenght of being able to get back into a frame, in situations where players are "low on confidence" to pull off a shot, and regain some rhythm. That's why he's regarded as such a strong "single ball potter", his range.

You could usually rely on an Alex break breaking down due to dire positional play, but unless he left you, you had two choices. Take on a hard tempter, or try and play safe. This is where Alex "had" you. If you take the tempter and miss, he won't miss again. It's low percentage and that's where he specialised. You won't beat him on low percentage shots. But if you play safe and don't get a snooker, no matter where you leave him or how tied on a cushion the cueball is, he'll pot himself out of trouble, and more often than not get it.

Hendry said he was one of the hardest players to "contain". You could usually beat him because he beat himself, losing nearly every match with his positional play, but if he was solid there on any given day, there was no real way to contain him, with the range he had in his potting ability. That's why Hendry always maintains, people don't actually realise how good he was.

Someone said he had an easy final in 82. There was always heavier potters than Reardon, but he'd tie you up in knots. That's why his career was longer, didn't rely on potting like others. But anytime he was conservative and tied the cueball on the baulk cushion in that final, Alex was simply potting himself out of trouble, and pulling off long reds from being tied on the baulk cushin. Reardon simply couldn't contain him, with the range of potting he had, and being on form.

Other players may have beat Reardon in that final, outplaying him in a tactical game, but no one else could of beat him in the fashion Higgins did, potting himself out of any trouble he was in, not missing any long range reds from being tied on the baulk cushion. Some of his shots in that game were incredible. You simply can't contain that range of potting when its on point! And no one else has ever had that range.

Maybe the question is wrong, who's the best or most talented. A more apt question might be, what player had the greatest range of shots in his locker, an ability to successfully pot himself out of any situation or trouble?

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122607312#Comment_122607312

Still O'Sullivan took his chances and he basically had to be the man of the house for a period when his mother and father were both jailed. Another person would have cracked up completely. Maybe given up the game and god knows what. But O'Sullivan was STILL one of the best talents in the game, and had real matches against top players.

Your point about Higgins "making the game" is bladder. There were limited viewing figures between 72 and 82 anywway. Also the arrival of Jimmy White was inevitable.

Here is another "silly" O'Sullivan interview where O'Sullivan gives a then recently dead Alex Higgins plámás saying the good of Higgins outway the bad etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXQrtaj6VRk

I disagree with O'Sullivan, Higgins was a talented clown who played clown/circus like snooker.

O'Sullivan also said that Alex Higgins was known for stealing snooker cues (which Ronnie was warned about) - who the hell does that?

And Alex was eyeing up young Ronnie's cue in the photo while O'Sullivan held it tight.

Let's look at Alex Higgins overall as a snooker player -

Technique = awful

Temperament = questionable at best, to the extent that it a surprise that he makes a comeback

Match Play/percentage shots = non existent

Positional play = what is positional play?

Marketable = if he turned up on time for sponsors

Dedication = does drinking count as practice?

Adaptability/changing his game = what's adaptability?

Flair shots - excellent but always HAD to play them because of non existent positional play and no match play brain

—

You again go on about the flair shots as if no one else ever did them. Do you not remember O'Sullivan in his younger days. Trump can do it, Williams in his own way. And of course Jimmy White.

O'Sullivan flair shots -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXTzdJHurZM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQA6qbLoCK0

Trump flair shots -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEQPESUQ9ak

Mark Williams flair shots -

https://youtu.be/V6bIfOe8-5I?si=mnOv7Giu8qxtUgjc

Jimmy White flair shots -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8ayoo_R06k

But those lads did not not play fair shots for the sake of it/or HAD to do it to get out of trouble ALL the time. Alex Higgins was simply incapable of playing like a professional which is why he won so little. Both on and off the table.

No doubt you make an excuse that the balls and cloths have changed etc so what? If anything that should have meant Alex Higgins had a competitve advantage and won even more. Yet he ended up with the same amount of centuries as Terry Griffiths!!!!! Terry Griffith's!!!

Also the "Alex Higgins" people's champion is a joke in my opinion. The real people's champion is Jimmy White.

Steve Davis made the point himself that Jimmy was more the "People's Champion" than Alex Higgins.

https://youtu.be/54RLUE5V1Pc?si=R79dhqStWxHkG_dq&t=48

"Jimmy more the people's champion than Alex Higgins, who was 'self proclaimed' in many ways"

—

Back to the question at issue O'Sullivan's interview do you think he was factually incorrect in any of the statements he made. It was honest about the state of the game and O'Sullivan basically lamenting that he has no young up and comer to push him. And even at his age he would have a job to get knocked out of a competitive ranking in about a decade. The impression I get as I said earlier that O'Sullivan is longing for someone to step up and take over.

At the moment he is "Mr. Snooker" the one who draws in the casual fans. Many do not watch snooker matches O'Sullivan is not involved in. But O'Sulivan's inbulit competitiveness has kept him going. He has adapted his game, learnt matchplay, overhauled his cue action, safety play vastly improved etc. That is what a pro does IMO. He has improved his lifestyle off the table. Sorted his head out mentally as best he can despite his various diagnosed conditions.

Your "saviour" Alex Higgins would not be fit to chalk O'Sullivan's cue IMO, he might not turn up for a start and if even if he did he might only do so to steal it.

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122610432#Comment_122610432

From what I remember Hendry said Higgin's basically rattled him, the crowd the atmosphere etc. As for the Reardon v Higgins final. This was an over the hill Reardon but still could have won the final. I would say if both played 10 matches of 10 frames each Reardon would have beaten him overall. Alex just had no consistency or match play and that is what wins snooker matches.

A pushing 50 year old Ronnie has proved this.

John Higgins even closer to 50 who is the "snooker player's snooker player" all rounder etc etc

Mark Williams who revamped his game, and always had that match play in him another who is hitting 50 soon.

Matchplay and positional play basically wins snooker matches, as Ronnie said of some of the younger snooker players they don't have a "snooker brain"

All the flashy shots do not bring consistency or longevity. If peak Alex Higgins played now I think he would have a job to stay in the top 32.

In a previous post mention the Alex Higgins paradox making the harder shots look easy. By the same token you can say he made the easy shots look hard. The amount of time watching him you would say "Why did he power that in so much?" He has way over screwed that. Alex Higgins basically played like an amateur IMO. He was not a break builder and played the way young children would play.

Complete contrast to O'Sullivan aged 14 Steve Davis described his play as "advanced positional play". "He doesn't look like a 14 year old at all"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2aiU0Qkqgc

Again, is Ronnie incorrect in anything he said his latest interview be honest? Look at the longevity, look at the adaptability, look at where is in game at pushing 50. Despite his troubled family background and mental issues which whether you like it or not are there*. STILL the star of game. Where are the young players who are going to knock him out of the top 64?

This is also a Ronnie who worried a peak Hendry,

1997

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BGxhNou420

could compete with a seasoned veteran in Steve Davis 1993,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sS26XrNJGg

despite all his background issues at the time. He has great games with peak John Higgins. peak Mark Williams etc etc

To be honest I think the truth just irks you, as Ronnie has not only made the most of his talent, but surpassed expectations. Whereas the likes of Alex Higgins your "shot making hero" went off a cliff and drove himself into an early grave destitute and malnourished.

thefallingman

bizarre thread, you don’t like him fair enough, but he is clearly the best snooker player of all time, and that’s according to Stephen Hendry, Steve Davis, Mark Williams, Judd Trump, John Higgins and many more. There is no debate.

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122629517#Comment_122629517

Exactly, it is like the OP is manufacturing "crietria" like "shot making" a la Alex in order to lower O'Sullivan's achievements.

When all snooker players know that O'Sullivan's top tier positional play does not need to play outrageous shots. He ALWAYS had top level positional play even in his first TV appearance at 14. What is more O'Sullivan in his younger days could decide to go for a flair shot if "he fancied it" but his play matured especially after Reardon. I can't imagine Alex Higgins having the cop on/patience to work with Reardon!!

Whether Ronnie's interviews are "nice" interviews is another debate, but let's be honest there is a lot of truth to the recent one in that O'Sullivan should not be still no1 in the game at his age. And he would have great difficultly to be outside the top 64 maybe even in ten years? It is hard to fathom, and I am not sure Ronnie can believe it himself. A game based on positional play, consistent long potting, now with improved match play/safety and decades of experience that you can't teach. If you were to manufacture the ultimate snooker player that would be it. Throw in improved mental fortitude/techniques Where are the weaknesses now?

drury..

Inconsistency and attitude are still problems with O'Sullivan

drury..

O'Sullivan didn't maximize his talent either

He said it himself he had wasted years and he wasted opportunities in tournaments

What he did was show resilience over his career and adapted and improved

drury..

Its a bit tedious a poster who clearly dislikes Higgins referring to him constantly as a novelty act

Higgins competed and beat the best on his day

Was Joe Johnson a novelty act ?

17togo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122629517#Comment_122629517

This poster has a habit of going on long winded rants, best ignored.

drury..

O'Sullivan is not a nice person

He's just not as not nice as Higgins was 😁

Higgins was a proper c u next Tuesday

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122630039#Comment_122630039

The fella has got over 1200 centuries and has won 8 world, 8 UK, 8 Masters. 41 ranking titles in all 23 "treble crowns".

Current world number 1

Plus the only natural ambidextrous player, to the point where people barely notice. Making his 1000th break completely left handed was audacious.

https://www.sportinglife.com/snooker/news/ronnie-osullivan-makes-his-1000th-career-century-in-final-frame-of-10-4-win-in-the-players-championship-final/159551

If that record is inconsistent, god help the rest of the field.

What do people expect him to do beat Joe Davis record of world titles?

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122630172#Comment_122630172

That's just my opinion the fact you caveat Higgins with "on his day" makes my point. The more I think about it, the more I think he was a novelty act. When Alex Higgins did well it was a surprise. A surprise to win WC n 72, a surprise to win WC in 82. A surprise to win the UK in 83. Joe Johnston did fantastically well to get to world finals back to back and win one. By all accounts the fella seems like a gentleman.

The fact that the OP uses arguably the most bizarre/unconventional snooker player in history "Alex Higgins" to use an example to contrast against O'Sullivan is bizarre in itself. Why would you choose Higgins as barometer??? And even had the gall to call Alex Higgins more likeable! If you read Doherty's book his first meeting with Alex Higgins was not a nice one, and Doherty is a fella who idolised Higgins.

The way I judge a snooker player is firstly are they making the most of their talent? Then at the top level of player I look at what they won. How dedicated and adaptable they were. As good as Steve Davis and Hendry were. Davis said he could not adapt his game to compete with Hendry. And as for Hendry when he got "the yips" he was finished as a pro. He could not change his mentality. Sports psychology did not work for him.

Yet after all these greats have come and gone, Ronnie O'Sullivan has been the one constant in snooker. From the youngest World Ranking Title winner, to the oldest World Champion winner. Given all his background family issues and undoubted flaws that is seems to be seriously impressive. O'Sullivan has reached the stage in the game where he is setting records that might not be beaten for generations, if ever in the modern game.

drury..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122631418#Comment_122631418

A load of titles over 30 years doesn't prove consistency

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122631482#Comment_122631482

That's just daft and makes zero sense. That fact Ronnie is at the top of the game after 30 years IS proof of consistency in itself. Simple as that. Plus Ronnie solved his weaknesses he used to be questioned on matchplay, safety (Reardon), mental fortitude (Steve Peters).

drury..

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122631558#Comment_122631558

Being the best player after 30 yrs playing is proof of longevity not consistency

Ive no disagreement with the fact that Ronnie is resilient and worked on his game to stay at the top

yosser hughes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122631482#Comment_122631482

That's exactly what it proves😄

The Golden Miller

A 30 year career doesn't prove consistency. Consistency would infer, consistency from season to season. He's had longevity, but little consistency in that 30 year period. Whereas Hendry had consistency, but not longevity.

I think it's an overstated argument for O'Sullivan anyway, the talent is so poor, there's no reason he shouldn't be winning. Williams can win a world title, with some casual practice. Imagine he was applying himself the last 20 years, how many world titles would he be on? The talent simply isn't there anymore, for this 30 year career longevity arguement, to be all that great. Higgins, who also remained forcused, won another 3 titles himself, and reached another 3 or 4 finals on top of that. That's how poor the standard is. O'Sullivan and Higgins, simply weren't coming up against the likes of Williams, Hendry, Doherty, Hunter etc anymore.

People say the "standard" is higher now, than when Hendry was in his prime, so Hendry wouldn't of been as successful. Just think for a moment how ridiculous that actually is. If he came into his prime against the likes of Bingham, Dott, Carter, Hawkins, Robertonson, Wilson etc, he would of went through them like cannon fodder. Most would be also rans before 05. It's actually laughable how badly he'd beat them. Neil Robertson, in his own head, actually believes he's up there at Hendrys level, because centuries have become more common now due to external factors. He's absolutely delusional, if he thinks he'd get anywhere close to Hendry in his prime, other than the odd match here and there.

Selby and Trump the only exceptions, and even Trump can be easily got at when the pressure is applied. Hendry in his prime today, would be even more dominant than in the 90's tbh. And if O'Sullivan met a prime Hendry in any of his world title wins after the 00's, would of also been blown away

It kills Hendry how much his form deteriorated, as he knows how poor this lot are, and what he'd be winning if he held his standard. He's often baffled with how poor it is, and how weak mentally most are. One of the reasons Williams decided to half practise again and have a proper "crack at it again" for the laugh, is because of how poor the talent is. If he felt he actually had to put hard work in and properly apply himself, he wouldn't of been bothered.

This O'Sullivan 30 year stuff doesn't hold much water for me, infact, it says alot that its taken him 30 years to achieve what Hendry did in 10

The Golden Miller

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122629347#Comment_122629347

You give a list of criteria on Higgins, but you leave out one again to answer. Raw talent=? How naturally talented do you believe him to be?

You then give highlight reels of flair shots by other players, Mark Williams, is the only one close to his level there. But even he, was a long distance behind. Other players also pulling off fancy shots, doesn't disprove this about Higgins.

That was Hendrys point when he said, even Higgins' fans, didnt actually realise how good he was. He's arguably the only player it simply wasn't possible to "contain", such was his range. You keep saying Reardon in 82 was past it, but he was never a heavy potter to begin with, so deterioration with age isn't the same factor here.

He was tying Alex up with containing safeties all over the place. Higgins was repeatedly potting himself out of situations where he was left dead on the baulk cushion, with only long reds. It's a low percentage game, but was one of the few tournaments he was focused in, and he simply wasn't missing.

Like how John Higgins simply couldn't mount a comeback against Mark Williams in their world final, despite playing no miss snooker himself, he couldn't contain his ridiculous range of potting and getting in first. Alex's range was even greater. He'd often lose to Davis in long matches obviously, as he would get more erratic and intoxicated and miss these shots and leave everything on, it was low percentage.

But when Alex was on the ball it was hard for others to play against. Again, what threw Hendry in their Irish masters final is he couldn't get any rhythm. He knew Alex was past it and could pot heavier, and Alex would need at least two chances per frame. But unlike how he blew everyone else away, Alex had the ability to get in first most frames, as his range and single ball potting was better. He'd break down and leave tempters with poor positional play obviously, but Hendry was under greater pressure than with most other players, because if he missed, Alex would pot any tempter himself. He didn't feel he could outpot him in such a low percentage scenario.

But if Hendry played safe, and didn't get a snooker, a containing safety wasn't good enough, Higgins would simply pot himself out of trouble, and win the frame in two. It puts the opponent under serious pressure, knowing the other player won't miss, even the most low percentage shots. You'll regualarly hear Hendry say this about Higgins, and that people just don't understand how good he was. He didn't feel confident enough to beat a drunk and limping Higgins, clearly past it, in a low percentage game of snooker.

We hear alot of talk on the BBC by ex players that O'Sullivan is the greatest talent and greatest all round player, and that Hendry may be considered the best by some. But I don't believe any ex pro would pick O'Sullivan or Hendry over Higgins, to pot a series of impossible shots, if their life depended on it. And for all your talk of him being a novelty act, if your life was on the line, your picking Higgins to pot you out of trouble, not O'Sullivan. Are you really going to deny it?

That's my point with Higgins, for all his handicaps, possessed an outrageous innate ability that no one before or since had. In its rawest form, that's what talent is for me. No one had that range or ability, to be able to consistently pot such akward, hard, impossible, obscure and unorthodox shots. For all his handicaps and faults holding him back his whole career, his eye and range were simply out of this world! The Alex Higgins we seen at "his best", wasn't even close to his true potential, had he been coached and nurtured properly from a young age. All we got was a man who's innate ability was offsetting a myriad of handicaps, often successfully, which in itself, proves the point in many ways!

See you don't want to engage in a conversation regarding his natural ability, because you don't want to "give him that"! You don't dispute it, just sidetrack it, which is also telling in itself. A blind man could see, what he was capable off, and what he often did, was simply special!

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122638707#Comment_122638707

I think you are in some sort of snooker dreamland where Alex Higgins was head and shoulders above everyone in the game of snooker, and loved by all. Whereas the truth is everyone had run in's with Alex that was around him. And in the snooker world he was dominated by Spencer, Reardon and then Davis. Even Thorburn.

You start off this thread criticising O'Sullivan fair enough, you don't like the fella. I don't like a lot of the things he does. But your whole hypothesis is fundamentally flawed when you try and bring Alex Higgins as a barometer to O'Sullivan, and gets more progressively off the wall. You seem to try and use it as a platform to denigrate ANY O'Sullivan achievement's which again looks odd and rather frantic. And your protestations become even more deperate as I give an alternate viewpoint, as if "engaging" is your code word for agreeing with you.

In my opinion Alex Higgins failed to make the most of his talents (how ever much you ascribe to him) and he certainly was not a likeable individual (A "seif proclaimed" "people's champion" as Davis called him, unlike Jimmy White) Which makes it all the more odd choice to try and contrast with O'Sullivan.

I think it has come to stage to take a step back. Have a good look at this thread. Have a good look at the premise that you are trying to create and ask yourself "What point exactly am I trying to make?" And "Am I making sense?" You seem to be very scattered have no coherent logical argument for a start.

In your opinion Alex pots balls = therefore Alex the best = therefore Alex's achievements were better than O'Sullivan = Alex more likeable than O'Sullivan = Alex COULD have won lots IF etc etc. It all seems all over the place and a very weak illogical argument.If ever there was a logically fallacy this is it.

I have already engaged with you on numerous occasions regarding Higgins ability, it was was an unfulfilled career IMO, he could not cue correctly, he had not the patience for matchplay/safety, he had no dedication practice, his shot choices were wild. He seemed to know mostly only to wallop snooker balls of any era 70's - 90's. Throwing shoulder into it. He had a tendency to way over screw many shots, whether he got them or not. It was more pinball than snooker, a top class snooker player tries to make the ball travel the least amount on the snooker table, Alex Higgins did the opposite, it was "attention all pockets".

It is not a question of myself not wanting to "give him that". It is just the reality that a top pro snooker player is made up of many facets, potting is only ONE aspect. A pro-snooker player will not have a very successful career just by potting alone. Youngsters such as Stan Moody know this. To be a good snooker player you have to be consistent. A repetitive cue action that can be repeated under pressure, for example.

In my view Higgins was not "professional" (not just based on lifestyle) he was mainly a side show which drew in the yahoo's and the crowds. It was less about the snooker and more about "Alex the spectacle". A talented novelty act, but not a "snooker player" in the true sense of the word.

Time and again when asked to pick the "best player to ever pick up a cue" those mentioned by top pros or former pros are O'Sullivan, Hendry, White. Trump, Williams. Others such as Davis, Reardon, Selby, John Higgins, Thorburn are mentioned for their matchplay, and Williams to a degree in that category as well.

Only then after about 20/30 players are mentioned someone might remember Alex Higgins. Who gets a token mention normally from Jimmy White or Ken Doherty. Which is telling in itself.

In between we get mentions of Paul Hunter (natural ability - and an early death cutting short his promise), John Parrott (for his overseas success and straight cue action, middle pocket potting), Ding - natural ability, Robertson - break building and potting. Even Wattana gets thrown in there.

If Higgins was so full of "natural ability" why did he only win one world title between 72 and 82 when the world title was the only show in town? I will tell you why he basically was way down the list on most if not all of the other facets of game of snooker. Not only on the lifestyle aspect.

Comparing Alex Higgins achievements to Ronnie O'Sullivan's is kind of a sad desperate pursuit. Because for a start Ronnie's list of achievements blow everyone else's out of the water. And Alex was STILL far less successful playing in a much weaker era at his so called peak. Plus I will repeat Ronnie adapted his snooker game and many facets therein. Leading him to become a pro snooker player in the true sense of the word.

Alex Higgins never adapted, he was never willing to learn. He never became a REAL snooker player IMO. Only the true greats of a sport adapt. Alex never had the ability to, it was not natural to him to be able to. A real natural talent adapts IMO. And maximises their talent over a long period of time. Picking up new things are second nature to them.

I believe it is part of Ronnie O'Sullivan's frustration that he sees the younger generation with basic snooker talent, but they don't adapt they don't learn, they don't improve overall. He has mentioned that they don't have "snooker brains".

Snooker is not just about potting balls. If it was - playing like Brecel 2023 or Murphy 2005 would win the world title every year. But Brecel does not have the ability to adapt. He has said so himself. Murphy has never played like that since. Murphy has said he just went for everything that year in 2005, and he had nothing else to his game then.