PDA

View Full Version : Ronnie Talks of Quitting



BoroNut
04-27-2005, 03:51 PM
In his post-match interview Ronnie O'Sullivan has talked seriously of giving next season a miss altogether and then deciding if he wants to continue at all. He says he still loves snooker, but it isn't making him happy. Perhaps you could talk him into doing a year in 9 ball. We need him to enjoy playing as much as we enjoy watching him.

Boro Nut

One
04-27-2005, 05:28 PM
Playing without sidespin for longer than 1 hour would not make me happy for sure! Snooker players play half their life with 1% sidespin, how can they do it, are they brainwashed? Maybe it is an English thing, like drinking tea, they are used to it so it isn't boring to them. You need to be born in the right environment to become good at a particular sport.

recoveryjones
04-27-2005, 06:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BoroNut:</font><hr> In his post-match interview Ronnie O'Sullivan has talked seriously of giving next season a miss altogether and then deciding if he wants to continue at all. He says he still loves snooker, but it isn't making him happy. Perhaps you could talk him into doing a year in 9 ball. We need him to enjoy playing as much as we enjoy watching him.

Boro Nut <hr /></blockquote>

I was in the library one day and saw a book called "Mordicai(probably spelled wrong) on Snooker" Anyways I flip throught the book and notice that at one time Ronnie had a drug problem, which he calls happy(cocaine possibly/most likely ???) dust.

People in recovery from drugs can go through emotional states for several years after quiting.Ronnie's possibly found out that drugs and snooker can't fill that emotional/spiritual hole that needs to be filled for him to be happy.JMO

I wish him the very best in continued recovery and certainly hope to see him in the world of snooker for years to come because he is the most gifted talented natural cueman I have ever seen, bar none. RJ

Bob_Jewett
04-27-2005, 07:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote recoveryjones:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote BoroNut:</font><hr>...
I was in the library one day and saw a book called "Mordicai(probably spelled wrong) on Snooker" ... <hr /></blockquote>

Mordecai Richler on Snooker, Mordecai Richler, HB, 214pp, 2001 Lyons Press,
ISBN 1585741795, list $23

recoveryjones
04-27-2005, 08:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote recoveryjones:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote BoroNut:</font><hr>...
I was in the library one day and saw a book called "Mordicai(probably spelled wrong) on Snooker" ... <hr /></blockquote>

Mordecai Richler on Snooker, Mordecai Richler, HB, 214pp, 2001 Lyons Press,
ISBN 1585741795, list $23 <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks Bob. I think I'll take the book out from the library and give it a read.Did you find reading it worthwhile? RJ

smfsrca
04-28-2005, 11:08 AM
Ronnie has also written an autobiography.
"Ronnie - The Autobiography or Ronnie O'Sullivan"
Orion Books Ltd, London
ISBN 0 75285 582 4
I purchased it through Amazon.uk

dr_dave
04-28-2005, 01:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr> Playing without sidespin for longer than 1 hour would not make me happy for sure! Snooker players play half their life with 1% sidespin, how can they do it, are they brainwashed? Maybe it is an English thing, like drinking tea, they are used to it so it isn't boring to them. You need to be born in the right environment to become good at a particular sport.<hr /></blockquote>
I don't think its "like drinking tea" at all. The pitfalls of English (deflection/squirt, curve/swerve, and throw) make sidespin a dangerous proposition in a game where accuracy is critically important. Those snooker pockets don't leave much room for error, unlike with the "huge gaping holes" we call pockets on an unshimmed pool table.

Dr. Dave

bsmutz
04-28-2005, 02:09 PM
Boronut, I hope you see this. Yesterday during Ronnie's match with Ebdon in the 21st frame, (things got a little choppy, so I didn't get to see everything) it looked like after all of the reds had been potted and Ebdon was on the yellow, the ref repositioned the blue and pink from where they were on the table back to their spots. I originally thought Ronnie had conceded but when I saw the table again, the score was still the same and Ebdon was still on the yellow. Can you explain? I can't remember any rules covering this or figure out a reason for it.
Thanks!

BoroNut
04-28-2005, 03:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> Can you explain?<hr /></blockquote>

I don't recall the incident, so maybe I was flicking between matches at the time or it was just a run of the mill incident. The most likely scenario is that Ebdon or Ronnie had failed to hit the yellow and disturbed the other two colours.

After any foul the non striker can elect to play from where the balls come to rest, or put his opponent back into play from there. In many instances the referee will call a miss, when he judges the player could have hit the ball easilly, but selected a more difficult route or failed to reach it in order to minimise the consequences. In this instance the none-striker can elect to have all the balls reset to their original position and have the shot replayed. This is the most likely scenario, but the non-striker would still be awarded points for the foul to the value of the ball on (ie missed) or the ball incorrectly struck or the ball incorrectly pocketed (ie the blue or pink), whichever was the higher.

Less likely but also possible is that Ronnie deliberately knocked the balls with his cue in exasperation at an easy miss - something he did repeatedly (miss that is). I'm sure they would have replayed this incident if it had happened though.

Tipping a ball with you cue after a miss is a tacit way of conceding a frame, but it's quite possible to concede the points for the foul and carry on with the frame, in which case the referee would replace the balls improperly moved. In those circumstances though the referee would be perfectly entitled to award the frame for ungentlemanly conduct anyway, and I haven't seen that sort of petulance since Alex Higgins' days, although Hann spits his dummy out occasionally.

Boro Nut

BoroNut
04-28-2005, 04:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>I don't think its "like drinking tea" at all.<hr /></blockquote>

It only confirms he has never played snooker Dave. You can't make sizeable breaks without making subtle adjustments with side all the time, especialy around the black, and a trip in and out of baulk is practically guaranteed to go wrong without plenty of it.

The perfect game may theoretically be a continuous sequence of shots along the natural angles, but even the pros need to keep correcting to keep as close to these lines if they run ever so slightly long or short. For an extreme example see Mark Williams recent maximum. Raggy is an understatement.

At the more agricultural level I know a number of half decent club players who have potted the black so often with screw and side to hold the white wonderfully for the next red they can hardly ever pot a black off the spot without it.

Boro Nut

One
04-28-2005, 05:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BoroNut:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr>I don't think its "like drinking tea" at all.<hr /></blockquote>

It only confirms he has never played snooker Dave. You can't make sizeable breaks without making subtle adjustments with side all the time, especialy around the black, and a trip in and out of baulk is practically guaranteed to go wrong without plenty of it.

The perfect game may theoretically be a continuous sequence of shots along the natural angles, but even the pros need to keep correcting to keep as close to these lines if they run ever so slightly long or short. For an extreme example see Mark Williams recent maximum. Raggy is an understatement.

At the more agricultural level I know a number of half decent club players who have potted the black so often with screw and side to hold the white wonderfully for the next red they can hardly ever pot a black off the spot without it.

Boro Nut <hr /></blockquote>
You need sidespin in snooker if you suck at it. If you play optimal snooker you only need sidespin 1.37% of the time, only on the break shot. If the opponent leaves you a difficult shot you could need sidespin too. But if the balls are spread across the table you don't need any sidespin to run out the table.

You think I have never played snooker, I have done two 147's in a row when I was a beginner, in practice though. I have watched more snooker on video than I have watched pool, where do you think I learned the stance and stroke from?

Because pool has a smaller table you need sidespin to play optimal pool. You can still play perfect pool without any sidespin, but that is not what anyone should attempt, you need to use the rails for position play, and the easiest way is to use sidespin. In snooker the distances between the balls are longer, so you can get optimal position play from small angles off the cushion, and using only vertical axis spin is enough to get those small angles!

One
04-28-2005, 06:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr> Playing without sidespin for longer than 1 hour would not make me happy for sure! Snooker players play half their life with 1% sidespin, how can they do it, are they brainwashed? Maybe it is an English thing, like drinking tea, they are used to it so it isn't boring to them. You need to be born in the right environment to become good at a particular sport.<hr /></blockquote>
I don't think its "like drinking tea" at all. The pitfalls of English (deflection/squirt, curve/swerve, and throw) make sidespin a dangerous proposition in a game where accuracy is critically important. Those snooker pockets don't leave much room for error, unlike with the "huge gaping holes" we call pockets on an unshimmed pool table.

Dr. Dave <hr /></blockquote>Drinking tea is as boring as playing without sidespin. Snooker is all about precision, you don't need intelligence for it, it is more of the opposite, you need to be stupid to play snooker well, because you need to be stupid to build up routine of something that is stupid and boring.

Pool should be about complex position play, with massť and stuff, that is what makes the game exciting and fun. Who wants to make the same stop shot over and over again? Only a stupid person would practice that day after day! You need to know all shots, have you ever seen snooker players attempt a massť shot? That shot shows how much their skill sucks, they can't do it because they don't understand it or practice it, they just practice the stupid long precision shots and practice their stance and stroke all the time, which doesn't matter anyway, what matters is increasing your intelligence in order to play as complex position play as possible. In snooker you need to focus more on potting the object ball, position play is secondary in snooker! That's why snooker players don't use sidespin so that the potting gets more accurate with a bigger margin of error!

BoroNut
04-29-2005, 11:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr>You think I have never played snooker, I have done two 147's in a row when I was a beginner, in practice though.<hr /></blockquote>

Well I apologise for missing it the last time you were on the telly. There is an old saying. You canít [censored] a shitter. I suspect the true figure is somewhere between you screen name and your shoe size. And when it comes to talking bollocks, youíre not in my league. Iím English after all. Itís in the genes.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr>I have watched more snooker on video than I have watched pool, where do you think I learned the stance and stroke from? <hr /></blockquote>

I couldnít say, but Iíve seen Mary Poppins 18 times so far but I still canít fly with a brolly. And on a personal note, I have been an intimate associate of Mickey Mouse's inner circle for a number of years now, and it hasnít escaped my attention that he invariably wears one of your watches.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr>
Because pool has a smaller table you need sidespin to play optimal pool. You can still play perfect pool without any sidespin, but that is not what anyone should attempt, you need to use the rails for position play, and the easiest way is to use sidespin.
<hr /></blockquote>

Iím glad youíve put me right. There was me thinking angles were angles and distance was distance, and playing a particular angle off a cushion for positional reasons was somehow intrinsically easier over a shorter distance. It explains why I talk a better game than I play.

I know little of pool, but I was also labouring under the misapprehension that you need to use the rails in pool often because you are obliged to in the rules, though it wouldnít surprise me to learn we are both talking out of our arses on this one.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr>
In snooker the distances between the balls are longer, so you can get optimal position play from small angles off the cushion, and using only vertical axis spin is enough to get those small angles!
<hr /></blockquote>

I take my hat off to you then. Iíve only ever managed to achieve the effect once, and that was playing with googly balls in the Xmas handicap. Perhaps you have the unfair advantage of playing with a googly cue. Either that or you need to change the batteries in your play station.

Boro Nut

BoroNut
04-29-2005, 01:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr>You need to know all shots, have you ever seen snooker players attempt a massť shot?<hr /></blockquote>

If you mean in escaping from the snookers their opponent has laid, the answer would be only all the time. If you mean in attempting to pot a ball that isnít actually in the jaws of a pocket, I canít imagine they would be stupid enough to leave themselves in that position in the first place.

If you mean the trick shot massťs, that would be the time Jimmy White was snookered on the brown which was near the top cushion and the white was touching the blue, both hard up to the side cushion well beyond the middle pocket. Instead of the obvious 3 cushion escape, Jimmy massťd away from the blue toward the yellow spot, whereupon the ball stopped then rolled dead straight down the full length of the table for a full ball contact on the brown pushing it safe onto the cushion.

Not just a brilliantly executed shot, but achieved without disturbing the touching blue, on which side he was striking the white. Of course this only happened in the relaxed surroundings of a real live tournament with real prize coin of the realm spending money at stake, and not in the pressure cooker atmosphere of a bedroom PC.

If massťs and side is all you are interested in then why bother with a potting game at all? Check out billiards instead (proper billiards, on an English billiards table). The worldís top four (Russell, Gilchrist, Causier and current champion Shutt) are all products of the amazing Teesside Boys Billiards League. Not bad for a single small industrial town in Northern England, and it would probably be the top ten if there was any money to be made. The only shots you play without side in that game are the 50% where you need to put the opposite side on.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr>In snooker you need to focus more on potting the object ball, position play is secondary in snooker! That's why snooker players don't use sidespin so that the potting gets more accurate with a bigger margin of error!<hr /></blockquote>

I would be inclined to agree with you if it wasnít for the annoying fact that the complete opposite is true. Positional accuracy is much more important in snooker simply because the pots are so much harder. Close enough is just not good enough.

If you can't get from one ball to the next without resorting to amateur theatricals you can't say you were in prime position in the first place. And If youíre talking about cannoning frozen balls to make them pottable, Iím struggling to understand how this is necessarily harder to achieve over shorter distances with bigger targets on a cloth that doesnĎt intentionally cause the ball the roll off.

Perhaps you should try playing on a real live table one day. I'm sure it would be an education for you, and I know people who would probably pay good money to watch. Mostly those with chronic prostate problems.

Boro Nut

SPetty
04-29-2005, 01:44 PM
It's been a pleasure, BoroNut. Thank you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

<font color="blue">I would be inclined to agree with you if it wasnít for the annoying fact that the complete opposite is true.</font color>

One
04-29-2005, 04:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BoroNut:</font><hr> Positional accuracy is much more important in snooker simply because the pots are so much harder. <hr /></blockquote>With position play I mean within 12 cm of the object ball, have you ever seen a snooker player do that? NO. They play position on many reds at the same time, they rarely play position for a single red ball! When they play short position for the black ball, they play position about 20-25 cm from it. They don't need to be closer to run out the table, they are "better safe than sorry" and position the cueball far away from the object ball. If position play was not secondary, then why don't they use a stroke for optimal speed control? Potting is what is most important, that's why they use a level cue and drop their elbow on the backstroke, and they also do a pause at the backstroke to minimize sideways movement. They optimize the stroke for accuracy of potting!

BoroNut
04-29-2005, 06:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr>With position play I mean within 12 cm of the object ball, have you ever seen a snooker player do that?<hr /></blockquote>

Only every time they need to. Otherwise it would be stupid to make the shot harder for yourself by hampering your cuing and risk losing the optimum angle by overrunning by half an inch when you could just as easily have given yourself a comfortable 18ď or so . Even bad players know thatís what all good players do, so in fairness you can be forgiven on that one.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr>
NO. They play position on many reds at the same time, they rarely play position for a single red ball! <hr /></blockquote>

Disregarding the fact that the pack often has to be picked apart in strict sequence to clear paths for the remaining reds, simple logic should tell you they do indeed need to play position on a single red at least once in every frame. Thatís quite apart from the single colour they also have to play for after each of the 15 reds, and the six single colours in sequence to finish off .

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr>
If position play was not secondary, then why don't they use a stroke for optimal speed control? <hr /></blockquote>

The optimum speed to pot a ball on a snooker table is firm, and they invariably manage to put the cue ball exactly where they want it, so whereís the problem? Play it slow and you are inviting it to roll off. It is much much easier to judge precise run through on a long pot by playing it slowly at just the right pace. Even when calculating the correct roll off, a few finger marks or a stray hair on the cloth will cause a missed pot, so unless you are happy with a 70% success rate itís more sensible to play the stun through, which is a much harder skill to master, and settle for closer to 100% like they do. I donít see them having much difficulty in judging the three cushion escapes to just rest up against a snookered ball either. What is that if not optimal speed control?

How many times in a whole tournament will you see them fail to get just the right position on the spotted blue to play back to the loose red, when a couple of inches either way and the shot is lost? Even club players have played it so many times they donít have to think. And even the standard stun shot from blue to pink to open the pack (you remember that one Iím sure. Firm plain ball striking, or CTRL+ALT+Z to you) is subtley adjusted to impact just the right red to one side of the pack or the other at just the right pace time after time. It canít all be luck and reckless cuing surely.

Boro Nut

One
04-29-2005, 08:01 PM
You are a fan of snooker pros and don't like to hear that they suck, just like most on this forum say how good Efren Reyes is, you should know the difference between Efren and Stephen Hendry, add 10 times more to Stephen Hendry and that is the level I am talking about.

Imagine yourself watching monkeys play a tournament. Then a monkey in the audience starts arguing with you when you say that the professional monkeys are bad players, which is true.

BoroNut
04-30-2005, 04:23 AM
I take my hat off to you sir. If I had one. I have no doubts that you are probably the best player he has ever or is ever likely to have lived. I would deem it a singular honour to be allowed the privilege of witnessing the moment you prove your eminence to an unworthy world in picking up a cue for the first time. Iím pretty sure I could guarantee to sell at least 1000 tickets at 50 quid a time as well.

Not that I particularly want to see you play of course. I can see top class snooker played any day of the week around here, and monkeys playing snooker has been done IĎm afraid. PG Tips beat you to that one. But talking monkeys in the audience? Now that would be special!!! And anyway, I want to stamp out this rumour that Iím not just as capable of delusional behaviour as any man, present company excepted.

Boro Nut

One
04-30-2005, 11:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BoroNut:</font><hr> I take my hat off to you sir. If I had one. I have no doubts that you are probably the best player he has ever or is ever likely to have lived. <hr /></blockquote>To be the best player ever lived you need to be more stupid than me. You don't need much intelligence to figure out everything about pool and physics, in 50-100 years every 1000th human can do it. If a million random humans practice pool seriously, there will be 1000 "Super players" who play optimal pool, even better than I play now at my best level. The "Super players" will have no emotions which makes them play at their best level all the time. It is a HUGE difference comparing to the top players of today, Stephen Hendry is just a beginner level, it is the basic level from which you start to practice and improve on.

BoroNut
04-30-2005, 12:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote One:</font><hr>To be the best player ever lived you need to be more stupid than me.<hr /></blockquote>
Looks like I'll have to content myself with second best then.

Boro Nut