[RedWeb]

Hate snooker but I thought it worth starting a thread to commemorate the arse that is Ronnie O'Sullivan conceding a frame when he was 23-0 down. The bloke is a disgrace to the sport and the sooner he packs it in the better.

[StewartyMac]

I quite like watching O'Sullivan, there's normally plenty of entertainment whether on or off the table. The game needs characters, and he's certainly one of them. And he's an absolutely brilliant snooker player.

He's a perfectionist...if he thinks its going against him, he'd rather stop and re-focus. It's maybe not in the etiquette of the sport, but he's in it for himself, no-one else.

What IS a disgrace is the way Virgo and Thorne sook up his arse at every available opportunity. He was making a standard comeback break in his match tonight, missed a pot, and Thorne moaned claiming that would have been one 'of the greatest clearances ever'

[RedWeb]

StewartyMac, on Dec 16 2008, 21:34, said:

He's a perfectionist...if he thinks its going against him, he'd rather stop and re-focus.

ie he can't take a beating. Hendry has had some fearful thrashings over the last couple of years but he sits there and takes it. You have to win and lose with dignity. I agree sport needs characters but does it need arseholes

[StewartyMac]

RedWeb, on Dec 16 2008, 21:39, said:

ie he can't take a beating.

Na, I don't think it's that, he's taken plenty beatings in the past. In his own mind, if he's not performing to the standard he thinks he should, then sometimes he'd rather walk away and start again.

I don't particularly agree with it as it can be disrespectful to the opponent, but I can understand his reasons for doing so.

[RedWeb]

StewartyMac, on Dec 16 2008, 21:52, said:

I can understand his reasons for doing so.

Why does nobody else do it ? Are you saying Hendry or Davis are/were not perfectionists ?

[Savage Henry]

RedWeb, on Dec 16 2008, 22:11, said:

Why does nobody else do it ? Are you saying Hendry or Davis are/were not perfectionists ?

I'd argue Davis and Hendry were even more perfectionists than O'Sullivan.

I once drunkenly asked John Higgins if he thought O'Sullivan was a dick. He said he was alright.

[H_B]

Jim Pansy, on Dec 17 2008, 09:59, said:

I'd argue Davis and Hendry were even more perfectionists than O'Sullivan.

It was only last week Hendry said O'Sullivan would never reach the number of titles him or Davis have.

O'Sullivan proves exactly why the week after. I think the main issue is that O'Sullivan has mental health issues. The whole bizarre jogging thing is another alarming example of this.

[dubs]

H_B, on Dec 17 2008, 12:27, said:

It was only last week Hendry said O'Sullivan would never reach the number of titles him or Davis have.

O'Sullivan proves exactly why the week after. I think the main issue is that O'Sullivan has mental health issues. The whole bizarre jogging thing is another alarming example of this.

I only read O'Sullivan claiming this, he fully admits that he will never match Hendry simply because he is too much of an underachiever and has absolutely no love for the sport.

He is a better player though for my money, but he's his own worst enemy and his talent has never been fulfilled.

This post has been edited by dubs: 17 December 2008 - 11:29

[lzreid]

RedWeb, on Dec 16 2008, 21:39, said:

ie he can't take a beating. Hendry has had some fearful thrashings over the last couple of years but he sits there and takes it. You have to win and lose with dignity. I agree sport needs characters but does it need arseholes

To be fair it's not like he storms out the room refusing to congratulate his opponent*. As Stewarty says he appears to just view it as a wate of time to hang around. The idea of a gracious loser is often overstated to be honest, I'm far more pissed off by bad winners.

*I did not watch last night's match so if he went off in a huff feel free to point out I'm a tosser.

[The Phoenix]

RedWeb, on Dec 16 2008, 21:39, said:

I agree sport needs characters but does it need arseholes

Somewhere to pot the brown?

Anyways I agree with your overall point and the governing body has rules to address this particular aspect of his behaviour.

After he had conceded the frame to go 5-7 down, he was warned by the match referee that if he repeated this type of concession (i.e. when he could still win the frame), he would be penalised an additional frame - i.e. he would have gone 5-8 + 1 frame penalty = 5-9 and loss of match.

Speaking from personal experience, O'Sullivan is typical of many geniuses in that he has flawed personality traits.

[H_B]

The Phoenix, on Dec 17 2008, 11:40, said:

After he had conceded the frame to go 5-7 down, he was warned by the match referee that if he repeated this type of concession (i.e. when he could still win the frame), he would be penalised an additional frame

What's the rule that allowed the ref to warn about this?

I thought you could concede a frame at any time you liked?

[The Phoenix]

H_B, on Dec 17 2008, 11:43, said:

What's the rule that allowed the ref to warn about this?

I thought you could concede a frame at any time you liked?

It is a rule of the sports governing body not a rule of snooker.

It's to ensure that members of the association provide "value for money" - imagine the scenario of a World Championship Final where there is a sell out crowd and O'Sullivan proceeds to concede frames because he "can't be bothered".

[H_B]

The Phoenix, on Dec 17 2008, 11:47, said:

It is a rule of the sports governing body not a rule of snooker.

It's to ensure that members of the association provide "value for money" - imagine the scenario of a World Championship Final where there is a sell out crowd and O'Sullivan proceeds to concede frames because he "can't be bothered".

Yeah, seems sensible. I just wondered what the criteria was.

I suppose it's similar to the tennis "not trying" rule.

[The Phoenix]

H_B, on Dec 17 2008, 11:49, said:

Yeah, seems sensible. I just wondered what the criteria was.

I suppose it's similar to the tennis "not trying" rule.

Sorry - I realise I didn't actually answer your original question properly - the criteria for the referee to "award" a one frame penalty are that, having been warned about conceding a frame which in the referee's opinion could still have been won, if the offending player repeats this act, he can have the penalty applied.

The referee's "opinion" is not purely judged on arithmetic (i.e. less points on the table than the player is behind) - he/she can still technically award the penalty under what you so appropriately call "not trying" if snooker(s) are required.

[craigkillie]

I thought this thread was going to be about the match-fixing allegations levelled at Maguire and Burnett in their match on Monday.

A large number of bets were placed on Maguire winning 9-3, and, of course, that was how the match finished, with Burnett missing a fairly simple black in the last frame to hand Maguire the victory.

Burnett claimed that he found out about the betting during the interval, and that he missed the black because of the massive pressure on him to make the pot to avoid accusations of cheating

[The Arch]

craigkillie, on Dec 17 2008, 12:04, said:

Burnett claimed that he found out about the betting during the interval, and that he missed the black because of the massive pressure on him to make the pot to avoid accusations of cheating

His attempt at that black was absolutely woeful. Wasn't even close to the jaw of the pocket.

Must have been the pressure

[lzreid]

craigkillie, on Dec 17 2008, 12:04, said:

I thought this thread was going to be about the match-fixing allegations levelled at Maguire and Burnett in their match on Monday.

A large number of bets were placed on Maguire winning 9-3, and, of course, that was how the match finished, with Burnett missing a fairly simple black in the last frame to hand Maguire the victory.

Burnett claimed that he found out about the betting during the interval, and that he missed the black because of the massive pressure on him to make the pot to avoid accusations of cheating

I would like to second your .

How funny that the pressure hit just at the right wrong moment. Life is funny that way.

[craigkillie]

The Arch, on Dec 17 2008, 12:09, said:

His attempt at that black was absolutely woeful. Wasn't even close to the jaw of the pocket.

Must have been the pressure

That was a bit strange to me.

Surely if he was trying to fix the match, he would have tried to make it seem as though he was trying to pot the ball, and would have only missed it by a narrow margin. Missing it by so much would surely arouse suspicion.

Although, perhaps it's because he's a shite snooker player and was worried that if he tried to miss it by a wee bit, then it might actually have went in.

[The Arch]

craigkillie, on Dec 17 2008, 12:17, said:

Although, perhaps it's because he's a shite snooker player and was worried that if he tried to miss it by a wee bit, then it might actually have went in.

I'd say that's a possibility. He just oozed journeyman from what I saw.

[Savage Henry]

Lets not forget the equally dodgy Peter Ebdon is currently being investigated for score fixing as well. The Observer clearly seems to think snooker has a serious problem in this area.

[H_B]

Jim Pansy, on Dec 17 2008, 12:48, said:

Lets not forget the equally dodgy Peter Ebdon is currently being investigated for score fixing as well. The Observer clearly seems to think snooker has a serious problem in this area.

It's a sport I would never bet on any more for that reason.

Unless I knew who was meant to win of course.

[The Phoenix]

The Arch, on Dec 17 2008, 12:22, said:

I'd say that's a possibility. He just oozed journeyman from what I saw.

He grew up in the Steven Hendry era - indeed I believe they practised together a lot.

Also pretty sure he got close to the Top 16 at one point but the end of the future arrived at the World Championship in the mid 90's when he led Terry Griffiths 9-5 and lost.

His biggest claim to fame is probably being the first to make a break of more than 147 (148) in a professional tournament

[Skyline Drifter]

Whatever happened to "Snooker"?

It was massive in the 80's. Back when there was only "cooncil telly" snooker was a major sport with the BBC covering the world championships wall to wall and they and ITV competing for pretty high profile coverage of other tourneys even though there was limited actual scheduling available to the tv stations due to there only being four channels.

The likes of Hendry and Davis, White and Parrot became household names, they were high profile in the press, almost as big as football for a while and it was a given that the top snooker player would be a leading contender for Sports Personality of the Year.

Yet now, despite the availability of half a dozen dedicated sports channels on top of the mainstream channels, snooker is marginalised and a niche market sport. If it's still the preferred sport of the grannies then they must find it much harder to actually watch it. Instead of becoming even bigger with the growth of sport television it's somehow managed to buck the trend and go backwards. Pool must just about see more programming hours than snooker these days! We can watch all sorts of sports from all corners of the globe but there's less snooker than ever around.

Of course sponsorship collapsed as it was always heavily dominated by the tobacco companies but even if there's less money in it now that doesn't really explain the lower profile. And where are the new players coming through? Davis and then Hendry were dominant superstars of the sport but 20 years on (and I accept it isn't a physical sport but still) they are both still there or thereabouts.Nobody has really taken the mantle on. O'Sullivan is the best of those to have followed but he's a fruitloop. Others like Mark Williams, Ken Doherty, John Higgins, Shaun Murphy etc have flattered to deceive but they've never really grabbed the sport.

The marketing guys have made a right hash of snooker over the last 20 years. Whilst darts has been given a new lease of life and is bigger than it's been since the 70's snooker has gone from certainly being a top five UK interest sport to a fringe interest. Small print half a dozen pages into the sports section of the papers. 20 years ago you couldn't get a seat in the arena for one of the big tv tournaments unless you applied months in advance. Now the big matches are regularly seen on tv playing in front of empty or hald empty arenas. And Sports Personality of the Year? Not only were they not nominated or even thought about but the sport barely merited a mention (I think, I didn't actually see the whole show?).

I just don't understand what went wrong for snooker?

This post has been edited by Skyline Drifter: 17 December 2008 - 16:37