ronnie o'sullivan

bianchimoon

Now, I don't watch or have any particular interest in snooker but was driving back last night and heard an interview on R5 with him about a 147 break
quote ""So I thought it was worth getting the maximum because, unless it's over 40 grand, you won't be getting a max out of me mate! You're not getting them cheap."
I thought what a cnut, ordinary people paying good money to go and watch you play and do your best and your attitude is as well as your appearance money, prize money you won't give it your all unless it's for over an 'extra' 40 grand - what a way to play your sport :roll:

ballysmate

I remember Sergey Bubka breaking the world pole vault record by the smallest of margins at Grand Prix events and getting suitably rewarded. He would then decline further attempts. He would go on to the next meet and break it again. Guess what? More prize money. Kerching.

metronome

Going for a 147 isn't giving it your all - It could be considered playing dangerously. Giving it your all could be playing the long game and playing safety shots. Why burn out for 40k when you could go all the way for a bigger return. There aren't many people who can make a 147, so when the few who can do, they need a bigger incentive. Yes it's silly money but it's all relative. Ultimately, Ronnie's a cool dude and he knows best

bianchimoon

metronome wrote:

Going for a 147 isn't giving it your all - It could be considered playing dangerously. Giving it your all could be playing the long game and playing safety shots. Why burn out for 40k when you could go all the way for a bigger return. There aren't many people who can make a 147, so when the few who can do, they need a bigger incentive. Yes it's silly money but it's all relative. Ultimately, Ronnie's a cool dude and he knows best

Agree with your reading of the tactics of the game, but in the context of his quote he said if the money was right he would do it, if not he wouldn't, not an issue to me as am too busy with a whole wall of paint here to watch drying

metronome

Yes if the return of his dangerous investment is high enough he will go for it - It's a risk that could pay off. Should he fail he could loose the frame, possibly the game. He clearly doesn't see 40k as a big enough incentive - probably pocket money to him. I don't think he's purposefully avoiding 147s on principle, there are just bigger stakes at play.

ai_1

bianchimoon wrote:

metronome wrote:

Going for a 147 isn't giving it your all - It could be considered playing dangerously. Giving it your all could be playing the long game and playing safety shots. Why burn out for 40k when you could go all the way for a bigger return. There aren't many people who can make a 147, so when the few who can do, they need a bigger incentive. Yes it's silly money but it's all relative. Ultimately, Ronnie's a cool dude and he knows best

Agree with your reading of the tactics of the game, but in the context of his quote he said if the money was right he would do it, if not he wouldn't....

I don't think his quote is at odds with what metronome said.
There are often situations where the 147 is possible but it would be safer to take the pink or blue and end up with a lower break but still win the frame. If there's a big reward for a 147 then the player might consider taking the risk of going for the tougher shot to maintain the possibility of a 147.
There's 2 ways of looking at it. Is a player "giving it his all" when he maximises his chances of winning or is he "giving it his all" when he takes chances to make some extra cash. people like to see a 147 so competition organisers provide an incentive for players to attempt them. That incentive is needed because focusing on a 147s is not the best way to win match.
I can see why you may have though badly of Ronnie for that comment (I did too on first reading) but having thought about it I don't think that's deserved. I do think he phrased his remark badly but I think his meaning was less cynical than it sounded.

bianchimoon

Ai_1 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

metronome wrote:

Going for a 147 isn't giving it your all - It could be considered playing dangerously. Giving it your all could be playing the long game and playing safety shots. Why burn out for 40k when you could go all the way for a bigger return. There aren't many people who can make a 147, so when the few who can do, they need a bigger incentive. Yes it's silly money but it's all relative. Ultimately, Ronnie's a cool dude and he knows best

Agree with your reading of the tactics of the game, but in the context of his quote he said if the money was right he would do it, if not he wouldn't....

I don't think his quote is at odds with what metronome said.
There are often situations where the 147 is possible but it would be safer to take the pink or blue and end up with a lower break but still win the frame. If there's a big reward for a 147 then the player might consider taking the risk of going for the tougher shot to maintain the possibility of a 147.
There's 2 ways of looking at it. Is a player "giving it his all" when he maximises his chances of winning or is he "giving it his all" when he takes chances to make some extra cash. people like to see a 147 so competition organisers provide an incentive for players to attempt them. That incentive is needed because focusing on a 147s is not the best way to win match.
I can see why you may have though badly of Ronnie for that comment (I did too on first reading) but having thought about it I don't think that's deserved. I do think he phrased his remark badly but I think his meaning was less cynical than it sounded.

I 'heard' the interview, definitely said he would go for it if price was right, if not he wouldn't bother, just an interesting insight to the psyche of certain people, some players wouldn't dream of saying it even if they thought it, some players the glory of the 147 and the crowd cheering means more than the money.. hey ho

ugo.santalucia

Billiard is hardly a sport... it's always been a way to make quick bucks in dodgy clubs... Snooker is just a bit posher than Paul Newman's hustler, but the principle is the same. Can you not see half the players are involved in fixing matches?

bianchimoon

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Billiard is hardly a sport... it's always been a way to make quick bucks in dodgy clubs... Snooker is just a bit posher than Paul Newman's hustler, but the principle is the same. Can you not see half the players are involved in fixing matches?

C'mon, you'll be telling me horse racing has some shady characters next, and the trainers/Jockeys/owners don't get together to decide who'll win and then make a fortune by backing the odd 60/1 shot
Mind doesn't always work as planned as the Jockeys seem to play their own game sometimes by disobeying owners instructions.

arran77

bianchimoon wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Billiard is hardly a sport... it's always been a way to make quick bucks in dodgy clubs... Snooker is just a bit posher than Paul Newman's hustler, but the principle is the same. Can you not see half the players are involved in fixing matches?

C'mon, you'll be telling me horse racing has some shady characters next, and the trainers/Jockeys/owners don't get together to decide who'll win and then make a fortune by backing the odd 60/1 shot
Mind doesn't always work as planned as the Jockeys seem to play their own game sometimes by disobeying owners instructions.

Horse racing's the sport of kings, everyone knows that

ugo.santalucia

I think it is important to discriminate between real sports where athletes seek victory above all and fake sports where athletes seek the financial reward and the status above all.
Unfortunately some traditional sports have tipped over, the most obvious one being football.... some footballers are still passionate about the sport, most of them are there for the benefits mainly.

Others like darts or billiard have never been sports and in fact they have never been featured in any Olympic or pseudo Olympic event and it would be ludicrous to classify them as sports... they are games

bianchimoon

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I think it is important to discriminate between real sports where athletes seek victory above all

ahh you mean the entire soviet athletics team for the last 40 years? So when do real sports stop being 'Real sports'
I guess, when money/rewards are involved and/or drugs have been involved to gain an advantage over a 'fellow' competitor?

ugo.santalucia

bianchimoon wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I think it is important to discriminate between real sports where athletes seek victory above all

ahh you mean the entire soviet athletics team for the last 40 years? So when do real sports stop being 'Real sports'
I guess, when money/rewards are involved and/or drugs have been involved to gain an advantage over a 'fellow' competitor?

You are confusing the issues... cheating is weakness and it's human nature, even dopers have a soul... great athletes were cheats: Merckx, Pantani, you name them... selling a match is purely a financial transaction, if you lose intentionally you are clearly not an athlete... you are a business man.

bianchimoon

ugo.santalucia wrote:

if you lose intentionally you are clearly not an athlete... you are a business man.

Good analogy!

VTech

You have taken it out of context.
he is a joker, he knocks in 147 breaks for fun and it certainly isn't about the money. he is humerous.

ai_1

I think you're being rather harsh Ugo!
I do see what you're saying but I'm not sure there's really much difference in mentality between professional athletic sports like football, cycling, rugby, basketball, boxing and the less athletic but also professional skill sports (or games) like snooker, golf and darts. In any of them there is potential for cheating and there's a strong possibility that some competitors do cheat for financial gain. Footballers, boxers and snooker players have certainly all lost intentionally and I'm sure the same is true of the other sports if/when there was a financial incentive. I don't understand why you would think passion only comes into it for athletic sports and a business mentality is specific to the less athletic ones like snooker and darts?

Just to draw a quick analogy between snooker and cycling on the topic of this thread, I would say the choice not to go for a 147 unnecessarily because it might endanger a match or tournament result is pretty equivalent to a cyclist not going for king of the mountains or sprint points because it might endanger their stage win or GC placing.

So yes, I agree those losing on purpose for financial gain are indeed business men, and unethical ones at that, but I don't think it's relevant what sport or game they're participating in.

finchy

In the context of that match, he really had nothing to lose by going for it. He was 5-0 up in a best of 11 against the world no. 4. I agree with VTech though, he was probably just having a joke about it. This is a man who is, on his own, responsible for more than 10% of all the 147 breaks in the history of the game.

bianchimoon

and because he's got a monopoly he's treating them like a commodity to trade off against higher bonuses ?

VTech

bianchimoon wrote:

and because he's got a monopoly he's treating them like a commodity to trade off against higher bonuses ?

Am I on my own in thinking that's what almost everyone does ?
If your good at something and people want your services you can charge more or earn more. That's life.
The alternative is communism which many don't like either.

He would get a 147 at every free opportunity if it didn't risk the match because at 13, he wants to set records for the future. Same as he wants 1000 x 100 breaks.

finchy

bianchimoon wrote:

and because he's got a monopoly he's treating them like a commodity to trade off against higher bonuses ?

The bonuses are rolled over. If he didn't go for it, there is a chance that he'd lose it to someone else.

ugo.santalucia

Ai_1 wrote:

I don't understand why you would think passion only comes into it for athletic sports and a business mentality is specific to the less athletic ones like snooker and darts?

I find emblematic that in some "sports" success is measured in terms of total revenue...

In football half of the news you read are about contracts and how much money there is in a contract... you rarely hear about Contador's contract... you really need to dig to find out his salary.
It gives you a perspective of what is seen as important: in football is how much money, then trophies.... in athletics and swimming is how many olympic medals and world records, in cycling is how many grand tours and classics. I wouldn't have a clue how rich or poor is Rebecca Adlington... Phelps probably racked a fortune in sponsorships... probably a fraction of what Gerrard earned in his win-less career.

Snooker and darts are not sports as such. They are not recognised by any sport affiliation that wants to be taken seriously. There is a competitive element, but sadly it's linked to pubs, ale and in the past fags... it doesn't fit in with the ethics of sport. In many ways it is closer to theatre and it's emblematic that the Worlds are played in a theatre.

arthur_scrimshaw

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

I don't understand why you would think passion only comes into it for athletic sports and a business mentality is specific to the less athletic ones like snooker and darts?

I find emblematic that in some "sports" success is measured in terms of total revenue...

In football half of the news you read are about contracts and how much money there is in a contract... you rarely hear about Contador's contract... you really need to dig to find out his salary.
It gives you a perspective of what is seen as important: in football is how much money, then trophies.... in athletics and swimming is how many olympic medals and world records, in cycling is how many grand tours and classics. I wouldn't have a clue how rich or poor is Rebecca Adlington... Phelps probably racked a fortune in sponsorships... probably a fraction of what Gerrard earned in his win-less career.

Snooker and darts are not sports as such. They are not recognised by any sport affiliation that wants to be taken seriously. There is a competitive element, but sadly it's linked to pubs, ale and in the past fags... it doesn't fit in with the ethics of sport. In many ways it is closer to theatre and it's emblematic that the Worlds are played in a theatre.

I understand what your saying although I think you're view is a bit bit black and white. Tennis probably sits in the middle ground of this, very much based on winning tournaments & grand slams but money still being very prominent in the sport.

ugo.santalucia

Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:

I understand what your saying although I think you're view is a bit bit black and white. Tennis probably sits in the middle ground of this, very much based on winning tournaments & grand slams but money still being very prominent in the sport.

I'm in two minds about tennis... it's a money making circuit, but the showmen seem to be genuinely interested in winning the big tournaments and they are formidable athletes. Never heard of match fixing at high level... The fact they most likely dope like crazy is also testament to their commitment to the sport... chapeau

pblakeney

ugo.santalucia wrote:

... probably a fraction of what Gerrard earned in his win-less career...

Nitpicking but...
Does being a Champions League winner and captain of said team not count?

ugo.santalucia

PBlakeney wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

... probably a fraction of what Gerrard earned in his win-less career...

Nitpicking but...
Does being a Champions League winner and captain of said team not count?

Forgot about that one... it was a while ago... 9-10 years?

pblakeney

ugo.santalucia wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

... probably a fraction of what Gerrard earned in his win-less career...

Nitpicking but...
Does being a Champions League winner and captain of said team not count?

Forgot about that one... it was a while ago... 9-10 years?

A win is a win. And that was a big one.

southdownswolf

So how do you see the GT winning cyclists that go to races to train and not win a race? Especially back in the day when they would go to some of the smaller races just to get appearance money and the result would be decided amongst the top riders before a wheel was turned?

letap73

VTech wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

and because he's got a monopoly he's treating them like a commodity to trade off against higher bonuses ?

Am I on my own in thinking that's what almost everyone does ?
If your good at something and people want your services you can charge more or earn more. That's life.
The alternative is communism which many don't like either.

He would get a 147 at every free opportunity if it didn't risk the match because at 13, he wants to set records for the future. Same as he wants 1000 x 100 breaks.

+1
He's the most popular current snooker player because he is the most entertaining. He hasn't always found life easy (suffers badly from depression) and he has been honest about that which has probably helped some people who suffer from depression. An interesting character, who apparently loves running more than he loves snooker!

ugo.santalucia

southdownswolf wrote:

So how do you see the GT winning cyclists that go to races to train and not win a race? Especially back in the day when they would go to some of the smaller races just to get appearance money and the result would be decided amongst the top riders before a wheel was turned?

Cycling is a funny sport... you race another 200 guys on the day and therefore you can't win all the races. Thus you need to focus on which races you can realistically win and concentrate for those. I don't like riders who focus solely on the Tour de France... it lacks ambition and offends the history of the sport, but on the other hand you have to be careful not to spread yourself too thin a la Sagan...

bikes`n`guns

Snooker is all fixed so that Chinese gangsters can score at the bookies anyway.

£40k ?? the crime bosses will pay much more that that for the right score.

Snooker isn`t a sport anyway, it`s a game.

southdownswolf

ugo.santalucia wrote:

southdownswolf wrote:

So how do you see the GT winning cyclists that go to races to train and not win a race? Especially back in the day when they would go to some of the smaller races just to get appearance money and the result would be decided amongst the top riders before a wheel was turned?

Cycling is a funny sport... you race another 200 guys on the day and therefore you can't win all the races. Thus you need to focus on which races you can realistically win and concentrate for those. I don't like riders who focus solely on the Tour de France... it lacks ambition and offends the history of the sport, but on the other hand you have to be careful not to spread yourself too thin a la Sagan...

It's the criteriums after the Tour that I really mean. These races were very often fixed before the race so that it was known who would win and probably still are. The big names would get paid a lot of money to appear so that crowds would be attracted and then one of the lesser guys would then go on to win. This was actually part of the tradition of the sport, rather than go against it. Insinuating that half of the Snooker players are involved in match fixing, yet not recognise the same in the sport that you love is being naive.