Is Robbo's Sheffield analysis spot on?

He's bang out of form imo - OK he reached the final, but he was struggling the whole way through, and has been struggling for quite a while. He didn't beat anyone in China who had been playing well, with the possible exception of Yu Delu, who chucked it through nerves, and he barley got over the line in three of the games. Perhaps he has become a little too concerned with making hundreds, and has dropped an imperceptible level when the frames are tighter. Also, although I'm not privy to the detailes, he seems to have made some minor adjustments to his cueing and stance in the last year or so.

I've said on the other thread that I give Carter a chance in the bottom half, but I wouldn't want to be getting too bullish about anyone too short in the betting because it looks an absolute minefield. No guarantee that Robertson will even make the quarters imo, Allen will really test him.

As for any of them beating Ronnie, Robertson is just geeing himself up. He knows, as they all do, that they're going there for second.

jed - couldn't agree more with your views on A.Carter. He is a far bigger threat in the bottom half than his odds suggest. A few of Robbo's recent comments have surprised me, and I'm not 100% sure he feels totally comfortable with his game despite his vast number of century breaks this season. In fact there are big question marks about most, if not all, of the seeds in the bottom half, and no doubt we'll discuss these in more detail once the qualifiers are completed and the full 1st round draw known.
Fu is potentially dangerous for ROS in his quarter. He remains frustratingly inconsistent but he has produced some top-drawer performances, in individual games, at the Crucible including his win over Ronnie in 2003 (OK that was a long time ago but he does have a really good record against him). That said, Fu will have to play well to beat an in-form S.Murphy should they clash in round 2.

I really like Fu as a player, despite his limitations with cue power, but I think he's too fragile mentally to cause O'Sullivan problems any more. I stick him in the same sort of bracket as Matthew Stevens - players who have had some good showings at the Crucible because they're class snooker players but have won less than they should have because they lack the mental toughness of the very top players.

As I say, Robertson has definitely been tinkering with his game a bit - he seems more rigid in his body than he used to be, which ought to be a good thing but if it's something you've been working on it could play on your mind a bit.

Can't wait for it to start though, some classic matches in prospect.

I think Robbo has become caught up chasing the 'hundred centuries in a season' possibly stung and driven on, by S.Hendry's comments regarding his "amateurish" break buliding on the BBC a couple of seasons ago. If his tactical game suffers at Sheffield as a result, then he could be vulnerable early on, just as he was last year when he lost the majority of the tactical exchanges to R.Milkins.

But 9/1 bar Ronnie, on here, shows how far any of the opposition need to improve to beat him.

For me, I would have Ronnie in at 6/4, Ding at 5/1, Robertson 6/1 and 100/30 the field, yes there's alot of good players in the field, however Ding I think has a home in Sheffield, not because of the World Championships, but because, most tournys are in the uk. Neil Robertson was unwell all week, which shows you what a great player he is. Ding is in Unstoppable form at the moment and O'Sullivan is generally unstoppable, so the odds are actually spot on.

If Ronnie brings his A game he wins it.

Big IF though, wasn't he beaten by Yu De Lu in the PTC Finals the other week?
anyone backing at 6/4 needs their heads testing. imho

meh PTC finals, doubt he cared too much

A couple of other people have said that to me Grant, but I'm not so sure. There was a pretty big prize on offer, I think he would have been trying, and you wouldn't want to lose to a guy you practise with anyway. I thought the way he totally butchered his last shot in the match showed that he was bothered.

You're probably right in that it shouldn't dent his confidence too much, but he'd probably felt invincible up to that point this season, so you never know I guess.

the only chance Ronnie gets beat is if he runs into a grinder like Selby who sthe ebdon go slow bore tactics that drive Ronnie mad

Despite the fact he's been around for guts of 10 years now and is clearly talented have never been able to quite figure Robertson out. He's a top player for sure, No.1 in world and in top 3 betting for worlds, but i cant get comfortable with the idea he's one of the greats or anywhere near it. Not even sure I'd rate him a superior No.1 than a grinder like Selby, not yet anyway.

Dont begrudge Robbo his world title, you can only beat whomever the draw turns up after all, but it was as soft as they come: O'Brien, Gould (who blew his chance), Steve Davis, Carter, Dott - beat one top 16 player to win a world title, not sure that's ever happened before or since! Think he's down to meet Allen in the last 16 and wouldn't be over confident of calling that one

The best prices on O'Sullivan are gone now and it's a terrible cliche but one with a ring of truth - the biggest danger to Ronnie is Ronnie himself. If he's up for it and I believe he is desperate to catch up with Hendry, i wouldn't be bothered taking him on. Recent shock defeat irrelevant imo

pandora1963 07 Apr 14 13:45 
the only chance Ronnie gets beat is if he runs into a grinder like Selby who sthe ebdon go slow bore tactics that drive Ronnie mad


Lots of folk said that before the masters final too but made not a jot of difference then

I make Robertson a far superior snooker player to Selby gj, but perhaps not as granite a competitor.

Yeah Jed, fair enough, has bags more ability than Selby and achieved more too so i think i was unfair on that point. Not sure what it is about Robertson to be honest, just have a mental block about him and dont like to get involved punting cos the day i oppose him is sure to be the day he lights the hall up

Robbo would best be advised to stop listening to the commentators who fill his head with nonsense about what a great all round player he now is and concentrate on returning to his natural game and pace around the table.
He continually makes hard work of choosing a shot that is obvious and if he had any greatness in him he would have played a much greater part in winning tournaments in recent seasons.
For me this is the most open world championships for years and fully expect a shock.

As a player Ding is in a completely different class to anyone since Hendry, Higgins and Williams but frailty or controlling elements in his life has lessened his impact.

Far too many tournaments, modified tables and poor quality commentary has changed the game and unfortunately not for the better.

Ronnie has been a freak player since his teens and while he could go all the way again it will not be because his game has improved, more because opposition has weakened.

For those that want to take a ridiculous price about him just bear in mind that the Ronnie you saw in his last tournament was typical of his performances in the vast majority of the most important tournaments of the past 22 years.
Ronnie is fantastic but he has never been a Hendry.

Did mean to say,

Selby has done wonders with a game that has had to overcome involuntary movements and for me he is up there with John Higgins for tactical nous.
Ronnie for me has always been the king in that respect but poor quality commentary has rarely picked up on that.
Ronnie has a snooker brain that was as fast as Alex Higgins was and because each shot was taken with such speed they wrongly thought little of it.
Ronnie is a better safety player than anyone ever has been.

I'm not having that Moondan. I can't have it that Ronnie had a stronger safety game than S.Davis. Remember - when Davis came on the scene all the top players, except J.White, had outstanding tactical ability (Thorburn, Reardon, Griffiths, Charlton, Higgins and Taylor - to name but a few). He mastered them all.

Ronnie himself has stated on several occasions that he couldn't compete with J.Higgins, at his best, in the tactical department. Ronnie does have an excellent safety game but the reason he tactically outplays most of today's players is that the overall trend now is to pot balls and make big breaks whenever they get in. How many times do you hear "the experts" say 'he needs to win this in one visit'? A lot of today's players are one dimensional, and don't have the discipline to engage in protracted safety exchanges.

The fact that M.Selby is more than willing to, and is prepared to go toe-to-toe with Ronnie in the safety exchanges - and win his fair share - is the reason some people feel he could be a danger to Ronnie at Sheffield. Whether he can score heavily enough when he gets in is another question.

cricketnut2 - 5/1 Ding seems exceptionally tight. Whilst it's true he lives in Sheffield, he has done for many years and it hasn't proved to be any advantage to him while competing at The Crucible. As you say he is in great form, but Ronnie did not compete at the venues in 4 of his 5 ranking event wins this season, and hammered him 9-3 in the Welsh Open final.
Ding's record at The Crucible is also exceptionally poor. As I've stated elsewhere he has only reached the one table set up once in 7 previous attempts - winning 8 and losing 7 of his 15 matches played there.
I'm not saying he can't win it this year, but he is one of the top players that is currently under Ronnie's spell, and deep down I don't think he believes he could beat Ronnie at the Crucible over 4 sessions. If Ronnie was to go out early then Ding would be the major beneficiary, and would almost certainly become tournament favourite.

Gobelins,

To my mind Steve is Old School and never played the fast cloth game, more a 30-40 then a good safety.
Steve never was a chance taker.
I think Steve was different class to anyone before and while his class stood him in good stead his brand of safety was no match for Hendry's potting or breakbuilding.

At the risk of being boringthe conditions of the day will determine what type of game can evolve.

I am a bit shocked that some think that Robbo has a better allround game than Selby, far better potter for sure and while Robbo has improved slightly he is not in the same class as Selby and few in the game would disagree with that.
Selby has had a serious neck injury and he was a late developer mainly because of the class of player he had to contend with and also as I have mentioned involuntary body movement has held his career back.

From my experience in watching all these great players I have long thought nobody has found the baulk cushion with more accuracy than Ronnie and with astonishing ease when he has wanted to.
Ronnie has had one weakness, he does not like pressure and that is why he has never won the tournaments he should have.
All the nonsense about he could not care--- that is how he try's to overcome his only weakness--- he cares too deeply.
5 world finals in 21 years says so much more than him or his fans can say.
We are all agreed he has the game but you could say that of a few and it really is a sad indictment of the game, its fans and commentators that he is put above somebody who has achieved 9 world finals.
I cannot think of another sport where its obvious greatest winner is treated with such contempt.
Clueless is a word that comes to mind.

Agree you on one thing Moon,Ronnie is not a great pressure player,never has been. But he makes up for it with pure genius breakbuilding,safety from the gods and huge charisma. Boy,snooker will miss him when he's gone.

agree with robbo tbh.  Ronnie is so far ahead of the field it's untrue.  He has that aura around him as well now that players are beat before they get to the table.  Robbo or Ding on there day are the only ones who can beat him if he is playing at even 70%.  The rest of the field are just there to make the numbers - would need Ronnie to be completely not with it to stand a chance.  Your hawkins, binghams, maguires, carters are all also rans who will not have the bottle required even if they do go deep.  Trump/Allen are too streaky and lack in the tactical department over the distance imo.  Then you have Selby who has declined in a big way over the last few years.  Safety is good but his breakbuilding isn't up to it anymore and you'd fancy any of the top guys to beat him.  He may bore his opponent into a loss if lucky, but Ronnie/Ding/Robbo are all far better than him at this moment.  Higgins/Williams are shot (compared to their better days).  Only one who looks to have his game in order and could perhaps challenge the 3 that Robbo speaks of is Murphy imo.

Moondan you keep going on about the conditions making the player, and I think you're right, but wrong about the effects.

I understand that you find it hard to hear the modern players overpraised and the stars of yesteryear forgotten, but you may as well lament the passing of the muddy pitch and laced-up ball. The relative test of one's game is incomparable, the touch and finesse required to keep control of the white much greater than the old days when you needed a bazooka to fire the white in and out of baulk. I would state with certainty that there would be several of the older players who just would not be able to adapt their game to the same standard on these cloths. I know myself that half an hour on the match table sharpens up your game for a money game on a club table, and half an hour on a club table will ruin two weeks practise on the match table.

I also know that you rate Ronnie highly as a player despite your constant sniping at him for not doing justice to his talent, but you forget or gloss over the change in his mentality in the last few seasons. Like you I hate to hear people question Hendry's right to be acclaimed as the greatest ever, but I don't believe you are prepared to countenance the possibility that Ronnie may yet come to deserve that title. I think he may, and most importantly I think he is of a mind to prove it. You keep questioning his mentality, and by and large I don't think that caveat applies any more.

And I can't let your comment about Robertson and Selby pass. Just look at their stats: Selby has been a pro much longer, and Robertson's achievements in ranking events dwarf his - even if you give Selby the first four years of his pro career as a learning curve. Robertson has won the World Championship, Selby has consistently underperformed at the Crucible. Robertson has reached many more finals, and his win-loss ratio in those finals is grades above Selby's. And more importantly than any of those stats, I can actually watch Neil Robertson cue without feeling seasick.

I will of course acknowledge Selby's record in the Masters, which is awesome and a testament to his ability and mentality. I just think Robertson's a better player :)

Selby really doesn't have great ability does he. Look at his cue action,its awful. He got where he is through pure iron will  and huge bottle,and of course hours and hours of practice. Very similar to Ebdon.

I agree pandora, but I will say also that Selby has played the best shot I've ever seen on a snooker table, and the best shot I've ever seen on a pool table. He is a lot more than just guts to be fair.

he is extremely clever and knows the game inside out for sure,he would have fitted in nicely back in the 80's and 70's,he reminds me of  Reardon  a little

I think he has as good a tactical brain as Ronnie, and he sees some brilliant safety shots.

I don't really subscribe to moondan's view that standards have dropped markedly, I think Robertson, Selby, Ding would have been top players in any era. Shaun Murphy is a classic case of it for me - he would have been a better player in the 70s and 80s, given the way he prefers to strike the ball that little bit harder than some other players.

lets say Ronnie played back in the 80's,against the likes of Meo,knowles etc. He would have blown them away. Take a look on youtube of the standard back then. Safety was good yes,but breakbuilding was nowhere near what it is today..Davis was a great player and there were a couple of others but Ronnie would have cleaned up.

true, but looking at youtube for the standard back then does not explain it all.

it doesn't explain how hard it was to get the pack to split on much slower cloths with heavier balls, and how virtually every shot needed more power, and thus had more potential to go wrong, than today.

Jed,
I respect your comment.

I do think improvement in the game has been conditions led and the fact that players have chosen to stay with the fast cloth and risk the kick says so much.

In the early days you had to extract a ball from the pack and to run around off 3 or 4 cushions could only happen in your dreams and of course other problems existed such as dampness and pile drift also had to be allowed for.
The 80s, the 90s and the 2000s all started with completely different playing conditions to how they ended and even as we speak money is being spent on further improvements.

You know as well as I do that touch counts for so much and always has, the slow conditions had its own problems as do the fast and its always been my point that its quite wrong to compare performances in different decades.

You could well be right about Ronnie but the hard fact is, its all been said before and while he does not have the obvious to contend with, he has been leaving chances that his opponent should have made more use of.

As for Robbo, I am less convinced about him than I was a few seasons ago and am disappointed with how little he has achieved.

I just think that a guy with his obvious talent should have achieved more since his world title.
I think the tables are ridiculously fast now and perhaps the type of player they are producing have more style than substance.

As for me appreciating Ronnie, my dream match would always be Ronnie V Stephen.
Its the very very best of both worlds.

I've been giving more thought to the idea of people playing in different eras. I think Terry Griffiths, for instance, would have been a much better player under today's conditions.

I would say it's hard to argue with how much he has won, especially when he's not been around for a huge length of time. I said already that I agree he's not been at his best the last few months - I wonder if he has been wearing himself out with extra trips to Australia?

I'm also interested moondan in how you see the rankings developing over the next couple of seasons, given that they are going to become a more accurate reflection of form than they have ever been? Do you see anyone challenging Ding, Ronnie and Robertson? Can Trump keep learning? Trump would be my tip to surpass them all if I felt he could acquire the mental skills.

Jed,

I am not a fan to be honest but could be wrong.

My problem is I want to see the very best fight out the end of tournaments in long matches
I am not sure the Hearn format will deliver that.
I think the top 16 earned their places over time and if snooker is going to get bigger it will have to have divisions as in football not one premier division with 1000 players in it.

I am also concerned that the best players should have protection against playing in a booth on tables that probably will not be as strict as they should be.

I think asia will rule the game if we are not careful and gambling may take over where monies wagered on each match is greater than every football match played in the uk put together over a weekend. Its truly mind numbing the sums involved.

Jed you are younger than me, I hope you get the same enjoyment out of it that I have but some things are best not changed and that is not just being an old fxrt.
Whatever, its out of my hands unfortunately

It's funny that we rarely completley agree on any snooker subject, but your love for and knowledge of the game still warms my heart.

I still love it - nothing gives me the peace that playing a couple of hours snooker does. And I like watching them all play, the battle that each man has with himself intrigues me the most about the game because it's the same battle I have with myself.

Moondan - S.Davis' tactical acumen was good enough for him to knock J.Higgins out at Sheffield in 2010. This was not the J.Higgins of now, but the J.Higgins who won the World Championship the year before in 2009 and the year after in 2011. Believe me, Steve did not inflict this sole defeat for Higgins in 3 years by out-potting him!

His safety ultimately could not hold off S.Hendry in the 90s but who's could? The game itself changed through the emergence and subsequent dominance of Hendry. The game became more attack minded. But just as it does now a 30-40, followed by a good safety, followed by another 30-40 wins you one frame, just as a century break does.

Some rubbish on this thread,o'sullivan will never be seen as good as Hendry even if he won the next 20 world titles,hendry was completely different class indisputable and even o'sullivan himself would tell you that!!And as for mark Selby not being talented mark Selby is one of the most talented cueists in the game,it just happens that over the last 6/7 seasons he's not even played at 80% of the standard he was previously.Anyone who thinks that pool is mickey mouse game is wrong,i've played pro snooker players and pro pool players, at the top level they are fantastic cueists and make the game look ridiculously easy,selbys got every shot in the book it's just ashame somethings happened to his confidence over the years snooker wise.I remember he was involved in a lot of battles over a period of seasons,playing immaculate stuff he looks a shell of the player he once was yet still gets results,again showing what a poor bunch current players are matchplay wise..

Jed, we do not even agree on that because I think we agree on the important things.

Everybody sees the game differently and thats what its all about.

These days I just watch snooker but still play hundreds of hours of 8 ball a year and while I am certainly not the player I was I still find it very difficult to swerve a pool match but keep the stakes around the 50 mark.

You mention Trump, just thinking about him makes me angry, all the talent required to become great but he proves that top class snooker is played in the head and the sooner he realises that naughty snooker has no place at the very top he might achieve the position he wants but more discipline is required if not a brain transplant.
I backed him at 75s the year he made the final against Higgins, he had him beat but the crazy insane shot down the rail was probably the most disrespectful shot I have ever seen played in snooker and at the time I said the snooker gods will never forgive him.
He should throw his shoes out the window and get to grips with reality because the seasons are slipping by.

I think this has been a good thread with some really good comments and cannot say I disagree with any of them.
Hope that makes sense.

I'm still at the snooker flat out, although I have had a little break for the last month or so. Cricket will take over next week, probably start again in September. I might try and play a few pro-ams next season if I can be arsed to get off the sofa.

match/surpass Hendry's world championships record and Ronnie will be regarded as the greatest of all time by the majority of people.  Obviously there will the few purists who will always champion Hendry regardless, but such is Ronnie's popularity that the general public would have him clear as the greatest.  Just the way he plays the game which brings him so many fans.  Plenty already consider him the greatest.  His mental state is as good as it's ever been, his long game his back to a decent level, his safety is immaculate, and his breakbuilding is obviously superb.  Just seems to have it all in place atm.  Only overconfidence will stop him imo - ie taking on a shot too many or taking a match for granted.

Personally I want him to win this one.  Would be great to then see if he can match/surpass Hendry's record in the coming years.  Would bring a totally different pressure as well.

Fascinating parallel with the Ronaldo/Messi debate in football. Two absolute masters of a sport, two of the greatest ever, and yet so different.

I'm with Hendry on the GOAT debate - his potting under pressure, his mastery of fear, and his implacable ruthlessness more than make up for the sharper edge of Ronnie's virtuosity. Ultimately, individual sports are about winning, and he was the best we have seen at winning snooker matches.

one thing in hendry's favour is that at his peak he was a ruthless long potter,most of the time on break offs these days a long pot is usually left,hendry at his peak would knock most in and usually make frame winning breaks. Ronnie's ong game would have to be on agisnt an inform Hendry,because he wouldn't get many chances otherwise. Saying that i think Ronnie on his A game is the greatest ever.

Shane Warne had the same effect on Test cricket as Hendry had on snooker - it was one game before they came along, and an entirely different one when they retired.

Mark Selby is a far better player than Robertson.His cue ability and tactical nous is miles ahead.imho
His guts determination and concentration levels along with his vision to attack at the right time, or leave a tempter, are far superior.

Stats dont tell the whole story. If you want to look into the draw, the air miles and a whole bunch of other factors before relying on the statistical analysis. imho.

Ronnie is a genius so far ahead of the majority of this current bunch,and most of them are so far behind the previous bunch.

He is not a better all rounder than Hendry, not a hope.

Steve Davis was as good a tactician as i have ever seen.He took it to another level in that department. It is not all about the baulk line.People are mistaken to think this. A chinesse snooker or the pressure of a must pot tempter is far more difficult.

Trump, nothing to say on him, other than he can pot a ball, sometimes.

Ding, ive been right thus far. My 5 year old nephew has more appetite and concentration for 4 sessions.

Ronnie has a very obvious weakness and can be beaten.
Ronnie's game can fall apart(by his standards) in a matter of minutes
I know i  would feck him off, keep him cold, and get under his skin no end. His current calm demeanor would soon expose the real Ronnie. My lack of ton breaks off course would be my undoing but the Pro player of today are letting him away with murder imho. Respect to him for seeking help and improving his temperament, but the apple does not fall far.

Murphy Maguire dont appeal to me. The rankings dont appeal to me.
The continous potting and big breaks dont appeal to me.Some changes are not always good.

As a Centre half i remember when you could make a tackle.
I remember when offside allowed you to hold a line.

As a coach i went of football somewhat, thanks in part to sky also.
As a snooker fan the same thing has happened.

All just opinion, but i would prefer one good 55 minute frame than 4 quick tons on slick cloths in the same time, it aint snooker.

I would prefer to see a good tough hard tackling tactical 1-0 battle than a  3-2 bunch of airy fairy diving winging overpaid cheating scum bags.

maybe........

It's all very well saying the stats don't tell the whole story, but in an individual sport like snooker I'm afraid they tell a large part of it.

I understand Jed.

So Robertson versus Selby, both fresh and at their best.

I say Selby wins more than 50% of the time.

Put it that way.

I don't agree with your analysis of M.Selby Pecker. There is no doubt that he is an exceptional competitor with huge powers of concentration. He is also as good as anyone at getting out of sessions when he's played well below par at 4-4 or only 3-5 down, whereas other players would have huge deficits playing that poorly, but I think he doesn't stike the right balance between attack and defence as you suggest. In fact, I think it's a big weakness.
His game is suited to playing open attacking players, but against tactically astute players (often of inferior ability) he is often found wanting. He tends to get drawn into the game they want to play and doesn't/can't impose himself.
In the last 6 years at The Crucible he has lost to J.Higgins, G.Dott, M.King and B.Hawkins (twice). The exception was when Ding beat him 13-10 a few years ago. From 10-10 Ding won 3 tactical frames all on the colours.

Although M.Selby probably has a better chance of beating R.O'Sullivan at Sheffield than N.Robertson does, I can't agree that he is the better player of the two. Robertson wins tournaments when he gets to the business end of tournaments Selby does not.

great thread. enjoyed reading. best section in the forum tbf.
Looking forward to this years World championship, even though ill be tuning in early in the mornings from Canada.

Just a few words on a couple of the contenders. Mark Selby first. I've lost a lot of money on this guy backing him down the years outright in anticipation of him bagging his maiden Crucible title, and in other events. The heart-breaker for me was against Higgins n '09. He led 3-0 in that match and the commentators were calling him 'the hoover', as he was clinical in the balls back then. He would've won that year if he'd won the final frame decider against the eventual winner Higgins, as he was playing some top drawer stuff.  But since then he has been very average in Sheffield. I agree with the comments about him having declined and 'feeling sea-sick' watching him cue (especially from distance). I backed him to win in China last week and was appalled by his cue-ing and the fact that he was out-grinded by Mike Dunn. Therefore I have to swerve having a punt on the Jester. (Knowing my luck now he'll probably go and win the thing)


I think there are question marks on all players in the field though. And not least on the FAV O'Sullivan. To me you have to be a brave soul to back him outright @ 6/4. Sure he's kind of unbeatable looking again. But we've seen it all before and there are never any certainties, especially ESPECIALLY! in snooker, where aspects of the game itself are analogous of the randomness of the universe!!

Ding, is coming off of a strong finish at the China open, although he was a little suspect in the earlier rounds, again demonstrating his poor concentration at times. This twinned with his bad history at the crucible puts me off backing him at around 5/1. His break building and long potting are brilliant at the moment. But he just doesn't have that Graham Dott 'steely-ness' and will to win this. (I'm sure these attributes will come though)

The bottom half is a minefield. Although I have a feeling that Robertson is ripe to win this again now. Ill let him off last week, in China, as he was unwell. Though, when i watch him now i feel like he's as confident as ever. And on form; devastating in all areas, a bit of a colossus, especially over a longer format.

So I might be backing Robbo this year. I'll be looking at a resurgent Shaun Murphy and Someone like a Mark Allen  as an outside bet also.

sorry ding is 8/1. still not sure though

fancy the top half of the draw to win, no idea what the price will be tho

Just reread the thread and still found it interesting.

Re Selby,  although he has occupied the 1 and 2 slots in the rankings its been more down to never missing a tournament and doing well in them rather than winning them outright.

Its only my opinion but his stint in the premier league did him no good whatsoever and although he won a few bob in the long run it probably cost him.

I know he changed his game to fit the format (shotclock) but also he was stung by the criticism of slow play.
I know that some are not a fan but Hendry cured me of big breaks and I yearn for the more thoughtful game and I know I speak for the older fan when I say that the vast majority prefer it.
Its worth mentioning that snookers hey day was when the table was slower and tactics were employed in almost every frame.
Viewing figures struggle in this country and have throughout the past twenty years, the closure of working mens clubs and snooker halls this past 25 years means that people actually playing the game have plummeted.


I completely see where peckers comment is coming from and wholeheartedly agree.

For my money Selby is not far off the top 5 players of the past decade and he made a huge mistake tampering with the game that brought him 3 masters etc.
Some of his matches against Ronnie were up there with the very best ever played with drama and skill in equal measure.

Re the Robbo debate,

I am not convinced and hope he concentrates on what he is good at, in too many tournaments he looks unsure of the next shot or even the position, he seems to outthink himself which is disaster for anyone at any level but even worse for those whose strengths lay in attack and potting.
Surprised if Hendry did not mention that.
By the way Hendry did not say his breakbuilding was amatuerish, he said he thought his thought process about breakbuilding was amatuerish.