4 ms·

You could argue he's one of the greats. But the greatest? "Many wonder whether O’Sullivan can equal Hendry’s record of seven world titles and officially become

You could argue he's one of the greats. But the greatest? "Many wonder whether O’Sullivan can equal Hendry’s record of seven world titles and officially become, in his forties, the greatest player the game has ever known." Not yet.

caractacus 11y ago
Depends how you define it. O'Sullivan hasn't been consistent enough and simply attending enough Championships to win that many titles. But in terms of talent, no one really competes. O'Sullivan in his prime would have beaten Hendry two times out of three.
- Marazan 11y ago
  So tough to call but O'Sullivan has never played anyone with Hendry's long potting ability.
jdietrich 11y ago
When O'Sullivan is on form, he has an ease and fluency that no other player can match. His maximum breaks are rightfully legendary, and give a glimpse of his immense talent. O'Sullivan doesn't really compete against other players, but against his own psyche; For this reason, he is both the most exciting and the most frustrating player to watch.
- thorin 11y ago
  Yes, it reminds me of watching Jimmy White in the 80s. Although he didn't win many tournaments (and never the world title) his talent was so obvious and compelling.
- jonathansizz 11y ago
  There was a nice passage describing O'Sullivan in an article [1] posted on r/snooker recently: "For years, the main frustration for the keen snooker fan was the apparently immutable dichotomy between the monotonous winners and the flamboyant losers. It seemed that we could either have the unflappable resolve of a Steve Davis (six-time World Champ) or the charismatic fragility of a Jimmy White (six-time runner-up), but we couldn't have both in one player. By only self-destructing either before the start of a tournament or after winning one, O'Sullivan has cleverly defied this convention. He doesn't fall apart in the crucial stages of a match; he plays consistently throughout, either like the greatest player in the world or only, say, the twelfth best. It all depends on which Ronnie shows up." [1] http://www.ianbgibson.com/on-snooker http://www.ianbgibson.com/on-snooker
barrkel 11y ago
It depends on how you define greatness. Is it long-term consistency or is it in the highest peaks reached? O'Sullivan has more talent than anyone else who ever played the game. I don't think any interested observer disputes this, including Hendry. It's harder to admire high-level consistency that is less dazzling; it's harder to empathize with, for one.

caractacus 11y ago

Depends how you define it. O'Sullivan hasn't been consistent enough and simply attending enough Championships to win that many titles. But in terms of talent, no one really competes. O'Sullivan in his prime would have beaten Hendry two times out of three.

Marazan 11y ago
So tough to call but O'Sullivan has never played anyone with Hendry's long potting ability.

jdietrich 11y ago

When O'Sullivan is on form, he has an ease and fluency that no other player can match. His maximum breaks are rightfully legendary, and give a glimpse of his immense talent. O'Sullivan doesn't really compete against other players, but against his own psyche; For this reason, he is both the most exciting and the most frustrating player to watch.

thorin 11y ago
Yes, it reminds me of watching Jimmy White in the 80s. Although he didn't win many tournaments (and never the world title) his talent was so obvious and compelling.
jonathansizz 11y ago
There was a nice passage describing O'Sullivan in an article [1] posted on r/snooker recently: "For years, the main frustration for the keen snooker fan was the apparently immutable dichotomy between the monotonous winners and the flamboyant losers. It seemed that we could either have the unflappable resolve of a Steve Davis (six-time World Champ) or the charismatic fragility of a Jimmy White (six-time runner-up), but we couldn't have both in one player. By only self-destructing either before the start of a tournament or after winning one, O'Sullivan has cleverly defied this convention. He doesn't fall apart in the crucial stages of a match; he plays consistently throughout, either like the greatest player in the world or only, say, the twelfth best. It all depends on which Ronnie shows up." [1] http://www.ianbgibson.com/on-snooker http://www.ianbgibson.com/on-snooker

barrkel 11y ago

It depends on how you define greatness. Is it long-term consistency or is it in the highest peaks reached? O'Sullivan has more talent than anyone else who ever played the game. I don't think any interested observer disputes this, including Hendry. It's harder to admire high-level consistency that is less dazzling; it's harder to empathize with, for one.