It's Not All Snookered without Ronnie!
by Neil Tomkins
“It's all snookered without Ronnie O'Sullivan” wrote Simon someone or other in The Guardian.
OK, so Rocket Ronnie is the number one draw in the game, I think we would all accept that, and I for one am a huge fan since I first played him in the semi-final of a Pro-Am in 1991. His talent even then was extraordinary and like so many I am fascinated by the unpredictable personality that is O’Sullivan.
But, it is a long time since I have read such a one-sided, misinformed and negative article as his.
I am guessing that it was the intention of the writer and editor to simply cause a ‘stir’, in the knowledge that there are millions of snooker fans that would not be entirely happy with his ‘piece’.
It might make more sense therefore to simply ignore him, but seeing as he has had his say, I thought we should have ours, so here goes.
His opening line claims that snooker is the dullest sport on earth. How is that measured? As far as I am aware there is no scientific method for measuring dullness?
“If Ronnie O’Sullivan's not at the World Championships (there is only only one Championship taking place in Sheffield right?) you might as well turn off the telly”, he goes on to say. Well, he may well take such action, although I suspect not. I am guessing that the BBC will announce viewing figures suggesting that not everybody will have taken his advice.
Simon then proceeds to admitting a vested interest having ghost-written Ronnie’s book (which is well worth reading by the way, not necessarily because of the way it is written!). This might explain why he seems so obsessed with Ronnie. I am sure that the friends and family of Stuart Bingham, Gerard Greene and Andrew Higginson had a certain magic taken from the 17-day event following their defeat, but their viewpoint hardly warrants an article in the broadsheets does it?
A cheap shot at Ronnie’s conqueror, Mark Allen and some pretty low-blows aimed at Shaun Murphy illustrate his mentality. He questions The Jester from Leicester as a nickname, and while Selby may not be about to be nominated for any comedy awards he plays with a relaxed enough attitude to engage with the audience, reminiscent of the days of Reardon and Taylor. And let’s not forget, he is trying to win a major sporting event.
He claims that “Never has one man dominated a sport like Ronnie has done snooker”. What?
I can picture Michael Schumacher, Phil Taylor, Pete Sampras and Martina Navratilova (OK, she’s not a man!) not to mention Reardon, Davis and Hendry for that matter all queuing or cueing up to take the stand in their own defence.
And whilst he acknowledges Tiger Woods as the world's best golfer he feels “the sport can still grip in his absence or when he's not quite on his game”.
The recent Masters is used as an example. As Argentina's Angel Cabrera beat Kenny Perry in a sudden-death play-off, I for one was fast asleep having not missed a final round at Augusta since Faldo first won there in 1990.
He accepts that Federer and Nadal dominate tennis, but that a Murray–Djokovic final is a pretty exciting prospect. For who? Not me!
“But snooker – if Ronnie's not there, you might as well turn off the telly. As so many of us have done”. How many Simon? Like I said, I doubt whether even he will be able to resist keeping in touch with the Crucible action.
In one sense I agree that some of the players could be accused of being a bit wooden, and could benefit from taking a more relaxed approach to life away from the green baize. The fans are after all interested in them as people and not just as robots making century after century. Huge sponsorship deals are signed by the likes of Woods because his PR team make viewers feel like they know him.
I feel sorry for Simon Cowell. Not for his millionaire lifestyle and trans-atlantic success! I don’t actually feel sorry for him, but Ronnie made one flippant remark and he is brought up at every given opportunity. We don’t even know if Mr. Cowell knows of snooker, perhaps we should ask the guy from The Guardian.
Anyway, where was I? The article continues, “In truth, snooker personalities were always the exception rather than the rule. Steve "Interesting" Davis only showed that he was genuinely interesting after he retired”. Did I miss something?
It is easy to take the p**s out of snooker, my sister has done it for years, but she would be the first to admit that she knows nothing about it.
It would be just as easy to do the same with any sport if you have less than a limited knowledge and appreciation of what it takes to succeed at the top.
Despite his relentless mocking of the game and the people within it, my guess is that if Shaun Murphy or Mark Selby wanted a book ghost-written for them, Simon what’s his name would be first in line to pen it!
Don’t get me wrong, I think everyone is entitled to an opinion, and much of what he said would fit well as one of those drunken Friday night debates with your mates down The Gardeners.
But with a record number of centuries this year and ONLY five contributed by the Rocket, I think snooker is moving forwards in terms of talent. Whether it needs Simon Cowell or fewer reds is up for debate, but what it doesn’t need is ‘throw away’ stories like “It’s all snookered without Ronnie”.
I’ve had my say, now it’s over to you…let us know what you think!?
