Something like American Rotation would suit him much better than 8,9 or 10 ball. His break and lack of tactical knowledge are huge disadvantages in those games.He would get killed playing rotations against any top 10 caliber american guy.
If Ronnie had been born in the US, he'd have probably got a job when he was 18 and be one of those great bar players who could'a been a champion.The important aspect of Mr. O'Sullivan's game isn't who he could or could not be beat...
What needs to be respected is that IF Mr. O'Sullivan was to take Pool serious (e.g. practice solid and sole on Pool for 12-18 months) then he would EAT ALL COMERS ALIVE.
Simply put - there would be NO SAFE BALL in his game. :thumbup:
If Ronnie had been born in the US, he'd have probably got a job when he was 18 and be one of those great bar players who could'a been a champion.
Making a few hundred grand and sometimes more a year tends to inspire people. If there were a dozen US players making $200k and beyond a year, the talent pool would be much bigger and the elite, much better.
That's a good point, and the way the rules and races are in the USA "anyone can beat anyone". Playing a 10 ahead set might be a different story, especially playing more skillful rules that would require unusual pocket billiard knowledge.
Ronnie is a great snooker champion, however, pocket billiards by the original rules is equally challenging.......and different to master. Cue sports are each very unique, especially when someone compares pool, snooker and billiards.
Whoever says Ronnie would dominate pool if he took it seriously doesn't know what it takes to play really good pool. Ronnie is a great shot maker and he controls the cue ball well, but there is nothing he does better than the top pool players already do that will make a significant difference.
Sure he can laser in 10 ft+ shots better than just about anyone else, but in a game of professional pool, those kind of shots only rarely decide the outcome of a pool game, much less an entire match and the top pros aren't bad at those kind of shots themselves.
What wins in pool is a good break and making as few unforced errors as possible, both of which the current top pros already do about as well as is humanly possible. They also are well versed at pool safeties and kicks, both of which are very different than their snooker counterparts.
No doubt he would make a very good pool player, possibly even become a top pro depending on if he can get the break down, but to think he would become decidedly better than Ko Pin Yi, Shane Van Boening, Alex Pagulayan, Darren Appleton, etc. in a relatively short time is laughable.
I read above....
He played in 2 Mosconi Cups (9-Ball), 1996 and 1997 (at ages 21 and 22). His record was 2 wins and 3 losses in singles and 2 wins and 2 losses in doubles.
So not even playing pool and he has an average record in the Mosconi Cup. And that was back when the US were dominating. I have no doubt he would compete with the top pros if he dedicated some time to pool. Man is a genius with a cue in his hand...
I read above....
He played in 2 Mosconi Cups (9-Ball), 1996 and 1997 (at ages 21 and 22). His record was 2 wins and 3 losses in singles and 2 wins and 2 losses in doubles.
So not even playing pool and he has an average record in the Mosconi Cup. And that was back when the US were dominating. I have no doubt he would compete with the top pros if he dedicated some time to pool. Man is a genius with a cue in his hand...
The Mosconi Cup is the Mosconi Cup. Not only are the matches races to 5, but iff he was in a tournament, he would have been out before he had the chance to get his 3rd loss (and well before the money in most tournaments). That is a loooooong way from dominating the US in pool, much less the world.
Pool, 9 ball and 10 ball at least, are, by design, games that can not be dominated in the long run. A player may play stellar for a few weeks or months and seem unbeatable, but eventually probability will catch back up to him.