Betfair Official Blog

If they're all so brilliant, who's the bet for the snooker Masters?

Click here to view market

Jamie "The Pacman" Pacheco talks about how labelling snooker players doesn't exactly offer much help when it comes to picking a winner

Over the past few years I've noticed certain sportsmen being given labels that appear to have stuck. We had Glenn McGrath "the best fast bowler ever in seaming conditions", Robbie Fowler (at his prime) "the most natural finisher in the Premiership" and we now have Tiger Woods "the best putter under pressure in the game" and in Flloyd Mayweather "the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world". Whereas I wouldn't necessarily disagree with any of these labels, the issue becomes clouded when we have several players all being given unique labels within the same individual sport, in this case snooker.

Ronnie O'Sullivan, a [3.35] shot for the upcoming Masters is often described as "the most naturally gifted player ever to have picked up a cue". I can see why people say that. When in form, O'Sullivan has the ability to make the game look incredibly easy and clearing up look effortless. He's also ambidextrous and when in the right frame of mind he's both irresistible and unplayable. His record when it comes to winning tournaments doesn't quite back up his tag though. Whereas there's nothing wrong with his record of 19 tournament ranking wins, "just" the two World Championship titles doesn't exactly separate him from other very good players over the years.

Another man who has won twice at The Crucible is John Higgins, a [10.5] chance to win at Wembley next week. He apparently is the "best all-round player in the game" which I'm assuming means he's the one who has best mastered the disciplines of potting, safety, cue ball control and break-building. As it happens, I'm a huge fan of Higgins but feel the aforementioned tag carries a certain whiff of hyperbole with so many superb players in the modern game to choose from.

One of those is the mercurial Mark Williams, trading at [21.0] to win the Masters, who is coincidentally also a double winner in Sheffield. Despite going though spells where he appears to have fallen out of love with the game he is nonetheless still often described as "the best natural potter ever". His potting was indeed flawless as he won the first of his world titles in 2000 but he is ranked just 9th when it comes to career centuries. Food for thought...

I'm not sure about long periods of meditation but I'd hazard a guess that one player who doesn't skip many meals is Stephen Lee who's [25.0] to win in North London next week. Those who listen to the BBC's commentators will often hear them talking about Lee's textbook cue action, much the same way as Ernie Els' swing or Tendulkar's off-drive are often mentioned as being techniques for youngsters to aspire to. Flawless technique or not, with just four ranking titles to his name, it's clear that all is not well in the Lee camp. His cue action may not have deserted him in the fifteen years he's had as a pro but his ability to fulfil his potential certainly has.

With seven World Championships, a total of 36 ranking event titles, 8 maximum breaks in competition and over £8 million in career prize money, you cant's say that Stephen Hendry hasn't fulfilled his potential. He is statistically the most successful player the game has ever seen but rather than being described in these terms he is instead regularly talked about as the "best break-builder ever". Having watched Hendry over the years I can vouch for the fact that he is a superb break-builder but just as some of the players above are perhaps given too much credit for excelling at a particular discipline within snooker, I think Hendry is perhaps not given enough credit with this label and should simply be described as "the most successful player in the game ever".

I'll mention in passing that Peter Edbon is according to the experts "mentally the strongest player in the game" and that Ken Docherty is "the best match player of them all", whatever that means.

Where do all these labels, gained through reputation or through myth, leave me as someone trying to pick the winner of the Masters? No nearer to finding him, is the answer. That said, I was very impressed with Paul Krishnamurty's article on why O'Sullivan is probably worth opposing at his current price of [3.3].

http://betting.betfair.com/betting/snooker/enigmatic-osullivan-is-worth-avoiding-in-the-betting-fo-090108.html

It is easy to remember O'Sullivan compiling a mesmerizing 147 in the deciding frame of his semi-final of the UK Championship against Mark Selby and destroying an in-form Stephen McGuire in the final.

However, it's also worth remembering that he trailed Selby for virtually the entire match and that a more experienced player such as Higgins or Ebdon probably wouldn't have let him off the hook when just one frame away from winning. The shorter format, a tough draw and the unpredictability of the man, all of which Paul has touched on, make him far too short at that price and I'll be laying "The Rocket".