This generation of sportsmen and women has more than its fair share of sporting genii, people like Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Michael Schumacher etc. who have risen to such a degree of dominance in their chosen discipline that even those completely ambivalent to sports understand their significance. The public has become used to accepting and lavishing praise on these borderline freakish individuals - I don't for example, remember hearing one dissenting voice when Cristiano Ronaldo was named player of the year. It's simply taken as gospel – he's the best player in the world.
That's why I was a little surprised at the reaction to Steve Davis's comments after Ronnie O'Sullivan stormed past him in the semi-finals of the World Championships earlier this month. Whilst still shell-shocked from a 17 - 6 thrashing Davis commented, "He's the best genius we've seen in snooker, possibly in sport." In doing so Davis reignited the age old debate surrounding O'Sullivan's sporting credentials.
The public and the press seem eternally unwilling to accept Ronnie as a master in the way they have Woods and Federer. Even whilst he was closing out a World Championship Final as if it were an exhibition match, column inches and blogs were still being filled asking 'Is O'Sullivan he the greatest snooker player ever?' 'Can he really be considered a great?'
Why are we so unwilling to admit 'Rocket Ronnie' onto the all time greats list?
The Schumachers and Federers of this world certainly win more often and are ever-present in a way that O'Sullivan isn't. However, they're also more committed to their professions. You get the impression that Tiger Woods has all but turned himself into a golf playing machine barely able to think about anything else.
O'Sullivan isn't like that, in fact you often get the impression that snooker is getting in the way of his life. He has often talked with disdain about the sport, threatening to quit on more than one occasion and in clear opposition to the cold-eyed, metronomic giants of other disciplines he frequently lets his emotions rule his game - most notably when he conceded to Steven Hendry when only 4 – 1 down. Can you imagine Federer doing that after losing a set?
It's this part of the O'Sullivan psyche that I think stops his talent being as universally accepted as it should be. If we're judging greatness purely based on results and stats then I suppose that's fair enough, but if we're talking about talent and pure mastery then there aren't many who can touch him in world sports.
To me Davis's comments weren't in the least bit surprising. As anyone who saw any of the five fastest ever 147 breaks he has recorded will tell you, when O'Sullivan decides to let fly he is literally unstoppable. To me he is and always will be a great, if he controlled his demons better and took the whole thing more seriously then there's no telling what he could achieve, but then I suppose he wouldn't be Ronnie.