Terry Griffiths vs Alex Higgins H2H

Overall H2H 16:12 Griffiths. Sounds relatively close. But lets look at the details and how dominant Griffiths was in the big matches.

4:0 at the Crucible (all bo25 matches).
2:1 at the UK Championship. (beat Higgins in a bo31 final , 1:1 in bo17)
4:2 at the Masters. 1:1 in finals (bo17).
8:2 in multi session matches.

Just crazy. This is ownage. Especially the Crucible H2H. Why do you think Griffiths had such a dominant H2H over Higgins. I mean surely it cant be just slow play which got into Higgins head? At that time there were many slow players so Higgins should be used to it. He was the better player so surely he should have beaten him at least once at the Crucible and in a few more matches.

Interesting. I think - the old cliche - styles determine this. Or perhaps sometimes Higgins took Griffiths too lightly?

Arguable if Higgins was the better player; Griffiths is one of the most consistently under-rated players of his era. But for Davis, his trophy haul would have been far higher (and, off the top of my head, had one of the best H2H's with the Nugget - i'll look into that later when I have more time)

But interesting analysis - thanks for raising

There were a series of Davis-Griffiths clashes in 1982, many of them finals and Terry won his share.

I think Griffiths was technically on a par with Davis but at times struggled psychologically against him, especially at the Crucible.

Davis has a 34:14 H2H record against Griffiths and at the World Championship its just total domination. 7:0. The most dominant head to head for any player over another player at the Crucible. 14:4 in multi session matches.

Davis was different class and you cant really say Griffiths was a threat to him and did much better than what Higgins did. Higgins had bigger wins over Davis actually. Beat him at the WC which was a bo25 match and in the UK final 1983 which was bo31.

Griffiths never beat Davis in a match longer than bo17.

I see where you are coming from but would argue that Davis was not a different class, although as a total package yes, he was a better player. Griffiths was a very technically able player in the standard and (more pertinently) conditions of his time but I do think that Davis held a bit of a psychological edge for much of the time and this would come through more in longer matches. I also think that from 1985, Griffiths in decline (notwithstanding reaching the 1988 final)

I guess Griffiths' tactical acumen wore Higgins down over the longer matches.

Higgins may well have got frustrated at Griffiths sedate pace and long drawn out safety battles.

Not such a factor in shorter matches.

SnookerEd25 wrote:Arguable if Higgins was the better player; Griffiths is one of the most consistently under-rated players of his era. But for Davis, his trophy haul would have been far higher (and, off the top of my head, had one of the best H2H's with the Nugget - i'll look into that later when I have more time)

But interesting analysis - thanks for raising

100%, he was brilliant, but kept coming up against the Nugget, who was better.

mick745 wrote:I guess Griffiths' tactical acumen wore Higgins down over the longer matches.

Higgins may well have got frustrated at Griffiths sedate pace and long drawn out safety battles.

Not such a factor in shorter matches.

As the 80's wore on, Higgins' inspirational fast attacking ability eroded and he increasingly relied on his astute tactical game. Unfortunately that didn't get him very far against Griffiths, or, most of the time, Davis.

I have already made my feelings known about Higgins being very overrated. I won't go into it again.

On second thoughts. Higgins was very overrated!