Post a reply

Who is the greater player?

Poll ended at 23 Nov 2020

Paul Hunter
14
54%
Neil Robertson
12
46%
 
Total votes : 26

ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Pink Ball

Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson (Best of 20 frames)
Group: G
Date: November 23
Match: Two of six
Match day: One of three
Venue: Tempodrom, Berlin, Germany

Vote for which of the two players you think was greater. Vote honestly, and leave your bias out of it. Don’t vote for a player just because you like them, don’t vote against a player just because you dislike them.

Consider the table conditions to be whatever conditions would have the least impact on the result.

You can use your own personal criteria for measuring greatness once it’s free of any bias towards/against (delete as applicable) players you like/dislike (delete as applicable).

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Iranu

Pink Ball wrote:Quite poignant, this pairing, given that Hunter's last professional match was against Robertson.

Hunter might well have gone on to be a great player, but we'll never know. Robertson, we do know. Robertson has to win.

I think he already was a great player. But I agree Robbo wins.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Pink Ball

Iranu wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:Quite poignant, this pairing, given that Hunter's last professional match was against Robertson.

Hunter might well have gone on to be a great player, but we'll never know. Robertson, we do know. Robertson has to win.

I think he already was a great player. But I agree Robbo wins.

I think Hunter would have been a world champion and a very successful player, but we just do not know that. We know what Robertson has become.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Ck147

Yeah, I just voted Robbo (surprise surprise) but shame we never got to see how far Paul could go, he was a great player.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby SnookerEd25

Pink Ball wrote:Hunter leading by eight votes to seven. I'm sorry, but that's complete heart over head stuff.


Absolutely. But 2 people voted for Matty Stevens over Ronnie; it’s clear the rules of the contest are not being adhered to :no:

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby TheRocket

I think Hunter has any chance. He came through the toughest era we've had, won 3 Masters titles and 100% sure he would have won a World title at some stage. He had an incredible temperament as well. Brillant pressure player

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Ck147

TheRocket wrote:I think Hunter has any chance. He came through the toughest era we've had, won 3 Masters titles and 100% sure he would have won a World title at some stage. He had an incredible temperament as well. Brillant pressure player

+1

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Pink Ball

Ck147 wrote:Big fan of Hunter back in the day, but really?

Ridiculous call. Hunter had the makings of a class player, and he had already delivered to no small extent, but nobody has a clue what might have happened after that. Matthew Stevens was a Masters and UK champion by 2003 and was considered a shit-hot player, now he’s a bit of a laughing stock.

It’s a tragedy that we never got to see what Hunter would have become, but it doesn’t change the fact that we don’t know what he would have become.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby badtemperedcyril

This result is based purely on sentiment. We shall never know of course if Paul would’ve been world champion. Probably unlikely given that he’d lost to Stevens 13-12 from 10-6 and 12-10 up in 2004; the previous year, in his only semi-final appearance, lost to Doherty 17-16 from 15-9 up. Not many players go on to succeed at the Crucible after losing from those positions.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

There's something curious about people who die aged 27. They almost invariably become super-mythologised legends.

People who famously died at 27:

Paul Hunter
Jimmy Hendrix
Amy winehouse
Jim Morrison
Janis Joplin

There's even a wikipedia page dedicated to the "27 Club", to which one of the fanboys here might like to go there and add Paul Hunter to that page.

I think it's because 27 is usually when people are "at their prime" with regards to looks and fashionability. They produce their peak works and then suddenly shuffle off the mortal coil with only their peak remaining in the minds of their fans.

I myself never really saw the Hunter hype. Mostly because, particularly with regards to the WSC, it usually was just hype. As if people wanted him to be a better player so much that at some point it started to become too embarrassing for me to cope with.

I always imagined him in that McManus or Kirk Stevens kind of skill level. Someone who was clearly better than the rest and who was quite capable of being a top player, but lacked that little something extra to become a regular and renown Winner.

Someone who you always expected to see in the event and weren't surprised to see in the QFs or SFs but also didn't really expect to see them in the final. Maguire or Hawkinsesque kind of thing.

But then those odd-ball and unusual 3 Masters wins. They sort of stand out like this weird unexplainable phenonium. A sort of Joe Johnsonesque anomaly that makes no logical sense but happens anyway. And is undeniable. Jeezus, not even John Higgins has three Masters titles. But, no, I wouldn't ever have rated him a better player than Higgins.

Looking at his Wiki page, he'd even gone off the boil completely in the whole year before he was even diagnosed with anything, his 2004/2005 season reads like a regular journeyman player.

Even during his peak, 2000-2004, the season 2001-2002 was just a cavalcade of Round 1 and Round 2s, with, again, just the Masters really standing out as an anomaly. One other final, the Scottish Open, but mostly just r1s and r2s.

He clearly meant a lot to a lot of people though. As I said, a lot of people had clearly invested heavily into the cult of the Hunter, so it was no surprise to me that, when he died, there was such a massive outpouring of despair. One of those moments where everyone had to be seen to be in mourning, an almost stately mourning, even if one wasn't even following him during events nor that fussed about him generally.

Again, I felt a sense of second hand embarrassment as mourning seemed to go on almost indefinitely, almost hysterically, with all these players being trotted out to express their sadness and pose for the cameras with forced expressions of woe and grief, when, in reality, I've no doubt some of them would just be thinking, obviously, "I dunno mate, I never really knew him, he was ok I guess, rubbish happens.".

A bit like when a kid died in our year at school (car accident), and they were in a different class and you never really spoke to them and can only just imagine their face because you sometimes saw them in the playground, but the whole year, the whole school even, has to have a series of mourning events and assemblys where everyone has to make like they are in a state of deep contemplation and mutual affection. "he was such a nice guy", "he had so much promise", "he was loved by so many", "there will now be a poetry reading by Janice McCafferty".

:shrug:

...But then why did Pink Ball include him in this event if he doesn't himself rate him as someone worthy of beating someone like Robertson? Robertson is clearly going to be a mid to low table entrant in this event as a whole, so if Pink has issues with Hunter beating him, why is Hunter even included in the event in the first place? Could quite easily have replaced him with no-end of other snooker WSC runner-ups and all-round good players who never won the WSC.

So the buck passes back to Pink: if you are so surprised, what was your initial reason for including Hunter, who only has one single WSC SF to his name and not even any QFs? When your criteria for entry seemed to be WSC achievements...

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby HappyCamper

LDS wrote:Looking at his Wiki page, he'd even gone off the boil completely in the whole year before he was even diagnosed with anything, his 2004/2005 season reads like a regular journeyman player.


yes, well disease tends not to wait to be acknowledged before it affects people. bit rude really.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

HappyCamper wrote:yes, well disease tends not to wait to be acknowledged before it affects people. bit rude really.


Yes, I'm aware of that. But John Spencer got hammered by Jimmy White earlier in this competition, even though Spencer had a medical condition which severely reduced his ability to compete. No-one saw fit to mention that in his thread nor provide what-ifs with that in mind.

Rude?

It's been 13 years. He died of natural causes. Could happen to anyone at any moment. A normal life event. You're still uncomfortable talking about him in anything other than golden reverence?

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Cloud Strife

LDS wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:yes, well disease tends not to wait to be acknowledged before it affects people. bit rude really.


Yes, I'm aware of that. But John Spencer got hammered by Jimmy White earlier in this competition, even though Spencer had a medical condition which severely reduced his ability to compete. No-one saw fit to mention that in his thread nor provide what-ifs with that in mind.

Rude?

It's been 13 years. He died of natural causes. Could happen to anyone at any moment. A normal life event. You're still uncomfortable talking about him in anything other than golden reverence?


You think it's a normal life event for someone to die of cancer at the age of 27?

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

Cloud Strife wrote:You think it's a normal life event for someone to die of cancer at the age of 27?


Specifically cancer, its certainly unfortunate to get it so young, but it's not abnormal. There's lots of ways people can die young & it's certainly sad whenever anyone dies young. What's your point?

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Cloud Strife

LDS wrote:
Cloud Strife wrote:You think it's a normal life event for someone to die of cancer at the age of 27?


Specifically cancer, its certainly unfortunate to get it so young, but it's not abnormal. There's lots of ways people can die young & it's certainly sad whenever anyone dies young. What's your point?


No point. You just made it sound like it's a run-of-the-mill occurence that happens to the majority.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

Cloud Strife wrote:No point. You just made it sound like it's a run-of-the-mill occurence that happens to the majority.


I most certainly did not. I implied that he wasn't murdered nor died from a drug overdose nor any of the more dramatic ways young people can die. I said he died of natural causes, implying it's no-one's fault and is just one of those tragic quirks of being a living being that can be struck down at any time by forces beyond anyone's control.

I guess the reaction to my post is kinda proving my point better than any words I could use could ever do. Why in god's name is everyone so TOUCHY about Paul Hunter?

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby HappyCamper

LDS wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:yes, well disease tends not to wait to be acknowledged before it affects people. bit rude really.


Yes, I'm aware of that. But John Spencer got hammered by Jimmy White earlier in this competition, even though Spencer had a medical condition which severely reduced his ability to compete. No-one saw fit to mention that in his thread nor provide what-ifs with that in mind.

Rude?

It's been 13 years. He died of natural causes. Could happen to anyone at any moment. A normal life event. You're still uncomfortable talking about him in anything other than golden reverence?


spencer was probably before the time of most poster's here and mostly before the sport entered mass public consciousness. most are probably not really aware of his life story. i think it would perfectly reasonable to make that argument about spencer, may you should go make it in that thread?

we can speculate about hunter, and make sensible appraisals of his sadly too short career. but his performance dropping when likely in the early stages from what would prove to be a terminal illness is not a good argument.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

Dan-cat wrote:LDS already ruffling feathers in his short SI career.


:shrug:

I'm assuming this was the whole reason why Pink included Hunter in this competition - to add some controversy. He clearly wants to say Hunter doesn't deserve to be in the running but at the same time desperately wanted to include him above other more deserving WSC players & he's been reaching in this thread for some kind of back-up to his thoughts, so I thought I'd find out what's going on here to make him end up in a situation like this.

The cult of Hunter is clearly strong in these here parts & I'm guessing Pink has a historical chip on his shoulder regarding said cult?

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Iranu

LDS wrote:
Iranu wrote:What a stupid post, LDS.


Explain...

Well for starters the 27 Club is also due to the sheer volume of well-known people who seem to die at that age. It’s partly artificial of course but it’s more than just being at their prime.

But onto Hunter:

You say he’s at the level of McManus or Kirk Stevens despite winning more than both of them (and in my opinion doing so in probably the strongest era in snooker) by the time he died, and as we’ve established he was only 27. So he’d already won more and would in all likelihood gone on to win at least a couple more still.

I’m not sure how three Masters wins can be “Joe Johnson-esque”. One sure, possibly two, but three is more than just an anomaly. I mean look at Selby, he also won two Masters and got to another final while holding only one Welsh Open as a ranker (if I’ve read his Wiki right). It took him another two seasons to win another ranker.

As HC has said, a diagnosis doesn’t happen as soon as you get the disease. He’d been suffering stomach issues for a while from what I remember and it’s no surprise his form had dipped. With 2001-2002 I think you may been looking at 2003-2004 as he won the Welsh and Masters in 01-02. Regardss, show me a top player who has a good season every single season? Or alternatively show me a journeyman who wins the Masters during a poor season?

Referring to “the cult of the Hunter” is frankly offensive. I actually kind of agree with you about how people react when it comes to the loss of someone they don’t really know. But Paul Hunter was an attractive, likeable, talented person who was very popular even before his health problems and for you to dismiss that as a deranged cult is insane.

It’s one thing to question how the masses responded to his death, although even in that case I’d say there’s a huge difference between someone dying at 27 and someone dying at 90. Someone you’ve watched for years dying at 27 can make you question your own mortality even if you don’t care so much about the person himself and this alone can cause profound emotional response. Hell, people can break down over the death of fixtional characters.

But to call into question the legitimacy of players’ responses is a horrendous thing to say. “rubbish happens” indeed. These are people who no matter how well they knew Hunter would nonetheless have been spending significant periods of time around him for years.

Regarding this and the kid in your school: IT’S NOT ABOUT YOU. When a child dies, I don’t think some overwrought tributes are the worst thing in the world. It’s for the benefit of the family and the friends who DID know him. Likewise, any tributes by players even if insincere were given for the benefit of the people Hunter left behind.

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby LDS

HappyCamper wrote:but his performance dropping when likely in the early stages from what would prove to be a terminal illness is not a good argument.


What is the good argument for Pink including him, when the criteria for this event is WSC performance?

Re: ATWSC Group G: Paul Hunter v Neil Robertson

Postby Iranu

LDS wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:LDS already ruffling feathers in his short SI career.


:shrug:

I'm assuming this was the whole reason why Pink included Hunter in this competition - to add some controversy. He clearly wants to say Hunter doesn't deserve to be in the running but at the same time desperately wanted to include him above other more deserving WSC players & he's been reaching in this thread for some kind of back-up to his thoughts, so I thought I'd find out what's going on here to make him end up in a situation like this.

The cult of Hunter is clearly strong in these here parts & I'm guessing Pink has a historical chip on his shoulder regarding said cult?

This is interesting. Who would you have included in the tournament ahead of Hunter?