Post a reply

Hendry raised the benchmark

Postby Tubberlad

Over the last few weeks, I've quite possibly spent too much time focusing on Ronnie O'Sullivan on these boards. I rate Ronnie as one of the best players of all time, probably the most naturally talented, and arguably the most exciting too. In spite of all this though, I don't feel he's the greatest player of all-time. That honour, in my opinion, goes to a certain Scot by the name of Stephen Hendry.

I can understand why a lot of people don't like Hendry, or find it slow to admire him. He stopped the most popular player of all time from achieving his dream, over and over again, sometimes in the cruelest fashion possible. But should he be hated for this? Of course not! Hendry had a job to do, he wanted to win World titles, his appetite for success was unquenchable. And in a sport where we complain about so many underachievers, credit must go to Hendry for winning at nearly every oppurtunity he got.

I have no doubt Hendry raised the benchmark during the 1990's. Steve Davis won his 6th World title in 1989, hammering John Parrott 18-3 in the final. If someone told you at that stage that Davis would fail to win the crown again, I think they would have laughed at you. But the Nugget, one of the greatest player ever, hardly got a look-in during the 90's. Why? Yes, he didn't play as well during the 90's, but surely a certain Hendry had something to do with that?

People talk about the 90's being a weak era. On paper, that may be true, but really, I don't know. You still had some serious players to deal with between 1990 and 1994. John Parrott, Jimmy White & Steve Davis (to a certain extent) were all excellent players, and I'm sure I'm missing a few more. During the 80's, there was a similar number of tough players, so I don't hink Hendry's achievements were diminished in any way.

Hendry was so far ahead of the pack it was scary. Very few players could live with him. Any players who could live with him rarely beat him. Hendry raised the bar immeasurably during the 90's, and in many ways lay the foundation for such a tough era between 2000 and 2004. He raised the standards. He was that good.

In the mid 90's, and Ronnie O'Sullivan himself has said this, players had to look at the way Hendry played and realised that 'this was where they had to be'. I don't think it's a coincidence that Ronnie O'Sullivan, John Higgins and Mark Williams came along at almost the same time. By the start of the 00's, we had the top list of players we'd ever seen IMO. Hendry, O'Sullivan, Williams, Higgins, Doherty, Ebdon, Hunter, Stevens and Lee made up a superb top 9, while the likes of McManus, Hamilton, Dott, Swail and Gray were no pushovers either. I agree with Seifer that standards rose during the 00's, but I credit Hendry for this.

Hendry's World Title in 1999 was a superb one. He was no longer as good as he was, so to win the World Title showed just how good he was. I can't think of many players who won the World Championship when past their best. Ronnie O'Sullivan had to play a more Hendry-style game rather than his previously gung-ho approach to win the World Championship. I think Hendry was the father of 00's snooker, the greatest ever player under pressure and probably the best player of all-time.

If we must respect O'Sullivan, than we must also respect Hendry

Re: Hendry raised the benchmark

Postby Roland

Actually I'd say this doesn't need saying on this forum. Anyone who knows anything about snooker already knows the crux of your points, it's only the latecomers i.e. youngsters who weren't around at the time who struggle to realise what Hendry did to the game in the 90's. The early 90's was not weak, that's laughable however it was definitely stronger in the early part of this decade.

Davis was still a major force in the early 90's and yes, Hendry definitely stopped him from winning a lot more titles and yes, Hendry was pretty much unbeatable by anybody in that decade.

Re: Hendry raised the benchmark

Postby Seifer Almasy

==========
In spite of all this though, I don't feel he's the greatest player of all-time.
==========

I do, and like you, I do so because O'Sullivan's best is greater then Hendry's. Where we differ is that you believe consistency and wins of Hendry in the 90's means he is the greatest. I contend, however, that we CANNOT know how he would have fared had he turned pro in 1992. Certainly, O'Sullivan has the upper hand in their meetings, and Hendry did not perform very well once he was challenged.

==========
I can understand why a lot of people don't like Hendry, or find it slow to admire him.
==========

He was extremely smug in his hey day, had little respect for his opponents. Destroyed Jimmy (but then again I could just as easily blame Jimmy for being a bottle job, he gifted hendry 1992 and 1994). His play is robotic and is selfish. He does not even try to entertain the crowd. All that matters is his own ego and his own pocket. I dislike such players and Hendry falls into that category.

In Hendry's favour, he is a better ambassador to the sport (which also makes him a bit boring too has to be said), is more passionate about snooker than any other player I have seen, and is always 100% dedicated to winning.

==========
credit must go to Hendry for winning at nearly every oppurtunity he got.
==========

Whilst we can all say he deserved his wins, we cannot simply throw out logic and decare him the greatest based on a weak era compared to today.

==========
I have no doubt Hendry raised the benchmark during the 1990's.
==========

Nor have I.

==========
Why? Yes, he didn't play as well during the 90's, but surely a certain Hendry had something to do with that?
==========

Yes but also Davis was coming out of his prime. He was nearing his mid 30's, and that is the time, all players tend to lose their best form. Hendry, Davis and White all lost their best around this time.

==========
People talk about the 90's being a weak era. On paper, that may be true, but really, I don't know.
==========

No. Not on paper. It is a statiscal fact. The top 5 of 1990-6 were pretty solid. But the overall top 32, were pretty dire up to 1996. Hendry would not agree with this if it wasn't.

==========
During the 80's, there was a similar number of tough players, so I don't hink Hendry's achievements were diminished in any way.
==========

The 80's was the weakest era of all. There were many many players over 39 years old, and that is for starters....

==========
He raised the standards. He was that good.
==========

No one is disputing that. They tend to dispute the fact that O'Sullivan has raised it further.

==========
I don't think it's a coincidence that Ronnie O'Sullivan, John Higgins and Mark Williams came along at almost the same time.
==========

That is debateable, but I would agree. In the same way, Hendry would not be where he is without Reardon, Davis, White and especially Alex Higgins, and they wouldn't be there without Joe Davis.

==========
I agree with Seifer that standards rose during the 00's, but I credit Hendry for this.
==========

Possibly. But we don't know if the opening of the game had the largest effect. But in any case, even if it was Hendry, that is something he and his fans can be proud of, but it doesn't make his era any more difficult. It is like saying "hendry would not have won 7 world titles without seeing Alex and Jimmy play". Every person is a product of the last generation. This is human progress. It happens everywhere. I don't see its relevance in comparing the players. It should be left separate. If you want to make a separate category "The most influential" then certainly, Hendry is the main influence for 1 visit snooker and Break building.

==========
Hendry's World Title in 1999 was a superb one.
==========

Agreed. And yet people still try to fob me off that he was past his best at the point. he wasn't. He was 30. Well within his best years.

==========
He was no longer as good as he was,
==========

Disagree. He was every bit as good, his records took a nose dive because of the higher quality era.

==========
If we must respect O'Sullivan, than we must also respect Hendry
==========

Agree and I have. But I won't blindly accept Hendry as the greatest or take his wins as the absolute gospel. The facts do not add up.

Who stopped hendry dominating:

Age

1997: 28
1998: 29
1999: 30
2000: 31
2001: 32
2002: 33
2003: 34

World

1997 FINAL: Doherty: Turned pro 1990
1998 R1: White: Turned pro: 1980
1999: WON
2000 R1: Bingham: Turned pro: 1995
2001 QF: Stevens: Turned pro: 1994
2002 FINAL: Ebdon: Turned pro: 1991
2003 QF: Williams: Turned Pro: 1992

Masters:

1997 QF: O'Sullivan: Turned Pro: 1992
1998 FINAL: Williams: Turned Pro: 1992
1999 R1: Drago: Turned Pro: 1985
2000 R2: Doherty: Turned Pro: 1990
2001 SF: Hunter: Turned Pro: 1995
2002 QF: Williams: Turned Pro: 1992
2003 FINAL: Williams: Turned Pro: 1992

UK:

1997 FINAL: O'Sullivan: Turned Pro: 1992
1998 R1: Campbell: Turned Pro: 1991
1999 SF: Williams: Turned Pro: 1992
2000 SF: Higgins: Turned Pro: 1992
2001 QF: Williams: Turned Pro: 1992
2002 QF: Williams: Turned Pro: 1992
2003: FINAL Stevens: Turned pro: 1994[/size]

If he really was past it, he would not have made 7 finals in 21 events, winning 1.
Last edited by Seifer Almasy on 14 Dec 2009, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Hendry raised the benchmark

Postby Roland

Don't know about anyone else, but I gave up reading about a quarter of the way down :redneck:

Re: Hendry raised the benchmark

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:Don't know about anyone else, but I gave up reading about a quarter of the way down :redneck:


i didnt bother starting its the same old Rubbish hes always come out with....

(edited by Sonny - wild, stay away from personal attacks please)

Re: Hendry raised the benchmark

Postby Casey

Sonny wrote:Don't know about anyone else, but I gave up reading about a quarter of the way down :redneck:


Fair play to the guy that could that through all that tripe :emu:

Re: Hendry raised the benchmark

Postby Seifer Almasy

case_master wc wrote:
Sonny wrote:Don't know about anyone else, but I gave up reading about a quarter of the way down :redneck:


Fair play to the guy that could that through all that tripe :emu:



If you can't be bothered reading it, how do you know it is tripe? If you can't be bothered reading, why do you come onto a forum. No. Don't answer that, I answered that for you last year.

Re: Hendry raised the benchmark

Postby GrumpyMrDavros

Sonny wrote:Actually I'd say this doesn't need saying on this forum. Anyone who knows anything about snooker already knows the crux of your points, it's only the latecomers i.e. youngsters who weren't around at the time who struggle to realise what Hendry did to the game in the 90's. The early 90's was not weak, that's laughable however it was definitely stronger in the early part of this decade.


Yup it's an established fact amongst most snooker fans that the years 1997-2004 was the most competitive highest standard of snooker . It's lessened now because

1 ) contenders like Hendry , Williams , Doherty , Ebdon and Stevens have lost their very sharp edge

2 ) There's little in the way of new talent replacing them . Ding , Murphy and Robertson are fairly inconsistent to put it mildly

which means Ronnie and John Higgins have got a duopoly

Re: Hendry raised the benchmark

Postby GJ

GrumpyMrDavros wrote:
Sonny wrote:Actually I'd say this doesn't need saying on this forum. Anyone who knows anything about snooker already knows the crux of your points, it's only the latecomers i.e. youngsters who weren't around at the time who struggle to realise what Hendry did to the game in the 90's. The early 90's was not weak, that's laughable however it was definitely stronger in the early part of this decade.


Yup it's an established fact amongst most snooker fans that the years 1997-2004 was the most competitive highest standard of snooker . It's lessened now because

1 ) contenders like Hendry , Williams , Doherty , Ebdon and Stevens have lost their very sharp edge

2 ) There's little in the way of new talent replacing them . Ding , Murphy and Robertson are fairly inconsistent to put it mildly

which means Ronnie and John Higgins have got a duopoly



grumpy

if there were moree than 6 ranking events a seaosn maybe players liek ding an robbo would be winning more

robbos record of 4 ranking titles in the last 4 years is pretty consistent considering the low amount of events each season

Re: Hendry raised the benchmark

Postby NedB-H

GJtheaussiestud wrote:
grumpy

if there were moree than 6 ranking events a seaosn maybe players liek ding an robbo would be winning more

robbos record of 4 ranking titles in the last 4 years is pretty consistent considering the low amount of events each season

The consistency isn't just about winning, Stevens has still only ever won one ranking event. It's about producing top quality play in tournament after tournament, instead of only now and then. Robertson in the last two tournaments has been as good as most in the 97-04 period, but he wasn't this time last year. Ditto Ding. Maguire is even worse, worldbeater 1 in 10, rubbish 9 in 10. Murphy looked like he was getting there, but has lost it again with his "problems" in the last couple of years. In that period around the turn of the millennium, you could turn up to any ranking tournament and expect that 5 or 6 of the top 8 or so players - O'Sullivan, Hendry, Higgins, Williams, Doherty, Ebdon, Hunter, Stevens - would be playing on top form, plus maybe one or two from the tier just below - Lee, White, McManus etc. Now, you get maybe three of four guys on top form at any tournament, if you're lucky - this time round it was Higgins, Robertson, Ding and O'Sullivan. The quality from whoever is really playing well is as good, but the number of guys at that level at any one time is lower. And that's why the standard overall is lower.

Re: Hendry raised the benchmark

Postby Wildey

persanally i think players like Robbo,maguire and co has got a wrong mindset they convince themselves that winning one tournament is all they can hope to do and anything after that is a bonus and when the next one comes along they are not as focused.....same can be said of Ronnie but what Hendry and Davis had the edge once they potted the final ball to win one tournament before they left the arena they thought about the next one and so on.

people say standards higher today and who knows but what i do know if they were winning tournaments today never mind the standard of players their approach would be exactly the same.