Mark Williams has John Higgins as the 2nd best player ever

Wildey wrote:Hendry has never played a Peak Trump granted but he has played and beaten a Peak Ronnie and Higgins many times as have they beaten a Peak Hendry that what happens when greatness goes against each other some you win and some you dont.

TheRocket wrote:I think its obvious that Peak Hendry and Peak Ronnie played about the same level. Even when I look at their peak level performances they scored about the same number of 50+ breaks and won similar number of frames in one visit............

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Wildey wrote:Hendry has never played a Peak Trump granted but he has played and beaten a Peak Ronnie and Higgins many times as have they beaten a Peak Hendry that what happens when greatness goes against each other some you win and some you dont.

No he hasn't.
Peak Ronnie is after 2004. Hendry never beat that version of ROS in a multisession match.

TheRocket wrote:I think its obvious that Peak Hendry and Peak Ronnie played about the same level. Even when I look at their peak level performances they scored about the same number of 50+ breaks and won similar number of frames in one visit............

Yes, their stats are pretty similar in terms if the damage/scoring they can do if they get in, but Ronnie has the edge in safety and tactical play, therefore he'll get more chances to score.

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Wildey wrote:Hendry has never played a Peak Trump granted but he has played and beaten a Peak Ronnie and Higgins many times as have they beaten a Peak Hendry that what happens when greatness goes against each other some you win and some you dont.

No he hasn't.
Peak Ronnie is after 2004. Hendry never beat that version of ROS in a multisession match.

TheRocket wrote:I think its obvious that Peak Hendry and Peak Ronnie played about the same level. Even when I look at their peak level performances they scored about the same number of 50+ breaks and won similar number of frames in one visit............

Yes, their stats are pretty similar in terms if the damage/scoring they can do if they get in, but Ronnie has the edge in safety and tactical play, therefore he'll get more chances to score.

Only he didn't.....

badtemperedcyril wrote:Hendry was not 90% of his peak in 2004. If we're comparing it to his period of real dominance, lets say 1992-96, then he'd only be 60% at best. Break building was still good but his long potting wasn't getting him in so much, but, more significantly, he was no longer that ruthless animal that did not accept defeat.

badtemperedcyril wrote:Hendry was not 90% of his peak in 2004.

Pink Ball wrote:

badtemperedcyril wrote:Hendry was not 90% of his peak in 2004.

You're right. I'd say he was at about 95%.

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

badtemperedcyril wrote:Hendry was not 90% of his peak in 2004.

You're right. I'd say he was at about 95%.

And what percentage would he have been if he had retired in 1999 after winning a 7th World title?

69%? 73%? 38%? 45%?

If Hendry had finished playing in 1999 there wouldn't be a debate and that is why all these stats about Hendry from 2000 onwards are superfluous.

And you don't need to be a genius to see why.

Andre147 wrote:And why would Hendry retire after 1999?

Same as Pete Sampas after winning the 2002 US Open. I dont think he made the right move in retiring, and I would feel exactly the same way if Hendry had retired after 1999.

He clearly still wanted to win more, otherwise he would not reach another world final, another 2 UK Finals, another Masters Final, not to mention the various titles he won after 1999.

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Andre147 wrote:And why would Hendry retire after 1999?

Same as Pete Sampas after winning the 2002 US Open. I dont think he made the right move in retiring, and I would feel exactly the same way if Hendry had retired after 1999.

He clearly still wanted to win more, otherwise he would not reach another world final, another 2 UK Finals, another Masters Final, not to mention the various titles he won after 1999.

Many people in sport retire at the top. Bjorn Borg for example. Hendry's relevant career was in the 90s.

These debates are really tiresome. Blinkered fools not able to understand anything etc.

I don't mean you Andre, but quite a few.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Andre147 wrote:And why would Hendry retire after 1999?

Same as Pete Sampas after winning the 2002 US Open. I dont think he made the right move in retiring, and I would feel exactly the same way if Hendry had retired after 1999.

He clearly still wanted to win more, otherwise he would not reach another world final, another 2 UK Finals, another Masters Final, not to mention the various titles he won after 1999.

Many people in sport retire at the top. Bjorn Borg for example. Hendry's relevant career was in the 90s.

These debates are really tiresome. Blinkered fools not able to understand anything etc.

I don't mean you Andre, but quite a few.

Borj was incredibly young when he retired, aged 26, he still had at least 5 years at the top. So the comparison is not valid.
Likewise, Hendry still had plenty of years at the top in 99, his best just wasn't good enough to dominate anymore. Get that through your grass filled head. Go eat some meat, you might get some common sense back.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

badtemperedcyril wrote:Hendry was not 90% of his peak in 2004. If we're comparing it to his period of real dominance, lets say 1992-96, then he'd only be 60% at best. Break building was still good but his long potting wasn't getting him in so much, but, more significantly, he was no longer that ruthless animal that did not accept defeat.

He's 90% with ease. He made 16 tons in 2002, more than he has ever achieved in the early 90s.
And his long potting wasn't getting him in so much cause his opposition had upped their safety game and they were leaving the white closer to the cushion more often.
Plus he was missing plenty of long ones in the early 90's as well, it's just that he wasn't getting punished as severilly for it.

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

badtemperedcyril wrote:Hendry was not 90% of his peak in 2004.

You're right. I'd say he was at about 95%.

And what percentage would he have been if he had retired in 1999 after winning a 7th World title,

69%? 73%? 38%? 45%?

If Hendry had finished playing in 1999 there wouldn't be a debate and that is why all these stats about Hendry from 2000 onwards are superfluous.

And you don't need to be a genius to see why.

Holden Chinaski wrote:FFS, this debate Vodka has been saying the same thing for years. He'll never change his mind, he still lives in the nineties. Who gives a buck, anyway.

badtemperedcyril wrote:Tons means little to this debate, as I said earlier, his break building was still as good as ever. Anyone who studied Hendry's career will know that he won his seven World titles with a short, crisp cue action. From 2000 and onwards he started to dabble with it. The result was that he developed a longer back swing and pause before delivery. This became more and more pronounced over time. It's fine when you're close in the balls but unless you time the stroke perfectly your long game will soon go awol, which is what happened. If you think Hendry was at 90% of his best in 2002 then you are deluded. It was more like 75%, at a stretch. I give way to the notion that the standard of opposition had improved - of course it had. Higgins, Williams and O'Sullivan were maturing in to incredible players, plus there was Stevens, Doherty, Ebdon, Hunter to contend with. Hendry in his pomp (with the fearless mindset he had in his 20's) would still have won world titles in the 00's but he'd declined too far from that level.

vodkadiet1 wrote:On the contrary my dear fellow!! If I became a carnist I might become so deluded as to think that O'Sullivan at any time of his career was as good as Hendry was at his peak!.

vodkadiet1 wrote:Now go down to Morrison's and buy your dismembered 3 month old baby lamb for your lunch you morally upstanding individual. There's a good boy.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

badtemperedcyril wrote:Tons means little to this debate, as I said earlier, his break building was still as good as ever. Anyone who studied Hendry's career will know that he won his seven World titles with a short, crisp cue action. From 2000 and onwards he started to dabble with it. The result was that he developed a longer back swing and pause before delivery. This became more and more pronounced over time. It's fine when you're close in the balls but unless you time the stroke perfectly your long game will soon go awol, which is what happened. If you think Hendry was at 90% of his best in 2002 then you are deluded. It was more like 75%, at a stretch. I give way to the notion that the standard of opposition had improved - of course it had. Higgins, Williams and O'Sullivan were maturing in to incredible players, plus there was Stevens, Doherty, Ebdon, Hunter to contend with. Hendry in his pomp (with the fearless mindset he had in his 20's) would still have won world titles in the 00's but he'd declined too far from that level.

You are the deluded one when you think he was just at 75%. Given that his safety and tactical play have always been average on best, there's no way he could have got to the final, if his attacking play wasn't close to peak level. He sure as hell didn't out-safe his opposition, which means his attacking game had to be working very well. And the stats prove that.

Pink Ball wrote:O'Sullivan is the greatest of all time, but the idea that he's been twice as good as Hendry was is utterly braindead. I hope that was said in jest.

Pink Ball wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

badtemperedcyril wrote:Hendry was not 90% of his peak in 2004.

You're right. I'd say he was at about 95%.

And what percentage would he have been if he had retired in 1999 after winning a 7th World title,

69%? 73%? 38%? 45%?

If Hendry had finished playing in 1999 there wouldn't be a debate and that is why all these stats about Hendry from 2000 onwards are superfluous.

And you don't need to be a genius to see why.

But he didn’t retire in 1999. He wanted more. He kept kicking the rubbish out of everyone as he had before.

Except for a very select few players who had brought the game forward. And sadly, he couldn’t live with it. You know this. You and I watched all this happen. But only one of us is telling the story as it actually happened, and that’s me. It’s all there on paper, bucko.

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:You're right. I'd say he was at about 95%.

And what percentage would he have been if he had retired in 1999 after winning a 7th World title,

69%? 73%? 38%? 45%?

If Hendry had finished playing in 1999 there wouldn't be a debate and that is why all these stats about Hendry from 2000 onwards are superfluous.

And you don't need to be a genius to see why.

But he didn’t retire in 1999. He wanted more. He kept kicking the rubbish out of everyone as he had before.

Except for a very select few players who had brought the game forward. And sadly, he couldn’t live with it. You know this. You and I watched all this happen. But only one of us is telling the story as it actually happened, and that’s me. It’s all there on paper, bucko.

For the 179th time it is irrelevant what Hendry's standard fell to when he was at his peak no one has produced such sustained dominance.

Talk about throwing pearls to pigs....

vodkadiet1 wrote:I had tennis pupils like some of you clowns on here. In the end I just had to tell them they would be better served staying at home and playing computer tennis.

vodkadiet1 wrote:Pink Ball

Your scarf is tied so tightly round your neck that it has cut off the supply of blood to your brain. I have no other explanation as to why your judgement is so wide of the mark.