Do you think Stephen Maguire has underachieved?

Kinda every pro and pundit says that Maguire has underachieved and should have won a lot more titles. Would you agree with that assessment? Yes or no? Explain why.

No, because he dominated the game for ten years.

SnookerFan wrote:No, because he dominated the game for ten years.

Must have been when i was living on Mars.

No. He got what he deserved. Talent alone doesn’t give you the right to titles.

And if Mags has underachieved, it must mean other players have overachieved. Who are they?

Yep he has underachieved. Defintely should have won more titles.

Prop wrote:No. He got what he deserved. Talent alone doesn’t give you the right to titles.

And if Mags has underachieved, it must mean other players have overachieved. Who are they?

You could maybe argue Dott or Johnson have overachieved but yeah its a tough one.

Got a feeling the likes of Maguire, magill Got rich to soon and basically don't want to put the work in,entirely there choice bur should be looking at class 92 for inspiration.

Juddernaut88 wrote:Yep he has underachieved. Defintely should have won more titles.

Based on what? His breakbuilding and long potting is good but his safety game is average and his temperament is poor.

Sometimes it seems like players are expected to win 15+ events as soon as they’ve won a few.

Is Maguire really much better than Allen, or Lee? I’m not so sure.

Iranu wrote:

Juddernaut88 wrote:Yep he has underachieved. Defintely should have won more titles.

Based on what? His breakbuilding and long potting is good but his safety game is average and his temperament is poor.

Sometimes it seems like players are expected to win 15+ events as soon as they’ve won a few.

Is Maguire really much better than Allen, or Lee? I’m not so sure.

definitely better than Lee imo. Allen is a close one but some would say Allen has also underachieved.

TheRocket wrote:

Prop wrote:No. He got what he deserved. Talent alone doesn’t give you the right to titles.

And if Mags has underachieved, it must mean other players have overachieved. Who are they?

You could maybe argue Dott or Johnson have overachieved but yeah its a tough one.

That’s true.

I suppose the distinction is to ask whether a player could have won more, or whether they should have won more.

Yes, because every pro’ & pundit says he has and they know what they’re talking about

I believe he has.

His main career failure was not winning the world title in 2007, he himself has said this.

Had he won that, I'm fairly sure his career would be crowned with a lot more titles. It wasn't to be though.

On his day Maguire is a fine player. I know he has won a bit but for a player of his standard, and has been pro a long time I think he should have won a bit more.

SnookerEd25 wrote:Yes, because every pro’ & pundit says he has and they know what they’re talking about

two words dennis taylor.

I think he's done pretty well to say he gets p*ssed at every tournament. (he admits to this, saying he's made it far too easy for his opponents.)

There is a case for this question to be asked about nearly every top player but yep, Maguire IMO is an underachiever. 2007 was important because he would have had too much for an up and coming Selby in the final and with that win he defo would have won a few more majors, if not necessarily at the Crucible. He could have been in the Parrott Ebdon Doherty bracket. Also if he'd have won in 2007, his temperament would have been better, no doubt in my mind.

TheRocket wrote:

Prop wrote:No. He got what he deserved. Talent alone doesn’t give you the right to titles.

And if Mags has underachieved, it must mean other players have overachieved. Who are they?

You could maybe argue Dott or Johnson have overachieved but yeah its a tough one.

To be fair, you can't really blame Mags for not winning The Crucible in 1986. He would only have been five years old.

orky wrote:There is a case for this question to be asked about nearly every top player but yep, Maguire IMO is an underachiever. 2007 was important because he would have had too much for an up and coming Selby in the final and with that win he defo would have won a few more majors, if not necessarily at the Crucible. He could have been in the Parrott Ebdon Doherty bracket. Also if he'd have won in 2007, his temperament would have been better, no doubt in my mind.

To be honest I could see Maguire doing even less between 2007 and now if he’d won the Worlds in 2007. He’s not exactly the most committed as it is, if he’d already achieved the pinnacle I could easily see him not winning anything for the next 14 years!

When Mags and Murphy came through and they kinda did at the same time Mags looked like the more talented player to me. Amazing how things have turned out with Murphy clearly being the more successful player.

TheRocket wrote:When Mags and Murphy came through and they kinda did at the same time Mags looked like the more talented player to me. Amazing how things have turned out with Murphy clearly being the more successful player.

Well, Maguire hardly dedicated himself to his craft - by his own admission. Murphy clearly does his talking on the table; I mean - you never hear a peep out of him between matches do you?

Absolutely. He was one of the most promising young players, and had a lot of talent. He’s only won 6 ranking tournaments and only one of those has come in the past 10 years. It’s no surprise to see him sliding down the rankings.

Cazoo wrote:Absolutely. He was one of the most promising young players, and had a lot of talent. He’s only won 6 ranking tournaments and only one of those has come in the past 10 years. It’s no surprise to see him sliding down the rankings.

I genuinely think that too much heavy drinking is the main reason for him underachieving.

shanew48 wrote:

Cazoo wrote:Absolutely. He was one of the most promising young players, and had a lot of talent. He’s only won 6 ranking tournaments and only one of those has come in the past 10 years. It’s no surprise to see him sliding down the rankings.

I genuinely think that too much heavy drinking is the main reason for him underachieving.

Truth

Iranu wrote:

orky wrote:There is a case for this question to be asked about nearly every top player but yep, Maguire IMO is an underachiever. 2007 was important because he would have had too much for an up and coming Selby in the final and with that win he defo would have won a few more majors, if not necessarily at the Crucible. He could have been in the Parrott Ebdon Doherty bracket. Also if he'd have won in 2007, his temperament would have been better, no doubt in my mind.

To be honest I could see Maguire doing even less between 2007 and now if he’d won the Worlds in 2007. He’s not exactly the most committed as it is, if he’d already achieved the pinnacle I could easily see him not winning anything for the next 14 years!

I agree with Iranu. In fact, I never really got all the hype surrounding him. OK, the talent was always there but it’s about more than that. Attitude is the key, and he always seemed to be questionable in that department.

Probably should have won two or three more Rankers, on the talent alone, but I’m not surprised he failed to land the big one.

shanew48 wrote:

Cazoo wrote:Absolutely. He was one of the most promising young players, and had a lot of talent. He’s only won 6 ranking tournaments and only one of those has come in the past 10 years. It’s no surprise to see him sliding down the rankings.

I genuinely think that too much heavy drinking is the main reason for him underachieving.

Yes, and more recently chronic back problems. Unlike some other players, he doesn't complain about health issues, but it has definitely affected his game.