Start winning at 18, or you'll never be a great?

eirebilly wrote:Wow, i cant believe how this thread has gone .

Back on topic, i think that it is absolutely wrong to say that a player needs to start winning titels at 18 to become an all time great. Players will develope and mature in their own time, ala Robbo. Who is to say that he, Selby, Ding or Allen (to name a few players past the 18yo mark) are not on the crest of domination thus gaining all time great status??

It's a difficult issue, and one in which depends on how you define an all time great. All of these are great players, or they wouldn't be professionals. There is a difference between being great and being an all time great.

I think Hendry and Ronnie are the two that stand out as the two greatest of all time, and suggesting that somebody is rubbish just because they can't favourably compare to them is farcical. As is putting an age on when a player has to start winning to be called a great. There are other factors involved, of course.

I think the point Ronnie was trying to make, in his usual 'Even If I Make An Intelligent Point, I Have To Make A Couple Of Idiotic Ones To Balance It Out' way, was that a player is judged on success, not potential. So it's no good sitting there for half your career saying you've got potental, and not winning anything, because all too soon, you'll be too old to beat the young up-and-comers. Judd Trump has a lot of potential, for example, but hasn't won anything. If he retired tomorrow, would he be considered an All Time Great? Even an ardant Trump fan-boy wouldn't claim this.

I think any players that want to be remembered as an ATG have to start winning now, to be honest. The PTCs are here, so there isn't the excuse for lack of match practice any more. Robertson is the World Champion, and has won the most recent ranking event, PTCs aside. If he could carry on the form and win at least one of the following; Masters/UK/World this year, then carry on his haul of ranking events he'll be on his way. But you could say that about a lot of the players. They have to start winning regularly to be considered an ATG. I think this was what Ronnie was really trying to get across, not some trivial debate about what the best age to win a first ranker is.

Doesn't giving him time go against what we are discussing in this thread?