The best Higgins?

Case... you've really shut me up quality reply my man...

Robidoux is the only one who came back actually. I very much doubt ALL the others had personal issues.
As for the stats sickpotter I suggest you get a good hard look at them. The likes of Swail and Harold climbed the rankings pretty quick also then slided back when the standard rose. Swail reached the top 16 on his third season (ranked 12), Harold on his 4th (ranked 13). They are good players, and I do respect them, I actually like both as persons very much, but they hardly set the snooker world alight innit? And Ebdon and Doherty were not so "young" but that's only because the game had been "closed" for too long.
The standard in the early 90th was pretty poor except for the very top of the rankings.
I'm not so much looking at the players actual age when they entered the top 16, I'm looking at the time they needed after entering the MT to reach the top 16 and there were many at the time who did reach it within 4 seasons, without being exceptional in any way, something completely unthinkable after 1996.

thetubberlad wrote:Case... you've really shut me up quality reply my man...

........no offense taken I hope

So no chance those players making the top 16 quicker had anything to do with being strong match players? I know many didn't do anything to be classed exceptional but a solid all around game is always going to allow one to move up the rankings faster than the odd exceptional match. Another point....do we know how long they played competetive snooker before joining the main tour? In the 80's-early 90's the pro's tended to have enormous match experience against seasoned players, often for cash (as the main tour didn't offer a lot back then) before ever attempting the main tour and I believe that route allowed them to handle pressure much better than many of today's young guns and thus rise more quickly in the rankings.

IMO, that it's taking players longer these days to break into the top 16 is more a reflection on their one dimensional games than it is about overall quality of play.

Do you happen to have a list of the current top players and how long it took each of them to make it to the top 16?

sickpotter wrote:"As for the ones who "faded" they didn't stop playing. They just slided down the rankings.

Mike Hallet (born 59) was 7th in 1990, 17 in 1992, 23 in 1994
Dean Reynolds (born 63) was 8th in 1990, 19 in 1992, 29 in 1994
Steve James (born 61) 9th in 1990, 10 in 1192, 17 in 1994
Martin Clark (born 68) 12th in 1990, 12 in 1992, 18 in 1994
Tony Meo (born 59) 15th in 1990, 38 in 1992, 69 in 1994
Alain Robidoux (born 1960) 16th in 1990, 14 in 1992, 32 in 1994"

That they slid down the rankings is not in doubt but you have no idea why they slid down the rankings and assume it has to do with a better field. Heaven forbid it was because they developed other priorities, had personal issues or just plain no longer enjoyed the game to the same degree they did when they were younger. All I'm saying is that suggesting these players fell down the rankings solely because of a new breed of player is not backed by anything but your opinion until the players themselves tell us what they think.

I can state for a fact that one of those listed did not stop playing or slide down the rankings due to tougher players. Robidoux slid down the rankings because of two main factors. 1st because his cue maker smashed his life-long cue and refused to make him a new one and 2nd because he couldn't deal with living away from friends and family for extended periods.

2 young/new players enjoyed major victories in the 90's Ronnie and John. In the 00's we had only Ding show that he was capable of that level of play. Why do I need to name more than Ding? Two coming good in the 90's vs one in the 00's...not exactly a huge difference.

As far as making late stages into their 40's, Davis managed some pretty good runs in events at 50. Does than mean the field is weaker than when 40 year olds were making the latter stages?

post of the decade

WILD AND SICK

moaning abour silly weak era discussions

GJtheaussiestud wrote:WILD AND SICK

moaning abour silly weak era discussions

no thats not what sickpotter saying.

its far to easy to label decline on stronger players without being inside those players heads you me or sickpotter will never know why players fade away.

what we discussing here who the best higgins is ?

im not old enough to remember alex higgins in his prime years but also not an idiot to dismiss his talent

there are always clips of him on youtube he didnt have great cueball control but he was an inventive genius he still had an all round game he wasnt just a potter and he would scrap not give up like some of todays generation when things arent going well

he was also the main man why many people were hooked on snooker when players like jimmy white say they took up snooker because of alex higgins that tells you a lot

gary lineker summed him up well when he say alex higgins was a true genius of snooker hes a huge fan of snooker steve davis just a few years ago said alex higgins is the one true genius snooker has produced

i was shocked because he even included jimmy white and ronnie o sullivan but never took what he said lightly

alex higgins played shots people could only dream of and won all the events even though not as much as john higgins however it would be interesting to see what impact both would have had had their birthdates been reversed and john was alex age and vise versa

so i would say its difficult either way to say conclusively one is better than the other not sure if the finer cloths of today would help or hinder alex because the faster cloths would have helped his positional play but at the same time faster cloths are brutal if youre off your game a little bit

john higgins now you all know what i think of him as a player ive never ever denied he a great player if i did say that here prove it to me

john higgins an all weather player he can scrap play good safety good shot selection and scores heavy big game player probably the best allround player thats ever lived

so all in all i would probably edge it to john though i cant say with full confidence for the reasons mentioned above

case_master wrote:

thetubberlad wrote:Case... you've really shut me up quality reply my man...

........no offense taken I hope

By no means

Their opponents were also strong match players. That's what I have been told ad nauseam. So they were better match players, or better players full stop. It's not about the young players of today. If you look at the rankings when the game was opened there was almost a complete overhaul within a 4-5 years time frame. The players who entered between 1990 and 1993 filled the top ranks irrespective of the fact that they were experienced amateurs - like Harold, Swail, Ebdon, Doherty and more - or new talented kids on the block like Higgins, ROS and Williams. They were simply better than the old crop that had been protected too long by a closed game. Of course the likes of Hendry, Parrott, White, Davis who were really top players stayed at the top but the others, the vast majority slided down because they were not good enough or not good enough anymore (nobody will suggest that Taylor, Griffith, Thorburn were not top players, but like Davis today they were past it). It's really as simple as that.
John Higgins 3 seasons (entered 92)
Neil Robertson 8 seasons (entered 98)
Mark J Williams 4 seasons (entered 92)
Ding Junhui 5 seasons (entered 2003)
Shaun Murphy 8 seasons (entered 1998)
Mark Selby 9 seasons (entered 1999)
Ali Carter 10 seasons (entered 1996)
Stephen Maguire 7 seasons (entered 1998)
Ronnie O'Sullivan 2 seasons (entered 1992)
Graeme Dott 7 seasons (entered 1994)
Mark Allen 4 seasons (entered 2005)
Peter Ebdon 3 seasons (entered 1991)
Jamie Cope 9 seasons (entered 2001)
Stephen Hendry 3 seasons(entered 1985)
Ricky Walden 10 seasons (entered 2000)
Mark King 7 seasons (entered 1991)

I think the pattern is clear: the ones who entered before 1995 progressed on average a lot quicker up the rankings than the ones who entered during the 1996-2005 bracket and that's simply because the opposition was a lot weaker. We have 2 exceptions Ding who was rather fast (but still slower than Swail or Harold despite being a muc better player) and King who was rather slow (but still not slower than Dott or Murphy who are both World Champions)

im not sure what the argument is here even though a lot of interesting reading

i been following the game for 25 years first match i went to was when john parrott beat jimmy white at the masters semi final in 1989 i remember feeling sick but that night told me something i love snooker because jimmy losing hurt me so bad

i think over the years generally speaking ive noticed two things

on a general level the players of the 1980s and early nineties are better matchplayers than the crop of today however breakbuilding standard again generally speaking now its at an unprecedented level

lots of players today winning a lot of frames in one visit i think stephen hendry changed all this when he came through he invented all out attacking snooker

players in the eighties played strategic snooker it didnt matter if the frames were won in one visit or ten visits the norm was a few visits but they could all scrap

hendry thought why hang around and win frames in five visits when they can be won in one visit he invented the stun and screw shot from the blue scattering all the reds open left right and centre

so that forced players to change their thinking that why today you have players all wanting to win in one visit however i mention this before when players today cant win in one visit they fade

this includes the majority of players like allen cope liang maguire carter and the like

very few players are of the old school brigade such as selby ding and robertson they can mix and match when things not going well

so i dont know for sure if the standard is higher today than in the eighties or early nineties

breakbulding definitely higher i got no qualms with that pal but safety play shot selection tactics hard matchplay i think that standard was higher in the eighties and early nineties

forgot to add you can put players i see like jimmy white steve davis stephen hendry ronnie o sullivan mark willams john higgins in any era their standard would still stand

jimmy i think would have prospered on the faster cloth and benefitted playing against a more all out attacking generation

steve davis today would hold his own against todays players even if he played his conservative style against todays players im sure of that even as an old man in his late forties and early fifties hes been reaching ranking event finals and semi finals despite his breakbuilding not being there

hendry today would be be winning titles no doubt about it hes as mentally strong as they come

as for the class of 92 look at what they doing today i dont really need to sing their praises

people been saying mark williams not been playing great last week benefitting from an easy draw

to some extent i agree his first few matches he had so called weaker opposition but if you look at his performances in 2010 you can understand why hes such a great all round player

hes won the china open beating ding in the final

he lose the semi finals of both the masters and world open in deciding frames then of course the uk final against higgins he should have won

that just goes to show to some extent how one dimensional some of these younger players are williams been proving you can have huge success even when you not got your a game and the younger players need to take a leaf out of his and john higgins book on how win when not playing at your best and not being afraid to use a snooker brain

Alex was a truly wonderful showman and at times match player, but of course half the time his game didn`t turn up.
John Higgins is a wonderful model of consistency and is a huge match player. Different eras which fortunatley were very different otherwise sam old would be boring.
I think the era debate is a strange one. I`ve heard people say the 90s was a weak era which is a joke. Even in the pro-ams you`d knock down one amateur worthy of a tv debut and another would be waiting on the next table WHEREVER you went to play, the standard was terrific.

If the standard was terrific in the early 90th (I never challenged the very high standard of the second half of the decade) then you will have to explain to me how it comes all those guys couldn't live with the newcomers, the Doherty's, Ebdon, even Swail and Harold when they entered the game. Again I'm not targeting the very top: Hendry, Davis, Parrott and White. I'm also not challenging the quality of the "old guard", the 80th players, Taylor, Griffith etc, they were very hard players and great players, but they were past their best by a long way. The fact that they were still there in the top 16 is again testimony of the rather weak general standard. Hendry is the best player of all times, he's 5 years younger than Grigffith was in 94 and he's struggling badly to stay in there. Nobody beats time, not even the best.
And yes in pro-ams I do believe you, the standard was very high because that's were the likes of Doherty and Ebdon and many others who entered the game after 91 were competing, not on the MT that was closed and probably of a lesser standard than the amateur circuit around 1990.

Monique I'm talking about when the game was opened up and allowed in Ebdon etc. Sorry if I wasn't clear. For a few years before the amateur game was loaded with players that could have taken on the old guard earlier. Many of that old guard went into free fall as soon as the best of the amateurs battled through Blackpool.

excuses?

gallantrabbit wrote:Monique I'm talking about when the game was opened up and allowed in Ebdon etc. Sorry if I wasn't clear. For a few years before the amateur game was loaded with players that could have taken on the old guard earlier. Many of that old guard went into free fall as soon as the best of the amateurs battled through Blackpool.

Well then we agree completely. Ebdon entered in 1991, like many. All players even the very best need a bit of time to get used to the MT and climb the rankings. Even Hendry did. So that leads us into the mid 90th before the newcomers reached the top of the rankings and knocked-out the players who were there protected by their seeding but not half as good as they were.
If you look at my posts above you will see the newcomers were pretty quick to climb. Many reached the top 16 after 3 season (that is in their 4th one), that's as fast as Hendry did it. For Ebdon and others entering in 1991, that was 1994/95. ROS did it in 2 seasons, so 1994/95 also, he was only 18. John Higgins got there in 1995/96. So defo in the mid 90th the situation had changed completely and the strongest era of snooker started. An era nobody dominated and when the "big four" shared the best of titles.

no mention of robbo struggling to adapt away from home SO THE TURNING PRO IN 98 STAT IS POINTLESS

so i say he turned pro properly the 2nd time he came to uk

Monique wrote:If the standard was terrific in the early 90th (I never challenged the very high standard of the second half of the decade) then you will have to explain to me how it comes all those guys couldn't live with the newcomers, the Doherty's, Ebdon, even Swail and Harold when they entered the game. Again I'm not targeting the very top: Hendry, Davis, Parrott and White. I'm also not challenging the quality of the "old guard", the 80th players, Taylor, Griffith etc, they were very hard players and great players, but they were past their best by a long way. The fact that they were still there in the top 16 is again testimony of the rather weak general standard. Hendry is the best player of all times, he's 5 years younger than Grigffith was in 94 and he's struggling badly to stay in there. Nobody beats time, not even the best.
And yes in pro-ams I do believe you, the standard was very high because that's were the likes of Doherty and Ebdon and many others who entered the game after 91 were competing, not on the MT that was closed and probably of a lesser standard than the amateur circuit around 1990.

Monique

your Generalizing without any Facts.

you could argue David Gray is past it at 30 where John Higgins is Better at 35.

in 1997 Terry Griffiths was a frame away from beating Mark Williams in the World Championship in 1993 or 1994 Stephen Hendry Hammered Terry in the WC.

your saying in 1997 Terry was a worst Player than he was in 1994 but he still managed to push a Ranking Event Winner to the Brink.

GJtheaussiestud wrote:no mention of robbo struggling to adapt away from home SO THE TURNING PRO IN 98 STAT IS POINTLESS

so i say he turned pro properly the 2nd time he came to uk

No it's not pointless and it's not a dig at Neil neither. It just shows that the overall environment was more competitive in 1998 than it was in 1990 and as such event excellent players took longer to adapt ant to climb.

wildJONESEYE wrote:

Monique wrote:If the standard was terrific in the early 90th (I never challenged the very high standard of the second half of the decade) then you will have to explain to me how it comes all those guys couldn't live with the newcomers, the Doherty's, Ebdon, even Swail and Harold when they entered the game. Again I'm not targeting the very top: Hendry, Davis, Parrott and White. I'm also not challenging the quality of the "old guard", the 80th players, Taylor, Griffith etc, they were very hard players and great players, but they were past their best by a long way. The fact that they were still there in the top 16 is again testimony of the rather weak general standard. Hendry is the best player of all times, he's 5 years younger than Grigffith was in 94 and he's struggling badly to stay in there. Nobody beats time, not even the best.
And yes in pro-ams I do believe you, the standard was very high because that's were the likes of Doherty and Ebdon and many others who entered the game after 91 were competing, not on the MT that was closed and probably of a lesser standard than the amateur circuit around 1990.

Monique

your Generalizing without any Facts.

you could argue David Gray is past it at 30 where John Higgins is Better at 35.

in 1997 Terry Griffiths was a frame away from beating Mark Williams in the World Championship in 1993 or 1994 Stephen Hendry Hammered Terry in the WC.

your saying in 1997 Terry was a worst Player than he was in 1994 but he still managed to push a Ranking Event Winner to the Brink.

I'm not generalising at all. It's you taking one particular match and generalising. Stephen Hendry lost 0-9 to Marcus Campbell in 1998 and that was not a reflection of his general form or where he stayed in his career: he won the WC the next year and made another WC final in 2002. So that good match of Griifith does not nessarilty reflect on his general form at the time. When 2/3 of the top 16 slides down the rankings within 3-4 years after the game was opened and are replaced by the new entrants, that's a fact and that is a significative trend. This is what happened between 1990 and 1994. And very significantly some of the greats of the 80th resisted, Griffith notably, but the younger players like James, Hallet, Reynolds, Meo, Robidoux ... all went down and were replaced by the likes of Ebdon, Swail, Doherty, Bond and ROS ... and yes Robidoux did return, but he's the only ine who did.

As for David Gray, yes he was past it at 30 but everyone with a bit of knowledge of the facts knows why.

Stephen Hendry was past it in 1998 yes its testimony to his greatness that hes managed to win since

and theres other reasons as to why other players decline not only David Gray.

wildJONESEYE wrote:Stephen Hendry was past it in 1998 yes its testimony to his greatness that hes managed to win since

and theres other reasons as to why other players decline not only David Gray.

Stephen Hendry was NOT past it. He wasn't 30, won it again in 1999 and made the final in 2002. He just couldn't dominate anymore because there were more players close to his standard, 3 actually very, very close. And that's what Hendry himself said many times including in a very recent interview. You don't like it but it's how it is.
That doesn't take anything from his achievements and everyone with sense will know he's the greatest, but in the strongest era of the game he couldn't dominate because he had stronger opposition and not because he was "past it". If anything, yes, he was not used to be beaten that often and his confidence went down, but again that was due to stronger opposition.

monique in 1998 Hendry was maybee past it a bit strong but he was nowhere near the consistent level of before he actually lost 3 matches that season to Drago something hes never done before or since.

players no matter who goes through peaks and troffs some come back from the brink like Mark Williams and others continue declining and cant get back the love for the game or form.

its to easy to put labels on players and when they have to start declining or peaking its a individual thing for them.

Well Monique, you've got your take on the situation and I have mine.

IMO because we don't know for a fact why a player drops down the ranking it's a pretty big assumption to attribute it solely to stronger opposition. There are just too many reasons why a pro's game or desire can go out the window beyond the available competition.

You say that the field is tougher now and that's why it's taken the likes of Selby, Murphy, etc. a longer time to break into the top 16 than it took some others in the early 90's.

I believe it's taken those players longer because they were tactically weaker and until they got enough experience at the top level, couldn't break through.

So be it

Sickpotter that's not what I say. I say the field was stronger in the 1996-2005 bracket than it was around 1990. That's what I say. And that it's probably again weaker now than in that same era 1996-2005, although there is still more strength in depth than there was around 1990.

Monique wrote:Sickpotter that's not what I say. I say the field was stronger in the 1996-2005 bracket than it was around 1990. That's what I say. And that it's probably again weaker now than in that same era 1996-2005, although there is still more strength in depth than there was around 1990.

Thats why i braught up David Gray he was a Ranking Event winner and a UK Runner up between that time scale 96 to 05 then he faded away was it because of age no it wasent it was because of other things.

Just because Players at the early 90s was older that doesn't make them automatically weaker just older.

Players in the 80s relied on ring craft and that doesn't dessert you.

i can 110% Guarantee you Steve James did not retire due to better players he had diabetes and theres others thats left because of other issue apart from age.

John Parrott has gone on record saying he couldn't be bother to put in the hours after the Kids came along.

Monique seriously if you think Judd Trump or those players is the indication of Strength in depth then you are mistaken badly

yes they better potters and break builders but are they better players i dont think so they about equal with different strengths and weaknesses in their game.

And David Gray I'm afraid has got a very serious drinking problem or he would still be a force.
Wild I agree that players might retire or go down for other reasons than age or just weakness and that's why I dind't mention Neil Foulds for instance who had well documented health issues. But when it happens to 10 players out of 16 and that the time coincides with a massive arrival of newcomers because of a change in structure of the tour then frankly I struggle to believe it's just coincidence, especially when those newcomers climb the ranking quite rapidly.
And you always come up with Judd Trump, he's not the only young player in the MT and besides he's better than you give him credit for because you expected too much of him from the start.

Well Monique, I think when looking at how long it takes to make top 16, using Ronnie/John/Mark's results as a comparison is going to provide a skewed result.

You're saying that 90-95 was weak citing Ronnie/John rapid rise to the top 16 as proof.

What that analysis ignores is that you're looking at exceptional players, not the norm. I would expect players of their quality to rise rapidly in the rankings no matter what the field is. Were Ronnie to have come on the scene now I'd bet they'd rise just as quickly.

All I'm saying is that one can't automatically attribute rapid rise in the rankings as the result of a weak field or rapid fall as the result of a strong one.