The best Higgins?

thetubberlad wrote:

Witz78 wrote:Alex wins just based on these infamous comments

"Well Chaps, I would like to announce my retirement from professional snooker … I don't want to be part of a cartel. I don't want to be part of a game where there are slush funds for everybody… If Derek Jameson, for instance, can leave the News of the World and go to Sky TV there has to be a place for me in this life… There are an awful lot of people running about this world who put their kids through certain schools, feeder schools, grammar schools, and you get absolute tossers doing jobs for exorbitant money, well, I don't really want to be part of it… You can shove snooker up your jacksie, I'm not playing no more and it's not sour grapes, nothing, it's the truth … I wish Cecil Parkinson and Maggie Thatcher would do a probe into snooker, then we would find out the real truth. The Hurricane doesn't want to be part of this tripe, no disrespect to northern people because I like tripe… I'm not going to break the cue because I like the cue, but it is a corrupt game… Rock on Tommy…"

I thought he cut a really pathetic figure to be honest with that rant... as much as I liked Alex

the pathetic ones were Colin Randle, Rex Williams and the rest of the chinless wonders running the show back then

Higgins spoke a lot of sense in that interview and everyone from Everton to Davis conceded that there were undertones of truth in what Alex aluded to and this probably contributed to the authorities throwing the book at Alex more than he deserved.

Alex gets a year ban for a jab to the ribs of one guy
John only gets half a year for a slap in the face to all of snooker

Steve Davis on John Higgins' UK victory
"You've seen a performance by the greatest player this game has seen"

I think hes almost right..okay hendry has been more successful than higgins, but as an all round player that will still be competing well into his 5os, higgins is simply the best.

Higgins was not the best player of the nineties... Hendry was, by a mile.

Higgins was not the best player of the noughties... O'Sullivan was. (three worlds to two, 2 uk's to one, 3 Masters to one, sixteen rankers to eight)

Hendry is the SIMPLY the best. O'Sullivan is better too. How can Higgins be the best ever if he's not even been the best player over the course of a decade? Clearly?

I do see where you coming from, but i feel if you put higgins or o sullivan in that matter, into the 90s without hendry, they would have been equally successful because the competition wasnt high, like today.

randam05 wrote:I do see where you coming from, but i feel if you put higgins or o sullivan in that matter, into the 90s without hendry, they would have been equally successful because the competition wasnt high, like today.

But you see, you can't do that...

1. Hendry

2. O'Sullivan
3. Higgins
4. Davis

5. Williams

thetubberlad wrote:

randam05 wrote:I do see where you coming from, but i feel if you put higgins or o sullivan in that matter, into the 90s without hendry, they would have been equally successful because the competition wasnt high, like today.

But you see, you can't do that...

1. Hendry

2. O'Sullivan
3. Higgins
4. Davis

5. Williams

is that by stats? cause that seems about right to me..

Nope. I don't believe in stats at all... as a legendary gaelic games poster by the name of Rebel Bhoy always said, you can use stats to prove anything... and for once I agreed with him

Look, I should probably give your opinion more respect, but I've always found Higgins a tad overated (and yes, O'Sullivan is too). It's Hendry every time, from O'Sullivan, from Higgins. Higgins is brilliant, I don't want to be too hard on him, but he's still third in my mind.

thetubberlad wrote:Nope. I don't believe in stats at all... as a legendary gaelic games poster by the name of Rebel Bhoy always said, you can use stats to prove anything... and for once I agreed with him

Look, I should probably give your opinion more respect, but I've always found Higgins a tad overated (and yes, O'Sullivan is too). It's Hendry every time, from O'Sullivan, from Higgins. Higgins is brilliant, I don't want to be too hard on him, but he's still third in my mind.

I suppose 3rd is correct, anything more would be exaggerating, not 3rd in my favourites list though.

My favourites list (roughly)...

1. O'Sullivan or Stevens (he has gone missing in recent years)

3. White
4. Williams
5. Doherty
6. Ding
7. Robertson
8. Hunter
9. Selby
10. Allen

1. williams
2. selby
3. murphy
4. robertson
5. o sullivan
6. higgins
7.ebdon
8. doherty
9. swail
10. allen

This argument Ronnie and Alex achieved with less effort.
John Higgins was drunk out for five years. Compare Alex Higgins and Steve Davis, overall Steve Davis tanked Higgins. John would have done the same to Alex.
It’s a shame for Alex though, he was born in the wrong generation, I think it’s fair to say he would have fared better on today’s table. Unfortunately we will never know.

I would say whilst I think John is by far the better player, snooker owes everything to Alex Higgins, who he was, his talent at the time and what he brought to the game.
On a final note I am snake hissed off with people saying they are snake hissed off at Higgins being compared to Ronnie. Over the last three years john has closed the gap in terms of career achievements. Yes is still ahead for sure, but its that close if John were to win a 4th World title his career achievements would tip the balance. Not to mention his all round ability that he has had from day 1.
I am also snake hissed off that people dismiss Higgins and say he tried alot harder than Ronnie and achieved less. At the minute he has achieved less but Higgins was off the rails for 5 years, just think what he would have won if he had the dedication of the last three years.

Oh and another thing had the NOTW story broke about Ronnie…would I have defended him? Not on your life. When I defend John I defend his conduct and the person I believe him to be over the last 17-18 years. There are plenty of snooker players I would have believed and plenty I wouldn’t. I had no problem in believing Maguire was up to no good. However if the story broke about Murphy or Marco Fu I would equally defend them like Higgins.

I used to rank John as the best existing workman-like foil for the brilliant O'Sullivan.
Now he slithers in just slightly behind Hann. Quinten was more "honest" .

So, Alex it is for me.


=o|

Noel

case_master wrote:This argument Ronnie and Alex achieved with less effort.
John Higgins was drunk out for five years. Compare Alex Higgins and Steve Davis, overall Steve Davis tanked Higgins. John would have done the same to Alex.
It’s a shame for Alex though, he was born in the wrong generation, I think it’s fair to say he would have fared better on today’s table. Unfortunately we will never know.

I would say whilst I think John is by far the better player, snooker owes everything to Alex Higgins, who he was, his talent at the time and what he brought to the game.
On a final note I am drunk / annoyed american off with people saying they are drunk / annoyed american off at Higgins being compared to Ronnie. Over the last three years john has closed the gap in terms of career achievements. Yes is still ahead for sure, but its that close if John were to win a 4th World title his career achievements would tip the balance. Not to mention his all round ability that he has had from day 1.
I am also drunk / annoyed american off that people dismiss Higgins and say he tried alot harder than Ronnie and achieved less. At the minute he has achieved less but Higgins was off the rails for 5 years, just think what he would have won if he had the dedication of the last three years.

Oh and another thing had the NOTW story broke about Ronnie…would I have defended him? Not on your life. When I defend John I defend his conduct and the person I believe him to be over the last 17-18 years. There are plenty of snooker players I would have believed and plenty I wouldn’t. I had no problem in believing Maguire was up to no good. However if the story broke about Murphy or Marco Fu I would equally defend them like Higgins.

That's the key word. Believe. It's about what you believe without knowing the persons except through the public image that they have built for themselves but doesn't always reflect on who they really are, quite the opposite sometimes. And I'm targeting no one in particular here.

IMO, that's just Davis trying to keep the game hype high more than a true statement on how he feels about John as a player. Hasn't he spouted the same stuff after a Ronnie win? I'm not saying he doesn't have huge respect for him but I think that was just an emotional reaction comment more than a statement of opinion.

Randam, don't get into the whole era debate. Both John and Ronnie were picking up titles during that "weak" 90's era but couldn't dominate. Jimmy White, John Parrott, Peter Ebdon and many other quality players were about and among those "dying" 80' s players were many players who are far superior tactically/better match players than most of today's crop. I know everyone likes to talk about how todays game is so much stronger but I think that's more of a perception than a reality.

Sickpotter to me the first half of the 90th was a relatively weak era. At the end of that first half ROS, Higgins and Williams were only 20 and yet ROS and Higgins both had won majors. Do you see that happen today? The likes of Denis Taylor, Terry Griffith were still reaching the latter stages of major tournament well into their forthies. Do you see that happen today? Look where Hendry, 7 times a world champion stands. Ebdon and Doherty only entered the game in 1991 and 1990 respectively. The fact that they climbed the ranking so quickly is testimony of their talent but also of the relative weakness of the opposition they had. Yes there was a handfull of very good players around, and of course Hendry, but below the top 8 the standard was much much lower than it is today.

Dave Hendon once nailed it on the head, the 90’s weren’t necessarily weaker, just different. That’s from the guy who spent an enormous amount of time at the qualifiers and seen these players straight up

case_master wrote:Dave Hendon once nailed it on the head, the 90’s weren’t necessarily weaker, just different. That’s from the guy who spent an enormous amount of time at the qualifiers and seen these players straight up

Case to me the 90th from 1995 or 1996 on were probably the strongest era ever , actually the 1996-2005 decade was. But have a look at who was ranked in top 16 in 1990, how old they were and what they achieved. There were great players from the 80th there but they were well past their best, there were of course Hendry, Parrott, Davis and White. But the others just faded away when the game was opened because they weren't good enough to contain the likes of Ebdon and Doherty or even Joe Swail and Dave Harold.

I might agree that below the top 8 strength is greater today but only in a one dimensional aspect. I don't believe for a second todays crop are mentally or tactically as tough as those from 85-95 were.

"At the end of that first half ROS, Higgins and Williams were only 20 and yet ROS and Higgins both had won majors. Do you see that happen today? " Does the name Ding ring any bells?

"But the others just faded away when the game was opened because they weren't good enough to contain the likes of Ebdon and Doherty or even Joe Swail and Dave Harold."

That is pure specualtion/opinion unless you happen to have spoken with them to find out why they stopped playing, tougher players isn't necessarily the reason.

GJtheaussiestud wrote:option 1

DJ Hater

GJ

Witz78 wrote:No contest, Alex for me.

John is just a gritty modern robot.

Alex is the man that made snooker what it is today and played shots John and everyone else can only dream of.

Alex would never fix a match.

Hurricane

DJ

GJtheaussiestud wrote:ALEX

I think the Hurricane was more of a fans player. He drank, shagged, fought physically and did all the things a proper Peoples Champ would do PLUS he has an electrically charged type of game full of twitches and movement.

Noel wrote:I used to rank John as the best existing workman-like foil for the brilliant O'Sullivan.
Now he slithers in just slightly behind Hann. Quinten was more "honest" .

So, Alex it is for me.

=o|

Noel

Welcome aboard to the CHEATBUSTERS gang Noel.

Im sure you already know the other members of this clique, myself, GJ, Stalin, GrumpyDavros and jojo

Witz - you need a new avatar.

MM

Witz78 wrote:

Noel wrote:I used to rank John as the best existing workman-like foil for the brilliant O'Sullivan.
Now he slithers in just slightly behind Hann. Quinten was more "honest" .

So, Alex it is for me.

=o|

Noel

Welcome aboard to the CHEATBUSTERS gang Noel.

Im sure you already know the other members of this clique, myself, GJ, Stalin, GrumpyDavros and jojo

sickpotter wrote:I might agree that below the top 8 strength is greater today but only in a one dimensional aspect. I don't believe for a second todays crop are mentally or tactically as tough as those from 85-95 were.

"At the end of that first half ROS, Higgins and Williams were only 20 and yet ROS and Higgins both had won majors. Do you see that happen today? " Does the name Ding ring any bells?

"But the others just faded away when the game was opened because they weren't good enough to contain the likes of Ebdon and Doherty or even Joe Swail and Dave Harold."

That is pure specualtion/opinion unless you happen to have spoken with them to find out why they stopped playing, tougher players isn't necessarily the reason.

Yes Ding rings a bell and he's the only one. Mark Allen is 24, Selby only started to make an impact at 25, Murphy at 23. Cope is nowhere. Trump is 20 and hasn't won anything of note.

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

Do I need to go on?
They were hardly old men and none of those guys had any great impact on the game isn't it?

Terry Griffith and Willie Thorne who were much older were still in the top 16 in 1994 and yes they were excellent players, but not better than Hendry unless you tell me they were? Terry was 47 in 1994!

Doherty, Ebdo, Higgins reached the top 16 in their 4th season, ROS in his 3th. Do you think that could happen today? Yes again Ding, but again he's the only one.

Monique.

Dont forget that Robidoux rose back up after 1994 though infact making the semis of the 1997 WC !!

Witz78 wrote:Monique.

Dont forget that Robidoux rose back up after 1994 though infact making the semis of the 1997 WC !!

OK and the others?

come on witz get a new avatar

Who is that in profile pic?

a pakistan cricketer

"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?