Post a reply

Whos the best?

Alex
6
50%
John
6
50%
 
Total votes : 12

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby Monique » 15 Dec 2010 Read

sickpotter wrote: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.


I cited Swail and Harold as well and they climbed just as fast. They were NO exceptional players. 3 seasons for Swail, 4 seasons for Harold.

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby Wildey » 15 Dec 2010 Read

sickpotter wrote: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.

totally agree Ronnie in 1993 was so much better than todays youngsters because he had to be to get past so fast . journeymen and hardened campaigners who was like granit

Look at Qualifiers Today youngsters are struggling to get past that sort of player i dont think Ronnie would have.

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby Sickpotter » 15 Dec 2010 Read

Not exceptional no but consistent with their play and thus their results.

Something else that's huge in determining a player's rise is their experience/ability to deal with pressure relative to those they're playing.

Early in the game the norm was to spend years gaining experience and learning to handle the pressure of money matches which left even the average players in good stead as they moved into the pressure of the MT.

That whole method of "training" has disappeared and so now players need longer to get used to the game at the top.

Anyway, it's fine. You've got your take and I've got mine. Nothing says we have to agree with each others views ;)

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby Monique » 15 Dec 2010 Read

wildJONESEYE wrote:
sickpotter wrote: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.

totally agree Ronnie in 1993 was so much better than todays youngsters because he had to be to get past so fast . journeymen and hardened campaigners who was like granit

Look at Qualifiers Today youngsters are struggling to get past that sort of player i dont think Ronnie would have.


What about Harold and Swail Wild? Do you really think they were better that Selby, Murphy or Robertson for instance? Yet in the early 90th they got to the top 16 in 3 and 4 seasons respectively while the others, 2 of them being WC needed twice as much or more. Sorry but it DOES say something about the field at the time as compared to 1996-2005.

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby Sickpotter » 15 Dec 2010 Read

Monique wrote:
wildJONESEYE wrote:
sickpotter wrote: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.

totally agree Ronnie in 1993 was so much better than todays youngsters because he had to be to get past so fast . journeymen and hardened campaigners who was like granit

Look at Qualifiers Today youngsters are struggling to get past that sort of player i dont think Ronnie would have.


What about Harold and Swail Wild? Do you really think they were better that Selby, Murphy or Robertson for instance? Yet in the early 90th they got to the top 16 in 3 and 4 seasons respectively while the others, 2 of them being WC needed twice as much or more. Sorry but it DOES say something about the field at the time as compared to 1996-2005.


Not Wild but I'll put in my 2 cents.

Yes, I do think Harold and Swail were better match players when they entered the MT compared to Selby, Murphy or Robertson. I don't think they're stronger players now than Selby, Murphy or Robertson but I do believe when they intially joined the MT they were more experienced and thus rose more quickly.

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby GJ » 15 Dec 2010 Read

the only reasn they did better than robbo is the FACT they didt have to move the half the way around the world and settle in a new country

FACT

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby Witz78 » 15 Dec 2010 Read

GJtheaussiestud wrote:the only reasn they did better than robbo is the FACT they didt have to move the half the way around the world and settle in a new country

FACT


Ding managed to settle pretty quickly :chin:

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby GJ » 15 Dec 2010 Read

Witz78 wrote:
GJtheaussiestud wrote:the only reasn they did better than robbo is the FACT they didt have to move the half the way around the world and settle in a new country

FACT


Ding managed to settle pretty quickly :chin:


he practiced with alot of his chinese friends and has always been good pals with wenbo and practiced with them all so it was easier fo rhim to settle in uk

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby Bourne » 15 Dec 2010 Read

Yeh but Wenbo wasn't around 5 years ago at this level, Ding was the only one for a couple of years but still won a few titles quickly. <ok>

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby GJ » 15 Dec 2010 Read

Bourne wrote:Yeh but Wenbo wasn't around 5 years ago at this level, Ding was the only one for a couple of years but still won a few titles quickly. <ok>



fair enough

but robbo had alot of issue when he was younger as showed in his interview last year in the interval of a match with higgins i think it was on

and being half way around the world also wouldnt have helped him

IMO

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby Witz78 » 15 Dec 2010 Read

Surely itd be easier for Robbo than Ding, after all its only lately Dings actually started became a fluent English speaker.

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby GJ » 15 Dec 2010 Read

Witz78 wrote:Surely itd be easier for Robbo than Ding, after all its only lately Dings actually started became a fluent English speaker.



anyone who saw the enlighting interview with robbo would know what im talking about

:)

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby Monique » 15 Dec 2010 Read

sickpotter wrote:
Monique wrote:
wildJONESEYE wrote:
sickpotter wrote: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.

totally agree Ronnie in 1993 was so much better than todays youngsters because he had to be to get past so fast . journeymen and hardened campaigners who was like granit

Look at Qualifiers Today youngsters are struggling to get past that sort of player i dont think Ronnie would have.


What about Harold and Swail Wild? Do you really think they were better that Selby, Murphy or Robertson for instance? Yet in the early 90th they got to the top 16 in 3 and 4 seasons respectively while the others, 2 of them being WC needed twice as much or more. Sorry but it DOES say something about the field at the time as compared to 1996-2005.


Not Wild but I'll put in my 2 cents.

Yes, I do think Harold and Swail were better match players when they entered the MT compared to Selby, Murphy or Robertson. I don't think they're stronger players now than Selby, Murphy or Robertson but I do believe when they intially joined the MT they were more experienced and thus rose more quickly.


Fair enough sickpotter. As you said each of us has their take and I thought it was an interesting debate.

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby Sickpotter » 15 Dec 2010 Read

GJtheaussiestud wrote:the only reasn they did better than robbo is the FACT they didt have to move the half the way around the world and settle in a new country

FACT


I'm sure that has some effect on the player but I wouldn't suggest it's the only factor, I believe Robbo did have less high level match experience than Swail or Harold when he reached the tour.

Does anyone have the ages of the players when they joined the tour? IMO the younger you are when you join the tour the more likely it is that it's going to take a while to get up to speed, you just haven't been around enough to aquire the necessary experience.

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby Witz78 » 15 Dec 2010 Read

GJtheaussiestud wrote:
Witz78 wrote:Surely itd be easier for Robbo than Ding, after all its only lately Dings actually started became a fluent English speaker.



anyone who saw the enlighting interview with robbo would know what im talking about

:)


ahh this one? fair enough then <ok>

Image

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby Monique » 15 Dec 2010 Read

Swail was 22, Harold nearly 25. Yes they certainly were more experienced than the ones who entered as mere kids.

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby Wildey » 15 Dec 2010 Read

yes its Fair Point Ding Junhui did in 2005 what Ronnie did in 1993 so not much has changed really in that time when a superb 17 year old player breaks through they can win Tournaments no matter when it was.

Re: The best Higgins?

Postby Smart » 15 Dec 2010 Read

Witz78 wrote:
GJtheaussiestud wrote:
Witz78 wrote:Surely itd be easier for Robbo than Ding, after all its only lately Dings actually started became a fluent English speaker.



anyone who saw the enlighting interview with robbo would know what im talking about

:)


ahh this one? fair enough then <ok>

Image

<laugh> :wave:

Hurricane wins 6-5.

Lock this thread now admin. :idea: <cool> :idea: <cool>
Post a reply