Who is better? Wattana or Carter? (Another eras debate zzz)

Wild wrote:Monique

there no proof at all the late 80s and early 90s players was worst just different ...

we know the problems Ronnie has had with Grinders over the years just because the 80s or 90s players wasn't seen as good doesent meen they wasent just they played a different game from today.

But it's a FACT, not an opinion that those players couldn't live neither with Hendry, nor with the generation that was inspired by him and entered in the first half of the 90th. So you can turn in every possible way, they did spiral down the rankings when the game was opened and never came back. That's not an opinion, it's fact. And I'm not speaking about Taylor, Griffith or Thorburn ... they, in fact resisted rather well and they were no more in their prime, I'm speaking about the others, the Wilkinson, Dean Reynolds, Martin Clark, Tony Meo ...

And I never brought Ronnie in this debate BTW.

Hendry was exceptional you take 70% of todays Top Players back in time and they would get frustrated they would find it very tough going.

today you get in by a long pot missed most times Back then Terry Griffiths would refuse a vast majority of pots that today in commentary he thinks a player should take.

Look at Ding i doubt he could have coped in the 80s and early 90s Mark Selby on the other hand could have.

You can't possibly know how they would have coped because they would have served their apprenticeship in the context and conditions of the time. And same is true of course for the players from yesteryears if they were playing today.
So I don't know who is best from Wattana or Carter, because that would be comparing players who are not competing at their best under the same context and conditions. I'd say they are pretty close, and that is an opinion and nothing more than an opinion.
My problem with this particular thread is the purpose it has been started for. We all know what I'm talking about, considering the opinion expressed repeatedly by the author about Carter before.
James Wattana was certainly an excellent player, but IMO, not a top top player and that is what his tally reflects. That doesn't take anything from what he did for the game in his country and in Asia in general. And I want to stress that he is a very nice person and a true gentleman also.

i think neither can be classed as a top top player but i would give james the edge overall

Is this thread still going ? Who IS better, Carter, obviously ... where is Wattana ?

Players come and go in every era/decade and the 90's was no different. You could levy the same charge at the 00's as in what has happened to players ranked in the top echelons in 2005 who fell away such as Matthew Stevens, Stephen Lee, Ken Doherty, Alan McManus, Joe Perry and Ian McCulloch.

Monique wrote:You can't possibly know how they would have coped because they would have served their apprenticeship in the context and conditions of the time. And same is true of course for the players from yesteryears if they were playing today.
So I don't know who is best from Wattana or Carter, because that would be comparing players who are not competing at their best under the same context and conditions. I'd say they are pretty close, and that is an opinion and nothing more than an opinion.
My problem with this particular thread is the purpose it has been started for. We all know what I'm talking about, considering the opinion expressed repeatedly by the author about Carter before.
James Wattana was certainly an excellent player, but IMO, not a top top player and that is what his tally reflects. That doesn't take anything from what he did for the game in his country and in Asia in general. And I want to stress that he is a very nice person and a true gentleman also.

you cant possibly know how they wouldn't have coped either thats the point.

People Looking at Breaks,Potting etc and imidiatly equate it to improved Standards that Could be down to Lack of Guile in Players that they play so attacking it makes life easier to make Breaks.

in the late 80s and early 90s there was Spoilers that just tied up tables and made it hard maybe they weren't as Talented but they Made the Most of what they got and Frustrated Players you either Sank or Swam.

It is well renowned players in the 80's and early 90's were far more cautious but were hardened match players. Much like your modern day Graeme Dott and Peter Ebdon who still fair very well against your modern age players. Mid-90's the game was becoming more attack-minded as in players would take on shots and think about the consequences later hence the frames were more open and higher scoring came easier. Doesn't mean standards were any greater it was more about the game changing as in how players played.

Wild, please learn to READ, please. I didn't say they wouldn't cope. I said that we can't possibly know either way, for players from now as well as from players from then.
However when the game was opened the conditions didn't change all of a sudden and the way the game was played neither. Yet most "young players" at the time just spiraled down the rankings and never came back while the newcomers took their spots. So obviouly the newcomers were better, irrespective on how the game was played. The older players on the contrary, the players from the early, mid eighties, Griffith, Taylor, Thorburn did give the newcomers a good run for their money for 2 or 3 years at least. After that age caught up with them. But the way they resisted was testimony of their value.
But don't come and tell me that the Meo, Clark, Wilkinson and other Reynolds were anywhere near the class of Ebdon and Doherty, not to mention the "Big Four" who rules the 1996-2005 decade..

Monique, like I said there is always changing of the guard I mean look at players in the top 16 in 2005 that are not there now. It happens as new players come though in any era. It doesn't mean that era was any weaker because it still happens today - players come and players go. And the way the game was played in the 80's and even into the early 90's the game was much more cautious and frames much tighter with more safety first snooker. The game became much more attack-minded in the mid-90's but more attack-minded doesn't necessarily mean better quality - sure it improves the chances of centuries and maximums but that is it.

matthew is now ranked 13th in latest rankings so he hasnt fallen aay he is coming back

GJ wrote:matthew is now ranked 13th in latest rankings so he hasnt fallen aay he is coming back

Yes some players (18th is Stevens) do just as Nigel Bond has stuck around in the top 32 and other 90's exiles such as Mark King and Stephen Lee to name a few.

Monique wrote:Wild, please learn to READ, please. I didn't say they wouldn't cope. I said that we can't possibly know either way, for players from now as well as from players from then.
However when the game was opened the conditions didn't change all of a sudden and the way the game was played neither. Yet most "young players" at the time just spiraled down the rankings and never came back while the newcomers took their spots. So obviouly the newcomers were better, irrespective on how the game was played. The older players on the contrary, the players from the early, mid eighties, Griffith, Taylor, Thorburn did give the newcomers a good run for their money for 2 or 3 years at least. After that age caught up with them. But the way they resisted was testimony of their value.
But don't come and tell me that the Meo, Clark, Wilkinson and other Reynolds were anywhere near the class of Ebdon and Doherty, not to mention the "Big Four" who rules the 1996-2005 decade..

i know we dont know either way no we dont know so why do you and others think you do know...

as for Wilkinson etc of course they not better than Doherty and Ebdon however he is and was Better than Tony Drago a player thats Climbing the Rankings in 2011.

I can't see why or how they were better than Drago (or worse BTW). None won anything of notice. Wilkinson who got as high as 5th never won a ranking event, not even a minor ranking event, neither did Reynolds who was 8th. Martin Clark was 12th having never reached any higher than the quarters in a ranker ... high standard?

Likewise though there are players near the top of the rankings now who have never won a thing such as Jamie Cope, Stuart Bingham etc.

Monique wrote:I can't see why or how they were better than Drago (or worse BTW). None won anything of notice. Wilkinson who got as high as 5th never won a ranking event, not even a minor ranking event, neither did Reynolds who was 8th. Martin Clark was 12th having never reached any higher than the quarters in a ranker ... high standard?

1996-2005 Ranking Finalists

Rod Lawler
Brian Morgan
Euan Henderson
Alain Robidoux
Mark King
Tony Drago
Billy Snaddon
Fergal O'Brien
Anthony Hamilton
David Gray
Ian McCulluch
Chris Small

how are any of them better than Gary Wilkinson or Tony Meo or Dean Raynolds ?

I find it funny when people who weren't even watching snooker 20 years ago tell you the era was tosh. It was anything but.

As Wild said, Wattana was better than Maguire, as well as Carter. He constantly beat the likes of Parrott, McManus, and Ebdon, who were quality players in the mid 90s.

Hendry stopped Wattana being a winner of a lot more events. Wattana cashed in when Hendry lost earlier in events. Wattana also had to contend with the likes of White, Doherty, and Steve Davis.

I also find it funny when someone who never saw Gary Wilkinson play, say he was useless. When Wilkinson was on his game he was a match for anyone. He would be winning tournaments today.

Don't tell me? Judd Trump and Liang Wenbo are 2 of the best 10 players ever.

Judd
Liang

ive never maintained the Standards was Better then just Different with Different Problems from Today to solve...

There was Poor players back then the same as today.

Just Look at Campbell Pro since 1991 and before this season his best Ranking was in the 40s hes now top 32 hes no better than he was but todays youngsters arent clued up with that type of player give them a potter and thats no problem.

How are they worse? And how many of them were in the top 8 during that era? or even in the top 16?
Wilkinson, Meo, Reynolds and Clark were that high in the rankings despite being nothing special.

Wild all the pros can play. Burnett made the final of the Shanghai Masters earlier this season by a combination of good play and rather favorable draw (and Ronnie pulling out). That doesn't make him a top player and his chances to reach the top 16 nowadays or in the last 15 years are and were zilch. He never got higher than 37.
But those guys were not better and they were in the top 16, even in the top 8 for some. That does tell something wether you like it or not.

@Frame. I never rated Liang, quite the opposite, as you certainly know if you read my posts, which I'm sure you do. I've also never hyped Trump, I'm reserving my opinion on him because he's still young and some need more time than others. You are the one who always goes about "it's all about winning ranking events". Well I find it funny that when it comes to Wilkinson all of a sudden that isn't the rule anymore. Fact is that he never won one. Simple.
As for James Wattana I never denied that he was a very good player. He might have been stopped by Hendry a number of times but Hendry, even at his best wasn't winning everything. He didn't stop White or Parrott to win a decent share. And he couldn't stop ROS and Higgins to win majors before they turned 20... So I think I have a case to say that Wattana wasn't in the top bracket. Neither is Carter. IMO they are quite similar in their ability and that reflects in their very comparable tallies.

Monique wrote:How are they worse? And how many of them were in the top 8 during that era? or even in the top 16?
Wilkinson, Meo, Reynolds and Clark were that high in the rankings despite being nothing special.

Wild all the pros can play. Burnett made the final of the Shanghai Masters earlier this season by a combination of good play and rather favorable draw (and Ronnie pulling out). That doesn't make him a top player and his chances to reach the top 16 nowadays or in the last 15 years are and were zilch. He never got higher than 37.
But those guys were not better and they were in the top 16, even in the top 8 for some. That does tell something wether you like it or not.

@Frame. I never rated Liang, quite the opposite, as you certainly know if you read my posts, which I'm sure you do. I've also never hyped Trump, I'm reserving my opinion on him because he's still young and some need more time than others. You are the one who always goes about "it's all about winning ranking events". Well I find it funny that when it comes to Wilkinson all of a sudden that isn't the rule anymore. Fact is that he never won one. Simple.
As for James Wattana I never denied that he was a very good player. He might have been stopped by Hendry a number of times but Hendry, even at his best wasn't winning everything. He didn't stop White or Parrott to win a decent share. And he couldn't stop ROS and Higgins to win majors before they turned 20... So I think I have a case to say that Wattana wasn't in the top bracket. Neither is Carter. IMO they are quite similar in their ability and that reflects in their very comparable tallies.

well i dont think Carter is that Special hes won 2 Rankers and been World no 2.

I didn't say that Carter is special did I? Read the 2 last lines of the post you quoted. But he's won 2 rankers. Clark never even reached a semi and was still in top 16.

Wild wrote:

Monique wrote:How are they worse? And how many of them were in the top 8 during that era? or even in the top 16?
Wilkinson, Meo, Reynolds and Clark were that high in the rankings despite being nothing special.

Wild all the pros can play. Burnett made the final of the Shanghai Masters earlier this season by a combination of good play and rather favorable draw (and Ronnie pulling out). That doesn't make him a top player and his chances to reach the top 16 nowadays or in the last 15 years are and were zilch. He never got higher than 37.
But those guys were not better and they were in the top 16, even in the top 8 for some. That does tell something wether you like it or not.

@Frame. I never rated Liang, quite the opposite, as you certainly know if you read my posts, which I'm sure you do. I've also never hyped Trump, I'm reserving my opinion on him because he's still young and some need more time than others. You are the one who always goes about "it's all about winning ranking events". Well I find it funny that when it comes to Wilkinson all of a sudden that isn't the rule anymore. Fact is that he never won one. Simple.
As for James Wattana I never denied that he was a very good player. He might have been stopped by Hendry a number of times but Hendry, even at his best wasn't winning everything. He didn't stop White or Parrott to win a decent share. And he couldn't stop ROS and Higgins to win majors before they turned 20... So I think I have a case to say that Wattana wasn't in the top bracket. Neither is Carter. IMO they are quite similar in their ability and that reflects in their very comparable tallies.

well i dont think Carter is that Special hes won 2 Rankers and been World no 2.

Funny the players Carter has beaten to win his ranklers are players that have been around for ages, and are reaching finals.

Carter's combined record against O'Sullivan and Higgins is about 0-20. That speaks volumes about him.

point is Monique

if we could place carter in 1990 and Wilkinson in 2011 they would might be thought of in a different Light to what they are now with the Eras they played in.

its like Moving David Beckham to the 60s and George Best to 2011 both might be thought of Differently.

Wilkinson has been thought of not that good because of the era he played in had Fred Davis not got a older Brother who Knows he might have been The Grandaddy of the Game.

Maybe just maybe Wilkinson was unlucky he is 45 and turned Pro in 1988 ??

Wild wrote:Wilkinson has been thought of not that good because of the era he played in had Fred Davis not got a older Brother who Knows he might have been The Grandaddy of the Game.

Maybe just maybe Wilkinson was unlucky he is 45 and turned Pro in 1988 ??

Wilkinson needed only 3 seasons to get in the top 16 and was only 27 when he dropped out of the top 16 at the end of the 1992/93 season. He had a lot of time ahead of him but never came back in it. He played for many more years and during those years others did win titles, notably some of those who entered when the game was opened. Nigel Bond who only entered the game in 1990, and is older than Wilkinson , did win a ranking event, did make a WC final and is still qualifying for the television stages of venues. Bond is an excellent player but not in the top, top bracket. He never had an outstanding career but he still did a lot better that Wilkinson, stayed much longer in the top 16 and yet was never ranked higher than him.

cercanstances mean players goes off form from Family Problems,Fed up of Traveling,Kids,Eye sight,medical or just technical Problems etc etc etc

Gary Wilkinson in 1991 Beat Steve Davis 18-11 in The World Matchplay Final when Steve was a far Better player than he was when he beat John Higgins in the 2010 WC.

he was a quality player around that time yes it did not last long but thats nothing to do with players coming along.

Steve James another player Diabetees and other intrests was his downfall and not Ronnie etc.

anyone can use individual results to argue a point but the fact Wilkinson had the bulk of the declining 80s legends as rivals in the top16 says it all really.

Witz78 wrote:anyone can use individual results to argue a point but the fact Wilkinson had the bulk of the declining 80s legends as rivals in the top16 says it all really.

doesent stop you Quoting the 2004 and 2008 World semi when Ronnie beat a declining GOAT

SERIOUSLY I SOMETIMES THINK THE RULES CHANGE REGARDING OF WHAT YOU WANT.

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:anyone can use individual results to argue a point but the fact Wilkinson had the bulk of the declining 80s legends as rivals in the top16 says it all really.

doesent stop you Quoting the 2004 and 2008 World semi when Ronnie beat a declining GOAT

SERIOUSLY I SOMETIMES THINK THE RULES CHANGE REGARDING OF WHAT YOU WANT.

when have i ever quoted them results in a Hendry - Ronnie debate?

my take on the Ronnie - Hendry debate has always been based on the players skills and strengths rather than titles and matches won.