The next player to reach 10 ranking titles

sickpotter

there is no opinions its the truth vs lies and haven't a clue...

Sickpotter wrote:Monique, I don't think anyone thinks he didn't have strong competition but he definitely wasn't at his best for a few years prior to 2005.

Stronger competition is debatable, Davis and White in their prime were devastating players. As they declined ROS/Williams/Higgins moved in to replace them as the main competition for Hendry.

All that really changed is one extra top notch player in the mix and that is not enough of a difference to bother a player in their prime.

Remaining a force in the game and being past your best are two different things.

Hendry while battling the yips managed to remain a force in the game but he was not playing his best, he was in fact past it.

To each his/her own, it's all down to opinion anyway.

Davis wasn't in his prime anymore in the early 90th, and White was a devastating player, but he was more a showman than a winner and his lifestyle didn't help. That's why he hasn't won more than he has.

Was wondering how we got onto this from first player to reach ten ranking titles too.

Jewell wrote:Wild, you don't half come out with some ridiculous rubbish sometimes.

To suggest Hendry was past his peak at the age of 27 is very debatable. Certainly, I'm not buying it that he was. I mean why would he be? Snooker back then wasn't as intense as it is post-1997. Both Hendry and Davis themselves said that back then all they had to do was turn up in the earlier rounds of most tournaments because they were virtual byes. They only really exerted themselves in the latter stages.

I think this whole Hendry was past his peak argument is put forward by his fanboys as a convenient excuse for why he suddenly stopped dominating.

Why isn't Hendry bashing everyone up anymore?!? Oh, I know, he must be past his prime!

Why would he be past his prime?

How about such a manic focus on winning everything possible that he burned himself out?

How about the fact that he had to battle the yips for the last decade + of his career?

The quote about a walkover or virtual byes in early rounds was more a statement as to the quality of their games than it was to say they didn't have any competition. Both players at their best were so far above the rest of the crowd that yes, is was a virtual bye against any player outside the top 16.

How long have you been watching snooker Jewell? Suggesting pre 1997 snooker wasn't intense.....what on earth do you base that assumption on?

You want to know what this whole debate was about? It was about devaluing Hendry's competition in order to devalue his achievements in the sport in order to attempt to raise ROS above Hendry on the all time greats list, nothing more.

And yes, please move this discussion elsewhere, it's not the thread for it.

Jewell,

The interpretation of his comments has always been a contentious point. Some see it as a factual statement, others take it with a grain of salt. Who you prefer as a player tends to dictate which direction you'll go.

Davis and Hendry are the two greatest ambassadors the modern game has and as such always look to the development of the game. Talking up your competition and the strength of the sport is one way to promote the game. It certainly wouldn't have done the game any good had they stepped up and said nothing's changed, the sport is stagnating and there's no great new talent to replace us

When a player goes into decline (whatever the reason) they look for ways to excuse their performances rather than accept they're not the player they were. One of the easiest ways to do this is to say to yourself.... "well, the competition is stronger now"

Those two reasons alone are enough for me to take their first round walkover statements with a grain of salt rather than as an accurate reflection of the true field strength.

Anyway, like you said it's open to interpretation and fans will always interpret it the way that best suits their view.

Out of curiosity why is it you feel the sport was less "intense" pre-'97?

Its hardly exactly a secret that the so called strongest ever era of snooker was around 97-04 so why cant the Hendry fans just accept that the 90-96 period of Hendry dominance wasnt in an era which was as strong as 97-04 ??

That's not the point Witz. I was no Hendry fan but yes the strongest period was of the "Big Four" but the point that is being contested here is that Hendry was better in his late teens/early to mid 20s and it doesn't matter what you think of eras and who was better and all the rest of the stuff that's been done to death, that remains a fact.

Sonny wrote:That's not the point Witz. I was no Hendry fan but yes the strongest period was of the "Big Four" but the point that is being contested here is that Hendry was better in his late teens/early to mid 20s and it doesn't matter what you think of eras and who was better and all the rest of the stuff that's been done to death, that remains a fact.

EXACTLY

you cant judge how many titles Ronnie or Higgins would have won if hendry was the same age or vice versa.

the fact is Hendry played better in the early 90s but the defining stat is the bigger the pressure the better he played during a 7 year period.

yes he lost matches against players but when the chips were down he stepped it up.

ive never seen nobody handle pressure quite like him.

Don't know how we got to O'Sullivan v Hendry from the next player to reach 10 ranking titles however....Hendry was in the UK final as recently as 2006, World no.1 as recently as 2007 and World semi-finalist (where it took an all time great O'Sullivan performance to stop him) in 2008. And he only fell out of the top 16 halfway through last season.
He wasn't winning tournaments but he was doing something right and remember O'Sullivan, Higgins and MJW have gone years without winning anything whilst being much younger men.

I agree with Monique, remember that Hendry managed a record 16 century breaks in one world championship later on in his career after his period of dominance and still didn't win the title! You can't tell me Hendry's standard really dropped after 27. The rest just got better, and Hendry's comparative weaknesses such as not winning many scappy frames got exposed by great players like the golden generation of Williams, O'Sullivan and Higgins.

Andy Spark wrote:I agree with Monique, remember that Hendry managed a record 16 century breaks in one world championship later on in his career after his period of dominance and still didn't win the title! You can't tell me Hendry's standard really dropped after 27. The rest just got better, and Hendry's comparative weaknesses such as not winning many scappy frames got exposed by great players like the golden generation of Williams, O'Sullivan and Higgins.

Hendry Game was Built on Long Potting followed by dishing up.

later on he was too reliant on mistakes to get in .....yes while he was in he could make breaks extremely well but he also gave to many easy chances because he couldn't pot the long balls to save his life.

Andy Spark wrote:I agree with Monique, remember that Hendry managed a record 16 century breaks in one world championship later on in his career after his period of dominance and still didn't win the title! You can't tell me Hendry's standard really dropped after 27. The rest just got better, and Hendry's comparative weaknesses such as not winning many scappy frames got exposed by great players like the golden generation of Williams, O'Sullivan and Higgins.

What does 16 tons have to do with winning the title?

A ton wins a frame and making one or even 16 during an event doesn't mean a player is in their best form. Consistency is the key and Hendry lost his which made him vulnerable and not just to the "golden" generation, to any top 16 player. It wasn't a "golden" generation player who beat him in that final.

Fans and more importantly opponents went from knowing they weren't going to get back in when Hendry was at the table to being certain Hendry would make an unforced error.

Knowing that a miss could come at any time does wonders for your opponents confidence and tortures yours.

He had about 3 chances in the decider against Ebdon too if memory serves.

Sickpotter wrote:

Andy Spark wrote:I agree with Monique, remember that Hendry managed a record 16 century breaks in one world championship later on in his career after his period of dominance and still didn't win the title! You can't tell me Hendry's standard really dropped after 27. The rest just got better, and Hendry's comparative weaknesses such as not winning many scappy frames got exposed by great players like the golden generation of Williams, O'Sullivan and Higgins.

What does 16 tons have to do with winning the title?

A ton wins a frame and making one or even 16 during an event doesn't mean a player is in their best form. Consistency is the key and Hendry lost his which made him vulnerable and not just to the "golden" generation, to any top 16 player. It wasn't a "golden" generation player who beat him in that final.

Fans and more importantly opponents went from knowing they weren't going to get back in when Hendry was at the table to being certain Hendry would make an unforced error.

Knowing that a miss could come at any time does wonders for your opponents confidence and tortures yours.

But that doesn't automatically mean that his standard had dropped off of course. As people have said the game's standard in general had risen compared to the days where Stephen had truly dominated with a rod of iron. I mean, in 2002 there were several players at the Crucible who had been in considerably excellent form in the championship from the early stages, look at Higgins dropping three frames to reach the quarters, five of the last 16 matches being won in two sessions rather than the three as well. Facing down O'Sullivan who had really had the strongest defence of the title since Higgins, on top of that playing a Peter Ebdon who then was in the form of his life. To cap that off he made ten quarter-finals from twelve pro tournaments he had entered that season, only failing at the Champions Cup, British Open and China.

PLtheRef wrote:

Sickpotter wrote:

Andy Spark wrote:I agree with Monique, remember that Hendry managed a record 16 century breaks in one world championship later on in his career after his period of dominance and still didn't win the title! You can't tell me Hendry's standard really dropped after 27. The rest just got better, and Hendry's comparative weaknesses such as not winning many scappy frames got exposed by great players like the golden generation of Williams, O'Sullivan and Higgins.

What does 16 tons have to do with winning the title?

A ton wins a frame and making one or even 16 during an event doesn't mean a player is in their best form. Consistency is the key and Hendry lost his which made him vulnerable and not just to the "golden" generation, to any top 16 player. It wasn't a "golden" generation player who beat him in that final.

Fans and more importantly opponents went from knowing they weren't going to get back in when Hendry was at the table to being certain Hendry would make an unforced error.

Knowing that a miss could come at any time does wonders for your opponents confidence and tortures yours.

But that doesn't automatically mean that his standard had dropped off of course. As people have said the game's standard in general had risen compared to the days where Stephen had truly dominated with a rod of iron. I mean, in 2002 there were several players at the Crucible who had been in considerably excellent form in the championship from the early stages, look at Higgins dropping three frames to reach the quarters, five of the last 16 matches being won in two sessions rather than the three as well. Facing down O'Sullivan who had really had the strongest defence of the title since Higgins, on top of that playing a Peter Ebdon who then was in the form of his life. To cap that off he made ten quarter-finals from twelve pro tournaments he had entered that season, only failing at the Champions Cup, British Open and China.

doesn't automatic mean no but it was the case.

his long potting was very shaky in the 2002 championship and had been for a few years prior to that and he was drifting in and out of form at a alarming rate during that world final.

its testament to how good he was that he still managed some good play despite his form but he wasent anywhere near his best.

Jewell wrote:No shame in losing to Ebdon, mate. It's true he wasn't a member of the big 4 but was nevertheless a great player during the 97-2004 era. What made that era so tough is below the big 4 you had guys like Ebdon as well as Hunter, Stevens, Doherty and Stephen Lee who were all playing the best snooker of their careers during this period.

Yes for years there was a big 4 then the next 4 but I never had Lee in the next 4 at the time. Funny really considering how good he's been in the last 18 months or so.

Sonny wrote:

Jewell wrote:No shame in losing to Ebdon, mate. It's true he wasn't a member of the big 4 but was nevertheless a great player during the 97-2004 era. What made that era so tough is below the big 4 you had guys like Ebdon as well as Hunter, Stevens, Doherty and Stephen Lee who were all playing the best snooker of their careers during this period.

Yes for years there was a big 4 then the next 4 but I never had Lee in the next 4 at the time. Funny really considering how good he's been in the last 18 months or so.

I'm surprised at that considering how good Lee had been as he moved into the top eight of the world rankings. Lost a thrilling match against Ebdon in 2001, LG Cup winner in October, European Open quarter-finalist in November, UK Championship semi-finalist in December, Thailand Masters semi-finalist and Scottish Open champion in the early months of 2002 as well.

Players peak at different times - look at Williams for a similar case to Hendry. Mark's peak was up until 2003, he hasn't been the same since. Similarly to Hendry after 27 he became World number 1 again, won a few rankers and made a few major finals...but has never been the same. Are people going to say that was because the likes of MaGuire, Murphy, Robbo and Selby came on the scene? Don't think so, he was (like Hendry at his peak) beating better players when he was winning.

Ding is another example, he hasn't played as consistently well over the last 2-3 years as he did in his early 20's. Of course he is young enough to change that but its not guaranteed he will. In physical sports it's much more easy to pinpoint a timeframe for peakiness, but not so much in sports like snooker, golf and darts.

Well put

17 major wins (WC/UK/M) out of 24 between age 20 and 27 then only 1 more the rest of his career suggests to me something else.............

Witz78 wrote:17 major wins (WC/UK/M) out of 24 between age 20 and 27 then only 1 more the rest of his career suggests to me something else.............

who the hell cares what it suggests to you

the truth is the truth no matter how much spin people try to put on something.

Only 3 players on that list have a realistic chance to get to 10 ranking titles:

- Robertson
- Ding
- Trump

Also Peter Ebdon might get to 10 in the next couple of years.

A couple of years ago (after his Masters win or UK title against Higgins), I would have said that Ding will certainly get to 10 in the near future but I'm not that convinced anymore. I don't know what happened but Ding disappeared into the wilderness. He really has to get his rubbish back together this season.

Jewell wrote:But surely someones form doesn't just fall off a cliff like that. It's like he woke up one morning in 1997 and was a different player to the one he was previously.

no 1997 was the start of the decline.

in the world final against Ken he wasent interested in scrapping it out it was centuries or not and his long potting was haywire which gave ken easy chances.

but it was a rapid decline.

in the 1998/99 season he lost 3 times to Drago and got whitewashed 9-0 by Campbell because his strength (Long Potting) was not coming off and he had to try and address the balance in which he did for the 1999 championship but that was his swansong event really playing the type of snooker he wanted to.

after that everything became a struggle for him because those long balls was not going in.

I don't know that Hendry has given a precise date of when his "yips" started but when he did finally go public with that issue he did mention he'd been fighting it for a decade or more.

Perhaps 97 was when it reared it's ugly head

There's probably several different reasons why Hendry suddenly stopped dominating around 1997. He got slightly worse, the competition got slightly better, he didn't have the same dedication once he was married and had children. Plus during the early 90's Hendry would have been competing against people who were older than him and who would have been top players when Hendry was growing up. By the late 90's he was competing with players who had grown up watching him and he was now the target. The margins between winning and losing can be very small and personal issues can have such an effect on form that I don't think you can make too many black & white statements about the likes of Hendry, O'Sullivan or Higgins.

it was not the case the oposition was getting better though

in 1997/98 Hendry lost to

John Parrott 6-5
Jamie Burnett 5-3
Ronnie O'Sullivan 10-6
John Parrott 5-3
Jamie Burnett 5-4
Mark Williams 10-9
Marcus Campbell 5-4
Ronnie O'Sullivan 6-4
Ronnie O'Sullivan 6-3
John Higgins 9-8
Jimmy White 10-4

1998/99

John Higgins 6-5
Dave Harold 5-4
Marcus Campbell 9-0
Tony Drago 5-2
Tony Drago 5-4
Mark Williams 9-8
Tony Drago 6-4
Jimmy White 5-2
Mark Williams 5-2
Billy Snaddon 6-2
Anthony Hamilton 5-3

yes he lost to the Class of 92 but it hardly needed that sort of player to beat him

in 22 Tournaments he lost 8 times to the Big 3 4 in a Decider

But in between them he lost 7 times to 80s players and 5 times to Journeymen

Roland wrote:Luca

Oh aye.