Whos a bigger waste of talent Maguire or Stevens ?

There's no doubt both had the talent to be more successful.

Which of the 2 do you think is the bigger disappointment and why ?

for me it stevens

only one ranking event win.

maguire still won some and has some time left but stevens should have had a lot more. at least one WC for sure.

Good question. And both, Stephen Maguire and Matthew Stevens are next to Mark Williams my favourite players after Ron.

In the case of Stevens you must say that he should have definitely won the WC at least. But he just bottled it and the defeat in 2005 against Murphy was a key moment in his career. He was basicially finished after that and never played the same stuff again. He can play the game to a very high standard and always gives you a good fight but he just doesn't kill it off at the end. He reached 8 ranking finals, having won only one of them. Horrible stat.


Maguire as well is a huge talent. I still remember how brillantly he was playing in 2004, outplaying Ronnie on two occasions. He's always had the game and skills to win the World Championship but he lacks in mental toughness to do it. He can't stand scrappy frames. He needs a win like Ronnie in 2004, 2008.

Quick flowing matches, where he can pull his breakbuilding skills through. Has to avoid players like Selby or Ebdon.

I'd go with Stevens, quite the bottler but I have to give him a little slack, losing his best mate Paul Hunter did a number on him IMO.

Maguire.....where did he go wrong? Was a real threat, even Ronnie was pegging him to be a big force and then nothing. Did he stop practicing? Lost desire? I just know he's a often a fraction of the player he was.

Still...give it to Stevens, he's shown a real bottle issues, far more than I've seen from Maguire.

Defo Stevens, he loved the long match format and was always a favourite for the worlds for a spell. Maguire started his career with a bang winning the uk but has never reached the heights he promised.

Maguire has been a little more succesful, I think, although he didn't manage to qualify in any WSC final like Stevens.

Another great talent who is underachiever, in my humble opinion, is Ryan Day.

I think the UK win went to maguire's head and he thought he didn't have to put the work in afterwards.

I also think the missed black v Ronnie at worlds 2005 hurt him he was 9-7 up and looked certain to beat Ronnie.

Vallomas wrote:Maguire has been a little more succesful, I think, although he didn't manage to qualify in any WSC final like Stevens.

Another great talent who is underachiever, in my humble opinion, is Ryan Day.

Day's main problem is no b game and his tacical play is poor.

His break building is as good as the best but if he has an off day he has no b game to fall back on.

I prefer Stephen Macguire to Stevens Mathew..

I believe Macguire still might be able to create a few upsets..but hope he can bank on to his talent as currently he's not playing upto his mark..

The best snooker I ever saw was Matthew Stevens beating John Higgins in a World Championship quarter final. It was unbeatable snooker. It would have won any World Championship. On the basis of that, it is Stevens,

Stevens undoubtabely the biggest waste of talent, he's such a talented and fluent player it's a shame he hasn't won the titles his talent deserved. He was such a good player between that 1997-2005 period, probably the best standard of snooker ever, he was always in the latter stages of tournaments but somehow when it really mattered something wasn't there to make the final push, plus as we know when close to the winning line he seems "afraid" to cross it and has bottled many matches, his 2 World Finals when being well in front just an example of that, but there are many many more when he really should have won.

Only 1 ranking title, the 2003 UK Champs is just way too short for a guy of his talent, he should in theory have at least 5 or 6 ranking tournaments already to his name. Still, he did manage to win the Masters in 2000, and sometimes that seems to go under the radar by some.

As for Maguire his case is not as worse as Stevens because he has won more ranking titles and doesn't have that tendency to bottle big matches when being well in front. Often when he loses it's because his opponent got to one frame of winning the match first, not the reverse as in Stevens case.

Yes, Maguire wasn't as good as Stevens was in his prime.

Stevens was within a ball of beating Ebdon in the world semi. Ebdon pulled off an insane shot down the rail which if it had missed would have meant Stevens would have met Hendry in the final. Stevens wasn't born lucky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H04qejL3B_A

Well for stevens lovers watch this clearence.. I thought it was a tough one for Stevens to pull off..!!

sahgalvishesh wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H04qejL3B_A

Well for stevens lovers watch this clearence.. I thought it was a tough one for Stevens to pull off..!!

Yes that clearance was remarkable and I remember watching it live at the time thinking: this has to be up there with one of best clearances under pressure and in a deciding frame no less I've ever seen.

But despite that this is just a rare example tht doesn't make the rule, unfortunately. Often Stevens bottles deciders and even after being well in front in the match.