Stephen Hendry dissing PTCs on Twitter....

"Hendry's comments are baffling, especially from the player who won the most ranking events of any player in history. Saying the Worlds, UK and Masters are the only tournaments that matter means that a lot of his tournament win achievements are irrelevant." - SF

SF, I think Hendry's comments stem from tournament formats being shortened to the point that weaker players can win some events. Pretty sure none of his titles were won in a best of 7 format but I could be mistaken.

Sickpotter wrote:"Hendry's comments are baffling, especially from the player who won the most ranking events of any player in history. Saying the Worlds, UK and Masters are the only tournaments that matter means that a lot of his tournament win achievements are irrelevant." - SF

SF, I think Hendry's comments stem from tournament formats being shortened to the point that weaker players can win some events. Pretty sure none of his titles were won in a best of 7 format but I could be mistaken.

Very good points SF and Sickpotter!.


I have to say,even i,at first glance was a bit baffled by these comment of his,...
........


,......."Snooker is coming down to 3 events that matter,the U.K.,Masters and the World,the rest are just practice".


"Highest rank player in semi 41, best of 7's???????????????".





As much as i love Hendry,i thought that was out of order and des-respectful.


I wrote it on this forum once before,that just cause i,m a Hendry fan,it does,nt mean to say that i agree with everything he says.


His "safetys overrated" remark eg,is absolute cobblers.

Or the time he said that Mark Johnston-Allen "should,nt be in the same room as him",which i thought was pretty arrogant,although he did later apologise to him bout it.




And yes,of course the main BIG 3 are as he says,"U.K.,Masters and the World",but as SF was referring to,there,s many more tourneys that are relevant,important,have a good status to them.



But now that i,ve read Sickpotters comment,i think,in fact i,m very sure that it,s that what Hendry was actually meaning.





I,ve just seen now,that the next thing he,s written on his twitter is ,...."buck!!!!!".


Fook knows what that,s meant to mean.

Attention grabber IMVHPO that ex-Scottish snooker player.

Bazza's heavies just turned up

Smart wrote:Attention grabber IMVHPO that ex-Scottish snooker player.

A bit like a certain Mr O'Sullivan.

SnookerFan wrote:

sas6789 wrote:

Smart wrote:Attention grabber IMVHPO that ex-Scottish snooker player.

A bit like a certain Mr O'Sullivan.

Sean?

Am I being cynical here but isn't the tournaments Hendry declares as the ones worth watching are the ones he just so coincidentally gets paid to commentate on.

I think the reason for the hostility by Hendry towards the PTCs may be that they came at the wrong time for Hendry in his career. A Hendry from the 1980s, new onto the bloc - trying to make a name then he'd have been hungry for these, in early 40s with as it turned out about 20 months in his career, there was little in the PTCs for a man who achieved his last ambition in snooker in May 1999. - Rankings of individuals has nothing to do with it.

One thing though is this - if the PTCs are so good then why are they being phased out unless they can stand on their own two feet. Is the Grand Finals essentially going to be made up of the Last 16 finishers at the PHC?

SnookerFan wrote:

PLtheRef wrote:Am I being cynical here but isn't the tournaments Hendry declares as the ones worth watching are the ones he just so coincidentally gets paid to commentate on.

Cynical? No, that's exactly why he said it.

The only reason I didn't mention, was because I thought it so obviously the case.

thats just a coincident.


Hendry is honest he tells it as it is he never liked PTC and having a player thats been playing since 1991 who was the definition of a journeyman and still is winning one gave him the amo he needed to slate them.

but i agree with Paddy a 20 something Hendry would have lapped up PTC Winning a very healthy percentage of them and making even more money than he managed.

i think Stephen Hendry is Jealous of the success and cash even rubbish players can now make out of the sport.

I think one of the main problems in the format is that there are so many matches per player per day, and they can take a very long time, depending on the opponent you happen to face. I hate shot clocks, but in this format they are mandatory.

SnookerFan wrote:He's no reason to be jealous. It's not like he made no money out of snooker.

But he would have done so much better if todays calendar was late 80s early 90s.

V.V wrote:I think one of the main problems in the format is that there are so many matches per player per day, and they can take a very long time, depending on the opponent you happen to face. I hate shot clocks, but in this format they are mandatory.

Exactly how would shot clocks work with 11 tables?

Wildey wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:He's no reason to be jealous. It's not like he made no money out of snooker.

But he would have done so much better if todays calendar was late 80s early 90s.

Money was better back then surely.....(I'm not for researching money now vs then, but tobacco sponsorship was the time to be winning tournies).

BTW Nice to see Hendry coming to my side of the debate. He's gone way up in my estimation. Knighthood for Hendry now!

Smart wrote:

Wildey wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:He's no reason to be jealous. It's not like he made no money out of snooker.

But he would have done so much better if todays calendar was late 80s early 90s.

Money was better back then surely.....(I'm not for researching money now vs then, but tobacco sponsorship was the time to be winning tournies).

Dare I say that it's not overly that much different nowadays particularly in recent years.

V.V wrote:I think one of the main problems in the format is that there are so many matches per player per day, and they can take a very long time, depending on the opponent you happen to face. I hate shot clocks, but in this format they are mandatory.

How would you regulate that in this instance? How long is the clock? How does the referee (in many cases operating the scoreboard) enforce the rule? (bearing in mind the only times a clock has been used in snooker's history has been at a single table set up. - I can't imagine a player on table three down on the backswing in a tense deciding frame enjoying hearing the pips at the end of a 30 second clock

I'm not the biggest fan of the PTCs and I don't follow them from start to finish - regarding them as the closest the professional game has to league snooker and essentially professionally run pro-ams - given the short format and how regular they are or once were when we had the dozen of them a season but I think if you're applying ranking points to it then it needs to be the same format as every other event.

Give the players wireless in-ear phones to hear the beeps.

Dan-cat wrote:Give the players wireless in-ear phones to hear the beeps.

id rather they spend money on giving us more match choices to watch rather than in ear beep bullocks.