Post a reply

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Erza Scarlet

No.

I still have Hendry ahead of ronnie even though ronnie just won the masters because it's not a small gap between 5 and 7 world titles and I feel ronnie needs 1 more world title.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby TheRocket

I think, the reputation and importance of the World Championship is just too huge. so even if Ronnie equals or overtakes Hendry in triple crowns , that alone might not be enough.

A masters or uk title is just not as big as a World title. He has to win one more World title at least.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Andre147

Erza Scarlet wrote:No.

I still have Hendry ahead of ronnie even though ronnie just won the masters because it's not a small gap between 5 and 7 world titles and I feel ronnie needs 1 more world title.


Definately.

1 more World Title and he's the definite GOAT for me. Right now still 2nd.

But on the Majors count, yes Ronnie will at the very least equal Hendry.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Pink Ball

After Higgins' World Championship win in 2011, there was a lot of pretentious nonsense from the snooker hipsters claiming Higgins might be the greatest of all time. Since then, he hasn't won a single major, but Sullivan has added six (he'd already been ahead by two even before that).

Higgins seems to have the Indian sign over Sullivan in head-to-head over the last ten years, but titles matter far more given that they've both played through the same era. Higgins has always been far more likely to slip up against Joe Soap than Sullivan, and that's been the difference.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby TheRocket

Pink Ball wrote:After Higgins' World Championship win in 2011, there was a lot of pretentious nonsense from the snooker hipsters claiming Higgins might be the greatest of all time. Since then, he hasn't won a single major, but Sullivan has added six (he'd already been ahead by two even before that).

Higgins seems to have the Indian sign over Sullivan in head-to-head over the last ten years, but titles matter far more given that they've both played through the same era. Higgins has always been far more likely to slip up against Joe Soap than Sullivan, and that's been the difference.


Thankfully O'Sullivan has won those two more world titles after 2011. Higgins ending up with more world titles than O'Sullivan would have been unfitting and I think, at this point there can't be any debate anymore who the greater player is.

When we had all four greats (Hendry,Sullivan,Williams,Higgins) playing at the peak of their powers , Higgins was always the weakest one in that group for me. Which makes Ronnies mental block and habit of regularly losing to him since 10 years even stranger.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Andre147

I quite remember after Higgins won that World Title Davis claiming he might be the greatest of all time!

At the time I found it complete nonsense... and Ronnie proved so so many doubters and haters wrong after 2011 when they were already claiming he wouldn't win another Worlds or Big Title.

He was at an all time low between 2010/2011... I remember in that particular season he had like 4 or 5 first round exits in the few tournaments that existed back then... The following season Steve Peters came to his corner, and the rest is history.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby TheSaviour

Erza Scarlet wrote:No.

I still have Hendry ahead of ronnie even though ronnie just won the masters because it's not a small gap between 5 and 7 world titles and I feel ronnie needs 1 more world title.


Do you sometimes post here as "Muppet147" ?

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Johnny Bravo

Pink Ball wrote:It seems inevitable that he'll soon level with and then overtake Hendry. I already feel he's the best I've ever seen, but would it put him first in other people's minds too?


I feel the same way, but a lot of snooker fans won't agree with us unless he wins another world title.
It would be incredible if he did, but he'll still be my hero even if he doesn't.

I've said this before, Hendry only won 7 because he played in a weaker era. Not to mention the fact that Jimmy squandered 2 incredible opportunities. Had he taken his chances in 92 and 94, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby SnookerFan

The question is, can he overtake Hendry's World Title record? That's the only thing left.

Not even sure he needs it, anyway. It's not like he has anything left to prove career wise.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby whitespider

Johnny Bravo wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:It seems inevitable that he'll soon level with and then overtake Hendry. I already feel he's the best I've ever seen, but would it put him first in other people's minds too?


I feel the same way, but a lot of snooker fans won't agree with us unless he wins another world title.
It would be incredible if he did, but he'll still be my hero even if he doesn't.

I've said this before, Hendry only won 7 because he played in a weaker era. Not to mention the fact that Jimmy squandered 2 incredible opportunities. Had he taken his chances in 92 and 94, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.


Whilst I agree Hendry had a weaker ear in the 90's than the 00's I think we are in a weak era at the elite end right now. O'Sullivan has won the last two Masters playing at around 75%. Not to take anything away from him (or Hendry for that matter).

We've had a lost 20's generation in snooker (with exception of Trump) which has helped those in the late thirties/early forties bag more titles when they are past their best. And I would argue it's set to continue for a few more years until the Chinese trio break through properly (I really hope they do).

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby whitespider

SnookerFan wrote:The question is, can he overtake Hendry's World Title record? That's the only thing left.

Not even sure he needs it, anyway. It's not like he has anything left to prove career wise.



He's got nothing to prove to anyone. Wining many big titles over a 25+ year period is mind blowing.

But if he wants to be the most successful then he needs to overhaul the 36 ranking titles record for me. I think he can do it - especially as there are 19/20 a season!

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby hendry_fan

Johnny Bravo wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:It seems inevitable that he'll soon level with and then overtake Hendry. I already feel he's the best I've ever seen, but would it put him first in other people's minds too?


I feel the same way, but a lot of snooker fans won't agree with us unless he wins another world title.
It would be incredible if he did, but he'll still be my hero even if he doesn't.

I've said this before, Hendry only won 7 because he played in a weaker era. Not to mention the fact that Jimmy squandered 2 incredible opportunities. Had he taken his chances in 92 and 94, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.



I,m just gonna write a wee bit to this,as we,ve been through this X Times and i,m tired of it tbh.

The 90,s was not a weak era!.


If you think that,then,it,s your opinion,to try n label it WEAK,is just pure ingnorance and very disrepectful.


Sure,they,re were tons of matches in which the standard was weak,weakish,but there were also tons of matches which had a high,very high standard,you had,have that in every era.


Just cause many players did,nt knock in as many tons,BIG breaks in the 90,s as are made eg in the 00,s,or these days,does,nt mean to say that they were rubbish,weak.

Hendry made them look weak,they often did,nt even get many chances to try n knock one in in the first place,cause he time n time n time n time again steamrolled them,and often when they got the chance,they were so nervous,scared of him,it made them often play weak against him,they knew full well just how great,deadly he was.



One could say try n devalue many of Ronnies wins due to his oppenents playing rubbish,weak against him,chockein,bottlin frame,even match balls against him,i,ve lost count of the number of times that thats happened,often the standard many players played against Ronnie was weak,even amateur like,even many of the better/higher ranked players have delivere horses**t against him,

Look at Mark Williams eg,he,s one hell of a player when on song,without a doubt in the top 5 greatest of all time,but often,especially in the last 10+ years,he often played weak against Ron,even when Ronnie was there for the taking.


Carter is a very good player when on song,but he,s another who often plays drivvel when he plays Ron.



The BIG 5,Davis,Hendry,Higgins,Ron and Williams often won matches even when they were miles off there best,bcause they,re opponents suffered the FEAR FACTOR and thus often played much weaker against them than what they were/are capable of,than they would have played against other players,everyone knows just how GREAT this lot were/are.


To win any tournament,no matter what era it is in,takes some doing and should be respected,it takes more than 1,2 matches to win a tourney,one might get away with 1,2 matches,but otherwise you,ve got to deliver.



One could also try n devalue all the other players wins,due to they,re opponent not being on song,due to the run of the ball,a lucky cannon,flick here n there,even a fluke could have a BIG influence in a match,.

One could try and devalue eg,Shaun Murphys 2005 Worlds win,one could argue,had he,d of played a prime Hendry,Ronnie,Williams in the final,or even a round,few rounds bfore that,he,d of probably of never of won it,but he won it,end of!.


I did,nt delibertly pick out that eg tbh,it just sprung to my mind,thats one of countless examples.

One could even try n devalue Mark Kings recent win,cause he caught his opponents,or an opponent off song,or had he of faced other opponents,especially in there prime,it,d be highly unlikley that he would of won it,Ronnie did,nt even take part,now should one devlaue that win,Mark King won it,basta.


You can only beat who,s in front of you!.




I personally still think that Hendry is the GREATEST EVER,i wrote a few years ago,that Ronnie has a good chance of claming that,but he,s not quite there yet,as he still has not only the World crowns to catch up on,but the total ranking title tally as well.



Not only that,but look at how many finals Hendry also made,........


Ranking event finals: 57 (36 titles, 21 runners-up)






Ronnie still has time to catch up,or even beat that,but he,s still got quite a bit to go,....


Ranking event finals: 42 (28 titles, 14 runners-up)




Hendry has the most important of record of them all,7 WORLD CROWNS,2 WORLD TITLES more than Ronnie,he also has 8 RANKING TITLES more,he,s been in 15 RANKING FINALS more and he,s been in 9 WORLDS FINALS,to Rons 6.



Just bcause there was,nt as many tons,BIG breaks made as they,re were made in the 90,s,even 00,s,it does,nt mean to say that the players were rubbish,many players played a bit more safe than to rather go for almost everything,i,m sure many players could compete with the current crop,the players of the 90,s were not weak,sure,there were a few,but they,re are a good few these days,just like they,re was in other eras.


Some ramble on about how high the standard is these days,i,ll say it again,yeah,there are some mstches of very high standard,but i,ve seen many in which there was nuthin special,the way some ramble on,it,s as if every match goes through the roof standard wise,the players hardly run outta pos,they hardly miss a pot,the safety is always up to scratch and many players like to blame the high standard if they lose,the truth is,most of the players just are,nt good enough consistent wise,but,yeah,they can always come up with the so called the standards so high these days drivvel as an excuse when they lose.

No doubt about it,the standard of the lower ranked players/the strength in depth has risen,but the consistency of those players is weak,as if Hendry would,nt have beaten them,they,re lucky there is,nt a prime Hendry arounbd these days,then they would have sometzhing to complain about. <laugh>



I,m certainly not gonna boss,try n boss people into agreeing with my opininons,everyone is of course free to have there,s,but i personally think it is very weak to even try n suggest that the 90,s were weak and to devalue Hendrys wins,achievements,as i say,one could try n do that with all the rest of the crop.



Thats all i,m gonna,want to say on the matter,it,s been talked about nuuuuuumerous times bfore,i,ve said my bit a good few times on the subject,for me,Hendry is still the GREATEST,Ronnies getting closer to grabbing that away from him,but for me personally,he,s not there yet.



I could add a few more things,but that,ll do,i,ve had enough of havin to write the same stuff i,ve already written a good few times.


Thats all for me for the mom,catch ya all at the German MASTERS.


*PEACE*. :-D

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Iranu

I don't really buy the "weak era" argument about any era since the game went open in the 90s, and to be honest even the 80s - ok breakbuilding wasn't as strong but tactically it was almost certainly stronger than 90s onwards simply because it was a much more important element of the game. You always get peaks and troughs as new players emerge and old ones fall away.

Trying to diminish any player's achievements based on "weak era" is just childish, really.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby sas6789

Johnny Bravo wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:It seems inevitable that he'll soon level with and then overtake Hendry. I already feel he's the best I've ever seen, but would it put him first in other people's minds too?


I feel the same way, but a lot of snooker fans won't agree with us unless he wins another world title.
It would be incredible if he did, but he'll still be my hero even if he doesn't.

I've said this before, Hendry only won 7 because he played in a weaker era. Not to mention the fact that Jimmy squandered 2 incredible opportunities. Had he taken his chances in 92 and 94, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

If this era was so strong Joe Perry wouldn't have gotten near a Masters final.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby SnookerFan

Depends how much Ronnie feels he wants it, in my opinion.

If he pulled a Steve Davis, and was still playing in his 50s, it wouldn't surprise me if he was still winning titles.

Just depends if that's something he wants to achieve, or if he'd rather retire and do his Eurosport work more.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Dan-cat

sas6789 wrote:If this era was so strong Joe Perry wouldn't have gotten near a Masters final.


Fergal O'Brien anyone?

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Sickpotter

The claim of stronger/weaker eras is difficult to validate.

The major change of shortening formats makes the skill gap between players less evident.

Longer formats the better player virtually always comes through but shorter formats are more of a crap shoot.

IMO any of the pros from any era have been capable of stringing together 4 solid frames and winning a BO7 against anyone.

I think it's just the introduction of shorter formats that's giving the illusion of more strength in depth.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

Sickpotter wrote:I think it's just the introduction of shorter formats that's giving the illusion of more strength in depth.


I general possibly but in terms of the 'majors' there are no b-o-7 matches and the UK hasn't had any surprise winners since it's format was reduced.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Johnny Bravo

hendry_fan wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:It seems inevitable that he'll soon level with and then overtake Hendry. I already feel he's the best I've ever seen, but would it put him first in other people's minds too?


I feel the same way, but a lot of snooker fans won't agree with us unless he wins another world title.
It would be incredible if he did, but he'll still be my hero even if he doesn't.

I've said this before, Hendry only won 7 because he played in a weaker era. Not to mention the fact that Jimmy squandered 2 incredible opportunities. Had he taken his chances in 92 and 94, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.


I,m just gonna write a wee bit to this,as we,ve been through this X Times and i,m tired of it tbh.

The 90,s was not a weak era!.

If you think that,then,it,s your opinion,to try n label it WEAK,is just pure ingnorance and very disrepectful.

Sure,they,re were tons of matches in which the standard was weak,weakish,but there were also tons of matches which had a high,very high standard,you had,have that in every era.

Just cause many players did,nt knock in as many tons,BIG breaks in the 90,s as are made eg in the 00,s,or these days,does,nt mean to say that they were rubbish,weak.

Hendry made them look weak,they often did,nt even get many chances to try n knock one in in the first place,cause he time n time n time n time again steamrolled them,and often when they got the chance,they were so nervous,scared of him,it made them often play weak against him,they knew full well just how great,deadly he was.

One could say try n devalue many of Ronnies wins due to his oppenents playing rubbish,weak against him,chockein,bottlin frame,even match balls against him,i,ve lost count of the number of times that thats happened,often the standard many players played against Ronnie was weak,even amateur like,even many of the better/higher ranked players have delivere horses**t against him,

Look at Mark Williams eg,he,s one hell of a player when on song,without a doubt in the top 5 greatest of all time,but often,especially in the last 10+ years,he often played weak against Ron,even when Ronnie was there for the taking.

Carter is a very good player when on song,but he,s another who often plays drivvel when he plays Ron.

The BIG 5,Davis,Hendry,Higgins,Ron and Williams often won matches even when they were miles off there best,bcause they,re opponents suffered the FEAR FACTOR and thus often played much weaker against them than what they were/are capable of,than they would have played against other players,everyone knows just how GREAT this lot were/are.

To win any tournament,no matter what era it is in,takes some doing and should be respected,it takes more than 1,2 matches to win a tourney,one might get away with 1,2 matches,but otherwise you,ve got to deliver.

One could also try n devalue all the other players wins,due to they,re opponent not being on song,due to the run of the ball,a lucky cannon,flick here n there,even a fluke could have a BIG influence in a match,.

One could try and devalue eg,Shaun Murphys 2005 Worlds win,one could argue,had he,d of played a prime Hendry,Ronnie,Williams in the final,or even a round,few rounds bfore that,he,d of probably of never of won it,but he won it,end of!.

I did,nt delibertly pick out that eg tbh,it just sprung to my mind,thats one of countless examples.

One could even try n devalue Mark Kings recent win,cause he caught his opponents,or an opponent off song,or had he of faced other opponents,especially in there prime,it,d be highly unlikley that he would of won it,Ronnie did,nt even take part,now should one devlaue that win,Mark King won it,basta.

You can only beat who,s in front of you!.

I personally still think that Hendry is the GREATEST EVER,i wrote a few years ago,that Ronnie has a good chance of claming that,but he,s not quite there yet,as he still has not only the World crowns to catch up on,but the total ranking title tally as well.

Not only that,but look at how many finals Hendry also made,........

Ranking event finals: 57 (36 titles, 21 runners-up)

Ronnie still has time to catch up,or even beat that,but he,s still got quite a bit to go,....

Ranking event finals: 42 (28 titles, 14 runners-up)

Hendry has the most important of record of them all,7 WORLD CROWNS,2 WORLD TITLES more than Ronnie,he also has 8 RANKING TITLES more,he,s been in 15 RANKING FINALS more and he,s been in 9 WORLDS FINALS,to Rons 6.

Just bcause there was,nt as many tons,BIG breaks made as they,re were made in the 90,s,even 00,s,it does,nt mean to say that the players were rubbish,many players played a bit more safe than to rather go for almost everything,i,m sure many players could compete with the current crop,the players of the 90,s were not weak,sure,there were a few,but they,re are a good few these days,just like they,re was in other eras.

Some ramble on about how high the standard is these days,i,ll say it again,yeah,there are some mstches of very high standard,but i,ve seen many in which there was nuthin special,the way some ramble on,it,s as if every match goes through the roof standard wise,the players hardly run outta pos,they hardly miss a pot,the safety is always up to scratch and many players like to blame the high standard if they lose,the truth is,most of the players just are,nt good enough consistent wise,but,yeah,they can always come up with the so called the standards so high these days drivvel as an excuse when they lose.

No doubt about it,the standard of the lower ranked players/the strength in depth has risen,but the consistency of those players is weak,as if Hendry would,nt have beaten them,they,re lucky there is,nt a prime Hendry arounbd these days,then they would have sometzhing to complain about. <laugh>

I,m certainly not gonna boss,try n boss people into agreeing with my opininons,everyone is of course free to have there,s,but i personally think it is very weak to even try n suggest that the 90,s were weak and to devalue Hendrys wins,achievements,as i say,one could try n do that with all the rest of the crop.

Thats all i,m gonna,want to say on the matter,it,s been talked about nuuuuuumerous times bfore,i,ve said my bit a good few times on the subject,for me,Hendry is still the GREATEST,Ronnies getting closer to grabbing that away from him,but for me personally,he,s not there yet.

I could add a few more things,but that,ll do,i,ve had enough of havin to write the same stuff i,ve already written a good few times.

Thats all for me for the mom,catch ya all at the German MASTERS.

*PEACE*. :-D



I've been debating for a long time about replying, simply cause I knew I had to write a lot and quite frankly, I'm very lazy, but I just can't let this go. So here it goes:

Players from the early 90's were not rubbish, but they are weaker. The standard of the game in depth has risen after 2000, you've acknowledged this yourself.

It's not just the standard of the lower ranked players, but also the standard of the top players, even though not by that much. A 2012-2014 Ronnie would demolish any version of himself from the early 90's.

Hendry will always be a great, however he was not as good as his records suggest. I agree that you can only beat who's in front of you, but when those opponents are not that great, it's a lot easier to win titles.
Had Hendry turned pro at the same time as Ronnie, Higgins and Williams, he wouldn't have the records he now has.

Take a look at the rankings in the 94-95 season / Hendry's peak period.
The top players were:
1. Hendry - some might think that this version of Hendry beats any other player in history, with the exception of Ronnie. I reckon a peak Selby, Robertson and Higgins would also beat Hendry, and that's cause their break-building is just as good and their safety and tactical play is far superior.

2. Steve Davis - this version of Steve (that Hendry had to beat in order to win his titles) stands litle chance against Ronnie, Robertson, Selby, Higgins. He also loses 7 times out of 10 to Ding, Trump, Hawkins, Murphy, Marco Fu, M. Allen. He might stand a chance Bingham, Carter, Perry, Maguire, Wilson - but he's the underdog against any of them.

3. Wattana - i reckon he has even little chance than Davis, since he's safety and tactical play is weaker.

4. Jimmy - at his very best, he's up there with the best of them in terms of potting balls. However, he was very weak mentally and his safety and tactical play means that 9 times out of 10 he'll loose to the likes of Ronnie, Higgins, Robertson, Selby. He loses 7/10 against Ding, Trump, Hawkins, Murphy, Marco Fu, M. Allen and he's pretty even with Bingham, Carter, Perry, Maguire, Wilson.

5. Parrott. 6. McManus 7. Doherty
I can't really see any of them winning more than 50% of the matches against Bingham, Carter, Perry, Maguire, Wilson. They will probably loose most time against Ronnie, Higgins, Robertson, Selby, Ding, Trump, Hawkins, Murphy, Marco Fu, M. Allen

8.Darren Morgan - gets beat 8 times out of 10 by all of today's top pros. Doesn't stand a prayer against 2012-2014 Ronnie, Higgins, Selby, Robertson, Trump, Ding.

9. 19 year old Ronnie - on a great day, he might beat some top pros, but he loses everytime to the current version of himself, Selby, Robertson, Higgins.

10. Peter Ebdon - might beat some top pros, but he'll loose far more matches than he wins.

11. Nigel Bond
12 Joe Swail
13 David Roe
They'll loose 90% of the matches against today's top pros.

14 Terry Griffiths
15 Willie Thorne
16 Tony Drago
They don't stand a prayer of winning. They'd probably get whitewashed in some matches.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Pink Ball

Johnny Bravo wrote:
hendry_fan wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:It seems inevitable that he'll soon level with and then overtake Hendry. I already feel he's the best I've ever seen, but would it put him first in other people's minds too?


I feel the same way, but a lot of snooker fans won't agree with us unless he wins another world title.
It would be incredible if he did, but he'll still be my hero even if he doesn't.

I've said this before, Hendry only won 7 because he played in a weaker era. Not to mention the fact that Jimmy squandered 2 incredible opportunities. Had he taken his chances in 92 and 94, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.


I,m just gonna write a wee bit to this,as we,ve been through this X Times and i,m tired of it tbh.

The 90,s was not a weak era!.

If you think that,then,it,s your opinion,to try n label it WEAK,is just pure ingnorance and very disrepectful.

Sure,they,re were tons of matches in which the standard was weak,weakish,but there were also tons of matches which had a high,very high standard,you had,have that in every era.

Just cause many players did,nt knock in as many tons,BIG breaks in the 90,s as are made eg in the 00,s,or these days,does,nt mean to say that they were rubbish,weak.

Hendry made them look weak,they often did,nt even get many chances to try n knock one in in the first place,cause he time n time n time n time again steamrolled them,and often when they got the chance,they were so nervous,scared of him,it made them often play weak against him,they knew full well just how great,deadly he was.

One could say try n devalue many of Ronnies wins due to his oppenents playing rubbish,weak against him,chockein,bottlin frame,even match balls against him,i,ve lost count of the number of times that thats happened,often the standard many players played against Ronnie was weak,even amateur like,even many of the better/higher ranked players have delivere horses**t against him,

Look at Mark Williams eg,he,s one hell of a player when on song,without a doubt in the top 5 greatest of all time,but often,especially in the last 10+ years,he often played weak against Ron,even when Ronnie was there for the taking.

Carter is a very good player when on song,but he,s another who often plays drivvel when he plays Ron.

The BIG 5,Davis,Hendry,Higgins,Ron and Williams often won matches even when they were miles off there best,bcause they,re opponents suffered the FEAR FACTOR and thus often played much weaker against them than what they were/are capable of,than they would have played against other players,everyone knows just how GREAT this lot were/are.

To win any tournament,no matter what era it is in,takes some doing and should be respected,it takes more than 1,2 matches to win a tourney,one might get away with 1,2 matches,but otherwise you,ve got to deliver.

One could also try n devalue all the other players wins,due to they,re opponent not being on song,due to the run of the ball,a lucky cannon,flick here n there,even a fluke could have a BIG influence in a match,.

One could try and devalue eg,Shaun Murphys 2005 Worlds win,one could argue,had he,d of played a prime Hendry,Ronnie,Williams in the final,or even a round,few rounds bfore that,he,d of probably of never of won it,but he won it,end of!.

I did,nt delibertly pick out that eg tbh,it just sprung to my mind,thats one of countless examples.

One could even try n devalue Mark Kings recent win,cause he caught his opponents,or an opponent off song,or had he of faced other opponents,especially in there prime,it,d be highly unlikley that he would of won it,Ronnie did,nt even take part,now should one devlaue that win,Mark King won it,basta.

You can only beat who,s in front of you!.

I personally still think that Hendry is the GREATEST EVER,i wrote a few years ago,that Ronnie has a good chance of claming that,but he,s not quite there yet,as he still has not only the World crowns to catch up on,but the total ranking title tally as well.

Not only that,but look at how many finals Hendry also made,........

Ranking event finals: 57 (36 titles, 21 runners-up)

Ronnie still has time to catch up,or even beat that,but he,s still got quite a bit to go,....

Ranking event finals: 42 (28 titles, 14 runners-up)

Hendry has the most important of record of them all,7 WORLD CROWNS,2 WORLD TITLES more than Ronnie,he also has 8 RANKING TITLES more,he,s been in 15 RANKING FINALS more and he,s been in 9 WORLDS FINALS,to Rons 6.

Just bcause there was,nt as many tons,BIG breaks made as they,re were made in the 90,s,even 00,s,it does,nt mean to say that the players were rubbish,many players played a bit more safe than to rather go for almost everything,i,m sure many players could compete with the current crop,the players of the 90,s were not weak,sure,there were a few,but they,re are a good few these days,just like they,re was in other eras.

Some ramble on about how high the standard is these days,i,ll say it again,yeah,there are some mstches of very high standard,but i,ve seen many in which there was nuthin special,the way some ramble on,it,s as if every match goes through the roof standard wise,the players hardly run outta pos,they hardly miss a pot,the safety is always up to scratch and many players like to blame the high standard if they lose,the truth is,most of the players just are,nt good enough consistent wise,but,yeah,they can always come up with the so called the standards so high these days drivvel as an excuse when they lose.

No doubt about it,the standard of the lower ranked players/the strength in depth has risen,but the consistency of those players is weak,as if Hendry would,nt have beaten them,they,re lucky there is,nt a prime Hendry arounbd these days,then they would have sometzhing to complain about. <laugh>

I,m certainly not gonna boss,try n boss people into agreeing with my opininons,everyone is of course free to have there,s,but i personally think it is very weak to even try n suggest that the 90,s were weak and to devalue Hendrys wins,achievements,as i say,one could try n do that with all the rest of the crop.

Thats all i,m gonna,want to say on the matter,it,s been talked about nuuuuuumerous times bfore,i,ve said my bit a good few times on the subject,for me,Hendry is still the GREATEST,Ronnies getting closer to grabbing that away from him,but for me personally,he,s not there yet.

I could add a few more things,but that,ll do,i,ve had enough of havin to write the same stuff i,ve already written a good few times.

Thats all for me for the mom,catch ya all at the German MASTERS.

*PEACE*. :-D



I've been debating for a long time about replying, simply cause I knew I had to write a lot and quite frankly, I'm very lazy, but I just can't let this go. So here it goes:

Players from the early 90's were not rubbish, but they are weaker. The standard of the game in depth has risen after 2000, you've acknowledged this yourself.

It's not just the standard of the lower ranked players, but also the standard of the top players, even though not by that much. A 2012-2014 Ronnie would demolish any version of himself from the early 90's.

Hendry will always be a great, however he was not as good as his records suggest. I agree that you can only beat who's in front of you, but when those opponents are not that great, it's a lot easier to win titles.
Had Hendry turned pro at the same time as Ronnie, Higgins and Williams, he wouldn't have the records he now has.

Take a look at the rankings in the 94-95 season / Hendry's peak period.
The top players were:
1. Hendry - some might think that this version of Hendry beats any other player in history, with the exception of Ronnie. I reckon a peak Selby, Robertson and Higgins would also beat Hendry, and that's cause their break-building is just as good and their safety and tactical play is far superior.

2. Steve Davis - this version of Steve (that Hendry had to beat in order to win his titles) stands litle chance against Ronnie, Robertson, Selby, Higgins. He also loses 7 times out of 10 to Ding, Trump, Hawkins, Murphy, Marco Fu, M. Allen. He might stand a chance Bingham, Carter, Perry, Maguire, Wilson - but he's the underdog against any of them.

3. Wattana - i reckon he has even little chance than Davis, since he's safety and tactical play is weaker.

4. Jimmy - at his very best, he's up there with the best of them in terms of potting balls. However, he was very weak mentally and his safety and tactical play means that 9 times out of 10 he'll loose to the likes of Ronnie, Higgins, Robertson, Selby. He loses 7/10 against Ding, Trump, Hawkins, Murphy, Marco Fu, M. Allen and he's pretty even with Bingham, Carter, Perry, Maguire, Wilson.

5. Parrott. 6. McManus 7. Doherty
I can't really see any of them winning more than 50% of the matches against Bingham, Carter, Perry, Maguire, Wilson. They will probably loose most time against Ronnie, Higgins, Robertson, Selby, Ding, Trump, Hawkins, Murphy, Marco Fu, M. Allen

8.Darren Morgan - gets beat 8 times out of 10 by all of today's top pros. Doesn't stand a prayer against 2012-2014 Ronnie, Higgins, Selby, Robertson, Trump, Ding.

9. 19 year old Ronnie - on a great day, he might beat some top pros, but he loses everytime to the current version of himself, Selby, Robertson, Higgins.

10. Peter Ebdon - might beat some top pros, but he'll loose far more matches than he wins.

11. Nigel Bond
12 Joe Swail
13 David Roe
They'll loose 90% of the matches against today's top pros.

14 Terry Griffiths
15 Willie Thorne
16 Tony Drago
They don't stand a prayer of winning. They'd probably get whitewashed in some matches.


This is embarrassingly clueless, and I say that as someone who thinks Sullivan is the best of all time. I will quote this and slaughter you later today when I've as much time in my hands as you, you cabbage.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby PoolBoy

Cheers, Pinky - saved me the bother of replying to Bravo's 'tripe'!
I also think Ronnie's the best exponent of snooker there has ever been. But that's just my opinion. Hendry will always be the greatest until somebody surpasses his records.

Just like in darts - I recognise Michael van Gerwen as the player who has played the sport to the highest standard. Better even than Phil Taylor - but The Power will remain the GOAT until his records are beaten.

It's not about ability, it's about achievements.
And as the famous quote goes, "Achievements outweigh opinion, every time" !!!

:happy:

P.S. PinkBall - although, I've not acknowledged it on the relevant threads, the work you put-in to compiling those lists last week is greatly appreciated. Really insightful stats. Cheers - Just brilliant! :bowdown:

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Pink Ball

PoolBoy wrote:Cheers, Pinky - saved me the bother of replying to Bravo's 'tripe'!
I also think Ronnie's the best exponent of snooker there has ever been. But that's just my opinion. Hendry will always be the greatest until somebody surpasses his records.

Just like in darts - I recognise Michael van Gerwen as the player who has played the sport to the highest standard. Better even than Phil Taylor - but The Power will remain the GOAT until his records are beaten.

It's not about ability, it's about achievements.
And as the famous quote goes, "Achievements outweigh opinion, every time" !!!

:happy:

P.S. PinkBall - although, I've not acknowledged it on the relevant threads, the work you put-in to compiling those lists last week is greatly appreciated. Really insightful stats. Cheers - Just brilliant! :bowdown:


Poolboy, after a difficult and at times bitter start to our relationship on Snooker forms, I think an unlikely bromance is starting to brew between us!

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby sas6789

PoolBoy wrote: Just like in darts - I recognise Michael van Gerwen as the player who has played the sport to the highest standard. Better even than Phil Taylor - but The Power will remain the GOAT until his records are beaten.

And I n golf, Tiger Woods played the game to a higher standard than anyone but Jack Nicklaus will remain the GOAT until his record in majors is broken.

I'm not Dennis Taylor BTW! LOL.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby PoolBoy

Pink Ball wrote:
PoolBoy wrote:Cheers, Pinky - saved me the bother of replying to Bravo's 'tripe'!
I also think Ronnie's the best exponent of snooker there has ever been. But that's just my opinion. Hendry will always be the greatest until somebody surpasses his records.

Just like in darts - I recognise Michael van Gerwen as the player who has played the sport to the highest standard. Better even than Phil Taylor - but The Power will remain the GOAT until his records are beaten.

It's not about ability, it's about achievements.
And as the famous quote goes, "Achievements outweigh opinion, every time" !!!

:happy:

P.S. PinkBall - although, I've not acknowledged it on the relevant threads, the work you put-in to compiling those lists last week is greatly appreciated. Really insightful stats. Cheers - Just brilliant! :bowdown:


Poolboy, after a difficult and at times bitter start to our relationship on Snooker forms, I think an unlikely bromance is starting to brew between us!


<ok> :love:

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Johnny Bravo

PoolBoy wrote:Cheers, Pinky - saved me the bother of replying to Bravo's 'tripe'!
I also think Ronnie's the best exponent of snooker there has ever been. But that's just my opinion. Hendry will always be the greatest until somebody surpasses his records.

Just like in darts - I recognise Michael van Gerwen as the player who has played the sport to the highest standard. Better even than Phil Taylor - but The Power will remain the GOAT until his records are beaten.

It's not about ability, it's about achievements.
And as the famous quote goes, "Achievements outweigh opinion, every time" !!!


We have different definitions regarding greatness. For me, it has never been about achievements, nor will it ever be. The number of titles/trophies someone wins depends on the era he plays in, the level of opposition, the equipment at his disposal, training programs, nutrition, etc.

Considering all of these things, how can anyone compare sportsmen from different eras and claim X is better than Y simply because he has won more trophies ?!

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Johnny Bravo

Pink Ball wrote: This is embarrassingly clueless, and I say that as someone who thinks Sullivan is the best of all time. I will quote this and slaughter you later today when I've as much time in my hands as you, you cabbage.


I don't mind you calling me a cabbage.
In fact, I'm really excited to see what arguments you will bring to our conversation.