Post a reply

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby sas6789

Majors: Selby 7-6 Williams
Ranking titles: Williams 18-10 Selby
World titles: Selby 2-2 Williams
Non-ranking titles: Williams 6-6 Selby
Total professional titles won: Williams 26-23 Selby
Centuries: Williams 368- 448 Selby
147's: Selby 2-2 Williams
Years ranked world number 1: Selby 5-3 Williams

At this moment I'd probably just rank Williams ahead but that could change.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby snooker_loopy

"I've said this before, Hendry only won 7 because he played in a weaker era. "

I don't agree. Most players can't even win one WC whatever era they're in!

It's also worth noting Hendry achieved more wins in a decade than what O'Sullivan has achieved in over 20 years in the sport. Which would suggest Hendry at his best was the best. But O'Sullivan's longevity in the sport - and wins - is a remarkable achievement. I'm sure he can become the all-time major winners player.
Last edited by snooker_loopy on 02 Feb 2017, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby sas6789

Ronnie79 wrote:Horse bullocks is it what the buck has Williams done to deserve to be in the top 5 all time. He had one great year in 02-03 period.im not a fan of Selby's but he is a far better player and will win more than Williams. It's actually a tougher era now because titles are shared by more players a bit like in golf

In Williams peak there was prime O'Sullivan and Higgins, past prime but still very good Hendry plus the likes of Doherty, Ebdon, Stevens and Hunter. that's definitely tougher than todays top players.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Pink Ball

Ronnie79 wrote:Horse bullocks is it what the buck has Williams done to deserve to be in the top 5 all time. He had one great year in 02-03 period.im not a fan of Selby's but he is a far better player and will win more than Williams. It's actually a tougher era now because titles are shared by more players a bit like in golf


Why would that be a sign of strength Sonny boy? If Williams was around today there'd be a lot less sharing, I guarantee you.

One good year? Did he win all 18 of his ranking titles in one year, yeah? I considered him the second or third best player in the world at least for about 5 years in an ultra competitive era. He wasn't my favourite player, but I am a superb and fair analyst.

Selby is a great player - top 10 of all time and best of his era - but he's not at Williams' level yet (just outside top 5 of all time).

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby snooker_loopy

The notion players are better than the Hendry era seems a bit fickle to me. What I mean is the quality of play varies - that's just the fickle nature of life. You can watch one tournament and the play is amazing - great matches, great centuries and watch another tournament and the overall play is a bit scrappy. It's not as if every tournament is going to be amazingly good quality.

Steve Davis raised the bar in the 1980s.

Stephen Hendry raised the bar in the 1990s.

As of 2017 no player has won more events (total events) nor more WC than Hendry. In this respect, no player has raised the bar beyond Hendry. Ronnie has a chance but it will take him over 25 years to achieve that! Ronnie turned pro in 1992. Still got to win three more WC to raise the bar over the Scottish geezer! :-D

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby SnookerFan

Ronnie79 wrote:Pink ball Williams is around today like O'Sullivan and Higgins and he is winning f*uck all, BTW I ain't your son


No Ronnie.... He is your father. Search your heart. You know it to be true.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Pink Ball

Ronnie79 wrote:Pink ball I think you are missing the point if Williams was as great as you say he would still be winning like the others. He hasn't won anything in years

Yeah he's been utter rubbish the last five years. But he was top class for years. Why judge him on the last five though, or his slump in the mid noughties? Why not judge him on the 10-15 seasons that he was world class?

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Iranu

Ronnie79 wrote:Pink ball I think you are missing the point if Williams was as great as you say he would still be winning like the others. He hasn't won anything in years

Hendry didn't win anything for what, the last 7 years of his career?

Guess he wasn't that great either.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Andre147

Iranu wrote:
Ronnie79 wrote:Pink ball I think you are missing the point if Williams was as great as you say he would still be winning like the others. He hasn't won anything in years

Hendry didn't win anything for what, the last 7 years of his career?

Guess he wasn't that great either.


I agree.

Him desperatly trying to say Selby is already greater than MJW is beyond belief...

Selby might become greater if wins more titles, but at the moment MJW is still ahead of him. Plus MJW played in SNooker's toughest era and was the best player in that particular era.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Ronnie79

Iranu big difference between Hendry going off the boil and Williams who has won 6 triple crown events. Which is not the many really. Selby already has won more than that. I can't stand Selby btw

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby sas6789

Ronnie79 wrote:Iranu big difference between Hendry going off the boil and Williams who has won 6 triple crown events. Which is not the many really. Selby already has won more than that. I can't stand Selby btw

Alex Higgins won 5 triple crown events Jimmy White won 2, are they not great players either?

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Andre147

sas6789 wrote:
Ronnie79 wrote:Iranu big difference between Hendry going off the boil and Williams who has won 6 triple crown events. Which is not the many really. Selby already has won more than that. I can't stand Selby btw

Alex Higgins won 5 triple crown events Jimmy White won 2, are they not great players either?


According to him no rofl

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Iranu

Ronnie79 wrote:Iranu big difference between Hendry going off the boil and Williams who has won 6 triple crown events. Which is not the many really. Selby already has won more than that. I can't stand Selby btw


I disagree that 6 triple crowns isn't that many. As mentioned, Jimmy White only won 2.

He's won 7 more ranking titles than Selby, right? That's a pretty huge difference. Triple crowns aren't the be-all and end-all.

I also believe peak Williams would beat peak Selby most of the time, though obviously that's just conjecture on my part.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Snooker-Fan2016

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.

Selby and Robertson's break-building as stong as peak Hendry's????????????????? Oh boy that has to be the funniest thing i've ever read on a snooker forum. You don't belong on this forum Bravo or any snooker forum for that matter because you don't know the first thing about the game.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Holden Chinaski

Peak Hendry's break building was on another level. Just out of this world. His long potting was amazing as well. He would go for the wildest long reds, pot it and get position on the black. Even with his back against the wall he would do it. Next thing you know he made another century like it was nothing. He would brake his opponents spirit.

Peak Hendry would destroy Selby and Robbo. And another thing, Hendry didn't like playing safe but when he wanted his safety game was pretty good. Selby has a better safety game of course, he's one of the best safety players ever, but in all other departments peak Hendry was superior.

Re: Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Postby Wildey

Pink Ball wrote:
Ronnie79 wrote:Pink ball I think you are missing the point if Williams was as great as you say he would still be winning like the others. He hasn't won anything in years

Yeah he's been utter rubbish the last five years. But he was top class for years. Why judge him on the last five though, or his slump in the mid noughties? Why not judge him on the 10-15 seasons that he was world class?

Williams peak was short compared to others but so was Davis and Hendry's to be fair what is to say their peak would smash the current crop to smithereens we will never know.