Sullivan within one major of Hendry

Johnny Bravo 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" !!!

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 ?!

Get back-to-me when Ronnie's got 8 World Titles!

Bravo wrote: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 certainly did rise after 2000, but it's dipped markedly since about 2007 again, and today I think the standard may even be lower than the '90s.

Bravo wrote: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.

I agree with all of this.

Bravo wrote:Take a look at the rankings in the 94-95 season / Hendry's peak period.

Okay

Bravo wrote: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.

I'll leave you off with saying Higgins, because he is an outstanding player.

But 'peak Robertson or Selby would beat peak Hendry?' If you think either of them could build breaks as well as Hendry, then I can only presume you didn't watch much of Hendry, or you've allowed your dislike of him to colour everything in a different light. I disliked Hendry STRONGLY (Jimmy fan), but I'm painfully aware of just how good he was.

Bravo wrote: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.

I agree he would lose more often than not to Sullivan or Higgins. He would be similar to Selby and Robertson though.

If he played an in-form Ding or Trump, he'd probably lose, but they are both wildly inconsistent, a problem Davis didn't have. The rest of them? No chance would they beat him more often than not.

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

Wattana could well have been a World Champion nowadays, maybe even a multiple world champion with a bit of luck on his side. Similar level to Shaun Murphy.

Bravo wrote: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.

Roughly a similar level to Selby, better than Robertson. Also similar level to Ding. Superior to Trump, Hawkins (lol), Fu (pretty funny too), Mark Allen (gotta be kidding me).

Bingham (Is this the same Bingham that did sod all until all the greats declined?), Carter (bull), Perry (head in hand), Maguire (more often than not, Jimmy would crush him), Wilson (he's young, but he hasn't done anything SPECTACULAR yet).

Jimmy would have had a better chance of being a World Champion nowadays than when he knuckled down in the '90s. Nobody nearly as good as Hendry there now.

As for VERY mentally weak? He wasn't. The man won EVERYTHING but a World Title. And it took a lot of bottle to even keep showing up at the start line after some of the tragic defeats he suffered. Guy had poor concentration for a top pro, that was his main issue, not bottle.

Bravo wrote: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.

Parrott and McManus in 1994/1995 would beat all of them more often than not, no question. Doherty would be a bit green at that point, but I'd still fancy him to win more games than not against that crew.

Bravo wrote:They will probably loose most time against Ronnie, Higgins, Robertson, Selby, Ding, Trump, Hawkins, Murphy, Marco Fu, M. Allen

I agree with you as far as Ding. But WHY OH WHY are you still making Hawkins and Allen out to be amazing?

I think McManus could have been a World Champion in the present era. In fact, he wasn't exactly a mile off last year at the age of 83.

Bravo wrote: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.

Don't think he was that far behind the likes of Allen, Carter, Perry, Fu, Hawkins, Bingham, if at all. With a bit of luck, Morgan could have sneaked a few ranking titles in the current era.

Bravo wrote: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.

Even at 19, I think Sullivan would've been a handful for Robertson or Ding and certainly Trump.

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

Think he would be pretty even with that Hawkins, Bingham, Fu, Perry group you keep raving about.

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

Probably agree.

Bravo wrote: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.

I agree.

JOHNNY BRAVO is a great comedian i'll give him that. Peak Hendry in the 90s on top form would wipe the table with Robertson and Selby easily.

Pink Ball wrote:

Bravo wrote: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 certainly did rise after 2000, but it's dipped markedly since about 2007 again, and today I think the standard may even be lower than the '90s.

Bravo wrote: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.

I agree with all of this.

Bravo wrote:Take a look at the rankings in the 94-95 season / Hendry's peak period.

Okay

Bravo wrote: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.

I'll leave you off with saying Higgins, because he is an outstanding player.

But 'peak Robertson or Selby would beat peak Hendry?' If you think either of them could build breaks as well as Hendry, then I can only presume you didn't watch much of Hendry, or you've allowed your dislike of him to colour everything in a different light. I disliked Hendry STRONGLY (Jimmy fan), but I'm painfully aware of just how good he was.

Bravo wrote: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.

I agree he would lose more often than not to Sullivan or Higgins. He would be similar to Selby and Robertson though.

If he played an in-form Ding or Trump, he'd probably lose, but they are both wildly inconsistent, a problem Davis didn't have. The rest of them? No chance would they beat him more often than not.

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

Wattana could well have been a World Champion nowadays, maybe even a multiple world champion with a bit of luck on his side. Similar level to Shaun Murphy.

Bravo wrote: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.

Roughly a similar level to Selby, better than Robertson. Also similar level to Ding. Superior to Trump, Hawkins (lol), Fu (pretty funny too), Mark Allen (gotta be kidding me).

Bingham (Is this the same Bingham that did sod all until all the greats declined?), Carter (bull), Perry (head in hand), Maguire (more often than not, Jimmy would crush him), Wilson (he's young, but he hasn't done anything SPECTACULAR yet).

Jimmy would have had a better chance of being a World Champion nowadays than when he knuckled down in the '90s. Nobody nearly as good as Hendry there now.

As for VERY mentally weak? He wasn't. The man won EVERYTHING but a World Title. And it took a lot of bottle to even keep showing up at the start line after some of the tragic defeats he suffered. Guy had poor concentration for a top pro, that was his main issue, not bottle.

Bravo wrote: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.

Parrott and McManus in 1994/1995 would beat all of them more often than not, no question. Doherty would be a bit green at that point, but I'd still fancy him to win more games than not against that crew.

Bravo wrote:They will probably loose most time against Ronnie, Higgins, Robertson, Selby, Ding, Trump, Hawkins, Murphy, Marco Fu, M. Allen

I agree with you as far as Ding. But WHY OH WHY are you still making Hawkins and Allen out to be amazing?

I think McManus could have been a World Champion in the present era. In fact, he wasn't exactly a mile off last year at the age of 83.

Bravo wrote: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.

Don't think he was that far behind the likes of Allen, Carter, Perry, Fu, Hawkins, Bingham, if at all. With a bit of luck, Morgan could have sneaked a few ranking titles in the current era.

Bravo wrote: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.

Even at 19, I think Sullivan would've been a handful for Robertson or Ding and certainly Trump.

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

Think he would be pretty even with that Hawkins, Bingham, Fu, Perry group you keep raving about.

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

Probably agree.

Bravo wrote: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.

I agree.

You say you appriciate how good Hendy was but you clearley don't, Hendry at his best form in the 90s would have a winning against ANYONEplaying bar probably O'Sullivan.

sas6789 wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Bravo wrote: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 certainly did rise after 2000, but it's dipped markedly since about 2007 again, and today I think the standard may even be lower than the '90s.

Bravo wrote: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.

I agree with all of this.

Bravo wrote:Take a look at the rankings in the 94-95 season / Hendry's peak period.

Okay

Bravo wrote: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.

I'll leave you off with saying Higgins, because he is an outstanding player.

But 'peak Robertson or Selby would beat peak Hendry?' If you think either of them could build breaks as well as Hendry, then I can only presume you didn't watch much of Hendry, or you've allowed your dislike of him to colour everything in a different light. I disliked Hendry STRONGLY (Jimmy fan), but I'm painfully aware of just how good he was.

Bravo wrote: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.

I agree he would lose more often than not to Sullivan or Higgins. He would be similar to Selby and Robertson though.

If he played an in-form Ding or Trump, he'd probably lose, but they are both wildly inconsistent, a problem Davis didn't have. The rest of them? No chance would they beat him more often than not.

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

Wattana could well have been a World Champion nowadays, maybe even a multiple world champion with a bit of luck on his side. Similar level to Shaun Murphy.

Bravo wrote: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.

Roughly a similar level to Selby, better than Robertson. Also similar level to Ding. Superior to Trump, Hawkins (lol), Fu (pretty funny too), Mark Allen (gotta be kidding me).

Bingham (Is this the same Bingham that did sod all until all the greats declined?), Carter (bull), Perry (head in hand), Maguire (more often than not, Jimmy would crush him), Wilson (he's young, but he hasn't done anything SPECTACULAR yet).

Jimmy would have had a better chance of being a World Champion nowadays than when he knuckled down in the '90s. Nobody nearly as good as Hendry there now.

As for VERY mentally weak? He wasn't. The man won EVERYTHING but a World Title. And it took a lot of bottle to even keep showing up at the start line after some of the tragic defeats he suffered. Guy had poor concentration for a top pro, that was his main issue, not bottle.

Bravo wrote: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.

Parrott and McManus in 1994/1995 would beat all of them more often than not, no question. Doherty would be a bit green at that point, but I'd still fancy him to win more games than not against that crew.

Bravo wrote:They will probably loose most time against Ronnie, Higgins, Robertson, Selby, Ding, Trump, Hawkins, Murphy, Marco Fu, M. Allen

I agree with you as far as Ding. But WHY OH WHY are you still making Hawkins and Allen out to be amazing?

I think McManus could have been a World Champion in the present era. In fact, he wasn't exactly a mile off last year at the age of 83.

Bravo wrote: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.

Don't think he was that far behind the likes of Allen, Carter, Perry, Fu, Hawkins, Bingham, if at all. With a bit of luck, Morgan could have sneaked a few ranking titles in the current era.

Bravo wrote: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.

Even at 19, I think Sullivan would've been a handful for Robertson or Ding and certainly Trump.

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

Think he would be pretty even with that Hawkins, Bingham, Fu, Perry group you keep raving about.

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

Probably agree.

Bravo wrote: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.

I agree.

You say you appriciate how good Hendy was but you clearley don't, Hendry at his best form in the 90s would have a winning against ANYONEplaying bar probably O'Sullivan.

but I agree with you

Another thing Darren Morgan and Nigel Bond at their best would have been very comfortable in this era, in fact the reached a semi final of an event this season and their both close to 50 LOL and idiot Johnny Bravo thinks they would loose 90% of matches?? Oh the comedy is just gold.

As for James Wattana, it wouldn't surprise me if he made a world final in today's era if he was at his best.

John Parrott? the way he played when he won the world's in 1991? Well even O'Sullivan at his best wouldn't have an easy time with him.

McManus? Well if he's so crap and today's era is so great, what's he doing reaching a world semi then hey Johnny?

Jimmy White? Well he was a bit of bottler but he would certainly have won a world title between 2006-present if he were at his best today.

Pink Ball wrote:

sas6789 wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Bravo wrote: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 certainly did rise after 2000, but it's dipped markedly since about 2007 again, and today I think the standard may even be lower than the '90s.

Bravo wrote: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.

I agree with all of this.

Bravo wrote:Take a look at the rankings in the 94-95 season / Hendry's peak period.

Okay

Bravo wrote: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.

I'll leave you off with saying Higgins, because he is an outstanding player.

But 'peak Robertson or Selby would beat peak Hendry?' If you think either of them could build breaks as well as Hendry, then I can only presume you didn't watch much of Hendry, or you've allowed your dislike of him to colour everything in a different light. I disliked Hendry STRONGLY (Jimmy fan), but I'm painfully aware of just how good he was.

Bravo wrote: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.

I agree he would lose more often than not to Sullivan or Higgins. He would be similar to Selby and Robertson though.

If he played an in-form Ding or Trump, he'd probably lose, but they are both wildly inconsistent, a problem Davis didn't have. The rest of them? No chance would they beat him more often than not.

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

Wattana could well have been a World Champion nowadays, maybe even a multiple world champion with a bit of luck on his side. Similar level to Shaun Murphy.

Bravo wrote: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.

Roughly a similar level to Selby, better than Robertson. Also similar level to Ding. Superior to Trump, Hawkins (lol), Fu (pretty funny too), Mark Allen (gotta be kidding me).

Bingham (Is this the same Bingham that did sod all until all the greats declined?), Carter (bull), Perry (head in hand), Maguire (more often than not, Jimmy would crush him), Wilson (he's young, but he hasn't done anything SPECTACULAR yet).

Jimmy would have had a better chance of being a World Champion nowadays than when he knuckled down in the '90s. Nobody nearly as good as Hendry there now.

As for VERY mentally weak? He wasn't. The man won EVERYTHING but a World Title. And it took a lot of bottle to even keep showing up at the start line after some of the tragic defeats he suffered. Guy had poor concentration for a top pro, that was his main issue, not bottle.

Bravo wrote: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.

Parrott and McManus in 1994/1995 would beat all of them more often than not, no question. Doherty would be a bit green at that point, but I'd still fancy him to win more games than not against that crew.

Bravo wrote:They will probably loose most time against Ronnie, Higgins, Robertson, Selby, Ding, Trump, Hawkins, Murphy, Marco Fu, M. Allen

I agree with you as far as Ding. But WHY OH WHY are you still making Hawkins and Allen out to be amazing?

I think McManus could have been a World Champion in the present era. In fact, he wasn't exactly a mile off last year at the age of 83.

Bravo wrote: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.

Don't think he was that far behind the likes of Allen, Carter, Perry, Fu, Hawkins, Bingham, if at all. With a bit of luck, Morgan could have sneaked a few ranking titles in the current era.

Bravo wrote: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.

Even at 19, I think Sullivan would've been a handful for Robertson or Ding and certainly Trump.

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

Think he would be pretty even with that Hawkins, Bingham, Fu, Perry group you keep raving about.

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

Probably agree.

Bravo wrote: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.

I agree.

You say you appriciate how good Hendy was but you clearley don't, Hendry at his best form in the 90s would have a winning against ANYONEplaying bar probably O'Sullivan.

but I agree with you

Your right, i read your post too quick, i misread it a little, i apologise. But i notice you said Hendry playing his best would loose to Trump and Ding playing at their best more times than he would win, i disagree with that, with Ding i think it would be 50/50 both playing at the top of their form. As for Judd, even when he's playing well he leaves chances because of his recklessness at times which wouldn't be good at all against a red hot Hendry.

No problem.

Nope, said that about 94/95 Davis.

Pink Ball wrote:No problem.

Nope, said that about 94/95 Davis.

Ah the Davis of 94/95, yes, but the Davis of 89/90 (who Hendry beat in both UK finals) i'd have as fave over anyone currently playing bar Ronnie, Higgins and maybe Selby.

Unfortunately there won´t be anything else than just one colour :( :( Pick a grey hat.

Leaving it to the leader then. Hmm.. Once again, not the greatest thinking in the world. But personally I am not bothered at all!

It is a pretty pointless argument and unless ROS wins another couple of WCs then people aren't going to change their opinions either way. Stephen Hendry is the most successful snooker player ever and if that's your criteria for establishing the best then that's fair enough, can't argue with that. For me ROS is the greatest player we've seen. My reasoning is that, at their best, Davis, Hendry and J Higgins could play flawless snooker, and, at their best, A Higgins, J White and MJW could play sublime, miraculous snooker. But at his best ROS is the only player I've seen who could do both.

whitespider 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.

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).

Just to put another spin on things Between 1998 and 2003 Mark Williams was the Best player in the World winning 6 triple crowns in 6 years and only the 3rd behind Davis and Hendry to win them in the same season 2002/2003 season.

Many have claimed that during Williams dominent period 1998-2004 the sport strongest era was so is Williams in fact the Greatest?

MJW was tthe greatest in Snooker's strongest era I would agree.

However, he didn't make the most of his career like contemporaries Higgins and Ronnie have done, so it's not because he was the best player over a 7 year period that he should be regarded the GOAT. If that was the case, then in the 2010s era Selby is the greatest, thus far.

Andre147 wrote:MJW was tthe greatest in Snooker's strongest era I would agree.

However, he didn't make the most of his career like contemporaries Higgins and Ronnie have done, so it's not because he was the best player over a 7 year period that he should be regarded the GOAT. If that was the case, then in the 2010s era Selby is the greatest, thus far.

If i had to list the top 5 greatest players of all time in 2003 i would go


1 Hendry
2 Davis
3 Williams
4 O'Sullivan
5 Higgins

by today its

1 O'Sullivan
2 Hendry
3 Higgins
4 Davis
5 Williams

But Nobody else has managrd to break in to that top 5 since early 2000.

Mark Selby is the only player that comes close at the moment.

for me what stands Hendry and Ronnie head and shoulders above the rest isnt the tournaments they have won but the way they won them.

you could argue their success playing attacking snooker and picking up trophies has breed a generation of players that try and copy them without the ability they had or in Ronnie's case still have and hence Players take on risky pots and come unstuck playing that way dare i say it Shaun Murphy and Judd Trump case in point.

Mark Williams is not and should not be on anyone's list for as top 5 all time no way, top 10 yes but that's it

Iranu wrote:

Ronnie79 wrote:Mark Williams is not and should not be on anyone's list for as top 5 all time no way, top 10 yes but that's it

Who would you put ahead of him?

I Cant think of anyone as i said only Selby can come anywhere near him

Wildey wrote:

Iranu wrote:

Ronnie79 wrote:Mark Williams is not and should not be on anyone's list for as top 5 all time no way, top 10 yes but that's it

Who would you put ahead of him?

I Cant think of anyone as i said only Selby can come anywhere near him

I also can't see any reason why MJW shouldn't rightly be in the Top 5 of Best of All Time.

Selby might ocuppy his 5th place, but he has a looonngg way to go before that happens.

SnookerFan wrote:If Selby wins one more world title, but nothing else, does he go ahead?

Not a bucking chance sunshine

SnookerFan wrote:If Selby wins one more world title, but nothing else, does he go ahead?

For me he wouldn't go above MJW if that happened. MJW's other ranking event wins do count for something. If Selby were to win 4 World Titles though, then I might change my opinion.

Selby would be ahead of him and what about Alex Higgins if it wasnt for him snooker would never have made it to TV people don't think of these facts

Andre Selby is a better player than Williams already he has the same World titles more Masters more triple crown events more centuries made and has plenty of time to catch his ranking wins. It's a no brained for me.

Brainer I mean. Alex Higgins would be knocking on the door for what he done to get the people watching in the early days and make snooker the game it is today

Ronnie79 wrote:Andre Selby is a better player than Williams already he has the same World titles more Masters more triple crown events more centuries made and has plenty of time to catch his ranking wins. It's a no brained for me.

100% horse bullocks.

Selby has plenty to do to overtake Williams. Williams was at his best in a much tougher era, and as of now has still been more successful than Selby.

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

Ronnie has won 8 less ranking events than Hendry but commentators, players and fans all say the rocket is the greatest player ever. So why can't Selby be better than Williams