World Championship (Mon 7th of May) Final Discussion !

I don't care much for the opinions of Hendon and the like, after all they are journalists just trying to earn a living, and cannot say exactly what they want. However, the BBC pundits have taken BS to an absolute new level. For 'Davis and Parrott' read 'Laurel and Hardy'. Their attempt to brainwash the unknowledgeable snooker fan is unerring.

Davis's comment about O'Sullivan 2012 being the best version of any snooker player ever had my sides splitting. This is the man who last year said John Higgins was the greatest player ever. Whatever question 'The Nugget' is asked he will swerve it just to say yet again "Ronnie O'Sullivan is the best thing since sliced bread". Parrott's comment "O'Sullivan will win 8 world titles, it just depends on whether or not he wants to", is perhaps even more laughable.

There have been many more better world championship winning performances over the years. I would say it was O'Sullivan's least impressive displays in winning a world title. He has played better in the world championship and been beaten.

vodkadiet wrote:I don't care much for the opinions of Hendon and the like, after all they are journalists just trying to earn a living, and cannot say exactly what they want. However, the BBC pundits have taken BS to an absolute new level. For 'Davis and Parrott' read 'Laurel and Hardy'. Their attempt to brainwash the unknowledgeable snooker fan is unerring.

Davis's comment about O'Sullivan 2012 being the best version of any snooker player ever had my sides splitting. This is the man who last year said John Higgins was the greatest player ever. Whatever question 'The Nugget' is asked he will swerve it just to say yet again "Ronnie O'Sullivan is the best thing since sliced bread". Parrott's comment "O'Sullivan will win 8 world titles, it just depends on whether or not he wants to", is perhaps even more laughable.

There have been many more better world championship winning performances over the years. I would say it was O'Sullivan's least impressive displays in winning a world title. He has played better in the world championship and been beaten.

at the end of the day he did what he had to do and won the games, all of them, bar the Robbo game to an extent, with ease.

i agree it wasnt his best snooker but overall it was his best matchplay and level headed performances ever.

i think the BBC guys are actually told what to say tbh

Hazel
Ray Paresh
Rob banker
Davis
Griffiths
Thorne
Parrott
Virgo
Taylor
Doherty
Hendry

im sure ive missed some others too, how many do they bloody need?

For me the holy trinity will always be VINE, HUGHES and LOWE

You missed Neal Foulds

Witz78 wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:I don't care much for the opinions of Hendon and the like, after all they are journalists just trying to earn a living, and cannot say exactly what they want. However, the BBC pundits have taken BS to an absolute new level. For 'Davis and Parrott' read 'Laurel and Hardy'. Their attempt to brainwash the unknowledgeable snooker fan is unerring.

Davis's comment about O'Sullivan 2012 being the best version of any snooker player ever had my sides splitting. This is the man who last year said John Higgins was the greatest player ever. Whatever question 'The Nugget' is asked he will swerve it just to say yet again "Ronnie O'Sullivan is the best thing since sliced bread". Parrott's comment "O'Sullivan will win 8 world titles, it just depends on whether or not he wants to", is perhaps even more laughable.

There have been many more better world championship winning performances over the years. I would say it was O'Sullivan's least impressive displays in winning a world title. He has played better in the world championship and been beaten.

at the end of the day he did what he had to do and won the games, all of them, bar the Robbo game to an extent, with ease.

i agree it wasnt his best snooker but overall it was his best matchplay and level headed performances ever.

i think the BBC guys are actually told what to say tbh

Hazel
Ray Paresh
Rob help yourselfer
Davis
Griffiths
Thorne
Parrott
Virgo
Taylor
Doherty
Hendry

im sure ive missed some others too, how many do they bloody need?

For me the holy trinity will always be VINE, HUGHES and LOWE

It is true that O'Sullivan can only beat who is in front of him, the same as Hendry could only beat whowas in front of him. If anyone thinks that the performances put up by O'Sullivan's opponents this year could have threatened to beat Hendry in the mid 90s they know nothing about snooker whatsoever.

As for the pundits, Terry Griffiths should be left out of any criticism. He is his own man, and hasn't been taken in with all the hyperbole.

Terry Griffiths



I don't mind Richi. I think he is pretty impartial, and he is a good presenter.

Witz78 wrote:

Wild WC wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Casey wrote:All the talk about Hendo having it easy in his day makes me laugh – Ronnie has beaten Carter in his last two finals.
Circumstances robbed us of a better tournament – Selby being injured and Trump getting food poisoning. Funny enough that’s two players that can stick it to Ronnie.

in Hendrys day you got a bye to the quarters facing total nobodies

exibit A Witz and BS

thatll be the same BS that Hendry himself even came out and said then

You just don't get it Witz, let's try it one last time......

When you've such tremendous confidence in your game it never occurs to you that you can lose, especially to a player not even in the top 16.

When your game is on the decline that feeling of invincibility disappears and you become vulnerable to losses, even from those who aren't really in your class.

Hendry pawned it off as stronger competition for a couple of reasons, neither having to do with that statement having any truth.

First and foremost it was done to avoid acknowledging his game was gone and further shoot his confidence down.

Secondly to promote the sport, the new players and it's development like a proper pro.

Hendry felt getting to the 1/4s was a bye in the 90's because he had such confidence in his game, not because of weak competition. When you're that strong virtually everyone else is a weak/weaker player, no threat and thus you freewheel your way through the matchs.

Once his game started to slide and he no longer felt invincible then it stopped being a "bye" to the 1/4s. Not because of greater competition now, solely because he lost his confidence.

Weak 90's argument is the last desperate argument put forth by fanboys who couldn't stand Hendry being higher on the all time greats list than Ronnie.

I think that's going to be quoted

Sickpotter wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Wild WC wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Casey wrote:All the talk about Hendo having it easy in his day makes me laugh – Ronnie has beaten Carter in his last two finals.
Circumstances robbed us of a better tournament – Selby being injured and Trump getting food poisoning. Funny enough that’s two players that can stick it to Ronnie.

in Hendrys day you got a bye to the quarters facing total nobodies

exibit A Witz and BS

thatll be the same BS that Hendry himself even came out and said then

You just don't get it Witz, let's try it one last time......


When you've such tremendous confidence in your game it never occurs to you that you can lose, especially to a player not even in the top 16.

When your game is on the decline that feeling of invincibility disappears and you become vulnerable to losses, even from those who aren't really in your class.

Hendry pawned it off as stronger competition for a couple of reasons, neither having to do with that statement having any truth.

First and foremost it was done to avoid acknowledging his game was gone and further shoot his confidence down.

Secondly to promote the sport, the new players and it's development like a proper pro.

Hendry felt getting to the 1/4s was a bye in the 90's because he had such confidence in his game, not because of weak competition. When you're that strong virtually everyone else is a weak/weaker player, no threat and thus you freewheel your way through the matchs.

Once his game started to slide and he no longer felt invincible then it stopped being a "bye" to the 1/4s. Not because of greater competition now, solely because he lost his confidence.

Weak 90's argument is the last desperate argument put forth by fanboys who couldn't stand Hendry being higher on the all time greats list than Ronnie.

Im not a fanboy of Ronnie one bit, im a fan and thats it

So Hendry winning only 1 major after 1996 and the age of 27 was down to his game sliding, not standards increasing

come on, you cant even fool yourself with that trash, the late 90s / early - mid 00s was commonly regarded as the strongest era ever in snooker.

at the end of the day if the first half of the 90s was SO strong how come in the first 6 years of the 90s Hendry and White contested 5 finals each and the time White didnt make the final was when Hendry beat him in a semi?

would be unthinkable for such a recurring scenario to occur these days. infact this century weve never even had anyone reaching 2 finals in a row !!

im not denying how good Hendry was, im just throwing the argument back at the likes of you by saying how come his dominance all came in such a short space of time?

O'Sullivan lost to players in his prime at The Crucible that Hendry never would have. so Hendry done all his winning in his earlier days, and then waned. O'Sullivan wasted many opportunities in his prime and now wins a world title when past his peak.

What is better? Winning more, or winning over a longer period of time?

What all is said and done, the record books will speak for themselves.

Achievements outweigh opinion every time.

vodkadiet wrote:O'Sullivan lost to players in his prime at The Crucible that Hendry never would have. so Hendry done all his winning in his earlier days, and then waned. O'Sullivan wasted many opportunities in his prime and now wins a world title when past his peak.

What is better? Winning more, or winning over a longer period of time?

What all is said and done, the record books will speak for themselves.

Achievements outweigh opinion every time.

So in that case Steve Davis is better than Higgins and Ronnie?

Short time, huge title haul. Nobody can sustain that kind of focus forever and I would also posit that much of Hendry's success was related to his chasing Steve Davis's 6 WC record.

You can clearly see his form/focus dropped after he won his 7th title. For Hendry winning was everything so what did he have to chase after his period of domination? Nothing and that's why he stopped winning.

White's brilliance on the table was overshadowed by Hendry. White was playing his best ever during that time, that's why he made so many finals, not because other players were weak. Now you're not just slating Hendry, you're slating White.

The only reason the scenario is unthinkable these days is none of the current pros have shown Hendry's dedication to winning. They've made it even less likely by adding so many events, again sustained focus becomes a problem.

Late 90's is regarded as possibly the strongest era because we had Higgins, Hendry, Ronnie, White and Williams all playing fantastic attacking snooker. If all players in the 80's had played that attacking style that era could be considered for the strongest era. The way the game was played was changed by Hendry and when enough of the top 16 started playing that way it was suddenly deemed the strongest era. Overall skill level has not changed, just the playing style.

Witz78 wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:O'Sullivan lost to players in his prime at The Crucible that Hendry never would have. so Hendry done all his winning in his earlier days, and then waned. O'Sullivan wasted many opportunities in his prime and now wins a world title when past his peak.

What is better? Winning more, or winning over a longer period of time?

What all is said and done, the record books will speak for themselves.

Achievements outweigh opinion every time.

So in that case Steve Davis is better than Higgins and Ronnie?

His record is better. Beyond that, it is just opinion.

Sickpotter wrote:Short time, huge title haul. Nobody can sustain that kind of focus forever and I would also posit that much of Hendry's success was related to his chasing Steve Davis's 6 WC record.

You can clearly see his form/focus dropped after he won his 7th title. For Hendry winning was everything so what did he have to chase after his period of domination? Nothing and that's why he stopped winning.

White's brilliance on the table was overshadowed by Hendry. White was playing his best ever during that time, that's why he made so many finals, not because other players were weak. Now you're not just slating Hendry, you're slating White.

The only reason the scenario is unthinkable these days is none of the current pros have shown Hendry's dedication to winning. They've made it even less likely by adding so many events, again sustained focus becomes a problem.

Late 90's is regarded as possibly the strongest era because we had Higgins, Hendry, Ronnie, White and Williams all playing fantastic attacking snooker. If all players in the 80's had played that attacking style that era could be considered for the strongest era. The way the game was played was changed by Hendry and when enough of the top 16 started playing that way it was suddenly deemed the strongest era. Overall skill level has not changed, just the playing style.

White had little dedication even during his peak years so if it was that strong an era, surely he would have come unstuck more at the Crucible

vodkadiet wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:O'Sullivan lost to players in his prime at The Crucible that Hendry never would have. so Hendry done all his winning in his earlier days, and then waned. O'Sullivan wasted many opportunities in his prime and now wins a world title when past his peak.

What is better? Winning more, or winning over a longer period of time?

What all is said and done, the record books will speak for themselves.

Achievements outweigh opinion every time.

So in that case Steve Davis is better than Higgins and Ronnie?

His record is better. Beyond that, it is just opinion.

Davis has won more professional tournaments than Hendry

to be honest i never get involved in the weak era strong era debate but sometimes say things to wind wild up sticking a needle up his bottom but hendry himself has said a few times the reason why he almost had a bye into the quarters and semi finals was because the opposition werent as strong as today especially in terms of depth

those are his words he never said he get a bye into the quarter final semi finals because of his confidence but because of lack of strong opposition

Sickpotter wrote:The only reason the scenario is unthinkable these days is none of the current pros have shown Hendry's dedication to winning.

I think Selby is very dedicated for example ...

Sickpotter wrote:Short time, huge title haul. Nobody can sustain that kind of focus forever and I would also posit that much of Hendry's success was related to his chasing Steve Davis's 6 WC record.

You can clearly see his form/focus dropped after he won his 7th title. For Hendry winning was everything so what did he have to chase after his period of domination? Nothing and that's why he stopped winning.

White's brilliance on the table was overshadowed by Hendry. White was playing his best ever during that time, that's why he made so many finals, not because other players were weak. Now you're not just slating Hendry, you're slating White.

The only reason the scenario is unthinkable these days is none of the current pros have shown Hendry's dedication to winning. They've made it even less likely by adding so many events, again sustained focus becomes a problem.

Late 90's is regarded as possibly the strongest era because we had Higgins, Hendry, Ronnie, White and Williams all playing fantastic attacking snooker. If all players in the 80's had played that attacking style that era could be considered for the strongest era. The way the game was played was changed by Hendry and when enough of the top 16 started playing that way it was suddenly deemed the strongest era. Overall skill level has not changed, just the playing style.

White was a spent force in the late 90s

as for the 80s you could argue White, Kirk, Alex among others were superb attacking players in a generally tactical era.

I still think you can say that Hendry took aspects of Jimmy and Alexs play and combined it with Davis's attitude to the sport. I honestly think the "Hendry changed the game" line we constantly hear is misinformed.

if you want to get involved with more trophies equal a better player then clearly davis was better than hendry more titles as witz say and more ranking titles

davis has 28 i know and hendry 35 however davis would have had ten more ranking titles it just in his day they werent classed as ranking titles like they were in hendrys day

the only hold hendry has over davis is one more world title but the true ranking count is three ranking titles less

Witz78 wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:O'Sullivan lost to players in his prime at The Crucible that Hendry never would have. so Hendry done all his winning in his earlier days, and then waned. O'Sullivan wasted many opportunities in his prime and now wins a world title when past his peak.

What is better? Winning more, or winning over a longer period of time?

What all is said and done, the record books will speak for themselves.

Achievements outweigh opinion every time.

So in that case Steve Davis is better than Higgins and Ronnie?

His record is better. Beyond that, it is just opinion.

Davis has won more professional tournaments than Hendry

You're right. World titles aren't everything. Both Davis and Hendry were number 1 for long periods, Davis won more pro tourneys, and to that extent has a better record than Hendry.

The conditions that Davis played in during his heyday would completely baffle most of today's players. It equates to playing test cricket on wickets in the sub continent, in comparison to wickets in Australia.

Hendry may have one more world title than Davis but Davis dominated more than he did. When Davis played, there was an air of invincibility about him. Hendry got thrashed plenty of times. But people only remember his performances in the world championship.

Regardless of the opposition it was a great achievement for O'Sullivan to win a world title at his age. It was also nice to see him not slating all and sundry for a change.

jimmy was partying all night in the middle of the 1992 final that doesnt smack of dedication i read it in one of his books cant remember which one though

hendry was quite fortunate that white even during the early nineties didnt have the dedication he should have had

im not tarnishing hendrys achievements just repeating what he said about opposition being weaker in his heyday and if people want to play the trophy count argument then davis was better overall more titles won and the true ranking titles count three more than hendry

hendry fans cant have it both ways saying he better than o sullivan because of more ranking and world titles then say he better than davis because davis albeit winning only one less world title has three more ranking events but they werent classed as ranking events in his day like they were in hendrys day

GOAT debates

i didnt start it i was just responding to sickpotter and vodkadiet however i agree it tedious

hendry called it right when he say as long as you in the debate thats all you can ask for the rest is purely just opinions he was quoting tiger woods and agreed with him

the rest is purely epidemic in my opinion and i wont bother debating this anymore because it boring

Not aimed directly at you jojo.

My take on Hendry is that

1) He was chasing records i.e. Davis and Reardon and rested on his laurels once number 7 was nailed
2) His game relied on sharpness of youth. That's why he was so dominant in his sharpest years (late teens to mid 20s) and he didn't adapt in later years once that sharpness wained. His downfall was belief that he could always pot everything and didn't need a safety game.

Does that mean he's not the GOAT?

No, I followed his entire career and that man was so driven and so deadly if he were starting out today he would be just as dominant.

Also don't ever forget he was one frame from his 8th world title.

Sonny wrote:Not aimed directly at you jojo.

My take on Hendry is that

1) He was chasing records i.e. Davis and Reardon and rested on his laurels once number 7 was nailed
2) His game relied on sharpness of youth. That's why he was so dominant in his sharpest years (late teens to mid 20s) and he didn't adapt in later years once that sharpness wained. His downfall was belief that he could always pot everything and didn't need a safety game.

Does that mean he's not the GOAT?

No, I followed his entire career and that man was so driven and so deadly if he were starting out today he would be just as dominant.

Also don't ever forget he was one frame from his 8th world title.

What if Hendry and Davis had started out at the same time?

Both arguably with the most dedication ever so would have been some real epics.

The obvious answer from most no doubt would be to say Hendry would dominate it but i think itd be pretty even, peak Davis the master tactician would have tied Hendry up in knots a lot of the time

What if Reardon, Davis, Hendry, O'Sullivan and Higgins had all been the same age? What if what if.... GOAT debates

All you can be is the best of your time and Hendry was certainly that.

Sonny wrote:What if Reardon, Davis, Hendry, O'Sullivan and Higgins had all been the same age? What if what if.... GOAT debates

All you can be is the best of your time and Hendry was certainly that.

how do you define "your time" though

does Hendrys time conveniently end in 99?

eras overlap though don't they? If you have a spell of being the best player in the world over a period of 3 years or more then you're an all time great in whatever sport you partake in.

OK 3 years is plucked from thin air but you get me, call them peak years. Arguably Hendry's era ends in 2002 because that was his last proper tilt at a world title but his best years were definitely before he lost that aura around him which was ended by Williams, O'Sullivan and Higgins who were young and not afraid of him as the players prior to that time. Maybe it was Doherty who kick started it by proving Hendry could be beaten in a World final.

Sonny wrote:OK 3 years is plucked from thin air but you get me, call them peak years. Arguably Hendry's era ends in 2002 because that was his last proper tilt at a world title but his best years were definitely before he lost that aura around him which was ended by Williams, O'Sullivan and Higgins who were young and not afraid of him as the players prior to that time. Maybe it was Doherty who kick started it by proving Hendry could be beaten in a World final.

yeh id say the Doherty win was the beginning of the end for Hendry, it was just so hard to believe at the time that that had happened.

the 9-0 Campbell win, the Williams blackball were further catalysts. Fair play to Hendo for winning a 7th worlds though he was only just 30 then so he was far from being over the hill in snooker terms even if his aura had slightly dropped.

It has to go down as one of snookers great mysteries how Hendry only won ONE major after the age of 27. The way he goes from complete dominance to almost none at all is reminiscent of Ballesteros rapid decline in the late 80s actually