Post a reply

Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby Monique

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/sport/local ... he_Nugget/
SIX-TIME world champion Steve Davis paid a visit to Weymouth at the weekend and talked exclusively to Adam Summers about his 33 years in the sport.

Steve, you have been a pro in the game now for 33 years, how has it evolved during that time?

From a playing perspective, the general standard has become more consistent with higher scores being made per visit. You can see that from the break-building statistics.

The technique of the players has also improved and they have become a lot more professional. There is also a lot more strength in depth.

Things have also changed in the world. Television is a very different animal now and snooker is scrambling to find its place along with so many other things.

I also don’t think the future of the game is in the UK. There are more opportunities and excitement in other parts of the world, which is nice, but the grand old days of snooker in the 1980s are unlikely to ever come back.

People often say there are no characters in the game anymore. What is your take on that suggestion?

Things have changed a lot in terms of how we perceive a character. Just look at Big Brother for example.

The people that were on the first series were very different to the ones they have had in recent years and that is because the world has gone into desensitised mode.

To be a character on television now, you have to almost be a misfit or a little off the wall.

There are still characters in the game but the only thing stopping them being recognised as much is the fact that from tournament to tournament you don’t see the same eight players reaching the quarter- finals all the time due to the strength and depth in the modern game.

How important is physical fitness and mental conditioning in the modern game?

Today’s players are more professional and do work on their fitness but as yet they haven’t gone down the road of “my body is a temple” like a lot of other sports.

As for the mental side of the game, I think that grows the further you go up the ladder. If you have a problem in that department then psychologically you are probably not going to make it.

Some players have gone down the route of employing mind coaches but more often than not that is only a short-term thing, as there is not enough money in the game for them to feed off.

What do you think of Power Snooker and Shootout Snooker, which have recently been introduced to try and attract more interest in the game?

I do not think the product of snooker is broken. It’s just Sky like to think they have got a different audience to the BBC and some of the powers that be think they have got to do something different.

Those people make decisions on what they think people want but although Sky has snooker, in my mind, it is just novelty snooker.

Having a shot clock doesn’t make the game more entertaining be-cause I believe it does not work on speed, it works on tension and a storyline.

I understand that they have an audience to satisfy and some of the competitions are okay However, I would like to think that Sky will soon show have a proper snooker tournament.

How important is Ronnie O’Sullivan’s popularity to the future of the game?

I think that is short-term because if he does not maintain his interest in the game then the need for him will quickly evaporate.

However, should he be the complete article and 100 per cent then the sport will no doubt fully embrace him.

He has been in the game a long time and he has motivation problems, so whatever he decides in terms of his career, you have to respect. However, snooker will work worldwide with or without him, although it would definitely be much nicer with him involved.

What impact has the betting scandal involving John Higgins had on the sport?

Anything that brings these things out in the open can only be good.

Every sport has its own rules in place and with online betting procedures as well, I think fixing is harder than ever because trends and trails can soon be picked up.

As for the case with John Higgins, it was another situation that occurred in the game that had not even happened. Instead, it was just about someone having agreed to do something in the future.

I think the whole thing was more about entrapment and whether newspapers should be creating the news or reporting on it. But again, that is just my opinion.

Who is the best player of all time?

I think John Higgins is the best player the game has ever had. I also think Stephen Hendry is a phenomenal winner, and that Ronnie O’Sullivan is the biggest genius in the game.

Those three have been astonishing in terms of their levels of performance but as I said there are a lot of other good players around at the moment as well.

Looking back at your career, what moments stand out the most?

I think one of my favourite moments was beating defending champion John Higgins in the World Championships last year, although beating Ronnie O’Sullivan in the final of UK Masters in 1997 also ranks very high too.

I like to live in the short-term and the present, so I suppose of my more recent memories, reaching the quarter-finals of the World Championships last year was the biggest buzz.

It was just a shame I had one bad session against Neil Robertson, which eventually saw me go out in the last eight.

I still have time to practice but I try not to do too much so I retain some freshness and enthusiasm.

I will continue playing for as long as I am competitive at any level. I am playing for enjoyment now and I will just see where that leads me.

People often talk about that infamous final against Dennis Taylor in 1985 as one of the greatest moments in sporting history. What do you remember of that?

We certainly did not realise the magnitude of it when we were playing but it is something that was so long ago now that I don’t even think it is relevant to the modern day game.

It is great people still talk about it and remember where they were when they watched it but I think it is time to move on from that now.

There have been many exciting matches over the years, which are often forgotten, and I think the main reason that one is remembered so much is because it came at a time when the sport was at the height of its popularity. In those days, there were not so many things to compete with.

So what are your other interests away from the game?

I play poker as a hobby and I also played nine-ball pool for a while but not anymore.

I enjoyed my foray into it but ended up finding it too one-dimensional for me, and not challenging enough in the long-term.

Obviously, I still do a lot of work on BBC’s snooker coverage and I also host a radio show every Monday on local community radio. I am also a sleeping director at Leyton Orient Football Club.

I have been very lucky in many ways. The fact I managed to discover something in the early stages of my life and turn it from a hobby into a profession has just been incredible. And to think I have travelled the world and been on television because of that just beggars belief.

What I have got back from the professional game has been amazing but the one thing I have always remembered is that everything has been because of the game and I think that is important.

I was fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time and I never want it to stop because the sport has been at the heart of my life ever since I can remember.

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby wheelsofsteel

"Who is the best player of all time?

I think John Higgins is the best player the game has ever had. I also think Stephen Hendry is a phenomenal winner, and that Ronnie O’Sullivan is the biggest genius in the game."

Nobody can accuse Steve of sitting on the fence

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby SnookerFan

wheelsofsteel wrote:"Who is the best player of all time?

I think John Higgins is the best player the game has ever had. I also think Stephen Hendry is a phenomenal winner, and that Ronnie O’Sullivan is the biggest genius in the game."

Nobody can accuse Steve of sitting on the fence


I know. I mean he was picking every old journeyman there. :roll:

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby Eirebilly

wheelsofsteel wrote:"Who is the best player of all time?

I think John Higgins is the best player the game has ever had. I also think Stephen Hendry is a phenomenal winner, and that Ronnie O’Sullivan is the biggest genius in the game."

Nobody can accuse Steve of sitting on the fence


Did you honestly expect anything else from him? :ahh:

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby Sickpotter

He's covered his bases and properly talked up the sport as he always does. The man's the best when it comes to professionalism and talking up the game in an interview.

He's stated that the current world #1 is the best player the game's ever had. A bit over the top IMO but a good/proper plug for the current #1 player. After all, you're not going to draw fans stating things like "well he's #1 but Hendry and Ronnie were better". ;)

He's acknowleged Hendry's winning ways and ROS's natural talent/genius but I think that was done as a way of offsetting how over the top his comment on Higgins is. He's well aware that had he not commented positively on the front runners for the GOAT (in the publics mind at least) that he'd have been flooded with emails questioning his position.

I can only imagine the flood of "but what about Hendry....but what about ROS" emails he'd be hit with had he not tried to mitigate his over the top description of Higgins.

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby Wildey

Tubberlad wrote:Stephen Hendry is the greatest of all time Steve <ok>

we all know <ok>

really not bothered what Steve sais he has lost credibility as a pundit after the World Open he just swings backward and forward in the wind.

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby Monique

Tubberlad wrote:Stephen Hendry is the greatest of all time Steve <ok>


I disagree, Steve is the greatest of all times. He has won"only" 6 WC OK, but he has won more titles overall than Hendry, he beat the same guys to make it to the top, only they were younger, and he still won a major at nearly 40 while Hendry hasn't won any after 30 and only one after 27 and after the players who entered the game in 1991 and 1992 really came to age (remember in 1996 ROS, Higgins and Williams had just turned 20). And he's still beat the defending champion at the WC at nearly 53 while I doubt that Hendry will still be there at 43 ...
Bring on the rotten tomatoes, I'm ready for them!

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby SnookerFan

Why is suggesting John Higgins is the greatest player of all time controversial? He is one of the greatest players of all time.

I personally wouldn't have picked him as the greatest, but I'd count him in my top 5. Possibly in my top 3, with the other two mentioned. (It's him or Steve that makes third.) And John Higgins is one of the few that could consistently beat Ronnie, when Ronnie plays at his absolute best. Which is a next to impossible thing to do.

It's not like Steve Davis picked Hugh Abernathy, is it? <laugh>

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby Monique

SnookerFan wrote:Why is suggesting John Higgins is the greatest player of all time controversial? He is one of the greatest players of all time.

I personally wouldn't have picked him as the greatest, but I'd count him in my top 5. Possibly in my top 3, with the other two mentioned. (It's him or Steve that makes third.) And John Higgins is one of the few that could consistently beat Ronnie, when Ronnie plays at his absolute best. Which is a next to impossible thing to do.

It's not like Steve Davis picked Hugh Abernathy, is it? <laugh>


I agree with this. John Higgins is one of the best players of all times. For me the top five is Steve Davis, Stephen Hendry, Ronnie, John Higgins and Mark Williams. In what order is a matter of what is important to every person.
For me "titles" don't tell the whole story, emotions, joy and thrill the game bring to me are more important. So my top 3 would be Davis, Ronnie and Williams in no particular order and each of them has their highlights. I can see why Hendry or Higgins come on top for others and I wont throw the book at them: as I said it's a matter of what is important for everyone.

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby SnookerFan

Monique wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:Why is suggesting John Higgins is the greatest player of all time controversial? He is one of the greatest players of all time.

I personally wouldn't have picked him as the greatest, but I'd count him in my top 5. Possibly in my top 3, with the other two mentioned. (It's him or Steve that makes third.) And John Higgins is one of the few that could consistently beat Ronnie, when Ronnie plays at his absolute best. Which is a next to impossible thing to do.

It's not like Steve Davis picked Hugh Abernathy, is it? <laugh>


I agree with this. John Higgins is one of the best players of all times. For me the top five is Steve Davis, Stephen Hendry, Ronnie, John Higgins and Mark Williams. In what order is a matter of what is important to every person.
For me "titles" don't tell the whole story, emotions, joy and thrill the game bring to me are more important. So my top 3 would be Davis, Ronnie and Williams in no particular order and each of them has their highlights. I can see why Hendry or Higgins come on top for others and I wont throw the book at them: as I said it's a matter of what is important foe everyone.


I just like the way people were like :eek: at the idea of John Higgins being the greatest ever. Russia-Gate might turn some people's opinions, but I think he has nothing to prove on the table, whatever you think of him off it.

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby Wildey

Monique

With respect Stephen Hendry would have murdered Steve if they had started at the same time.

Steve isnt even on the same planet as him

Ronnie and Higgins are better than Steve could ever hope to be.

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby SnookerFan

Wild wrote:Monique

With respect Stephen Hendry would have murdered Steve if they had started at the same time.

Steve isnt even on the same planet as him

Ronnie and Higgins are better than Steve could ever hope to be.


Monique is correct in one way. Greatness isn't measured in one way. Which is the reason why the old Hendry vs Ronnie debate will never be answered. For consistent tournament wins and hunger, you'd pick Hendry. For natural talent you'd pick Ronnie. For inventing new shots, and inventing a new style of player popularised by others later on you could pick Hurricane Higgins. People are great for different reasons, so having one person defined as the greatest is very subjective. Everybody can have a different opinion, and still all be correct.

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby Monique

Wild wrote:Monique

With respect Stephen Hendry would have murdered Steve if they had started at the same time.

Steve isnt even on the same planet as him

Ronnie and Higgins are better than Steve could ever hope to be.


Well with respect Wild I don't believe that for one minute, quite the contrary in fact. And as this is the past we will never know for sure: it's a matter of opinion. Steve had a much more complete game than Stephen and has a lot more brains as well.

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:
Wild wrote:Monique

With respect Stephen Hendry would have murdered Steve if they had started at the same time.

Steve isnt even on the same planet as him

Ronnie and Higgins are better than Steve could ever hope to be.


Well with respect Wild I don't believe that for one minute, quite the contrary in fact. And as this is the past we will never know for sure: it's a matter of opinion. Steve had a much more complete game than Stephen and has a lot more brains as well.

its the truth i dont care if you believe it or not.

i can say without a shadow of a doubt Had Hendry of the 90s been around in the 80s Dennis and Joe would have been blown away in those Finals

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby Sickpotter

Ronnie and Higgins are more talented IMO but never forget how devastating Davis was in his prime. He didn't rule the game for a decade for nothing.

ATM I'd rank it with Hendry, then Davis, then ROS/Higgins. We'll see where they stand at the end of their careers.

Longevity or time between titles is a tough thing to use as a measuring stick of any kind. Player peaks and lows vary drastically. Players can remain competetive for a long time if they're good matchplayers who still love the game and remain motivated or they can play like madmen and burn themselves out.

Davis did take a notable scalp last WC but do you think it was because of great play or Higgins not being there mentally because of the looming scandal/ban?

In the end I think Davis is a snooker longevity one off. He was a great winner in his prime and has managed to keep enjoying the game even through his decline, periodically putting in some performances reminiscent of his hey day. Winning isn't everything to him and that has allowed him to keep plugging away.

Hendry was always about winning and a decade of it burned him out. Too great a player to believe he'd be absent from the crucible at 43 unless he retires IMO. I think until he figures out his yips issues he's screwed but if he does, look out, he'll win again or a least be much more competetive and make the later stages in events.

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby SnookerFan

Smart wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:I have a good idea for a new thread. "How highly do you rate Steve Davis?" <laugh> :wave:


was just thinking the same thing :redneck: :santa:


Can we just edit the title of this thread? It's easier. :D

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby jojo

i agree to an extent with wild its difficult to take a lot of things davis says seriously even though he a great player i personally think hes the greatest ive mentioned this many times on other threads but everyone will continue to have their own opinions and i stick by mine ive mentioned the reasons many times on here

its all about opinions davis keep changing his mind willy nilly first hendry then ronnie then higgins maybe this time next year he will say quinten hann who knows

i can see where davis is coming from when he says john higgins is the best ever although i disagree i can see why theres a case for john higgins

he can play any way possible heavy scoring good shot selection mentally tough you also have to scrape him off the table even when things not going his way

however higgins himself only 9 months ago said he believes steve davis is the greatest in his eyes so whatever people say its all about opinions what criterias you use to argue your case

davis fred and steve higgins john and alex hendry o sullivan theres a case for all of them being the goat

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby Wildey

Sickpotter wrote:Ronnie and Higgins are more talented IMO but never forget how devastating Davis was in his prime. He didn't rule the game for a decade for nothing.

ATM I'd rank it with Hendry, then Davis, then ROS/Higgins. We'll see where they stand at the end of their careers.

Longevity or time between titles is a tough thing to use as a measuring stick of any kind. Player peaks and lows vary drastically. Players can remain competetive for a long time if they're good matchplayers who still love the game and remain motivated or they can play like madmen and burn themselves out.

Davis did take a notable scalp last WC but do you think it was because of great play or Higgins not being there mentally because of the looming scandal/ban?

In the end I think Davis is a snooker longevity one off. He was a great winner in his prime and has managed to keep enjoying the game even through his decline, periodically putting in some performances reminiscent of his hey day. Winning isn't everything to him and that has allowed him to keep plugging away.

Hendry was always about winning and a decade of it burned him out. Too great a player to believe he'd be absent from the crucible at 43 unless he retires IMO. I think until he figures out his yips issues he's screwed but if he does, look out, he'll win again or a least be much more competetive and make the later stages in events.

he was a great player no argument about that but he was not devastating he played a game the percentage game to a very high level but honestly to god Hendrys top game would have nullified his game.

Steves Standard safety was put the cue ball welded on the balk crushing if he tempted Hendry with a Long Pot off the cush more often than not he would pot it...... consistently ive not seen anyone since that used to get in off that type of pot.
Last edited by Wildey on 25 Jan 2011, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby jojo

yes sickpotter people sometimes forget how devastating davis was in his heydey the game was played in a different way back then hendry came along and changed all that he revolutionised the game just because davis didnt score as heavy as ronnie and hendry maybe people dont give him the full credit he deserves

people may argue that he won in a so called weak era but argument can be more easily applied to hendry if anyone wants to argue that

davis would have easily lived with a prime higgins o sullivan hendry no doubt about that

people say if you look at the late eighties early nineties results between davis and hendry that points in hendrys favour but two things davis was already in his early thirties then and also his style of play was a different style to hendrys less spectacular

a 25 year old davis in mathcplay mode against a devastating but one dimensional 25 year old hendry now that would have been interesting

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby Tubberlad

SnookerFan wrote:Why is suggesting John Higgins is the greatest player of all time controversial? He is one of the greatest players of all time.

I personally wouldn't have picked him as the greatest, but I'd count him in my top 5. Possibly in my top 3, with the other two mentioned. (It's him or Steve that makes third.) And John Higgins is one of the few that could consistently beat Ronnie, when Ronnie plays at his absolute best. Which is a next to impossible thing to do.

It's not like Steve Davis picked Hugh Abernathy, is it? <laugh>

I have never seen John Higgins beat Ronnie at his absolute best. I've never seen anyone beat Ronnie at his absolute best, I've seen great players shamed by Ronnie at his absolute best and that's about it. I've seen a very good Ronnie beaten by plenty, but nobody beating him at his absolute best.

I think Stephen Hendry is the only contender for greatest player of all time, a good distance ahead of both Ronnie & Higgins.

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby jojo

wild neither hendy nor davis would have blown each other away for sure i remember seeing with my own eyes how davis tied people up in knots with his safety and matchplay temperament

yes hendrys long potting was unbelievable no qualms there pal but the way you speak it like hendrys long potting was hundred percent he never missed when in

take the 1992 and 1994 world finals for example do you honestly think davis would have started celebrating at 14-10 up or partied all night long after the first days play ? or even missed the easy black off its spot jimmy did in 94 ?

hendry was a phenomenal player and theres a strong argument for him being the best ever no qualms with that pal but he was not unbeatable

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby Wildey

jojo wrote:wild neither hendy nor davis would have blown each other away for sure i remember seeing with my own eyes how davis tied people up in knots with his safety and matchplay temperament

yes hendrys long potting was unbelievable no qualms there pal but the way you speak it like hendrys long potting was hundred percent he never missed when in

take the 1992 and 1994 world finals for example do you honestly think davis would have started celebrating at 14-10 up or partied all night long after the first days play ? or even missed the easy black off its spot jimmy did in 94 ?

hendry was a phenomenal player and theres a strong argument for him being the best ever no qualms with that pal but he was not unbeatable

ok thats a fair point <ok>

although i do rate Steve even today with todays standard he is top 4 of all time but seriously both Ronnie and Higgins are better players than him and i think Ronnie and Higgins are closer to Hendry than Davis is close to them.

we got to remember something here 80s players were great entertainers and personalities but they did not have Steves professional outlook to playing ive always said Steve was the first Professional Player.

by the late 80s there was almost Steve Davis clones because that was the successful way to play and in amongst them was Hendry but he was more devastating he was faster he was fearless.

and all those attributes he had then which was his strengths are today his weakness.

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby jojo

tubberlad

john higgins beat ronnie in the masters final one year when ronnie at his best ronnie even at his best was or is not unbeatable mentally strong players who dont collapse like a pack of cards can live with him at his best

hendry one year lost something like 7 or 8 frames in a row against ronnie in a final in the space of two hours i think one big break after another to level the scores only for hendry to make a maximum in the decider

very few players in the history of the game would be able to live with ronnie at his absolute best but i know with my own eyes 4 players who would be able to live with him at his absolute best the players however have to be mentally tough coupled with the ability

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby Monique

Well I personally think that Hendry's dominance years where the years when he never questioned his confidence because he was very rarely seriously challenged as himself BTW admitted in numerous interviews. From 1996/97 on - and he was at his peak then and remained at his peak form another good 5 years at least - that changed because the field he was competing in also changed: the players who entered when the game was opened came to age. First the Ebdon, Doherty and then the 1975 trio. From then on Hendry remained a strong force but never dominated anymore and only won 2 majors - out of his 18. How many time have I read Wild's "It's a matter of confidence ..." Yes Wild it is and my opinion is that Hendry would NEVER have had that confidence if he had started his carreer in 1992 and not in 1985 because he would have got a lot more battle scars from the start and he would never have dominated the game the way he has. But maybe he would still be a stronger force today because he would have developped a different approach to the game.

As for beating Ronnie "at his best", very few have done it, and very rarely. "His best" being not only "at the top of his game " but in a "mental bubble" ... when he is there - and that doesn't happen often - he is almost unplayable and he is the best the game has ever seen.

Re: Interesting interview with Steve Davis

Postby Sickpotter

Monique,

IMO when your self-confidence is riding high you don't feel challenged, even when you are.

Hendry's talk of being seriously challenged now is as much about his lack of confidence (if not more) as it is about being actually challenged. IMO it helps mitigate the impact of losses to your confidence if one says/convinces themselves that players are getting better. Once you start telling yourself you can't win because of your own form you're dealing your confidence a death blow.


   

cron