Post a reply

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby randam05

Could someone give me a little background on wattana please. Ranking event victories/appearances and moment of his career. As since i've started watching snooker I dont think hes been on tv once. :(

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Alex0paul

Similiar players. Wattana probably would have won more had it not been for the death of his father however he never generated a lot of cue power.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Monique

Alex0paul WC wrote:Similiar players. Wattana probably would have won more had it not been for the death of his father however he never generated a lot of cue power.


All ranking wins from Wattana came after his father death, so I don't think it's a factor.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby vodkadiet

Monique wrote:
Alex0paul WC wrote:Similiar players. Wattana probably would have won more had it not been for the death of his father however he never generated a lot of cue power.


All ranking wins from Wattana came after his father death, so I don't think it's a factor.


Family deaths affect some players more than others. I am not sure if Wattana was affected too adversely. When his father died, he had just won the Strachan Challenge by beating Parrott. His next tournament victory was early next season when he won the Humo Masters in Belguim with victories against Ronnie O'Sullivan and John Parrott.

Wattana's main problem was someone called Hendry.
Last edited by vodkadiet on 27 Feb 2011, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Monique

If Hendry was Wattana's main problem then it's hard to explain that he won all his ranking titles while Hendry was dominant, dropped out of the top 16, precisely at the end of the season when Hendry won his last major and and despite being only 29, never came back in it when Hendry wasn't dominating anymore.
Wattana's main problem was the rise of the standard during the 1996-2005 years.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby vodkadiet

Monique wrote:If Hendry was Wattana's main problem then it's hard to explain that he won all his ranking titles while Hendry was dominant, dropped out of the top 16, precisely at the end of the season when Hendry won his last major and and despite being only 29, never came back in it when Hendry wasn't dominating anymore.
Wattana's main problem was the rise of the standard during the 1996-2005 years.


Not really. Players peak at different times. Wattana was at his best in the mid 90s. Wattana at his best was far better than most of today's top players. He would have been deadly in these easier playing conditions. <ok>

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Monique

vodkadiet wrote:
Monique wrote:If Hendry was Wattana's main problem then it's hard to explain that he won all his ranking titles while Hendry was dominant, dropped out of the top 16, precisely at the end of the season when Hendry won his last major and and despite being only 29, never came back in it when Hendry wasn't dominating anymore.
Wattana's main problem was the rise of the standard during the 1996-2005 years.


Not really. Players peak at different times. Wattana was at his best in the mid 90s. Wattana at his best was far better than most of today's top players. He would have been deadly in these easier playing conditions. <ok>


Once again that's something that you state but it is just an opinion, there is no evidence to back it. Fast cloth were already around in the mid 90th.
I'm of the opinion that except for a handfull of players at the top of the rankings, clearly Hendry, Davis, White and Parrott, the opposition in the early 90th was pretty poor. That's why for instance a player like Gary Wilkinson, who has never won any ranking event and can hardly been credited of a great impact on the game was able to reach as high as 5th in 1991/92, and it was only his fourth season. He couldn't stay there though and two years later was out of the top 16 already and never came back.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby vodkadiet

Monique wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:
Monique wrote:If Hendry was Wattana's main problem then it's hard to explain that he won all his ranking titles while Hendry was dominant, dropped out of the top 16, precisely at the end of the season when Hendry won his last major and and despite being only 29, never came back in it when Hendry wasn't dominating anymore.
Wattana's main problem was the rise of the standard during the 1996-2005 years.


Not really. Players peak at different times. Wattana was at his best in the mid 90s. Wattana at his best was far better than most of today's top players. He would have been deadly in these easier playing conditions. <ok>


Once again that's something that you state but it is just an opinion, there is no evidence to back it. Fast cloth were already around in the mid 90th.
I'm of the opinion that except for a handfull of players at the top of the rankings, clearly Hendry, Davis, White and Parrott, the opposition in the early 90th was pretty poor. That's why for instance a player like Gary Wilkinson, who has never won any ranking event and can hardly been credited of a great impact on the game was able to reach as high as 5th in 1991/92, and it was only his fourth season. He couldn't stay there though and two years later was out of the top 16 already and never came back.



Wilkinson was a class player, better than Carter. He beat Jimmy White 9-0 in a UK quarter in 1989, that was when White could actually play snooker.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Monique

Campbell whitewasked Hendry 9-0 in the UK Championship in 1998, yet I doubt this makes him a "class player".
All the pros can play, and all the pros, even the greatests have days off .
Saying that Wilkinson is better than Carter is again just an opinion and one that is supported by your disliking of Carter rather anything else. Carter has won 2 ranking tournaments and reached a World Final, having beaten Shaun Murphy and Peter Ebdon en route. That's more than Wilkinson did in his whole carreer.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby vodkadiet

Carter beat Swail and Burnett to win his ranking titles. Wilkinson beat a class field to win The Matchplay.

Anyway beating an in form White in a big tv match beats beating an out of form Hendry in a cubicle.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Wildey

Wattana's Problem was he did not have the Dedication needed to be as Good as his talent should but hes one of only 4 players to make 3+ 147.

and the Biggest thing that held him back in his Prime was he had a rubbish Power Player had the Super-fast Cloths been around then as it is now he would have been more Succesfull.

but despite his Failings he was still a Great Player and had the wattana then been around today he would have been consistently top 8 in todays climate and conditions.

i Rate him Better than Maguire never mind Carter.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Caledonian Craig

Sorry but all this 'weak era 90's' is tosh.

John Higgins, Ronnie O'Sullivan and then Mark Williams were all multiple tournament winners by the mid 90's. Of the top 16 as it stands at the moment TWELVE turned professional in the 1990's (half of them established themselves in the 90's) and we have only four who turned professional in the mega-strong (if we believe some) 00's. Of the current top 16 those that turned pro in the 00's have been Ding Junhui (a top top player but yet to make that final step to legendary status), Mark Allen (still young and a lot was forecast for him but his progress has stuttered somewhat), Jamie Cope (still yet to make a real impact) and Ricky Walden (always one on the fringes and yet to establish himself as a consistent member of top 16).

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Monique

Caledonian Craig wrote:Sorry but all this 'weak era 90's' is tosh.

John Higgins, Ronnie O'Sullivan and then Mark Williams were all multiple tournament winners by the mid 90's. Of the top 16 as it stands at the moment TWELVE turned professional in the 1990's (half of them established themselves in the 90's) and we have only four who turned professional in the mega-strong (if we believe some) 00's. Of the current top 16 those that turned pro in the 00's have been Ding Junhui (a top top player but yet to make that final step to legendary status), Mark Allen (still young and a lot was forecast for him but his progress has stuttered somewhat), Jamie Cope (still yet to make a real impact) and Ricky Walden (always one on the fringes and yet to establish himself as a consistent member of top 16).


I never said that the 90th was a weak era. I say that the early years of the 90th was a relatively weak era as compared to the 1996-2005 decade that spreads over half the 90 th and half the 00 th. At the start of the 90th, with the game closed, a lot of excellent players, like Ebdon and Doherty were not playing in professional competition, they were confined to the amateur circuit, and the likes of ROS, Higgins and Williams were still mere kids (they were 14-15) and hadn't turned pro yet. There were a lot of players around the top who just disappeared when the game was opened because they couldn't cope with the newcomers. That's not an opinion, that's a fact that can easily be assessed by looking at how the rankings evolved between 1990 and 1995. There was almost a complete overhaul.
The game today isn't as strong as it was during that decade 1996-2005 neither, BTW. I can't see ONE under-30 player who is in the bracket of the big four. However I think that overall, the average level of the 12-48 bracket is significantly highter than it was in the late 80th, early 90th, something both Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry have said on multiple occasions. They should know, they played them.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Caledonian Craig

No I'd say more age groups changed. I mean coming to the end of the 80's there were a number of pros on their way out such as Dennis Taylor, Eddie Charlton, Cliff Wilson, Ray Reardon etc etc

The early 1990's you had three main contenders (still regarded today as legends of the sport) in Steve Davis, Stephen Hendry and Jimmy White. Other notable contenders being John Parrott, Terry Griffiths, James Wattana, Doug Mountjoy, Alan McManus and Tony Drago to name a few.

Now come the end of the 90's of those in the top 16 and still competing with the influx of the new talent were Stephen Hendry, John Parrott, Alan McManus, Tony Drago and Steve Davis. Not a massive change and consider that the likes of Terry Griffiths and Doug Mountjoy had retired by this time.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Wildey

monique

thats your opinion however theres nothing at all to sugest your right.

remember the seeds of that time had qualifiers of the callaber of Ken Doherty,Alan Mcmanus,Peter Ebdon.Ronnie O'Sullivan,Mark Williams,John Higgins,Stephen Lee and Nigel Bond to contend with

mmmmmm Bond and Lee Qualifying somethings never change.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Monique

Wild wrote:monique

thats your opinion however theres nothing at all to sugest your right.

remember the seeds of that time had qualifiers of the callaber of Ken Doherty,Alan Mcmanus,Peter Ebdon.Ronnie O'Sullivan,Mark Williams,John Higgins,Stephen Lee and Nigel Bond to contend with

mmmmmm Bond and Lee Qualifying somethings never change.


Wild in 1990 when Hendry won his first WC, Doherty, Ebdon, Lee, ROS, Higgins and Williams were NOT pros. None of them was and Bond was in his first season. Doherty entered in 1990/91, Ebdon in 1991/92 and Lee and the trio in 1992/93, and they were only 16. That's not an opinion it's a fact.
So in they couldn't be competing in 1990 right? Even Hendry needed a couple of seasons before starting to win consistently. So that leads us nearly mid 90th before they were consistent contenders. The very fact that they were contenders from the start shows how good they were, but also that the opposition wasn't that strong. Hendry was awome, but even the best can't win them all. Davis was still great but this was the time - he was already 33 in 1990 - where he started to struggle and Jimmy ... was Jimmy, his lifestyle undermining his consistency.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Wildey

so in 1990 Hendry had the Qualifiers of the Callabre of Marcus Campbell,Rod Lawler,Jamie Burnett,Mark Davis etc

Very similar Today but they were even tougher players.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Caledonian Craig

The 1990 World Championships semi-finals had a very strong look to it:-

Steve Davis V Jimmy White

Stephen Hendry V John Parrott

Fast forward to say 2005 and look at that year's World Semis:-

Peter Ebdon V Shaun Murphy

Matthew Stevens V Ian McCulloch

Hmmm I'll tell you which one was stronger.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Monique

Wild wrote:so in 1990 Hendry had the Qualifiers of the Callabre of Marcus Campbell,Rod Lawler,Jamie Burnett,Mark Davis etc

Very similar Today but they were even tougher players.

Lawler entered in 1990/91, Davis and Campbell entered in 1991/92, Burnett entered in 1992/93. So none of these were around neither ok?
Ad moreover none of the class of the Ebdon, Doherty, ROS, Higgins, and Williams. None of them having won anything of notice. I think nobody can argue with that.
My only point is - and always has been - that at the start of the 90th the standard wasn't as high as it became later during the 1996-2005 decade, a decade that nobody dominated except in spells, and a decade where we had 4 awsome players in competition for the titles, that ended shared as you would expect. And again the standard nowadays isn't anymore as high at it was during that glorious decade.

@Caledonian. My point never was about the very top, my point is about the overall opposition. Look at who was in top 16 in 1990, other than those 4, how many were past 40, how many of them still in top 8, and what happened to the rest of the bunch. Hendry and Davis have claimed again and again that they were almost never challenged before the quarters stage. That's from them, not me.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Wildey

but they still around today and they still qualifying Today...

what i meant was they are no better than the players that was qualifying late 80s early 90s.

honestly mon you are Flogging a dead horse here theres no proof at all.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Monique

Wild wrote:but they still around today and they still qualifying Today...

what i meant was they are no better than the players that was qualifying late 80s early 90s.

honestly mon you are Flogging a dead horse here theres no proof at all.


Wild, every time you and others come with statements about certain players - just look at your posts above - being around at the start of the 90th when it's a fact they weren't. I need no "proof", I'm just stating a fact.
All those guys entered when the game was opened, or the year before in Doherty's and Lawler case and my point is that this opening started a new era with a rise in the standard that culminated in the 1996-2005 decade.

Re: Who is better? Wattana or Carter?

Postby Wildey

Monique

there no proof at all the late 80s and early 90s players was worst just different ...

we know the problems Ronnie has had with Grinders over the years just because the 80s or 90s players wasn't seen as good doesent meen they wasent just they played a different game from today.