Re: The next player to reach 10 ranking titles
- hayleyy
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 19 September 2012
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie OSullivan
- Highest Break: 9
Jewell wrote:Looking over that list again, it's struck me how average this generation of players have been. All capable of great performances on their day but no consistentancy.
I'd even go far as to say one of Ronnie or Higgins will get to 30 before any of this lot reach double figures.
Wild WC wrote:Jewell wrote:Looking over that list again, it's struck me how average this generation of players have been. All capable of great performances on their day but no consistentancy.
I'd even go far as to say one of Ronnie or Higgins will get to 30 before any of this lot reach double figures.
if theres one line in snooker that pisses me off its
"theres so many great players these days its tough"
they almost talk themselves out of winning tournaments consistently by saying im lucky to win one.
Sonny wrote:To be fair you see a lot more matches these days where the loser plays his best and things haven't gone his way, whereas in years past this didn't happen so much. There are many occasions where the loser has gone down by the odd frame despite playing good enough to feel entitled to win. Obviously we're talking top top players here, the likes of Ronnie, Higgins, Williams, Robbo, Ding, Selby, Allen, Judd, Murphy, Maguire are all capable of turning each other over on any given day.
Sonny wrote:But if you play a good safety shot and leave the opponent tight on the baulk cushion and they pot a long red and clear up, there's not a right lot you can do about it is there? This is how many matches between the players I've listed have been decided!
Jewell wrote:Sonny wrote:But if you play a good safety shot and leave the opponent tight on the baulk cushion and they pot a long red and clear up, there's not a right lot you can do about it is there? This is how many matches between the players I've listed have been decided!
TBH, Sonny, I can't think of many matches recently that have been decided that way. Ronnie's 147 against Selby in the UK is one that comes to mind straightaway but not many others.
What I've noticed more these days is that the losing player always has chances through the course of a match but can't take them for whatever reason. Very rarely do you see a match now where one player has annihilated the other without giving little or no chance whatsoever.
kolompar wrote:Peter Ebdon
he has 9, isnt he?
jojo wrote:a fair few of ebdons wins have been third rate ranking titles
from the list i would say robertson ding and trump in that order but the standard is much more balanced these days and there is no player who seem to want to dominate as badly as davis and hendry did
both would be winning about fourty to fifty percent of the ranking titles they entered each year if they were in their prime today
Monique wrote:Wild do you ever look at the FACTS when they don't suit you?
When the 1996/97 season started Hendry was 27. When the 2005/06 season ended he was 37, like Higgins is now and he was still world n°1, so don't tell me he was past it. He wasn't. During this decade - the strongest in snooker history - he was the same Hendry as before, he was dedicated as ever, but he won only two majors. He wasn't able to dominate that era. That's what his tally shows. That's facts. He had to share the trophies with 3 other players - who were only 20 or 21 at the start of the decade. Before that he had nobody of the calibre to face, thats why he could dominate. It's easy to forget that when Hendry won his first World title, Davis was about to turn 33 and starting to struggle with his game. During those ten years he still won his fair share but he didn't dominate. And he wouldn't dominate today neither.
Monique wrote:One is not past it at 27 if one manages to still be n°1 at 37… Hendry was not past it. He just got much stronger opposition than the one he had before.
SnookerFan wrote:Monique wrote:Wild do you ever look at the FACTS when they don't suit you?
When the 1996/97 season started Hendry was 27. When the 2005/06 season ended he was 37, like Higgins is now and he was still world n°1, so don't tell me he was past it. He wasn't. During this decade - the strongest in snooker history - he was the same Hendry as before, he was dedicated as ever, but he won only two majors. He wasn't able to dominate that era. That's what his tally shows. That's facts. He had to share the trophies with 3 other players - who were only 20 or 21 at the start of the decade. Before that he had nobody of the calibre to face, thats why he could dominate. It's easy to forget that when Hendry won his first World title, Davis was about to turn 33 and starting to struggle with his game. During those ten years he still won his fair share but he didn't dominate. And he wouldn't dominate today neither.
At the same time, players don't always peak at the same age. One might be past his best at one age, where another one has just reached his.
Monique wrote:I can say for John but if you think that Ronnie enjoyed his life in his twenties, you know nothing. He spent most of it battling depression and addictions, and facing personal distress. It took a lot out of him.
Hendry's dedication did take it's toll as well, no doubts. But he remained a force in the game at least until 2005, thats fact, he wasn't past it.
I really don't understand why Hendry fans have such a problem with the fact that he had stronger competition during that decade. It happens in all sports. Today in tennis we have 4 players who each "dominate" for a few months in turn: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Each of them, if the others weren't around would probably win most of the titles. They just happen to be around all at the same time and in a way it's great for the sport, just like the 1996/2006 decade was great for snooker.