Post a reply

John Higgins

Postby Paddpotter

Massively underachieved.... I know he's won 25 ranking titles but he should of at least equalled Hendry's 7 World titles with the talent he 'had'. Always expected him to become the undisputed heavyweight best of all time. shame. Or is that slightly harsh?

Re: John Higgins

Postby SnookerFan

Paddpotter wrote:Massively underachieved.... I know he's won 25 ranking titles but he should of at least equalled Hendry's 7 World titles with the talent he 'had'. Always expected him to become the undisputed heavyweight best of all time. shame. Or is that slightly harsh?


Always thought there was maybe a bit too long between his first and second world titles.

But there's so many top notch players these days, converting talent into titles isn't as easy as it sounds.

Re: John Higgins

Postby Paddpotter

These days?? Doesn't matter what talent is around when you are possibly the greatest all round player there has ever been? Converting talent into titles should be very easy if you have as much talent as Higgins. That is my point and nobody said it was easy! Of course it's not easy that's why you need to be ultra talented like John. So I don't get your point?

Re: John Higgins

Postby Wildey

Point is John Higgins did not have the dedication and application needed in his early years to get the results.


Talent alone is nowhere near enough.

Re: John Higgins

Postby Paddpotter

Who's point? If that's what you think then great but I'd rather you make your own point?

You say it like the Island has spoken or something? I don't think Snookerfan speaks for other people? Or I could be wrong? Do you all live together in a big, snooker commune?

Re: John Higgins

Postby Paddpotter

Wildey wrote:Point is John Higgins did not have the dedication and application needed in his early years to get the results.


Talent alone is nowhere near enough.


Talent is nowhere near enough? OK can't wait to hear what you think is enough

Re: John Higgins

Postby Andre147

Paddpotter wrote:
Wildey wrote:Point is John Higgins did not have the dedication and application needed in his early years to get the results.


Talent alone is nowhere near enough.


Talent is nowhere near enough? OK can't wait to hear what you think is enough


Of course it isn't near enough, you think talent alone wins you titles? Then think again, Ronnie is the most naturally gifted player ever, but like Dave Hendon so often says in his website and Ronnie himself countless times in interviews, you have to work so hard to achieve the kind of level that Higgins and Ronnie have produced. Both have had to practice countless hours per day, Ronnie himself back in his younger days was obcessed with everything Steve Davis did, and he was like his role model, he copied him in everything when Ronnie started, Ronnie even had a same coloured black waistcoat as Steve used to wear <laugh>

So yeah talent is nowhere near enough, and Wild is right, maybe Higgins in his younger days didn't have that winning mentality that Hendry had, plus as SF said it was far too long between first and second World Title.

If talent alone were enough then players like Jack Lisoswki and Luca Brecel would have already won many titles.

Re: John Higgins

Postby Paddpotter

Andre147 wrote:
Paddpotter wrote:
Wildey wrote:Point is John Higgins did not have the dedication and application needed in his early years to get the results.


Talent alone is nowhere near enough.


Talent is nowhere near enough? OK can't wait to hear what you think is enough


Of course it isn't near enough, you think talent alone wins you titles? Then think again, Ronnie is the most naturally gifted player ever, but like Dave Hendon so often says in his website and Ronnie himself countless times in interviews, you have to work so hard to achieve the kind of level that Higgins and Ronnie have produced. Both have had to practice countless hours per day, Ronnie himself back in his younger days was obcessed with everything Steve Davis did, and he was like his role model, he copied him in everything when Ronnie started, Ronnie even had a same coloured black waistcoat as Steve used to wear <laugh>

So yeah talent is nowhere near enough, and Wild is right, maybe Higgins in his younger days didn't have that winning mentality that Hendry had, plus as SF said it was far too long between first and second World Title.

If talent alone were enough then players like Jack Lisoswki and Luca Brecel would have already won many titles.



WTF??...Look I was never even arguing about 'talent alone' being enough it was this Wildey guy that started talking about that!?? I was asking why Higgins with all his talent(including mental strength and anything else that has made him a multiple world champion-major winner) has not not converted that to more world titles and other majors???? It was a simple question but thanks anyway ;/

Re: John Higgins

Postby SnookerFan

Wildey wrote:Point is John Higgins did not have the dedication and application needed in his early years to get the results.


Talent alone is nowhere near enough.


Indeed.

There was a point when John Higgins enjoyed the pub more than the practice table.

Re: John Higgins

Postby Wildey

Because he was not as dedicated to his snooker like Snookerfan said he liked his pint and the good life.

unless you put the hours in you get buck all out.

Re: John Higgins

Postby Andy Spark

4 world titles, 25 rankers, I would say he's overachieved if anything. :hatoff:

Re: John Higgins

Postby SnookerFan

John Higgins is obviously one of the great players of all time, there's no denying that. However, you achieve what you achieve. Nobody in snooker has a divine right to win titles, no matter how talented.

There's more to achieving title wins than talent. Hard work is a factor. As is bottle. A player may look awesome on the practice table, but once he has a crowd watching him and a TV camera in his face, he falls apart.

Could Higgins have won more titles if he'd have dedicated himself at other times in his career? Probably. But he didn't dedicate himself. If he wasn't putting the hours in one the table, what's there to deserve?

Re: John Higgins

Postby Wildey

You could Argue that Hendry underachieved what about Maguire, Murphy, Matthew Stevens, Jimmy White, Alex Higgins even Paul Hunter could and should have been more successful in his short life. it just wasent to be for anyone of them because you get what you get.

Re: John Higgins

Postby Roland

I personally think Mark Williams beating him in 1999/2000 Crucible semi-finals set him back big time and it was only around the time of the Masters final with that clearance against Ronnie that he fully returned. And then Mark Williams himself had a wilderness period where he disappeared for a few years too when he should have been at the peak of his powers winning big titles.

I'm pretty sure as Wildey so eloquently put it that outside distractions were a factor and the application required to be at the top of the game was not as it should have been in both cases.

Re: John Higgins

Postby Andre147

Roland wrote:I personally think Mark Williams beating him in 1999/2000 Crucible semi-finals set him back big time and it was only around the time of the Masters final with that clearance against Ronnie that he fully returned. And then Mark Williams himself had a wilderness period where he disappeared for a few years too when he should have been at the peak of his powers winning big titles.

I'm pretty sure as Wildey so eloquently put it that outside distractions were a factor and the application required to be at the top of the game was not as it should have been in both cases.


Yes good call, on one of them if I'm not mistaken he led 14-10 and lost all of the frames in the Final session to end up losing 17-14.

He was all over the place between 2000-2005, but I also think winning the Grand Prix in 2005 9-2 against Ronnie, making those 4 tons in the Final gave him a huge boost, and yeah that 2006 Masters just confirmed it.

But as Wild said, if we want to be ultra critical, all players have underachieved, some more than others, but what matters is Higgins is already a legend of the game, in my top 5 and that's all that matters.

Re: John Higgins

Postby Cloud Strife

Wasn't strong enough mentally, I'm afraid. I mean what sort of person goes to pot just because his opponent didn't shake his hand?

Re: John Higgins

Postby Andre147

Cloud Strife wrote:Wasn't strong enough mentally, I'm afraid. I mean what sort of person goes to pot just because his opponent didn't shake his hand?


:huh:

Re: John Higgins

Postby Andre147

Cloud Strife wrote:
Andre147 wrote:
Cloud Strife wrote:Wasn't strong enough mentally, I'm afraid. I mean what sort of person goes to pot just because his opponent didn't shake his hand?


:huh:


http://snookerscene.blogspot.co.uk/2011 ... d.html?m=1


lol, didn't know about this, thanks for the info mate. <ok>

Higgins :lol:

Re: John Higgins

Postby SnookerFan

I don't remember that handshake refusal. Probably an oversight.

Odd from Higgins. You'd expect a player of his quality to be determined to punish any perceived insult.

Re: John Higgins

Postby TheSaviour

People should get right "who is who". In terms of if snooker journalisms wants to be returned in to the high level again. Which, to be honest, it hasn't always been during the last decade or so. If journalism is high-quality then that would and will help to make matches interesting prospects and a REAL SPORT. Different styles, different weapons and different weaknesses going head to head and against each others. And that would probably help amateur players to analyze their own shots and games a wee bit better, also.

If there is an amateur player in Italy or in Canada who can roll in a brilliant centuries, then why not to write it the way it is. Not trying to use any metaphors or so. Those are good in a way, but just in a one way. Those can take the pressure off by "writing off" things. But that won´t necessary help to make the sport interesting. Snooker is so difficult that if there are amateur players who can actually play really great solidly, then bring it on. It would possibly motivate professional players also.

Now, when John Higgins takes on Peter Ebdon is it tomorrow, I would certainly say Peter is the more naturally talented than John. That is nothing away from John and his natural talents, but I just personally rate Ebdon almost as high as O´Sullivan in terms of natural talent. Natural talent is what this thread is all about. Why to write something if you actually don´t believe that. Just keep it real, mate.

Re: John Higgins

Postby Wildey

John Higgins v Peter Ebdon is today at 2pm but not televised