which was the most competitive era in snooker and why ?

just read a couple of posts in the selby vs williams thread that said williams won in a stronger era or came through in a stronger era and wondered why would you or anyone think that era is better , or do you think today's era is stronger and again why ? discuss.....

the strength at the very top (Top 5 or Top 6) was probably better during the late 90's , early 00's, mainly because you had Hendry,O'Sullivan,Higgins and Williams all in their prime. You also had World champions like Ebdon or Doherty who would have won a lot more if they hadnt had to face the 4 legends all the time. Same for the other players like Hunter,Stevens or Lee.

But when it comes to strength in depth the current era is definitely stronger.

TheRocket wrote:the strength at the very top (Top 5 or Top 6) was probably better during the late 90's , early 00's, mainly because you had Hendry,O'Sullivan,Higgins and Williams all in their prime. You also had World champions like Ebdon or Doherty who would have won a lot more if they hadnt had to face the 4 legends all the time. Same for the other players like Hunter,Stevens or Lee.

But when it comes to strength in depth the current era is definitely stronger.

i don't really agree with that strength at the top , i remember hendry looked pretty forgettable against paul hunter in the 99 crucible first round , i think there was a buzz around that time because all the expected players o sullivan higgins and williams with hendry squared off in the last four at the crucible in 99 with solid performances from stevens just after but i think it was just a media thing , joe swail made the crucible last 4 in 00 and 01 so personally i don't really think it was stronger , also o sullivan and higgins are better players now than then .

Well coming through and winning are different things.

Williams came through in the early 90s which was a weaker era, but won most of his titles in early
-mid 00s which was probably the strongest era.

Selby came through in the mid-late-00s which was tail end of the strongest era, but has won most of his titles in the 10s which is a weaker era than the early-mid-00s.

Iranu wrote:Well coming through and winning are different things.

Williams came through in the early 90s which was a weaker era, but won most of his titles in early
-mid 00s which was probably the strongest era.

Selby came through in the mid-late-00s which was tail end of the strongest era, but has won most of his titles in the 10s which is a weaker era than the early-mid-00s.

Good post.

Iranu wrote:Well coming through and winning are different things.

Williams came through in the early 90s which was a weaker era, but won most of his titles in early
-mid 00s which was probably the strongest era.

Selby came through in the mid-late-00s which was tail end of the strongest era, but has won most of his titles in the 10s which is a weaker era than the early-mid-00s.

but why do you think the early - mid 00's was probably the strongest era ?

Not sure if O'Sullivan is better now than than he was in 2001 or 2004. Or Higgins being better now than he was in 1998 when he won his first World title. But they probably havent declined that much either. At least O'Sullivan hasnt.

I think what makes the late 90's, early 00's also tough is that you only had 7 or 8 ranking tournaments per season. You didnt get 20 chances to win ranking points. I think many players of the current Top16 would have struggled with those conditions. You have Bingham and Hawkins as two prime examples who didnt do anything back.

I definitely enjoy the current era a lot more with the amount of tournaments and with so many good players around but I think it was harder to win tournaments back then and become an established topplayer.

in the early - mid 00's shaun murphy won the world championship as a 22 year old and ding junhui won the uk championship as an 18 year old beating steve davis in the final , also o sullivan maybe was a bit more unstable then so i don't really see why it was a stronger era .

cupotee wrote:

Iranu wrote:Well coming through and winning are different things.

Williams came through in the early 90s which was a weaker era, but won most of his titles in early
-mid 00s which was probably the strongest era.

Selby came through in the mid-late-00s which was tail end of the strongest era, but has won most of his titles in the 10s which is a weaker era than the early-mid-00s.

but why do you think the early - mid 00's was probably the strongest era ?

Look. It’s clear you disagree with me and in these era conversations nobody’s mind is ever changed. So all I’ll say is, look at the top 16 from 2004-5 compared to now.

Ronnie
Williams
Hendry
Hunter
Higgins
Stevens
Doherty
Ebdon
Lee
McManus
Jimmy
Small
Davis
Gray
Dott

Compared with:

Judd
Ronnie
Robertson
Selby
Allen
Wilson
Higgins
Murphy
Maguire
Williams
Gilbert
Ding
Bingham
Lisowski
Yan
Perry

I think it’s pretty clear the first list is stronger.

Iranu wrote:

cupotee wrote:

Iranu wrote:Well coming through and winning are different things.

Williams came through in the early 90s which was a weaker era, but won most of his titles in early
-mid 00s which was probably the strongest era.

Selby came through in the mid-late-00s which was tail end of the strongest era, but has won most of his titles in the 10s which is a weaker era than the early-mid-00s.

but why do you think the early - mid 00's was probably the strongest era ?

Look. It’s clear you disagree with me and in these era conversations nobody’s mind is ever changed. So all I’ll say is, look at the top 16 from 2004-5 compared to now.

Ronnie
Williams
Hendry
Hunter
Higgins
Stevens
Doherty
Ebdon
Lee
McManus
Jimmy
Small
Davis
Gray
Dott

Compared with:

Judd
Ronnie
Robertson
Selby
Allen
Wilson
Higgins
Murphy
Maguire
Williams
Gilbert
Ding
Bingham
Lisowski
Yan
Perry

I think it’s pretty clear the first list is stronger.

well i did ask in my op what would be a person's reasoning for saying an era is stronger , this is why i quoted you , also here you've replied without any reasoning , this thread isn't about disagreeing with anyone it's just about seeing a person's reasoning thats all .

Late 90s was the strongest era. No question.

95-05 was the strongest era

vodkadiet1 wrote:Late 90s was the strongest era. No question.

what is your reasoning old boy .

Alex0paul wrote:95-05 was the strongest era

yes its tragic that euan henderson deprived us of his talent jumping to the old bill instead .

I don’t know if we’ll ever see a stronger list of top players than we had from, say, 1998 to 2005.

cupotee wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:Late 90s was the strongest era. No question.

what is your reasoning old boy .

Some of the best of all time were at their best or at least close to their best.

Hendry was only just slightly past his best, Higgins was at his best, Williams was at his best, and O'Sullivan was very near his best. And let's not forget Doherty. He was vastly underrated. Paul Hunter was getting close to his best, as was Matthew Stevens. Ebdon was also an awesome player in those days. Wattana was still decent. And Stephen Lee was a class act. And Parrott was still fairly competitive. And there were a few other very hardened match players like McManus, Morgan and Bond who were more than capable. Jimmy White even turned in a vintage display at the 98 Worlds. And Steve Davis won The Masters in 97. Marco Fu was also making a name for himself at this time. Halcyon days of snooker.

The last 8 line up in the 99 Worlds was the best quarter final field ever.

vodkadiet1 wrote:

cupotee wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:Late 90s was the strongest era. No question.

what is your reasoning old boy .

Some of the best of all time were at their best or at least close to their best.

Hendry was only just slightly past his best, Higgins was at his best, Williams was at his best, and O'Sullivan was very near his best. And let's not forget Doherty. He was vastly underrated. Paul Hunter was getting close to his best, as was Matthew Stevens. Ebdon was also an awesome player in those days. Wattana was still decent. And Stephen Lee was a class act. And Parrott was still fairly competitive. And there were a few other very hardened match players like McManus, Morgan and Bond who were more than capable. Jimmy White even turned in a vintage display at the 98 Worlds. And Steve Davis won The Masters in 97. Marco Fu was also making a name for himself at this time. Halcyon days of snooker.

The last 8 line up in the 99 Worlds was the best quarter final field ever.

Fair play old chap!

vodkadiet1 wrote:

cupotee wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:Late 90s was the strongest era. No question.

what is your reasoning old boy .

Some of the best of all time were at their best or at least close to their best.

Hendry was only just slightly past his best, Higgins was at his best, Williams was at his best, and O'Sullivan was very near his best. And let's not forget Doherty. He was vastly underrated. Paul Hunter was getting close to his best, as was Matthew Stevens. Ebdon was also an awesome player in those days. Wattana was still decent. And Stephen Lee was a class act. And Parrott was still fairly competitive. And there were a few other very hardened match players like McManus, Morgan and Bond who were more than capable. Jimmy White even turned in a vintage display at the 98 Worlds. And Steve Davis won The Masters in 97. Marco Fu was also making a name for himself at this time. Halcyon days of snooker.

The last 8 line up in the 99 Worlds was the best quarter final field ever.

hendry's 02 crucible against doherty o sullivan and ebdon was as good as any showing he made there , higgins in 07 09 and 11 was probably a bit better than he was in the late 90's , jimmy white put on his best ever crucible performances in the first two rounds in 98 but couldn't keep it up , i've read comments about the late 90's before i think its just a convenient term of reference but each to their own .

cupotee wrote:well i did ask in my op what would be a person's reasoning for saying an era is stronger , this is why i quoted you , also here you've replied without any reasoning , this thread isn't about disagreeing with anyone it's just about seeing a person's reasoning thats all .

Fair enough. That’s my bad.

I’m gonna end up echoing others but I think the top end of the game was absolutely stacked with excellent players. Look at the 2004-5 rankings. You’ve got Ronnie, Higgins, Williams all at or near their prime. You’ve got Doherty, Ebdon, Stevens, Lee who were all part of the second string at the time compared to the Trio and Hendry (albeit Hendry already a bit past his best.) the number 16 in the world was a soon-to-be World Champion. You’ve got Paul Hunter entering the fold. You’ve got Marco Fu, a great player who’s underachieved massively. Yeah you’ve got Davis and Jimmy hanging around.

But nowadays we have Ronnie, Higgins and Williams not only hanging around but at least semi-regularly winning tournaments despite all being at least a level below their mid-00s level. Not to mention other older players like Hawkins, Perry winning the events and not being pushed out by young players. In 2020 Kyren Wilson is one of the ‘next’ generation’s best prospects!

In today's era, your Dohertys, Stevens, Lees and the like would all be part of the Selby/Robbo/Judd leading pack. Stevens would be a multiple ranking event winner in today’s game. Robbo’s considered an all-time great despite being borderline incapable of playing his natural game in big matches.

The standard’s stagnated and gone backwards because whatever people say about the strength-in-depth, this only really applies to potting and breakbuilding and that’s just because they’ve grown up watching Hendry-era snooker onwards. It doesn’t apply to safety, tactical astuteness, strength of character, competitiveness, killer instinct, even talent.

O’Sullivan, Hendry, Higgins, Williams, Ebdon, Doherty, Hunter, Stevens, Lee, Dott.

What a time to be alive.

Yan Bing Tao!! Yay or no not really, groan i'm dying ZZzzzzzzzz.....

cupotee wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:

cupotee wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:Late 90s was the strongest era. No question.

what is your reasoning old boy .

Some of the best of all time were at their best or at least close to their best.

Hendry was only just slightly past his best, Higgins was at his best, Williams was at his best, and O'Sullivan was very near his best. And let's not forget Doherty. He was vastly underrated. Paul Hunter was getting close to his best, as was Matthew Stevens. Ebdon was also an awesome player in those days. Wattana was still decent. And Stephen Lee was a class act. And Parrott was still fairly competitive. And there were a few other very hardened match players like McManus, Morgan and Bond who were more than capable. Jimmy White even turned in a vintage display at the 98 Worlds. And Steve Davis won The Masters in 97. Marco Fu was also making a name for himself at this time. Halcyon days of snooker.

The last 8 line up in the 99 Worlds was the best quarter final field ever.

hendry's 02 crucible against doherty o sullivan and ebdon was as good as any showing he made there , higgins in 07 09 and 11 was probably a bit better than he was in the late 90's , jimmy white put on his best ever crucible performances in the first two rounds in 98 but couldn't keep it up , i've read comments about the late 90's before i think its just a convenient term of reference but each to their own .

Higgins in the latter rounds in 98 was awesome. He whitewashed O'Sullivan in a session in the semis and the standard in the final against Doherty was never bettered. Doherty would have probably beaten anyone else the way he played in that final.

Iranu wrote:

cupotee wrote:well i did ask in my op what would be a person's reasoning for saying an era is stronger , this is why i quoted you , also here you've replied without any reasoning , this thread isn't about disagreeing with anyone it's just about seeing a person's reasoning thats all .

Fair enough. That’s my bad.

I’m gonna end up echoing others but I think the top end of the game was absolutely stacked with excellent players. Look at the 2004-5 rankings. You’ve got Ronnie, Higgins, Williams all at or near their prime. You’ve got Doherty, Ebdon, Stevens, Lee who were all part of the second string at the time compared to the Trio and Hendry (albeit Hendry already a bit past his best.) the number 16 in the world was a soon-to-be World Champion. You’ve got Paul Hunter entering the fold. You’ve got Marco Fu, a great player who’s underachieved massively. Yeah you’ve got Davis and Jimmy hanging around.

But nowadays we have Ronnie, Higgins and Williams not only hanging around but at least semi-regularly winning tournaments despite all being at least a level below their mid-00s level. Not to mention other older players like Hawkins, Perry winning the events and not being pushed out by young players. In 2020 Kyren Wilson is one of the ‘next’ generation’s best prospects!

In today's era, your Dohertys, Stevens, Lees and the like would all be part of the Selby/Robbo/Judd leading pack. Stevens would be a multiple ranking event winner in today’s game. Robbo’s considered an all-time great despite being borderline incapable of playing his natural game in big matches.

The standard’s stagnated and gone backwards because whatever people say about the strength-in-depth, this only really applies to potting and breakbuilding and that’s just because they’ve grown up watching Hendry-era snooker onwards. It doesn’t apply to safety, tactical astuteness, strength of character, competitiveness, killer instinct, even talent.

i saw plenty of doherty in the 90's and i wouldn't put him in the same class as selby robertson and trump , and i don't see at all what would be wrong with o sullivan higgins and williams hanging around in what is a physically negligible game with their practice facilities and vast experience , and none of these three are any lesser than when they were playing in the mid 00's , higgins in the early to mid 00's may have had one eye on his family which is why he didn't do much at the crucible between 02 to 06 , and stevens somewhat epitomises the very weakness in tactical astuteness , strenght of character , competiveness and killer instinct which is why he certainly to the casual observer at least has done next to nothing in the last fifteen years , again just an opinion .

vodkadiet1 wrote:

cupotee wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:

cupotee wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:Late 90s was the strongest era. No question.

what is your reasoning old boy .

Some of the best of all time were at their best or at least close to their best.

Hendry was only just slightly past his best, Higgins was at his best, Williams was at his best, and O'Sullivan was very near his best. And let's not forget Doherty. He was vastly underrated. Paul Hunter was getting close to his best, as was Matthew Stevens. Ebdon was also an awesome player in those days. Wattana was still decent. And Stephen Lee was a class act. And Parrott was still fairly competitive. And there were a few other very hardened match players like McManus, Morgan and Bond who were more than capable. Jimmy White even turned in a vintage display at the 98 Worlds. And Steve Davis won The Masters in 97. Marco Fu was also making a name for himself at this time. Halcyon days of snooker.

The last 8 line up in the 99 Worlds was the best quarter final field ever.

hendry's 02 crucible against doherty o sullivan and ebdon was as good as any showing he made there , higgins in 07 09 and 11 was probably a bit better than he was in the late 90's , jimmy white put on his best ever crucible performances in the first two rounds in 98 but couldn't keep it up , i've read comments about the late 90's before i think its just a convenient term of reference but each to their own .

Higgins in the latter rounds in 98 was awesome. He whitewashed O'Sullivan in a session in the semis and the standard in the final against Doherty was never bettered. Doherty would have probably beaten anyone else the way he played in that final.

higgins and o'sullivans safety game's are better now than they were then , and o'sullivan is more mature now and a better player for it .

CUE CRAFTY wrote:Yan Bing Tao!! Yay or no not really, groan i'm dying ZZzzzzzzzz.....

whats the point your making , do you want me to reply with a picture of alain robidoux , can't be asked .

cupotee wrote:

Iranu wrote:

cupotee wrote:well i did ask in my op what would be a person's reasoning for saying an era is stronger , this is why i quoted you , also here you've replied without any reasoning , this thread isn't about disagreeing with anyone it's just about seeing a person's reasoning thats all .

Fair enough. That’s my bad.

I’m gonna end up echoing others but I think the top end of the game was absolutely stacked with excellent players. Look at the 2004-5 rankings. You’ve got Ronnie, Higgins, Williams all at or near their prime. You’ve got Doherty, Ebdon, Stevens, Lee who were all part of the second string at the time compared to the Trio and Hendry (albeit Hendry already a bit past his best.) the number 16 in the world was a soon-to-be World Champion. You’ve got Paul Hunter entering the fold. You’ve got Marco Fu, a great player who’s underachieved massively. Yeah you’ve got Davis and Jimmy hanging around.

But nowadays we have Ronnie, Higgins and Williams not only hanging around but at least semi-regularly winning tournaments despite all being at least a level below their mid-00s level. Not to mention other older players like Hawkins, Perry winning the events and not being pushed out by young players. In 2020 Kyren Wilson is one of the ‘next’ generation’s best prospects!

In today's era, your Dohertys, Stevens, Lees and the like would all be part of the Selby/Robbo/Judd leading pack. Stevens would be a multiple ranking event winner in today’s game. Robbo’s considered an all-time great despite being borderline incapable of playing his natural game in big matches.

The standard’s stagnated and gone backwards because whatever people say about the strength-in-depth, this only really applies to potting and breakbuilding and that’s just because they’ve grown up watching Hendry-era snooker onwards. It doesn’t apply to safety, tactical astuteness, strength of character, competitiveness, killer instinct, even talent.

i saw plenty of doherty in the 90's and i wouldn't put him in the same class as selby robertson and trump , and i don't see at all what would be wrong with o sullivan higgins and williams hanging around in what is a physically negligible game with their practice facilities and vast experience , and none of these three are any lesser than when they were playing in the mid 00's , higgins in the early to mid 00's may have had one eye on his family which is why he didn't do much at the crucible between 02 to 06 , and stevens somewhat epitomises the very weakness in tactical astuteness , strenght of character , competiveness and killer instinct which is why he certainly to the casual observer at least has done next to nothing in the last fifteen years , again just an opinion .

You must have a different Doherty to the one I saw. He was as on a par with the players you mentioned.

vodkadiet1 wrote:

cupotee wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:

cupotee wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:Late 90s was the strongest era. No question.

what is your reasoning old boy .

Some of the best of all time were at their best or at least close to their best.

Hendry was only just slightly past his best, Higgins was at his best, Williams was at his best, and O'Sullivan was very near his best. And let's not forget Doherty. He was vastly underrated. Paul Hunter was getting close to his best, as was Matthew Stevens. Ebdon was also an awesome player in those days. Wattana was still decent. And Stephen Lee was a class act. And Parrott was still fairly competitive. And there were a few other very hardened match players like McManus, Morgan and Bond who were more than capable. Jimmy White even turned in a vintage display at the 98 Worlds. And Steve Davis won The Masters in 97. Marco Fu was also making a name for himself at this time. Halcyon days of snooker.

The last 8 line up in the 99 Worlds was the best quarter final field ever.

hendry's 02 crucible against doherty o sullivan and ebdon was as good as any showing he made there , higgins in 07 09 and 11 was probably a bit better than he was in the late 90's , jimmy white put on his best ever crucible performances in the first two rounds in 98 but couldn't keep it up , i've read comments about the late 90's before i think its just a convenient term of reference but each to their own .

Higgins in the latter rounds in 98 was awesome. He whitewashed O'Sullivan in a session in the semis and the standard in the final against Doherty was never bettered. Doherty would have probably beaten anyone else the way he played in that final.

Shush! You're not allowed to be this complimentary of John Higgins on the forum

vodkadiet1 wrote:

cupotee wrote:

Iranu wrote:

cupotee wrote:well i did ask in my op what would be a person's reasoning for saying an era is stronger , this is why i quoted you , also here you've replied without any reasoning , this thread isn't about disagreeing with anyone it's just about seeing a person's reasoning thats all .

Fair enough. That’s my bad.

I’m gonna end up echoing others but I think the top end of the game was absolutely stacked with excellent players. Look at the 2004-5 rankings. You’ve got Ronnie, Higgins, Williams all at or near their prime. You’ve got Doherty, Ebdon, Stevens, Lee who were all part of the second string at the time compared to the Trio and Hendry (albeit Hendry already a bit past his best.) the number 16 in the world was a soon-to-be World Champion. You’ve got Paul Hunter entering the fold. You’ve got Marco Fu, a great player who’s underachieved massively. Yeah you’ve got Davis and Jimmy hanging around.

But nowadays we have Ronnie, Higgins and Williams not only hanging around but at least semi-regularly winning tournaments despite all being at least a level below their mid-00s level. Not to mention other older players like Hawkins, Perry winning the events and not being pushed out by young players. In 2020 Kyren Wilson is one of the ‘next’ generation’s best prospects!

In today's era, your Dohertys, Stevens, Lees and the like would all be part of the Selby/Robbo/Judd leading pack. Stevens would be a multiple ranking event winner in today’s game. Robbo’s considered an all-time great despite being borderline incapable of playing his natural game in big matches.

The standard’s stagnated and gone backwards because whatever people say about the strength-in-depth, this only really applies to potting and breakbuilding and that’s just because they’ve grown up watching Hendry-era snooker onwards. It doesn’t apply to safety, tactical astuteness, strength of character, competitiveness, killer instinct, even talent.

i saw plenty of doherty in the 90's and i wouldn't put him in the same class as selby robertson and trump , and i don't see at all what would be wrong with o sullivan higgins and williams hanging around in what is a physically negligible game with their practice facilities and vast experience , and none of these three are any lesser than when they were playing in the mid 00's , higgins in the early to mid 00's may have had one eye on his family which is why he didn't do much at the crucible between 02 to 06 , and stevens somewhat epitomises the very weakness in tactical astuteness , strenght of character , competiveness and killer instinct which is why he certainly to the casual observer at least has done next to nothing in the last fifteen years , again just an opinion .

You must have a different Doherty to the one I saw. He was as on a par with the players you mentioned.

he was very good in the dr martens premier league was it 97 which he won , which followed through to the crucible , lets see in the 98 crucible he just about beat lee walker in the first round and just got past a still bit raw mark williams in the semi and got outclassed in the final , same sport / game , same names , same venue so it's the same one .

I tend to be neither reactive or nostalgic in the way I look at things. I give each era the credit it deserves. I don't think today's era is weak by any means, in fact I think the top 50 as a whole is likely stronger, but I cannot accept that the top 10-16 of today is as strong as it was between the late '90s and mid '00s.

I'm not sure why we're comparing the last era's 'big four' (Trump, Robertson, Selby, Ding) to Doherty, who was in the chasing pack in the '90s and '00s. I agree those four players are better than Doherty, but I think they only really put that beyond doubt in the last five years. Compared to Hendry, Higgins, Williams and O'Sullivan, I don't think any of the four of them outrank the '90s and '00s big four. You could argue that none of the four have outranked even present-day Ronnie O'Sullivan.

I don't think Selby's a million miles off Mark Williams, but he's well behind the other three in terms of greatness. I think Trump might give it a good rattle over the coming decade, but Ding and Robertson haven't a hope of breaking into that kind of conversation, very good players though they are.

cupotee wrote:i saw plenty of doherty in the 90's and i wouldn't put him in the same class as selby robertson and trump , and i don't see at all what would be wrong with o sullivan higgins and williams hanging around in what is a physically negligible game with their practice facilities and vast experience , and none of these three are any lesser than when they were playing in the mid 00's , higgins in the early to mid 00's may have had one eye on his family which is why he didn't do much at the crucible between 02 to 06 , and stevens somewhat epitomises the very weakness in tactical astuteness , strenght of character , competiveness and killer instinct which is why he certainly to the casual observer at least has done next to nothing in the last fifteen years , again just an opinion .

See? Told you I wouldn’t get you to agree with me

The point isn’t that they’re hanging around, it’s that they’re winning tournaments with semi-regularity (Ronnie with actual regularity). I’d say Higgins and Williams are definitely lesser than they were 15 years ago. Ronnie probably a lesser player BUT much stronger mentally which counteracts that. Not just them but Hawkins, Perry etc being regular top 16 players.

If it’s a stronger era, why is Michael Holt for example in pretty much the same ranking as he was 15 years ago? He’s 42 and it’s not like he’s a special case like the all-time greats. Theoretically he should be getting pushed down the rankings, unless you think he’s improved in the last 10 years to stagnate at late-20s to early-30s (OK he’s dropped to 44th this season).

Yes, Stevens did lack strength of character and killer instinct. That’s my point. If he was playing the likes of Gilbert, Lisowski etc in finals he’s have won more because they all lack bottle but he was a better player than them. In 5 of Stevens’ 8 ranking finals he played Ronnie, Williams, Higgins and Hendry. He also beat Doherty in the final of the Masters.

I think if Doherty was in today’s era his ranking record would be comparable to Robbo’s, Selby’s and Trump’s (not saying he’d have three world titles of course.) Don’t forget this is the guy who broke Hendry’s stranglehold on the World Title.