Post a reply

Ray Reardon

Postby Muller

Over the last few months, been watching a lot of old snooker on YT and watched a fair bit of Ray, notably the 78 final.

I have formed the opinion that he would have been great in any area. Taking account of slower, more unpredictable tables and heavier balls he really was a class act: great potter, canny safety, good cue ball control but above all brilliant clutch player. I have read of his sometimes questionable tactics and behaviour in the 73 and 76 finals but not sure how bad that was really.

It is often easy to dismiss pre-Davis or even pre-Hendry players but I think that is a little unfair.

So, how do people rate Reardon?

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby SnookerFan

I've never seen much of him play, if I'm honest.

But I certainty wouldn't dismiss him in any way. It's so tough to compare eras.

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby Muller

Yes, agree regarding different eras as playing conditions are so different.

But sometimes it seems like many think snooker never really existed prior to Hendry, revolutionary player though he was.

Going right back credit to all the following?

Joe Davis for inventing it

Fred Davis and John Pulman for keeping it alive in the barren years.

Ray Reardon, John Spencer and Alex Higgins for guiding it into the TV era

Steve Davis for professionalising it

Stephen Hendry for revolutionising it.


But I do think overall, Ray should be counted among the greats. He would have adapted to conditions.

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby TheRocket

The likes of Reardon and Davis would have adapted to any era and conditions. No doubt. If Reardon and Davis came through now they would become very heavy scorers and maybe even play the way Trump does.

Thats why its always impossible to compare different eras. Same in Tennis. You cant compare Laver or Borg to Federer and Nadal.

You always have to look at who was the best in his respective era. And Reardon was definitely the best player in the 70's when he was at his peak.
Last edited by TheRocket on 21 Aug 2020, edited 2 times in total.

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby SnookerEd25

How do I rate him?

Very, very highly. It is generally accepted that had Jimmy White beaten Alex Higgins in the '82 SF, Jimmy would have been WC that year but I disagree; i think over 35 frames, Reardon would have known too much for such a raw youngster and become a 7-time World Champion in his 50th year.

Often overlooked when discussing the greats of the game, but for me he is right up there; his knowledge and tactical brain would have made him a tough competitor in any era - nobody relished playing him at his peak.

A rock-solid hard b*stard who you really had to scrape off the table.

Total legend. <ok>

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby Iranu

TheRocket wrote:The likes of Reardon and Davis would have adapted to any era and conditions. No doubt. If Reardon and Davis came through now they would become very heavy scorers and maybe even play the way Trump does.

Thats why its always impossible to compare different eras. Same in Tennis. You cant compare Laver or Borg to Federer and Nadal.

You always have to look at who was the best in his respective era. And Reardon was definitely the best player in the 70's when he was at his peak.

Yeah I agree with this. In fact, Davis did adapt to different eras. He wasn’t far outside the top 16 only ten years ago, when far past his best.

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby Muller

I have a recollection of a match at the end of the 80s when Reardon , nearing the end, only just lost to Hendry and made a 90 odd break in one frame. Conditions were better then than 15 years before so maybe he was adapting but was just too old!

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby badtemperedcyril

It has often been said that had Jimmy beaten Alex in 82 he'd have gone on to beat Reardon. Even Steve Davis has voiced that opinion. I don't agree. If you watch the 82 semi-final and final in detail, it is pretty clear that the final was by far and away a higher quality match. Yes, the semi had some fast, explosive potting but it also contained lots of missed pots and poor safety. The final was a hard match, with both players playing some terrific safety and pretty clinical scoring at close range. Higgins was a different player in these two matches. Against White, he tried to out shine him in the attacking stakes whereas he gave Ray utmost respect.

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby SnookerEd25

This one :

1989 Classic - Professional Ranking

Last 32
(Scotland) Stephen Hendry 5(9)4 (Wales) Ray Reardon

Frame scores
24-66; 32-63; 101(88)-1; 78-60; 88(54)-34; 0-139(95); 63-19; 71(71)-80; 74(70)-29

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby Muller

SnookerEd25 wrote:This one :

1989 Classic - Professional Ranking

Last 32
(Scotland) Stephen Hendry 5(9)4 (Wales) Ray Reardon

Frame scores
24-66; 32-63; 101(88)-1; 78-60; 88(54)-34; 0-139(95); 63-19; 71(71)-80; 74(70)-29



That's the one - cheers!

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby badtemperedcyril

Another point on Reardon. People only tend to remember him for his achievements as a professional but of course, his career went back further than that. One must bear in mind there wasn't really much of a professional game between 1956 and 1968 (Fred Davis, John Pulman, Rex Williams and Jackie Rea were the only active professionals), but there was a very active amateur scene. Reardon won 6 Welsh titles in the 50's and, as PC184 of the Stoke Constabulary, the 1964 English Amateur (beating his future rival John Spencer). He should've won the English Amateur in 1956 when he led Tommy Gordon in the final by 5 frames but he lost a tip, had to borrow a friends cue, and ended up losing 11-9. The interesting thing though, when you read the reports in the magazines and press, they purr over Reardon's class and style - he was a cut above the rest, even if he didn't always back it up with titles.

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby badtemperedcyril

A little look back into the archives...

1964 ENGLISH AMATEUR CHAMPIONSHIP
21st– 22nd April, 1964
Central Hall, Corporation Street, Birmingham

RAY REARDON (Stoke-on-Trent) 11-8 JOHN SPENCER (Radcliffe)

Frame scores:
Session 1 34-64; 30-79(45); 88(50)-16; 62(42)-22; 44-62. Spencer 3-2
Session 2 23-66; 65-50; 34-42(32); 84(35,41)-20; 79-33. Level 5-5
Session 3 73-30; 30-73(42); 25-88(46); 79(43)-33; 90(74)-30(30). Reardon 8-7
Session 4 35-70(55); 101(33)-26; 66-40; 62-53. Reardon 11-8

Route to final:
RAY REARDON
Southern Section
Wolverhampton Area
Prelim 1 R. Reardon bye
Prelim 2 R. Reardon beat A.E. Woodbridge (Wolverhampton) 4-1 (RR 31,31)
Competition Proper
Round 1 R. Reardon beat D.G.Thorncroft (Cornwall) 4-1 (RR 54)
Round 2 R. Reardon beat I.J. James (Cornwall) 4-2 (RR 39,40)
Quarter final R. Reardon beat A.J. Barnett (Wednesbury) 4-0 (RR 48)
Semi-final R. Reardon beat J. Barron (Cornwall) 5-3 (RR 44,40,31. JB 31,31)
Final R. Reardon beat J. Goodwin (Halesowen) 6-2 (RR 33. JG 34)
JOHN SPENCER
Northern Section
Manchester Area
Prelim 1 J. Spencer beat G.N. Dyson (Moss Side) 4-1 (JS 34,46,38,32)
Prelim 2 J. Spencer beat J. Green (Manchester) 4-1 (JS 31)
Competition Proper
Round 1 J. Spencer beat R.Close (Redcar) 4-0 (JS 38)
Round 2 J. Spencer beat D. Robertson (Redcar) 4-2 (JS 31,31. DR 35)
Quarter final J. Spencer beat G. Lockwood (Bradford) 4-1 (JS 31,32,61)
Semi-final J. Spencer beat A.L. Driffield (East Ardsley) 4-0 (JS 36,45,30)
Final J. Spencer beat G. Scott (Liverpool) 6-5 (JS bks 33,46,49)

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby SnookerEd25

Brilliant stuff, Cyril; many thanks.

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby Muller

Fascinating stuff there!

Has anyone here seen the YT footage of the 1978 final? Some lovely play on there and Reardon really kicked for home, made a 100 break and an 80 to stamp authority. Mans showed some nifty safety....

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby badtemperedcyril

Muller wrote:Fascinating stuff there!

Has anyone here seen the YT footage of the 1978 final? Some lovely play on there and Reardon really kicked for home, made a 100 break and an 80 to stamp authority. Mans showed some nifty safety....

Yes, fantastic video. I was like a dog with 2 d!cks when that was uploaded.


The amount of times Mans rifled in a long red and screwed back to baulk was amazing. It was "naughty snooker" more than a decade before Trump was even thought of.

Until quite recently there weren't any video's on YT of Ray making a century but there's this one and the cracker he compiled against Thorburn in the '83 Masters Final at Wembley.

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby Muller

I used to enjoy watching Mans but his form seemed to decline sharply after that Masters win in 79.

Checked the records and his defeats at the WC became quite heavy quite quickly over the next few years.

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby Muller

There was another century out there at one point by Ray, not YT I think vs Spencer, early 70s and looked a terrific ton.

He probably had a lot that went unrecorded.

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby badtemperedcyril

I think it's a shame when people look at CueTracker and say "Ahh Reardon, Spencer, Higgins etc didn't make so many centuries", but there just weren't so many tournaments back then. Whereas now, players are playing tournaments one after the other, in the 70's it was mostly exhibitions and challenge matches. I'd love to see the latter included in CueTracker stats. You know if you go through Snooker Scene's or newspapers, you see reports such as:

"John Spencer beat Graham Miles (or whoever) 5 frames to 3 for £150 at Fiddlers WMC. He made breaks of 102, 74 and 51, while Miles' best was a run of 68 in the second frame."

That's all completely made up, of course, but you know the sort of thing I mean...

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby SnookerFan

Keep an eye on Ray Reardon next season. Definitely one to watch.

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby Ck147

SnookerFan wrote:Keep an eye on Ray Reardon next season. Definitely one to watch.

Lol

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby Wildey

SnookerEd25 wrote:How do I rate him?

Very, very highly. It is generally accepted that had Jimmy White beaten Alex Higgins in the '82 SF, Jimmy would have been WC that year but I disagree; i think over 35 frames, Reardon would have known too much for such a raw youngster and become a 7-time World Champion in his 50th year.

Often overlooked when discussing the greats of the game, but for me he is right up there; his knowledge and tactical brain would have made him a tough competitor in any era - nobody relished playing him at his peak.

A rock-solid hard b*stard who you really had to scrape off the table.

Total legend. <ok>

There is evident to back you up there just a few months after the 1982 World Championship Ray Reardon did beat Jimmy White 10-5 in the final of the Tournament that was later to become the Grand Prix.



If you look at the early 70s when Alex Higgins came on the scene Alex seemed to beat Ray consistently in fact Alex beat him 8 out of the first 9 times they met. Jimmys early record against Ray Reardon was not as good and Ray was 10 years older.


Ray had adapted to play the attacking flair player by the time Jimmy White came along.

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby Dan-cat

Yeah, he said how he would leave long shots sticking out on purpose - tempters that they couldn't resist - and those shots are like 5/10 chances, even for them...

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby SnookerEd25

Wildey wrote:There is evident to back you up there just a few months after the 1982 World Championship Ray Reardon did beat Jimmy White 10-5 in the final of the Tournament that was later to become the Grand Prix.



If you look at the early 70s when Alex Higgins came on the scene Alex seemed to beat Ray consistently in fact Alex beat him 8 out of the first 9 times they met. Jimmys early record against Ray Reardon was not as good and Ray was 10 years older.


Ray had adapted to play the attacking flair player by the time Jimmy White came along.


That is true, but I also think Alex Higgins' tactical brain was under-rated. He was playing a revolutionary attacking game that hadn't really been seen before at the start of the 70s, but if he kept his discipline he could compete with anybody in a tactical battle; he lost it against Thorburn in 1980 and started playing to the crowd but learnt from that against Reardon in '82, it was noticeable watching even to me as an 8 year old.

Jimmy was just out & out attacking at the time and I don't think he'd have been able to cope over the 35-frame distance.

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby Wildey

SnookerEd25 wrote:
Wildey wrote:There is evident to back you up there just a few months after the 1982 World Championship Ray Reardon did beat Jimmy White 10-5 in the final of the Tournament that was later to become the Grand Prix.



If you look at the early 70s when Alex Higgins came on the scene Alex seemed to beat Ray consistently in fact Alex beat him 8 out of the first 9 times they met. Jimmys early record against Ray Reardon was not as good and Ray was 10 years older.


Ray had adapted to play the attacking flair player by the time Jimmy White came along.


That is true, but I also think Alex Higgins' tactical brain was under-rated. He was playing a revolutionary attacking game that hadn't really been seen before at the start of the 70s, but if he kept his discipline he could compete with anybody in a tactical battle; he lost it against Thorburn in 1980 and started playing to the crowd but learnt from that against Reardon in '82, it was noticeable watching even to me as an 8 year old.

Jimmy was just out & out attacking at the time and I don't think he'd have been able to cope over the 35-frame distance.

Alex Higgins had a unbelievable Head to Head against Cliff Thorburn https://cuetracker.net/head-to-head/ale ... f-thorburn


unfortunately their biggest match he lost

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby SnookerEd25

Interesting H2H Wildey, thanks for posting; note that although he was 17-6 in matches won (68%), the frames were a lot tighter : 130-121 (51%), showing most of the matches were close...

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby The_Abbott

Reardon was my favourite player in my early days watching snooker but I was too young to remember him in his prime or him winning a WC. I remember when he made the final in the 1982 final and subsequent years after that.

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby Johnny Bravo

Reardon was great in his era, he wouldn't be able to cope with the players of the modern era.

Re: Ray Reardon

Postby Iranu

Johnny Bravo wrote:Reardon was great in his era, he wouldn't be able to cope with the players of the modern era.

He would if he’d grown and developed in this era.