In terms of honours Hendry wins hands down, Ronnie was so inconsistent which counts against him but judging both at their absolute best I would give it to Ronnie. I would say Hendry was the only player who ever intimidated Ronnie though

Hendry also suffered from Yips from the last 10 years or so which contributed to his decline. I'm sure he would have won at least 1 more world title, another 1 or 2 UK championships and a few more ranking titles if it weren't for that.

Fair enough if that's your view 8bit.

I wouldn't say it's an unreasonable view, but I personally don't have the same view.

There's a discussion here (7 pages of it )

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570959&page=1
, and most people put Hendry and Steve Davis as 1 and 2 of all time.

In a list of greats you'd probably have to put Hendry and Davis top two due to their achievements, Ronnie wasted a lot of years which counts against him. Off the table he had a lot of issues whereas Hendry and Davis were dedicated and ruthless.

It would be fascinating to see how Davis at his peak would get on now, or would have got on in the late 90s, which was arguably snooker's peak.

People on that thread talk about the likes of reardon, Griffiths, thorburn even being greats, but they played a totally different type of game, and (while the tables may have been harder back then), I don't think they were in the same league as break builders or potters that Hendry, OSullivan, Williams, J Higgins etc were.

Just to add to that post - I think Davis was possibly the one who raised the bar by the most in comparison with his peers. Throughout the 80s, with the odd exception, no one would get close to Davis.

It's worth noting that up to 1994 (some 5 years after Davis's last title), Hendry was only 20-16 up in head to heads.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Are any of those players going to go on to be great names in the sport ? no chance i'd say.

I don't remember many players in the 90s and 00s suddenly shooting up the rankings in their 30s, and it strikes me that the reason these guys are is that the standard of snooker is declining.

Watching the world championship this week, it's nothing like the standard of play you would get a decade or so ago, and the result is that journeyman players are able to creep up the rankings in a way they would have had no chance of doing in previous eras.

I never saw Davis in his prime, he dominated the 80's the same way Hendry did the 90's but it seems to be accepted among snooker people that Hendry was the better player. I always think older players would apapt their game if they played in a different era though.

Amazingly, Davis was 6-5 up in head to heads with OSullivan until the end of 1999 - a decade after he was at his best.

It's a very interesting point you make about adapting the game 8bit. I think Hendry had to do it to an extent as the game changed through the 90s to a more attacking game. Davis's game was so different though, it really would be incredible to see how he would play now.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Anyone else feeling the urge to go down the snooker hall every day this tourney's been on

Was even thinking about getting a new cue

I don't think you know how good these players are tbh.If you saw them in practice you would realise they are very talented.Go along to pro-ams and you see lads knocking in century breaks and they hardly miss but you never see them on TV.

============================

that's probably always been the case, even back in the 80s, when the game wasn't about scoring big 100s. im not doubting they are good snooker players, im saying they wouldn't have got a look in in terms of winning major tournaments 10-15 years ago. I don't need to go to a pro-am to see that the standard at the top level has falled significantly from a few years ago.

Snooker is one of the only sports I can think of where prize money has gone down substantially, and for me it's reflected in the standard of play.

OSullivan can wipe the floor with them at nearly 40 after not playing for a year for goodness sake ! If any of osullivan, higgings, Williams or Hendry were at their peak now, theyd win every week.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

1995

1.Stephen Hendry
2.Steve Davis
3.James Wattana
4.Jimmy White
5.John Parrott
6.Alan McManus
7.Ken Doherty
8.Darren Morgan
9.Ronnie O'Sullivan
10.Peter Ebdon
11.Nigel Bond
12.Joe Swail
13.David Roe
14.Terry Griffiths


1998

1. Stephen Hendry
2. John Higgins
3. Ken Doherty
4. Mark J Williams
5. Peter Ebdon
6. John Parrott
7. Ronnie O'Sullivan
8. Nigel Bond
9. Alain Robidoux
10. Alan McManus
11. Tony Drago
12. James Wattana
13. Steve Davis
14. Anthony Hamilton
15. Darren Morgan
16. Stephen Lee



2001

1. Mark J Williams
2. John Higgins
3. Stephen Hendry
4. Ronnie O'Sullivan
5. Stephen Lee
6. Matthew Stevens
7. Ken Doherty
8. Alan McManus
9. Fergal O'Brien
10. John Parrott
11. Anthony Hamilton
12. Peter Ebdon
13. Dave Harold
14. Paul Hunter
15. Marco Fu Hong Kong
16. Joe Swail


2004


1 Mark J Williams
2 Stephen Hendry
3Ronnie O'Sullivan
4 John Higgins
5 Stephen Lee
6 Ken Doherty
7 Peter Ebdon
8 Paul Hunter
9Matthew Stevens
10 Alan McManus
11 Steve Davis
12 David Gray
13 Graeme Dott
14 Quinten Hann
15 Jimmy White
16 Ali carter


2013
1. Mark Selby
2. Judd Trump
3. Mark J Williams
4. Stephen Maguire
5. John Higgins
6. Shaun Murphy
7. Neil Robertson
8. Stephen Lee
9. Ronnie O'Sullivan
10. Matthew Stevens
11. Ding Junhui
12. Mark Allen
13. Graeme Dott
14. Martin Gould
15. Ricky Walden
16. Stuart Bingham


I think the 2013 top 16's the weakest of those random selections quite comfortably. Half the players in the top 16 now were past their best 10 years ago.

Jimmy White's still 46 in the world

Half the players in the the top 16 now were past their best 10 years ago..... Really?????

The strength in depth of snooker has risen dramatically in recent years, and there really are no easy games now. Ask most of the older professionals and they agree that they could usually work their way into a tournament, whereas now you have to be on the ball from round one.

Of course the cream always rises to the top, and the likes of Hendry, O'Sullivan, Higgins and Williams would have been around the top in any era. I don't think that players like Robertson, Selby, Ding, Murphy, Trump etc are far off that level, it's just far harder to dominate than what it use to be.

Williams world nr 3 aged 38
Higgins world nr 5 aged 37
Lee world nr 8 aged 38
O Sullivan world nr 9 aged 37
Stevens world nr 10 aged 35

This is not a sport that is getting stronger, it's a sport that is getting weaker.

There were always plenty of good players about by the way.

Davis used to play Reardon, Griffiths, White, Thorburn, Higgins, Hendry, Parrot. And he still won 7 titles.

Those other 4 years ive selected (at random) I wouldn't mind betting there's no one in the top 10 in any of them who was over 30. At the moment there are 5 guys in the top 10 aged 35 or older. It's a sport in decline.

I was highlighting the fact that you said they were past their best 10 years ago. Most of them were at their peak or even still to reach their peaks 10 years ago.

Snooker players develop at different rates, and it is possible to stay at the top of the game for 15-20 years. This has been the case from Reardon, Spencer, Alex Higgins through to today's players. The one player who really fell away at a relatively young age was Hendry, probably because he had dominated for so long from a young age, and because of a strong group of players that came along in the late 90s.

The sport is stronger because the players you mention still have a few years left in them yet, as well as the up and coming younger ones. Players look after themselves a lot better now, so to still be competetive into late 30s early 40s is not unreasonable. I'm sure in 5 years time the picture will change somewhat, but just because a player has reached his late 30s does not me he is suddenly past it.Of course these players will gradually decline, but not sure how by simply putting their ages up suggest the sport is getting weaker??

Look at football - not so long ago players were thought to be past it once they hit 30, but most go on to their mid/late 30s.

The likes of Reardon, Spencer, Higgins, Taylor, Thorburn, Davis etc were all in the 30s when still around the top of the game.

I think it's niave/incorrect to use age as a benchmark of whether the game is stronger or weaker, as players can generally go on for longer.

You say there are no players who stand out as greats now because all the players are so good, but everyone knew 10-15 years ago that there were 4 greats playing the game at the time. You also say that the previous players were able to dominate because there was no depth, but these guys played each other regularly, and are still multiple work champions. also look at the list of players ive given above that davis used to play, and he won 7. I think the age point is a pointer, as weve suddenly gone from no players in the top 10 over 35, to 5 players; to me that is as clear an indication of the decline as the drop in prize money is. You can see this in the play. yes the final session between murphy and trump was very good, but the rest of the match, and the ding match was pretty terrible for quarter finals.

There is more depth nowadays imo and the standard is better overall but there are no star players apart from Ronnie really, there's a group of 7 or 8 who would have been around the top of the game in the 90's as well. The list from 95 and 98 you posted is quite weak imo, the majority of the top 16 today are better.

Ronnie keeps saying that he doesn't enjoy and only in for the money