Re: Most overrated snooker player of all time
(a) An underachiever, an overachiever or have fulfilled their potential as expected to date
(b) Overhyped, Underhyped or evoke pretty neutral opinions
- Witz78
- Posts: 15036
- Joined: 02 February 2010
Trumpster wrote:Absolute nonsense. Murphy's technique is flagged up by the top pros (as well as Stephen Lee's) as one of the best and one to copy. There is nothing better than potting someone off the table, it creates incredible pressure on your opponent. as ROS pointed out about Judd.
Wild WC wrote:Trumpster wrote:Absolute nonsense. Murphy's technique is flagged up by the top pros (as well as Stephen Lee's) as one of the best and one to copy. There is nothing better than potting someone off the table, it creates incredible pressure on your opponent. as ROS pointed out about Judd.
you got to back that up with Major titles.
Murphy not producing.
its been 8 years since he won the World and 4 years since he won the UK.
the only other Ranking wins came in the Malta Cup in 2007 and the PTC Grand Final in 2011.
so no way with the talent he has hes overrated but boy ohhh boy if ever there was a player that's under achieved its Murphy.
Sonny wrote:It's got nothing to do with his weight. He hasn't won more because he's a one trick pony, he's great at potting balls because he's got the most solid cue action out there but there's more to snooker than potting balls.
Roland wrote:Luca is a genius
Pink Ball wrote:Roland wrote:Luca is a genius
Oh aye.
Alex0paul wrote:Neil Robertson
Dragonfly wrote:I may have mentioned before but I really do believe Alex Higgins was overrated. I know plenty of people disagree of course. Higgins had dreadful technique, awful positional play. He did have plenty of courage, was determined and was a bit of a scrapper really. He had good tactical know how, and on occasion capable of flashes of brilliance.
The brilliance was few and far between though. Dogged by inconsistency, he's actual record in tournaments wasn't great. I'm not saying he was a poor player but I am bemused when people say he was one of the best of all time.
I understand what he did for the game, he was exciting on his good days, but one of the best ever? No!
Holden Chinaski wrote:Lisowski.
SnookerFan wrote:A lot of people are hyping Jack Lisowski, and he has potential. But there seems to be an attitude that he's the next Judd Trump, just because he's round about the same age and they know each other.
Holden Chinaski wrote:Lisowski.
LDS wrote:Giving any answer here will likely be hugely controversial, and I disagree with pretty much everyone else's picks for reasons others have chimed in with.
But, for me, this award will always be Paul Hunter's, someone who was mentioned earlier in the thread but overlooked as a candidate for the title.
People at the time really loved Hunter. Loved. He was the golden boy who could do no wrong. However, whenever I watched him play, he either lost or was pretty boring. I'm aware that, in my case, his physical appearance didn't add anything to the show, but I'm aware that for many, and I do mean many, it did.
He was no Jimmy or Higgins or O'Sullivan, nor was he a Davis or Hendry, and of the players of his generation I preferred to watch Stevens or Gray or Hann given the choice, both for playstyle and physical appearance!
But, wow, Hunter really was a lot of things to a lot of people and he did win some titles, just not the ones I took as much interest in. He never did that well at the Worlds, nor the UK, nor the Grand Prix, and yet he dominated both the Masters and the Welsh open, none of it made any sense at all.
How can you win 3 Masters titles in 4 years but only have one visit to the crucible go past the 2nd round in 8 attempts.
I don't think you could find any other player in any way comparable. And then there's the whole tragedy aspect to his career which results in those that loved him forever just saying "well, he probably would have at some point", which is quite possible, but also not at all obviously guaranteed. He could well have gone the way of Maguire or Stevens in terms of future career.
If ever there was a player where you really will struggle to find support for disliking them, as a player, it will be Hunter, like no other. Everyone else who's been mentioned you can easily find ready detractors, but if you really want to find a golden boy who probably wasn't, probably more fine silver, it would be Hunter IMO.
Dragonfly wrote:I may have mentioned before but I really do believe Alex Higgins was overrated. I know plenty of people disagree of course. Higgins had dreadful technique, awful positional play. He did have plenty of courage, was determined and was a bit of a scrapper really. He had good tactical know how, and on occasion capable of flashes of brilliance.
The brilliance was few and far between though. Dogged by inconsistency, he's actual record in tournaments wasn't great. I'm not saying he was a poor player but I am bemused when people say he was one of the best of all time.
I understand what he did for the game, he was exciting on his good days, but one of the best ever? No!
SnookerFan wrote:LDS wrote:Giving any answer here will likely be hugely controversial, and I disagree with pretty much everyone else's picks for reasons others have chimed in with.
But, for me, this award will always be Paul Hunter's, someone who was mentioned earlier in the thread but overlooked as a candidate for the title.
People at the time really loved Hunter. Loved. He was the golden boy who could do no wrong. However, whenever I watched him play, he either lost or was pretty boring. I'm aware that, in my case, his physical appearance didn't add anything to the show, but I'm aware that for many, and I do mean many, it did.
He was no Jimmy or Higgins or O'Sullivan, nor was he a Davis or Hendry, and of the players of his generation I preferred to watch Stevens or Gray or Hann given the choice, both for playstyle and physical appearance!
But, wow, Hunter really was a lot of things to a lot of people and he did win some titles, just not the ones I took as much interest in. He never did that well at the Worlds, nor the UK, nor the Grand Prix, and yet he dominated both the Masters and the Welsh open, none of it made any sense at all.
How can you win 3 Masters titles in 4 years but only have one visit to the crucible go past the 2nd round in 8 attempts.
I don't think you could find any other player in any way comparable. And then there's the whole tragedy aspect to his career which results in those that loved him forever just saying "well, he probably would have at some point", which is quite possible, but also not at all obviously guaranteed. He could well have gone the way of Maguire or Stevens in terms of future career.
If ever there was a player where you really will struggle to find support for disliking them, as a player, it will be Hunter, like no other. Everyone else who's been mentioned you can easily find ready detractors, but if you really want to find a golden boy who probably wasn't, probably more fine silver, it would be Hunter IMO.
He never did well at the Worlds? He was only one frame away from the final at one point.
He did win Three Masters titles. You might have heard of The Masters, some consider it a pretty big tournament.
He was only a week short of his 28th birthday when he died, and had cancer for a while prior to that. He had plenty of time to win more trophies.
He might be romanticised a bit, due to his death. But he was hardly some mug who never achieved anything.
Pink Ball wrote:Aye, Luca has made me look a right mug. bucking Roy of the Rovers wouldn't have won the World Championship as dramatically.
LDS wrote:SnookerFan wrote:LDS wrote:Giving any answer here will likely be hugely controversial, and I disagree with pretty much everyone else's picks for reasons others have chimed in with.
But, for me, this award will always be Paul Hunter's, someone who was mentioned earlier in the thread but overlooked as a candidate for the title.
People at the time really loved Hunter. Loved. He was the golden boy who could do no wrong. However, whenever I watched him play, he either lost or was pretty boring. I'm aware that, in my case, his physical appearance didn't add anything to the show, but I'm aware that for many, and I do mean many, it did.
He was no Jimmy or Higgins or O'Sullivan, nor was he a Davis or Hendry, and of the players of his generation I preferred to watch Stevens or Gray or Hann given the choice, both for playstyle and physical appearance!
But, wow, Hunter really was a lot of things to a lot of people and he did win some titles, just not the ones I took as much interest in. He never did that well at the Worlds, nor the UK, nor the Grand Prix, and yet he dominated both the Masters and the Welsh open, none of it made any sense at all.
How can you win 3 Masters titles in 4 years but only have one visit to the crucible go past the 2nd round in 8 attempts.
I don't think you could find any other player in any way comparable. And then there's the whole tragedy aspect to his career which results in those that loved him forever just saying "well, he probably would have at some point", which is quite possible, but also not at all obviously guaranteed. He could well have gone the way of Maguire or Stevens in terms of future career.
If ever there was a player where you really will struggle to find support for disliking them, as a player, it will be Hunter, like no other. Everyone else who's been mentioned you can easily find ready detractors, but if you really want to find a golden boy who probably wasn't, probably more fine silver, it would be Hunter IMO.
He never did well at the Worlds? He was only one frame away from the final at one point.
He did win Three Masters titles. You might have heard of The Masters, some consider it a pretty big tournament.
He was only a week short of his 28th birthday when he died, and had cancer for a while prior to that. He had plenty of time to win more trophies.
He might be romanticised a bit, due to his death. But he was hardly some mug who never achieved anything.
I know, I mentioned most of that in my post.
I'm not sure you grasp the concept of overrated.
Nowhere do you even consider the extent which Hunter was either overrated or underrated or about right rated, you kind of prove my point entirely by completely and totally refusing to say a single even mildly negative thing about him.
And yet you wish to field Lisowski as someone who's overrated?
Well, what do you mean he's overrated? All people say about him is that he's possibly one of the best players to never win a ranker and that surely he must one day. You watch any tv commentary and you can't go 3 frames without someone going on about how he'd be a great player if he'd just do this that or the other, to the point where everyone's fed up of hearing them repeat this every 3 frames.
So who exactly is overrating Lisowski?
Womble wrote:Luca Brecel. He wins the World championship once and he is hailed as a superhero or something.
Let's see what happens next season before everyone gets too excited.
Holden Chinaski wrote:Womble wrote:Luca Brecel. He wins the World championship once and he is hailed as a superhero or something.
Let's see what happens next season before everyone gets too excited.
He's the first player from mainland Europe to win it. As Judd Trump said, that is very impressive, especially because Luca never moved to the UK to practice with top players.
He was also the first player from mainland Europe to win a ranking event when he won the China Championship in 2017.
He is now 28 years old, and has already won 4 ranking titles including a World Championship.
Luca is already in the record books for being the youngest player ever to play at the World Championship, for being the first player from mainland Europe to win a ranking event and the first to win the Worlds, and for making the biggest comeback in Crucible history.
Jack Lisowski, for example, is 31 and has won buck all.