Post a reply

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Badsnookerplayer

It is a matter of taste.

Ronnie is by far the most popular with the masses and probably the only modern snooker player many of the public have heard of. He is without doubt great to watch.

But people who understand snooker on a deeper level can appreciate other players.The tactics and guile of players who do not have so much natural ability. (That is not to say of course that people who appreciate Ronnie do not understand snooker on a deeper level - it was not meant to exclude him).

As Holden says, you can be a Ronnie fan and appreciate the mastery of Hendry. And as Iranu says, the thrill of watching snooker for some is heightened when they are on the edge of their seat as their favourite is struggling.

The game of snooker would be much poorer without Ronnie but I believe it needs it's Selbys and even Ebdons to bring something different. That is why it can be so fascinating to watch.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Holden Chinaski

Johnny Bravo wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:When I look back at Hendry in his prime now, I find him very entertaining to watch. Very attacking. Amazing break builder. Probably the best long potter ever. Nerves of steel. Hendry was great.


If he would have been more charismatic and also played for the crowd, he'd have double the fanbase.
Btw, he's nowhere near the best long potter. Trump, Robbo and probably even Willo, they all surpass him.

Hendry was the greatest long potter ever. He won all those titles by potting long ones, getting perfect position, and making a frame winning break. That's what he did. The more pressure he was under, the more the long pots went in. He was a beast in his prime. Deserves respect. He's a god to Ronnie. Judd is a fantastic long potter, but not even close to prime Hendry.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Iranu

Erza Scarlet wrote:That doesn’t make sense. If people are happy to see Ronnie win because of all the missed years then why wouldn’t they be happy to see him win if he did it earlier?

Because Ronnie already had a huge following when he was just on 1-2 world titles and when his overall tournament tally was nowhere near as close as it is now, actually even before he won his first title I was young but I remember people talking about how exciting he was because how quickly he played the game and made it look so easy on the eye.

There was a clear difference between the way he played and Hendry played. Hendry was a machine. Ronnie is more artistic and the only player where people kept calling him a genius, and still do. The way they go about their games is different in the same way Ronnie and Judd look different despite playing a similar brand.

Even when he’s been winning so much for the last two seasons the crowd still give the biggest cheers in his matches against any opponent including the underdogs, just look at the #1000 century frame when the crowd was going absolutely wild on every shot and that's just one example.

Also if missing snooker balls and playing mediocre was exciting then someone like Selby would have a bigger fan base and be filling up seats. But clearly that’s not the case.

I mean we're talking about a guy who used to appear in various tv shows in the 2000s and even had his own tv show which is rare in Snooker. It wasn't because he was playing mediocre snooker.

I feel like you’ve missed my point.

Firstly, I never said Ronnie was playing mediocre snooker. That would be ridiculous.

Saying Ronnie had a huge following when he was less successful supports my point because that’s exactly what I was saying. The excitement of being a Ronnie fan came partly because you never knew if he was going to win, so you willed him on that much harder. Same with Higgins and Jimmy. And yeah the way they play(ed) was a factor in that inconsistency. Ronnie’s first WC for example was a cathartic moment for fans who suspected he might be another Jimmy who’d never capitalise on his talent.

Fans were delighted when Hendry first came along and began disrupting the status quo, beating Davis and the other top players. But that quickly dissipated when he himself became the guy who was winning everything.

Look how much more popular Davis and Hendry were towards the ends of their careers. Because they were no longer winning everything and people got nostalgic for them.

The 1,000th century was a special case so it’s not really a fair example. The crowd would have gone wild for anyone doing that, although obviously Ronnie being the showman he is made them even more so (the left-handed shot etc).

I’m not saying Ronnie wouldn’t be somewhat popular even if he’d won 5 WCs in a row like Hendry in his first 10 years as a pro. He’d still be an artist. But people are reluctant to support the guy who dominates everything because it gets boring. That’s why they wouldn’t be as happy for him if he’d done it straight away.

And using Selby as an example of someone who misses balls and plays mediocre snooker is just silly. He’s an all time great for crying out loud. He’s also one of the more popular players among casual fans, in my experience.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Holden Chinaski

I think Ronnie and Hendry are very similar players. Both like to attack, open up the reds and make big breaks. Ronnie is a more complete player as he has a much better safety game than Hendry had, but in the break building department, they are similar.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Iranu

I’m not insulting Ronnie by the way, he’s the most popular player in the world because of who he is, and his history and the way he plays are both huge parts of that.

He’s also a bit of an bottom. If he was winning all the time AND being a bit of an bottom, people wouldn’t warm to him nearly as much as a player. Same with Alex Higgins. Jimmy’s different because he never seems to have been anything other than a really nice (occasionally drug-addled) guy.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Holden Chinaski

The most exciting thing about Ronnie, for me, is when he clears up a table when it seemed impossible to make a break over 20. When the balls are in horrible positions but somehow he uses his godlike positional play and shot selection to clear up. I love watching how his mind works when he does that, and he comes up with brilliant shots that no other player would even think of playing.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Iranu

Holden Chinaski wrote:The most exciting thing about Ronnie, for me, is when he clears up a table when it seemed impossible to make a break over 20. When the balls are in horrible positions but somehow he uses his godlike positional play and shot selection to clear up. I love watching how his mind works when he does that, and he comes up with brilliant shots that no other player would even think of playing.

Absolutely. Watching him cannon 4 or 5 balls in a row into potable positions is a joy.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Holden Chinaski

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Holden - you should watch the video on Hendry at Break for Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X27eIEVVj2w

They also have videos on ROS, and the Davises

Great vid :hatoff: Shows that Hendry had balls of steel to play like he did, and how great his long game was. Hendry changed the way snooker was played and Ronnie took what Hendry did and developed it further. Hendry loved to open the pack from the blue, while Ronnie loves opening the pack by screwing into it off the black.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Erza Scarlet

Iranu wrote:I feel like you’ve missed my point.

Firstly, I never said Ronnie was playing mediocre snooker. That would be ridiculous.

Saying Ronnie had a huge following when he was less successful supports my point because that’s exactly what I was saying. The excitement of being a Ronnie fan came partly because you never knew if he was going to win, so you willed him on that much harder. Same with Higgins and Jimmy. And yeah the way they play(ed) was a factor in that inconsistency. Ronnie’s first WC for example was a cathartic moment for fans who suspected he might be another Jimmy who’d never capitalise on his talent.

Fans were delighted when Hendry first came along and began disrupting the status quo, beating Davis and the other top players. But that quickly dissipated when he himself became the guy who was winning everything.

Look how much more popular Davis and Hendry were towards the ends of their careers. Because they were no longer winning everything and people got nostalgic for them.

The 1,000th century was a special case so it’s not really a fair example. The crowd would have gone wild for anyone doing that, although obviously Ronnie being the showman he is made them even more so (the left-handed shot etc).

I’m not saying Ronnie wouldn’t be somewhat popular even if he’d won 5 WCs in a row like Hendry in his first 10 years as a pro. He’d still be an artist. But people are reluctant to support the guy who dominates everything because it gets boring. That’s why they wouldn’t be as happy for him if he’d done it straight away.

And using Selby as an example of someone who misses balls and plays mediocre snooker is just silly. He’s an all time great for crying out loud. He’s also one of the more popular players among casual fans, in my experience.


If missing balls isn’t mediocre snooker than what is it? A high level of professional snooker? You’re essentially saying missing balls is exciting except players who play or have played attacking snooker are the ones who bring the fans in the most because they pay money to see a sport played at the highest level otherwise they’d go to Rileys to watch balls being missed and we know through eye test, what type of brand of Snooker fills up the seats and which doesn’t. Who gets the most attention, media coverage etc and who doesn’t.

When I said Ronnie has a big following when he was less successful I meant that if he ALREADY had a big following then why wouldn’t they want him to keep winning earlier? No way would people have moved on from Ronnie if he’d been a consistent winner at an early age because he already had the foundation of the fans. Sure, people were wanting him to win stuff badly but ask yourself this, where did that fan base come from in the first place for people to will him on?

Because he can’t garner fans out of thin air lol it was because of the way he played as well as Jimmy and Alex. Of course their “antics” made it interesting to see what versions would show up but you know at the end of the day they do play Snooker which they come to see and more often than not want to see a display worth their money. People pay lots of money for the Masters for example just to see Ronnie finish matches under an hour and they're happy about it because you’re more often than not going to get a good display if that happens.

If none of this was the case - it would have the opposite effect.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Iranu

Erza Scarlet wrote:
If missing balls isn’t mediocre snooker than what is it? A high level of professional snooker? You’re essentially saying missing balls is exciting except players who play or have played attacking snooker are the ones who bring the fans in the most because they pay money to see a sport played at the highest level otherwise they’d go to Rileys to watch balls being missed and we know through eye test, what type of brand of Snooker fills up the seats and which doesn’t. Who gets the most attention, media coverage etc and who doesn’t.

When I said Ronnie has a big following when he was less successful I meant that if he ALREADY had a big following then why wouldn’t they want him to keep winning earlier? No way would people have moved on from Ronnie if he’d been a consistent winner at an early age because he already had the foundation of the fans. Sure, people were wanting him to win stuff badly but ask yourself this, where did that fan base come from in the first place for people to will him on?

Because he can’t garner fans out of thin air lol it was because of the way he played as well as Jimmy and Alex. Of course their “antics” made it interesting to see what versions would show up but you know at the end of the day they do play Snooker which they come to see and more often than not want to see a display worth their money. People pay lots of money for the Masters for example just to see Ronnie finish matches under an hour and they're happy about it because you’re more often than not going to get a good display if that happens.

If none of this was the case - it would have the opposite effect.

Missing balls sometimes isn’t the same as being mediocre, though. It’s not like he wasn’t winning any tournaments but he had plenty of tournaments where he DIDN’T play well. That’s where the whole “he’s losing because he’s not interested etc” refrain came from. You never knew whether sublime Ronnie or rubbish Ronnie would turn up. And in those days there was almost never any middle ground like there is in him today.

The excitement comes partly from players who CAN play awesome snooker not always doing it. It’s completely different than watching rubbish players play rubbish snooker.

That’s also the difference between a Ronnie/Jimmy/Higgins and a Davis/Hendry. And that’s why I’m saying it’s part of the reason Ronnie gained so much popularity in the first half of his career. Of course if he played like Rod Lawler he wouldn’t be popular regardless, but likewise if he dominated straight away like Hendry he also wouldn’t be as popular (again, I’m not saying he wouldn’t be popular at all!)

I‘ll never deny that Ronnie’s popular because of the way he plays.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby vodkadiet1

It is natural to have 'needle' with your biggest rivals. It is what competition is all about. What would you expect from these guys? Partying together 3 times a week?!!

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Wildey

Persanally for the good of the sports we want other players to become more popular than ronnie anyway suerly that what every Snooker fan wants isnt it?

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Wildey

Iranu wrote:
Erza Scarlet wrote:
If missing balls isn’t mediocre snooker than what is it? A high level of professional snooker? You’re essentially saying missing balls is exciting except players who play or have played attacking snooker are the ones who bring the fans in the most because they pay money to see a sport played at the highest level otherwise they’d go to Rileys to watch balls being missed and we know through eye test, what type of brand of Snooker fills up the seats and which doesn’t. Who gets the most attention, media coverage etc and who doesn’t.

When I said Ronnie has a big following when he was less successful I meant that if he ALREADY had a big following then why wouldn’t they want him to keep winning earlier? No way would people have moved on from Ronnie if he’d been a consistent winner at an early age because he already had the foundation of the fans. Sure, people were wanting him to win stuff badly but ask yourself this, where did that fan base come from in the first place for people to will him on?

Because he can’t garner fans out of thin air lol it was because of the way he played as well as Jimmy and Alex. Of course their “antics” made it interesting to see what versions would show up but you know at the end of the day they do play Snooker which they come to see and more often than not want to see a display worth their money. People pay lots of money for the Masters for example just to see Ronnie finish matches under an hour and they're happy about it because you’re more often than not going to get a good display if that happens.

If none of this was the case - it would have the opposite effect.

Missing balls sometimes isn’t the same as being mediocre, though. It’s not like he wasn’t winning any tournaments but he had plenty of tournaments where he DIDN’T play well. That’s where the whole “he’s losing because he’s not interested etc” refrain came from. You never knew whether sublime Ronnie or rubbish Ronnie would turn up. And in those days there was almost never any middle ground like there is in him today.

The excitement comes partly from players who CAN play awesome snooker not always doing it. It’s completely different than watching rubbish players play rubbish snooker.

That’s also the difference between a Ronnie/Jimmy/Higgins and a Davis/Hendry. And that’s why I’m saying it’s part of the reason Ronnie gained so much popularity in the first half of his career. Of course if he played like Rod Lawler he wouldn’t be popular regardless, but likewise if he dominated straight away like Hendry he also wouldn’t be as popular (again, I’m not saying he wouldn’t be popular at all!)

I‘ll never deny that Ronnie’s popular because of the way he plays.

Spot on.

Stephen Hendry plays exactly the same game as Ronnie even more atacking at times but he denied Jimmy White so often as a 20 something imagine if Ronnie and not Hendry had done that in 1993 and 1994 and again the 1995 Semi Final.

Would he have been as popular today really doubt it.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby SnookerFan

Badsnookerplayer wrote:It is a matter of taste.

Ronnie is by far the most popular with the masses and probably the only modern snooker player many of the public have heard of. He is without doubt great to watch.

But people who understand snooker on a deeper level can appreciate other players.The tactics and guile of players who do not have so much natural ability. (That is not to say of course that people who appreciate Ronnie do not understand snooker on a deeper level - it was not meant to exclude him).

As Holden says, you can be a Ronnie fan and appreciate the mastery of Hendry. And as Iranu says, the thrill of watching snooker for some is heightened when they are on the edge of their seat as their favourite is struggling.

The game of snooker would be much poorer without Ronnie but I believe it needs it's Selbys and even Ebdons to bring something different. That is why it can be so fascinating to watch.


If everyone was the same as Ronnie, Ronnie wouldn't be special.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Wildey wrote:Persanally for the good of the sports we want other players to become more popular than ronnie anyway suerly that what every Snooker fan wants isnt it?


No we don't want that, what are u talking about ?! :td: <doh>
I want Ronnie to play forever. :win: :mosh:

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Iranu wrote: The excitement of being a Ronnie fan came partly because you never knew if he was going to win, so you willed him on that much harder. Same with Higgins and Jimmy. And yeah the way they play(ed) was a factor in that inconsistency. Ronnie’s first WC for example was a cathartic moment for fans who suspected he might be another Jimmy who’d never capitalise on his talent.


No, it didn't. The excitement of being a Ronnie fan came from the way he played the game. Same goes for Alex and Jimmy. That's why they instantly developed a fan base since they burst on the scene.
Sure, some casual fans of the sport liked the drama and not knowing which version of those greats would show up, but the vast majority of their fans enjoyed them due to their style of play.
As a diehard ROS fan, I want him to win every match/event he plays in. I wish he'd win the WC, UK, Masters, CoC and another 10 rankers every single year. If he were to go unbeaten for a decade, I'd be the happiest man on Earth. I'd never get bored of him playing and winning.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Holden Chinaski wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:When I look back at Hendry in his prime now, I find him very entertaining to watch. Very attacking. Amazing break builder. Probably the best long potter ever. Nerves of steel. Hendry was great.


If he would have been more charismatic and also played for the crowd, he'd have double the fanbase.
Btw, he's nowhere near the best long potter. Trump, Robbo and probably even Willo, they all surpass him.

Hendry was the greatest long potter ever. He won all those titles by potting long ones, getting perfect position, and making a frame winning break. That's what he did. The more pressure he was under, the more the long pots went in. He was a beast in his prime. Deserves respect. He's a god to Ronnie. Judd is a fantastic long potter, but not even close to prime Hendry.


No he wasn't, not by a long shot. Hendry won all those titles cause he played in a weaker era and cause he was a far heavier scorer than anyone else back then. Even though players like Davis, Doherty, Parrot, could outfox him tactically, neither was such a heavy scorer as Hendry.
In the late 90's and 00's, the class of 92 started to hit their stride and were matching Hendry in the scoring department. Couple that with the fact that they had become superior in the safety and tactical department, and Hendry's downfall will make a lot more sense.
So to sum things up:
Hendry success was a result of his amazing scoring power.
Hendry's downfall was the result of his inability/stubbornness to adapt his game beyond just the scoring power. As great as that was, in the long run, he was no match for world class all rounders like ROS and Higgins.

As for long potting, the fact that you keep repeating this nonsense about Hendry being the best, has motivated me to make a video of him, to show you just how many long pots he missed yet his opponents were unable to capitalise.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Holden Chinaski

Hendry in his prime was the greatest long potter. His long game was amazing and didn't crumble under pressure.

You can make all the videos you want, Johnny. I could easily make a video of Judd missing 100 long pots. He does miss them sometimes, especially under pressure. I could also easily make a video of Hendry potting 100 amazing long pots. Hendry was a beast. Ronnie would tell you the same.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Holden Chinaski wrote:Hendry in his prime was the greatest long potter. His long game was amazing and didn't crumble under pressure.

You can make all the videos you want, Johnny. I could easily make a video of Judd missing 100 long pots. He does miss them sometimes, especially under pressure. I could also easily make a video of Hendry potting 100 amazing long pots. Hendry was a beast. Ronnie would tell you the same.


They all miss them, that's besides the point I was making. The message I'm trying to send to you is the fact that his conversion rate wasn't all that great. He simply looked great cause all the others were worse than he was at them.
Most of the long ones he went for and got were 2 ends shots, where he was very likely to get the cueball safe back to the baulkline in case he missed. In most cases when the cueball was close to the cushion or he had to play them with reverse side, he'd miss.
The thing is that in most cases in the first half of the 90's his opponents where not scoring heavy enough on a consistent basis in order to punish his mistakes.
As for him not crumbling under pressure, that couldn't be further away from the truth. There was never more pressure on him than in the 00's, when everybody was still expecting him to win major trophies, and yet he didn't deliver at all.
As Selbo rightly said in his post match interview after winning the EO this year, winning breeds confidence, and when you don't win for a long time, that confidence goes away/vanishes.
Sure, Hendry had plenty of bottle when he was winning all those trophies and dominating (as would any other top player), but when things were stacked against him, he didn't do rubbish.
And if someone like Selbo (who is probably the best ever at handling pressure, along with Higgins) says that, then you'd better believe him.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Holden Chinaski

Johnny, have you seen that 1997 Charity Challenge match between Hendry and Ronnie for example? Ronnie was playing brilliant stuff but Hendry won it with a maxi in the end. All the others were much worse? Jimmy White was a great long potter. And what about young Ronnie, Higgins, Williams?

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Holden Chinaski

Johnny, you don't have a clue about Hendry.

He had achieved everything there was to achieve. Broke all the records. There were no more challenges left. Then he started struggling with his long game so he quit.

But in his prime, he could pot the long ones off the lampshades. And he was a master at getting perfect position on the black as well. He didn't chicken out and go back to baulk end. He went for the long ones full-blooded.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Holden Chinaski wrote:Johnny, have you seen that 1997 Charity Challenge match between Hendry and Ronnie for example? Ronnie was playing brilliant stuff but Hendry won it with a maxi in the end. All the others were much worse? Jimmy White was a great long potter. And what about young Ronnie, Higgins, Williams?


Winning a charity match in the decider isn't the highest amount of pressure, now is it ?
Not to mention the fact that at that point in time Hendry was 6 time World Champ, so he more than had the confidence to play his game.
Jimmy was a bottler.
And the class of 92 were young pups in the early 90's.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Holden Chinaski

Johnny Bravo wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:Johnny, have you seen that 1997 Charity Challenge match between Hendry and Ronnie for example? Ronnie was playing brilliant stuff but Hendry won it with a maxi in the end. All the others were much worse? Jimmy White was a great long potter. And what about young Ronnie, Higgins, Williams?


Winning a charity match in the decider isn't the highest amount of pressure, now is it ?
Not to mention the fact that at that point in time Hendry was 6 time World Champ, so he more than had the confidence to play his game.
Jimmy was a bottler.
And the class of 92 were young pups in the early 90's.

2006 UK Championship: Hendry beats Ronnie 9-1

2003 UK Championship: Hendry beats Ronnie 9-4
2002 World Championship: Hendry beats Ronnie 17-13
1999 World Championship: Hendry beats Ronnie 17-13

2012 World Championship: Hendry beats Higgins 13-4
2002 Welsh Open: Hendry beats Higgins 5-2

2009 World Championship: Hendry beats Williams 10-7
2006 UK Championship: Hendry beats Williams 9-6
2005 UK Championship: Hendry beats Williams 9-3

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Holden Chinaski wrote:....Hendry.......He had achieved everything there was to achieve. Broke all the records. There were no more challenges left. Then he started struggling with his long game so he quit

Now you sound like Hendry fans trying to make excuses for his failures. He didn't win a single major title after the age of 30. He was hardly old, wouldn't you say so !!! And if he had achieved all that he wanted, why play on ?!?? Why not retire on a high, like Pete Sampras did ?!???? Why play on for another decade and embarrass yourself ?!!!
I'll tell you why. Cause he was the same bloody player (up until 2006 or so) and still thought he could win a lot more. The thing is the opposition had evolved.
Hendry didn't have the type of opposition and challenge that Ronnie, John Higgins and Mark Williams gave each other over the course of a 25+ years career.
Once the class of 92 came to age, Hendry sort of faded away. When he won his 6th WC, they were only 20 (Ronnie and Higgins) and 21 (Williams). Hendry only won 2 triple crown events after that, 2 out of 18, and to me it’s because those three became better than him, more complete players. They learned from him, adopted his attacking ways, taken on board some of his innovating shots, but they also developed a tactical nous and a safety game that Hendry never really applied himself to.
All three of the class of 92 have a remarkable longevity because all three were able and willing to change and to reinvent themselves. If you look at some of the great sporting figures at this moment in time, you have people like Federer and Valentino Rossi. You can’t sustain a sporting career, winning over decades, without making changes in order to cope with what the passing of time does to you. Hendry didn’t adapt, be it because he didn’t want to compromise or because he wasn’t able to, only he will know. But it cost him.

Holden Chinaski wrote:But in his prime, he could pot the long ones off the lampshades.

He was indeed a great long potter in his prime, but not the best ever. And he did benefit greatly from the fact that he wasn't punished as heavily as he would be nowadays for a miss.

Holden Chinaski wrote:And he was a master at getting perfect position on the black as well. He didn't chicken out and go back to baulk end. He went for the long ones full-blooded.
[/quote][/quote]
I agree with that, whenever he had an angle to remain near the black, he tried to do it. Players like Judd make it harder for themselves by trying to screw back to baulk in case they miss, it decreases the success percentage. But that is also due to the fact that you get punished far more heavily for a miss nowadays.
Listen to Robbo saying that himself at around the 10:08 mark in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37gL4cdroZg
Last edited by Johnny Bravo on 04 Nov 2019, edited 5 times in total.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Holden Chinaski wrote:2006 UK Championship: Hendry beats Ronnie 9-1

2003 UK Championship: Hendry beats Ronnie 9-4
2002 World Championship: Hendry beats Ronnie 17-13
1999 World Championship: Hendry beats Ronnie 17-13

2012 World Championship: Hendry beats Higgins 13-4
2002 Welsh Open: Hendry beats Higgins 5-2

2009 World Championship: Hendry beats Williams 10-7
2006 UK Championship: Hendry beats Williams 9-6
2005 UK Championship: Hendry beats Williams 9-3


And your point for listing all these wins is ?!??
He also got spanked by those 3 multiple times in that time span, more so than he won against them.
What is the relevance of that in relation to the theme of our debate, which is long potting ???

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Holden Chinaski

Johnny Bravo wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:2006 UK Championship: Hendry beats Ronnie 9-1

2003 UK Championship: Hendry beats Ronnie 9-4
2002 World Championship: Hendry beats Ronnie 17-13
1999 World Championship: Hendry beats Ronnie 17-13

2012 World Championship: Hendry beats Higgins 13-4
2002 Welsh Open: Hendry beats Higgins 5-2

2009 World Championship: Hendry beats Williams 10-7
2006 UK Championship: Hendry beats Williams 9-6
2005 UK Championship: Hendry beats Williams 9-3


And your point for listing all these wins is ?!??
He also got spanked by those 3 multiple times in that time span, more so than he won against them.
What is the relevance of that in relation to the theme of our debate, which is long potting ???

The relevance is you saying this:
Johnny Bravo wrote:Winning a charity match in the decider isn't the highest amount of pressure, now is it ?
Not to mention the fact that at that point in time Hendry was 6 time World Champ, so he more than had the confidence to play his game.
Jimmy was a bottler.
And the class of 92 were young pups in the early 90's.

Re: Judd has a problem with Ronnie?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Holden Chinaski wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote: And your point for listing all these wins is ?!??
He also got spanked by those 3 multiple times in that time span, more so than he won against them.
What is the relevance of that in relation to the theme of our debate, which is long potting ???

The relevance is you saying this:
Johnny Bravo wrote:Winning a charity match in the decider isn't the highest amount of pressure, now is it ?
Not to mention the fact that at that point in time Hendry was 6 time World Champ, so he more than had the confidence to play his game.
Jimmy was a bottler.
And the class of 92 were young pups in the early 90's.


I said that to illustrate the fact that it was only natural for him to have the confidence to go for many long pots in the early 90's since he wasn't punished as severely for his misses.
Last edited by Johnny Bravo on 04 Nov 2019, edited 1 time in total.