Post a reply

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby TheRocket

Its not like the author says things which we doesn't know. Not talking about who is GOAT btw or who is not. Just a simple thing.

The standard in terms of breakbuilding has clearly improved at the turn of the millennium. Thats pretty obvious. When Hendry dominated in the early 90's he was just so much of a better breakbuilder than anyone else which gave him the opportunity to outscore 99% of his opponents.

Many players during that time were still influenced by the 80's style of play and a rather defensive attitude. Hendry then came along and changed that and it took a while before new players and new generations came along and adapted themselves to the new conditions.

If prime Hendry was a player now he would be still one of the greatest breakbuilders but he wouldnt be head and shoulders above anyone else. On a peak day he might still outscore them but he would get outscored also on another day.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Johnny Bravo

TheRocket wrote:If prime Hendry was a player now he would be still one of the greatest breakbuilders but he wouldnt be head and shoulders above anyone else. On a peak day he might still outscore them but he would get outscored also on another day.


If prime Hendry would be playing nowadays, he wouldn't be among the top 5 players in the world. His one-dimensional game wouldn't allow him to. However, if he applied himself to the tactical and safety department, he'd be top 5.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Wildey

Johnny Bravo wrote:
TheRocket wrote:If prime Hendry was a player now he would be still one of the greatest breakbuilders but he wouldnt be head and shoulders above anyone else. On a peak day he might still outscore them but he would get outscored also on another day.


If prime Hendry would be playing nowadays, he wouldn't be among the top 5 players in the world. His one-dimensional game wouldn't allow him to. However, if he applied himself to the tactical and safety department, he'd be top 5.

Snooker is one man on the table at one given time so if you pot balls it doesent matter about safety play Steve Davis is regarded as top 3 tacticians of all time and yet Hendry game could blast through that defencive game players of the 80s were not great potters but great safety players so no Safety was not important for hendry because his potting was on another level and the same would be the case today.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Johnny Bravo

Wildey wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
TheRocket wrote:If prime Hendry was a player now he would be still one of the greatest breakbuilders but he wouldnt be head and shoulders above anyone else. On a peak day he might still outscore them but he would get outscored also on another day.


If prime Hendry would be playing nowadays, he wouldn't be among the top 5 players in the world. His one-dimensional game wouldn't allow him to. However, if he applied himself to the tactical and safety department, he'd be top 5.

Snooker is one man on the table at one given time so if you pot balls it doesent matter about safety play Steve Davis is regarded as top 3 tacticians of all time and yet Hendry game could blast through that defencive game players of the 80s were not great potters but great safety players so no Safety was not important for hendry because his potting was on another level and the same would be the case today.


Your point is not valid. It is true that Hendry powered through the defensive players of the 80's, but he did that cause even though they outwitted him in the safety and tactical exchange, they couldn't punish his mistakes with one visit snooker.
The likes of Ronnie, Higgins, Trump, Robbo and Selbo can score just as heavy as Hendry and at the same time they possess the tactical and safety game of the 80's guys. It's a no brainer that in the long run he loses far more matches than he wins.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Iranu

Let’s be honest, if either Hendry or Davis were coming through today they’d both be different players than they were.

If Hendry were coming through he’d probably be more tactically astute because he couldn’t blast his way through opposition who didn’t have his scoring game.

If Davis came through today he’d probably be a bit less tactically astute but a better potter and breakbuilder because he’d be coming through a tour that’s more focused on that side of the game.

They’re both products of the game they grew up in.

But more importantly they’re both born winners, and they’d both be multiple world champions in any era.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Johnny Bravo

Iranu wrote:Let’s be honest, if either Hendry or Davis were coming through today they’d both be different players than they were.

If Hendry were coming through he’d probably be more tactically astute because he couldn’t blast his way through opposition who didn’t have his scoring game.

If Davis came through today he’d probably be a bit less tactically astute but a better potter and breakbuilder because he’d be coming through a tour that’s more focused on that side of the game.

They’re both products of the game they grew up in.

But more importantly they’re both born winners, and they’d both be multiple world champions in any era.


Completely agree with you and as I've said in previous posts, if Hendry adapts his game, he's a top 5 player.
However, in real life, he didn't do that. He was stubborn and stuck to his attacking ways, only this time the new breed of players were punishing his mistakes heavily.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Holden Chinaski

Hendry stuck to his ways because he won 7 World titles already playing the way he did. He already had all the records. I can see why he didn't feel like changing his game... I also believe he struggled with the yips. The long pots were not going in anymore.

I believe if he was young now, he would make the necessary adaptations to be able to be the best. But if he would get the yips, it would be all over again...

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Johnny Bravo

Holden Chinaski wrote:Hendry stuck to his ways because he won 7 World titles already playing the way he did. He already had all the records. I can see why he didn't feel like changing his game... I also believe he struggled with the yips. The long pots were not going in anymore.

I believe if he was young now, he would make the necessary adaptations to be able to be the best. But if he would get the yips, it would be all over again...


I don't believe any of that "yips" stuff, IMO it's an excuse for his loses.
If that was true, then why not seek treatment for it ? And if that's not possible, simply retire and save yourself the humiliation.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Holden Chinaski

Johnny Bravo wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:Hendry stuck to his ways because he won 7 World titles already playing the way he did. He already had all the records. I can see why he didn't feel like changing his game... I also believe he struggled with the yips. The long pots were not going in anymore.

I believe if he was young now, he would make the necessary adaptations to be able to be the best. But if he would get the yips, it would be all over again...


I don't believe any of that "yips" stuff, IMO it's an excuse for his loses.
If that was true, then why not seek treatment for it ? And if that's not possible, simply retire and save yourself the humiliation.

I believe it is true. He was missing balls that he would never miss before. The yips are very hard to treat. He tried to find out what was wrong but couldn't. Then he retired. The yips were part of the problem. But the fact that he didn't want to change his game, and that he already had all the records was the other part of his decline...

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Johnny Bravo

Hendry said that his yips started around 2000. He played some of his best snooker in the 2002 WC.
And from around 2000 to around 2004/2005 he seemed to be the same player as always. His misses became more obvious simply cause he was getting punished more often for them.
Another reason why he was missing balls might be the fact that he was getting beat up way more often than in the past and thus lost some of his confidence. Selbo mentioned that in a recent interview.
Anyway, if he discovered he had the yips at the beginning of the 00's and that there is no cure for it (allegedly), why play on for so long, for roughly a decade ?! It doesn't make sense.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Holden Chinaski

His yips started around 2000, but the yips start small. First you just miss some shots here and there, and then it starts growing. That's what I think anyway. The yips is a very controversial subject in sports...

I just have the feeling that you underestimate Hendry, Johnny. You always do this. I think he was better than you think but I know I'm not going to change your mind, so let's leave it. You have to understand that Hendry had all the records, there was nothing to motivate him anymore...

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Iranu

Johnny Bravo wrote:Hendry said that his yips started around 2000. He played some of his best snooker in the 2002 WC.
And from around 2000 to around 2004/2005 he seemed to be the same player as always. His misses became more obvious simply cause he was getting punished more often for them.
Another reason why he was missing balls might be the fact that he was getting beat up way more often than in the past and thus lost some of his confidence. Selbo mentioned that in a recent interview.
Anyway, if he discovered he had the yips at the beginning of the 00's and that there is no cure for it (allegedly), why play on for so long, for roughly a decade ?! It doesn't make sense.

This is what the yips stems from though, right? A loss of confidence? Getting the yips and being punished by better opponents aren’t mutually exclusive.

I’m inclined to agree that the yips didn’t set in as early as 2000 but as Holden suggests, it can be impossible to pin down exactly because it’s something that snowballs over time.

If they DID set in in 2000, the answer for why he played on is simple: hope.

And that hope very nearly paid off in 2002, if nothing else.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Iranu

Also worth pointing out that Hendry claims he still gets the yips even in exhibitions. He doesn’t feel capable of playing properly until he’s had a couple of drinks.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby TheRocket

Holden Chinaski wrote:His yips started around 2000, but the yips start small. First you just miss some shots here and there, and then it starts growing. That's what I think anyway. The yips is a very controversial subject in sports...

I just have the feeling that you underestimate Hendry, Johnny. You always do this. I think he was better than you think but I know I'm not going to change your mind, so let's leave it. You have to understand that Hendry had all the records, there was nothing to motivate him anymore...


thats something I never agreed with. Hendry went from a 18 time Triple Crown winner to someone who never won another World,UK,Masters again after the 1999 World Championship. Until 2012. For 13 years. His last big title came at the age of 30.

Hendry loved winning more than anything. To say the sole reason for his failure in the 21st century is lack of motivation isnt really working and is more like an excuse.

He tried hard to win another title. He couldnt. Yips might be one of the reasons. At least at some stage. But there was more.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Johnny Bravo

TheRocket wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:His yips started around 2000, but the yips start small. First you just miss some shots here and there, and then it starts growing. That's what I think anyway. The yips is a very controversial subject in sports...

I just have the feeling that you underestimate Hendry, Johnny. You always do this. I think he was better than you think but I know I'm not going to change your mind, so let's leave it. You have to understand that Hendry had all the records, there was nothing to motivate him anymore...


thats something I never agreed with. Hendry went from a 18 time Triple Crown winner to someone who never won another World,UK,Masters again after the 1999 World Championship. Until 2012. For 13 years. His last big title came at the age of 30.

Hendry loved winning more than anything. To say the sole reason for his failure in the 21st century is lack of motivation isnt really working and is more like an excuse.

He tried hard to win another title. He couldnt. Yips might be one of the reasons. At least at some stage. But there was more.


That's what I also believe. Good post TR :hatoff:

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Holden Chinaski

TheRocket wrote:To say the sole reason for his failure in the 21st century is lack of motivation isnt really working and is more like an excuse. .

That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying his decline was because of the yips, a lack of motivation because of all the records he had, and a lack of motivation to change his game because he was proud of being an attacking player and that is how he won all those titles.

So I'm giving you 3 reasons, not one. And the fact that the competition got a lot better was part of it as well, of course. So that's 4 reasons.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Johnny Bravo

Holden Chinaski wrote:
TheRocket wrote:To say the sole reason for his failure in the 21st century is lack of motivation isnt really working and is more like an excuse. .

That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying his decline was because of the yips, a lack of motivation because of all the records he had, and a lack of motivation to change his game because he was proud of being an attacking player and that is how he won all those titles.

So I'm giving you 3 reasons, not one. And the fact that the competition got a lot better was part of it as well, of course. So that's 4 reasons.


1. because of the yips
2. a lack of motivation
3. a lack of motivation to change his game because he was proud of being an attacking player
4. the fact that the competition got a lot better

I completely agree with 2 and 4. I admit the possibility of the yips, though I'm not convinced.
But the 2nd one, hell no. You don't play on for another 13 seasons just cause you "lack motivation". I remember what he said in an interview before his semi with ROS at the 2008 WC: "Winning an 8th title means more to me than all the other 7". He wanted to win badly.
Last edited by Johnny Bravo on 27 Jan 2020, edited 1 time in total.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby TheRocket

Holden Chinaski wrote:
TheRocket wrote:To say the sole reason for his failure in the 21st century is lack of motivation isnt really working and is more like an excuse. .

That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying his decline was because of the yips, a lack of motivation because of all the records he had, and a lack of motivation to change his game because he was proud of being an attacking player and that is how he won all those titles.

So I'm giving you 3 reasons, not one. And the fact that the competition got a lot better was part of it as well, of course. So that's 4 reasons.


yeah fair point. Didnt want to twist things or something like that. I should have read better.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Iranu

Holden Chinaski wrote:
TheRocket wrote:To say the sole reason for his failure in the 21st century is lack of motivation isnt really working and is more like an excuse. .

That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying his decline was because of the yips, a lack of motivation because of all the records he had, and a lack of motivation to change his game because he was proud of being an attacking player and that is how he won all those titles.

So I'm giving you 3 reasons, not one. And the fact that the competition got a lot better was part of it as well, of course. So that's 4 reasons.

I’d say this is pretty much accurate.

For example Hendry has said in the past that he took Ebdon for granted in 2002.

But he wouldn’t have taken him for granted if he was playing him in 1999 to win his 7th. He’d have been determined to stamp him down and cement that record.

It wasn’t a conscious “I’m not so motivated because I’ve already got the most WCs,” it was a subconscious, small loss of intensity which makes all the difference in top level sport.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby TheRocket

Iranu wrote:I’d say this is pretty much accurate.

For example Hendry has said in the past that he took Ebdon for granted in 2002.

But he wouldn’t have taken him for granted if he was playing him in 1999 to win his 7th. He’d have been determined to stamp him down and cement that record.

It wasn’t a conscious “I’m not so motivated because I’ve already got the most WCs,” it was a subconscious, small loss of intensity which makes all the difference in top level sport.


I'm pretty sure the reason he took Ebdon for granted was because it was Ebdon. Not because he'd already won 7 and claimed the record in 1999.

If he had played someone like Ronnie or Higgins in the 2002 final he wouldnt have made those took him for granted comments. Thats for sure.

Re: who-is-the-greatest-snooker-player-of-all-time

Postby Iranu

TheRocket wrote:
Iranu wrote:I’d say this is pretty much accurate.

For example Hendry has said in the past that he took Ebdon for granted in 2002.

But he wouldn’t have taken him for granted if he was playing him in 1999 to win his 7th. He’d have been determined to stamp him down and cement that record.

It wasn’t a conscious “I’m not so motivated because I’ve already got the most WCs,” it was a subconscious, small loss of intensity which makes all the difference in top level sport.


I'm pretty sure the reason he took Ebdon for granted was because it was Ebdon. Not because he'd already won 7 and claimed the record in 1999.

If he had played someone like Ronnie or Higgins in the 2002 final he wouldnt have made those took him for granted comments. Thats for sure.

Yeah that’s true.

But what I’m saying is, I think he wouldn’t have taken Ebdon for granted if he was playing him in 1999 to win his 7th, because there was a record to be broken.