Post a reply

Who is the Greatest Player of all time?

Ronnie O'Sullivan
20
40%
Stephen Hendry
24
48%
John Higgins
1
2%
Steve Davis
1
2%
Ray Reardon
0
No votes
Joe Davis
2
4%
other (please specify)
2
4%
 
Total votes : 50

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby NNear

There's a very substantial window of time for the present snooker elite to forge periods of dominance. I don't think they'll have to look over their shoulders for quite some time yet but will just have to deal with mainly well established pros, all the way from young Judd to veteran Ronnie and Higgins.


Oh, also regarding your prediction for the next 10 years:

China will feature more heavily, but the non Chinese vanguard will be brutal to overcome and there won't be any dominant hub of snooker, IMO.

I can see Britain fighting equally with the Chinese for a long time, with a few other talents from neither region also making a name for themselves. Maybe the Chinese are blooming sooner at the junior level than the rest, but that's probably largely down to ethos and blooming sooner won't always equate to superiority in the end.


I guess this is off-topic, though.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby vodkadiet

John Higgins is better than O'Sullivan. Take out the meaningless shot clock matches in The Premier League and he has a comfortable lead over him in their head to head. You can compare head to heads in their case as they are the same age. He also has a 3-2 lead at The Crucible.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Andre147

vodkadiet wrote:John Higgins is better than O'Sullivan. Take out the meaningless shot clock matches in The Premier League and he has a comfortable lead over him in their head to head. You can compare head to heads in their case as they are the same age. He also has a 3-2 lead at The Crucible.


rofl <doh> rofl What a load of bullocks, so suddently Higgins is better than Ronnie just because he has a better head to head record in some of those matches you mentioned?

By that account and brilliant brilliant logic, then Mark Johnston Allen is better than Hendry because he has a 3-0 record against him and everytime Hendry didn't wanna play him. <laugh>

Yeah keep up with those logics sir.... :wave: pmsl

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby NNear

As far as I recall, when both Higgins and O'Sullivan display form good enough to reach the finals together of an event (meaning both should be in very good shape, otherwise how did they get there), O'Sullivan wins most of those finals.

O'Sullivan also has a winning record in finals against John Higgins at the Triple Crown events.

O'Sullivan also has a winning record in finals of ranking and/or Triple Crown events against: Higgins, Williams, Hendry, but not Davis. :evilgrin:

...Somewhat significant because if both made it to the final then both players were obviously in Championship winning form.

John Higgins shouldn't be discounted and he still has the time and the drive to come again.

I also think that John Higgins has a good argument for having produced the highest pure level of snooker ever in terms of combining attacking snooker with safety play and tactics.
Last edited by NNear on 05 Mar 2014, edited 2 times in total.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Witz78

NNEAR

Young Trump ?

Hes nearly 25 now, hardly the teenage brat anymore

Allen 28 this year, Robbo 33, Murphy 32, Selby 30, Maguire 33 etc yet these are seen as the "young" players by many

Ding at 26 is all the more impressive for his achievments thus far, showing far more dedication to the sport

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby NNear

Not sure how to respond to this post, other than I was merely illustrating the scope of realistic current title getters, which spans from Judd to Ronnie/Higgins in terms of the age of contenders -- In short: from Judd to Higgins and everybody in between.

For the record anyway, I see 25 as quite young enough, and nobody behind him is really threatening right now.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Witz78

Its funny how the barometer of greatness for a lot in the argument is

"Hendry has won 7 world titles to Ronnies 5"

I don't think i've ever heard anyone say "Davis has 6 so is therefore above Ronnie"

Not that Id ever consider Davis above Ronnie, but it begs another question.

Why is Hendrys decade of dominance looked upon far more favourably than Davis's ?

Was there really that much of a difference about the way they dominated and destroyed the opposition ?

Is it mainly just that as the 80s is further back in time, then its looked upon less favourably, just as the 70s is looked upon less than the 80s, hence Reardon is considered lower than Davis, and if we go all the way back, then Joe Davis in the 20s/30s is almost forgotten about in GOAT debates mainly due to the passing of time,

Will a time come in the future when another dominant player emerges, so the GOAT debate will then be Ronnie v new player as these are the 2 in the memories best of people, with Hendry a historical figure like Davis, Reardon etc ??

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby NNear

I was under the impression that Hendry's dominance was more thorough, with him having winning streaks of 5 at two Triple Crown tournaments and also achieving the clean sweep of those titles twice, as well as holding the record for most rankers won in one year -- though it must be said Davis might have done this (5 rankers) under different circumstances and it's easy to forget that a couple of his UK wins for example were not even ranking tournament victories.

Hendry's legacy on the game is also generally far more significant in terms of evolving snooker and how it's played.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Holden Chinaski

Wow, what a thread. This is getting a bit insane.

There is no definite answer people, as their is no real definition of what is meant with the term "the greatest". And it's impossible to compare different eras.

It's all personal. For me it's Ronnie, but I understand if someone else picks Joe Davis, Ray Reardon, John Spencer, Alex Higgins, Steve Davis, Stephen Hendry or John Higgins. They are all greats.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby NNear

WITZ78, it's possible that when more dominant players come along that the person who would be most hurt by it historically is O'Sullivan, unless he can strike now and forge for himself a period of dominance right now. Either that, or last so long at the top of the game that he just permeates more generations of collective consciousness.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Witz78

NNear wrote:I was under the impression that Hendry's dominance was more thorough, with him having winning streaks of 5 at two Triple Crown tournaments and also achieving the clean sweep of those titles twice, as well as holding the record for most rankers won in one year -- though it must be said Davis might have done this (5 rankers) under different circumstances and it's easy to forget that a couple of his UK wins for example were not even ranking tournament victories.

Hendry's legacy on the game is also generally far more significant in terms of evolving snooker and how it's played.


Perhaps a better question would be

WHOS STYLE OF PLAY HAS BEEN THE MOST IMPORTANT IN EVOLVING SNOOKER

Alex Higgins
Steve Davis
Jimmy White
Stephen Hendry
John Higgins
Ronnie O'Sullivan
Rod Lawler

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby NNear

Holden Chinaski wrote:Wow, what a thread. This is getting a bit insane.

There is no definite answer people, as their is no real definition of what is meant with the term "the greatest". And it's impossible to compare different eras.

It's all personal. For me it's Ronnie, but I understand if someone else picks Joe Davis, Ray Reardon, John Spencer, Alex Higgins, Steve Davis, Stephen Hendry or John Higgins. They are all greats.


Good post, but snooker is different to tennis or basketball or football. It's more like darts... the conditions for both sports are stable enough that in some ways it will be possible to compare eras in a way that is far more tenuous for most other sports.

We can see statistically that the very top standards of Hendry, Higgins and O'Sullivan have only really been equalled for stretches by others but not surpassed, and that all three come out favourably against Davis regarding pure scoring. We can also see though that there are more players than there used to be even 10 years ago who can play to a very high standard and produce prolific break-building. We also take it for granted now that most top players will develop a strong tactical side to their game in tandem with their natural attacking talents and prolificacy.

In darts, we will be able to see over the next 30/40 years if anyone manages to match the consistency of level that Phil Taylor reached by observing things like 3 dart averages. It doesn't tell the whole story but at least there will be grounds for comparison regarding level, if not legacy, because season formats do change. In a sport like tennis though, this is a heck of a lot more difficult.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby NNear

Sure, WITZ78, it's an interesting consideration.

As has been stated by myself and others, 'Greatest' is just a kind of difficult word to properly grasp and people will have different personal hierarchies for what constitutes greatness; and then there will be others who don't give a damn and just love watching the game.

:-P

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby edwards2000

I would have replied earlier, but some fellow who is completely against the right to free speech, while pursuing a pathetic agenda, decider to ban me for a day (again), even though he clearly left other much worse posts alone. So I really am disappearing elsewhere soon until he is gone.
------------------

I've read through the replies here.

Firstly, gj, I am not interested that you know my full name. By using it, you seem to be under this impression that it gives you some hold over me. If I didn't want you to know it, then you wouldn't know it. I actually take it as a compliment that my opinions and views are such a threat to you, that you would remember it so clearly. Secondly, your question as to whether I consider Federer GOAT despite "weak era"- yes I do.

a. Tennis eras have never been weak or had a closed shop in the Open Era, like snooker, so the comparison is absurd.
b. Federer is the greatest, not just due to titles and accolades, but because, just like with Ronnie, he has maintained a high standard and won the greatest Slam in his 30s (and is the second oldest to do this. He did this competing against a field that included Djokovic and Nadal).
c. Federer is more gifted than any other player since Borg. There is a very good argument for making Borg the GOAT, but certainly not Nadal, who has overachieved due to the slowing down and dumbing down of conditions to favour negative baseline play.

Federer was the GOAT for me when he was still on 4 Slams. Why? Because you can see the artistry, talent, and ability there. Like you can with Ronnie. Some people, such as yourself, are obsessed with reducing this argument to titles won. I had Ronnie as the greatest player, and Federer as the greatest player, LONG before the masses started to agree with me. And I did so based on an appreciation of the respective games and respective talents of those involved.

Titles are not the be all and end all of this argument. There comes a time when comparing greats has to be more than what they have won. Certainly, 7 World titles and 5 world titles are not significant, especially when you consider that snooker was a closed shop for years, and it truly was a weaker era than today. There is no doubt about that whatsoever, and Hendry has admitted it on at least 3 different occasions. Ronnie had to prime with Higgins, Williams, Doherty, Hunter and others. Hendry had White, Parrott, and Bond.
----------------

On others:

Ronnie may claim that the moon is made of cheese, but that does not make him correct. We can watch his earlier matches and we can see that he was definitely not a better player from 17-21 compared to today. No way. Ronnie is well known for double talk, self doubt and hyperbole. He constantly changes his mind and makes contradictory statements. No 16 or 17 year old is a better player than their later years. That's not just common sense, it's based on every piece of available evidence. To try and win an argument by claiming Ronnie was a better player at 16 is the most desperate kind of reasoning there is.

Ronnie holds a greater h2h against Hendry and did so narrowly even in Hendry's prime (and before someone mentions tennis again, this is snooker... a game where the surfaces and conditions are the same all the time, generally. It's a completely different thing to Federer v Moonballer).

Having superior break-building, safety and h2h is a great start, and then you factor in that he had a lousy life compared to Hendry, and came through it. Then you can add on that he plays both handed, is the most naturally gifted player, and nearly all professionals now regard him as the greatest. It isn't just what he does, it's how he does it. Hendry could not have made that break (was it 92?) against Carter if his life depended on it. And he couldn't have made a 5 min 20 sec 147 if his life depended on it either. Ronnie's best is the best that has ever been seen.

Lastly, Hendry was finished at 27. Ronnie is now World Champion at 38.

Factor all of this in and where does that leave the pro-Hendry argument? Dead in the water. Like it has always been.
---------------------

Vodkadiet, your analogy to actors is ridiculous. Acting has a ton of variables, including how good the director is, how good the screenplay is, how good the story is. Although to some degree you can see how good one actor is to another, there are no absolutes like there are in sport. Basic hard facts and a steady, standard, even playing field. The reason we can better judge different players in snooker, is because all the conditions remain relatively the same. That is an absolutely must in any real investigation. There has to be a control. Your analogy is just a transparent attempt at muddying the water, because you cannot abide Ronnie. Frankly, what you have said about Ronnie means no one can take you seriously ever again.

-----------------------

Being the greatest is more than stats and titles and accolades (although those do come into the argument AS A WHOLE). It is about talent, and artistry, and genius. Things you can see, but find difficult to understand. Things you know to be extraordinary and special. It isn't "opinion", it is something you can see unless you are as blind as a bat (and they aren't blind, they just use ultrasound to see. May as well note that while I am correcting people).

Dan
Last edited by edwards2000 on 05 Mar 2014, edited 2 times in total.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby vodkadiet

Witz78 wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:Joe Davis is the greatest. Debate over.


More importantly whats the greatest meat of all time :tvrky:


A sexy woman's rear! <ok>

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby vodkadiet

Edwards

Let's have it your way, and say everyone who has ever watched snooker says O'Sullivan is the greatest ever player. Now what? What would you do with the rest of your life?

Being more loquacious than anyone who disputes your analysis doesn't mean you're right.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby edwards2000

I'd say my argument stacks up more than yours, frame. And that's really all one can ask for in any debate,.

#If you don't like this debate, or think it is pointless, one has to ask why you are here.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby vodkadiet

edwards2000 wrote:I'd say my argument stacks up more than yours, frame. And that's really all one can ask for in any debate,.

#If you don't like this debate, or think it is pointless, one has to ask why you are here.


I would be interested to know why you care so much about O'Sullivan.

Fast forward to the day when he has won 10 world titles and is undoubtedly the greatest ever. How would that make you feel? Why would it matter to you? You wouldn't have achieved anything. It would be similar to a football supporter claiming "We won" when all he has done is watch the match down the pub.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby edwards2000

If you need to ask that question, I fail to see how you managed to come to like sport. To answer your question, the reason is this:

I, like most humans, want to see something extraordinary; want to see talent shine, and practice pay off. I want to be entertained. Ronnie satisfies this very basic human desire. I don't personally know Ronnie, or really care to know him in that fashion. What matters to me is that there is a man that has fought against adversity, put in the effort, and has been rewarded- justice... another very human desire (in normal people).

Seeing someone like Ronnie gives me hope in humanity. To see something that is unique, and better than anything else, even if it is whacking balls around a table, is important to human beings. It is our curiosity, our drive, our ambition, our nature, to want to see and appreciate something like Ronnie excelling at a game. And naturally, this leads to allegiances to that player. There is no mystery here.

That's why.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby NNear

Federer managed to maintain a high standard and win a Major in his 30's but Ken Rosewall for example also managed the same, as well as winning the WCT Finals of '71 and '72 against Laver well into his thirties, which at the time were considered as Major tournament victories. Connors also managed a later career renaissance in winning 3 Majors around about the 30 years of age mark. Agassi's achievements are somewhat less impressive given his volatile career path which wasn't marked by consistency of excellence but was something rather more mercurial.

Also, I think Nadal will be a clear contender for greatest ever by the time all is said and done and Federer fans will just have to suck it up, probably. He has the Career Grand Slam as well as having the most dominant record at a single Grand Slam Event, surpassing the likes of Borg and Rosewall at Roland Garros. Borg has his arguments but could never fill the quota by getting the job done at the US Open, though admittedly he was only stopped by greats there on their home turfs, Connors and McEnroe.

My list of the the greatest tennis players in history (note greatest doesn't have to mean best -- the pure level today is simply higher than it was in say, Borg's time, due to superior tech and arguably evolved stroke mechanics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUiSzmELvOM

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby edwards2000

Borg played in a completely different era where they used wooden racquets and the conditions were totally different. Nadal has trouble beating players like Rosol and Darcis on slow grass. He has a losing h2h v Federer on the fastest courts (Wimbledon and indoor hard). Nadal is simply a million miles away from Federer, who also has 6(?) Tour Final championships. Nadal hasn't even got one. Federer holds virtually every single accolade and title there is, so if you want to go down the title route, Nadal is dust. If you want t look at them in terms of ability, Nadal is dust.

Nadal is a baseline defender (2 handed backhand as well, which is also less talented than a one handed backhand), not a shot maker, or someone who dictates play.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby vodkadiet

edwards2000 wrote:If you need to ask that question, I fail to see how you managed to come to like sport. To answer your question, the reason is this:

I, like most humans, want to see something extraordinary; want to see talent shine, and practice pay off. I want to be entertained. Ronnie satisfies this very basic human desire. I don't personally know Ronnie, or really care to know him in that fashion. What matters to me is that there is a man that has fought against adversity, put in the effort, and has been rewarded- justice... another very human desire (in normal people).

Seeing someone like Ronnie gives me hope in humanity. To see something that is unique, and better than anything else, even if it is whacking balls around a table, is important to human beings. It is our curiosity, our drive, our ambition, our nature, to want to see and appreciate something like Ronnie excelling at a game. And naturally, this leads to allegiances to that player. There is no mystery here.

That's why.


Really? You have a proclivity for exaggeration that is for sure. What adversity has O'Sullivan really had to overcome? He has had an easy life in comparison to most people. Ever watched the news?

I like sport because I like to watch the top protagonists pit their skills against one another. I don't need anything more than that to enjoy it.

O'Sullivan was born with a natural gift. That is just random. That is just luck. The same way others are born to run fast, or are able to solve very difficult mathematical equations. It isn't worthy of excess praise.

He has also need a lot of outside help (Steve Peters) to get where he is now.

I give you credit though for a pretty speech.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby NNear

The problem for Federer fans who so much dislike Nadal is that Nadal is still firmly routed in his prime and it looks like he will add very substantially to his trophy cabinet over the next few years. In general, his level of play on hard-courts is better than ever and he's still the man to beat at Roland Garros.

Indoor hard does not = fast court... the courts used at the 02 arena are not particularly quick and indeed, the hard-court surfaces used at the YEC's has changed over the years several times (varying speeds of hard-court in general). It's not terribly wise to use h2h arguments when discussing Federer and Nadal despite the so called 'clay skew' but it is certainly not anywhere near as important as winning more trophies -- after all, Nadal and Federer have played virtually the same era and generations.

Borg playing in different conditions is irrelevant to him failing to get the job done at the US Open. Borg has a claim for the greatest but so do various other players, though the strongest contenders are probably Laver, Federer, Gonzales and Rosewall, if one is to analyse the trophy cabinets. I think eight players can already be argued for, as the vid above suggests.

I have Roger at 23 elite singles titles (17 Slams, 6 YEC's) which equals him with Rosewall, except that Federer played against fuller fields.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Cannonball

Who makes a very difficult game look really easy? Who makes snooker look as easy as pool? Who is the cueman who is so good at snooker, under the lights, in front of the cameras and crowd, that he actually appears to be too talented to be merely playing snooker; like he deserves to be faced with 18 foot tables, tighter pockets and bigger balls?

There's only one Genius in snooker and only the Genius can really be considered the greatest player of all. Anything less than genius is inferior, great maybe, but not the greatest.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby NNear

Interesting are your views also on Nadal as a shot-maker. The general view on tennis forums even from those who dislike Nadal is that he's the second best shot-maker of his era behind Federer and has some of the best passing shots in the history of the game.