Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Perhaps someone can help with this. I'm trying to find the average amount of points scored per frame by professional players down the years. Any ideas? I've been wondering about what Wildey was saying about todays players being better than yesteryears. If they're better, have they been scoring heavier?

Another Point to ponder

Stephen didnt really have any goals he needed to achieve after he reached his 7th World Title Ronnie always had A) Stephen Hendry to aim for and B)Keep up with John Higgins.

Trumpster wrote:Perhaps someone can help with this. I'm trying to find the average amount of points scored per frame by professional players down the years. Any ideas? I've been wondering about what Wildey was saying about todays players being better than yesteryears. If they're better, have they been scoring heavier?

Maybe it's somewhere on this site. Not sure.
http://www.cuetracker.net/

O'Sullivan himself summed it up, when he said this is the weakest era he has ever played in.

Some stats from the cuetracker website to keep this never ending pointless debate going

1980-1989 Steve Davis, matches played 478, won 384 (80.3%)

1990-1999 Stephen Hendry, played 604, won 468 (77.5%)

2000-2009 Ronnie O'Sullivan, played 381, won 282 (74%)

2010-2019 Ronnie O'Sullivan, played 200, won 155 (77.5%) (decade not over yet, 5 more years to come)

Wildey wrote:Another Point to ponder

Stephen didnt really have any goals he needed to achieve after he reached his 7th World Title Ronnie always had A) Stephen Hendry to aim for and B)Keep up with John Higgins.

He achieved everything by winning his 7th title but nevertheless he tried his hardest in the 21 century and it's not like as if he hadn't had the motivation. He clearly had and always wanted to win more, 8, 9 and 10 World Titles. But his standard simply dropped, especially after his long potting became much weaker and he was just not good enough anymore to win a major.

He will always be remembered for the 6 years (1990-1996) and probably overall for the 90's where he produced his best Snooker and dominated but the fact that he only won one major after 1996 is always gonna be the little shadow in Hendrys career if you like.

Holden Chinaski wrote:Some stats from the cuetracker website to keep this never ending pointless debate going

1980-1989 Steve Davis, matches played 478, won 384 (80.3%)

1990-1999 Stephen Hendry, played 604, won 468 (77.5%)

2000-2009 Ronnie O'Sullivan, played 381, won 282 (74%)

2010-2019 Ronnie O'Sullivan, played 200, won 155 (77.5%) (decade not over yet, 5 more years to come)

Cuetracker also states these stats for entire careers:

Matches won: Steve Davis 63.9% ( Frames won 57.64%), Stephen Hendry 68.85% (58.79%), John Higgins 69.35% (59.15%)
.
.
.
.
not forgettting
Ronnie O'Sullivan 73.94% (60.79%)

Yes I know Trumpster. Ronnie is top of the list in the all time match win percentage stat. This because of his longevity. Davis and Hendry started declining as they got older. Ronnie has not yet.

It really is amazing that Ronnie's career match win percentage is at 73.94%

They have been scoring heavier I think overall but it's hard to say with conditions being much more conducive to big breaks (ie tables quicker, balls more responsive, etc.).

TBH I'm not sure they're better players, IMO I find them simply more aggressive. Couple that with playing condition changes and it's hard to say if more big breaks means better players.

I think breakbuilding is a major factor in determining a good player but one can be a good breakbuilder and still lose matches.

IMO it's all about balance/selective aggression. Today's players don't seem to be selective enough, Ronnie IMO seems to be the best at finding the right balance of attacking and tactical play.

Given the Jimmy - Hendry talk on here now, think ill cast my own thoughts on their final meetings. All matches still vividly in the memory (like Jimmy, ill never forget them sadly)

1990 - Not sure if Jimmy was a bit too complacent here thinking hed win though to be fair Hendry played well and was almost taking over from Davis as the main man around this time. Jimmy possibly assumed the big occasion might get to Hendry though given his young age.

1992 - Horrible horrible, never forget David Vine clearly being gutted at the MSI when Hendry has levelled it up at 14-14 but trying to hype it up for deluded viewers saying it was delicately poised. He was fooling no-one, everyone knew White was gone by then. The damage had been done, Infact from 14-8, Jimmy ought to have won both the 23rd and 24th frames but failure to win at least one and be 15-9 always made me nervous with a slightly bad feeling and it was sadly proven right.

1993 - A disaster, Jimmy just got blown away thought mentally clearly gave up early on and didn't really give any fight at all. - This isn't an easy cop out though, he was beat fair and square and im sure Hendry woulda raised his game too if need be but White offered nothing at all.

1994 - A true classic, arguably the best World Final ever, and hard to believe its 20 years now since they last met in the final. Really was the end of an era in more ways than one the 1994 worlds, given the likes of Alex Higgins and Thorburn made their last appearances and others like Thorne, Griffiths, Taylor were on the way out pretty much as the new generation slowly started to emerge.

I have it on record from Ian Doyle that Jimmy got a kick on the black he "bottled" but Jimmy being Jimmy, he never made an issue or any fuss over it. The sickening sight of Hendry jumping out of his seat and just knowing hed robotically clear up with ease.

In summary though, as clear as Hendry and Jimmy were the top 2 in the early 90s, Hendry did own Jimmy pretty much and it was a bit of a mismatch similar to say Nadal and Federer has been.

But I have to question the overall standard in the early 90s, it was without doubt a transitional era between the 80s and the "modern" era which truly started in 1996 id say when Ebdon made the final as he was one of the new generation.

The early 90s for me was the era of the following.

1 -Hendry at his dominant best
2 - Jimmy and Parrot at their peak
3 - New talents like Wattana, McManus, Doherty, Ebdon emerging at various different levels.
4 - Virtually all the relics from the 70s and 80s in major career decline but still all in the top echelons of the rankings
5 - Relative newcomers like Wilkinson, James, Morgan etc being among the top players but clearly benefactors from the transitional era (with all due respect to them)

Despite a few titles, theres no way I seriously count Ronnie, Higgins or MJW as serious contenders in the World Championships till 1996 at the earliest when they were all 20 / 21. And contrary to belief, its nothing to do with trying to make the argument against Hendry any better, its my genuine opionion. (Just as I wouldn't count Hendry as a serious WC contender till 1989 despite his success prior to that)

Sickpotter wrote:They have been scoring heavier I think overall but it's hard to say with conditions being much more conducive to big breaks (ie tables quicker, balls more responsive, etc.).

TBH I'm not sure they're better players, IMO I find them simply more aggressive. Couple that with playing condition changes and it's hard to say if more big breaks means better players.

I think breakbuilding is a major factor in determining a good player but one can be a good breakbuilder and still lose matches.

IMO it's all about balance/selective aggression. Today's players don't seem to be selective enough, Ronnie IMO seems to be the best at finding the right balance of attacking and tactical play.

Interesting points. Alex Higgins was famous for deriding today's tables. He was right, the bags at last year's Worlds were huge; bigger than club size. Players were contacting the cushion a foot away from the bags and the object ball would still drop on some shots. Coupled with shaved 6811 cloths, under-table heating and great Aramith 1G balls, most would agree.

Perhaps the approach of the players reflects the approach of the World today, that wants everything right NOW!

Witz78 wrote:Given the Jimmy - Hendry talk on here now, think ill cast my own thoughts on their final meetings. All matches still vividly in the memory (like Jimmy, ill never forget them sadly)

1990 - Not sure if Jimmy was a bit too complacent here thinking hed win though to be fair Hendry played well and was almost taking over from Davis as the main man around this time. Jimmy possibly assumed the big occasion might get to Hendry though given his young age.

1992 - Horrible horrible, never forget David Vine clearly being gutted at the MSI when Hendry has levelled it up at 14-14 but trying to hype it up for deluded viewers saying it was delicately poised. He was fooling no-one, everyone knew White was gone by then. The damage had been done, Infact from 14-8, Jimmy ought to have won both the 23rd and 24th frames but failure to win at least one and be 15-9 always made me nervous with a slightly bad feeling and it was sadly proven right.

1993 - A disaster, Jimmy just got blown away thought mentally clearly gave up early on and didn't really give any fight at all. - This isn't an easy cop out though, he was beat fair and square and im sure Hendry woulda raised his game too if need be but White offered nothing at all.

1994 - A true classic, arguably the best World Final ever, and hard to believe its 20 years now since they last met in the final. Really was the end of an era in more ways than one the 1994 worlds, given the likes of Alex Higgins and Thorburn made their last appearances and others like Thorne, Griffiths, Taylor were on the way out pretty much as the new generation slowly started to emerge.

I have it on record from Ian Doyle that Jimmy got a kick on the black he "bottled" but Jimmy being Jimmy, he never made an issue or any fuss over it. The sickening sight of Hendry jumping out of his seat and just knowing hed robotically clear up with ease.

In summary though, as clear as Hendry and Jimmy were the top 2 in the early 90s, Hendry did own Jimmy pretty much and it was a bit of a mismatch similar to say Nadal and Federer has been.

But I have to question the overall standard in the early 90s, it was without doubt a transitional era between the 80s and the "modern" era which truly started in 1996 id say when Ebdon made the final as he was one of the new generation.

The early 90s for me was the era of the following.

1 -Hendry at his dominant best
2 - Jimmy and Parrot at their peak
3 - New talents like Wattana, McManus, Doherty, Ebdon emerging at various different levels.
4 - Virtually all the relics from the 70s and 80s in major career decline but still all in the top echelons of the rankings
5 - Relative newcomers like Wilkinson, James, Morgan etc being among the top players but clearly benefactors from the transitional era (with all due respect to them)

Despite a few titles, theres no way I seriously count Ronnie, Higgins or MJW as serious contenders in the World Championships till 1996 at the earliest when they were all 20 / 21. And contrary to belief, its nothing to do with trying to make the argument against Hendry any better, its my genuine opionion. (Just as I wouldn't count Hendry as a serious WC contender till 1989 despite his success prior to that)

Great post.

Yeh I agree Trumpster on the tables

Nothing annoys me more than the commentators saying "these tables aren't like your easy ones down the clubs" then you see almost 8 ball pool style cushions where, as you say, the ball hits the cushion well before the pocket but still finds a way in.

The other annoying one is when you see the camera from inside the pocket view and only about 50% of the ball is heading in and the other 50% is hitting the jaws, yet the ball still somehow rattles in and drops.

But on the flipside if people use "easier" tables as a way to belittle Ronnies achievements its wrong, cos its the same for all the players playing, and if anything it levels up the field actually as the less accurate potters can also pot a lot too.

GOAT? between Hendry and O'Sullivan? ...errr...hmm... I plead diplomatic immunity.

Actually to echo many peoples views, why should it be important? Hendry=fantastic snooker brilliance and Ronnie=fantastic snooker brilliance.

Just for the moment, why can't we have joint winners of the GOAT? I'm not asking Hendry and Ronnie fans to unite but maybe they can just settle their differences with a massive punch up in Bournemouth.

Andy Spark wrote:GOAT? between Hendry and O'Sullivan? ...errr...hmm... I plead diplomatic immunity.

Actually to echo many peoples views, why should it be important? Hendry=fantastic snooker brilliance and Ronnie=fantastic snooker brilliance.

Just for the moment, why can't we have joint winners of the GOAT? I'm not asking Hendry and Ronnie fans to unite but maybe they can just settle their differences with a massive punch up in Bournemouth.

Great post, I always was a Ronnie fan but above all respect Hendry's amazing achievments in this sport so both are probably the 2 greatest players of all time for different reasons, but both should be respected for everything they have done and brought to the game, and not enter some silly arguments about who's the greatest because some of those don't make any sense.

But sure we can compare number of titles won for instance and go on from there and have healthy and interesting discussions.

At the moment Hendry leads that stat, but Ronnie is clearly chasing that, at least some of those records, and try to tie or even break some of those.

He already has more 147s, will have more tons made probably next season, could reach 7 world titles if he maintains this sort of level for at least 2 or 3 years more, the one that seems out of reach is 36 rankers but well who cares.... Ronnie certainly won't mind about that, and in his own view and mine too after where he was in 2011 to where he is now in a way everything he has won and that he'll win in the future is a bonus really, he long ago doesn't have anything else to prove to the game.

Hendry wrote:The one I treasure most is the seven world titles, but if Ronnie keeps this attitude he could play until he is 50, and is likely to equal or beat it.

He is the only one that could do it, records are there to be broken and it would be no disgrace to lose it to Ronnie, or share it with him.

http://www.inside-snooker.com/snooker/t ... 4fyy9fzbrj

Now there you have it from the horses mouths.

Andre147 PGC wrote:

Andy Spark wrote:GOAT? between Hendry and O'Sullivan? ...errr...hmm... I plead diplomatic immunity.

Actually to echo many peoples views, why should it be important? Hendry=fantastic snooker brilliance and Ronnie=fantastic snooker brilliance.

Just for the moment, why can't we have joint winners of the GOAT? I'm not asking Hendry and Ronnie fans to unite but maybe they can just settle their differences with a massive punch up in Bournemouth.

Great post, I always was a Ronnie fan but above all respect Hendry's amazing achievments in this sport so both are probably the 2 greatest players of all time for different reasons, but both should be respected for everything they have done and brought to the game, and not enter some silly arguments about who's the greatest because some of those don't make any sense.

But sure we can compare number of titles won for instance and go on from there and have healthy and interesting discussions.

At the moment Hendry leads that stat, but Ronnie is clearly chasing that, at least some of those records, and try to tie or even break some of those.

He already has more 147s, will have more tons made probably next season, could reach 7 world titles if he maintains this sort of level for at least 2 or 3 years more, the one that seems out of reach is 36 rankers but well who cares.... Ronnie certainly won't mind about that, and in his own view and mine too after where he was in 2011 to where he is now in a way everything he has won and that he'll win in the future is a bonus really, he long ago doesn't have anything else to prove to the game.

Yes, worth repeating. (also did I ever tell you about my love for Thai and Filipino girls, great culture they've got, also love the transgender ones, we could all develop a more profound sensibility by developing a love for Asian culture)

I vote ronnie.
but i have a doubt, "how to describe 'the greatest'?"
is it mean the most successful? is it mean the best? i don't know...
then what does it mean?
anyway, i think ronnie is the best player. using henton's words after welsh open
"Many love him, many do not, but surely nobody can seriously contend that he is the best there is in snooker and, in terms of what he is capable of doing, the best there has ever been."
btw, i think it's little bit hard to decide who's the most successful between steve davis and stephen hendry.

What it means is it's down to opinion and nothing more.

maybe down to voting number

Hi all, I'm new to this forum (signed up to post in this thread!). It's an interesting discussion and there won't be any agreement, because it's opinion, and first things first I think it needs to be agreed that both men deserve respect for their ability and contribution to the game.

That said, personally I feel that Ronnie is the better player, for a number of reasons. Stats never show the whole picture - so Hendry is regarded as the greatest because he won 7 titles, but that doesn't mention Davis only stayed on 6 because he missed the black that would have given him 7. Looking at the White v Hendry finals, it's clear for anyone to see that White should have taken them, and I think it's fair to say that had he been more professional (i.e. not on the booze) he likely would have taken at least one of them. So immediately, if those small variables had gone the other way, it would be Davis on 7 and Hendry on 6, maybe 5. The stats don't show that though.

Years ago (probably 12 years) I remember reading an article about Hendry and how he had gone from the dominant player to (I quote) "that bloke that gets knocked out in the semis" - and it was true; you'd watch snooker and Hendry would get knocked out, but the commentary always focused on his past glories. He was only in his 30s at the time, so why wasn't he able to compete?

Personally, I think the truth is the standard of the game in Hendry's era wasn't what it was during Ronnie's era. Of course, Hendry had to be good to be the dominant guy, and he revolutionised certain aspects (splitting the pack from the blue, for instance), but if you look back at his career he was winning titles against people that no one today has even heard of. In a time when you could put some money down and get on tour. It's not like today where you need to qualify repeatedly. And when Ronnie, Higgins and Williams turned pro, they were competing with each other, all of them very capable players. Did Hendry have anyone who proved to be his competition for his career, to hold as a benchmark? Ronnie and Higgins always get compared, I'm not aware of anyone, except maybe Jimmy White, who went through the same career period as Hendry at a level where it was a close call.

There's a lot of talk of the modern era and discounting, to an extent, what happened before. Comparing today's players with those in the 80s, I think that's fair - and that's where Hendry was winning. By his own admission, Hendry didn't have a safety game. How far do you think he would get today without a safety game? Against the likes of Robertson who can pot from anywhere, Ronnie (who in the past few years has developed one of the strongest safety games in snooker), Ding and Selby? Even the 'good but not yet proven' upstarts like Trump and Allen have an all-round game stronger than Hendry did at his prime, because it's absolutely essential today.

In my mind, how can we claim someone is the greatest player when their game had whole sections missing? If you put Hendry in his prime against Ronnie of today, Hendry would get out-played in the safety department until an opening let Ronnie in.

Age

Hendry retired at what, 40? Won his last world at 27 and won only one major event after that. Ronnie is 38 and aiming for a WC hat-trick - winning the last one after taking a season out! At his age, Hendry wasn't even the bloke getting knocked out in the semis. Whereas Hendry stumbled when the new guard came through with a level of play he couldn't match, Ronnie is, at nearly 40, so far ahead of other players he makes them look amateur in comparison.

How can Hendry be considered the greatest player when he was all but done by the age of 27?

Illness
Another thing the stats - and Hendry fans - fail to mention is how much of Ronnie's career was lost to his depression, which can be (and was for him) extremely debilitating. It's simply not fair to compare the two as though both have had the same career trajectory but Ronnie has taken longer to claim titles. The fact is he lost about a decade of his career - yet has come back extremely strong. If Ronnie had maintained his ability throughout that time, does anyone seriously think he wouldn't have a heap more titles and centuries?

When Ronnie won the WC last year, not only had he taken a year off, but except for Hawkins getting a frame ahead in the final, Ronnie was never behind in the whole tournament. So he took a year out, went to the WC and was never worse off than being tied.

I think people are very forgiving with Hendry, and very critical of Ronnie. But if we look at it objectively, it's difficult to deny that Hendry was unable to compete in the modern game, he lost any edge he had by the age of 27, he was lucky to have won at least his final WC title, and had a career against a lot of unknown players in a time when seeing players boozing it up was far from unusual. Then you have Ronnie, who came through with Higgins and Williams, both world champions now, and had to always compete against stellar players. This was an era with players capable of winning the highest prizes. Ronnie has shown the most natural talent, he has a safety game, which Hendry didn't, he has taken the art of potting and break building to new heights, in his late 30s he's enjoying a revival in not only he can do as well as other players, but embarass them.

When he had his year off, there was a different winner of every event. That should indicate how hard it is to dominate the game with today's players. To go through a tournament and beat Trump, Selby, Ding and Robertson means you're an exceptional player, and I don't believe Hendry had that level of competition.

Looking at stats can be useful but we must remember they never tell the full story. I think that to gauge the "Greatest" player, we must factor in not only their titles but their competition, the era, their capabilities throughout the game and how they have managed to maintain their career. Hendry did a lot in 10 years, but can we really believe he just burnt out? Come on. Talent doesn't burn out, and if it does it's back after some time off. You don't lose your talent and never win again. To be 38 and dominating the game in today's era, to me, takes a special sort of brilliance.

Welcome and thanks for your thoughts, that's a long first post!

Hendry lost his sharpness and confidence of youth and never adapted his game to compensate. In a way it makes him admirable for sticking to his guns. Both he and Ronnie talk about playing snooker "the right way" i.e. going for everything. But if he'd really played it the right way he'd have won more titles, including an 8th when he went suicidal in the deciding frame and refused to play safe.

Wildey wrote:Sonny

With respect your taking the snake hiss

John Higgins

Yep. Remember him? Quite handy in his day.

This debate is like asking the question who is the greatest actor of all time?

It is only ever going to a personal opinion, and therefore devoid of any real meaning.

In my opinion, Joe Davis, who was undefeated.
As to tactics and smart gameplay with great safety play, my favs are Steve Davis and maybe Ray Reardon.
I think, both of them were playing on a higher level than Hendry, who was indeed one of the best players.
Many people say, that during Hendry's time, the level of competition was lower, but some forget the great Jimmy White.

Jester82 wrote:In my opinion, Joe Davis, who was undefeated.
As to tactics and smart gameplay with great safety play, my favs are Steve Davis and maybe Ray Reardon.
I think, both of them were playing on a higher level than Hendry, who was indeed one of the best players.
Many people say, that during Hendry's time, the level of competition was lower, but some forget the great Jimmy White.

I think more forgotten is that Hendry should, by rights (if such a thing exists), have lost to White. Had White taken the situation more seriously instead of being out on the town over the final weekend, there's little doubt he would have taken at least one of the titles.

That's where I credit Hendry - he took the game seriously. I remember him critcising Trump a year or so ago when he was on Twitter during a mid-session interval in a match he was losing. Hendry said when he played, he used that time to have a cup of tea and focus.

Sonny wrote:Welcome and thanks for your thoughts, that's a long first post!

Hendry lost his sharpness and confidence of youth and never adapted his game to compensate. In a way it makes him admirable for sticking to his guns. Both he and Ronnie talk about playing snooker "the right way" i.e. going for everything. But if he'd really played it the right way he'd have won more titles, including an 8th when he went suicidal in the deciding frame and refused to play safe.

Thank you for the welcome. I expect I'll be making many more long posts yet! I read through the whole thread before registering so I'd made quite a list of points in my mind. I was trying to be as balanced and reasonable as possible.

It does amuse me when people get quite so defensive about their chosen player - it's merely an opinion and people use their own benchmarks for determining the criteria. For me, Ronnie takes it because of what I said above, while it doesn't sit well with me that Hendry was all but done at 27. Others say to dominate so consistently for a decade makes him brilliant.

I find it interesting that Hendry and Ronnie both think the other one is the best in the world (although I don't think I've heard Hendry say Ronnie is better than Hendry at his peak)

vodkadiet wrote:This debate is like asking the question who is the greatest actor of all time?

It is only ever going to a personal opinion, and therefore devoid of any real meaning.

Absolutely bang on......Unfortunately certain people can't accept this and so set about a statistical crusade to either convert the masses or batter the doubters into submission.

webcat86 wrote:

Jester82 wrote:In my opinion, Joe Davis, who was undefeated.
As to tactics and smart gameplay with great safety play, my favs are Steve Davis and maybe Ray Reardon.
I think, both of them were playing on a higher level than Hendry, who was indeed one of the best players.
Many people say, that during Hendry's time, the level of competition was lower, but some forget the great Jimmy White.

I think more forgotten is that Hendry should, by rights (if such a thing exists), have lost to White. Had White taken the situation more seriously instead of being out on the town over the final weekend, there's little doubt he would have taken at least one of the titles.

That's where I credit Hendry - he took the game seriously. I remember him critcising Trump a year or so ago when he was on Twitter during a mid-session interval in a match he was losing. Hendry said when he played, he used that time to have a cup of tea and focus.

Was Judd on twitter or was it someone from 'team Trump'. I know team Trump (his mgt agency who organise everything for him) do his FB page. Not sure about Twitter though.

Trumpster wrote:

webcat86 wrote:

Jester82 wrote:In my opinion, Joe Davis, who was undefeated.
As to tactics and smart gameplay with great safety play, my favs are Steve Davis and maybe Ray Reardon.
I think, both of them were playing on a higher level than Hendry, who was indeed one of the best players.
Many people say, that during Hendry's time, the level of competition was lower, but some forget the great Jimmy White.

I think more forgotten is that Hendry should, by rights (if such a thing exists), have lost to White. Had White taken the situation more seriously instead of being out on the town over the final weekend, there's little doubt he would have taken at least one of the titles.

That's where I credit Hendry - he took the game seriously. I remember him critcising Trump a year or so ago when he was on Twitter during a mid-session interval in a match he was losing. Hendry said when he played, he used that time to have a cup of tea and focus.

Was Judd on twitter or was it someone from 'team Trump'. I know team Trump (his mgt agency who organise everything for him) do his FB page. Not sure about Twitter though.

He does his own Twitter. Always talking about "naughty snooker". Although to be clear I didn't mention that to criticise Trump (i don't think he was so much "on" Twitter, he just shared a quick status), I was highlighting Hendry's focus and professionalism to the game. Had White been less of a lad on a bender and taken the biggest event of the game and his career as seriously as Hendry did, he almost certainly wouldn't be "the guy who reached 6 finals and lost all of them"

Lucky wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:This debate is like asking the question who is the greatest actor of all time?

It is only ever going to a personal opinion, and therefore devoid of any real meaning.

Absolutely bang on......Unfortunately certain people can't accept this and so set about a statistical crusade to either convert the masses or batter the doubters into submission.

Oh so because this is only due to personal opinion, which I think is about right, does that mean we can't have valid and interesting discussions like that post from webcat?

I think you and vodka are indeed the ones who don't accept and respect others opinions and only stick to your own.

This may I remind you is a Snooker Forum discussion, and particularly this thread, so we all have our right to express our opinions in a fair way without insulting other players.