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 Andre147

Welcome to the Forum too WebcatT86 :-)

Well that long post of yours just about sums it up really, couldn't agree more with the interesting points you mentioned there. It's all gonna be personal opinion, and many too think Davis is the greatest of all time or Alex Higgins for that matter, it's all down to which factors we find more relevant in considering it, but one thing is for sure both Hendry and Ronnie are the 2 greatest of all time for me.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby webcat86

Andre147 PGC wrote:Welcome to the Forum too WebcatT86 :-)

Well that long post of yours just about sums it up really, couldn't agree more with the interesting points you mentioned there. It's all gonna be personal opinion, and many too think Davis is the greatest of all time or Alex Higgins for that matter, it's all down to which factors we find more relevant in considering it, but one thing is for sure both Hendry and Ronnie are the 2 greatest of all time for me.


Thank you, and glad you liked it.

I only found out this week that Davis was a black ball away from 7 titles, which made me realise how fickle the stats are. Even Dennis Taylor - prior to Ronnie winning his 5 WC, Taylor said Hendry was the best in the world because of his 7. Just think then, if Davis had potted one more ball, they would be joint best. I think that's a silly way of looking at it personally - games and matches are more than the result, they are the sum of their parts. So we should be able to look back and discuss the variables.

I think in many ways it's insulting to reduce a career just to the number of titles. It's a convenient benchmark for sure, but Davis was a tremendous player, and his safety game in particular. Hendry had the break-building skills but lacked the safety play. If we combined those skills and said that's Ronnie, can he then be considered the best? After all, if he has the potting skills to beat Davis and the safety skills to beat Hendry...

Ronnie is fascinating though. I think we also need to consider what he's done in recent years. I really started getting into snooker when he was coming up the first time, as world number 1 and winning the WC for the second time, and he was sublime. Then came that dark period, and 3 years ago I remember being in America and asking my friend back home to put a bet on me for Ronnie to win the WC. He lost. I thought, I'm not even going to pay much attention to his matches now, he's done. Then came the 2012 victory, a year off, 2013, and some of the most amazing snooker ever. That 92 break against Carter was the stuff of legend - a standing ovation for a break that wasn't a century, says it all really.

We talk about Hendry's bottle, but by 27 he was done. Ronnie's life was affected by both parents being in prison, tremendous pressure on him, and depression. At an age when other players are truly winding down, he's made the comeback of a lifetime and is not only able to compete, but raise the bar for everyone else. That's amazing.

And if nothing else, I think everyone will agree that what he's won doesn't indicate his talents - that he should have won far more. So if we use titles as a benchmark, and concede he should have won more, and would have won more had his head been in a different place, we can put him above Hendry...

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby webcat86

Question! In the 2012 World Championship, Ronnie's draw included 3 former world champions - Ebdon (opening round), Williams (second round), Robertson (quarters), before getting to the semis to face Stevens and ultimately Carter.

Three former champions before you reach the semi final.

Did such a draw happen in Hendry's time? My immediate reaction is to take two things away from that: 1) The standard of today's play is that you are up against a world champion at every turn, and 2) Ronnie is so good that he beat 3 former champions consecutively, and if memory serves, wasn't he 6 frames up at some point in each match?
But I may be wrong in thinking that this is unique to this era

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Andre147

Errmmm... just a question webcat... if you say in your post you first started your interest in snooker when Ronnie won his 2nd World Title 10 years ago, how come you never knew up until a week ago Davis was a ball away from his 7th World Title?

Only a week ago? rofl Sorry but I find that very hard to believe unless you've been living in a cave for this past 10 years. <laugh>

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby snooker_loopy

I think Ronnie sort of admitted the truth when he said he was now playing as well as he did when he was 15/16 - he repeated this just a few days ago - and this current time is when Hendry has retired, Higgins is in decline, Williams is in decline, Paul Hunter passed away and who knows he may have been a serious contender for various WCs. Without Hendry/Higgins/Williams, Ronnie does it have slightly easier. That's not take anything away from Ding/Trump/Robertson etc but Ronnie can play knowing he hasn't got Hendry/Higgins/Williams in their prime. It must help him a little.

The fact remains Ronnie has always said he played his best when he was younger, and he turned professional in 1992 age 16 but he won his first WC in 2001. I think this proves he isn't the best of all time because if he was/were/is he would have stopped Hendry winning seven world championship titles in the 1990s.

That proves he didn't have the consistency/mental attitude to defeat Hendry (and other players to even reach the final). Jimmy White was a better World Championship snooker player than Ronnie was during the 1990s. White reached five WC finals, O'Sullivan reached none. A fact all the "Ronnie is the best ever" fans conveniently forget.

Hendry won seven finals and appeared in a total eight finals in the 1990s decade! This proves Ronnie O'Sullivan - at his youngest - at a time when he said he was playing his best (age 16) couldn't find the form to beat Hendry over the 1990s. This proves Hendry was the best and Jimmy White was the second best player of the 1990s (at the WC at least). The stats - not opinion - prove this. You can't change stats. They're facts. Ronnie is a genius but wasn't good enough to beat Hendry in the 1990s. So Hendry is the best.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby webcat86

Andre147 PGC wrote:Errmmm... just a question webcat... if you say in your post you first started your interest in snooker when Ronnie won his 2nd World Title 10 years ago, how come you never knew up until a week ago Davis was a ball away from his 7th World Title?

Only a week ago? rofl Sorry but I find that very hard to believe unless you've been living in a cave for this past 10 years. <laugh>


Well, I didn't see the match; I've most probably heard the information at some point, but forgotten it. What I meant to say was, when I read it this week, it got me thinking about the weight of titles.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Andre147

webcat86 wrote:
Andre147 PGC wrote:Errmmm... just a question webcat... if you say in your post you first started your interest in snooker when Ronnie won his 2nd World Title 10 years ago, how come you never knew up until a week ago Davis was a ball away from his 7th World Title?

Only a week ago? rofl Sorry but I find that very hard to believe unless you've been living in a cave for this past 10 years. <laugh>


Well, I didn't see the match; I've most probably heard the information at some point, but forgotten it. What I meant to say was, when I read it this week, it got me thinking about the weight of titles.


Hum, ok I see, you're right then, and unlike Snooker Loopy says, we all can manipulate stats to our desire and stats do prove Davis was 6 time World Champ but DONT PROVE Davis was only a ball away from winning his 7th and who knows had he won that this discussion could have been about Davis too.

Stats are fact no doubt Snooker Loopy, but like I said and you and many others seem to forget we can always bend them to our liking and it's INDEED YOUR OPINION when YOU ONLY look at stats because greateness isn't achieved by merely looking at stats you know, there are a lot more factors that are involved in it.

So no Snooker Loopy what you said and your view is purely an opinion, not a fact, like mine is too.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby webcat86

snooker_loopy wrote:I think Ronnie sort of admitted the truth when he said he was now playing as well as he did when he was 15/16 - he repeated this just a few days ago - and this current time is when Hendry has retired, Higgins is in decline, Williams is in decline, Paul Hunter passed away and who knows he may have been a serious contender for various WCs. Without Hendry/Higgins/Williams, Ronnie does it have slightly easier. That's not take anything away from Ding/Trump/Robertson etc but Ronnie can play knowing he hasn't got Hendry/Higgins/Williams in their prime. It must help him a little.

The fact remains Ronnie has always said he played his best when he was younger, and he turned professional in 1992 age 16 but he won his first WC in 2001. I think this proves he isn't the best of all time because if he was/were/is he would have stopped Hendry winning seven world championship titles in the 1990s.

That proves he didn't have the consistency/mental attitude to defeat Hendry (and other players to even reach the final). Jimmy White was a better World Championship snooker player than Ronnie was during the 1990s. White reached five WC finals, O'Sullivan reached none. A fact all the "Ronnie is the best ever" fans conveniently forget.

Hendry won seven finals and appeared in a total eight finals in the 1990s decade! This proves Ronnie O'Sullivan - at his youngest - at a time when he said he was playing his best (age 16) couldn't find the form to beat Hendry over the 1990s. This proves Hendry was the best and Jimmy White was the second best player of the 1990s (at the WC at least). The stats - not opinion - prove this. You can't change stats. They're facts. Ronnie is a genius but wasn't good enough to beat Hendry in the 1990s. So Hendry is the best.


It goes back to how much weight you can put on stats. There are various factors, not least of which is what you're saying is because Ronnie was astounding at that age, he should have immediately won the world champions. That seems a tad unfair - not least because it was around that time, certainly before he turned 20, that his dad went down for murder, and his mum was jailed for tax evasion.

Besides, being the best of all time means to take into consideration the entire career. For instance, we can look back on Hendry and say that for all his achievement, he was unable to compete with the players after a decade. In Ronnie's case, at 38 he has somehow found the form he had 22 years ago.

You're really just looking at the figures on the paper rather than the lives behind the players. You could also point out that Ronnie has never lost a final in the world championships.

It's certainly true that there was a gap between him turning professional and winning the world title. But, he was winning events during that time, and 25 is hardly to be scoffed at. If you read his first book, he explained how he felt in the event. If what he says about his emotions is true, it's pretty remarkable he won that event at all, and shows why it's no surprise that he didn't win earlier.

I think the sentence of his dad played a huge, huge part in Ronnie's career. On the amateur circuit he won 74 out of 76 matches, he was the youngest UK winner, it was as good a start as you could hope for, and his dad had been his champion throughout - Ronnie even said the only reason he kept playing was for his father. It's impossible to imagine the impact it had on him, as a young man, when his dad was sentenced for murder. Apparently he had to look after his sibling and help with the family business, while working as a professional snooker player. Stats don't mention that, but we'd be foolish to say they had no bearing on his mental state or playing ability.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Richproc

You say that Ronnies 2012 world championship run had 3 former champions in his draw well so did Steve Davis's in 1981 with him having to beat Thorburn, Griffiths and Higgins who were still in there prime as you had the defending champion, the 1979 champion and the 1972 champion and future 1982 champion.
Whereas Ronnies opponents yes were champions but Williams has not beat Ronnie for over 5 years and was not the same player he used to be, Ebdon had won in China but was well past his best and only produced one good tournament run a season, Stevens has always bottled it in the world championship and Carter has never beat Ronnie in an important match ever.
I said to my friends before the tournament that I thought only Robertson would give Ronnie a game before the start and once he beat him the tournament was over as no one left in it could of beat Ronnie.
People keep saying how strong todays game is but really all the players are so inconsistent and tend to botle it agaisnt Ronnie. He would be having a much tougher time if Hendry, Higgins or Williams were still in there prime and would not be winning as easily as he is.
Ronnie is still producing some great performances but mixed in with some very average ones where the players just are not punishing him as he is not as consistently good as he was in his prime especially his long potting.
Don't get me wrong I am not anti Ronnie as I think he is the best player I have ever seen but I do think people are getting carried away thinking he has pushed the bar in standard of play. I think it is more a case of standards at the top dropping back making Ronnie look better

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby snooker_loopy

You lot can discuss this until the end of time (!) but the fact remains:

"Ronnie has always said he played his best when he was younger, and he turned professional in 1992 age 16 but he won his first WC in 2001. He isn't the best of all time because if he was/were/is he would have stopped Hendry winning seven world championship titles in the 1990s."

Basic logic, I'm afraid!

If Ronnie O'Sullivan is the best ever, how come it took him nine years to win the WC? He turned pro in 1992, won his first WC in 2001. So what happened to his genius talent for nine years? Did he underachieve? Well that's nice to know considering Hendry completely dominated the 1990s. (sarcasm meant). So does he have to kiss Ronnie's feet and say "thank you, Ronnie, for underachieving during the 1990s so I could win seven world titles."

Of course he doesn't have to say that! Ronnie wasn't good enough to stop Hendry winning seven titles. And we keep hearing the stock line:


"When Ronnie is at his best he's unbeatable."


Well, guess what, Stephen Hendry was unbeatable for nearly all of the 1990s that's why O'Sullivan/Higgins and the rest couldn't stop him winning WCs. But no-one ever posts comments like:

"When Stephen Hendry is at his best he's unbeatable."
It's always "When Ronnie is at his best he's unbeatable."

But he wasn't the best during the 1990s so it's a flawed assertion or statement. If Ronnie had been at his best in the 1990s he would have won the WC and Stephen Hendry wouldn't be the top dog. But it never happened so if people want to forget the 1990s decade and just imagine Ronnie came on the scene from 2000s onwards and use that to assert he's the best ever, go ahead. But it's make-believe fantasy.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby webcat86

Richproc wrote:You say that Ronnies 2012 world championship run had 3 former champions in his draw well so did Steve Davis's in 1981 with him having to beat Thorburn, Griffiths and Higgins who were still in there prime as you had the defending champion, the 1979 champion and the 1972 champion and future 1982 champion.
Whereas Ronnies opponents yes were champions but Williams has not beat Ronnie for over 5 years and was not the same player he used to be, Ebdon had won in China but was well past his best and only produced one good tournament run a season, Stevens has always bottled it in the world championship and Carter has never beat Ronnie in an important match ever.
I said to my friends before the tournament that I thought only Robertson would give Ronnie a game before the start and once he beat him the tournament was over as no one left in it could of beat Ronnie.
People keep saying how strong todays game is but really all the players are so inconsistent and tend to botle it agaisnt Ronnie. He would be having a much tougher time if Hendry, Higgins or Williams were still in there prime and would not be winning as easily as he is.
Ronnie is still producing some great performances but mixed in with some very average ones where the players just are not punishing him as he is not as consistently good as he was in his prime especially his long potting.
Don't get me wrong I am not anti Ronnie as I think he is the best player I have ever seen but I do think people are getting carried away thinking he has pushed the bar in standard of play. I think it is more a case of standards at the top dropping back making Ronnie look better


Thanks for the clarification, wasn't aware of that about Davis. And it's true about Ronnie's opponents (I was always surprised Ebdon won the WC anyway), my point was more about the level of play being such that champions are through the ranks, rather than a single player winning them for 7 years.

As for your last 2 paragraphs, I see what you mean, but I have to disagree. Not because Ronnie can't play average, or bad - he can. But the praise and admiration is for when he's on top form - like his 147 at the Welsh Open this week, Hendry himself said the final red, played left handed to screw the length of the table back to the black, was the best shot he had ever seen. His 92 against Carter in 2012 was unbelievable. It's his moments of brilliance that elicit the statements of him raising the bar, not because of his consistency (although that has improved drastically in the last 2 years).

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby webcat86

snooker_loopy wrote:You lot can discuss this until the end of time (!) but the fact remains:

"Ronnie has always said he played his best when he was younger, and he turned professional in 1992 age 16 but he won his first WC in 2001. He isn't the best of all time because if he was/were/is he would have stopped Hendry winning seven world championship titles in the 1990s."

Basic logic, I'm afraid!

If Ronnie O'Sullivan is the best ever, how come it took him nine years to win the WC? He turned pro in 1992, won his first WC in 2001. So what happened to his genius talent for nine years? Did he underachieve? Well that's nice to know considering Hendry completely dominated the 1990s. (sarcasm meant). So does he have to kiss Ronnie's feet and say "thank you, Ronnie, for underachieving during the 1990s so I could win seven world titles."

Of course he doesn't have to say that! Ronnie wasn't good enough to stop Hendry winning seven titles. And we keep hearing the stock line:


"When Ronnie is at his best he's unbeatable."


Well, guess what, Stephen Hendry was unbeatable for nearly all of the 1990s that's why O'Sullivan/Higgins and the rest couldn't stop him winning WCs. But no-one ever posts comments like:

"When Stephen Hendry is at his best he's unbeatable."
It's always "When Ronnie is at his best he's unbeatable."

But he wasn't the best during the 1990s so it's a flawed assertion or statement. If Ronnie had been at his best in the 1990s he would have won the WC and Stephen Hendry wouldn't be the top dog. But it never happened so if people want to forget the 1990s decade and just imagine Ronnie came on the scene from 2000s onwards and use that to assert he's the best ever, go ahead. But it's make-believe fantasy.


That's some fundamentally flawed logic. What you've done (I don't know if it's intentional or not) is take a snapshot of a person's career and generalised it for its entirety. What happened to Ronnie for those 9 years? Look at my last response to you. What you've also done is said "the player said this, so if you take that subjective statement and apply it to the other players' achievements, it means this, FACT." It doesn't work that way...

And regardless of what Ronnie says about his younger playing, he's really talking about his flow and breaks. His safety play today is better than it has ever been, and so is his temperament (on the professional circuit - no one knows what it was like as an amateur).

Hendry probably was unplayable at times, but he wasn't unplayable throughout his time at the top - we've already discussed how it was White's playing that lost him the final(s).

And again, to determine "the best ever" means to analyse their entire career, not a moment of your choosing. Ergo, how can Hendry be the best ever if he only lasted 10 years, and Ronnie is eyeing a hat-trick at 38?

Last year Ronnie set the record for points without reply, and was on the verge of setting a record of winning a WC without once being behind. I think he lost only 7 frames in the tournament, or something like that? Those are solid stats that Hendry never achieved.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Andre147

Snooker Loopy rofl but are we talking about best player of all time over an entire career or just over a 10 year period, more precisely over 6 years because after 1996 he only won 1 more Major?

And you are taking far too seriously what Ronnie said about playing his best when he was 16 or 17.... I mean, do we really believe that? He can say all he likes, but the snooker he's producing since working with Steve Peters is indeed his best ever snooker, not his 17s one because back then despite what Ronnie says he hadn't developed a consistent safety game and relied too much on potting. He was getting more and more mature and all his personal problems like webcat rightly said didn't help matters so you can't expect him to be dominating at that time when he hadn't developed a consistent game.

Hendry hadn't got a great safety game either, but he could rely on his briliant breakbuilding and long potting to help him win the matches he did during his dominance, but I say it once again despite Ronnie saying he's playing now like when he was 17 or something is just bullocks, of course he's much much better now. Just like when Hendry was 17 he wasn't that good as when he was 23, 24 or 25, and that's the case for all players.

Like I said you do like to only look at stats, fair enough, but only looking at them his indeed YOUR OWN OPINION because if you were like me and many others for instance you would be looking at many other factors too. And that Davis issue I mentioned sums this all up really, stats don't mention he was a ball away from winning his 7th World Title, so if we only look at stats it's almost the same as losing that match on the final black or losing it 18-0 right? rofl <doh> rofl That's what looking merely at stats does, had Davis potted that and become 7 times World Champ this discussion would have been about him too. And for that matter many still consider him as the greatest of all time, and I respect that, just like many also consider Alex Higgins as the greatest of all time and fair enough, do those only look at stats? rofl I don't think so, therefore in conclusion despite Snooker Loopy's best efforts to deny it it's all down to one's personal opinion and what they value the most.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby snooker_loopy

"It's certainly true that there was a gap between him turning professional and winning the world title. But, he was winning events during that time, and 25 is hardly to be scoffed at. If you read his first book, he explained how he felt in the event. If what he says about his emotions is true, it's pretty remarkable he won that event at all, and shows why it's no surprise that he didn't win earlier. I think the sentence of his dad played a huge, huge part in Ronnie's career. On the amateur circuit he won 74 out of 76 matches, he was the youngest UK winner, it was as good a start as you could hope for, and his dad had been his champion throughout - Ronnie even said the only reason he kept playing was for his father. It's impossible to imagine the impact it had on him, as a young man, when his dad was sentenced for murder. Apparently he had to look after his sibling and help with the family business, while working as a professional snooker player. Stats don't mention that, but we'd be foolish to say they had no bearing on his mental state or playing ability."


There may be some truth to this in the sense Ronnie's father going to prison messed with his mind however prison or no prison, O'Sullivan had eight seasons to stop Hendry being the dominant player and he couldn't achieve that.

Ronnie may end up as the best player ever - in raw ability there's no doubting he is the most talented and if that means the best/greatest then fair enough but.... and it's a big but...

If Ronnie wins 10 or more WCs, makes a 1000 competitive century breaks, wins a frame blindfolded - it won't change the fact - the historical fact - when Ronnie became a pro he and all the other players couldn't stop one man, a MR STEPHEN HENDRY - from dominating the sport for a decade. And for that reason alone, I don't think I can accept Ronnie O'Sullivan as the greatest player of all time. The most gifted, yes. The most naturally talented, yes. The man that makes the game look insanely easy, yes. But the greatest of them all? Nope. That is Stephen Hendry because he dominated when O'Sullivan (age 16 and older) claimed to be playing his best snooker. And there's also the fact Ronnie has mired his career with endless "I am going to quit." He was the sport's worst bad loser? Quite possibly. Hendry never said "I'm quitting" when he lost matches. O'Sullivan used to say it all the time.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby GJ

Ok if its on strength of eras determining the GOAT then Daniel burkes fav Roger Federer cant be seen as the GOAT of tennis.

A lot of his majors were won before nadal came on the scene and the level of opponent before nadal was no where near as high so Federer had it as easy as Hendry in the 90's in terms of competition and rivals.

So Daniel do you use the same logic for tennis and snooker in terms of the GOAT ?

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby webcat86

snooker_loopy wrote:
"It's certainly true that there was a gap between him turning professional and winning the world title. But, he was winning events during that time, and 25 is hardly to be scoffed at. If you read his first book, he explained how he felt in the event. If what he says about his emotions is true, it's pretty remarkable he won that event at all, and shows why it's no surprise that he didn't win earlier. I think the sentence of his dad played a huge, huge part in Ronnie's career. On the amateur circuit he won 74 out of 76 matches, he was the youngest UK winner, it was as good a start as you could hope for, and his dad had been his champion throughout - Ronnie even said the only reason he kept playing was for his father. It's impossible to imagine the impact it had on him, as a young man, when his dad was sentenced for murder. Apparently he had to look after his sibling and help with the family business, while working as a professional snooker player. Stats don't mention that, but we'd be foolish to say they had no bearing on his mental state or playing ability."


There may be some truth to this in the sense Ronnie's father going to prison messed with his mind however prison or no prison, O'Sullivan had eight seasons to stop Hendry being the dominant player and he couldn't achieve that.

Ronnie may end up as the best player ever - in raw ability there's no doubting he is the most talented and if that means the best/greatest then fair enough but.... and it's a big but...

If Ronnie wins 10 or more WCs, makes a 1000 competitive century breaks, wins a frame blindfolded - it won't change the fact - the historical fact - when Ronnie became a pro he and all the other players couldn't stop one man, a MR STEPHEN HENDRY - from dominating the sport for a decade. And for that reason alone, I don't think I can accept Ronnie O'Sullivan as the greatest player of all time. The most gifted, yes. The most naturally talented, yes. The man that makes the game look insanely easy, yes. But the greatest of them all? Nope. That is Stephen Hendry because he dominated when O'Sullivan (age 16 and older) claimed to be playing his best snooker. And there's also the fact Ronnie has mired his career with endless "I am going to quit." He was the sport's worst bad loser? Quite possibly. Hendry never said "I'm quitting" when he lost matches. O'Sullivan used to say it all the time.


You're using a lot of words to make the following point: Ronnie said he was best at 16. Ronnie didn't win at 16. Therefore the player who won at that time is the best player ever.

Doesn't make sense! If you watch his play back then and his play now, he's better now. His consistency, temperament and safety game have given him a game that he has never had before.

It's patently absurd to demand a 16 year old immediately win the world title otherwise he'll be forever discounted from being classed the greatest ever. By your standard, even if he beats all the records that make Hendry the best, Ronnie still won't be the best because he didn't do it when he was young. The fact is, and I think Hendry would admit it, Ronnie today is a better all-around player than Hendry was at his peak. Hendry was certainly quick to admit he never had a safety game when he won his titles.

But again it depends on personal definitions of "best". The very things you described make me consider him the best - his natural talent, the incredible things he can do on the table, making it look so easy. That's more than titles.

And let's not forget Ronnie has set his own records that Hendry never had - Ronnie has the top 2 highest breaks in a WC final (141 and 139). Ronnie's 11 maximums were the record at the time, and Hendry levelled it in his final season. Ronnie is the youngest UK winner - and now the second oldest WC champion.

Again, it's about personal definition. I can't label someone the greatest when they were a spent force at 27, especially considering the level of opposition at the time - when your opponents were playing drinking beer or hungover and forever dropped off the world in terms of people remembering who they are, it doesn't carry as much weight in my mind.


ETA: your logic also misses the point that Hendry didn't beat Ronnie to claim any of his titles. Ronnie didn't make it to those stages, for various reasons. But it's like when Allen beat Ronnie years ago, and then started boasting he'd beaten the best player in the world so was, by default, the best player in the world. Your logic is Ronnie didn't beat the player before Hendry's stage, so couldn't have beaten Hendry, which is intrinsically fallacious. You only have to look at the players Ronnie did beat, and did dominate, and indeed is dominating today, to see the gulf in his ability compared to Hendry's.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby snooker_loopy

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but if posters on this fine site genuinely believe Ronald Antonio "Ronnie" O'Sullivan is the greatest snooker player of all time then it's mighty odd how the 'greatest of all time' never stopped Stephen Hendry from winning seven world titles in the 1990s.

My idea of the 'greatest ever' would be a guy like O'Sullivan that came onto the snooker scene and said "this Stephen Hendry is damn great at snooker but you know what, I am even better so I'm going to stop him winning all these WC titles he (Hendry) thinks he's going to win."

But guess what, it never happened. The 'greatest ever' didn't stop Hendry from winning all those WC titles.

Kinda odd, isn't it! (sarcasm meant!)

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Andre147

Yes taking too seriously what Ronnie said about playing his best snooker when he was 16 or 17 and comparing it to nowadays is just bullocks, and we all know Ronnie does talk a lot of bullocks at times <laugh>

Like webcat and me have said, of course his standard now is so much better than it was back then, so taking that as a fact from what Ronnie said... well, that's just silly really and doesn't make any sense at all.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Andre147

One correction webcat, Hendry did beat Ronnie to claim 2 of his World Titles, in 1995 when he beat him 13-8 in the quarter-finals, and one of the best matches ever in Snooker, that 1999 Worlds semi match when he beat Ronnie 17-13.

Also he beat him 17-13 in 2002 semi but lost on the decider to Ebdon.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby snooker_loopy

"You're using a lot of words to make the following point: Ronnie said he was best at 16. Ronnie didn't win at 16. Therefore the player who won at that time is the best player ever. Doesn't make sense! If you watch his play back then and his play now, he's better now. His consistency, temperament and safety game have given him a game that he has never had before. It's patently absurd to demand a 16 year old immediately win the world title otherwise he'll be forever discounted from being classed the greatest ever. By your standard, even if he beats all the records that make Hendry the best, Ronnie still won't be the best because he didn't do it when he was young. The fact is, and I think Hendry would admit it, Ronnie today is a better all-around player than Hendry was at his peak. Hendry was certainly quick to admit he never had a safety game when he won his titles. But again it depends on personal definitions of "best". The very things you described make me consider him the best - his natural talent, the incredible things he can do on the table, making it look so easy. That's more than titles. And let's not forget Ronnie has set his own records that Hendry never had - Ronnie has the top 2 highest breaks in a WC final (141 and 139). Ronnie's 11 maximums were the record at the time, and Hendry levelled it in his final season. Ronnie is the youngest UK winner - and now the second oldest WC champion. Again, it's about personal definition. I can't label someone the greatest when they were a spent force at 27, especially considering the level of opposition at the time - when your opponents were playing drinking beer or hungover and forever dropped off the world in terms of people remembering who they are, it doesn't carry as much weight in my mind. ETA: your logic also misses the point that Hendry didn't beat Ronnie to claim any of his titles. Ronnie didn't make it to those stages, for various reasons. But it's like when Allen beat Ronnie years ago, and then started boasting he'd beaten the best player in the world so was, by default, the best player in the world. Your logic is Ronnie didn't beat the player before Hendry's stage, so couldn't have beaten Hendry, which is intrinsically fallacious. You only have to look at the players Ronnie did beat, and did dominate, and indeed is dominating today, to see the gulf in his ability compared to Hendry's."


I find your post quite insulting with regard to what Hendry achieved in the 1990s. You praise O'Sullivan's achievements but I don't see you praising Hendry for winning 7 world titles in 10 years. I don't recall O'Sullivan/Higgins doing that. Oh, but that fact passes you by, right?! Ronnie is a genius at snooker, I know that but the total lack of recognition of what Hendry did in 10 years is A) disrespectful to the guy and B) trying to ignore the facts to make out O'Sullivan is better. If Ronnie wins WC titles in 10 years period than I'll admit he's the best. Until then, he ain't and I can't see it ever happening.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby webcat86

Andre147 PGC wrote:One correction webcat, Hendry did beat Ronnie to claim 2 of his World Titles, in 1995 when he beat him 13-8 in the quarter-finals, and one of the best matches ever in Snooker, that 1999 Worlds semi match when he beat Ronnie 17-13.

Also he beat him 17-13 in 2002 semi but lost on the decider to Ebdon.


Ah, thanks for the correction!

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby snooker_loopy

"One correction webcat, Hendry did beat Ronnie to claim 2 of his World Titles, in 1995 when he beat him 13-8 in the quarter-finals, and one of the best matches ever in Snooker, that 1999 Worlds semi match when he beat Ronnie 17-13. Also he beat him 17-13 in 2002 semi but lost on the decider to Ebdon."


Thanks for the stats. These prove Ronnie is not the best ever because Hendry beat him to win two titles (or rather beat him before the final round) - O'Sullivan couldn't stop Hendry in his prime - and anyway, as I already mentioned, Jimmy White was better than O'Sullivan in the 1990s WC tournaments. This further undermines the belief Ronnie is the greatest ever. The World Championship is the benchmark for greatness in the sport, not just 147s or highest points without a reply from your opponent. Jimmy White was a better snooker player at the WCs in the 1990s.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby webcat86

snooker_loopy wrote:
"You're using a lot of words to make the following point: Ronnie said he was best at 16. Ronnie didn't win at 16. Therefore the player who won at that time is the best player ever. Doesn't make sense! If you watch his play back then and his play now, he's better now. His consistency, temperament and safety game have given him a game that he has never had before. It's patently absurd to demand a 16 year old immediately win the world title otherwise he'll be forever discounted from being classed the greatest ever. By your standard, even if he beats all the records that make Hendry the best, Ronnie still won't be the best because he didn't do it when he was young. The fact is, and I think Hendry would admit it, Ronnie today is a better all-around player than Hendry was at his peak. Hendry was certainly quick to admit he never had a safety game when he won his titles. But again it depends on personal definitions of "best". The very things you described make me consider him the best - his natural talent, the incredible things he can do on the table, making it look so easy. That's more than titles. And let's not forget Ronnie has set his own records that Hendry never had - Ronnie has the top 2 highest breaks in a WC final (141 and 139). Ronnie's 11 maximums were the record at the time, and Hendry levelled it in his final season. Ronnie is the youngest UK winner - and now the second oldest WC champion. Again, it's about personal definition. I can't label someone the greatest when they were a spent force at 27, especially considering the level of opposition at the time - when your opponents were playing drinking beer or hungover and forever dropped off the world in terms of people remembering who they are, it doesn't carry as much weight in my mind. ETA: your logic also misses the point that Hendry didn't beat Ronnie to claim any of his titles. Ronnie didn't make it to those stages, for various reasons. But it's like when Allen beat Ronnie years ago, and then started boasting he'd beaten the best player in the world so was, by default, the best player in the world. Your logic is Ronnie didn't beat the player before Hendry's stage, so couldn't have beaten Hendry, which is intrinsically fallacious. You only have to look at the players Ronnie did beat, and did dominate, and indeed is dominating today, to see the gulf in his ability compared to Hendry's."


I find your post quite insulting with regard to what Hendry achieved in the 1990s. You praise O'Sullivan's achievements but I don't see you praising Hendry for winning 7 world titles in 10 years. I don't recall O'Sullivan/Higgins doing that. Oh, but that fact passes you by, right?! Ronnie is a genius at snooker, I know that but the total lack of recognition of what Hendry did in 10 years is A) disrespectful to the guy and B) trying to ignore the facts to make out O'Sullivan is better. If Ronnie wins WC titles in 10 years period than I'll admit he's the best. Until then, he ain't and I can't see it ever happening.


Actually in my very first post here I stated my respect for Hendry and said both men deserve respect for their ability and contribution to the sport.

I'm wondering if you are Hendry under a false name though, because you're taking it very personally that we prefer someone else :chin:

I've commented on Hendry's titles - aside from it being a great feat, there are certain parameters I think need to be remembered, namely how close he was to losing at least 1 of them, it being a time when you just paid to be on tour, opponents being people confined to the 'who the hell was he?' category, and of course Hendry lacking the skills to keep competing when new players came through. None of those is true with Ronnie's career - the top 16 are players who have to keep playing and winning to stay at the top, there are different winners for every tournament (except this year with Ronnie winning multiples, and Ding's recent run), Ronnie has never lost a World final, he's set records along the way, and has dominated the game for 2 separate lists of players. And he has overcome depression and separation to be where he is today.

For the umpteenth time, stats don't tell the whole story.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby webcat86

snooker_loopy wrote:
"One correction webcat, Hendry did beat Ronnie to claim 2 of his World Titles, in 1995 when he beat him 13-8 in the quarter-finals, and one of the best matches ever in Snooker, that 1999 Worlds semi match when he beat Ronnie 17-13. Also he beat him 17-13 in 2002 semi but lost on the decider to Ebdon."


Thanks for the stats. These prove Ronnie is not the best ever because Hendry beat him to win two titles (or rather beat him before the final round) - O'Sullivan couldn't stop Hendry in his prime - and anyway, as I already mentioned, Jimmy White was better than O'Sullivan in the 1990s WC tournaments. This further undermines the belief Ronnie is the greatest ever. The World Championship is the benchmark for greatness in the sport, not just 147s or highest points without a reply from your opponent. Jimmy White was a better snooker player at the WCs in the 1990s.


So? Jimmy White was a far, far more experienced player too. He was an incredible player, and his lack of professionalism to the tournament is why his reputation is the guy who didn't win, rather than the guy who beat Hendry.

Your argument is starting to show big cracks. White was the better player in the 90s (stands to reason), but by the time Ronnie was his age, he had won the WC. Fast forward to today, and Ronnie is better than White was in the 1990s. And today, Ronnie is better than Hendry was in the 1990s. He has better control of the ball, he has a safety game, he can pull off shots that Hendry himself is in awe of.

No one has said Hendry at his peak was better than Ronnie at that time, the discussion is who is better of the players at their respective peaks. Taking everything into account (including that Hendry probably should only have 6 WCs), I'm of the opinion that Ronnie is better.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby NNear

Is this missed black regarding Davis that people are on about referring to the lost final against Taylor?

Let's not make the assumption that he automatically goes down the same road afterwards and wins the titles that he did go on to win after that loss. The same goes for talking about Ronnie's personal issues.


It's dangerous to make assumptions because had Ronnie been focused he may have burned out earlier and won roughly the same amount. We can't know, and I'm inclined to think that Ronnie's greater overall talent for the game (IMO) sees him through for a longer period of time but by the same token Hendry must be credited for having the bloody mindedness to achieve unprecedented levels of dominance in his sport -- long story short: Hendry has dominance and Ronnie has longevity.

Now that I've finished my mini rant on assuming that things that did happen would remain precisely as is if other results have gone differently, some points and thoughts:


      —Do we consider who is the greatest by: titles won; absolute snooker level (as measured with some legitimacy through statistcis); relative snooker level (dominance over peers); transcendental nature of level (winning snooker spanning multiple era); revolutionary impact on the game (changes in paradigm)?

      —Hendry changed the game and was the first truly modern snooker player in the vein of the current top pros. In this sense, he was a true revolutionary and can be argued to have ushered snooker into the modern age, producing a quantum leap in paradigm and snooker execution.

      —Hendry was far more dominant than Ronnie has ever been: is this because the era was easier to dominate; because Hendry had the mindset to do it; a combination of the two -- which aspect was more critical?

      —People are discounting Davis too readily as one of Hendry's benchmark and main opponents in the earlier and even mid phases of his dominant streak.

      —Hendry was so dominant and believed so much in the way he played, that this may have led to his later stubbornness and unwillingness to adapt and develop a truly strong safety/tactical game.

      —As such, players like Higgins and O'Sullivan probably have taken the game to greater overall heights by bringing together equally lethal attacking games and combining it with true mastery of the tactical side of the game.

      —In absolute terms then, snooker overall has probably evolved and Hendry isn't the highest standard that snooker has seen but...

      —In relative terms, he achieved the greatest level of dominance and superiority over his peers, which took a massive effort on his part and having already advanced the game so far and with such ludicrous amounts of success, it's probably difficult to then once again re-engineer your game and send it through further significant evolutionary steps.

      —O'Sullivan does have some benefit in coming after Hendry and having a bigger library to digest to begin with regarding learning the game of snooker, but hasn't done as much groundwork as Hendry in evolving the game and had a more developed base to work from... having said that...

      —O'Sullivan seems to have a level of ability and talent that transcends eras and can belong in any time, rather than just being built for the purposes and convenience of one time.

      —O'Sullivan has proved to have 'Majors' winning snooker over a period of 20 years.

      —Hendry had to deal with the most ferocious era at the top of the game in history in dealing with the three musketeers (Ronnie, John, Mark) all finding their prime form, if not necessarily peak form, by the mid to late 90's. The combination of these four players playing near the top of their game is the most brilliant top elite level that's ever been seen in snooker, and there is room right now for somebody to step up and take ownership of the tour (these things may be starting to happen with O'Sullivan, Ding and Robertson).


These are just some thoughts that immediately came to mind without rehashing too much of what I've already glanced at in the thread.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby NNear

Also obviously partisan arguments as to why X player didn't achieve this or that come across as funny.

Questioning Ronnie's inability to beat Hendry in the 90's at the WC is no different to questioning Hendry's inability to win a Major title as soon as the 1975 generation had collectively matured.

No player has a flawless CV or argument.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby NNear

For anyone who cares or is wondering, in terms of 'greatness' I think Ronnie and Hendry have strong arguments. 'Greatest' is a strange word that can be taken in many ways... in short I think it's about having an overall gravitas in one's field rather than it being who is the best player or who won the most titles or who won over the longest span etc. It speaks for a sort of field of influence.

Who will be more remembered in 100 years time? That's interesting to think about.

I do want to say one other thing though:

I read the other day that it's unreasonable to ask that Ronnie produce his own period of dominance to show that he could do what Hendry did at least to a fair level for a fair amount of time. The argument was that the field is too good now. I agree the field has better strength in depth but dominance happens in many sports and it's foolish to think that snooker has hit some apex in which one man cannot become the boss. It's happened before and it will happen again, and many times to boot.

Ronnie can strike now, while the iron is hot, and build up his 'dominance' case as well as his 'longevity' case. His 'style' and 'what you can only see with your eyes' cases are already exceptionally strong.

It isn't unreasonable to think that a player can still produce a sustained period of dominance right here, right now, and when it invariably and inevitably happens in the future, do not be surprised.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby webcat86

NNear, wonderful response and I agree entirely.

There are many, many ways to define "greatest", as you point out. For me personally, I tend to gauge it on overall ability and if there was a clash of the two at the peak of their ability, who would win.

I think you've hit on something that sadly gets overlooked when this debate comes up, and is something I tried to mention in my first post by stating both men are talented players with tremendous impact on the game - namely, that by declaring one the 'winner', the other is cast aside. In truth, both players are a force to be reckoned with and both have earned their status the hard way, and both fully deserve it.

Any conversation should account for that, and be a respectable discussion about one person has certain views and another different ones. Given that our opinions won't change anything, it's pretty dumb to treat this as a "serious" issue.

NNear, to take into account your list, I would answer it like this: Hendry ushered in the modern era and dominated it. Ronnie (and every other post-Hendry player) used Hendry's playing style and innovations on the table to create his own style. Ronnie's natural talent has seen him do something seldom seen before - get better as he gets older. If he is the most talented man to play, and plays the game to a standard that, in full flow, is untouchable, that makes him the greatest in my eyes.

I entirely agree that a dominating player can and will emerge in this time. When Ronnie was taking time off, Ding emerged as that man. Robertson has shown signs of it too. When Ronnie is on, he's the dominant player. All being equal and if he keeps his head, I think Ronnie will be the dominant player of this era, as he has shown himself to be since the 2012 German Master's. He hasn't won everything, but he's won 2 Worlds, the Masters, Champion of Champions and some smaller events, and his current form is more than good enough to win the world this year too. Hopefully this is the point in his career where he shows everyone what his fans have been saying he can do for the past 20 years, but, you never know with him.

I think discounting Ronnie, Ding and Robbo will dominate - I think having 2 dominating players is highly likely. After them, I don't know who is next. Trump was everyone's hot ticket, including mine, but he isn't producing the goods now - I'm of the opinion he needs to develop his game further, particularly his temperament and safety, but in a few years he may turn into a shining star. I'm not a fan of Allen, especially as a person but also as a player.

Shane Castle truly surprised me at the UK. He ultimately lost, but for all the world to see he was pretty damn close to sending Selby home and I reckon if he'd had the TV experience already he would have done the job. For 15 years of age he is a stunning player. I'd put my money on him to be top of the pile in a few years. Other than that though, I think everyone will agree that we're going to have some serious players from China in the next era. That 3 year old slamming balls home on YouTube is probably one of many. Whether they'll be machines like Hendry or have the flair and talent of Ronnie I wouldn't like to say, but I'm pretty confident they will be there.

So yeah that's my predictions for the next 10 years - this is, finally, Ding's moment. Castle will be higher in the rankings soon and a top player in a few years. Then, China.

Mind you, I'd love to see Gould dominate! Remember when he came out of nowhere and looked set to win it? Amazing. Shame he's not been in the spotlight since, I'd like to see him get some titles.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby NNear

Shane Castle does look a prospect, no doubt, but does he really stand out among his age group? Brecel is not much older than him and recent ISBF Under-21 finalist, Zhou Yuelong, is what, 14 years of age? It seems there is a lot of talent present in that current 14 -19 age group but they are all just regular fishes in a vast blue sea at the moment. Just recently, Joel Walker reached the quarter-finals of the Welsh Open and was up 4-2 in a best of 9 against Ding Junhui. Joel's technique looked a little brittle compared to the very best cueists and comparing him to someone like Ronnie at the same age -- it's no contest. I guess my point is, these special talents are few and far between.