My view:

Stephen Hendry was lucky to turn professional in 1985. By the time he reached his prime, five years later, the players of the old-guard were well past their best, or retired. In 1991, snooker opened up to anyone who could afford the entrance fee, whereas beforehand, it was a closed shop. It was a major transition in the sport, and Hendry came along at just the right time to capitalise. The standard during this transition was significantly lower than what came before or after. Hendry was a Great, dominating in a not-so-great decade. As soon as the new breed of players like Higgins, Williams and O'Sullivan entered their prime (1996-7), his dominance in the game was extinguished within the space of a year.



Are we really to believe that the increased level of competition had nothing to do with Hendry's sudden demise? Hendry himself disagrees, and stated at the Welsh Open in 2008:

"The difference is that there are so many more good players.
It used to be the case that two or three matches would be a
doddle, before you came up against a good player. These days,
if you don't play well in the first round you'll be out."

and at Premier League in 2009:

"When i was winning things in the 90s, you could pretty much take
for granted the first two or three rounds. Nowadays the depth of
talent is far greater and one mistake and you're heading home early."

Some blame Hendry's decline solely on age, but I maintain that it was a direct result of greater pressure from better opposition. Hendry was only 27 when his dominance ended. After 1996, he won only one more major in his entire career. Before this, he had won 6 World titles, 6 Masters titles and 5 UK Championship titles. The only thing that can explain the huge drop in his success is the standard of opposition that came about during this period.

If you read about Hendry online from fans or pundits, he is sometimes portrayed as an invincible god who never missed easy shots, who never had shock defeats, and who was just so perfect that no one could hope to challenge him. The truth is he was not that good. He did suffer shock defeats, the biggest of which was to Steve James in the 1991 World Championship. He did get beaten, and he was not invincible. The crucial factor is it took over 10 years from the time he became a professional before there were opponents of the caliber needed to beat him on a regular basis. From 1990-1996, he contested six of the seven world finals, winning all six. Jimmy White also made five consecutive World Championship finals in the same period. Whilst White is a very good player, I find it hard to accept that he could have managed this feat from 1997 onwards- indeed, since 1996, only O'Sullivan has managed to defend the World Title (2013). Jimmy White was defeated in every World Championship match he contested against Hendry in his dominant years (1990,92,93,94,95).

That White and Hendry contested four of the seven World Championship finals from 1990-1996 against one another demonstrates the relative weakness of this period (1990-96). The only other players to make the World Championship final at this time were John Parrott (1991), Nigel Bond (1995) and Peter Ebdon (1996). There was little strength in depth, and had Steve James failed to defeat Hendry in 1991, it is very likely that Hendry would have had a clean sweep of titles from 1990-1996 at the World Championship.

I do not doubt that Hendry is a great player, but the evidence points to him being an overachiever. I believe title statistics give a very unfair reflection of the true picture when comparing Hendry to other players. For that matter, title statistics can give an unfair reflection of all players being compared across different periods. The reason title arguments are used in debates is because they are easy to relate to, easy to understand, and an easy way with which some fans can score a cheap victory in an argument. It comes as no surprise to me that Judd Trump and all other players competing after 1996 failed to dominate snooker. It isn't possible for one player to dominate snooker anymore. Having an excellent potting game is not enough on its own anymore.

Hendry, despite his excellent break building and potting ability, was a limited player (like Judd Trump). The opponents in his winning years were simply not good enough to punish his mistakes, so he never had to think about changing his game plan. He went into every match with supreme confidence in his potting ability, knowing that he did not require a B-game, or a better tactical game. He even called safety-play overrated. If you look at the other greats- O'Sullivan, Davis and John Higgins, for example- they have demonstrated that a good safety game can be a valuable asset, and compliment good break-building. It is surely no coincidence that these players have enjoyed far more success in their later years than Hendry did.

The problem Hendry had was that when tougher opposition arrived he could no longer afford to have an off-day. The pressure he was placed under was greater, and when his long-potting failed, he failed. Hendry made comment at the 2008 World Championship that the safety play of O'Sullivan was the best he had ever witnessed. He said that every time he came to the table there was no shot to go at. A 17 year old O'Sullivan defeated Hendry playing in the same potting style as him at the 1993 UK Championship; the mature O'Sullivan would have been an even deadlier proposition. The mature O'Sullivan trounced Hendry at the World Championship twice (17-4 and 17-6).

The conclusion I have reached is that Hendry seldom had an opponent in the early to mid 90s that could punish him or instill fear into him. He played matches during this time with ultra confidence, something he was not afforded the luxury of later in his career. Pressure, and the ability to deal with pressure, is a massive consideration when evaluating a player's ability. Hendry's legendary mental strength is largely a false perception which has been based upon his dominant years. It is clear that when confronted with tougher opponents (compared to 1990-1996) such as John Higgins, Ronnie O'Sullivan, Mark Williams, Shaun Murphy, Neil Robertson and Mark Selby, he cannot maintain a faultless composure. All players succumb to pressure when they are being challenged more, and it is my assertion that the Hendry of 1990-1996 was seldom challenged. Any great player that is not challenged enough will play with a seemingly invincible psyche, and will dominate their sport.

I am not underestimating Hendry's mental strength or his 'bottle'. It is clear that he beats many players in this department hands down (so do O'Sullivan, Williams, Higgins, Davis and a number of great champions). His mental stability will always be greater than O'Sullivan's, and his composure is as high as the other greats, but the reason they once never seemed to fail him is because he was placed under very little pressure in his dominant years. The fact he stopped winning UK Championship titles and Masters titles in 1996 at the age of 27 (and won 17 of his 18 majors in this period), says a lot in itself about how the new generation affected his success.

Hendry's titles are always used as the main argument for his greatness, but titles are dependent on WHO you are playing; they are a major variable. If I played a rank 100 player 1000 times, I would probably lose 1000 times. Does that mean they are the greatest snooker player? You cannot know until you have studied his opponent... and when you found out that it was me, and that my highest break is less than 40, you would hardly be surprised that he dominated.

It is my assertion that had O'Sullivan, Higgins and Williams turned pro in 1985, that Hendry would not have won seven World Championship titles, or as many ranking titles as he did. One can only speculate on how many titles they would have shared, but it seems rather apparent that Hendry would not have dominated. O'Sullivan and Higgins have had far more success in their 30s than Hendry did, which would have an effect on the final title counts; this argument also assumes that Hendry could maintain playing at his best in his prime years, something he was unable to do after suffering numerous defeats from 1997 onwards.

I do not believe any player can dominate the game today. No player since Davis and Hendry has managed to dominate, and questions have to asked as to why that is. It's my belief that this is mostly due to the increased level of competition in the current game, and some former professionals agree with me (including Davis, White and Virgo). Snooker was a closed shop until the game was opened up to everybody 1991; it was inevitable that the overall standard would then improve.

I am not knocking Hendry's achievements or saying O'sullivan is miles ahead of Hendry. Not at all. After close examination of the 50+, 100+, 147 break averages, and head to head statistics, it becomes clear that the difference between O'Sullivan and Hendry is small, but significant. I feel O'sullivan is the greater of the two because (to name a few things):

*He makes the game look easier than anyone else. His speed and accuracy are amazing (a maximum break in 5 minutes 20 seconds is a phenomenal feat which Hendry could not hope to achieve). O'Sullivan doesn't even have to check angles sometimes, his game can flow completely naturally. Hendry's best play was never as effortless as this:



Tony Drago is often used as a counter argument to this, but With speed must come the accuracy. No one has the speed, accuracy and success that O'Sullivan commands at a sustained level. Not even Alex Higgins (well noted for losing position with the cue-ball) was as fast and fluent as Ronnie O'Sullivan is.

* He has performed on-table feats that no one has equalled, such as 5 centuries and a 147 in a best-of-9 match.

* His safety game is far better than Hendry's safety game. Hendry never practiced to have one as a weapon which is a major reason why he was punished later in his career.

* O'Sullivan's Maximum Break Average is higher than Hendry's. He managed to compile ten maximums before Hendry, having played seven seasons less.

* O'Sullivan's century average is higher than Hendry's
Hendry finished his career with 775 centuries in 27 seasons, against O'Sullivan's 682 in 20 seasons. O'Sullivan managed to achieve his first 100 centuries in 5 seasons, compared to Hendry in 6 seasons. O'Sullivan has already compiled more centuries than Hendry at the Masters and at the World Championship, and is expected to overtake Hendry's other total records sometime in 2014-2015, should he continue to play on tour.

Major Tournaments (as of 07.May.2013).


In major competition (above), the statistics demonstrate that O'Sullivan makes a century once every 11 frames, to Hendry's 13 frames. Similarly, O'Sullivan's Maximum Break average is notably higher. If O'Sullivan plays as many frames as Hendry has, he is expected to comfortably beat Hendry in all departments of break-building.

* O'Sullivan plays both handed. This is a true indicator of talent. O'Sullivan had to practice this for many years and it has become a lethal weapon. It is an area in which he is superior to Hendry, and all players. He is often able to discard the rest in favour of better accuracy. He plays snooker with the left hand extremely well and is capable of compiling century breaks with it.

*O'Sullivan has achieved his records (13 majors as of 07.May.2013) dealing with tougher opposition and greater strength in depth.

*O'Sullivan has demolished Hendry on two separate occasions:
17-4 (WC 2004) and 17-6 (WC 2008). Hendry was unable to do this to O'Sullivan in his own peak years.

*O'Sullivan is leading Hendry significantly in their head to head (and it is easier to use this stat when we have such a large period of time and matches to compare). O'Sullivan has a superior head-to-head, in Hendry's prime. Hendry has been unable to equal that ground in O'Sullivan's prime. It is closer between the "Big 4" in major competitions (mainly because there have been less matches played)

*O'Sullivan has been able to stay in contention for titles over a longer duration. Hendry won all but one of his Majors in a seven year period of time, which he himself states, had less talented opponents on the whole.

*O'Sullivan has had to fight against personal demons, severe depression, and seriously detrimental social factors (like the fact his father was jailed for murder). Hendry, like most snooker players, was a generic kid who had an extremely stable family, stable upbringing and the silver-spoon treatment. That is not Hendry's fault, or O'Sullivan's fault, it is simply how it ended up. I would personally place O'Sullivan's 13 majors on par with Hendry's 18, even if they had competed at the same time and age, simply because I believe O'Sullivan has had to contend with so much more in his life, and had to be a much stronger person than Hendry to achieve what he has. O'Sullivan has never had a sustained consistency for this very reason.

The argument of who is the greatest player all depends on how you define "greatest". I personally define it in terms of best play and on-table achievements, rather than titles or consistency. Both Hendry and O'Sullivan are amazing players in their own right- they are both giants. To reduce this argument to one simple statistic of how many titles they have in total is to ignore all other relevant arguments; it is to ignore that this is a complex argument involving complex biological beings. It is not fair to reduce this to a single numerical value. Life is not that simple.

Well, I've read what oneball and others have said on this matter, and I will state my case once again.

Hendry is the most fearsome player the game has ever seen. When he matured from 21 years of age onwards (1990), he set a standard which was untouchable by his contemporaries from 1990-96.

O'Sullivan, Higgins & Williams all turned pro circa 1992. No youngster can come along and dominate immediately, something even Hendry couldn't do in the 80's when he turned professional. As in Hendry's case, these boys only started to mature from 20/21 years of age onwards (1996).

It is absolutely no coincidence in my book that after 1996 although still performing brilliantly, Hendry has only managed to win 1 world title whereas the other 3 have won 7 combined. In fact Hendry has only won 9 ranking events since 1997 which means he won 27 prior to that- again not a coincidence in my book. And I am certainly not going to accept the weak argument that Hendry's game wasn't up to scratch in 97, 98 or 99 for that matter. In fact wasn't it in 2002 that Hendry set a record at the Crucible for most centuries scored which stands to this day? (16)

No, it is no coincidence for me. Hendry deserves the maximum respect for what he has achieved and the standard he set. I personally would not argue against anybody calling him the 'greatest', and even O'Sullivan and most commentators if pushed would always side with Hendry.

But in terms of individual displays of amazing, awesome and destructive performances that have been breathtaking, then O'Sullivan is the one for me, and even Hendry has stated on many occasions that Ronnie is the most talented player he has ever played or been humbled by. Who can forget the 2005 Masters final against top-class opposition in the form of John Higgins where O'Sullivan trounced him 10-3 with a 97% match pot success rate.

"I missed a couple but what could I do," Higgins sighed. "He [O'Sullivan] is playing to a standard we've probably not seen in the game before. Somehow the rest of us have got to try and catch up. It was great to watch even though I was on the receiving end."

For me, O'Sullivan has displayed the greatest snooker I've ever seen. But until he does it consistently, he can't be called the greatest.

cool thread

doesn't go down well at 606 sadly, they just get it removed to silence the truth. Any case, I now have the century break list for all players and will update the stat page soon. Also have to update the section about Ronnie in the Majors.

The problem is, people who can't accept that my argument has a lot of truth in it, either resort to abuse, or repeat their same arguments again and again. None of them have been able to explain adequately, why:

a. If Hendry was so far ahead of every player in history, he stopped winning UK and Masters titles at the age of 27 in 1996. There are a few sad excuses flying around for this one including "He was past his prime", "He was sick of winning", "He hadn't got any hunger anymore". All of these are excuses and they sound as pathetic as they are false.

b. He only managed to win 1 world title after 1996.

c. No player has managed to reach 5 consecutive world finals, since White did in the same period of time 1990-94. Saying "Jimmy White was a great player", doesn't answer this question, especially since Williams, Higgins and O'Sullivan are far better players than White.

If the era (1989-96) was just as strong as 97-present, why don't any of the stats support that claim? The break building stats don't support it, the win stats don't support it, logic doesn't support it, and even common sense doesn't support it.

These questions are never answered, they are simply shunned by people accusing me of "Hating Hendry" or "Putting his record down". What other way can anyone debate this subject without reducing the meaning of Hendry's win stats? This isn't about any personal vendetta or about ridiculing a great like Hendry, it is about THE TRUTH. And the truth, as much as some people like to con you otherwise, is that 1989-96 was one of the weakest periods in Snooker. Hendry is a great champion and he came along at just the right time to take full advantage of it.

Davis was past his best, and passing on the torch, leaving only White and Parrott as players with ANY chance of challenging Hendry. White had severe issues with bottle, and Parrott was far too inconsistent. There was NOBODY around in their prime to challenge Hendry.

All of his stats have been elevated far above what they would be otherwise. It is impossible to know what would have happened if he, White, O'Sullivan, Higgins and Williams had all turned pro in 1985, but one thing is almost certain, Hendry would not have near 18 Major titles.

I am not against people using win stats to form a part of a comparison argument, they are a valuable stat, but one must realise their limitation when comparing great players separated by 7 years and circumstances. That's why a whole range of stats are needed and an appreciation of the player strength and depth of the time. The people I "debated" this with on 606 are the same old crew who make excuses for the stats not showing what they want them to. At the beginning I got "Hendry has more centuries!", then when I mentioned averages I got "But Ronnie will go into decline too!!" and then when Ronnie took over the Masters century record and there is a good chance he will overtake all records, it became "But it was easier to make centuries on these tables than it was in Hendry's prime" and what other words can I use for that other than- Pathetic Bullshit Excuse.

If, in 20 years, we still have great players unable to dominate and the strength in depth remains as strong as it currently is, how on earth do people think we are going to fairly go about comparing players? We certainly won't be able to use win stats as a strong argument and nor will future generations. It will come to a point where people will just draw a line under it and understand these arguments are more than just "Who won what, and how many?" It isn't even fair today... Comparing Davis and Hendry on win stats is as ridiculous as comparing O'Sullivan to Hendry or Murphy to Spencer.

I think most people who oppose the stats, facts and other strong arguments on this subject, do so simply because they either dislike O'Sullivan or support Hendry, and if that's the case, I feel sorry for them.

One thing I havent heard you talk about on the subject of comparisons is players performance relative to standards of the day..

By that i mean all sportspeople in general operate on benchmarks and whether theyre aware of it or not they do perform accordingly..not unlike atheletes attempting to break the 4min mile...it was deemed to be a barrier until it was eventually broken then the flood gates opened.

Davis as ruthless a competitor he was still dominated over greats such as Alex H purely because his game was more refined than anyone elses...When Hendry came along the same applied....his overall technique and game as a whole proved to be more dominant and as such allowed him to reside over the mantle..

The issue i want to address is the one of MENTAL influence in the game as opposed to stats which although reflect factual outcomes dont portray the full emotional and psychological energies that are exchanged on the table and how they can effect outcomes in matches and careers in general...Precision long range potting, exacting safety exchanges cuopled with prolific breakbuilding can be amassed through heightened awareness and sense of urgency that is ever present in players minds as they pit their skills against each other. In the time that ROS came onto the scene...Hendry was initially the stronger of the two because of overall bottle and of course superior breakbuilding capability...he cultivated a benchmark that most werent able to cope with hence his reign of dominance

Once Ronnie became accustomed to the level of play that was required to beat Hendry, he realized he was not only able to produce a game of equivalent proportion but was capable of producing one that was able to supersede what was deemed to be the benchmark of the day.

During their titanic struggle, fans became excited @ the sheer brilliance that was achieved as these two extremely gifted players were able to play to the consistently high standard that others could only dream about.. They aspired to a level that bordered on the impossible.. They clearly produced the best snooker of them all and infact were able to encapsulate a rareity in the game that can only come about in a lifetime. Their performances were always of a high standard where both were able to produce their best in SIMULTANEOUS fashion and continued to do so until things began to slip away for Hendry. The changing of the guard eventuated and since then Ronnie has in my view been in first gear in nearly all of his appearances simply because the magical ingredients necessary to replicate his true greatness is absent from the arena...The magic I speak of wasnt evident as much in subsequent matches with other players simply because Hendry was KING and he was the player to beat....yes we know about stats but what im saying is that when your game is honed and your mental state is heightened to a point where HEndo and Osullivans were @ the time wonderous things can be achieved. JHiggins Williams etc are still around but for mine HENDRY OSULLIVAN era was undoubtably the best of them all.

The impossibility of debate on this subject. From facebook:

Peter Love: Averages dont matter till he takes hendry's centuary record, Hendry was already a 7 time world champion at ronnie's age now....

Daniel Burke: averages do matter. It is absurd to try and suggest hendry is better than ronnie breakbuilding wise whenm Ronnie is 7 years behind hendry and already has more 147's and more centuries at the masters and well on course to overtake world championship. And hendry had a much weaker era from 89-96 than ronnie williams and higgins have had from 92-present. Hendry won only 1 major after 1996. That speaks for itself.

When hendry was entering in his prime years (age 21) there was no one to really stop him aside from Jimmy White. When Hig wil ron were in their prime it was 1997 onwards and the talent was greater, not to mention they were fighting each other for titles.

Kerry Warner: Stephen Hendry is the better player by far and what's more he in more of a sportsman too - so Ronnie has made more 147's, Hendry has won more World titles, more ranking titles and has more 100 breaks to his name - I should say that the stats speak for themselves.

Peter Love So 95 doesent count then when hendry beat ronnie on his way to the world title that year? How come ronnie didebt win world title between 95-99 if the field was weak he got beat off hendry again in 99 and 2002!

Kerry Warner: Well said Peter. People also see to forget how Ronnie just walked out on a match when playing Hendry how unprofessional is that. Would Hendry ever do that no not even if he was losing 18-0. he has more pride both in the sport and himself.

Peter Love: Yeh exactly hendry and davis great temrement for snooker for both well over 20 years now there a credit to there sport there both going to brazil aswell but guess which person is not going lol?

Kerry Warner: Enought said. The same as the one who couldn't be bothered to go to Australia I guess!

Peter Love: Yep!

Daniel Burke: Unfortunately, win records and title records are dependent on who you are playing. hendry's 7 is impressive but he had no wil, hig or ron in their prime years to face, only Jimmy White in 4 of the 7 finals (and 1 semi which made up one of them). I hardly call that on par with what the other big 4 had to face. Ronnie is statistically the greatest break builder of all time. That isn't an opinion. It is a reality.

Kerry Warner: That isn't true. If you get to the final(as all the great players say themselves) you have to be good. so it really doesn't matter who is on the other side. as regards to break building Hendry has made the highest number of breaks FACT so ...See more

Daniel Burke: Yeah you do have to be good, but atre you telling me that who you play against makes no difference to titles? Joe Davis would like a word with you Hendry has played 7 more years and far more frames than Ronnie. Statistically Ronnie is the greatest break builder. There is no debate.

We aren't debating what ronnie is like as a professional sportsman. It seems to me like you have some serious issue with Ronnie which isn't uncommon. If we have to choose which players put bums on seats, I think White, A. Higgins and O'Sullivan come far ahead of Hendry, and as far as I am concerned, for all of O'Sullivans negative traits, that one is a huge positive because it keeps the game alive. IN all the years Hendry has played he has only ever played for himself. He is unanimated, robotic, and always looks dour.

And moreover, he is too stubborn to adapt his game, which is why he has failed to win more than 1 major after 27 years old in 1996. That tells its own story about how a tougher era can affect title wins.

Peter Love: Hendry has the records until ronnie breaks them no debate

Kerry Warner: As hHendry has said many times, He is there tow win not to entertain the crowds. He is totally forcused what is wrong with that. When you get to the top in any job that is the way you have to be. I agree Ronnie does pull the crowds in but that isn't the nature of the game. You can think Ronnie is the best and I will think is the best, but title tell it all and until Hendry's record have been matched or betten at what ever thier ages(Pointless fact) hendry will go down in all the record books as the greatest regardles of what you or I think.

Kerry Warner: Well said Peter

Daniel Burke: "Hendry has the records until ronnie breaks them no debate" < but he doesn't have the records in break building. That's the whole point

And no one is going to beat Hendry's title haul because it came in a far weaker era (and hendry admits that). We would need to go back to that standard and have another great come along at the correct time. Won't happen for a long time, if ever.

Although if you add up the titles that Steve Davis acquired before they were made ranking events, he actually holds the record over Hendry. And Joe Davis has more world championships. So even by your selective and rather short sighted view, Hendry is not the greatest.

Kerry Warner: so then Joe Davies is better than Ronnie who you have said was the greatest. Ronnie himself has said Hendry is better than him many time I seem to recall

Daniel Burke: I am illustrating the uselessness of your argument.

Peter Love: Listen to ur idle ronnie he will give you the answer on who's the greatest like in his book and countless interviews that he has given the answer hendry u can equatw anything u want but thats not going to alter the record books is it!

Kerry Warner again well said Peter. The facts and stats say it all and Hendry beats Ronnie everytime except in 147's

Daniel Burke: Yes I have heard this argument a ton of times, but tell me a pro which says "I am the greatest it is true"? Are you seriously trying to suggest that Ronnie would admit he is the greatest when in fact, he is always self loathing (one of his well known traits). It is up to the complete records to decide that and history. And in break building, that argument is over. It is a matter of fact and reality that O'Sullivan is the greatest break builder of all time. Who is the greatest player? That has a ton of arguments associated with it. I give my complete answer here: viewtopic.php?f=53&t=3936

Hendry also doesn't beat Ronnie every time. In Break building stats Ronnie is ahead and in H2H ronnie is ahead including 9-4 in finals viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1087

I have made my argument, I know that the usual suspects will go round and around in a state of denial, but the records speak for themselves and so do the break building averages.

Kerry Warner: so Have I

Very often people will tell you that Hendry of the 90's was "unstoppable" but this is a nonsense. As we again saw today, when he is not placed under any pressure, he plays the game to a very high standard. But that is where his problem lies. When Hendry is placed under pressure, he falls apart. In the 90's, he basically had the world title in his pocket from the minute he cued off in Round 1. It was Jimmy White in 4 of the finals he faced which gives you an indication of the kind of opposition there was back then... none.

I always see this myth spouted that Hendry was "unstoppable" but even at his best he had shock losses like 1991 world championship against Steve James. He wasn't unstoppable at all... he just had ultra confidence because there was no one there to oppose him or challenge him. When the newcomers of the game hit their prime in 1996-7, his title hauls suddenly dried up.

It gets very tiring for me to read this nonsense that Hendry was invincible. He wasn't. Even a 17 year old O'Sullivan beat him in the UK final, and overall Ronnie holds 9-4 advantage in finals. People who continually go on about how much Hendry won, or how much he dominated, ignore the reason behind it. Yes he is a great player but he had a very weak era.

He has won nothing since 2005, and 17 of 18 majors before he was 28 years old. For all the nonsense that goes around about "God Hendry" the sobering reality is he was made to look that good because of his weaker opponents in the 90's.

got to agree with you one this Dan

Is the head to head O'sullivan vs Hendry 38 - 23 for Ronnie correct?

According to Clive Everton it is... I have the H2H as 31-21 and 5 draws. See viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1087

I have now updated my main post and rewritten parts of it. It had some rather bad sentences.

Updated again.... many more fixes to grammar and spelling. One of the professional articles I quoted also used "your" and not "you're". Tut.

A nice post I made over 2 years ago.

A good post, there do seem to be a lot of contradictions in the arguments of people that think Hendry is better than Ronnie.

If only World titles matter then Joe Davis is the best. If you are talking about overall pro titles then Steve Davis is the best and yet these pure "titles" arguments seem to be used to justify putting Hendry as the best ever! It doesn't make any sense unless you add some subjective assessment of era strength, but where exactly does one era end and another begin? How do you decide the strength of an era? The number of titles contested in a season fluctuates wildly over the years, that is also a problem. My point is you simply can't take an objective idea like number of World titles won, adjust it according to some subjective ideas and then claim it is still an objective measure of all time greatness, it isn't; if you've won seven world titles all that shows on it's own is that you've won seven world titles.

That's precisely what it is.... they don't understand what debate, reason and a forum is. They think it means force everyone to believe as they do and ignore all stats, facts and arguments unless they back up their beliefs. Eventually they get to the stage where they give up all pretences and state "7-4!" , as if that is trump card or something. The truth is, they are like mindless followers of a religion. They have no intention of listening or changing their mind.

If people did reason properly, there would be no nasty arguments online and we would all get on. That's why I gave up with forums and why I hardly ever post anywhere but here. It's pointless... even recently I got the same "Part of the game" responses at another forum. What is the point talking to people who aren't listening?

Updated again. I am a bit better with the English language now too.


Also added:

Who stopped Hendry dominating:

Age

1997: 28
1998: 29
1999: 30
2000: 31
2001: 32
2002: 33
2003: 34

World

1997 FINAL: Doherty: Turned pro 1990
1998 R1: White: Turned pro: 1980
1999: WON
2000 R1: Bingham: Turned pro: 1995
2001 QF: Stevens: Turned pro: 1994
2002 FINAL: Ebdon: Turned pro: 1991
2003 QF: Williams: Turned Pro: 1992

Masters:

1997 QF: O'Sullivan: Turned Pro: 1992
1998 FINAL: Williams: Turned Pro: 1992
1999 R1: Drago: Turned Pro: 1985
2000 R2: Doherty: Turned Pro: 1990
2001 SF: Hunter: Turned Pro: 1995
2002 QF: Williams: Turned Pro: 1992
2003 FINAL: Williams: Turned Pro: 1992

UK:

1997 FINAL: O'Sullivan: Turned Pro: 1992
1998 R1: Campbell: Turned Pro: 1991
1999 SF: Williams: Turned Pro: 1992
2000 SF: Higgins: Turned Pro: 1992
2001 QF: Williams: Turned Pro: 1992
2002 QF: Williams: Turned Pro: 1992
2003: FINAL Stevens: Turned pro: 1994

If he really was past it, he would not have made 7 finals in 21 events, winning 1.

There is another interesting fact here. Jimmy White made 5 consecutive finals of a world championship 1990,91,92,93 and 94 and met Hendry in 4 of them. Hendry made 6 of the 7 finals in 1990,91,92,93,94,95,96.

If the era was as strong as today, you would expect a variance but from 1989-96 it is clear that the only 2 players in their prime capable of playing to a high standard were Hendry and White. In the 7 world championships 1990 through to 1996, White made 5 of the 7 finals, and Hendry 6 of the 7.

In the Masters, Hendry made 6 consecutive finals from 1989 through to 1994, winning 5 consecutively.

In the UK, White or Hendry made a final (10 consecutive) from 1988 to 1997.

Can you really imagine any player today, no matter how good being able to do that?

You simply can't get away with that today. It is obvious to me that 1989-1996 was the weakest period in Snooker. Hendry was a great player who was so far ahead that he tore through the field like tinfoil.

It would have been good if we had Hendry, Steve Davis, Williams, Reardon, Alex, Joe Davis, O'Sullivan and John Higgins all at their peak in the same era to see what would have happened, but it seems self evident that the win and title stats would better reflect reality. The current stats certainly do not.

Hendry's greatest rivals 1989-95 were

Darren Morgan (13-1)
Alain Robidoux (7-0)
Jimmy White (33-16)
Alan Mcmanus (25-9)
John Parrott (24-14)
James Wattana (16-5)
Nigel Bond (14-4)

H2H are in brackets, Hendry first.

As you can see, apart from Parrott and White (outside the majors), Hendry had a free reign. He was simply too good for the field. He strolled to victories. There isn't one player who he had any hard time against from 89-95.

Ronnie rewrote the history books. This has been updated.

Since Ronnie has overtaken Hendry at the Crucible in centuries, I am going to compare them up to this point in terms of frames played.





Even if you factor age into it, Ronnie leads. But more striking is how Ronnie has maintained his best snooker well into his 30s. This is one thing that is always missed in this argument. People always go on about how Hendry had a great decade... but they never seem to give praise to O'sullivan for doing what Hendry couldn't in later years.

Looking at these figures, if Ronnie played same number of frames as Hendry, he would be on around 170 centuries.