2021 World Championships

[Odrl]

you were implying last week that o Sullivan isn't as good now as he was in 99 because Trump and Selby have been ranked higher than him for a long time

That was in response to Steve Davis supposedly saying that the best player at the moment also has to be the best player of all time by default. We hear people saying that O'Sullivan is "as good as he's ever been" or words to that effect all the time, while also claiming that O'Sullivan is the best player ever. What I was trying to say was that O'Sullivan quite clearly hasn't been the best player in the world for some time, so one of those statements cannot possibly be true. You hear that about Higgins and Williams too, which I find pretty ludicrous.

I don't know about 1999, as that was before O'Sullivan was World champion, but I do think he was a better player in 2004 or 2008 than he is now, and I also think he would be world number 1 ahead of Trump or Selby if he played at that level today.

do any of these stats or deductions you or I post perhaps indicate that it's harder for younger players to break through now than then , do you really think if 1997 alain robidoux was transported into the 2021 crucible that he'd make the semi final now , and if you perhaps want to use Gary Wilson in 2019 Wilson was much better than robidoux then , I did actually watch snooker then and I'm not making any empty platitudes , why would I have any need to , what bias would I be peddling.

Obviously it's difficult to imagine scenarios like these, especially with runs that are anomalies rather than what you would typically expect from a particular player. But to answer your other question, I guess having lower-ranked players playing at the standard of Gary Wilson does make it quite hard for players to break through, but I still stand by my opinion that the level of young players today is especially poor. Apart from Yan Bingtao, no one has had any real impact in the game. Never before has a generation of players had such poor results against players 15 or more years older than them. Even if we accept the premise that O'Sullivan and the others have maintained their standard into their 40s, each generation that follows has had fewer players being able to play at that level, so the average age of top players is just getting higher and higher as a result.

I mean, we can group players by their date of birth and compare them directly. If we take the five best players from each generation, it would look something like this:

1971-1975: Ronnie O'Sullivan, John Higgins, Mark Williams, Stephen Lee, Alan McManus
1976-1980: Stuart Bingham, Graeme Dott, Paul Hunter, Matthew Stevens, Ali Carter
1981-1985: Mark Selby, Neil Robertson, Shaun Murphy, Stephen Maguire, Ricky Walden
1986-1990: Judd Trump, Ding Junhui, Mark Allen, Liang Wenbo, ...Jimmy Robertson?
1991-1995: Kyren Wilson, Luca Brecel, Anthony McGill, Michael White, Jack Lisowski
1996-2000: Yan Bingtao, Zhou Yuelong, Zhao Xintong, Alexander Ursenbacher, Lyu Haotian (going purely by rankings here due to their complete lack of notable results thus far)

You can change the years to have certain players fall into the group above or below them, but it's not going to obscure the big picture. The level quite obviously drops once you get to the more recent generations.

[mikee]

A clip came up on YouTube of Ronnie v Peter Ebdon in the 1997 World Championship ,O’Sullivan was brilliant ,yes his safety game may be better these days but no way is he a better player now ,he was a natural potting machine ,just like Alex Higgins was in the 70’s .it was the 80’s when I started to watch snooker and learn to play and I thought Alex was a genius ,but I never believed he was kind of shot and done by then ,I was always told how good he was back in the day ,but I was never interested or able to to view matches then to see how good he really was .We are lucky now we can all watch players on the internet and compare various stats and eras at the click of a button .Watching Alex Higgins at 22 v Ronnie O’Sullivan at 22 in a pre set time would be a joy to behold .Kieron Wilson may be the best example of a really good player these days that just dosent have that certain one thing to be great ,he may luck himself a World title in a year or two but he’s not in the same class as Hendry ,Trump ,Williams ,Alex Higgins ,John Higgins ,Steve Davis etc .Wilson says he’s learning and getting better but Neil Foulds summed it up perfectly ,Hendry had 6 World titles in his pocket at Wilson’s age .Wilson is more a slightly better Dott, Ebdon ,Hawkins type but not quite a Robertson .Maybe the problem with snooker in the Uk is that most people just don’t want to play it so much these days ,too much other stuff to do ,I mean why would a young person want to get really good at snooker when they can play Tour of duty on line with their mates .It’s a catch 22 situation ,more clubs close ,less people play ,it’s hard for us all on here to understand because we all love the game ,but the reality is we are in the minority.

[JimMalone]

do any of these stats or deductions you or I post perhaps indicate that it's harder for younger players to break through now than then , do you really think if 1997 alain robidoux was transported into the 2021 crucible that he'd make the semi final now , and if you perhaps want to use Gary Wilson in 2019 Wilson was much better than robidoux then , I did actually watch snooker then and I'm not making any empty platitudes , why would I have any need to , what bias would I be peddling.

I think we've been here before.
You can't just transform a player from an era one-to-one. A player will always adapt to the given times, what is the standard, what is the techniqe, how well are the tables playing, what are the training methods. Of course every sport develops. If you put Bjorn Borg, who was the greatest tennis player of his era into todays environment, letting him play his kind of strokes, he would have no chance against a player, who is number 200 in the world. But given his talent and determination if he was born in 1990 and would have had the same environment to grow into tennis he would be a top player as well.

It's always difficult to judge different eras and therefore in individual sports titles are an important factor if you try to do so.

[JimMalone]

That was in response to Steve Davis supposedly saying that the best player at the moment also has to be the best player of all time by default. We hear people saying that O'Sullivan is "as good as he's ever been" or words to that effect all the time, while also claiming that O'Sullivan is the best player ever. What I was trying to say was that O'Sullivan quite clearly hasn't been the best player in the world for some time, so one of those statements cannot possibly be true. You hear that about Higgins and Williams too, which I find pretty ludicrous.

I don't know about 1999, as that was before O'Sullivan was World champion, but I do think he was a better player in 2004 or 2008 than he is now, and I also think he would be world number 1 ahead of Trump or Selby if he played at that level today.




Obviously it's difficult to imagine scenarios like these, especially with runs that are anomalies rather than what you would typically expect from a particular player. But to answer your other question, I guess having lower-ranked players playing at the standard of Gary Wilson does make it quite hard for players to break through, but I still stand by my opinion that the level of young players today is especially poor. Apart from Yan Bingtao, no one has had any real impact in the game. Never before has a generation of players had such poor results against players 15 or more years older than them. Even if we accept the premise that O'Sullivan and the others have maintained their standard into their 40s, each generation that follows has had fewer players being able to play at that level, so the average age of top players is just getting higher and higher as a result.

I mean, we can group players by their date of birth and compare them directly. If we take the five best players from each generation, it would look something like this:

1971-1975: Ronnie O'Sullivan, John Higgins, Mark Williams, Stephen Lee, Alan McManus
1976-1980: Stuart Bingham, Graeme Dott, Paul Hunter, Matthew Stevens, Ali Carter
1981-1985: Mark Selby, Neil Robertson, Shaun Murphy, Stephen Maguire, Ricky Walden
1986-1990: Judd Trump, Ding Junhui, Mark Allen, Liang Wenbo, ...Jimmy Robertson?
1991-1995: Kyren Wilson, Luca Brecel, Anthony McGill, Michael White, Jack Lisowski
1996-2000: Yan Bingtao, Zhou Yuelong, Zhao Xintong, Alexander Ursenbacher, Lyu Haotian (going purely by rankings here due to their complete lack of notable results thus far)

You can change the years to have certain players fall into the group above or below them, but it's not going to obscure the big picture. The level quite obviously drops once you get to the more recent generations.

I don't think it's quite fair to already include that last group. You still have to give them a few years (despite that I can't really imagine more than two of them making an impact over the next five years).

[mikee]

I forgot to add Selby and Reardon in my last post as true greats ,both very similar style too ,Reardon like Selby had to be prized off the table .

[John Flaf]

A Q for Odrl, wouldn't it make a difference from say the class of '92 ( and before ) turning pro at the tender age's of 16-17 to todays players? You don't see many youngsters around now turning pro at that age, I guess thay must wait until 20-21. In that senario your stats stack up.

[Odrl]

A Q for Odrl, wouldn't it make a difference from say the class of '92 ( and before ) turning pro at the tender age's of 16-17 to todays players? You don't see many youngsters around now turning pro at that age, I guess thay must wait until 20-21. In that senario your stats stack up.

Are you saying young players today develop later because they are generally older when they turn pro?

[vmax]

A clip came up on YouTube of Ronnie v Peter Ebdon in the 1997 World Championship ,O’Sullivan was brilliant ,yes his safety game may be better these days but no way is he a better player now ,he was a natural potting machine ,just like Alex Higgins was in the 70’s .it was the 80’s when I started to watch snooker and learn to play and I thought Alex was a genius ,but I never believed he was kind of shot and done by then ,I was always told how good he was back in the day ,but I was never interested or able to to view matches then to see how good he really was .We are lucky now we can all watch players on the internet and compare various stats and eras at the click of a button .Watching Alex Higgins at 22 v Ronnie O’Sullivan at 22 in a pre set time would be a joy to behold .Kieron Wilson may be the best example of a really good player these days that just dosent have that certain one thing to be great ,he may luck himself a World title in a year or two but he’s not in the same class as Hendry ,Trump ,Williams ,Alex Higgins ,John Higgins ,Steve Davis etc .Wilson says he’s learning and getting better but Neil Foulds summed it up perfectly ,Hendry had 6 World titles in his pocket at Wilson’s age .Wilson is more a slightly better Dott, Ebdon ,Hawkins type but not quite a Robertson .Maybe the problem with snooker in the Uk is that most people just don’t want to play it so much these days ,too much other stuff to do ,I mean why would a young person want to get really good at snooker when they can play Tour of duty on line with their mates .It’s a catch 22 situation ,more clubs close ,less people play ,it’s hard for us all on here to understand because we all love the game ,but the reality is we are in the minority.

You can watch all the old video you like and try to compare different eras, but unless you actually played in those eras using the same equipment you have no idea just how good the players were back in whatever day.
I feel that Joe Davis would spank any modern player in the conditions he had but wouldn't stand a chance today, you can only use and try to overcome what's given to you.
If only we had extensive video of all the old players winning their titles, I for one would have loved to see Joe Davis in his prime on those old tables with billiard cut pockets playing the run through, side spin game in a two week world final match rather than bludgeoning his way around the table with deep screw and power stun run throughs that we have today. The snooker then was a different class, had to be as the balls were heavier and the tables slower and the pockets smaller.

[mikee]

You can watch all the old video you like and try to compare different eras, but unless you actually played in those eras using the same equipment you have no idea just how good the players were back in whatever day.
I feel that Joe Davis would spank any modern player in the conditions he had but wouldn't stand a chance today, you can only use and try to overcome what's given to you.
If only we had extensive video of all the old players winning their titles, I for one would have loved to see Joe Davis in his prime on those old tables with billiard cut pockets playing the run through, side spin game in a two week world final match rather than bludgeoning his way around the table with deep screw and power stun run throughs that we have today. The snooker then was a different class, had to be as the balls were heavier and the tables slower and the pockets smaller.

Not true on the pockets ,there was no regulation on pocket size then ,watch that video of Joe Davis making a century ,the middles are that big he nearly fell in one leaning over the table .A lot of the tables Joe Davis played on were steel cushions which had and still do have shorter rails ,granted the balls were crap and the cloths slow ,but he wasn’t playing on billiard cut pockets on that break ,far from it .Joe Davis did lots of great things to bring snooker on ,but he had no competition ,comparing different eras I would put him towards the bottom of the list if he had his time around now .

[vmax]

,comparing different eras I would put him towards the bottom of the list if he had his time around now .

Well I just watched that video again and the grainy footage doesn't reveal the definate outline of the middle pocket jaws, the fuzzy shadows may make them look big, but behind the pocket footage of the corners show they aren't cut straight from the fall so are narrower after the fall which makes them a billiard cut.

You can't compare different eras unless time travel was a reality. You can't transport Selby back to 1927 and take away all the knowledge gained from the history of the game from that point and then leave him at the mercy of the man who set the template for snooker. Selby didn't start from scratch like Joe Davis did and what you think and where you put Joe on what list is pure conjecture based on nothing more than grainy old video footage of a 61 year old Joe Davis, as he was in that video, fast as Ronnie, two handed and missed a ball down the side rail that would drop in today for what would have been a total clearance.

[mikee]

well I can see the under cut on those pockets ,small or not there is no telling where the slate fall was either ,so as you say it’s pure conjecture .I’m sure Trump or O’Sullivan would make big breaks on those tables after a day or two and Joe likewise would score heavy on the modern set up .it’s not about pockets really ,pro’s from yesteryear and today are good players ,they score and make centuries because they play supierier position and they are so much better at it than anyone that plays in a club .

[Cue crafty]

I like that Joe Davis footage of the the first century on TV, you can still see the extent of his skill regardless of the conditions. I'd prefer to just say he was the first amazing snooker talent who made the mould and delivered the blueprint on fundamentals for those who were wise enough to follow in his footsteps.

TBH I don't really care how he would do in today's game, or how today's players would have done in his day, it's all hearsay and they all deserve respect for their achievements, new and old.

[John Flaf]

Are you saying young players today develop later because they are generally older when they turn pro?

Not so much develop later, I guess they all have to start somewhere say 11-12 Yo, I was just highlighting the fact that the youngsters coming through don't turn pro so early these days, I guess it was a kind of answer to your and Trains dialog regarding conditions, availability of pro tables, Money ect, that the youngsters find it harder to come through these days. Or is it harder these days that players are turning pro later, I know that Hendry, O'Sullivan where on the cicuit at 13ish turnining pro at 16-17, so for some reason it's later these days or different conditions have to be met, I honestly dont know.

[Starsky]

Not so much develop later, I guess they all have to start somewhere say 11-12 Yo, I was just highlighting the fact that the youngsters coming through don't turn pro so early these days, I guess it was a kind of answer to your and Trains dialog regarding conditions, availability of pro tables, Money ect, that the youngsters find it harder to come through these days. Or is it harder these days that players are turning pro later, I know that Hendry, O'Sullivan where on the cicuit at 13ish turnining pro at 16-17, so for some reason it's later these days or different conditions have to be met, I honestly dont know.

You’ve got to remember that the reason in the early 90’s that players were so young turning pro was due to the game opening up and anybody being able to turn pro. Hendry was before that era and turned pro on merit alone.
It was a completely different amateur circuit in those days with massive junior events like Isle of Wight and Hemsby . Once those players turned 16 they went from that circuit to the pro am circuit . This was the prefect practice ground for when players turned pro as the depth in standard of player was massive. You have nothing like it now and is the main reason why I think new pros are struggling to get a foothold in the pro game. The lack of depth in the UK at junior level is a real problem as is the amateur circuit.
I’ve heard many pros from that era say the same ( Hamilton ,, Doherty etc)

You can argue about difference of conditions and all that stuff but this is the real problem .

[Odrl]

I think another reason for there being so few good players in their 20s nowadays is the struggle the professional game went through under the Walker administration. For a teenager deciding whether to fully commit to pursuing a professional career in snooker, things were pretty bleak at the time. The number of ranking events dropped below ten, and apart from the three or four biggest ones, they had a similar prize fund as the Gibraltar Open has today, and that's seen as a joke event by some people. Anyone who wanted to make a living from the game had to be pretty high up the rankings to have any chance. I think that's probably why there is a notable gap in quality once you get to the players born in the 1990s. With the money in the game today, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw this trend reverse over the next ten years or so.