Hendry - Not good enough

[Templeton Peck]

that is 100% for sure. and if asked he would say hendry is the best ever - in fact i believe he did say so in his book.

And Steve Davis says Ronnie is the best. And Reardon says Ronnie is the best. And Hendry says the Ronnie is the best. None of these players other than Alex Higgins are going to call themselves the best are they?

[ADR147]

the fact remains hendry IS the best player ever its not an area for discussion. and for all the ronnetes out there what exactky has he done that is so special? ronnie is a great talent and a weak mind he bottles games he should win easily. he is nowhere near the best player ever and would not be in my top 5 although he would make the top 10 on talent alone.

[Templeton Peck]

How can it not be an area for discussion when so many experts pick Ronnie or Steve Davis? The fact that there isn't unified consensus qualifies it for discussion. The thing is we see more and more experts pick Ronnie these days, just as favour shifted from Davis to Hendry in the 90's opinion is now shifting in favour of Ronnie. It always does when someone raises the bar in sport.

[ADR147]

ronnie hasn't raised the bar. he keeps falling under it. no expert i know of would pick ronnie as the best player ever his record simply is not good enough.

[Fist of Fury]

By the way, Ronnie would be embarrassed with the monotonous bile you throw at Hendry day after day after day

lol, if you can't stand the heat......

[Fist of Fury]

If McManus could do that to him Lord knows what a modern day Ronnie would have done - probably have scarred him so much he'd quit the sport.

That is another important point. Confidence is KEY. and since hendry was winning all the time, he had LOADS of it. Now, with todays players he would be punished for those missed reds (and yes he did miss contrary to the rubbish spouted about here)

What happens when you know your opponent is good?

THIS>>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3JJRg3r1HM

What Hendry would have been like had he faced some tougher competition is not certain but he would NOT HAVE DOMINATED.

[Fist of Fury]

Actually, O'Sullivan says he played his best snooker as a teenager

jesus, when will people liek you learn? It doesn't matter what Ronnie says! What matters is what we can SEE and PROVE. Ronnie is a walking contradiction, he admits that himself. Recently he stated "I expect to lose going into all my matches" and at the irish masters when he had won he stated "No because I expect to win"

It is all contradiction and opinion and he himself doesn't know how good he was olaying back then anymore. I can't remember how crap or good I was 2 years ago!

Please learn the premise of proper debate with logic and reasoning. Not stupid "even ronnie says" arguments.

The best one is "Even ronnie says Hendry is the best"

Of course he would, he can't vote for himself! Jesus CHRIST sort it out!

[Fist of Fury]

Anyone know where the edit has disappeared to? So in conclusion, we can all see that Ronnie today are better than he was in 95, and Higgins has improved since 95 also, especially mid 00's.

To not see that is frankly delusional! Ronnie was training with reardon who taught him a better safety game for a starter, I assume that the teenage ronnie was lacking in this dept or did he have a time machine?

If Ronnie was a poorer player in 95, why couldn't he knock 100's, 147's in for fun and why did it take him so long to win a world title or NEAR dominate?

Come off it!

[Fist of Fury]

was a better player*

[david16]

Anybody with any sense knows you've got to gain 3 to 5 years experience these days to really be seriously in contention to win at the Crucible.

A 17 or 18 year old is simply far too inexperienced at top level professional snooker to seriously contend there at the Crucible. That's probably why Hendry didn't win already and you could say the same with O'Sullivan, Higgins and Williams.

You can say if O'sullivan, Higgins and Williams were around in 1994, that Hendry was around in 1987 in the same way. If Hendry was gaining expereince in 1987, then so must O'Sullivan, higgns and Williams in 1994 in the same terms.

You can also say that there was a lot more long match snooker in the mid to late 1980's than there was from 1993 onwards. Quite a huge jump up from the UK in 1993 which had 5 x best of 17 frames matches up to the semi-finals finald with a best of 19 frames final (not best of 31) which O'Sullivan won, to the 1994 world champiomships that has the best of 19 1st round, 2 x best of 25 frames matches (2nd round and quarter finals), best of 31 frames semi-finals and best of 35 frames final, which proved at that stage of his career too big a jump up. Hendry in 1988 a year older than O'Sullivan in age and experience had just won the British Open that had best of 17 frames semi and best of 25 frames final, and also won the 1987 grand prix that same season which had best of 17 frames semi and best of 19 frames final, and he also played the UK that had still the best of 31 frames final (until 1992 before the change to best of 19 final in 1993), and there was a world matchplay that had best of 17 up to the semis and a best of 35 final which of course Hendry played in them all, and Hendry he still wasn't already the champion at the Crucible by 1988. When you clearly think about it, Hendry was far more experienced in 1987 than O'Sulliivan in 1994 in long course snooker as a teenager so Hendry was probably in less need of gaining experience than O'Sulllivan (not the other way around as some are suggesting on here), but still wasn't experenced enough to win it almost immediately, so he still needed more experience. But with much more long match experience than O'Sullivan, Higgins and Williams, Hendry was ready to win at the Crucible sooner than them. Not to mention that it was easier for the best player in the world in those days to win at the Crucible in 1990 than it was in 1997.

[moondan]

For me the real difference between Hendry and the rest was his head, for sure its reasonable to suppose that with the big four starting out together he may not have won so much, but its a fair bet he would have won more often than the others.
Also his long game was head and shoulders above anyone I have ever seen.
Another thing his game may have been taken to another level.

[wildJONESEYE]

Anyone know where the edit has disappeared to? So in conclusion, we can all see that Ronnie today are better than he was in 95, and Higgins has improved since 95 also, especially mid 00's.

To not see that is frankly delusional! Ronnie was training with reardon who taught him a better safety game for a starter, I assume that the teenage ronnie was lacking in this dept or did he have a time machine?

If Ronnie was a poorer player in 95, why couldn't he knock 100's, 147's in for fun and why did it take him so long to win a world title or NEAR dominate?

Come off it!

John Higgins greatest performance in a world championship was in 1999 and Hendry won it.....sais it all i think.

and overall John Higgins greatest era of performances was between 1995 and 2001 he was very consistant between thoes years.

[ADR147]

John Higgins greatest performance in a world championship was in 1999 and Hendry won it.....sais it all i think.

and overall John Higgins greatest era of performances was between 1995 and 2001 he was very consistant between thoes years.

true and just a thought for the ronettes - when ronnie was on top form in the lg cup john higgins blew him off the table with maybe the finest snooker match ever played.

[wildJONESEYE]

Anybody with any sense knows you've got to gain 3 to 5 years experience these days to really be seriously in contention to win at the Crucible.

so by the 1996/97 season Ronnie was mature enough but hold on it was another 5 years in 2001 that he even reach a final mmmmmm it so happened that at that time Hendry form had tailed off so it let the door open for the others.....

is that what youre saying ?

DAM silly me you cant answer can you lol

[RocketRoy1983]

It is horrible to watch Stephen playing as he is and has done since around 2001. As we remember him in the nineties he is so far away from that standard and it really is gut wrenching to watch. I sincerley hope he adds to his 36 titles before he does retire. Were all still behind ya mr Hendry