Hendry - Not good enough

[Templeton Peck]

And Jimmy was still going strong in 1995 too - it still took Hendry to beat him that year.

[Anastasia]

Hendry started to go downhill after he lost his virginity at 26.

From were you know that ? You was his first ?

[Templeton Peck]

Mark Williams told me.

[ADR147]

Mark Williams told me.

mark is a wind up merchant.

[Welshsteve]

I'm no Hendry fan, but to say he's just not good enough anymore is crazy. It's only a coupld of years ago he was the world number 1. Davis had a a major dip but has come back. There's no reason why Hendry won't either. He'll learn that he cannot play the attacking snooker he used to play and get away with it against these up and coming youngsters. He'll change his game to suit.

One thing is for certain though, when Ronnie's game starts to deteriorate, he'll retire. He won't be happy scrapping away like Davis does.

[moondan]

Teenagers aren't really ready to win at the Crucible.

You really need loads of experience over long course snooker to acutally be ripe to win at the Crucible. O'sullivan was only 3rd season pro in 1995 hadn't even played a best of 31 anywhere, while Hendry at the same stage of his career had already played best of 25 final and a best of 31 final away from the Crucible nobody else since 1992 has had the opportunity to do so. Best of 31's away from the crucible Hendry had already played another twice since 1988 before he was 21, while others since only got their best of 25 and 31's experience at the Crucible as those type length matches never existed elsewhere from 1993 onwards.

So Hendry was ready much sooner to win at the Crucible than anybody else that has came through at the same age from 1992. Hendry lost to Davis and even Mounjoy before that in best of 31 before he was truly ready to win at the Crucible, so if others did not win 1st attmept at the best of 31 (best of 33 now) then best of 35 you can't not put it down to lack of experience.

Hendry was more around in 1987 and 1988 than Higgins, Williams and O'Sullivan were in 1994 and 1995 if you compare long match experience at the same stages of their careers. I can't believe anybody who says that Hendry was just gaining experience in 1987 not seriously around, but Higgins, O'sullivan and Williams were seriously around in 1994.

Winning the UK in 1993 did not make O'sullivan sudden contender to win at the Crucible almost immediately in his career, as he never already played best of 31. He didn't know how to handle 4 session matches at such an early stage of his career. Took till 1996 until O'Sulllivan played best of 31 in the world semi and got beaten, so on that evidence can't say that if he had got through the quarter final v Hendry the year before that he would have won it definitely for sure.

David 16, for the most part your a good read, but dont you think its concievable that in Hendry you had a very very special player, and the hard fact of the matter is he was just so good.
You always seem to try to devalue his achievements with opinion that at times is very questionable, dont you think its just possible he is the best ever seen. I think his record demands that.

[noel]

It is kind of fun to wonder about who was better than who, who was best ever or who was more important than another to a sport, especially over a long and storied history.
I personally would have loved to have seen Joe Davis in action... if not for his contribution it can be argued snooker wouldn't have existed, at least as we know it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z8BPO_4Q1E

Would Ronnie have whitewashed him? Who cares?
Would Muhammad Ali thrashed Tyson. Who cares?

Personally I salute "The Man of His Times" in any human activity.
Picasso did it in painting in the 20th c.
Lance Armstrong did it in Tour de France cycling in his time.
Steve Davis did it in his time as did Hendry in his.
Tiger Woods is doing it... and beyond his sport.
I heard a fairly convincing argument this week that had it not been for Tiger, Obama could never be in the position he's in.

And it's not just about statistical records of accomplishment... it's also human identity with characters that play out for the inner you... fat, beer drinkers loved Bill Werbeniuk... fiery little smartasses loved Alex Higgins... and possibly of all snooker players, Jimmy White... our collective inner loser... was/is most adored.

O'Sullivan is unquestionably the shining light of snooker today, with Chinese players, Wenbo in particular, nipping at his heels.

And so it goes. Enjoy!


=o)


Noel

[Welshsteve]

How about Shaun Murphy then? He's having an even worse season, 1500 pts less than Hendry. Are you saying he's been a flash in the pan just because he's having a bad season? On this season's points alone, Murphy would be down in the 50s somewhere.

[poolqjunkie]

It is kind of fun to wonder about who was better than who, who was best ever or who was more important than another to a sport, especially over a long and storied history.
I personally would have loved to have seen Joe Davis in action... if not for his contribution it can be argued snooker wouldn't have existed, at least as we know it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z8BPO_4Q1E

Would Ronnie have whitewashed him? Who cares?
Would Muhammad Ali thrashed Tyson. Who cares?

Personally I salute "The Man of His Times" in any human activity.
Picasso did it in painting in the 20th c.
Lance Armstrong did it in Tour de France cycling in his time.
Steve Davis did it in his time as did Hendry in his.
Tiger Woods is doing it... and beyond his sport.
I heard a fairly convincing argument this week that had it not been for Tiger, Obama could never be in the position he's in.

And it's not just about statistical records of accomplishment... it's also human identity with characters that play out for the inner you... fat, beer drinkers loved Bill Werbeniuk... fiery little smartasses loved Alex Higgins... and possibly of all snooker players, Jimmy White... our collective inner loser... was/is most adored.

O'Sullivan is unquestionably the shining light of snooker today, with Chinese players, Wenbo in particular, nipping at his heels.

And so it goes. Enjoy!


=o)


Noel

well said. No one can take the acheivement of Hendry away even if he does not win another frame for the rest of his life.
Hendry does not need to compete for the money, he is doing it because he loves it. At least i think that is why.
Anyway, Davis is a bit too old and he really canot pot that well, but I dont see Hendry being too old to play against the best head to head. I think he is just going through some changes, but he will come through.

[moglet]

Fair comment poolqjunkie, but we must remember that the goal posts are shifting at the moment, if they were to remain static at least Hendry could return to some form, Steve Davis, mmm... not sure.

[moondan]

Noel, brilliant post completely agree.
Im a realist, watched snooker almost like an adiction.
I do believe Ronnie is a very special player, in the way Hendry and Davis was but the conditions make comparison irrelevent and laughable.
Some shots of the nineties were not possible in the eighties, some shots this century were not possible in the nineties, the faster the cloth brings more options.
The goalposts havent moved at all, the conditions have.
I firmly believe that if Davis had the conditions of today in his prime he would have made many more centuries. I believe if Hendry had todays extra fine cloth in his prime he would have made more centuries and 147s, its no good saying they wouldnt, its a no brainer, to say different is utter nonsense, when anything changes it brings about change. The fact so much money has gone into the development of the table just in this decade doesnt suggest its made things better, the balls are visibly spreading better at the slightest touch, which must make breakbuilding more likely, anyone who has any idea about the game must grasp that.
I know some say, well its harder to hold onto the white, that may be the case, it still doesnt change the fact that it is different, and that is the point.
Perhaps Davis and Hendry could have held onto the white just as well or better, we will never know. Its different and different is different.

Noel, there have been many great black civil rights fighters, and many gave their lives, but for me the one that stands above all others is Ali, not only did he fight in and out of the ring, but he gave his people self respect and the courage to believe in something else.
Not just a giant of boxing, but a huge inspiration, big enough to take on white america and the rest of the white world. Without him their struggle would not be so far down the road.

[noel]

Noel, there have been many great black civil rights fighters, and many gave their lives, but for me the one that stands above all others is Ali, not only did he fight in and out of the ring, but he gave his people self respect and the courage to believe in something else.
Not just a giant of boxing, but a huge inspiration, big enough to take on white america and the rest of the white world. Without him their struggle would not be so far down the road.

Thanks for your kind comments... I know the opinions we both share, many share.
Ali is a great human being. Voted the Athlete of the Millenium 2000 barely touches on his greatness.
We are all lucky to have experienced his gift.

=o)

Noel

[ADR147]

Thanks for your kind comments... I know the opinions we both share, many share.
Ali is a great human being. Voted the Athlete of the Millenium 2000 barely touches on his greatness.
We are all lucky to have experienced his gift.

=o)

Noel

yet rocky marciano is a better boxer.

[noel]

yet rocky marciano is a better boxer.

... that is true.

Ali was only "The Greatest".


=o)

Noel

[pearce]

Ali Better Than Marciano

Off subject but to say Marciano was a better boxer than Ali is ridiculous. Maybe better brawler and stronger but Ali was by a country mile the best boxer the heavyweights have seen.