Ssb - judd trump: World no.1

[Jake O'Sullivan]

Ssb - judd trump: World no.1

Definitely the most exciting player to watch today? I think being number 1 will drive him and give him that little bit more thought into his game. He's my favourite player but still has a a lot of work to do. J

[cazmac1]

Anyone who has followed this game does need a book of stat's or a time machine to know that hendry was the best player to pick up a cue, only rivalled by ronnie who didn't have I want to win every thing mentality that SH had.
We all know that hendry started losing games not because he was being out played or out classed, but he started missing simple balls for no apparent reason, then would beat himself up and this effected his mind set. This was true right up till the moment he retired. which was only a few short months ago. There are players in the top sixteen that would have given their right arm to have had a WC like SH just did and SH retired!! such is the high standard the guy sets himself. Although SH refused to blame his cue for his demise, it is clear as the nose on your face that this effected him. IMO the search for a perfect replacement added to his problems and he became over focused on the cue instead of in technique and it is well documented that he was no longer putting the hours in on the practice table. I hope he decides to come back as I still think he has a few more years in him. The break from snooker might get his hunger back.

[arbitrage]

Anyone who has followed this game does need a book of stat's or a time machine to know that hendry was the best player to pick up a cue, only rivalled by ronnie who didn't have I want to win every thing mentality that SH had.
We all know that hendry started losing games not because he was being out played or out classed, but he started missing simple balls for no apparent reason, then would beat himself up and this effected his mind set. This was true right up till the moment he retired. which was only a few short months ago. There are players in the top sixteen that would have given their right arm to have had a WC like SH just did and SH retired!! such is the high standard the guy sets himself. Although SH refused to blame his cue for his demise, it is clear as the nose on your face that this effected him. IMO the search for a perfect replacement added to his problems and he became over focused on the cue instead of in technique and it is well documented that he was no longer putting the hours in on the practice table. I hope he decides to come back as I still think he has a few more years in him. The break from snooker might get his hunger back.

"Anyone who has followed this game does need a book of stat's or a time machine to know that hendry was the best player to pick up a cue"
"We all know that hendry started losing games not because he was being out played or out classed, but he started missing simple balls for no apparent reason, then would beat himself up and this effected his mind set."
"Although SH refused to blame his cue for his demise, it is clear as the nose on your face that this effected him."


now this is real fanboy fantasy talk.

p.s. "affected" not "effected"

[cazmac1]

"Anyone who has followed this game does need a book of stat's or a time machine to know that hendry was the best player to pick up a cue"
"We all know that hendry started losing games not because he was being out played or out classed, but he started missing simple balls for no apparent reason, then would beat himself up and this effected his mind set."
"Although SH refused to blame his cue for his demise, it is clear as the nose on your face that this effected him."


now this is real fanboy fantasy talk.

p.s. "affected" not "effected"

Thanks for pointing the spelling mistake out, what your point is god only knows. As for boy I am a grown man with a family, second I have not been a fan since I was in my teens and thirdly if George foreman can come out of retirement and compete for the heavy weight championship of the world I don't see what is so far fetched about SH picking up a cue again.
PS I won't use spell check I'll let you do it for me thanks.

[Odrl]

Apologies for continuing this off-topic discussion...

if you look at the playing stats alone, o'sullivan is by far the most prolific break-builder in the game with an average of around 35 centuries per season compared to hendry's 28 (and john higgins' 29) - if this were expressed in frames played, o'sullivan would have an even bigger advantage. in terms of the potting success for the entire tournament or matches, hendry is around the 90% mark whereas o'sullivan has achieved ~95% or above in many instances. so if you look at the playing stats alone and not the title achievements, o'sullivan and higgins have taken the game to a new level and one where hendry has never been before - williams, murphy, maguire, robertson, ding, trump are all pretty much equal to hendry so from that line of analysis, hendry would not have dominated in this era - which explains the results from 2000 - 2012.

I love the conclusion you've reached here. :wink: So let's look at those "playing stats", the centuries per season in particular. And let's completely forget about anything that might distort these averages, such as the seasons of "drought" after Hendry's decline, or the fact he played on slower tables in the first part of his career...

O'Sullivan has made 33 centuries per season on average throughout his career, Hendry has made almost 29, Higgins 24. If you've come to the conclusion that since O'Sullivan and Higgins have made more centuries, they must be on a higher level (actually Higgins' average is nowhere near Hendry's, you made up the numbers), how are Williams, Murphy, Maguire, Robertson, Ding and Trump then equal to Hendry?

The averages are 14 for Williams, 15 Murphy, 14 Maguire, 15 Robertson, 23 Ding and 17 Trump. By your logic, everyone other than Ding is only half the player Hendry was. And to make matters even more interesting, Hendry's contemporaries Doherty and Ebdon are on 13 and 14 respectively, and that includes Doherty's last few seasons when he is nowhere to be seen. :wink:


In any case, I am not a big fan of this statistic, and the gap between Higgins and O'Sullivan is a great example why... They have a very similar legacy in terms of titles, in exactly the same period, and yet O'Sullivan has made 35% more centuries than Higgins. Centuries are great for comparisons, but we have to remember they are not the goal. The goal is winning, and centuries are about how you win, not what you win. :wink:

[cazmac1]

I agree with you odrl, stat's can be twisted to say what ever you want. I don't have a clue who scored what at what time and against who, but I know a good snooker player when I see one and hendry is one if not the best of all time. If form is tempory and class permenent then that would explain why none of the current players are unable to dominate the sport. Quite simply they all have tempory run's of good form but not consistent enough to be called class or to earn Legend status.

[trains]

after Hendry's decline

Just curious,what or where do you get the inference that Hendry declined,Bbc and Eurosport commentators and journalists?

[arbitrage]

Just curious,what or where do you get the inference that Hendry declined,Bbc and Eurosport commentators and journalists?

fanboy fantasies so they don't have to accept reality

[Odrl]

Just curious,what or where do you get the inference that Hendry declined,Bbc and Eurosport commentators and journalists?

Does it really matter? Decline would be in Hendry's favour in this discussion anyway, that's why I said forget it. :wink:

But to answer your question anyway, I in fact don't have any particular opinion of Hendry's decline in the early years after 2000, which seem to be in dispute in this discussion. I didn't watch 95% of all televised matches like I do today, so I could really only speculate, taking into account various statistics and opinions of other people. BBC and Eurosport commentators? Well, they can't really make up their mind anyway, ranging from "he would never have missed that in his prime" to "he is still as good as ever on his day", so it's hard to take them too seriously. :smile:

But of course Hendry's decline in the last couple of years was quite evident, and here I don't need to take anyone's word for it, having seen him play at every available opportunity. He started missing more sitters with every season, his long game became more and more unreliable, and he mostly played without confidence and seemed under pressure every time he had a chance for a good run. This is the period that probably brought his century average down a lot, not the immediate years after 2000. The same goes for Doherty of course. :wink:

[eaoin11]

use it to bury your head in the sand then and keep it there - that way you will be oblivious to the facts

Which ones? That Hendry's results declined in the 2000's? Acknowledged. That he got older in the last decade? Yes that's definitely a fact. That his cue was broken? Yes that's a fact too. That he lost his reknowned long game and missed more shots in general? Yes that could probably be confirmed by someone as fact, and has been referred to by commentators over the years.

Sorry but sometimes a little bit of logic goes further than 'stats' chosen to fit your story. You claim that the decline of his results was due to a sudden increase in competion that magically coincided with the new millenium. And that this means he was actually ordinary in the 90's by today's standards. Well that assumes that Hendry's game itself didn't change at all, inspite of all the facts suggesting otherwise. Use the time machine to dig your head out of the sand.

[arbitrage]

Which ones? That Hendry's results declined in the 2000's? Acknowledged. That he got older in the last decade? Yes that's definitely a fact. That his cue was broken? Yes that's a fact too. That he lost his reknowned long game and missed more shots in general? Yes that could probably be confirmed by someone as fact, and has been referred to by commentators over the years.

Sorry but sometimes a little bit of logic goes further than 'stats' chosen to fit your story. You claim that the decline of his results was due to a sudden increase in competion that magically coincided with the new millenium. And that this means he was actually ordinary in the 90's by today's standards. Well that assumes that Hendry's game itself didn't change at all, inspite of all the facts suggesting otherwise. Use the time machine to dig your head out of the sand.

so were back to the broken cue fallacy and your inability to perform w/o "the" cue. ok!

[GeordieDS]

I have not been on this forum long but it is fairly obvious that Arbitrage and Trains are just trolls.

[LittleMissAlexa]

Apologies for continuing this off-topic discussion...



I love the conclusion you've reached here. :wink: So let's look at those "playing stats", the centuries per season in particular. And let's completely forget about anything that might distort these averages, such as the seasons of "drought" after Hendry's decline, or the fact he played on slower tables in the first part of his career...

O'Sullivan has made 33 centuries per season on average throughout his career, Hendry has made almost 29, Higgins 24. If you've come to the conclusion that since O'Sullivan and Higgins have made more centuries, they must be on a higher level (actually Higgins' average is nowhere near Hendry's, you made up the numbers), how are Williams, Murphy, Maguire, Robertson, Ding and Trump then equal to Hendry?

The averages are 14 for Williams, 15 Murphy, 14 Maguire, 15 Robertson, 23 Ding and 17 Trump. By your logic, everyone other than Ding is only half the player Hendry was. And to make matters even more interesting, Hendry's contemporaries Doherty and Ebdon are on 13 and 14 respectively, and that includes Doherty's last few seasons when he is nowhere to be seen. :wink:


In any case, I am not a big fan of this statistic, and the gap between Higgins and O'Sullivan is a great example why... They have a very similar legacy in terms of titles, in exactly the same period, and yet O'Sullivan has made 35% more centuries than Higgins. Centuries are great for comparisons, but we have to remember they are not the goal. The goal is winning, and centuries are about how you win, not what you win. :wink:

trump averages 22

[LittleMissAlexa]

Hmm, Hallett, Foulds and Wilkinson won titles - David Roe you could compare to players in today's top 16, like Joe Perry.

a) Joe Perry isnt in todays top 16
b) they didnt win titles with the likes of Ding, Allen, Trump, Selby, Fu, Maguire, Murphy

the biggest show of the standard is Marco Fu's inability to keep a top 16 place.

if you judge success by titles Dominic Dale has won 2 ranking events is he as good as selby?

[Odrl]

trump averages 22

You're right, those "23 October 2011" lists are a little dated. If you count the current season as only half a season, Trump actually goes up to 23.

Higgins would be 24.7, Maguire and Robertson up to 16 and 17 respectively, and Ding up to almost 27. Williams and O'Sullivan remain at roughly the same average. The Championship league in particular makes a massive difference. Selby made 18 centuries in it last season, which is quite incredible. (I know he wasn't mentioned here, but just for the record his average is a little over 19). :wink:

Mark Allen is also over 22, with his 50 from last season. It will be interesting to see what happens with these averages in the next couple of years with this new tournament structure. I think the Robertson generation are probably too far into their career to get to the top now, but guys like Ding or Trump should certainly get their average above O'Sullivan's and Hendry's if they continue at this rate. :smile: