2017 World Snooker Championship

ArmaniJeanss

GreNoLi wrote: »

If Selby wins he'll have won 3 world titles as opposed to Mark Williams' 2, that's tough to swallow.

I wouldn't see the problem with that, Selby is a far better player than Williams was.

bajer101

learn_more wrote: »

Never head anyone say they 'can't stand Higgins'. He seems like a really nice guy and he's one of the all time greats.

I think most of it down to the perceived match fixing nonsense. He can also be a bit "methodical". But IMO, no one who really knows snooker dislikes him or rate him very highly. And if you were to canvas all the top pros, most would say that he is only a cigarette paper behind Ronnie as the greatest ever.

zuutroy

bajer101 wrote: »

I think most of it down to the perceived match fixing nonsense. He can also be a bit "methodical". But IMO, no one who really knows snooker dislikes him or rate him very highly. And if you were to canvas all the top pros, most would say that he is only a cigarette paper behind Ronnie as the greatest ever.

Pretty sure almost all of them would say that Hendry is a mile ahead of either of them.

wonderfullife

loyatemu wrote: »

Is Ding the best player not to have been World Champion? I suppose Jimmy is the other main candidate.

Depends what you mean by "best".

But in terms of skill, talent and ability I'd probably rank it:

Paul Hunter
Ding Junhui
Jimmy White
Matthew Stevens
Ali Carter

Maybe it's controversial but I firmly believe Paul was nowhere near his peak development and was already a 3-time Masters Champion and beat a peak-Ronnie in the 3rd of those finals.

zuutroy

wonderfullife wrote: »

Depends what you mean by "best".

But in terms of skill, talent and ability I'd probably rank it:

Paul Hunter
Ding Junhui
Jimmy White
Matthew Stevens
Ali Carter

Maybe it's controversial but I firmly believe Paul was nowhere near his peak development and was already a 3-time Masters Champion and beat a peak-Ronnie in the 3rd of those finals.

Surely getting to 5 finals in a row and not winning gives you automatic entitlement to the 'best to never win one' award. Jimmy was amazing. I think there's a bit of recency bias going on here.

sligeach

bajer101 wrote: »

I think most of it down to the perceived match fixing nonsense. He can also be a bit "methodical". But IMO, no one who really knows snooker dislikes him or rate him very highly. And if you were to canvas all the top pros, most would say that he is only a cigarette paper behind Ronnie as the greatest ever.

So wrong. The greatest ever was Hendry.

bajer101

zuutroy wrote: »

Pretty sure almost all of them would say that Hendry is a mile ahead of either of them.

No, absolutely not. Most whose opinion I have heard have Ronnie and Higgins ahead. A lot would even have Robbo and Selby ahead. Steve Davis reckons he'd probably only manage top 32 these days. He said there two big jumps since his day. The first with Henry and now this second one which is a step ahead again.

martyos121

learn_more wrote: »

Never head anyone say they 'can't stand Higgins'. He seems like a really nice guy and he's one of the all time greats

Funny that, because someone else said the same not even a few pages ago. It's just my opinion of him anyway, I'm not taking anything away from him as a player. There's just some things about him that get on my nerves.

bajer101 wrote: »

I think most of it down to the perceived match fixing nonsense. He can also be a bit "methodical". But IMO, no one who really knows snooker dislikes him or rate him very highly. And if you were to canvas all the top pros, most would say that he is only a cigarette paper behind Ronnie as the greatest ever.

I know snooker just fine thanks, could do without the condescending remark mate. My dislike of Higgins has a little bit to do with the scandal, I'll admit, but the main reason is I just don't enjoy watching him anymore. That, and he's always beating my favourites in big matches.

As much as I can admit he's a great player despite my dislike of him, there's no way most pros would rate him as the second best ever. Some, sure, but I'd imagine most would go for Hendry in ahead of him. It also depends whether it's a debate on results or just pure talent. Hendry beats him on both counts in my book though.

zuutroy

bajer101 wrote: »

No, absolutely not. Most whose opinion I have heard have Ronnie and Higgins ahead. A lot would even have Robbo and Selby ahead. Steve Davis reckons he'd probably only manage top 32 these days. He said there two big jumps since his day. The first with Henry and now this second one which is a step ahead again.

Ah will you stop. There's a plausible argument to be made for Ronnie, not at all for Higgins, and the other 2 are laughable. Selby could get there but he's got a long way to go.

bajer101

zuutroy wrote: »

Ah will you stop. There's a plausible argument to be made for Ronnie, not at all for Higgins, and the other 2 are laughable. Selby could get there but he's got a long way to go.

I'm just repeating what they have said in interviews or on Twitter. I was surprised that a lot of them rate Robbo so highly.

MayoSalmon

Gutted for Ding, Selby is dire to watch

mdwexford

Hendry
Ronnie
Davis
Higgins

In that order are the greatest imo.
If Ronnie had Hendry or Davis work ethic he would have had unlimited titles and records that would never be bettered.

The Higgins scandal did leave a sour taste in my mouth and I haven't looked at him the same since.

The way Selby is dominating he has the potential to surpass the most ranking titles. Can't see him winning 7 worlds though. He will go down as one of the greats for sure though. Albeit a methodical somewhat unpopular one.

wonderfullife

zuutroy wrote: »

Surely getting to 5 finals in a row and not winning gives you automatic entitlement to the 'best to never win one' award. Jimmy was amazing. I think there's a bit of recency bias going on here.

It's the old nutshell of "how do you judge an era?".

Is anybody able to argue that Joe Davis was the best snooker player of all time? Fred Davis? Those boys were machines of their era. I mean Joe Davis made a 147 in the 1950's playing on cloths the size of your carpet with Ivory Balls. Unreal skill to do that. Joe even made the first century break on tv at the age of 62 which is phenomenal.

With the greatest of respect to Jimmy, he really only had a handful of top players to worry about. Whereas Paul Hunter was beating Ronnie, Mark Williams, John Higgins at the top of their games.

If you want to get truly off the beaten path, a guy called Joe Canny from Maynooth, in my opinion was the most naturally talented player to never win it.... He's the only person I've ever seen pro or amateur make back-to-back 147's.... if he didn't have so many personal problems he would have been a top 8 professional during the mid-to-late 1990's.

But yeah sticking to reality, Paul Hunter or Jimmy would be fair answers

sligeach

bajer101 wrote: »

No, absolutely not. Most whose opinion I have heard have Ronnie and Higgins ahead. A lot would even have Robbo and Selby ahead. Steve Davis reckons he'd probably only manage top 32 these days. He said there two big jumps since his day. The first with Henry and now this second one which is a step ahead again.

Now I know not to take anything you say seriously. Hendry in his pomp was an absolute machine and would beat anyone. Had he kept playing many of his records would still stand, like most centuries ever. But he wasn't happy with his form, you could clearly see for the last many years something was amiss and he didn't like playing unless he was still the best, amongst other things like travelling and reduced prize money. All the time you still hear him mentioned even though he's gone 5 years, e.g. when talking about the last 147 at the Crucible was him or today, how he still holds the record of most centuries for 1 World Championship. Yes, Ronnie is definitely second and after that it becomes difficult to choose. I could name a few but their order I wouldn't be sure on.

wonderfullife

sligeach wrote: »

Hendry in his pomp was an absolute machine and would beat anyone.

Yes, Ronnie is definitely second and after that it becomes difficult to choose. I could name a few but their order I wouldn't be sure on.

I'm going to give you a quick reason why many would disagree with you.

1992: Stephen Murphy, James Wattana, Dene O' Kane, Terry Griffiths.

2013: Peter Ebdon, Mark Williams, Neil Robertson, Matthew Stevens.


That was the route to the Final in 1992 for Stephen Hendry and the route to the final for Ronnie in 2013.

The simple point which can't be disputed by any serious fan: Hendry was competing in a far easier era when it was easier to dominate.

On one hand, you can say "well, he can only beat what's put in front of him" but that's not doing a fair comparison at all.

Ronnie had MUCH more difficult opposition throughout his peak years. Hendry really only had a couple of serious rivals in the 1990's and as soon as the new breed came along - Ken, Williams, Ronnie, Higgins - Hendry never won the Worlds again after the age of 30.

Given those factors, you'd have to put Ronnie ahead of Hendry in my opinion.

bajer101

sligeach wrote: »

Now I know not to take anything you say seriously. Hendry in his pomp was an absolute machine and would beat anyone. Had he kept playing many of his records would still stand, like most centuries ever. But he wasn't happy with his form, you could clearly see for the last many years something was amiss and he didn't like playing unless he was still the best, amongst other things like travelling and reduced prize money. All the time you still hear him mentioned even though he's gone 5 years, e.g. when talking about the last 147 at the Crucible was him or today, how he still holds the record of most centuries for 1 World Championship. Yes, Ronnie is definitely second and after that it becomes difficult to choose. I could name a few but their order I wouldn't be sure on.

Again, I am just repeating what the top players have said in interviews or on Twitter. I was surprised when I saw how highly they rated Higgins - as in, just a smidge behind Ronnie. And also how highly they rate Robbo. It's well worth following them on Twitter as you certainly get different insights.

bajer101

Just as an example, Steve Davis on Twitter the other night in a bit of an AMA, stating that he probably wouldn't make Top 16.

https://twitter.com/SteveSnooker/status/855881035984363520

zuutroy

Its a shame we don't have historical stats for things like pot success, long pot, safety success because my memory of watching Hendry (as a Jimmy fan) is that he never missed, found the baulk cushion every time, and knocked in the loose red from nearly every break.
Good post Wonder...I went back and looked through Hendry's opposition for all his wins. Although Nigel Bond and McManus were tough competitors back in the day, it was on a whole quite easy. It's a great debate all the same. I'd love to call Ronnie no.1 and it saddens me that he'll probably never get to 7 or most likely even 6. Can't quite believe I've basically watched every WC since 1986.

fryup

the elephant in the room :cool: ......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln85qbCRI6w

Road-Hog

fryup wrote: »

the elephant in the room :cool: ......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln85qbCRI6w

I agree......why didn't Higgins report this to the WPBSA at the time. Was too scared following the intimidation he felt during and after the 'meeting'....? To me he should have got a lengthy ban like Stephen ( a ate too many pies) Lee

mikeoneilly

Hendry had it easy enough when he was winning world titles

The bar was raised after his era

jonniebgood1

bajer101 wrote: »

learn_more wrote: »

Never head anyone say they 'can't stand Higgins'. He seems like a really nice guy and he's one of the all time greats.

I think most of it down to the perceived match fixing nonsense. He can also be a bit "methodical". But IMO, no one who really knows snooker dislikes him or rate him very highly. And if you were to canvas all the top pros, most would say that he is only a cigarette paper behind Ronnie as the greatest ever.

wow, how an opinion like this is formed is beyond me!!! Higgins and his known digressions disqualify him from comparison with true greats like Hendry and Ronnie. see video posted by different poster above if further info is required

wonderfullife

Road-Hog wrote: »

I agree......why didn't Higgins report this to the WPBSA at the time. Was too scared following the intimidation he felt during and after the 'meeting'....? To me he should have got a lengthy ban like Stephen ( a ate too many pies) Lee

I'm just going to state a fact that was upheld at Tribunal:

Pat Mooney was talking to the Fake Sheikh from the News of the World for WEEKS prior to that conversation, organising the terms of John throwing frames.

John was only told 5 minutes before the meeting that the subject would come up and at that stage he's in Ukraine far from home and was told these people had links to the Russian Mafia. I'd agree to throw a match, hell I'd have agreed to hand over the car keys in those circumstances.

People are entitled to their opinions though in mine it's nowhere near the level of what Quinten Hann and Stephen Lee did and far below Silvino Francisco, which was blatant. To be honest our own (Irish) Michael Judge got away scot free from that Joe Perry fiasco at the UK.

Contrast that to the case of John Sutton, who I know personally. He was banned for 6 years in 2014 as an amateur for losing 6-0 to Jamie Burnett in a qualifier. That was a total joke.

He was practising for the tournament and playing absolutely muck in practice down in Terry Rodgers snooker club, kinda like Barry Hawkins today, so some of the high rollers slapped down 18,000 euro on John to lose 6-0 at 7/4. They also covered it somewhat with John winning and losing by other scores. Bookies refused to pay out (shock).

Even if he was playing well, it's likely Burnett would have hammered John - who was an amateur. But he got a 6-year-ban for "passing on insider information" i.e. people in the club actually noticing he was playing muck.

Bottom line , bookies don't like paying out and if they can pick a soft target to make an example of they will.

Gaoth Laidir

mikeoneilly wrote: »

Hendry had it easy enough when he was winning world titles

The bar was raised after his era

Because he raised it.

bajer101

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

wow, how an opinion like this is formed is beyond me!!! Higgins and his known digressions disqualify him from comparison with true greats like Hendry and Ronnie. see video posted by different poster above if further info is required

I'm not an expert in these matters, so I tend to bow to knowledge of people who are. Most of the top players rate Higgins as just behind Ronnie. End of. That is their opinion and not necessarily mine.

mdwexford

wonderfullife wrote: »

I'm just going to state a fact that was upheld at Tribunal:

Pat Mooney was talking to the Fake Sheikh from the News of the World for WEEKS prior to that conversation, organising the terms of John throwing frames.

John was only told 5 minutes before the meeting that the subject would come up and at that stage he's in Ukraine far from home and was told these people had links to the Russian Mafia. I'd agree to throw a match, hell I'd have agreed to hand over the car keys in those circumstances.

People are entitled to their opinions though in mine it's nowhere near the level of what Quinten Hann and Stephen Lee did and far below Silvino Francisco, which was blatant. To be honest our own (Irish) Michael Judge got away scot free from that Joe Perry fiasco at the UK.

Contrast that to the case of John Sutton, who I know personally. He was banned for 6 years in 2014 as an amateur for losing 6-0 to Jamie Burnett in a qualifier. That was a total joke.

He was practising for the tournament and playing absolutely muck in practice down in Terry Rodgers snooker club, kinda like Barry Hawkins today, so some of the high rollers slapped down 18,000 euro on John to lose 6-0 at 7/4. They also covered it somewhat with John winning and losing by other scores. Bookies refused to pay out (shock).

Even if he was playing well, it's likely Burnett would have hammered John - who was an amateur. But he got a 6-year-ban for "passing on insider information" i.e. people in the club actually noticing he was playing muck.

Bottom line , bookies don't like paying out and if they can pick a soft target to make an example of they will.

I question why was Higgins even in the Ukraine, a country who was no interest in snooker whatsoever.

And to me, he looked very comfortable in those video clips, not scared at all.

I used to really like and respect Higgins and I have read up on the case but I still find it hard to look at him the same as I did before it happened.

Hann and Lee are complete scum. Hann has pulled more scams since then as well.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Does anyone have any idea how much sponsorship money the top players make?

_feedback_

Just haven't been able to look at Higgins in the same way since "the incident". Every time I see that video it re-enforces it. No matter what he says or what conclusion a tribunal comes to, it is very difficult to see past the way he comes across in the video and the overall impression the video gives...

Having said all that, I thought it was disgraceful to hear boos as he came out for the last session of the semi-final.

There's talk of Selby's reaction (shouting, banging table) after his win and a general conversation about it being the wrong way for a player to go about their business.

There's surely an unwritten code of conduct for fans of the game. If you are lucky enough to have a ticket to a final session in the next couple of days, don't bloody boo a world finalist on probably the most important day of their (troublesome) career.

Up Selby!! ðŸ˜ðŸ˜

GreNoLi

Come on....eh.....John...I guess.

Whoever wins an underwhelming reaction is certain.

Inviere

John's body language in that video is hugely telling, for anyone that wants to cut through what the NoTW wants you to think. From the start with his leg across his body, to the very last second with his hand in his pocket, he's massively uncomfortable.

On topic though, Selby will be a three time world champ tomorrow. The way Higgins played yesterday simply won't cut it today & tomorrow. Selby is hugely talented, but I find him difficult to watch for some reason. The constant looking up to the stalls in very annoying. I personally don't mind the hammering the table, the match was over at that point, and Snooker is a game where you have to exercise huge control over your emotions. It's a big release is all, and if anything, shows how much Ding pushed him, and how pushed he felt.