There’s not much between Hendry and O’Sullivan at their peaks. Hendry fell off a cliff towards the end but O’Sullivan has only just overtaken his ranking tournaments record despite playing longer. I think a game between the two at their peak would be incredible to watch. Hendry also completely changed the way the game was played which doesn’t get the credit it deserves.Hmm, I respect it. But why does being a "maverick" have anything to do with it? He's won most titles of anyone, has been at the top of the game for longer than anyone else has managed and those players themselves disagree with you.
Ronnie at his very best beats anyone at theirs over 35 frames all being equal. When he's on form, no one matches his shear shot variation and ball control at the highest end. IMO of course
Redcafe Snooker
- Thread starter Ronnie O'Sullivan
- Start date
Didn't much like Hendry at the time but I respect him. If the two of them had been playing for 10 years at their peaks nothing would have come close to it.
Because a maverick is unpredictable. I think he's won titles out of sheer pure talent rather than actually trying to raise his game against opposition. Much of a muchness.Hmm, I respect it. But why does being a "maverick" have anything to do with it? He's won most titles of anyone, has been at the top of the game for longer than anyone else has managed and those players themselves disagree with you.
Ronnie at his very best beats anyone at theirs over 35 frames all being equal. When he's on form, no one matches his shear shot variation and ball control at the highest end. IMO of course
Hendry gets the credit all the time for changing the modern game! Hendry made the game what it is today, set the stage for Ronnie to become what he has, nobody should ever question that.
YOU said at their peak.
Do you see why I questioned the maverick part now? And also, I think the very best should be judged on talent and titles won. I'm not sure you are doing your Hendry point any favours there
Hendry wins out for me his B game was no where near as poor as O'Sullivan. And in the latter players case it presents itself in at least one session in most big games. Hence the top players have had great success against him at the worlds in particular over the past 20 years. Hendry would win every single frame where O'Sullivan doesn't fancy it!!
I don't think Hendry could've dominated the post 2000s era like he did the 90s. The level/standard is just way too high now (even they admit it) compared to the pre 2000s. The players that have come through (Robertson, Selby, Ding, Trump, Murphy) are tough enough competition, but then you add in the fact the likes of Mark Williams, O'Sullivan and Higgins have managed to stick around and prolong their careers as the sports become more professional.
Judd Trump already has 700 century breaks. That's mental. Both him and Robertson will overtake Hendry's centuries record which seemed untouchable for anyone but O'Sullivan for a long time.
Judd Trump already has 700 century breaks. That's mental. Both him and Robertson will overtake Hendry's centuries record which seemed untouchable for anyone but O'Sullivan for a long time.
I dunno, I think the fact that so many players are hanging around in their forties winning tournaments isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the current crop. Hendry would win a game between the two at their peaks, even if Ronnie is the more talented of the two. If that makes sense.
Laser eye surgery is the main reason players are still playing in their forties when they never used to.
I dunno, Hendry retired younger than Ronnie is now and had access to Laser eye surgery surely
But all being all, I think I'll trust the judgement of the people Ronnie is up against for GOAT on this one and not a lot of what ifs based on a little touch of bias. He has the most ranking titles, is only 1 behind on world titles, is still winning at an older age than Hendry retired and is clearly the most naturally talented player ever. Saying that isn't a slight on the other greats of the game, and as said before Hendry has a legacy that includes modernising the game to allow O'Sullivan to flourish in the first place. But Ronnie has done it at the same level, for longer, against ever increasing levels of opponents.
But all being all, I think I'll trust the judgement of the people Ronnie is up against for GOAT on this one and not a lot of what ifs based on a little touch of bias. He has the most ranking titles, is only 1 behind on world titles, is still winning at an older age than Hendry retired and is clearly the most naturally talented player ever. Saying that isn't a slight on the other greats of the game, and as said before Hendry has a legacy that includes modernising the game to allow O'Sullivan to flourish in the first place. But Ronnie has done it at the same level, for longer, against ever increasing levels of opponents.
Hendry retired because he got the yips and couldn’t overcome it mentally.I dunno, Hendry retired younger than Ronnie is now and had access to Laser eye surgery surely
But all being all, I think I'll trust the judgement of the people Ronnie is up against for GOAT on this one and not a lot of what ifs based on a little touch of bias. He has the most ranking titles, is only 1 behind on world titles, is still winning at an older age than Hendry retired and is clearly the most naturally talented player ever. Saying that isn't a slight on the other greats of the game, and as said before Hendry has a legacy that includes modernising the game to allow O'Sullivan to flourish in the first place. But Ronnie has done it at the same level, for longer, against ever increasing levels of opponents.
Hendry was up against players like Jimmy White, Steve Davis, John Parrott, Ken Doherty, Peter Ebdon along with the likes of Williams, Higgins and O’Sullivan. Some of the current lot may be better break builders but their all round game isn’t there. You also have to factor in the fact that Hendry’s game was decimated a long time before he retired. Nothing anyone has done since can match his 7 centuries in the UK Final.
If you want to talk about talent, Hendry was a pro within five years of first picking up a cue and World Champion within ten years. O’Sullivan was playing from he was no age. I think being quicker than Hendry leads to people thinking there’s a big difference in their natural talent. There wasn’t for me.
I watched Hendry vs O’Sullivan in an exhibition around 2007ish. They each played one frame against a local amateur, one against a local pro and then a best of 9 between the two of them and there was 8 centuries. It was unreal. We then queued up to get their autograph and I was standing by a curtain next to the main stage where the engineers were all taking the table down and I noticed John Virgo was chatting to them while they were working so I nipped off behind the curtain and went and had a chat with Virgo for about 5 minutes! Genuinely the nicest bloke in the world, he was more excited than we were going over every single break, the shot selection, shots he would have played compared to the shots they saw that he’d never even thought of in his wildest dreams. The level of talent they have is just mind boggling.
How many ranking titles did Hendry have to win compared to Ronnie nowadays ? Not really a fair comparison.
Fair play man. But okay, it doesn't really matter, we were all winners because we were treated to some excellent drama in this world championships.
Hendry often calls Ronnie the GOAT and there is nobody better qualified to judge so that's that in my eyes.
Just to add to that, does anyone else find that Snooker just has really amazing pundits and commentary in general, at least whenever it is on the BBC? The only thing I miss is the old snooker theme tune! I love hearing from Hendry, Ken, Parrott and Davis. They just give honest, but polite feedback and there doesn't seem to be any agendas at least nothing like what you see for football coverage. I also miss Thorne's and Virgo's commentary too.
The early 90's were a really awful time for snooker.
Davis was largely spent, White and Parrott were good but not greats and the class of 92, Ebdon and Doherty were all still well before their peak.
Their opponents in the worlds aren't really comparable of you ask me.
In 2001 he beat Higgins, one of the all time greats in the final. In 2004 he beat the UK champion Maguire in the first round and Hendry in the semi's (ironically probably his easiest run), in 2008 he beat Hendry and Williams on the way to the final, in 2012 he beat Neil Robertson and Mark Williams, in 2013 he beat Trump and Bingham and this year he beat Williams, Ding and Selby.
He's had relatively easy finals across the 6 but he's has utterly brutal runs to those finals. In the 1990 win Hendry only faced Parrott who was a player of any note, in 1992 he literally didn't play a seeded opponent until playing against a 107 year old Terry Griffiths in the semis. In 1996 he managed to win by playing against Jason Ferguson (yes that one), Gary Wilkinson, Darren Morgan, Nigel Bond and Peter Ebdon. Yes, that's right, he won the World Championships by playing 5 players that had a combined 2 ranking tournament wins in their careers up to that point.
It wasn't until 97-98 that the level really started to heat up. Hendry was clearly much further above White, Parrott, Bond and McManus than O'Sullivan is above Higgins, Williams, Selby, Robertson, Trump, Ding etc. but that's because the latter group are vastly superior players by and large.
Ronnie hasn't been able to dominate an era because at any one point because pretty much since he arrived on the scene he's had peak Hendry then peak Williams, peak Higgins, peak Robertson, peak Selby and now peak Trump to battle with, not to mention players like Murphy and Ding who are at least on a level with Parrott and White and Hunter who would have been if his career hasn't been cut short.
The arguments that Ronnie isn't the greatest have been pretty ridiculous since he took a year off then came back and won at a canter in 2013 really. This win just put the nail in the coffin.
Hes also won a triple crown event in each of the last 9 seasons, equalling Hendry's best streak which is pretty mental when you think he's currently 44.
Davis was largely spent, White and Parrott were good but not greats and the class of 92, Ebdon and Doherty were all still well before their peak.
Their opponents in the worlds aren't really comparable of you ask me.
In 2001 he beat Higgins, one of the all time greats in the final. In 2004 he beat the UK champion Maguire in the first round and Hendry in the semi's (ironically probably his easiest run), in 2008 he beat Hendry and Williams on the way to the final, in 2012 he beat Neil Robertson and Mark Williams, in 2013 he beat Trump and Bingham and this year he beat Williams, Ding and Selby.
He's had relatively easy finals across the 6 but he's has utterly brutal runs to those finals. In the 1990 win Hendry only faced Parrott who was a player of any note, in 1992 he literally didn't play a seeded opponent until playing against a 107 year old Terry Griffiths in the semis. In 1996 he managed to win by playing against Jason Ferguson (yes that one), Gary Wilkinson, Darren Morgan, Nigel Bond and Peter Ebdon. Yes, that's right, he won the World Championships by playing 5 players that had a combined 2 ranking tournament wins in their careers up to that point.
It wasn't until 97-98 that the level really started to heat up. Hendry was clearly much further above White, Parrott, Bond and McManus than O'Sullivan is above Higgins, Williams, Selby, Robertson, Trump, Ding etc. but that's because the latter group are vastly superior players by and large.
Ronnie hasn't been able to dominate an era because at any one point because pretty much since he arrived on the scene he's had peak Hendry then peak Williams, peak Higgins, peak Robertson, peak Selby and now peak Trump to battle with, not to mention players like Murphy and Ding who are at least on a level with Parrott and White and Hunter who would have been if his career hasn't been cut short.
The arguments that Ronnie isn't the greatest have been pretty ridiculous since he took a year off then came back and won at a canter in 2013 really. This win just put the nail in the coffin.
Hes also won a triple crown event in each of the last 9 seasons, equalling Hendry's best streak which is pretty mental when you think he's currently 44.
Who said anything about being a BIG difference as if the gap was huge?
This is the problem with debates like these, one side automatically thinks the other is somehow downgrading their favourite, it makes any real discussion quite difficult.
I grew up watching Hendry and now O'Sullivan and consider myself lucky to have watched them both in their prime. I don't consider myself an expert so I listen to those in making judgements and they all say what my eyes have told me. That Hendry made the modern game and O'Sullivan is the most naturally gifted player ever. The GOAT debate can be changed and twisted however people like, but by any stretch both players have better claim to it than anyone else.
For me, Ronnie winning at 44 against a much better pack of players on top of being widely seen as the most talented and having most ranking titles, well that's a hard task to be neutral and argue against that.
The trouble with the GOAT debate in snooker ahead of any other sport is that Ronnie backers absolutely refuse to listen to any other opinion.
If someone says Hendry or Davis and another name is thrown in to the hat (Ronnie) then they will take that on board, say fair point (because it is) and debate it.
But generally (there are exceptions) people who back Ronnie as the GOAT refuse to enter in to any debate once their mind is made up.
It's a really arrogant approach and why I steer clear of the subject!
If someone says Hendry or Davis and another name is thrown in to the hat (Ronnie) then they will take that on board, say fair point (because it is) and debate it.
But generally (there are exceptions) people who back Ronnie as the GOAT refuse to enter in to any debate once their mind is made up.
It's a really arrogant approach and why I steer clear of the subject!
Is it a much better pack? You say you are no expert so you listen to the experts. Well O’Sullivan himself said the standard is terrible currently so you’re contradicting yourself on that one. He does have the most ranking titles. He also played longer than Hendry. The debate was at their peak. O’Sullivan was never as dominant as Hendry was at his peak.
But you could argue that Hendry bullied one set of players? As soon as the next wave came in and caught up he fell away. He was even fadibg badly in and around his 7th worlds win.
People dismiss Ronnies longevity but Hendry was fading badly at 29, he was still a contender but the dominance was gone.
When O’Sullivan won his first title he beat Andy Hicks, Dave Harold, Peter Ebdon and Joe Swail on the way to the final. You can look with hindsight at a lot of tournament runs and downgrade the achievement if you like. They had four ranking titles between them and three of those were Peter Ebdon’s.
You could argue it which is fair enough. Hendry also played at a time when players generally played safe a lot more. It helped that he was a bigger scorer than everyone else but people also left less opportunities than they do now. It’s close between them at their peak. I think the fact he was still a contender despite being a shadow of his former self speaks to how good he was at his peak. Despite O’Sullivan fans trying to downplay his achievements.
Davis suffers due to him always down playing just how good he was.
The man was something else in his time and still had moments of greatness at the very end of his career as well.
The man was something else in his time and still had moments of greatness at the very end of his career as well.
You are deliberately missing what Ronnie actually said. Twisting facts to suit what you want to be the truth is never a good thing.
And Hendry had easier opposition at his peak, I'm not sure why you are so insistent on pushing back against that. But I'll leave it to the man himself and what he thinks.
We should just consider ourselves lucky to have witnessed both in action.
Yeah I agree, I don't like it when he talks down how great he was. He, like Hendry after him, really changed the game.
Is anyone doing that in here though?
I'd argue the same goes both ways, it's bizarre. Davies, Hendry, O'Sullivan are all at the very top of the pile for me, of course there are other greats, but those three are the main men over the years I remember most being in awe of. You can think one is the goat without thinking less of the others.
We’ll agree to disagree.
Yeah man I respect that. The good thing is that it's not clear cut, both legends have their case.
The stars don't align...... 6 times.
And he beat John Higgins in the final. John Higgins who was at that point a 12 time ranking event winner. You're being outrageously disingenuous if you're trying to claim those runs are even remotely similar in difficulty.
That's not what he said, he said the young players coming through today aren't very good, those are two different things.
Last edited:
I remember watching a documentary a while back on 1985 final and one of his friends pointed out Steve struggled with not being liked by the public, which is were the self dedication humor comes from imo(He also seems like a very down to earth guy, has great taste in music as well).
There's is something about British culture that doesn't like an winner, it's almost like the public need to see their sporting stars suffer before they can back them.
It's not a British thing to be fair.... people get bored and well like an underdog. Brady gets it. The US crowd can be hostile towards Serena, the French always seem to favour Federer/Djokovic etc. Somehow Ronnie's been immune to it, but he's never truly sustained a dominant run .. Hendry and Davis dominated to unreal levels.
Yeah he played a tough final that year but it’s not like Hendry didn’t throughout. You picked one year where he played an average finalist. Ronnie O’Sullivan has won one final against a top player. He lost the only other time that happens. His other wins came in finals against Graeme Dott, Ali Carter twice and Barry Hawkins.
If you want to downplay Hendry’s achievements that’s up to you. But he beat better players in finals than O’Sullivan did. There was less ranking titles to win in those days so of course Hendry played players who had won less. In part because he was winning most of them.
Yep maybe you're right(Although I've always thought the Serena hate is down to her being a successful black athlete in a very white sport, plus tennis audiences are an odd bunch).
One thing Ronnie said which deserves respect was it counts out of how many games too in terms of trophy wins and breaking records, he said if Hendry did it in half the games then it's still his record. I liked that.
Yeah I’d agree with that. It’s fair to say there isn’t a lot between them. A good argument can be made for saying either one is the best. My personal preference is obviously Hendry because that’s when I grew up watching snooker. Younger people are always going to go with O’Sullivan for the same reason and there’s a little decency bias when comparing who each came up against.
Im not sure about that, it was very gracious ,but I think it just means he had a more concentrated peak and burned out (well, got the yips).
I don’t think you can argue that Hendry is more talented, he was a better competitor with a stronger mind for a period but I think Ronnie’s longevity is also a virtue.
I think OSullivan in full flow is the greatest player, no-one can match him. Where Hendry could beat over an 18 game final is O'Sullivan can shut off for a session, invariably the next one he comes flying back, but if you can take advantage of when he loses concentration, you can build up a decent lead. i think prime Hendry v Ronnie is a tough one. Natural ability is Ronnie hands down, better overall game, probably Hendry
Yeah I'm not sure I agree with it either, but for all the shit Ronnie gets about disrespecting the game and other players (of course, not all of it unwarranted), it's nice when he does show respect.