Anybody who comes on here stating pockets were more difficult in years gone by is dreaming, the mid 80's were absolute buckets in comparison with todays, granted the cloth is a massive advantage today but O'Sullivan would make hay with the bigger pockets, and in my opinion would start heavy odds on to beat Hendry both at their peak even on the 80's 90's tables.

Kenco

I have to say you are spot on.

The size of pocket is a red herring and have in fact always been the same size except for the middle bag which was cut slightly different in the latter 80s. Alex Higgins had much to say about that in one of his books when he complained to the board that it would have an enormous effect on the game. He was right and Hendry exploited this improvement to the full and gave birth to the modern game called one chance snooker.

Successive shaving of the cloth since the early 90s has mostly come about because the search for eradicating has been both expensive and ongoing.

Now the cloth has eradicated the drift and any deviation the knap once caused and the only problem a player has is controlling the speed and a slide especially down the cushion.
Since the thinner cloth that was used on the cushions and trialed at the Welsh championships some 6 years ago it was found that it impacted on the ability of a ball to enter a pocket because of the slide.
Its biggest effect was to make it far easier to pot balls from behind the baulk line after the break.
The improvement in potting  has been sold as player advancement but wiser heads will understand that is not the case. The hard fact is that conditions have never been better for a potting fest and it has not been accidental it came about because they think thats what the public want.
Unfortunately thee has been a downside, most fans of the game are not fooled and the lack of quality players coming through tells a sorry story.

Re Ronnies bottle.

No player in the history of the game has had more excuses than Ronnie for not winning and this was highlighted before the final started on Sunday when his attention was on his tip, he was in fact preparing the audience for defeat against Robbo.
Most fans of the snooker game think Robbo lost that game and Ronnie picked up the pieces.
Robbo bottled that game big time and he knows it but many do against Ronnie.

I think Ronnie in the 90s was up against a tougher breed of player who played a tougher game on thicker cloths and thats why he did not win a worlds.
I think his success in his last couple of worlds has been down to very kind draws, the odd good player he did meet never turned up for whatever reason and I am thinking of Murphy in particular.

These conditions have turned the game on its head and as a betting medium its a big no no.

Gentlemenjohn.

Hendry checked his cue in because he could see the way it was going and he has the records and money to give the hours and hours of mind blowing practice a miss.
He knows Ronnie has got to win 3 more worlds to beat him and the fact that it took Ronnie 23 years to win 5 its only the Ronnie fanboy dreamers who go to bed thinking that will happen.

Think you'll find I'm more knowledgeable about snooker than 99.9% of posters on a betfair forum and have played to a decent standard,played some well known pros in late 80s and been watching for 30 years,this is my other account by the way.Not quite as much as the aw but that would be an impossibility...

thegiggolo/kenco - well, that leaves 0.1% !!!!!

Our family is sports orientated - I am not, by nature, particularly modest but I will leave it at that .....

Crepello,

Hendry never felt the same after his Historic seventh world title in 99, it was also his greatest achievement and performance against the finest line up that included Ronnie and Williams who he brushed aside with little fuss.
Another reason was his beloved cue that had won him everything was never replaced after being smashed up a couple of seasons later.
When Hendry won that seventh his manager told the tv audience that he was worried that he might not win another because he was spending more  time on the golf course instead of puting his usual practice in.
However you look at it Hendry had nothing left to prove to anyone he had put the work in and deserved his retirement.

Hendry has often said he did not want to be beaten and if he felt his time was up he would not be in it.

I have skipped work to attend tournaments since the late seventies, watched referees iron cloths in the break because it was raining outside and the white would not run a yard. I have seen days when if the white touched the cushion it had no chance of going in the pocket unlike these past few years where it common to drop because of slide and the fact there is no knap to throw it off.

I also saw Davis and Parrot many times when the were great players and were not poor presenters who talk nothing but rubbish and who are guilty of misleading a generation of fans who deserve a better education of how the game has evolved.

Anyway I do have some sympathy with your comments but I can assure you Ronnies only weakness has been his bottle.

moondan

Enjoyed reading your considered replies but we see thing differently.

Hendry in his prime was a magnificent player - he usually needed only one bite at the cherry and the frame was gone.

However, whatever the reason, he lost his game - I repeat, he could not pot a long ball to save his life and I was hoping he would adjust his game to overcome this weakness - he would not and that was the end of him - he struggled on for some time but it was all over for him.

Ronnie has made adjustments and that has enabled him to remain competitive - as there are so few young players coming through, I can see him going on for some time ..

I wonder if there are as many young men taking up snooker these days - I doubt it with all the other attractions they have at their disposal - It makes the long term future for snooker look bleak - certainly in the UK.

Finally, I think one of the big differences between Hendry and O'Sullivan is that the former loved WINNING whereas the latter loves SNOOKER.

Had had that original cue when he was 14 I think,looked completely different player after that he just adapted even though he won plenty of tournaments it was obvious he wasn't as confident or as comfortable with another cue.His cueing completely changed,so was relying being amongst the balls as well so basically playing on iron will and more technical side.I was amazed he played to such a high standard to be honest but it took the natural ability away ,ashame really as I think snooker players should carry on till as long as they can play..