The game is finished

Why are all the venues a sell out at tournaments then ? Obviously the characters are not the same.. Not allowed to drink 8 pints and smoke 20 **** whilst playing anymore.

A lot of its boring because the skills been taken out of the game,plus most players now play exactly the same game it's dull as dishwater snooker on tv is completyely dead unless a new Alex Higgins came aong and that must be a million to one shot nowadays..

Were Terry Griifiths and Tony Meo really characters? - I'd argue not, it was just that snooker was force-fed to the British public, and with not much else to watch, the viewing figures were high. The general standard of play in the 80s was pretty rubbish really, only a handful of players would give Davis (a genuinely great player) any trouble at all at the time.

The character of snooker was pretty much down to some bad behaviour of some of the biggest stars - Higgins, Thorburn, White and Stevens were all involved in drugs off the table, and the sport has just cleaned itself up, but the same can be said for almost any other sport - darts players all drink water on stage, no footy players get caught doing anything like what the hard-drinkers of 70s and 80s got up to. If you look how fast World Championship tickets get snapped up, you'd have to say its not doing that bad these days

Cant agree at all that the standard was rubbish in the 80s. Davis is, by common consent, the third greatest player of all time, sure he was dominant, but no more dominant than Hendry was a decade later. Does that mean the standard was rubbish in the 90s too? I know the current bunch rattle in tons like there's no tomorrow, but you couldnt convince me that the standard is all that higher now than it was 30 years ago. It's a different game entirely, so it is very hard to compare, but my guess is that the game has stalled and the overall standard is more of less the same ie backboned by a small selection of great players but lacking strength in depth.

Snooker shot itself in the foot really, maybe its appeal was always going to level out, but they knew for years that the tobacco money was going yet did nothing to open up new markets. Losing great venues like Wembley and Goffs was a disaster and the players were weak and easily manipulated. I think it is slowly recovering lost ground, though can't say i'd be a fan of the current tour set-up.

The game is finished because it's a victim of trends, it's simply too long and boring for todays audience, players like Selby, Ebdon, have killed it off, without O'Sullivan it would be on a life support machine! I have another theory that the game has suffered because players are too good, centuries, maximums, are no longer a novelty.

The game has evolved in the way it has because finding funding after losing the tobacco companies required faster frames to fit in advertising.

Anyone who thinks that tables have not been doctored to that end is at best naive.

As for players getting better is a ridiculous statement as the class of 92 of Ronnie, John. and Mark are supreme to anything else out there and it was Hendry who dragged them to his level.

Perhaps snookers saddest loss was the David Vine presentation of the world championships which ran from 10 am to early evening on the bbc non stop and all those stay at home mums would switch on every day.

Ronnie is not the big switch on as some think and many do the opposite mostly because of his attitude in general.

Alex and Jimmy were players most could understand and in my opinion they would have treated these tables like kiddies buys from woolworths.

Moondan, we're never going to agree on tables, my belief is the pockets of yesteryear were 50% bigger than todays, and tell me a sport where the players of 25 years ago were better than the current ones? O'Sullivan would have murdered Hendry on those tables. I will however agree with you on David Vine, lol!

If you'd just watched the Championship League Final you'd see that snooker is far from finished.

Congrats to Judd beating Ronnie 3-2 in a classic.

Five frames of snooker is not a classic far from it,it's a joke classics are Hendry beating white 18-17 in world finals....

my belief is the pockets of yesteryear were 50% bigger than todays

50%? Hardly likely. My own (quite unscientific) belief is that the pocket size hasnt changed much but, as moondan and others suggest, the balls are dropping more easily because of the cloth or the bed of the table or something technical like that. It's just a suspicion but one which a lot of snooker watchers share, and some who vehemently disagree of course. The players should be asked about this, but there doesnt seem to be any snooker writers out there either curious enough or paid enough to bother looking into it.

As for players 25 years ago, i dont think you can compare. Take golf for one, 25 years ago nobody was bombing it 350 yards down the fairway and hitting par 5s in 2 with driver and 8 iron. Still, you cant tell me that Faldo, Ballesteros, Norman, Olazabal, Langer etc were inferior players to the current generation.

Hendry would've been p1ssing up in these tournaments just a bunch of bottlers,plus the other great match players that were different gravy mark Williams,jimmy white they would've had a field day amongst the current crop at their best on these tables.Not forgetting paul hunter as well who was absolute class and had a lot more to come...

Jimmy a great match player?

A bottler on most big occasions, the talent only able to take him to the door.

Jimmy White was a great match player at his best in my opinion. Yeah sure, a couple of those world finals will haunt him to his grave, particularly the black ball one, but he just couldn't cope with hendry, i'd forgive him for that. In all he reached 24 ranking finals, not bad given how few ranking tournaments there were back then compared to now, and won 10 of them, hardly the figures of a bottler when you take into account 8 of those lost finals were against either Davis or Hendry. Lost to Parrot in a world final too, when Parrott played the best snooker of his life. Was a genuinely unlucky lad our Jimmy, but one of the true greats nonetheless for me anyway.

Jimmy white played some of the greatest snooker of all time against the greatest player of all time,you take Hendry away he could've won 4/5 world tityles and that's not taking into avccount the drinking and drugs anyone who thinks jimmy was a bottler obviously hasn't got a clue about the game.

if Hendry hadn't been around Jimmy would have bottled it to someone else.

White would've dotted up in most of those finals never started playing the game properly till in his 30s,certainly a lot more bottle than these current players they're absolutely useless under pressure..

He had it to get to the door, he just couldn't walk through it.

This from someone who loved Jimmy. I am sure his character and lifestyle impacted on his game, it was so sad his capitulation from 14-8 up.

I guess its harsh to call him a bottler, but I'm still mad at him.

The point is hendrys the only other player that would've won from that position anyone else would've gioven up white would've won in a canter,that's why Hendry was miles beyond any other player in history.

Utter rubbish in my view. Jimmy White had no bottle. He missed a black off the spot in the final frame decider in a world final and didn't even get the jaws. Lost 10 frames in a row from 14-8 to lose the match in another final.

He definitely had some bottle - the way he won the Mercantile, and the 16-14 win over Davis at Sheffield stand out as great performances under extreme pressure. At 14-8 up he was writing his winners speech in his head, and took a few liberties - when he tried to get it back it wasnt there

To think Jimmy could've been a world champ at 19, if only Alex hadnt produced the best clearance that ever was and likely ever will be. Although that said, not sure if Jimmy would've had the smarts for Reardon in the final, the count was a formidable enough opponent in his day.

Such ashame white and Higgins hadn't been playing now as 30 year olds,wouldv'e been fantastic the only memorable matches I have usually involve them Hendry,williams etc  your john Higgins,o'sullivans etc can't remember anything think 2000 onwards will be totally unforgettable in snooker history and that's a certainty!!

Should say forgettable....

Gentlemanjohn Ok maybe 50% bigger pockets was a bit optimistic, but your quote that they haven't changed much is equally as bad. Watch a clip of the Higgins v White world semi final and tell me the pockets are the same size today. O'Sullivan would find the pockets of yesteryear like pool tables, he'd destroy anybody from that era.

You don't half talk some rubbish,no doubt another fan boy...

How anybody can doubt Jimmy's bottle is beyond me.

He was beaten by 2 absolute legends of the game, and one imo could be considered to be one of the best sportsmen of all time let alone just snooker.

If Hendry had played Ronnie when both at their peak, i know Hendry's far superior mentality would have left ROS a broken man.

So basically you're saying that Ronnie is a bottler whilst Jimmy isn't er.. Ok .

Jimmy came up against Davis/Hendry who were better players. Nothing to do with bottle why he lost.

Ronnie is not a bottler but does have mental problems, which is usually why he loses. His talent is greater than anybody else, but doesn't have it between the ears.

Absolute bollocks imo. The guy has suffered with mental issues which he's worked hard to keep at bay and deserves a lot of credit for doing so. No one else is doing what he is at his age.

Maybe Ronnie's still at the top of the game because his all round game stands the better test of time than Hendry's.

If Ronnie had the mental side of the game sorted, he would have overtaken SH 's 7 world titles.

No doubt ROS has a greater skill level than anybody who has ever lifted a cue, but a tougher mental attitude made SH the greatest imo of course.

Fair play.if you asked 100 people probs be 50/50.

If you ask 100 people? What 100 people are you going to ask? Maybe some of the idiots on here who think Jimmy White was a bottler? Because their opinion, frankly, counts for sh1t. What people seem to fail to grasp is that snooker is not just about how quickly you can make 147s, at the very top level it is about controlling nerves, subduing your fear of thd consequences of a miss, and having the belief to overcome your opponent however well he may be playing. The reason why Hendry has more World titles than Ronnie or any other modern player is because his temerament was infinitely superior. Like it or not, temperament is as big, if not a bigger, part of success at snooker as talent. And thus, despite his unique gifts, Ronnie is just simply not as good as Hendry. The gap between their simple talent for potting one ball and getting perfectly on the next one is not all that big. The difference between their application, their ability to find more when they are under pressure, and generally to eke every ounce out of their talent, is massive.

Exactly anyone whose watched Hendry and o'sullivan at their best its not even an argument,o'sullivan would be quitting over a long match if behind and if Hendry had been behind he probably would've still won.Hendry as someone pointed out earlier not just great snooker player but one of the greatest sportsman of all time,under pressure you knew he was going to take out those ridiculous 60-70 clearences when 60+ behind but he could do it at anytime in any situation.

Thegiggilo 'Not even an argument" Go for a lie down Buddy. Much as i dislike the guy, there's no one who's ever played the game to the standard O'Sullivan can produce.

It may very well be arguable that Ronnie can produce short bursts of unparalleled brilliance beyond the capabilities of any other player in history, although Hendry's seven tons in a 10-1 ranking final victory bring even that claim into doubt.

Jed

Your comment at 22.19 is perfectly explained.   Absolutely agree with everything you said.

Both players are in a class of their own for different reasons and while Davis and his Parrot have almost turned the conversation to schoolboy stuff its refreshing that amongst the old and new pro ranks Hendry comes out on top and when Ronnies brilliance is just a memory Hendrys silverware will outshine him.
But again great comment about Jimmy aswell.

Different gravy Hendry,Mark Williams was playing as well as o'sullivan for 2years as well if not better he was the only player that played Hendry at his best and looked his equal at times!

Giggs,

The Masters come to mind. I think he was the holder of all the bbc titles at the same time in that 2 years.

Somebody put it quite well here recently. O'Sullivan loves snooker whereas Hendry loved winning. It's not perfect as Hendry clearly loved his snooker too, but if asked to explain the difference between them in a single sentence, I think you could do far worse than that.

I would contend that to become any sort of player, given the level of practise required even to get to 60-70 break standard, you have to love the game.

Hendry played RoS plenty of times in the 90s. He certainly didn't dominate him. Ronnie has been playing top level snooker for 20 years. It's my opinion that he's just got better as he's got older and healthier. Body and mind. The kid was tortured in his younger years. No wonder he looked fragile at times on the table.

Snooker is a conundrum in that you need the mental strength beyond your years, and if you don't have it you are too old if/when you ever get it to use it. Hendry had it in spades the toughest mentally by a distant margin. Some players will gain this or at least better their temperament in later years but by then their eyes are going or their action is shot.

Because of Ronnie's supreme natural talent he has greater longevity physically, and he is now stronger mentally as well. This why he is now so far ahead, with Hendry gone and others waning. The current brigade are nothing on Hendry/Higgins/Williams/Hunter in their pomp. Thats not to say he is a cert for the World's, as he has said himself its a tough slog the 17 days.

Born To Win 'Because of Ronnies supreme talent he has greater longevity physically" Eh!!!

What I mean is that less goes wrong with the most natural talents cueing actions etc. I guess physically is the wrong word.

Just look at Hendry's action in early years, he lost that badly towards the end. Also Davis.

Ronnie's action now is not much different than his younger days.