RANKING THE BEST SNOOKER PLAYERS OF ALL TIME!
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 05. 2024
- There have been 22 different snooker world champions crowned at the Crucible since 1977 but if they were all at the peak of their powers today, what would the top five in the rankings look like?
Ronnie O'Sullivan, who has won seven world titles and 23 Triple Crowns in his record-breaking career would be at the top of almost everyone's list but what about the other places?
Would you favour the Rocket's fellow 'class of 92' members John Higgins and Mark Williams ahead of legendary Crucible kings Stephen Hendry and Steve Davis - or would you pick more modern stars such as Mark Selby or Judd Trump.
The standard of the sport may have improved overall but if you imagine Davis and Hendry were in today's era - would their competitive and mental edge allow them to reach the performance levels needed to succeed today.
We posed this question to Mark Williams, Ali Carter, Shaun Murphy, Kyren Wilson and Robert Milkins at this year's World Championship and they all gave different top fives and reasons.
Let us know what you think in the comments and don't forget to subscribe for more great snooker videos!
0:00 Mark Williams
0:48 Shaun Murphy
2:04 Robert Milkins
3:02 Ali Carter
3:57 Kyren Wilson - Sport
i thought Mark was missing Hendry out on purpose at first 🤣
Me too, deffo thought he was being his usual trolling self
I think that's exactly what he was doing.
For sure thought the same. Love Willo!!!
Nah, it appears he just didn't give it much thought 🤔
Yeah he always jokes and best mates with hendry and always mucking about when its hendry
Yeah he was doing that here joking around
any top 5 without hendry at 1or 2 is just ridiculous.
He can’t ever be number 1 in anyone’s list. Every single pro says O’Sullivan
@@ababbington1well he can just to many cock smokers he done what ronnie did but twice as fast
Was around at the time and believe me……Steve Davis was a machine…….the blueprint for any great player since
If Ronnie, Hendry and Higgins were at their prime in the 80s, good luck Davis. Gonna need it.
Edit:
also he is a sellout prick with all his masonic hand symbols. dark heart.
Davis was 33-2 win/loss at the Crucible 1983 to 1989
Hendry was 34-2 win/loss at the Crucible 1992 to 1999.
Davis's run at the Crucible in the 1980's was akin to Hendry's run in the 1990's so you coukd say that it waa a Hendry type win/loss record even if Davis didn't go on a 29 siccessive match wins or win 5 world titles on the spin. 33-2 win/loss waan't as far off from the 29 in a row Hendry match wins from 1992 to 1997 as it turned out. 33-2 also says Davis made 7 successive world chapionship finals 1983 to 1989, and Davis also made 2 more world aemi finals the 2 years in the first 2 years of the 1990's it waa extremely competitive with Hendry's Crucible record in the 1990's.
@@dvidclapperton loved the nugget!….a time when even the most average player was a household name…..the 1980s was surely the golden era of snooker
Ali Carter was the most honest and spoke the most sense!
it makes no sense to compare these eras claiming these top players wouldnt be able to compete today i mean give Alex Higgins or Jimmy White the equipment and condition guys have today and they would destroy dudes like Carter.
Let’s put Ali Carter on a 1980s unbeaten table with thick slow cloth and heavy balls and see how does
Except it was a different era. Slower cloth. The ball were heavier and didnt split as easily. The balls had to be picked off one by one and Davis and Hendry were geniuses at this
I am glad someone else mentioned it, I was about to leave the same comment in Ali's favour.
Ronnie's favourite!🤫🤫🤔🫣🫣
Ray Reardon was a fabulous player!!❤
3:46 Mark William comes out of nowhere eating a banana 🍌 😂
I actually liked Murphys analysis here, and always admire brutal honesty whether I agree with the point being made or not, and so I give a thumbs up to what Carter said here also. Much like I see in boxing discussions - the comparing of different era's does not really make sense, as it's all pure fantasy anyway, e.g the whole "would Ali have beaten Mike Tyson prime for prime" (a topic which comes up often). In my opinion it is the innovators who influenced and paved the way for the future talents that deserve all credit for it.
Problem with comparing eras is people just look at stats , and forget about the playing conditions, the balls were heavier in the past so the pact didn't split as easily, making breaks harder to come by ,also the cloth was thicker with more nap , the tables weren't as fast , and then many of the players of the past had less time for practice
Great point
Very true but if you do want to compare eras you can only go on the numbers. That's why it's the problem because of the points you make
Well actually it's more than that. A lot has to do with human psychology.
Give you an example of what I mean:
I'd wager huge reason why O'Sullivan was so successful was because... Hendry was so successful in the 90s.
A huge reason why Hendry was so successful was because.... Steve Davis was so successful.
A huge reason why Davis was so successful was because.... Ray Reardon was so successful.
And so it goes...
All these players basically grew up watching and admiring their idols ie older players and wishing they could follow them and match their records and even beat their records.
But, to that end, it has to be said it is FAR EASIER going for a target already set than setting any target, or indeed competing when there's no records and no benchmark from the past (such as in Joe Davis' era, for instance).
Like, was century breaks stat such a big deal in Joe's era? Doubt it. Triple crown wins? Hell, there wasn't even any Uk champ or masters back then. Most prize money won? Again, grew with the time and has to be accounted for inflation and new sponsorship and the rise of media coverage. Competition? Yes sure it grew steadily over time too. Should Joe Davis be "penalised" in this ranking only because snooker was only in its early stages?! Would Ronnie have won 15, 20 or 30 titles back in Joe Davis' era? Hell, we'll never know answer to those questions, and yet these ALL are relevant considerations in this discussion!
I agree with Shaun Murphy that it is hard to compare eras.
All any sportsman can do is to dominate the era that they are in. They cannot control what comes after them, all they can do is to give the next generation something to aim at.
Steve Davis utterly dominated the sport for a decade and raised the standards considerably from where it was previously.
Stephen Hendry then raised the bar again in the 1990's
O'Sullivan, Higgins & Williams were all young players coming through the ranks in the early 1990's. In my opinion, part of the reason they are still competing at the top well in to their 40's, is the fact that that they had to reach such a high standard, when they were coming through, in order to get anywhere near Hendry in the first place.
In terms of O'Sullivan, there's no real dispute he's the best ever but when was his "prime" ?
"When was Ronnie O'Sullivans prime?" could be a whole CZcams debate in itself
His 7 world titles are spread out over 21 years and he's only ever won back to back titles once in 2012 & 2013. He's been world no1 several times but never for longer than about 18-24 months at a time. He was actually quite far down the rankings when he won his back to back World Championships.
I think that sums Ronnie up. Could be World Champion one day and then 24 hours later can't be bothered playing anymore
I like what Kyren said. O'Sullivan, Williams, Higgins are not just winning titles, but doing it consistently for a very long period of time. Including modern era.
Yes but what Karen doesn't understand is that modern tables are vastly different to the tables of the 80s. Today's tables are easier to play on.
@@dangermouse8466 Then why all the great players in the old era could not compete anymore. They had the same tables but only Ronnie, Mark and John were winning.
@@udtojanpestillos2094 The tables of the 80s and 90s played totally differently to today's tables. Today's tables are much easier to play on. Why? It's for ratings. The BBC and WPBSA decided they wanted matches finishing quicker because interest in the sport wouldn't wane. And if winning is everything to you, then Davis and Reardon ought to be higher ranked than Mark and John coz they won more world titles. I suggest you do some research on how different the tables are.
@@dangermouse8466 Yeah nowaday's tables are easier to play. But the best players of 80s and 90s were not able to play on these "easy" tables. Standard was just low in those days.
@@udtojanpestillos2094 Of course they could play. Reardon is well into his 90s and Davis is getting on too. What the hell are you talking about?
Prime Hendry and O'Sullivan, it's a toss of a coin between them. Ronnie gets #1 for his extra longevity, triple crown numbers, genius factor(left handed play, speed around the table etc) but anyone putting Hendry lower than 2nd obviously didn't see him play.
Would he dominate today like he did in the 90s? No, but he'd still absolutely be vying for world #1 and all the main titles each year. He's the only player from his and earlier era's that made centuries at the same rate as the best players of today. Just ahead of his time.
Did you notice how the number of centuries during this world championship was less than half of each of the previous years? Do you know why that happened? Surely, today's players with a higher standard should have gained more centuries? But no! You all don't realise how much harder it is to play on a thicker cloth. The 70s and 80s had the thickest cloths of all. And the cloth during the 2024 world championship was like an ice skating rink compared to the deep water wading of a cloth you had back in the 70s and 80s. This should be enough proof that people like Reardon and Davis would not only compete in today's era but probably dominate it too. Davis came after Reardon, Hendry came after Davis, the class of 92 came after Hendry, but no single one talent has emerged to take on Ronnie & co since. Leading me to believe that Ronnie would likely never have won 7 world titles if someone like Davis or Hendry came soon after him.
@@dangermouse8466 This makes no sense at all. You naming 1-1 players from each era, like it was only them, then the 92 class (which is 3 ppl alone) is already more, also Mark Selby came after them so its four top 7, possibly top 5 players only from the 2000s/2010s
@@m.b.7198 It does make sense. You haven't been watching snooker long enough to understand. Not only that but you've never played on a BCE table and a modern professional table. Of course you won't know nor understand.
Well, ALL players have Ronnie on 1. No need for discussion there...
It’s not a toss of the coin. Every professional snooker player says O’Sullivan even Ali Carter who hates him. Where are you coming from?
I liked Murphy’s comment on how everything has changed except the colour of the cloth. It’s impossible to say if fred Davis or reardon started out with today’s equipment ie super fine cloth, heated tables 1g balls better lighting and great venues . No doubt these guys would not only compete but they’d be up there winning because their champions. They had something other people didn’t have. And it’s the same with Davis and Hendry both of them would have won much more in today’s game with the amount of tournaments we have now. It’s incredible to think they won so many titles considering there was hardly any ranking events at the time.
Fred Davis was well past his peak in the Reardon era despite getting to later stages of tournaments in his late 50s to mid 60s this tells us his much better brother Joe Davis would have dominated the 70s at his peak and probably 80s minimum.
@@wizzgamernot sure you understand my point? The greatest players of each era would have been great players in todays game no doubt with much better conditions and equipment. I’m not taking about who was past their best when I’m only say peak Davis Joe or Fred would thrive in todays game with the fantastic conditions. Flip it the other way and send today’s pampered top 16 to the 1950s conditions and they’d struggle to make 50 . That’s way I always think the debate of who’s the greatest is impossible to say. There’s no way to prove it.
Like Murphy said if we had a tardis but do the opposite and transport todays top 16 to 50s, 60s, 70s . I doubt they would be anywhere near the way they play now on those conditions. Smoke filled rooms, heavy cloth/ heavy balls no table heaters . Today’s players are pampered and have the best of everything no wonder it looks like the standard is better. Same with every sport equipment and training methods improved. Thats why I’d say it’s an impossible question to ever prove who’s the greatest.
What about Peter Ebdon fantastic player to watch on a Sunday night when you need to go to bed early
That's unfair!
@@DeadlyKiss000 what's unfair going to bed early
@@SSNRR17 You miss the snooker! You know you love it!
I went to the doctor in the early 1980s with insomnia…..was expecting a prescription but was told to get some vhs of the grinder …..not a dating app though 😂😂
Funniest part about Ebdon as a pro was nothing like how he played as an amateur. He was a very attacking and quick player as a young player
Ronnie, Higgins, Hendry, Selby, Williams
No way Higgins is above Henry.no way
Made me realise how luck we are to have most of them alive and playing. Not something you can say about many sports!
@@WillC-wy5oyyea Ronnie and Hendry in their prime were quite a step above everyone else imo
No way Hendry wins 7 in this era, most of his wins came against a bottleless Jimmy, he even beat Nigel Bond for one of them but you can only beat whats in front of you, and he is still the second best because he was that good, players like Ray Reardon and Alex Higgins would be out their depth against the power scorers of today. Could they adapt to the modern game with better tables and balls? We’ll never know.
@@scottleicester4266 ..eras are there for a reason..I don't think Steve Davies beat top notch players or even reardon. But both names are on the 🏆 6 times each
I think the century tally comparison is a bit unfair as wasn't as many tournaments when Hendry and Davis were playing full time.
Tables were absolutely different way back then too. Centuries are much easier to make and hence the main reason why Hearn made the prize for a 147 quite low.
I really liked Shawn Murphys answer.
He wasn't wrong.
John Higgins.. what a player he has been over the year's 👌🏻 i remember his da just passed away and he won the world championship. Bittersweet interview after 💚😭 legend!
Fascinating video thanks for posting
All the modern players have seen all the shots on tv
It wasnt on tv much when Alex higgins and Jimmy was learning ..they had to learn all the shots themselves
And the stance and playing a pro speed table all your days
Ronnie osullivan
Stephen hendry
Steve Davis
John Higgins
Jimmy White
I nw jimmy white never won the world's but he got to six finals...a great player and people's champion,
I put Steve davis in as he won 6 titles, his safety play was the best
..
Hard to compare as the tables, balls etc are alot better than back in the day,
Stephen hendry was a brilliant player, all out attack.
I miss out two
Mark Selby
Mark williams
Jimmy white just no. Champion in choking as harsh as it is to say.
Not even in the top 10 is Jimmy White. Are u kidding?
Well, to be honest I grew up watching Hendry and followed Ronnie during his peak aswell and If I had to compare the 2 of them id say Hendry was the most dominant ever, dude was a destroyer on that table, a vicious machine, defensive play, long pots, recovering from bad positions and neves of absolute solid steel, no one comes close (for me of course)
All credit to Murphy for putting Reardon on the list. Not many people would dig that deep.
They sound so short sighted and arrogant. The modern game is superior lol talent transcends time. It’s like saying you can’t compared different generations of footballers because the game has changed 😂 I watched the World championships. This lot are not more talented then previous generations. Alex Higgins the GOAT!!
Steve Davis definitely got sold short there.
Absolutely the guy at his best was a machine
I think Steve davis set the benchmark for the players that followed so I'd put him top of the tree
I thought Williams was on the wind up as he's mates with Hendry 😂. Loved Ali Carter's honesty.
Honestly baffled how many people are putting Higgins above Hendry both in their prime.
Probably a longevity thing
The standard definitely went up after Hendry retired. I'd say a prime John Higgins is better than prime Hendry. Higgins has won tournaments dropping only a couple of frames, completely unplayable!
@@soberlifestyle hahaha thats exactly the problem no one is touching prime Hendry
@@mikescorpio13 Exactly. People dismiss Hendry, because they only remember him playing when he was in a steep decline of form. They're quick to forget that he completely DOMINATED the game for an entire decade and still holds records that even Ronnie isn't breaking. I still think prime Hendry beats prime Ronnie. Ronnie might, arguably, be more talented, but Hendry had nerves of steel. Even if he was 9-0 down, in a first to 10, you wouldn't bet against him coming back and winning 10-9. Ronnie, as great as he is, has a tendency to sulk when things don't go his way and we saw that against Bingham this year. It's always been his biggest downfall, but if he had Hendry's bottle, he'd be World Champion every year.
@@tizmond are you delusional? A prime henry was nearly untouchable, but he is no way beating a prime ronnie! Ronnie, in his prime, would mean you not getting a chance to take a shot in the whole match, you'll be sat in your sit the whole time and only go to the table when it's your turn to break off 😂😂
Davis would definitely hold his own today. Take these old players for what they did instead of just assuming that they wouldnt cope in today's game. Its ridiculous. I'm sure players today would struggle going back playing with different cloth and heavier balls lol. True greats are able to adjust to the times and competition.
Yes I'm a firm believer that talent is talent and if you dropped any of the old guard in to todays game they would raise their standards to compete with the players of today.
Fair point. But going purely on statistics, you can see why they don’t get picked in the list. We’ll never know
Yeah he beat Higgins in 2010 when he was past it. Prime he would be competitive
The question wasn't "let's postulate on how Fred Davis for example would fair against Ronnie if he was born decades later and had all the same equipment"
Jessie Owens was amazing but he would still not even get on his National team now, time move on..sport evolves and people get better.
Well said!
1) Ronnie
2) Hendry
3) John Higgins
4) Williams
5) Selby
1 - Ronnie (genius)
2 - Higgins (match player)
3 - Hendry (fearless)
4 - Selby (torturer)
5 - Davis (match player)
6 - Williams (genius)
7 - Reardon (psychologist)
8 - Ebdon (spiritual healer)
1 Ronnie
2 Hendry
3 Davis
4 J Higgins
5 Selby
6 Williams
7 R Reardon
8 A Higgins
9 J Trump
10 N Robertson
@@GarethHaynes I agree with this order entirely... maybe switching A Higgins and Trump, but that can be argued both ways.
Steve Davis was the bench mark, with out him snooker would not be what it is today!
Absolutely! He and then Hendry paved the way.
Wrong Davis should be Joe
@@jefferybilling9093 do not understand!?
@@darrenvidler5298 Joe Davis, the 15 times world champion and unbeaten in a competition match. Watching him play was magic, especially when you consider the equipment, balls, cloth etc.at that time.
@@jefferybilling9093He competed against a handful of players in events that could barely be called tournaments.
When comparing different eras in any sport we have to assume that the players would have the same equipment and conditions as the players they’re being compared to. So Ronnie being bought up in the 70’s and hitting his prime in the 80’s or Hendry and Davis being bought up in the 90’s and hitting their prime in the noughties etc.
If Mark Williams hadn't downed tools for over a decade he would be viewed as easily better than the likes of Higgins and Selby.
It's funny that he is often viewed as an underachiever even though he has won almost 30 Titles (including 3 Worlds and the triple crown in one Season). Shows the massive talent and understanding of the game he (still) has.
Genuinely don’t understand people saying Hendry won against weaker competition when his competition then is still winning now.
He made 7 centuries in a first to 10 match! Still a record for any one match. Who wouldn’t that beat?
In the past there was typically a top 4 players winning most of the tournaments.
There are more good players now and the ability to win doesn’t drop off as much below 8-16, so it’s harder to get through earlier rounds, but the *best* players aren’t better now than the *best* players in the 90’s.
The 80’s were different, but the popularity of snooker on TV meant a big increase in the talent pool from then on. Hendry raised the bar in terms of winning in a single visit and aggression in the late 80’s. It was him that made certain difficult shots routine and the players like the 92 trio had to meet that standard for the rest of the decade.
Does anyone really think Higgins and Williams are better now than in their prime 1997-2004?
Hendry wouldn’t dominate now like he did then, but the suggestion he wouldn’t be regularly beating current top 4 players like Mark Allen is laughable.
Exactly.
Hendry was the first player to combine the all out attacking style of Higgins/White and combine it with the determination & dedication to practice of Steve Davis.
Davis changed the sport in the 80's, in terms of the amount of practice hours you have to put in to reach the top
Hendry took it to a whole other level in the 90's in terms of shot making & break building
Totally agree.
Prime Hendry would be winning titles today without question.
The 2024 WC for a start!
Nobody would ever have won 7+ world titles in a decade 3 decades running. Nobody makes centuries in back to back visits 4 times to come to 8 centuries in a whole 8 frame multisession. 147's in back to back visits of a world semi final or final, no way.
Nobody has ever made 6 centuries in the same 8 frame multisession before. 7 centuries have only ever been made in a match by a person(s) just once including at the Crucible. Well 7 centuries by a person(s) has/have been achieved at the Crucible before, so 7 centuries in a match is a record for the Crucible. Hendry is not the only player to have made 7 centuries in a match looking at the stats of various websites quoting results and breaks made.
Higgins and Williams primes were around 2000-2010. Hendry never beat them many times during that period as he was in decline. If Jimmy hadn't been so messed up Hendry wouldn't have 7 titles.
@@Patthis67
Hendry won 2 (of the last 3 thst he won) out of the last 5 world championships of the 1990's beating Williams or O'Sullivan, or both on the way, first in 1995 and then 1999. First time Hendry played Williams was in 1997, Hendry won but it was only in round 2 not the semi final, but he didn't go on and win the tournament.
Some claim that John Higgins and Williams were at their peaks pre 1996 when Hendry was still winning the world championship every year. Hendry never played Higgins at all at the Crucible in the 1990's, and only met O'Sullivan and Williams at the deepest pointa of the world championships in the semi final and final of thr world championships in 1999. If they were all at their peaks whem Hendry was winnimg 5 in a row at the Crucible 1992 to 1996 why weren't all 3 of them also in the top 4 at the same time during that period and meeting the 3 of them on a regular basis in the world semi final and final.
Prime Ronnie against Prime Hendry in a one off match would be epic. Not as cut and dry as some might think.
Anyone leaving Steve Davis out clearly forgets how good he was. The reason he was called 'boring' is because he was so damn efficient! Ray Reardon was the master of getting a 30 or 40 break and then placing his opponent in trouble, but Davis moved it on a notch and then Hendry did further. Snooker is similar to darts where it has got a lot easier and I'm sure many of the older players would have loved to play with the tables and balls of today.
Milligan, Cleese, Everett….. sessions!
David Brent
Rory Bremner
They all fused Flashdance with MC Hammer sh*t...
@@donovanpain83 😂
@@danielosullivan7940 The Office will be watched in 50 years and looked on as pure genuis. Don't think Gavin and Stacey will...
Einstein and newton just don’t quite cut it 😂
ronnie, hendry, davis, higgins, selby
I would have to agree with this.
What all these players are missing is that when they changed the balls, so that the reds broke from the pack much more easily than was the case with the old balls, this made a totally different sort of game to be the one that was necessary to win matches. Ali Carter dismisses Steve Davis and Alex Higgins as not being in the same league as today's players, but I think that if you gave them the new balls to play with, then within a couple of years they'd be right up there, and that if they'd had the new balls since they started playing the game they'd very likely be dominating it as they did with the old balls in their era.
And the same thing's true of golfers, tennis players and cricketers. The game where the modern players do appear to perform better than those of 40 - 50 years ago is darts, although even here, it's possible that much of the improvement has come from a reduction in the variation between the barrels of the three darts bought as a set, or of the shafts, or of the flights. Maybe John Lowe's 9 darter was a fluke, because the variation in the players' sets of darts should have made it impossible.
Absolutely, I totally agree with you. It's shameful that Ali Carter does not understand this.
Not just the balls, but the cloth. Old cloth was much thicker/heavier. Today's cloth is fine, and conducive to the balls opening up, leading to more big breaks.
@@saltiresteel6647 Yes, this is true as well. Maybe some of the players DO understand that there can be no fair comparison made just by looking at the number of century breaks being made, or 147s. Stephen Hendry, for one, ought to know, and Steve Davis and Jimmy White surely do. The difference is more obvious in golf, where I expect even Gary Player, in his eighties, is able to hit the ball farther than he did in his twenties. But it seems that neophilia is the order of the day, and that homage must be paid to modernity, no matter how much or how little it merits it.
@@dangermouse8466 Perhaps he does, and he's just going through the TV Interview ritual of saying the "right" thing in a slightly different way from how the others are saying it. Shaun Murphy came closest to letting the cat out of the bag, I thought. Well done him!
More to do with the barrels of beer old darts players used to drink!
Good call by Shaun Murphy to include Reardon - totally agree with everything he said about him. And the way the game is progressing I guarantee that by the year 2074 (assuming the game is still going!) there will be people saying "O'Sullivan? Hendry? Selby? They couldn't compete with the players of today."
The game evolves, and Davis & Reardon would’ve evolved with it. But you can only be compared to your contemporaries, and the standard at the time. Players like Reardon raised the bar for Davis to reach, Davis raised the bar for Hendry to reach, Hendry raised the bar for pretty much the entire modern era. But bring a 17-18yr old Reardon, Hendry or Davis into today’s game, and they’d adapt to today’s standards, and be sharper than they ever were.
Think you said it better than me but the same sentiments. Put Alex higgins knowing he has to practice 7 hours a day to make it and it’d be inconceivable he wouldn’t be ranked higher than the Wilson’s. Put a common theme from all current players is to put down hendry and davis
@@rwachwater4408 Alex could do things on the snooker table with thicker, slower cloth that modern players struggle with!
Put him on a modern heated snooker table and he would be pulling of shots that only a prime Trump could achieve...
@@rwachwater4408 I didn’t even mention Alex, but you’re right, add Jimmy to that, too, their natural talent, with discipline & modern day playing conditions, they would be twice the players they were.
@@thesmithsnerdno disrespect to these players but if you’ve lived through these eras, without fear or favour how would Ricky Walden get on if he was an 80s player? He’s not a top 8 1980s player yet he hovers round the top 16 in 2024.
If you are at the table making a century how can anyone say in their chair stop you?
Great shout on Reardon!
Ronnie
Mark Williams
Hendry
Higgins
Jimmy White
Jimmy White 🤣
Only if we’re counting world seniors titles.
O'Sullivan, Hendry, Davis, Alex Higgins, Reardon. In that order. There's an argument for Joe Davis, but the game then was so different we don't really know his standard if he had equivalent training and practice to others
1. Ronnie
2. Hendry
No arguments that is just fact!
They played each other when both where in there prime at peak level… and it was bloody close
As long as John higgins is mentioned I'm happy. He's been unbelievable to watch for 30 years. Obviously ronnie but I'm Scottish 😅
Carter is insane saying Alex Higgins wouldn't compete with todays players. I agree he's not top 5, but that statement is crazy. Mine would be:
1. Ronnie
2. Hendry
3. Steve Davis
4. Reardon
5. John Higgins
1) Tony Drago
2) Robert Milkins
3) Bill Werbeniuk
4) Stephen Lee
5) Alex Higgins
Milkins and Higgins are in my top 5 too, Osullivan and Reardon, not sure about the other
Poomjaeng
I would say
1. Ronnie
2. John Higgins
3. Selby
4. Hendry
5. Willo
1 - Ronnie (genius)
2 - Higgins (match player)
3 - Hendry (fearless)
4 - Selby (torturer)
5 - Davis (match player)
6 - Williams (genius)
7 - Reardon (psychologist)
8 - Ebdon (spiritual healer)
Don't dare put Selby ahead of Hendry again lol.
@@Revolver1981 Selby has Hendry's breakbuilding abilities but with a better tactical game, and is the only player in history to beat Ronnie in all 3 TC finals.
Before you bring up stats, Selby had to compete with a prime Class of 92 as well as Trump, Robertson, Murphy, Allen etc all in their primes.
@@SURGASURGE12 Hendry in his day was unbeatable.
You would be so wrong.
I love how concerned Milkins looked 😂
For me, Shaun Murphy's selection is the most relatable of all: to have included that wily old fox, Ray Reardon, shows a very fine discernment. And no list can be credible without Mr. Interesting Davis in it: he was the ultimate disabler of an opponent's game-plan. Anyone who misses Steve out either didn't ever see him in action or forgets how utterly ruthless he was.
Absolute nonsense!!
@markhoad5921 Try saying that to Davis's opponents of the 1980's, who were pinned to their chairs for most of the match, or faced with shots where the cue ball was welded to the baulk cushion.
I agree. Davis easily makes the top 5 on my list.
1. Ronnie
2. Hendry
3. Higgins
4. Selby
5. Davis
Ronnie
Mark Williams
Paul Hunter
Stephen Lee
Stephen Hendry
Steve Davis
Ding
Ding over Robertson and Judd?!
Paul Hunter because he died?
Glad someone brought up Paul Hunter. Taken too soon and could have accomplished much more I feel.Judd not really mentioned, which I feel should be in more people's lists. So many good players now,making it a harder choice than when Davis and Hendry were dominating. I'm just really pleased to have enjoyed them all. Ronnie is pretty much top of everyone's list understandably.
All the people putting Hendry below Higgins and Williams seem to forget he did beat them at their best.
And the difference between him and O’Sullivan at their best was minimal.
The Liverpool Victoria Challenge in 1997 was the highest quality match I’ve ever seen.
Hendry will always be the best player ever for a period of time just like Tiger Woods was and Jack Nicklaus was before him.
Hendry is so far above john higgins... these robots are being ridiculous.
@@beniteztheconmanMatchplay aside also Higgins is a match fixer so that docks him some points in my book
But all the players say higgins is the most complete player ever.
@@raqeebahmed9932 definitely the most balance in skillsets offense-defense-knowledge of the game experience-pressure he can do it all at a high level.
Best ever for me is Ronnie, Hendry, Steve Davis, Higgins, Selby. The mount rushmore of snooker for me.
Think that’s how I’d have it too
When comparing era’s, a lot of people forget the technology has changed too.
Hendry probably first introduced breaking open the pack early and trying to win a frame in one visit,
But when davis and Reardon were in their prime, the cloths were thick and slow compared to today’s ultra fine cloths.
If you tried to break open the pack on them the balls would hardly move!
hendry was a terminator at his prime. it’s be a stand up fight w prime ronnie but still think he’d do him
1. Ronnie
2. Hendry
3. S. Davis
4. J. Higgins
5. Selby
i think this is a fair list. I never saw Reardon compete so i can't say him.
@@dgeneratio1 Yes, that's why I left him out. I can only comment from the time I've been watching ie from 1981 onwards.
Ok, to be fair, I did watch some of Reardon's matches but not enough to make an informed opinion.
Brilliant assessment
Davis, Hendry, O'Scumivan, Reardon, Higgins, Selby.
O'sullivan
Hendry
Davis
Reardon
White
1. Martin Gould
... Everyone else...
Lmao.
Ronnie
Hendry
Higgins
Davis
Selby
Neil Robertson a good few years ago would have been up there imo, but his form has dropped a lot lately. You also see incredible players like Trump, Robertson, Selby get beat by underdogs at times
in their prime
I hate these questions because they always end up making people look bad. Steve Davis would have been competitive today - you're the product of your generation. He'd probably have 900 centuries if he played today. The thing about champions is not their skill, it's their adaptability and if it takes 1,000 centuries to win, they'd shoot 1,000 centuries...
davis in his pomp would have handled most of todays players and the pockets were tighter on a table plus he was the best safety player, bottom cushion every time.
Absolutely!
no the pockets were not tighter, what a ridiculous thing to say
@@equisde8026 It is not a ridiculous statement at all. The cloths were thicker and as such there was less room for balls to go into the pockets.
@@dangermouse8466 No...that's not how it works I'm afraid 😂
@@dangermouse8466 you just made it even more ridiculous
Hurricane Higgins, Ronnie , Hendry, steve Davis, higgins, Selby wow amazing but id have to agree with him being in there , id like to have mark Williams there also btw Jimmy white anyone? he should be there somewhere surely, hed be last probably but hes great. They really think Alex wouldnt play well right now? the table he had to play on was harder.
Alex Higgins would intimidate these new players like they never felt before hahaha he would be my top choice for raw talent only and will to win.Hendry was the beast of the pack.No way new players would have compete with these 2.
@@mikescorpio13 yeah similar thoughts to yours, agree Hendry was like a steamroller but in slower motion rather than like ronnies version lol
Just a mention for John Spencer here, 3 times world champion when it wasn`t a best of 35 final but double that !!!
I really think Steve Davis has got to be top 5 regardless of anything
Ron
Hendo
Higgins
Williams
Selby
That’s my pick as well 👍
If alex maybe.john higgins and williams are so average
Ray Reardon said he would love to play today. Today's players never had a full-time job before been a snooker player.
Reardon, Charlton and Thorburn wouldn't be charging around the table today.
Prime Stephen Hendry crammed 7 world titles into the space of 10 years.
He also won a plethora of other events and was world No1 for about 8 years or so.
I don’t think that sort of sustained dominance will ever be repeated.
A lot of players win the world championship and then struggle to go again because they’ve achieved their lifetime ambition and so some of the fire has gone out of them.
Also, you can't compare the 70s and 80s to modern era when there are big tournaments almost any week, whereas in those days there were only some 6 or seven all year. Ronnie has taken all the records because now it is so much more easy - in that regard.
1. Hendry 2. O'Sullivan. At his best, Stephen Hendry was a better player than Ronnie at his best.
1, Ronnie
2, Hendry
3, Williams
4, Higgins
5, Davis
1 - Ronnie (genius)
2 - Higgins (match player)
3 - Hendry (fearless)
4 - Selby (torturer)
5 - Davis (match player)
6 - Williams (genius)
7 - Reardon (psychologist)
8 - Ebdon (spiritual healer)
What higgins? John or Alex?
@@DannyShine well different people might have different opinions mate
Ronnie,hendry,Higgins,Williams,selby
Very decent and realistic opinion. My choice of the best current players would be Ronnie, Judd, Higgins, William and Selby.
Jimmy white, Kirk Steven’s, Tony Drago, Bill werbenick and Stephen Lee
Ciff Thorburn
The fact everyone says Ronnie as number 1 says it all! 🙌🏼
Undoubtedly the GOAT 🐐 ❤
I agree with carters choice. Unbelievable
1. O'Sullivan
2. Hendry
3. Davis
4. Selby
5. Ebdon
O'Sullivan, Hendry surely has to be the top two in any sort of analysis.
Yes, John Higgins above a 90s Hendry makes no sense.
Eddie Charlton, David Taylor, Patsy Fagan, John Pullman, Peri Mons, Graham Miles
Here's my top ten:
1. O'Sullivan
2. Hendry
3. John Higgins
4. Williams
5. Selby
6. Davis
7. Reardon
8. Trump
9. Robertson
10. Ebdon
Why do the all forget the fifteen time world champion also unbeaten Joe Davis
Well, there was only about 3 or 4 players around then.
1. Hendry
2. O'Sullivan
3. Davis
4. Higgins
5. Williams
Stephen Henry below 2 is crime!
Williams over Hendry, is quite frankly, ridiculous.
Totally agree people forget that Hendry won 5 of his world titles when Ronnie Higgins and Williams were pros. Hendry's cue getting broken was like taking the elder wand... carrer fell off a cliff afterwards
@@alex1983977 Very few can understand that
Brilliant.
The greatest players of all time. Where time only began in 1977.
In the same way that English football only began with the Premier League.
1 Luke Littler
2 Lennox Lewis
3 Boris Becker
4 Peter Crouch
5 Bruce Jenner.
Carter's list is the best imo, although I would put Selby at #4 and Williams #5.
Murphy spot on
Judd played the best final ever so surely he'd win a prime match up then.
O’Sullivan hendry, Davis,Higgins
1. Ronnie Osullivan.
2. Ray Reardon.
3. Stephen Hendry.
4. Steve Davis.
5. Alex Higgins.
Alex Higgins. Fuck off! The man made about centuries in the all his WSC appearances. Hendry made 16 in 1...
😂😂😊
1 - Ronnie (genius)
2 - Higgins (match player)
3 - Hendry (fearless)
4 - Selby (torturer)
5 - Davis (match player)
6 - Williams (genius)
7 - Reardon (psychologist)
8 - Ebdon (spiritual healer)
Steve Davis beat John Higgins when John was the defending champion 2010, that was a brilliant victory.
I just hope john did not lose that on purpose.
I never understand how the talk is always hendry and Davis wouldn’t compete and the argument being they were different times. Well if them two came thru today at the beginning of the career and growing up learning to play the modern way, they would be competing for world number 1. Apart from the Chinese players and the old guard, the standard has slipped. As much as I like Gilbert, the Wilson’s, Carter - they wouldn’t get near hendry, Davis and even white and Higgins. Remember hendry made 4 more world finals from 97-2002 with the class of 92 had begun winning majors and his interest was waning
Hendry created the modern breakbuilding game that everyone currently uses. He probably lacked the safety play of Higgins, but there's never been a better attacking player. He is literally the blueprint, and was the best at it. 😊
They were differentime, the pockets were smaller in those days.
@@lf67hh28Peiple forget this also hendry played to a level in the final of the uk against Ken that none of them and I mean none them can play too not even Ronnie. Ronnie is the greatest but hendry butchers him in a one table long format game both at the best
@michaelmulhall5007 Ronnie himself still states that Hendry was a level above him at his peak...that's all you need to know, really.
I agree. This ridiculous underpaying of Steve Davis. Well I watched him and he was class above every other player in his prime and would beat most of the Top 16 now. You think Davis couldn't beat Murphy? Theres also this myth that he was just a great tactical player but he was actually an incredible breakbuilder, way better than everyone around him. There was a time when he was on 300 plus centuries when everyone else was well below 200 (apart from Jimmy). I remember him getting 3 centuries in a row in one match and of course the first televised 147. Have a look at that break on YT and you'll see how good he was, at a time when tables had a big nap and the balls were much heavier (they didnt ping apart like they do at the slightest touch now). People get confused. The game hasn't evolved its just changed and Steve was one of the first to actually change it.
Steve Davis' influence transformed the sport. He's No. 1.
So what Ali Carter was actually saying is that he is a better snooker player than Alex Higgins was. I don't think he appreciates how much easier today's conditions are compared to the 70s and 80s. Alex Higgins is a legend of the sport, while Ali Carter is just a very good snooker player.
Kyren Wilson says the standard today was a lot higher than when stephen hendry was in his prime ive been watching snooker for 40 years and i can tell you stephen hendry set the standard that is played today simple as that
Hendry changed the game - as did others - but Hendry's style (attacking aggressively, break building, mental strength & professional discipline) formed a winning template for players to emulate and carry in to the modern game.
3:02 Carter for me the most realistic especially about comparing modern with former greats
Steve Davis was light years ahead of anyone in his era , he would not only hold his own today but he would be a top 6 player.
Top 2
Ronnie, Hendry, Selby, Higgins, the 5th is up for debate
Shaun Murphy is spot on. Comparing players from differemnt eras does not work. Each new generation has more to learn from so of course standards go up. Reardon, Davies, Hendry and O'Sullivan all dominated in their time, and as a player, that is all you can do.