I do this all the time down the club. ....these are club sized pockets. ...they wouldn't have a chance on today's tables ....there is a pub where I live and the pockets are a couple of mm bigger than the ones on tv ....I cannot pot jack shit on that table ,you have to be so precise. ...
Nowadays there's usually two commentators together, and they constantly talk throughout the game, telling you what the players are trying to do and what they did wrong and where they wanted the cue ball to end up etc etc... This commentator is so refreshing to listen to, it's like he's reading a poem, really calm and cool
This the late great Ted Lowed. He was the brilliant voice of Snooker He is sorely missed. Without Ted Lowe Snooker is just not the same. When Ted died snooker died for me:(
No doubt hendry played outstanding, great potting, But alex was alex a true legend from snooker world, He was not famous because of snooker but the fact is snooker was famous because of alex higgins at that time.. My hero my inspiration the great "Hurricane Higgins"
@@jamesmcdevitt5327 Higgins is the only player I've seen moves so much as he's taking the shot but still very accurate. Trump has insane cue power like Higgins had.
What an amazing performance by both the Legends👍👍👍👍👍 Simply superb👍👍👍👍👍 Stephen Hendry's long potting was amazing and every shot he played was with great confidence and sure shot pots every time. Alex Higgins (the God/Father of Snooker) has never shown stress even when the score/performance of the opponent was up...The legendary Alex Higgins has cleared the frame with great entertaining shots👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
I never saw these games butgrew up with Hendry on tv , Higgins is so good to watch , you just want to watch more he was incredible a true champion of the game rip x
Alex Higgins changed the game from defence to attack. Stephen Hendry took that mantle and the game of snooker never looked back. Stephen also went to Alex Higgins funeral, he’s a nice guy.
This format encourages more attacking play. Higgins was 125 behind at the start of the final frame so HE had to attack. Very soon Hendry could afford to play exhibition snooker as he has won anyway. Interesting to see the one player at the end of his career and the other at the beginning.
What about the 2002 semi final?? When Ronnie said he would take great pleasure in sending him back to Scotland?? Hendry pummelled him with a session to spare
@@kc-qs8qg Was it 17-13 though? Or was he pummeled in the end with a session to spare. Two conflicting opinions. Wow, this is more exciting than this shitehawk of a so-called best frame of the match.
It was a brilliant game played at an incredible standard, so much so Willie Thorne said he had tears in his eyes at the end of the first day's play. Wouldn't call it a pummeling because O'Sullivan played superbly well and they were neck and neck right up until the final session when Hendry pulled away. Hendry's best win I reckon, and tbh a good loss for O'Sullivan, he regretted making the comments and learned humility.
Alex has the most reckless cueing stance and composure of any player yet its just magic when he hits a shot. Jerky, zero follow through, sideways wobble on the rest and yet magic everytime. Incredible player
That crowd is very hard to impressive, long shot after long shot, some extremely difficult pots one after another I couldn’t believe the quality of potting I just watched
@ Hafeez... You sir, have hit the nail on the head exactly with your latest comment.... Because nowadays there's so many ranking tournaments available for titles/points made Hendry's titles and achievements all the more special/exceptional. He did it exactly when was required ,(which is what 'the' greatest champions always do) , and made all the more difficult because there were so few ranking tournaments in - comparison with professional Snooker today. One more reason why he's the greatest professional player ever to pick up a cue.
Youssef, If you look at the head to head stats... I think it's 9-6 to o Sullivan. But... Hendry won more of the 'bigger tournamen' t head to head matches basically. Because he was always the bigger tournament match player. Plus i will never forget the final frame decider in the Liverpool Victoria, and hendry knocked in a 147 in the final frame - in the final against o Sullivan. Hendry had peaked by the time o Sullivan got in his stride. Shame he retired though.
For me alexes potting was and is underated he was a sensational potter ,if you look closer over the years with his epic support ,not even Ronnie comes close to the hurricane who did it the hard way ,leaving home at a young age alone to take on and conquer the world 👊
@@johndugdale145 For talent and shot making you could argue he's right up there with the best to do it. If there was a ridiculous hard shot and your life was on the line, I'd want an at his best Hurricane taking that shot for me. He's very similar to George Best in what could have been, bags of natural talent derailed by demons and addiction. Still despite his afflictions and utterly chaotic life, he's a triple crown winner, won everything to win in the sport, when you consider the severity of his afflictions the fact he achieved that feat speaks volumes for his talent. The man was going out on the piss all night and then turning up and competing at a very high level. If he'd had the mentality/temperament of a Steve Davis I believe he'd have won far more but that's just speculation on my part.
@@haworthtrevor Also: Higgins hit the Q-ball harder than anyone has ever hit it. usually the harder you hit a ball the greater chance of a mistake but not Higgins. Nobody ever hit the ball as hard as he did.
Remember the dreary late night…..nobody’s really watching episodes of Pot Black? Because what happened next brought the game a whole new audience and on to prime time TV and the fortunes to be made in prize money! That what happened next was Alex Hurricane Higgins and the old man’s game became a young man’s dream of being just like him!
Total legend how he could cue straight with that twitch bit like jockey Wilson in darts but all part of Higgins charm and appeal don’t know if his opponent done anything in the game haha
As much as players like Jimmy White and Ronnie osullivan have all the natural ability in the world it is Stephen Hendry who is the best player of all time.He just never made any mistakes.He pinched frames with a pressure clearance he could win with a lead or from behind.He could win playing at his best or if he was having an off day(something that Ronnie and Jimmy struggled with).Jimmy White was always my favourite player when at his best he produced sheer magic but Hendry has to be the GREATEST
+David Shreeves Here's what I meant: Hendry only faced a few good players in order to win his titles. Nowadays there are so many great players and the standard has risen so much. Snooker is a global sport, the world no. 40 has a chance to beat the world no. 1. That's was unconceivable in Hendry's time. I am not judging on 100 breaks. You just have to compare the players ranked top 16 back then against the top 16 of today and you will see what I'm talking about. David Roe, Darren Morgan, Terry Griffits and Willie Thorne were top 16 players. Now tell me: do you honestly think they stand a chance against's today's pro's ? Hell, even a young kid like Luca Brecel would whoop their asses, and he would do it with ease. Also, you just have to look at Hendry's game and compare it to that of Ronnie. Hendry was a great potter and breakbuilder, but that's about it. Ronnie has a much better all-round game: he is a great potter and breakbuilder, a great safety and tactical player. The only edge that Hendry has is his superior mental toughness, but Ronnie has improved at that too this last few years. Anyway, my ultimate proof that Ronnie is better is the 92 break he made in the 2012 WC final against Ali Carter. Hendry couldn't of made that break if his life depended on it.
David Shreeves "The main difference is that there are more good players at the same time than there was in 1980's, so competition is better and each game has better standards, but that doesn't mean that these players are better than the older ones!" Yes it does mean that these new players are better than the older ones. Things have evolved in every sport, that goes 4 snooker too. As 4 centuries, Ronnie has a better average than any other player. Ronnie at 100% would beat Hendry at 100%, so that makes him the best ever. John Higgins is second best (even though he's a cheater)
+David Shreeves "Even Dennis Taylor said that there are more great players around than in 1980's, so this only makes it harder to dominate!" That means that Ronnie's 5 WC are more impressive than Hendry's 7, since he won them in a tougher era. "Things only evolve due to better coaching and the money in the game now means that they spend more time practicing. They couldn't do this years ago, because they were doing exhibitions!"; Snooker as a sport was bigger in the 80's than it is now, especially in the UK. They practiced back then too, in case you didn't know. And the money has only increased in the last 3-4 years, but if you account inflation, the prizes now have about the same value they had in the 80's and 90's. As 4 the balls, they were heavier in the 70's and 80's, they improved a lot in the 90's. Higgins beat a young Hendry, and Higgins was a great player. "As I previously said, their income came from exhibitions and the conditions just didn't allow them to take their best game into competitions!" BULLSHIT. Good players made a great living back then, only weak ones could not make enough money. "The main difference is that the older players will be remembered far more and that is showed in the legends tour. Who wants to watch a legends game between Robertson and Selby, because it's bad enough watching them now and the aforementioned is more about seeing and listening to the older stars; the ones that the crowd still want to see and listen to!" Selby is a boring cunt, that's why nobody wants to watch him play. As 4 older players, just like today's players, only a few are worth watching. I wouldn't watch Cliff Thorburn play if someone would pay me. "Snooker is a hard game, but today's players only know how to play because they saw others do that in the past!" Who cares about the reason ?!? WTF...I only pointed out that today's players are better than the old ones. It's irrelevant how they got better. In most sports things have evolved, new sportsman are better than the old ones. If we take a player from the past and put him to train with modern equipment, maybe he would be close or just as good as today's players. When it comes to snooker, however, equipment hasn't improved by that much. The cloth is a little faster and the balls are slightly lighter, but that's a bout it. Cues are pretty much the same, the table has the same length, same pocket size. I see that you failed to understand what I was saying. My point is that S. Davis or Hendry at their best are not as good as Ronnie at his best. I don't care why they are not, or how Ronnie got better, he simply is the greatest player in the history of snooker up to this moment.
+David Shreeves "You have to compare the players which Ronnie and Hendry beat to win those finals, but during Hendry's latter years when his game had deteriorated, he still had problems beating Hendry and this must mean that Ronnie would have had trouble defeating him in any of the finals which Hendry won!" Is this a joke ? During Hendry's latter years, Ronnie whooped the floor with him, in 2 WC semifinals. He beat him 17-4 in 2004 and 17-8 in 2008 (and in 2004 Hendry was only 34 years old, that's by no means old). As 4 the opponents they faced, there isn't even a debate. Ronnie's opposition was so much better, and I'm not only talking about finals, but about the road to the final. "With the money to earn today, every player would take the game more seriously and that's what money does!" Plenty of players took the game seriously back then too, and they practiced every day. The thing is, not all of them were good enough to win, so they had to resort to other means of making a living (you mentioned exhibitions). And since in my original post I said that Hendry only won so much because he played in a weaker era, I was talking about the early 90's. 250 000 pounds was the prize that the WC receives for about 2 decades. They only increased it to 300 000 since 2014. "John Higgins never missed during his final versus Trump, but could he have done that against Hendry or Davis?" Of course he could have done it. He was under pressure throughout that final. If he manged to do it under those conditions, I see no reason why he couldn';t have done it against Davis or Hendry, taking into account the fact that Trump is a better potter than both. Since Hendry was all about attack, his safety being average at best, Higgins would have bested him with ease. As 4 Davis, his attacking game is average compared to that of Trump, so his only weapon is his defensive game. Since Higgins is better at that too, it's basically a non-contest. "Ronnie up against all of these on form could only rely on clearing up to win frames, but they were far better at safety shots and could put the ball in places which made it difficult to pot or to leave the cue ball safe!" WRONG, he wouldn't just rely on clearing up to win frames. That's what Hendry did/relied on and that's why he went downhill like a rock once his attacking game started to deteriorate. The man basically had no safety or defensive game, it was average at best. As 4 Ronnie, his all-round game is far superior to that of Hendry and Davis. If Ronnie wants to play a safety/tactical game, he'll outplay Davis with ease. "Why is it irrelevant as to why they can play better, because in 15 or 20 years time there will be even more better players and you will then have to argue with somebody like me to say how good these ones were and how they made the game easier!" If/When better players come along, I'll just acknowledge it, it's not that big of a deal. Sports evolve all the time. This is what I don't get about you: 1. you're trying to explain why modern players are better than the old ones 2. you're saying that the old ones could have reached the same level of play under the right circumstances. When it comes to the first one: I don't care why, all I'm saying is that modern players are better, there are more good players nowadays (making it harder 4 one to dominate), the standard has evolved. That's why I rank Ronnie above Hendry: he faced tougher opposition and can play the game to a higher standard. As 4 the second point, I agree with you, but then again, it's irrelevant. "what you fail to understand that is that if Ronnie plays against an opponent which is at his best the he will get beat or be run close and there's nothing he can do about that!" Ronnie is human, he can win or loose just like any other player. My only point was that his 100% is higher than any other player's 100%. And I gave you as an example his 92 break vs Carter. There are several others, like his clearance against Dave Harold in 2008, etc. Davis and Hendry wouldn't have been able to do that if their lives depended on it, thus illustrating Ronnie's superiority. "No good in being the best if nobody wants to watch you and even Ray Reardon is still popular and because he was great to watch!" WE ARE in TOTAL AGREEMENT. I assume you're referring to Davis or Hendry, cause nobody wanted to watch them in their primes. In recent years, Davis has become a great guy to watch and listen, but back the he wasn't, and that's a big loss 4 snooker. Ronnie has always been loved by the fans and everyone wants to see him play. Same goes 4 legends like Alex Higgins and Jimmy White. No doubting Stephen Hendry's wonderful record, but this game is certainly about more than just numbers. Hendry feels now and has always felt that winning was the most important thing. That is the surface aim of every player but Hendry forgets that without the fans there simply is no game and therefore he misses the important value of entertainment which is what sport really is. Alex Higgins made this game lest we forget! Given Stephen Hendry has won 7 world titles, I doubt if the average snooker fan would remember or care to recall a moment or single shot from those 7 world titles. Hendry has never understood that winning 7 times does notbuy you the love of the fans because we see clearly that winning is his be all and end all. I have never seen in his play a natural love of the game as displayed by Alex Higgins, Jimmy White, or Ronnie O'Sullivan. Hendry is very foolish in thinking that his titles grant him automatic love and respect from the fans. Deep down he really expects this. It's the way you play the game that earns you the affection. This is why those who witnessed Alex Higgins's 69 break will never forget it. Hendry made however many 147's but would anyone ever forget Ronnie's record 147 in 1997 or Kirk Stevens in the Masters. As I said before, Hendry wouldn't have won as much in today's era. Whilst there is great admiration for Hendry the sportsman, competitor and winner, I am questioning the very definition of greatness. I am making the argument against facts, figures and records. You are entitled to use that benchmark as many do but i think the game is more than just numbers. Secondly, you have to understand that there are shots that Hendry or Davis would simply never attempt...for fear of losing. This is not the case with Alex Higgins, Jimmy White or O'Sullivan. Its the difference between winning at all costs or trying something impossible just to see if it would come off. An example is the blue into the top right Alex Higgins made against White in that famous 69 break.You also have to understand how snooker became popular and attracted viewers. The answer and widely accepted "fact" is Alexander Gordon Higgins. You can have players who pot balls very well or you can have players who make the balls "talk". Without Higgins, White, Ronnie and now Trump there is now game to watch! Greatness is more than winning. Sport is a game yes. It's moreover entertainment though. There has to be charisma, grace, personality,courage. It's not the winning always that defines greatness. I'm sorry but Stephen Hendry just does not fill that description. Ronnie really doesn't need any more titles or records to prove he is the greatest as every shot is a joy to watch. Artistry over droids any day! PS: It's nice talking with you, because we have a civilized discussion
That was certainly the job of the older generation of commentators, and they certainly had their work cut out for them with the likes of Thorburn, Griffiths & co... Slow doesn't even begin to describe their play. Jazzing-up the commentary was essential back then.
Definitely the best potting exhibition I've ever seen. Seeing that makes it hard for me to say O'sullivan is a greater player, just different. I couldn't decide on that one.
Guy Archer I agree re you can't say one was better than the other yes Sullivan more creative but Hendry just as good break builder and very importantly more bottle under real pressure.
They looked like they were playing it more as an exhibition than a serious frame. Alex knew he'd lost by this point and there was little on the line so. Don't doubt the talent of either of these two based on this.
In my opinion two of the best there, if there was no Alex Higgins there would be no jimmy white then no Ronnie. It always needs that spark and Higgins was it, and I believe hendry was the best Potter of all time, no one would beat him when he was top of his game. smaller pockets then as well even though they don't admit it!!!!
His downfall was mainly psychological. If he had invested time with a sports psychologist like Ronnie he might’ve had a bit more longevity and 1 or 2 more world titles. The mental pressure took its toll on Stephen I feel, these days for top athletes sports psychologists are very important.
Looks like the old club tables with big pockets. The shot at 6:23 wouldn't threaten the pocket on a modern table, but it quite comfortably drops in off the jaw here.
Hendry, best player of all time, to be a top player in my book you need three things, 1, ability, 2, bottle, 3, temperament, hendry top class in all three, others let down usually by poor temperament, for me hendry the best all round player ever and also the pioneer of the one visit frame win by getting in to the pack early.
By those 3 characteristics Alex Higgins would be best of all time. 1: He had ability. 2: He had an amazing temperament 3: You can make up your own jokes but he was rarely without
If my life depended on a pot then I would not turn to Ronnie, Alex, S Davis it would have to be Stephen Hendry. He took snooker to a whole new level and set the modern standard. However Ronnie is the genius.
Strange rules. I would have thought Alex would have tried for snookers to get more points. Not much point potting all the balls if you still end up losing.
Paul m at his best he'd beat Sullivan even though Sullivan is a genius .Hendry was such a great break builder and usually had more bottle than any other player.
Actually it was a very bad break really. Some great individual pots yes BUT a great break doesn't have that many great pots as they are getting pinpoint position all the time. Alex was constantly out of position so had to fo great pots every time,but if he had gotten decent position then he wouldn't of had to pull those pots out
@@MrZippy69ster Alex being drunk was neither here nor there as JV says Alex was the best drunk player he's ever seen. I fo get that there was a lot of pressure and yes he held himself together well but I still maintain that if it had been a really great break he would never of had to do half of those shots as he would of had decent position so wouldn't of needed to pull the shots out
@@MrZippy69ster Higgins was sober during the 82 championships ,drinking coke cola ,it was rare for him ,but he was up for it that year ,unfortunately it was a one off .
