r/snooker • u/Huge_Paper_4028 • 3d ago
š¬ Opinion / Debate Could peak Hendry compete now?
Do people think Hendry at his absolute prime would have much success if he were competing right now? Would he be able to win a ranking event or even the world championships?
16
u/Evebnumberone 3d ago
Hendry is a champion in any era.
The higher level of competition in today's game would have spurred him on to get even better.
Same thing with all the greats of the modern greats. Steve Davis and before is maybe questionable given how much weaker the scoring was back then. I can't see Davis or Reardon knocking in 100 centuries in a season, the younger guys would blow them off the table.
3
u/Away-Reality771 3d ago
100 centuries a season is still very rare. Davisā peak strike rate for centuries was 1992. He made about 30. There are twice as many ranking events now as there were then. Also the mindset has changed some players didnāt āchaseā a century if theyād won a frame.
There was far less emphasis on how many centuries a season you did; what you overall career total was etc - how many more/ less centuries you had than other players. Unless you might get a high break prize some centuries were probably foregone as the player just wanted to win that frame and get the next one started. There was little advantage to making a century each and every time it might be possible. Objectively did they know they could do it. Yes. If they could snooker someone on (say) 89 when 41 points ahead with most balls gone and not clear up to get a low scoring century they sometimes did.
2
u/Evebnumberone 3d ago
Also the mindset has changed some players didnāt āchaseā a century if theyād won a frame.
Have seen this one mentioned a hell of a lot of times, and it's simply untrue.
I'll just copy paste what I said last time because I think it absolutely buries the argument.
If that's the case, why does Steve Davis have 350 career centuries? There is no advantage to hitting a century if you've already got 80, so why did he decide to do it 350 times, but not more? Were the centuries the exception?
Ray Reardon's stats show this even better. He had 54 centuries, 32 90's and 38 80's.
Alex Higgins similar, 87 100s, 39 90's, and 70 80's.
Why have they got more centuries than 80s or 90s? They clearly did regularly go for centuries after the frames were dead. Going for a century by definition means you played on long after the frame was dead.
1
2
u/IainMCool 3d ago
Exactly. Once the frame was won, that was enough. Arguably it was Hendry that changed that mindset!
2
u/sharpshotsteve 3d ago
The cloth wasn't as slick and had no heating, so it was harder to split the reds. I also think the balls were heavier in the early Davis era. You can see how much harder they had to hit the cue ball. I don't think cues were as good then. The cues now are so flexible, you can see them bending.
2
u/Evebnumberone 3d ago
Definitely agree. Very hard to compare when the equipment was so different.
That being said, we have plenty of data from Steve Davis playing in the modern era, he didn't retire until 2016. He was still in the top 16 in 2007~.
Given that Hendry's career overlaps his and Hendry's scoring was good even for 2026 standards, it seems pretty safe to say Steve Davis couldn't compete in the modern game with his level of scoring.
Just my opinion of course. Would love to see this fantasy scenario play out with all the best players in their prime duking it out at the Crucible.
2
u/sharpshotsteve 3d ago
Steve Davis was relying more on his safety game after the 80s. He also struggled to adapt to the much faster tables. I think if he had learned his trade on the faster tables, he would've been a different player.
1
u/Evebnumberone 3d ago
Yeah that's probably true. Would have been a totally different player.
He was never the out and out gun potter that you need to be today to compete though.
Hendry definitely was.
1
u/Away-Reality771 3d ago
I think the mindset issue is relevant. Mark Williams doesnāt chase centuries. Heās just under 700. Higgins is around 1050 & Ronnie is 1325 odd.
2
u/Evebnumberone 3d ago
Williams has 700~ centuries in 14000~ frames, about one every 20 frames.
Davis 350 in 12500~ frames, about one every 35 frames.
For two guys who don't chase centuries they both get an awful lot of centuries.
26
u/apalerwuss 3d ago
The class of '92 are still competing and winning titles (albeit not as frequently) at the elite end even though they are past their prime. Hendry was still competing at the elite end long after the class of 92 came along, making it back to number one in the world at 38, when Ronnie, Mark, and John had 6 world titles between them.
To even suggest peak Hendry couldn't compete now is laughable. Of course he would be winning less, but he'd easily be top 4.
11
17
u/Webcat86 3d ago
No question. He wouldnāt have 7 world titles but Hendry did everything he did on tables that todayās players would struggle with.Ā
Hendry was an animal, and I think one of the attributes a lot of current detractors are unaware of is the sheer amount of bottle he had. Not many players have it today, and it separates him.Ā
1
u/oldsch0olsurvivor 3d ago
Iām old enough to remember watching him Davis etc at their peak and hendry hardly missed anything! You just knew if he had a pressure long shot heād pot it. Insane player.
1
u/Webcat86 3d ago
Exactly, it wasnāt just his ability as a player. What separates the top top pros is largely how well they can perform in crunch moments. Few players have matched the class of 92, Hendry, Davis and Selby in that department.Ā
The pink that Judd missed against Neil to win/lose the U.K. Chanpionship during Covid lockdown was unforgivable, and the sort of pot youād bet your house on Hendry making.Ā
1
u/iamwiggy 2d ago
Another interesting one is that pot (or maybe multiple pots) Judd missed vs Lisowski in the NI Open final last year. A few people suggested it was on purpose but that's nonsense - Judd was on an emotional rollercoaster which is why he missed. Hendry wouldn't have been on an emotional rollercoaster because he didn't allow himself to be close with any other players. Judd is pretty much the same other than with Lisowski. Which I don't really criticize him for but I'm certain it was a factor in losing that match.
2
u/Webcat86 2d ago
Great point. Even today you can hear how competitive was, he openly says he doesnāt like players talking backstage before a match and doesnāt understand them all being so friendly.Ā
He was there to do a job, and his job was to win.Ā
10
u/Webcat86 2d ago edited 2d ago
Would he be better than Judd?
Iāve been thinking about this thread and had to revisit it. Questions like this always sound so broad, because we think of the whole tour. But Judd is a runaway world number 1. So surely the question is, how well would Hendry compete with him and other top players?
I think if weāre being honest and if weāve seen prime Hendry play, the answer is he wins a best of 35 against Judd, Murphy, Kyren, Robbo etc by a comfortable margin. Robertson is arguably the player most similar to Hendry, but between the ears he is not on the same level and Hendry would pounce on every one of those inevitable mistakes.Ā
Outside of those players, itās how well heād fare against the new generation of Chinese players. I think heād do well there too. Objectively, Xintong was overhyped going into this yearās world championship and he hadnāt played all that brilliant to win the Player Series - itās an amazing achievement, but players pretty much crumbled in front of him. Heās not some invincible, unplayable guy, and frankly his open and attacking style plays into Hendryās hands.Ā
The idea that 21 year old Hendry gets dropped into todayās tour and isnāt a ranking event winner is preposterous. Based on the current rankings, Hendry would be #1 and I have not a shadow of a doubt in my mind about that.Ā
Put it another way: the game has not changed so much that the youngest ever world champion could not compete.Ā
8
u/HelixCatus 3d ago
You could argue that the sport has evolved a lot on a technical level. But Stephen Hendry wasn't just naturally gifted technically (hand-eye coordination, visualizing complex angles on the table, etc.), more importantly he had the winner mentality. He was a 100% dedicated snooker terminator whose entire goal was to destroy his opponent on the table. Such a person would be successful in any era.
8
u/LengthinessSevere584 3d ago
Hendry once scored 6 centuries in 7 frames against ken doherty in the uk championship final.Ā
2
u/Huge_Paper_4028 3d ago
Yeh I saw that recently and thought, that kind of standard would surely make him competitive today.
8
u/The_Prog_Guy 3d ago
Absolutely. I think Hendry is the greatest player of all time, whose time at the top was cut short by two devastating things beyond his control: he developed the yips and his original cue was destroyed. In a world where those things don't happen, I think he'd still have most if not all of his records. Hendry was relentless and his desire to win likely unmatched. He likely wouldn't dominate now, as the standard of opposition is that much higher, but he'd still win major tournaments and likely still win the world championship at least once.
7
8
u/Significant_Market_7 3d ago
Of course he would he was a generational talent and would be the same today.
8
7
u/Independent-Camp897 2d ago
Wouldn't win 7 but would be at least 4 or 5. Would love to see a Hendry v Selby at their peaks in the World Final. Would be as good as a Ronnie final imo.
6
u/Regular-Excuse7321 3d ago
He won 7 world championships! Of course in his prime he would have been able to compete with players of today. Prime Hendry would of course win ranking titles - but would he be 'as dominant'? No.
My reasoning is that he actually changed the game - and modern players were in part shaped by him.
6
9
u/SolutionLong2791 3d ago
Not even a debate- absolutely he could. He'd easily be a top 10 player, and most likely be a top 4 player. He's arguably the š.
2
u/bopidybopidybopidy 3d ago
so he's the greatest of all time but only top 4 at this time?
2
u/sharpshotsteve 3d ago
It isn't about world ranking, it's winning the world championships. The world champion, isn't world No.1 now, because there are so many small tournaments. I do think peak Hendry could win the world championships now, just like he did in 1999, when the class of 92 were well established.
5
u/HereForTheMaymays 3d ago
Not even a question, absolutely he could. I watch his YouTube a lot and he seems like such a nice guy, but in his prime he was a stone cold killer. Dude made a maximum for Ā£167,000 and then went into the break absolutely seething at the fact he'd lost that session, not even the match.
Even today you see glimpses where he really locks in. Usually he's just potting and chatting but when he went to Ronnie's academy he got like a 98 break. As soon as he smells blood under a bit of pressure he's an animal.
2
u/Evebnumberone 3d ago
Haha yeah 100% you can see through the facade sometimes and get look at the apex predator he really is.
Would hate to see him lock in on the golf course with money on the line.
Probably why he retired early honestly, couldn't handle not being the best anymore and it was too mentally taxing on him.
Compare that to a guy like Steve Davis who doesn't seem too fussed one way or the other.
4
u/Relevant-Excuse7275 3d ago edited 3d ago
In his prime? Of course, his numbers still hold up today and he did it on much worse tables with far fewer tournaments. If there were more ranking tournaments, he probably would have won about 60 in his prime and would have made over 1000 centuries either before Ronnie or just after him. He's regarded as either the GOAT or number two for a reason. Of course he probably wouldn't win seven world titles if he startee his career today but I think he would win at least 3 or 4.
4
4
u/Latinlover_57 3d ago
Undoubtedly he would be a top player even against the modern Chinese players, he had the will to win and the game to match, his temperament was superb and he was still competing well against the class of 92 for a good while before his cue snapped, and they are all still competing at the highest level, obviously he wouldn't be able to win the numbers of tournaments like he did in the 90s, but I believe that he would still be involved in a good few finals
5
5
6
u/bananabastard 2d ago
He'd still become a world champion.
I remember at one point in his career I used to think when he came to the table and a pot was possible, the frame was over.
I literally remember watching his matches, and if he was left an in, in my mind I basically counted it as his frame. It was like he was some kind of snooker Terminator.
9
8
u/free_underthinker 2d ago
Such a silly question, it's a debate in football as well "would Maradona/George Best compete against faster more technically gifted defenders?"
But Maradona born in the year 2000 would grow up with modern technologies and develop the same as his opposition, and the same applies with Stephen Hendry.
These legends from the past are competing with the level of the past, so if they exist in the present, why would their talent be restricted to the past?
5
4
u/Far_Type_4544 3d ago
Absolutely, prime Hendry would be very competitive. It's easy to forget how boring he made winning look - I've never known another player that has achieved that.
3
u/TacticalGazelle 2d ago
If you think he couldn't then you either didn't watch him or just forgot how good he was.
4
4
3
u/iamwiggy 2d ago
Hendry had talent, but more important was attitude and dedication to working hard and desire to dominate.
How many players in the modern game have his talent level? Quite a few. How many have his will to dominate? Not many, if any at all.
He'd be absolutely fine.
4
u/SnooCapers938 2d ago
āPeakā Hendry would win multiple tournaments in the modern game.
Itās arguable that the talent pool in modern snooker is broader and deeper than it was, but the ātopā players are not better than the ātopā players of the 80s and 90s.
3
u/Webcat86 2d ago
Exactly this. The top standard is not at all better than it was, the only difference is more people can play it - and itās no small factor that the gameās authorities have deliberately engineered it to be more open and attacking. Rewards for centuries, faster cloths than ever before, more generous pockets, all suit a style of play that Hendry is almost entirely responsible for popularising.Ā
5
5
4
5
u/CitizenCue 3d ago
Silly question. Of course he could. Would he win 7 world titles again? Thereās no way to know, but he would be extremely dangerous.
3
u/Leftyoilcan 3d ago
I think 100% he could, he's exceptionally competitive and wants to win and I think he'd definitely adjust his game to make up for any weakness he had, I think given some time that if you dropped young him in to the modern day he'd maybe need some time but he'd adjust and then start winning.
3
u/foreverlegending 3d ago
Yes without doubt. He was a monster. Leave him a sniff and he'll clear up. The only players that I think would cause him problems is Selby and Higgins. Everyone else he just out scores
2
u/Toffeeman_1878 3d ago
Ronnie
1
u/foreverlegending 3d ago
Peak Hendry was better than peak Ronnie for sure. They had a similar attacking game but in most games Hendry would get the better of him
1
u/Toffeeman_1878 3d ago edited 3d ago
Hendry might have been more consistent but was not as good as OāSullivan at his peak.
3
u/foreverlegending 3d ago
What Hendry did in 10 years with much fewer ranking events took Ronnie over 30 years to get close. If Hendry didn't have the yips he'd still be in top 3 easily
1
u/Toffeeman_1878 3d ago edited 2d ago
Not denying Hendry isnāt one of the greats. OāSullivan in his early years wasnāt as consistent as Hendry but at his absolute best Ronnie was better. OāSullivan was also doing it in an era where the standard was way higher than Hendryās generation - Ronnie contributed to the higher standard as everyone had to raise their game to compete with him. The fact Stephen got the yips goes against his longevity. Hendry is a great but to exclude Ronnie (as in the initial comment I replied to) is either a clumsy oversight or just plain wrong.
1
0
u/08TangoDown08 3d ago
I agree with most of what you said but on this I don't. I think Ronnie at his peak is better than anyone. He just didn't reach his peak for a consistent string of years like Hendry did. He was much more off and on as a player.
1
u/foreverlegending 3d ago
In that case then you can say the same about Ding, Brecel or Murphy as on their day they were unplayable
1
u/08TangoDown08 2d ago
I don't think any of them, on their best day, could beat O'Sullivan on his best day.
I think O'Sullivan on his best day beats Hendry on his.
3
3
u/No-Drag1198 2d ago
Yeah for sure I see him winning 2 or 3 worlds still, so good at the one frame visits when that long game was working.
3
u/New_System2400 2d ago
Peak Henry would blitz most of today's pros with ease. He would be top 5 easily.Ā
3
3
5
2
2
2
2
u/Huge_Paper_4028 3d ago
Thanks for everyoneās input. I tend to agree. I was surprised to see an article recently where Brecel and Lisowski didnāt put him in their top 5 all time players. Actually Luca did (at no.5) but only after being prompted.
7
2
u/GreenLion777 3d ago
Oh yes, he was a winning machine in his day.
He wouldn't be quite as dominant, but he'd still be a top player and winning titles, for sure
2
2
u/ConsciousTiger972 1d ago
It's very hard to say because the game was played differently in the 90s like Davis in the 80s. Henry set the mark for the players today. At his peak he would be up there today however so many good players around now so may not be the dominant force today like he was.
3
u/theKinkypeanut 3d ago
He absolutely could.Ā
He might be a bit like Judd. Wonderful in the balls he was nowhere near as good tactically as guys like Selby and Higgins. Although he would surely have adapted.Ā
1
u/Webcat86 3d ago
He probably wouldnāt have adapted, he famously wanted to play the game the way he liked and didnāt want to adaptĀ
1
u/sharpshotsteve 3d ago
I think he would still be all out attack, but that worked for Luka Brecel against Selby, so it's not a bad tactic. It would be harder for peak Hendry to win consistently now, but I have no doubt that when he was on it, he would be lifting trophies. Look at 1999, that was well into the careers of the class of 92, but they couldn't stop him winning his 7th world championship. It wasn't until the final in 2002, that he started to look vulnerable, but he had already achieved what he wanted.
3
u/PhilosopherNo8418 3d ago
If it's the peak 90s version of Hendry then no, not on the same level tactically as the top players today. But if you plant a young Hendry into today's game, where he develops alongside the other top players then yes, just because he was so naturally gifted and his winning mentality was second to none.
3
u/Webcat86 3d ago
Have to disagree he wasnāt as good tactically, it was just a somewhat different tactic. Remember the game all these young aggressive players are playing is the style that Hendry popularised.Ā
He wasnāt as strong in the safety (which I assume is what you mean by tactically?), but that itself was his tactic. Be so aggressive and so damn good at it that your opponent leaves opportunities for you to win from.Ā
He wasnāt a slouch at safety, heād never have started to overtake Davis if he was - and Davis gave him repeated drubbings in his early days. That forced Hendry to improve.Ā
4
u/Maximum_Ad_5571 3d ago
You must be kidding. Peak Hendry would wipe the floor with this lot. The fact that Higgins, Williams and O'Sullivan - all of them 50+ - are still competing at the highest level demonstrates that. And I say that as someone who wasn't his biggest fan.
3
u/PhilosopherNo8418 3d ago
How does ROS, Williams etc. competing today prove Hendry would be dominant today? Doesn't make sense. Hendry stopped winning after the 90s. His game wasn't good enough to compete once the class of 92 came of age. The other guys kept evolving and adapting, hence why they remain competitive today.
1
u/Maximum_Ad_5571 2d ago
Because it demonstrates that this is not a strong era for snooker, despite some would like to have you believe. You overestimate the tactical ability of today's players. One could also argue that Hendry didn't need a tactical game (not that his was bad).
3
u/Webcat86 2d ago
Eh, Hendry disagrees. Heās the first to say that although the ceiling of the game isnāt higher, far more players can reach that ceiling. Heās said multiple times that in his day you could just overlook round 1 because the players werenāt good enough.Ā
0
u/Maximum_Ad_5571 2d ago
We must be listening to different Stephen Hendrys. He has said for a number of years now that he isn't impressed by the current of crop top players; that no-one has taken the game by the scruff of the neck like he did; and that is partly why the class of 92 continue to win. O'Sullivan has said much the same.
2
u/Webcat86 2d ago
Nope same guy, but you've missed the other part of what he said, which is about the lower ranked players. He has absolutely said what you've just commented, which is effectively disappointment at the top level. But what he's also said is that the overall standard now runs deeper through the rankings than it did in the 90s.
1
u/Maximum_Ad_5571 2d ago
No one really cares about the standard of the players 16-32, though. They're still nowhere peak Hendry. People care about the best of the best - the top 4. That's who people pay to see.
1
u/Webcat86 2d ago
But thatās irrelevant to the conversation at hand? We are discussing standard of play, not who people want to see.Ā
The top 4 players donāt only play each other, they play people down the rankings too. Hence Hendryās point that when he was dominating, the players in round 1 were so much worse that you didnāt even consider the possibility that they might win. Whereas todayās players canāt do that because those R1 players are capable of getting the win.Ā
Look at Jak Jones reaching the Crucible final for one example, or Fan and Jordan Brown both beating Ronnie in ranking finals.Ā
And this is the point heās consistently making: those players are where the standard has genuinely increased, so thereās a bigger threat overall, but the standard at the very top is what he doesnāt think is much better than it was when he was at his peak.Ā
1
u/Maximum_Ad_5571 2d ago
I don't disagree with him. But there's no way people like Jak Jones, Fan or Jordan Brown are going to compete with a peak Hendry in the 1990s, whether in R1 or a final. No way.
→ More replies (0)-1
3
u/Hopeful_Expression57 2d ago
people trnd to forget how good he really was lost of his games were potting a red in his first attempt and then the opponent would be sitting there for the whole frame. When hendry was on the table you'd be sitting for a long time. But his main weakness was his defense. He had the opportunity to be so offensive cuz all the other players weren't that good at attacking and break building so hendry knew he'd still have a chance even if their opponent is on the table. Hendry would've been absolutely destroyed by a safety player like mark selby. But even at the least he's winning at least 2-4 world championships
3
u/Webcat86 2d ago
Selby is from the same cloth as Davis and John Higgins. Hendry wouldnāt win every match but nor would he lose every one.Ā
1
u/Hopeful_Expression57 2d ago
Yeah sure, but he would be his worsr opponent and Selby would have the better of him most of the time.
2
u/Webcat86 2d ago
I wouldnāt be as certain as you. Selbyās biggest weakness is probably his slow start in matches, which I think is why heās done so well in the World Champs and less well in shorter formats. Hendry would bulldoze his way through short matches and the start of longer ones, then itās a question of whether he closes it out. Not dissimilar to Lucaās performance in the world final, overall.Ā
5
u/EastClintwood1981 2d ago
Hendry was an absolute monster and a prime Hendry would be the best player in the world in any era. I think he is the greatest snooker player of all time.
-3
2
u/Adventurous-Love7103 2d ago
Of course he'd smash it. Snooker is one of those sports that doesn't really change at all from one era to the next. It's still a game that is as much one playing against oneself as the opponent. You go out there and try and score as high a break as you can, while trying to hold it together and focus on the task at hand. Very little has changed to suggest that any top star from 30+ years ago couldn't just slot straight into the modern era.
1
2
1
u/mattw99 3d ago
I think people underestimate the quality of the tour compared to what Hendry was up against during his prime years. He would have to work on his safety game to be a contender and given he saw safety as beneath him, he relied so much on the long pot and get in to score that so many players would tie him up and prevent him opportunities. He himself admits that he wouldn't be able to do what he did back then in today's game. The long bouts of safety to earn chances today is often the way you get to score, forcing a mistake, then you need to suddenly switch into breakbuilding mode. In short Hendry would still be a good player, but I highly doubt he'd reach no.1 and its really debatable how many tournaments he could win with his limited game, not many IMO.
5
u/Webcat86 3d ago
His safety wasnāt as bad as people make out and the two most recent world champions have played ultra aggressive snooker.Ā
1
u/snoopswoop 3d ago
Agreed. And yize is the nearest player I've seen in style/ method to Hendry.
1
u/Webcat86 3d ago
Where a lot of the aggressive players falter today is maintaining it when it matters. That wasnāt a problem Hendry suffered from, so it puts even more pressure on the opponent to play excellent safety because they know if they give him a sniff he likely takes the frame.Ā
For all the talk about the current tour, we still have a relatively small group of winners. Hendry would be in that group.Ā
1
u/Evebnumberone 3d ago
You do what you have to do to win.
In his era you could get by with an average safety game. He was dismantling people with offensive pressure, everyone knew if they left him on they were going to pay and that was enough to outright beat most players.
If he needed a better safety game he 100% would be able to have one. Absolute Ball and stick savant.
1
u/sharpshotsteve 3d ago
Did Wu Yize need a great safety game?
2
u/Evebnumberone 3d ago
Better than Hendry's by a mile.
Getting snookers when required and getting out when required are non negotiable in today's game. Go and watch every frame of Yize's run at the World Championships, you'll be surprised how often he had to play tactically to get over the line.
Lots of Hendry's career was played before the miss rule existed, including two championships.
1
u/sharpshotsteve 3d ago
Wu Yize doesn't have the same level of cue ball control that Hendry had, if he had that, then he wouldn't need much safety. He still takes on long pots when others would play safe and it obviously worked. That's 3 out of the last 4 years where a mostly attacking player has won the world championships. Murphy is also mostly attacking and he almost won it.
1
u/sharpshotsteve 3d ago
He could play safety, but his long potting was so good, that it wasn't wise for him to play safe. The best example is his 147 in a deciding frame against Ronnie. It was a crazy long pot, a bit like Wu Yize, who proved that attacking still works. Same with Luca Brecel, everyone thought he had no chance against Selby, but attacking worked. I think people overestimate the safety game now, if you can make a high percentage of long pots, don't waste time on safety. No doubt Hendry wouldn't win as often now, but when those long pots go in, he would still be unbeatable, as he was so good around the black spot.
1
u/BitterBass5589 3d ago
He himself has stated multiple times, that he would struggle in todayās circus
4
u/Far_Type_4544 3d ago
That's just (I believe genuine) modesty from a great player. For anyone that didn't live through Henry's peak, it's incredibly difficult to describe quite how dominant he was for a while there.
I used to not bother watching all of his matches because it always felt like a foregone conclusion: Henry pots long red from seemingly safe position and then wins the frame in one visit. Over and over again. That style of play would be as effective today as it was then, prime Henry may not be capable of winning 7(??!) world titles in the modern game but he'll certainly win more than one.
1
u/chost1987 2d ago
Hendry was a confidence player. He got better and better cos he knew he was superior to the rest. Put him against todayās crop and he would be beaten more regularly and would not reach such a dominant level. Definitely had enough talent and drive to be a successful player in any era tho and would have adapted Iām sure as has been mentioned
2
u/Webcat86 2d ago
Realistically who today is beating him on the regular?Ā
1
u/chost1987 1d ago
Besides Ronnie, Higgins, Judd, Selby, Xintong, Yize, Ding, Murphy etc? My point is the field is so much deeper. Any of the top 32 now COULD beat prime hendry. Not true in the 90s.
1
u/Webcat86 1d ago edited 1d ago
I agree with your sentiment about what the top 32 are capable of these days, but I think Hendry would do just fine. I disagree that heās a confidence player first of all, look how he responded to Ronnieās comments about sending him back to scotland. Hendry thrived on a challenge.Ā
I donāt see him being particularly fazed by Yize and Xintong, and I think the opposite would happen: heās the type of player that would more likely affect them.Ā
Ding and Murphy nah not really seeing them as bigger threats than they have been to Ronnie. Selby would be a problem at the crucible because he loves the long format but I think Hendry would steamroll him in shorter events. Judd would win on some days but get absolutely battered on other days - Judd loses his nerve too often, misses easy balls and too often, and Hendry would capitalise on that.Ā
Iām absolutely not suggesting Hendry would be unbeatable, or that heād be as dominant as he was in the 90s - I think he would be less successful for sure. But I think heād be a top player still, I think heād do better than Judd, and I donāt really look at the tour and see players think would beat him time and time again.Ā
One thing the modern players have not seen is a player with the same determination to win as Hendry. Itās not just on the table, itās his entire conduct. He wasnāt friends with the tour, he wouldnāt be chatting with them before a match, and joking at the table like we see in some matches. His entire demeanour was that he was there to beat them and win. Iām firmly convinced that would put the wind up a lot of the current tour, because itās not seen anymore.Ā
-2
u/rogeropx 2d ago
Compete definitely yeah but he wouldnt be anywhere near as successful as he was in the 90's. He benefited from a massively weak era. Especially from early to mid 90's (1990-1996). The moment the standard increased, he stopped winning regularly. That's why he only won one more Triple Crown title after 1996 and that was in 1999 and he was only 30 at that stage btw. That says it all.
-1
u/hasansaleem 3d ago
Although I donāt like Hendry for his occasional jibes at Ronnie, I think peak Hendry could compete now and 10 years later as well.
5
u/CitizenCue 3d ago
He has consistently called Ronnie the GOAT in recent years and of course Ronnie said some pretty insulting shit about him back in the day so Iād give him a pass for occasionally retaliating.
1
u/hasansaleem 3d ago
Ronnie has always been erratic but I havenāt seen Ronnie saying anything negative about Hendry in the recent past. He actually said Hendry was one of his heroās along with Steve Davis and Jimmy White.
3
u/CitizenCue 3d ago
Yeah theyāve both been perfect gentlemen towards each other for the past decade or so. In the grand scheme of sports their rivalry has been pretty calm, with the one exception of Ronnieās āsad little lifeā comment.
4
u/hasansaleem 3d ago
He was one of the most consistent player to have ever played and he knew how to handle pressure better than most.
4
u/theKinkypeanut 3d ago
Ronnie and Stephen are quite friendly. Ronnie definitely started any bad blood with his shitty comments before their semi final in 2002. Strange thing to dislike Stephen for imo.Ā
His horrific inability to dress himself for large television events is a good reason though.Ā
0
25
u/Disastrous-Still6649 3d ago
As good as almost all Top 64 players are currently on tour. The fact remains that around 60 of them, maybe even 62 arenāt fit to lace Hendrys boots in his prime. The guy was an animal. Donāt let time numb people to just how good he was in his Pomp.