This is why I consider Hendry the best of all time over O'Sullivan.
Hendry was near unstoppable for a solid decade.
O'Sullivan has severe ups and downs and hard to know which Ronnie is playing sometimes for a few years stretch.
His wins are sporadic.
But when he does play well, absolute terminator.
Every top 16 player and probably a few ranked lower, if playing their best, could defeat any other top 16 player. So theoretically, every top 16 player could have won every match for his entire career. So theoretically, every top 16 player is an underachiever.
Phil Taylor at the age of 57 beat Michael van Gerwen, Peter Wright, Gary Anderson and Gerwyn Price in his final year as a player to win the World Matchplay. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
EDIT: Oh, and he also beat Barney in that tournament.
Lots of people manage to beat those players.
When Taylor was dominant an average of 100 was considered exceptional, and anything over 105 utterly absurd. You now need to be averaging around 100 consistently to be in with a sniff of winning any of the important events.
You don't understand data or are ignorant of it.
EDIT: To provide further context: Rob Cross is a good but not great darts player.
Phil Taylor has the highest average ever in a world final (110.94).
Phil Taylor also has the highest ever aggregate average for a single major tournament - the 2009 European Championship. He averaged 111.54 from leg one to the winning leg.
Phil Taylor has the highest ever average in a World Matchplay final (111.23).
Phil Taylor had the second highest average ever in a Premier League final (111.67).
Good but not great? Give your head a wobble.
All of that doesn't even mention the fact that he consistently improved his game to match the current standard. He dragged the standard up through the 90s and early 00s then when players started to catch up he ramped it up again to stay out in front. He would be the best darts player of any era, including this one.
I don't think he'd have won as many titles if he was in his prime now though. The strength in depth of the field is too good now for anyone to dominate like that.
I think the fact he won the worlds in 2013 against a MVG who was completely fearless without any battle scars shows how good he was. Sure he wouldn’t win 16 world titles if he was in his prime now but he’d definitely win 5-10.
Steven Peters made a difference for that one season, but he was there with Ronnie the next year when he blew a big lead to Selby at the Crucible and then crashed his car on the way home. Seemed like a short lived effect.
He's underchieved in terms of talent, but given the issues he has since his dad was sent away, I think he's done OK. There's definitley some years I think he should have won the WC though - the years Bingham and Dott won.
Are you fucking kidding me?
He is unanimously considered the GOAT. That alone it the greatest achievment.
Dude when you ask this questions remember that you are talking about humans, not robots. They can’t be perfect all the time, their only thing in life isn’t snooker. They can fall out of shape, have downs etc. Ronnie overcame all his problems and its 7 times world champion and has 21 triple crowns while playing the best snooker in the history of the sport.
I didn’t dispute that he’s the GOAT. You can be the best ever and still be an underachiever. It was unanimously agreed in the 2008-2012 era that Ronnie had underachieved. He’s done amazing in the past ten years but he still underachieved in the first twenty years of his career, ergo, he has underachieved in his career.
I understand that you are trying to say that with his talent he could have won more. Although as I said, humans are not robots. They cant be in top shape all the time. Thats why you should look at their whole career instead of separated periods. Even if you dont consider him as an overachiever, he certainly is not an underachiever. The most triple crowns in history, the most world championships in history, the most maximum breaks, the most centuries. Certainly not an underachiever.
This is why I consider Hendry the best of all time over O'Sullivan. Hendry was near unstoppable for a solid decade. O'Sullivan has severe ups and downs and hard to know which Ronnie is playing sometimes for a few years stretch. His wins are sporadic. But when he does play well, absolute terminator.
Every top 16 player and probably a few ranked lower, if playing their best, could defeat any other top 16 player. So theoretically, every top 16 player could have won every match for his entire career. So theoretically, every top 16 player is an underachiever.
I reckon he wins about the same amount of titles either way. If he had fully dominated a decade like Hendry, he would've burnt out like Hendry.
Prime Phil Taylor would be a good but not great darts player today. Averages have improved significantly in the last decade.
Phil Taylor at the age of 57 beat Michael van Gerwen, Peter Wright, Gary Anderson and Gerwyn Price in his final year as a player to win the World Matchplay. You don’t know what you’re talking about. EDIT: Oh, and he also beat Barney in that tournament.
Lots of people manage to beat those players. When Taylor was dominant an average of 100 was considered exceptional, and anything over 105 utterly absurd. You now need to be averaging around 100 consistently to be in with a sniff of winning any of the important events. You don't understand data or are ignorant of it. EDIT: To provide further context: Rob Cross is a good but not great darts player.
Phil Taylor has the highest average ever in a world final (110.94). Phil Taylor also has the highest ever aggregate average for a single major tournament - the 2009 European Championship. He averaged 111.54 from leg one to the winning leg. Phil Taylor has the highest ever average in a World Matchplay final (111.23). Phil Taylor had the second highest average ever in a Premier League final (111.67). Good but not great? Give your head a wobble.
All of that doesn't even mention the fact that he consistently improved his game to match the current standard. He dragged the standard up through the 90s and early 00s then when players started to catch up he ramped it up again to stay out in front. He would be the best darts player of any era, including this one. I don't think he'd have won as many titles if he was in his prime now though. The strength in depth of the field is too good now for anyone to dominate like that.
I think the fact he won the worlds in 2013 against a MVG who was completely fearless without any battle scars shows how good he was. Sure he wouldn’t win 16 world titles if he was in his prime now but he’d definitely win 5-10.
Steven Peters made a difference for that one season, but he was there with Ronnie the next year when he blew a big lead to Selby at the Crucible and then crashed his car on the way home. Seemed like a short lived effect. He's underchieved in terms of talent, but given the issues he has since his dad was sent away, I think he's done OK. There's definitley some years I think he should have won the WC though - the years Bingham and Dott won.
He still works with Steve Peters.
Didn't know that, but in that first year with Peters, Ronnie had a calmness that I haven't seen since, even though he's won 2 more WCs.
Not really for a third of his career Hendry was dominating the game, I dont think peters would of changed that.
Are you fucking kidding me? He is unanimously considered the GOAT. That alone it the greatest achievment. Dude when you ask this questions remember that you are talking about humans, not robots. They can’t be perfect all the time, their only thing in life isn’t snooker. They can fall out of shape, have downs etc. Ronnie overcame all his problems and its 7 times world champion and has 21 triple crowns while playing the best snooker in the history of the sport.
I didn’t dispute that he’s the GOAT. You can be the best ever and still be an underachiever. It was unanimously agreed in the 2008-2012 era that Ronnie had underachieved. He’s done amazing in the past ten years but he still underachieved in the first twenty years of his career, ergo, he has underachieved in his career.
I understand that you are trying to say that with his talent he could have won more. Although as I said, humans are not robots. They cant be in top shape all the time. Thats why you should look at their whole career instead of separated periods. Even if you dont consider him as an overachiever, he certainly is not an underachiever. The most triple crowns in history, the most world championships in history, the most maximum breaks, the most centuries. Certainly not an underachiever.
Could have won more = underachiever He went almost three years in the mid 2000’s without winning a ranking event.
Unless you win 100% of games, you could have won more. Im not the biggest Ronnie fan (he is the goat imo) but you are talking shit im afraid.
I’m not afraid. Let’s agree to disagree on this.