Ronnie O’Sullivan is right when he says John Higgins could have won more in his career.

But of course the same is also true of O’Sullivan himself.

Both players are supremely talented and can hold their heads high in the pantheon of all time greats. They have won far more than most.

One of the simplest reasons they haven’t won even more is that they have played in the same era. They each turned pro in 1992 and have met in a number of finals, one stopping the other from winning.

But it is also true that neither Higgins nor O’Sullivan have had that relentless mindset shared by Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry to win all the time.

Both have admitted as much. Higgins openly confesses that he has at times preferred family life to practising while O’Sullivan told Gabby Logan on the BBC’s Inside Sport last year that, “I haven’t got the passion it takes to be a Michael Schumacher, a Hendry, a Phil Taylor.”

Most snooker players don’t. It takes an extraordinary act of will not to celebrate a major tournament victory but to simply forget about it, go back to the club, work hard and get ready to win the next one.

That’s what Davis and Hendry both did and that’s why they won so much.

None of this takes anything away from the achievements of Higgins and O’Sullivan.

They first won ranking titles as teenagers. Between them they have won the last three world titles, so are clearly still the men to beat.


Anonymous said...

Hi Dave,

I totally agree with O'Sullivans comments. And yours.

When O'Sullivan, Higgins and Williams came up, they served the best they had each for a season or two against Davis but, moreso Hendry - and save for a couple of victory's over the grandmaster, could'nt take him out every time.

And now we have a bunch of players who are coming through (yes, some very late in careers, others early) - Selby, Murphy, Perry, Carter, Ding, Wenbo, Maguire, Walden, Trump, Cope, Day - but nobody really wants to take over the world of snooker, like Hendry had.

And, the funny thing is, when we look back in a decade's time, they all individually may not even have a good enough record to stand up to what O'Sullivan, Higgins or Williams achieved, let alone Hendry.

Which makes me come to the conclusion, are this lot just not good enough or is it a case of they're all around the same ability and so tournaments are spread.

Can you name anyone of those dominanting the game in future? I can't!

BTW Dave, are the WPBSA having a few problems with the SPA? Any details? Also, is there any press conference taking place next week by Pat Mooney regarding this association in Glasgow?

Thanks, Joe

Anonymous said...

Ronnie does'nt have a lot of respect for many but i know how highly he rates Higgins and has his full respect. Great friend's off the table, if only Ronnie had John's mind set he would have won more ranking titles.

Anonymous said...


do you think Higgins and O'Sullivan were Lucky they were Born a good seven years After Hendry and had they Turned Pro at the same time Hendry's Single Mindedness would have meant they wouldn't have won as much as they have.


nice post Dave. I love both these players (OK - O'Sullivan more than Higgins) and every time both of them are in the same final, it makes it hard to take sides. But the good thing is that it becomes a win-win situation for me. :)

Looking forward to more matches with them both!

Dave H said...

Joe - I don't know of any press conference but basically the SPA has asked the WPBSA for a meeting and the WPBSA has refused

Top-Cat said...

Off topic Dave are you related to the Barnet fc manager Ian?

Dave H said...

Not as far as I'm aware

Anonymous said...

@12.21...ian hendon - wot a nice bloke. former spurs player...doing a good job at management level now

jamie brannon said...

I think when John was on one World title he had underacheived. Now he has three though his talent has been justified, he has passed Mark Williams and John is a far greater player than the Welshman. As for Ronnie, well one of the reasons I support him is I dont like to see unfulfilled potential and as John Parott said it is an insult to the game that he has only won three World titles. The two of them are still the men to beat, even though they are 33 now and your twenties is meant to be a players peak. Does this suggest that the current crop of twentysomethings are not up to the same class as Ronnie, John and Mark Williams when they were in their twenties?

Anonymous said...

theyre certainly not up to the standard of hendry in his 20s

the best theres ever been in the modern game