Something that I’ve pondered is whether John Higgins gets the recognition that should be afforded to him, given his incredible accomplishments in the sport of snooker. He, along with a select few have achieved everything there is in the game yet sometimes it seems that he can still be overshadowed by the widely recognised ‘greatest of all time’ players.
Higgins is third on the all-time ranking event list (30), with only Hendry and O’Sullivan eclipsing him, while also being an established Triple Crown Champion. However, does it seem that on occasion his accomplishments go unnoticed by commentators and fans alike? Sometimes, it may seem that way considering Higgins’ playstyle which is much more well-rounded as opposed to the exciting, aggressively controlled style of O’Sullivan; which audiences tend to favour and gear towards. And considering the records held by O’Sullivan, along with the press and support that follows him, makes it easier for commentators to credit his achievements.
You could argue that Higgins receives the appropriate amount of credit given his Triple Crown tally. His total is enviable to other players as Higgins has accumulated 9 trophies in total. Although, when compared to Hendry and O’Sullivan, it’s only approximately half of what The Greatest Scotsman and Greatest Talent have achieved. Higgins’ Triple Crowns account for 30% of his total ranking events whereas, Hendry’s and O’Sullivan’s account for at least 50%.
However, this should be taken lightly, largely due to Higgins’ World Championship performance in the past three years. His overall ranking performances haven’t been what one would expect but Higgins turns it on where it counts at WSC. He’s been displaying World Championship form that could see him winning another title before O’Sullivan.
Commentators do regularly note Higgins’ successes, but often times it is in association with O’Sullivan and Williams. Over the past few years, the ‘Class of 92’ has been coined and referenced wherever possible. While this isn’t a terrible thing, they would do well in highlighting Higgins’ individual feats such as his winning the WSC at 22 or winning multiple ranking events as a teenager. Higgins has built a portfolio that can stand alone and doesn’t need to constantly be attached to others; where his skillset on the table can speak for itself.
This may make it sound that Higgins doesn’t receive any credit whatsoever, however this certainly isn’t the case. Particularly by his fellow competitors, Higgins is regarded as either the best all-rounder; or the greatest match-player the game has ever seen. This includes his Class of ’92 compatriot, O’Sullivan who regards only Higgins and perhaps Selby as two of snooker’s finest currently. Dennis Taylor mentioned in the Crucible’s 40th Anniversary special that if he had to choose between O’Sullivan and Higgins to sink a pot, he would rely on Higgins.
Does Higgins get enough credit? I reckon he does. Ignoring comparisons, Higgins is one of the most successful snooker players ever, and is the chief reason that players such as Williams and O’Sullivan were unable to win more events and further extend their trophy cabinets. He may get slightly over shadowed due to his competing in the same era as O’Sullivan nevertheless, Higgins has forged his place into the snooker hall of fame. And I guarantee that if you asked most players and fans their Top 5 of all time lists, Higgins would reside comfortably in the majority of them.
Like this Short? Click here to read: Brief history of The Crucible
Have an idea for a Short post? Feel free to get in touch using the social media links below! Thanks for reading!