John Higgins is a four-time World Champion and a veteran at the Crucible. He is tied alongside Steve Davis when it comes to number of Crucible final appearances with eight; only topped by Stephen Hendry with nine final appearances. Given this 50% success rate, Higgins is already regarded as one of the game’s greatest all-rounders. But what would his stature be if he had won all of those finals?
As one of the longest standing professionals with a near thirty year long career, Higgins has made appearances and won a World Championship in every decade. From 1998 up to 2019, Higgins has reached the final on eight occasions, winning four out of his first five finals. Higgins’s triumphs occurred in 1998, 2007, 2009 and 2011; while his losses came in 2001 and more recently from 2017-19. But if Higgins had won in these years, would that change the landscape of the ‘greatest of all time’ discussions?
It isn’t an impossibility to imagine. Two of these losses are players he had beaten in WSC finals years earlier (albeit at younger stages of their respective careers), and the other two are his fellow Class of ’92 compatriots whom he has beaten in other Triple Crown finals. So it’s very possible that a world could have existed where Higgins was an eight-time World Champion.
But if this had happened, would Higgins be considered the best snooker player of all time? Quite possibly. Most consider Hendry the greatest due to his Triple Crown and ranking title accolades, but it mainly resorts to his WSC success. When the case is made against O’Sullivan, this is the barometer that is regarded as pertinent among Hendry idealists. Hence why a considerable number of people would consider Higgins as the greatest if he had won all eight.
Another factor that would lead to Higgins being regarded as the ‘GOAT’ in this hypothetical discussion is down to his all-round skillset and match-play fortitude. His style could be viewed as a contemporary hybrid of Davis’s and Hendry’s former playstyles, but one which evolved to suit the modern game. In this scenario, it would seem that Higgins would have no weakness and once again, potentially be known as the best.
However, there would still be some discussion as to the greatest even if Higgins had won all these world finals. Some may still find Hendry’s victories far more impressive. But that’s a matter of perspective – whether you rank a decade of dominance over a player’s longevity and ability to win throughout all points of their career. O’Sullivan would still also be thrown into the mix even though he would only be a four-time champion, due to his sheer ability and artistry on the table, not to mention other accomplishments.
Something further to consider is the Triple Crown tally. If Higgins had won all eight WSC finals, this would take his majors success from nine to thirteen. This number is considerably lower than the likes of the Trinity (Davis, Hendry, and O’Sullivan). Since we’re only looking at the World Championship finals, Davis’s and Hendry’s Triple Crown totals would remain the same at 15 and 18, respectively. Meanwhile, O’Sullivan’s tally would only be reduced by one, leaving him tied with Hendry. If the number of majors were to determine who the greatest was, much like Grand Slams in tennis, then Higgins still wouldn’t be the best due to his rivals’ success at the UK and Masters.
Although, the WSC is the most important tournament and the greatest test for a snooker player. So the argument would still be there if Higgins had won all those finals as more weight would be assigned to the Worlds. All we can say for certain is that in this hypothetical, Selby would have a slight dent in his meteoric rise and Trump would still be searching to complete the Triple Crown.
Like this Short? Click here to read: Does John Higgins Get Enough Credit?
Have an idea for a Short post? Feel free to get in touch using the social media links below! Thanks for reading!