Post a reply

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Prop

Sickpotter wrote:
Prop wrote:
Granite wrote:Despite being touted as someone to take over Ronnie, the only 2 records I see him beating Ronnie's is centuries (just because there's more events, not because he's a better breakbuilder) and ranking events but when it comes to the big, meaningful records like the Worlds and Triple Crown events...he's not threatening in the slightest is he?

In Snooker you always had some form of a "heir", from Davis to Hendry to Ronnie that always used to win the Big 3 events and they followed a pattern targeting and winning the UK, Masters and Worlds...but Judd isn't anywhere close despite being 32.


Actually, Judd does score more centuries per frame than Ronnie.

Ronnie: One century every 10.75 frames played.
Judd: One century every 10.29 frames played.

I’m much more a Ronnie fan than I am a Trump fan, but fair’s fair. Centuries per frame takes the ‘more tournaments these days’ argument right out of the equation.

Judd has the highest century strike rate the game has ever seen.


I think comparing a century strike rate is misleading......every player sees a drop off in that stat towards the end of their career and the longer your career continues the lower your century rate becomes.

I'd like to see a breakdown on century strike rate for every 1000 frames played.....1000 frames while they're at their respective peaks would be a better comparison IMO.


Only problem with that is it’s not exactly easy to pick a period of time that reflects a player’s peak. It’s probably subjective to some extent, unless somehow a career peak can definitively be measured in numbers.

Like Judd, for example. Is he yet to peak? Has he already peaked? As discussed here viewtopic.php?f=25&t=11589

It’s an interesting little project, anyway. We’re lucky Chengdufan has agreed to complete it for us ;-)

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby chengdufan

rekoons wrote:
chengdufan wrote:Thinking about it, the fairest comparison could be to look at their scoring rates against top 10 players in the rankings revisit :chin:

The trick will be not making this more complicated than it needs to be, which I fear I may already be doing!


Yes, I think to avoid making errors in trying to choose the 'right' criteria, it is actually best to use all off the available data. Like we just did... over time, when Judd reaches 45 the comparison will become more and more accurate.

You could just as well argue it's not necesarily easier to make 50 or 70 + breaks against weaker opponents because you could loose focus which you are maybe less prone to when playing the top players... :shrug:

If we go back to basics on statistical analysis though, if you are looking for results related to one specific thing, ideally you remove ALL unrelated variables. So you need to reduce your data set to make sure you are not comparing apples with oranges.
There does often have to be a compromise, so that you get a sufficient sample size, but simply taking all available data rarely provides the most accuracy.

So what are we looking for exactly here? Who is better at making 70+ breaks?

And what are the variables we want to take out of the equation?

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby rekoons

chengdufan wrote:
rekoons wrote:
chengdufan wrote:Thinking about it, the fairest comparison could be to look at their scoring rates against top 10 players in the rankings revisit :chin:

The trick will be not making this more complicated than it needs to be, which I fear I may already be doing!


Yes, I think to avoid making errors in trying to choose the 'right' criteria, it is actually best to use all off the available data. Like we just did... over time, when Judd reaches 45 the comparison will become more and more accurate.

You could just as well argue it's not necesarily easier to make 50 or 70 + breaks against weaker opponents because you could loose focus which you are maybe less prone to when playing the top players... :shrug:

If we go back to basics on statistical analysis though, if you are looking for results related to one specific thing, ideally you remove ALL unrelated variables. So you need to reduce your data set to make sure you are not comparing apples with oranges.
There does often have to be a compromise, so that you get a sufficient sample size, but simply taking all available data rarely provides the most accuracy.

So what are we looking for exactly here? Who is better at making 70+ breaks?

And what are the variables we want to take out of the equation?


Boy am I glad you volunteered <laugh>

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Johnny Bravo

rekoons wrote:regarding 70's breaks: there's already some background (but no direct comparison between up to 33 yo ronnie vs .trump):

Image

Wow. This clearly shows ROS is the best ever. :win:

Also, it shows that he would have had a great chance to win the 2016 WC, had it not been for his poor safety that event. He was scoring very well.

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Prop

Iranu wrote:
Prop wrote:
Iranu wrote:Is it frames played or frames won?


Played.

Would frames won help remove the variable of opponent quality? Or, frames scores in? :chin:


Hmm. I see what you’re getting at, yeah. Just trying to think whether that might skew things somehow.

It’s probably beyond my attention span, and a job for the proper stattos <laugh>

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Prop wrote:Only problem with that is it’s not exactly easy to pick a period of time that reflects a player’s peak. It’s probably subjective to some extent, unless somehow a career peak can definitively be measured in numbers.

Agreed, it's very hard to pinpoint a player's peak.
In ROS's case, IMO it's 2012-2014. He also played great in 2004 and 2008, but if are looking for a bigger, sustained period of good play, 2012-2014 has to be it.

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby TheRocket

Johnny Bravo wrote:
Prop wrote:Only problem with that is it’s not exactly easy to pick a period of time that reflects a player’s peak. It’s probably subjective to some extent, unless somehow a career peak can definitively be measured in numbers.

Agreed, it's very hard to pinpoint a player's peak.
In ROS's case, IMO it's 2012-2014. He also played great in 2004 and 2008, but if are looking for a bigger, sustained period of good play, 2012-2014 has to be it.


Young Ronnie (2000's) had a higher peak level, older one (2010's) more balanced and not that many up and downs. Therefore the older Ron more consistent and more reliable.

But if the young version had a good day, it was like really good and he would hammer the older version.

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Andre147

TheRocket wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
Prop wrote:Only problem with that is it’s not exactly easy to pick a period of time that reflects a player’s peak. It’s probably subjective to some extent, unless somehow a career peak can definitively be measured in numbers.

Agreed, it's very hard to pinpoint a player's peak.
In ROS's case, IMO it's 2012-2014. He also played great in 2004 and 2008, but if are looking for a bigger, sustained period of good play, 2012-2014 has to be it.


Young Ronnie (2000's) had a higher peak level, older one (2010's) more balanced and not that many up and downs. Therefore the older Ron more consistent and more reliable.

But if the young version had a good day, it was like really good and he would hammer the older version.


2001 version of ROS on a good day would probably beat the older version more times than not I agree.

Problem is the 2001 version hadn't developed a full safety game and could let his head drop if hia A game wasnt there. But yeah he had higher peak back then, but not reliable.

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Prop

I’d suggest for the sake of this argument it’s important to make the distinction between peak level (which a player might fleetingly deliver multiple times over a long career) and peak in terms of the period of a player’s career when they were consistently playing at a higher average than any other period in their career. It’s peak in terms of a long term playing period that’s pertinent to this argument: Career peak.

For example, Ronnie’s peak level could arguably be his Welsh Open performance against Walden, 500 odd points without reply. Or perhaps the 5 min 8 seconds 147. That’s how well he can play - his peak level. Whereas his career peak would probably be the period of 2012-2014 as has previously been mentioned.

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby eraserhead

The performance against Walden was Masters wasn't it? That Welsh open where he made a 146 was an amazing performance throughout the tournament, only blip was the first session of the final.

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Prop

eraserhead wrote:The performance against Walden was Masters wasn't it? That Welsh open where he made a 146 was an amazing performance throughout the tournament, only blip was the first session of the final.


Yeah you’re right. Doh! I was only discussing it a couple of days ago as well <laugh>

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Prop wrote:I’d suggest for the sake of this argument it’s important to make the distinction between peak level (which a player might fleetingly deliver multiple times over a long career) and peak in terms of the period of a player’s career when they were consistently playing at a higher average than any other period in their career. It’s peak in terms of a long term playing period that’s pertinent to this argument: Career peak.

For example, Ronnie’s peak level could arguably be his Welsh Open performance against Walden, 500 odd points without reply. Or perhaps the 5 min 8 seconds 147. That’s how well he can play - his peak level. Whereas his career peak would probably be the period of 2012-2014 as has previously been mentioned.

Completely agree with you about career peak which, like we both agree was between 2012 and 2014.


TheRocket wrote:Young Ronnie (2000's) had a higher peak level, older one (2010's) more balanced and not that many up and downs. Therefore the older Ron more consistent and more reliable.
But if the young version had a good day, it was like really good and he would hammer the older version.

No young version of ROS hammers the 2012-2014 version. Yes, the young ROS could score very heavy and was like a hammer, but he lacked the safety play and mental aspect. The older version of ROS would do a Selbo on the younger version of himself.


Andre147 wrote:2001 version of ROS on a good day would probably beat the older version more times than not I agree.
Problem is the 2001 version hadn't developed a full safety game and could let his head drop if hia A game wasnt there. But yeah he had higher peak back then, but not reliable.

Disagree completely Andre. 2012-2014 ROS would never lose to someone like Dott at the WC, and would not have a meltdown against Ebdon.

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby TheRocket

The mental strength of the younger Ron is too underrated. People shouldnt forget he reached the one table stage at the Worlds every second year or so in his 20's. And he wiped the floor with Hendry and Higgins on many occasions.

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Andre147

Johnny Bravo wrote:Disagree completely Andre. 2012-2014 ROS would never lose to someone like Dott at the WC, and would not have a meltdown against Ebdon.


Indeed he wouldn't. he would beat Ebdon something like 13-4 and he certainly wouldn't lose all 8 frames against Dott in the 3rd session.

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Prop

So, just to get back on track for a moment, and for the purposes of Chengdufan, Rekoons or whoever ends up crunching the numbers, are we all happy with Ronnie’s career peak being 2012-2013? And what about Judd? 2018-2020?

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Andre147

Prop wrote:So, just to get back on track for a moment, and for the purposes of Chengdufan, Rekoons or whoever ends up crunching the numbers, are we all happy with Ronnie’s career peak being 2012-2013? And what about Judd? 2018-2020?


Ronnie's 2012-2014. And Judd's sounds about right.

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby TheRocket

Prop wrote:So, just to get back on track for a moment, and for the purposes of Chengdufan, Rekoons or whoever ends up crunching the numbers, are we all happy with Ronnie’s career peak being 2012-2013? And what about Judd? 2018-2020?


With Ronnie its really hard to pinpoint. He had a lot of good spells at different stages of his career. 2012-2014 one of them. As for Judd I'd say he is still at his peak ,no?

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Prop

TheRocket wrote:
Prop wrote:So, just to get back on track for a moment, and for the purposes of Chengdufan, Rekoons or whoever ends up crunching the numbers, are we all happy with Ronnie’s career peak being 2012-2013? And what about Judd? 2018-2020?


With Ronnie its really hard to pinpoint. He had a lot of good spells at different stages of his career. 2012-2014 one of them. As for Judd I'd say he is still at his peak ,no?


It’s really difficult to say. Has he already peaked? Will he have a couple of seasons in a few years time at an even higher level than we’ve already seen?

We can only go on his career peak so far. After all, that’s what’s being compared between him and Ronnie: century strike rate at their peak - as we know it today.

Obviously this would be much easier to analyse and produce much more accurate results if the number crunching was done at the end of both players’ careers. But we can’t really do that yet!

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Prop

I’m starting to think that attempting to make this specific to a player’s career peak is bringing far too much subjectivity into it.

It’s a variable that can always be argued to suit one perspective over another. And stats shouldn’t really work like that.

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby TheRocket

With Trump all I can say is his peak level for sure is as good as anyones who has played this game. The level he produced in the 2019 WC final is something that maybe only happened on 2 or 3 other occasions over that long distance.

I dont think he'll ever get to Hendry or Ronnie tier when he eventually retires but if he wins 2-3 World titles and like 40+ rankers he'll look back and be happy with what he's achieved. Pre 2018 many thought he was a wasted talent.

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Prop

Andre147 wrote:
Prop wrote:So, just to get back on track for a moment, and for the purposes of Chengdufan, Rekoons or whoever ends up crunching the numbers, are we all happy with Ronnie’s career peak being 2012-2013? And what about Judd? 2018-2020?


Ronnie's 2012-2014. And Judd's sounds about right.


Yeah, sorry. Don’t know why I typed 2012-2013. Definitely 2012-14 as I said earlier <ok>

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Pink Ball

I'm not convinced the O'Sullivan vintage of 2012-2014 was better than the O'Sullivan of the noughties. I think some of O'Sullivan's achievements in that latter period are skewed by a weaker level of competition. O'Sullivan did regress, but the standard regressed at a quicker pace. The best players were better between 2001 and 2004.

Some of the performances O'Sullivan pulled out at that time were God-like. The English Open final against Kyren Wilson a few years ago aside, I'm not convinced I've seen anything like that from him since. He's more consistent, he's arguably more motivated, but I don't believe at all that he has been as good.

Re: Judd's really not a threat to Ronnie's records is he?

Postby Prop

Pink Ball wrote:I'm not convinced the O'Sullivan vintage of 2012-2014 was better than the O'Sullivan of the noughties. I think some of O'Sullivan's achievements in that latter period are skewed by a weaker level of competition. O'Sullivan did regress, but the standard regressed at a quicker pace. The best players were better between 2001 and 2004.

Some of the performances O'Sullivan pulled out at that time were God-like. The English Open final against Kyren Wilson a few years ago aside, I'm not convinced I've seen anything like that from him since. He's more consistent, he's arguably more motivated, but I don't believe at all that he has been as good.


Interesting points. And this is why it’s going to be very difficult to agree on a player’s peak period.

I’ve probably forgotten a lot of Ronnie’s best individual performances. It’s just how my brain works. But I do remember around 2008 he was pretty damn invincible as well.