Post a reply

Who is the Greatest Player of all time?

Ronnie O'Sullivan
16
37%
Stephen Hendry
21
49%
John Higgins
1
2%
Steve Davis
1
2%
Ray Reardon
0
No votes
Joe Davis
2
5%
other (please specify)
2
5%
 
Total votes : 43

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby edwards2000

NNear wrote:Yeah. The frames required per century stats are useful too, though.


I am gonna ask him if he will add a century average for triple crown, and in separate majors too. That will be the telling stat.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Andre147

edwards2000 wrote:
NNear wrote:Yeah. The frames required per century stats are useful too, though.


I am gonna ask him if he will add a century average for triple crown, and in separate majors too. That will be the telling stat.


He already is the leader on separate Majors, firstly at the Masters when he broke Hendry's record of tons in that event in 2009. At the Worlds he leads too, think he broke Hendry's record last year didn't he?

At the UK Champs I'm not quite sure, he's surely 2nd anyway.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Wildey

edwards2000 wrote:
NNear wrote:Yeah. The frames required per century stats are useful too, though.


I am gonna ask him if he will add a century average for triple crown, and in separate majors too. That will be the telling stat.

Whats telling about centuries Made?

NOTHING

Ryan Day turned Pro in 1998 = 207 Centuries
Ali Carter turned pro in 1996 = 171 Centuries

Difference of 36 centuries but is Day a better more successful player than Carter?

Centuries are for show only they do not calculate Great players

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby edwards2000

Centuries are not "just for show". The average century stat, especially in the triple crown, shows superior break-building, which is one of the major criteria for being a great snooker player. The 50+ average will be an even more telling stat, which I will also get a hold of.

It is no coincidence that all the greats have amazing break-building stats. There is a direct correlation between potting balls, and break building averages. To say they don't mean anything is to completely misunderstand things. They are a major part of an argument on greatness, because they (especially 50 and 75+) are a major factor in winning frames.

It is also more difficult to keep a break going than to play safe because you ran out of position. If you think break-building stats don't matter, play someone with an average break of 50 a frame, and see how well you do.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby vodkadiet

I never understand the obsession with century breaks. What does it matter if you win a frame with fragmentary scoring as against a 140 break? I personally think as soon as a frame is safe the player should deliberately miss the next shot.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Roland

Century break stats are meaningless given the 6-8 balls prior to century have no pressure on them as frame is already won.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby edwards2000

vodkadiet wrote:I never understand the obsession with century breaks. What does it matter if you win a frame with fragmentary scoring as against a 140 break? I personally think as soon as a frame is safe the player should deliberately miss the next shot.


Making a century break is harder than making a 50 break, and the audience respect that. That's why people are chuft when they make their own personal high break. It's no mystery. It's the same reason why every player wants to make 147 but only a few ever do. Making a 147 is harder than making a century.

It is simply a benchmark of break-building talent.

There is also the fact that making a century keeps the other player in his seat and let's him know how well you are cueing.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby vodkadiet

Players have different styles of play. Some players like to keep frames tight and therefore will have far less opportunities to make centuries. Why not have safety stats to ascertain the greatest player? Stats on plants made? Stats on snookers escaped from? the list goes on.

On the other side of the coin, what if a player won The World Championship without making a 70 break? To me that would show he was a greater player than a monotonous century maker, as he must have a fantastic all round game.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby edwards2000

Most people appreciate century makers and flair over the aforementioned bores you related to in your post. Nothing to do with styles, that's just a convenient excuse for lack of talent.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby vodkadiet

edwards2000 wrote:Most people appreciate century makers and flair over the aforementioned bores you related to in your post. Nothing to do with styles, that's just a convenient excuse for lack of talent.


That is like saying a tennis player who doesn't hit a winner after 3 shots in a rally is a bore with no talent.

I personally find endless century breaks boring. I have seen many matches where both players can't wait to get the balls open, where there is no attention to safety and one of them eventually makes a century after both players have missed a few chances. That isn't quality snooker. That is tactically devoid boredom.

Most of O'Sullivan's centuries have come after his opponent has missed their own chance of scoring heavily. I would much prefer to win a frame with a couple of 40 breaks without affording my opponent a chance.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Wildey

Find me a stat of who made more 75+ Breaks from their first scoring chance off a Long Red then that could be telling.

But making breaks after the other player had his chance proves nothing apart from how poor his opponent was playing

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby edwards2000

Wildey wrote:Find me a stat of who made more 75+ Breaks from their first scoring chance off a Long Red then that could be telling.

But making breaks after the other player had his chance proves nothing apart from how poor his opponent was playing


To make a break of 75+ is difficult to do no matter how the opponent is playing. That's why it doesn't happen every time a player makes a mess of a shot. To split the pack open and make all necessary cannons is not a gimme. The first player in actually has a harder time than the second, generally, because the second player in (if he gets back to the table), is often confronted with a more open table where the donkey work has been done for him.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Wildey

but one chance to make a frame winning contribution is what separates players just showing century breaks stats proves nothing

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby edwards2000

Wildey wrote:but one chance to make a frame winning contribution is what separates players just showing century breaks stats proves nothing


Century breaks are usually from 75+ breaks, so the difference between the two is not large. Those who made a century break also won the frame in 1 visit.

As I said before, though, century breaks are harder to do than 75 breaks and 50 breaks, because they require more potting, and sometimes an awkward red that was left until last.

Break-building is one component of a great player. The ones making centuries will nearly always be the same ones that excel at 50+ and 75+

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Andre147

edwards2000 wrote:
Wildey wrote:but one chance to make a frame winning contribution is what separates players just showing century breaks stats proves nothing


Century breaks are usually from 75+ breaks, so the difference between the two is not large. Those who made a century break also won the frame in 1 visit.

As I said before, though, century breaks are harder to do than 75 breaks and 50 breaks, because they require more potting, and sometimes an awkward red that was left until last.

Break-building is one component of a great player. The ones making centuries will nearly always be the same ones that excel at 50+ and 75+


Fully agree, don't undesrtand all this nonsense that after a frame is won the rest of the break doesn't matter <doh> rofl <doh> It does matter, firstly because you want to keep potting balls until you eventually miss to keep getting table time and don't allow your opponent to the table. Further more, getting a ton is always nice to boost your confidence no matter what stage of the match you're in. Many here seem to think centuries don't really matter and are really devaluating the breakbuilding skills of great players.

And also many of you saying it's pointless to compare stas on who has the most tons in the Triple Crown Majors... No it's not pointless, why you think the true greats of the game are the ones leading that stat? because they could do century breaks in the Triple Crown Majors under the most pressure sometimes. You talking like it's the same as making a century in the CL as opposed to making one at the Masters or Worlds rofl That's just bullocks what you saying, so those stats do really matter.

More to the point, as I said previously Ronnie leads the overall tons made at the Masters, broke Hendry's record in 2009, leads overall tons at the Crucible too, think he broke the record last year, and at the UK Champs not sure but he's surely 2nd.

It's really no coincidence only the greats of the game lead those kind of stats, because they are supreme breakbuilders and like edwards rightly said it's harder to do a ton than just a frame winning 70 or 80 contribution. Of course that's not always like that because as we've seen over the years many 70s, 80s or 90s breaks have been just as good as making a ton, for instance that marvelous 92 break from Ronnie at Worlds 2012 Final, but nevertheless a ton obviosuly requires more balls to be potted so century records shouldn't be devaluated and considered pointless as many here seem to think they are.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Andre147

Sonny wrote:Century break stats are meaningless given the 6-8 balls prior to century have no pressure on them as frame is already won.


<doh> rofl <doh> What a load of bulocks, same as saying it's the same over a Best of 9 frames a player makes 5 consecutive 80 breaks as opposed to 5 consecutive 135 breaks for instance. It isn't the same just because "there's no pressure after a frame is won". LOL... :wave:

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby edwards2000

Yeah, he is second at UK (and ahead at Masters and World with better averages).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... _web#gid=0

and

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... _web#gid=0

As you can see, Hendry has played far more UK frames than Ronnie.

I've updated these stats.
Last edited by edwards2000 on 08 Mar 2014, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Cannonball

Century breaks aren't meaningless at all, far from it. Snooker is a measure not just of talent but also of concentration. The longer the concentration continues, the bigger the test passed. As Edwards rightly points out again (as he usually does), the last few reds are often the ones near the cushions or in a small cluster that have been avoided to minimise risk and secure the frame, so potting the last few tricky reds is a test of talent and concentration. The colours off their spots pose other problems, most notably black to yellow, but other problems arise if the colours are off their spots, near cushions, or coveing each other. If they're on their spots, then this is an easier chance for a player to hit a big ton or a TC. Only Williams thought they were pointless, largely because he didn't understand the artistry in snooker. Some folk think snooker is about winning frames and matches. It isn't, it's much deeper than that. The game (like all sports) merely acts as a stage to demonstrate great human skill. Corinthian man, Corinthian!

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Andre147

Trumpster wrote:Century breaks aren't meaningless at all, far from it. Snooker is a measure not just of talent but also of concentration. The longer the concentration continues, the bigger the test passed. As Edwards rightly points out again (as he usually does), the last few reds are often the ones near the cushions or in a small cluster that have been avoided to minimise risk and secure the frame, so potting the last few tricky reds is a test of talent and concentration. The colours off their spots pose other problems, most notably black to yellow, but other problems arise if the colours are off their spots, near cushions, or coveing each other. If they're on their spots, then this is an easier chance for a player to hit a big ton or a TC. Only Williams thought they were pointless, largely because he didn't understand the artistry in snooker. Some folk think snooker is about winning frames and matches. It isn't, it's much deeper than that. The game (like all sports) merely acts as a stage to demonstrate great human skill. Corinthian man, Corinthian!


Don't agree with that part, because if though often after a frame was won Williams sometimes missed on purpose or did some exhibition shots that prevented him from making a ton, he does understand the artistry of snooker, that's why he's a great of the game, but he just wanted to please the crowd in his relaxed and casual attitude, and more so he didn't care at all about century records like Hendry, Ronnie or Robbo do for instance.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Andre147

Wildey wrote:Jesus Christ its like teaching kids how to rubbish on here sometimes


What have we possibly said that is considered rubbish? rofl :wave:

Your talk and many others about century breaks being meaningless is what is indeed rubbish so :wave:

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Wildey

Willie Thorne one of the most artistic Break-builders of his generation.

Was he better than Alex Higgins, Cliff Thorburn or Ray Reardon?

Centuries dont matter its how breaks are achieved that does.

a 69 break by Alex Higgins in 1982 is worth more than every century Willie Thorne ever had.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby edwards2000

I've updated the stats above too.

Turns out Masters 2014 was the most successful tournament that Ronnie has ever had. 80% frame success, more than ANY other Major tournament in his career. Hendry's best was 78% in 1995 UK (obviously many more frames played).

L64 Jamie Burnett 9-3
L32 Anthony Hamilton 9-3
L16 Gary Wilkinson 9-2
QF Ken Doherty 9-3
SF John Higgins 9-1
F [WON] Peter Ebdon 9-3


That was an ass kicking. John and Doherty still quite young, but it's impressive nonetheless.

----------

Also Wild, Thorne's average is nowhere near Ronnie's or other greats. He was a very good breakbuilder, but exceptions do not make rules. And you are using a straw man. No one here has said that good century averages and breakbuilding are the only definition of greatness and ability. But they are a component of it.
Last edited by edwards2000 on 08 Mar 2014, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Andre147

Wildey wrote:Willie Thorne one of the most artistic Break-builders of his generation.

Was he better than Alex Higgins, Cliff Thorburn or Ray Reardon?

Centuries dont matter its how breaks are achieved that does.

a 69 break by Alex Higgins in 1982 is worth more than every century Willie Thorne ever had.


And who on here said that is not worth than most tons made huh? Of course it is, that is one of the most amazing breaks ever in snooker, but many here seem to think a century is pointless purely because that after a frame is won there's no pressure on the player... LOL...

That for me is really devaluating the skills of the true breakbuilders, so century stats do matter, and more importantly those made at the Triple Crown events for instance, it's not the same as making a ton in CL, Shootout, Premier League or whatever..

But many frame winning breaks that arent tons are sometimes more impressive than a ton theres no doubt about that.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Andre147

edwards2000 wrote:I've updated the stats above too.

Turns out Masters 2014 was the most successful tournament that Ronnie has ever had. 80% frame success, more than ANY other Major tournament in his career. Hendry's best was 78% in 1995 UK (obviously many more frames played).

L64 Jamie Burnett 9-3
L32 Anthony Hamilton 9-3
L16 Gary Wilkinson 9-2
QF Ken Doherty 9-3
SF John Higgins 9-1
F [WON] Peter Ebdon 9-3


That was an ass kicking. John and Doherty still quite young, but it's impressive nonetheless.

----------

Also Wild, Thorne's average is nowhere near Ronnie's or other greats. He was a very good breakbuilder, but exceptions do not make rules. And you are using a straw man. No one here has said that good century averages and breakbuilding are the only definition of greatness and ability. But they are a component of it.


Yeah, fully agree. Having a great safety game is just as important too, thats why Ronnie had many more sucess after 2004 having worked with Reardon on the safety side of the game, plus the mental side massive also.

Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

Postby Wildey

Topic is Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?

People have different opinions and has a right to those opinions without people trying to rail road their opinion on the discussion to try and persuade others to change their minds. Thats not going to happen so either accept that people don't agree with your opinion or just leave the forum.


   

cron