Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2021 World Championships

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally Posted by Odrl View Post

    I agree with that in principle, but it's worth noting that the concept of the "Triple Crown" isn't as clear-cut as it seems. The UK Championship has gone through a lot of changes in format over the years, and winning it in recent years isn't quite the same achievement as winning it back when all matches were played over multiple sessions. It's also lost the position of being the second biggest tournament in terms of the length of matches, as well as in terms of prize money. The China Open had overtaken it before the pandemic hit.
    Is it easier to win a shorter format Match? General consensus seems to be that luck evens itself out in the longer matches, favouring the 'better' player who is also probably more experienced with them, also an advantage. This is why a lot of people don't like the best of 7s, which are so prevalent these days, you frequently hear them described as a lottery and we've seen many 'shock results' with lower ranked players unexpectedly winning them. It makes sense and if you take it to it's extreme, any decent player would rather a best of 19 over a single frame. So are the shorter format matches we have these days actually making things more difficult for the top players in the long run?

    -
    The fast and the furious,
    The slow and labourious,
    All of us, glorious parts of the whole!

    Comment


    • Originally Posted by PatBlock View Post

      . So are the shorter format matches we have these days actually making things more difficult for the top players in the long run?

      -
      In a word Yes! They are good for TV and players records though, especially newer / younger players who get the chance to bring down giants in a sprint. The longer format requires stamina, mental fortitude, and brings through players who don't just rely on "purple patches" i.e. consistency, which is a desirable quality in a thorough bred.
      ⚪ 🔴🟡🟢🟤🔵💗⚫🕳️😎

      Comment


      • Originally Posted by PatBlock View Post

        Is it easier to win a shorter format Match? General consensus seems to be that luck evens itself out in the longer matches, favouring the 'better' player who is also probably more experienced with them, also an advantage. This is why a lot of people don't like the best of 7s, which are so prevalent these days, you frequently hear them described as a lottery and we've seen many 'shock results' with lower ranked players unexpectedly winning them. It makes sense and if you take it to it's extreme, any decent player would rather a best of 19 over a single frame. So are the shorter format matches we have these days actually making things more difficult for the top players in the long run?

        -
        Yes, i agree with this.

        Let's take a look at who won the World Championship in the last 15 years:

        O'Sullivan 4
        Selby 4
        Higgins 3
        Robertson/Williams/Trump/Bingham 1

        The first three don't require a comment, Williams was already a two-time World Champion, and Robertson/Trump were/are world number 1 players. The only non-world number one player that has won a title and can be considered a surprise was Bingham but he beat O'Sullivan, Trump and Murphy to do it. All credit to him. One player in 15 years. You can't fluke a World Championship. You're not going to beat Higgins, O'Sullivan or Selby in a Best-of-33/35 unless you're about as good as them, at least on those particular days. Which is why WC should be valued far higher than anything else when comparing players.

        Good for Trump's pockets that he's been able to rack ranking titles but he has as many World Championships/Triple Crown events as Bingham. He's great at best-of-11/13 where a hot run basically decides the match. Same with Robertson. But when your form declines and you need mental fortitude, perseverance, patience, tactical acumen, that's where the true greats of the game shine.
        Last edited by Kargetina; 5 May 2021, 06:45 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally Posted by Kargetina View Post

          Yes, i agree with this.

          Let's take a look at who won the World Championship in the last 15 years:

          O'Sullivan 4
          Selby 4
          Higgins 3
          Robertson/Williams/Trump/Bingham 1

          The first three don't require a comment, Williams was already a two-time World Champion, and Robertson/Trump were/are world number 1 players. The only non-world number one player that has won a title and can be considered a surprise was Bingham but he beat O'Sullivan, Trump and Murphy to do it. All credit to him. One player in 15 years. You can't fluke a World Championship. You're not going to beat Higgins, O'Sullivan or Selby in a Best-of-33/35 unless you're about as good as them, at least on those particular days. Which is why WC should be valued far higher than anything else when comparing players.

          Good for Trump's pockets that he's been able to rack ranking titles but he has as many World Championships/Triple Crown events as Bingham. He's great at best-of-11/13 where a hot run basically decides the match. Same with Robertson. But when your form declines and you need mental fortitude, perseverance, patience, tactical acumen, that's where the true greats of the game shine.
          Needs another edit. Agree though.
          ⚪ 🔴🟡🟢🟤🔵💗⚫🕳️😎

          Comment


          • Originally Posted by PatBlock View Post

            Is it easier to win a shorter format Match? General consensus seems to be that luck evens itself out in the longer matches, favouring the 'better' player who is also probably more experienced with them, also an advantage. This is why a lot of people don't like the best of 7s, which are so prevalent these days, you frequently hear them described as a lottery and we've seen many 'shock results' with lower ranked players unexpectedly winning them. It makes sense and if you take it to it's extreme, any decent player would rather a best of 19 over a single frame. So are the shorter format matches we have these days actually making things more difficult for the top players in the long run?

            -
            before last Saturday Shaun Murphy hadn't got past the 2nd round at the crucible since losing to Bingham in 2015 , I think there's also a lazy journalism aspect instantly asserting longer matches are better for the higher ranked player , if you look at the old ptc's records it was still Selby and the top players at the top , I think Trump will win more world championships but i'm not sure it's in his interests to be trying to sweep up in these shorter formats re home nations if he wants to do so.

            Comment


            • Originally Posted by trains View Post

              ' old timers ' , are you still sticking to your theory that trump should be dominating a physically negligible game that is much more based on touch determination and experience ? you must think that generations of british lads who've never even seen a pro table in real life couldnt possibly have been a potential world champion otherwise they would have been
              I’m not sure why this pro table thing keeps getting brought up in every thread ,any table that has steel cushions ,northern rubber ,No 10 cloth is a pro table .No one plays on a cloth that is changed every 3 days ,even the pro’s don’t .If your good you can play on anything that is decent and looked after

              Comment


              • Originally Posted by trains View Post

                ...I think there's also a lazy journalism aspect instantly asserting longer matches are better for the higher ranked player....
                But they are, don't you think? And, oy, less of the insults. I may be lazy, but I'm no journalist! (No offence Jim )

                -
                The fast and the furious,
                The slow and labourious,
                All of us, glorious parts of the whole!

                Comment


                • Originally Posted by mikee View Post
                  I’m not sure why this pro table thing keeps getting brought up in every thread ,any table that has steel cushions ,northern rubber ,No 10 cloth is a pro table .No one plays on a cloth that is changed every 3 days ,even the pro’s don’t .If your good you can play on anything that is decent and looked after
                  Oh no, you've done it now.

                  -
                  The fast and the furious,
                  The slow and labourious,
                  All of us, glorious parts of the whole!

                  Comment


                  • Originally Posted by mikee View Post
                    I’m not sure why this pro table thing keeps getting brought up in every thread ,any table that has steel cushions ,northern rubber ,No 10 cloth is a pro table .No one plays on a cloth that is changed every 3 days ,even the pro’s don’t .If your good you can play on anything that is decent and looked after
                    even those simple specs are hard to come by around my parts , London , who from around here ever got a tour card in years , Sean o Sullivan , I think that's it , then you probably have to go back to gould via the English amateur pro ticket around 2000 , I don't understand how not you but people make some point about old timers in a physically negligible game , it's like they're implying there's no talent or interest around now or that young players from yesteryear were better than today's , all three of these theories are guff it's just about lack of familiarity through lack of facilities and of course from that , money , I guess there's no point investing in young players when they'd have to beat the likes of mark Allen and mark Williams to get at the cream prize winnings , I fully understand that in that sense.

                    Comment


                    • Originally Posted by PatBlock View Post

                      But they are, don't you think? And, oy, less of the insults. I may be lazy, but I'm no journalist! (No offence Jim )

                      -
                      generally yes , but trumps record was it over last autumn was pretty good too , I think his achievement there holds up respectably to probably some other achievements in the past , so his complaint probably had a bit of justification behind it too.

                      Comment


                      • I still think Trump will rack up numerous WCs. He's 14 years younger than ROS/Higgins. He could get nowhere near the final for the next few years and I'd still expect him to rack them up at some point.

                        I have to say Robertson is very disappointing in the WC. Only one semi final in 11 years? Nowhere near good enough for someone who was looking to crack into the top 5 ever. That ship may be preparing to sail.
                        Last edited by Ronnie's tip; 5 May 2021, 10:02 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Just to be clear, I don't know how much "talent or interest" there is around, but yes, I am saying young players from previous generations were better than those of today. How that even be a question? The list of title contenders in reasonably big events sees almost no change from year to year, with the same names dominating for many years now. There are only three young players in the top 32 of the rankings at the moment (all from China), and the fourth youngest will turn 30 in six months. The standard in that age group is laughably bad compared to what we had in the past.

                          Regarding the length of tournaments, of course the better players always have a better chance of winning, whatever the format, but the field of genuine contenders shrinks as you go to the longer matches. The PTC series was brought up... That lasted for six seasons, with 65 individual events. Two of those events were won by unranked players, eight were won by players outside of the top 32, another eight were won by players in the 17-32 group, and 47 were won by top 16 players. Excluding the two unranked winners, the average rating of the winner in that series was 15. In the same time period, there were 29 events with best-of-9 matches. One of them was won by a player outside of the top 32, six were won by players in the 17-32 group, and the other 22 were won by top 16 players. The average ranking of the winner was just over 12. There were also nine events with best-of-11 matches in this period, all won by top 16 players, with the average rating of the winner at exactly 6. And, unsurprisingly, if you only look at the World Championship over this six-year span, the average rating of the winner gets even lower. I think there can't be any question whether the shortening of matches hurts the top players or not. It levels the playing field and created more variance the shorter you go.

                          Comment


                          • Originally Posted by Odrl View Post
                            Just to be clear, I don't know how much "talent or interest" there is around, but yes, I am saying young players from previous generations were better than those of today. How that even be a question? The list of title contenders in reasonably big events sees almost no change from year to year, with the same names dominating for many years now. There are only three young players in the top 32 of the rankings at the moment (all from China), and the fourth youngest will turn 30 in six months. The standard in that age group is laughably bad compared to what we had in the past.

                            Regarding the length of tournaments, of course the better players always have a better chance of winning, whatever the format, but the field of genuine contenders shrinks as you go to the longer matches. The PTC series was brought up... That lasted for six seasons, with 65 individual events. Two of those events were won by unranked players, eight were won by players outside of the top 32, another eight were won by players in the 17-32 group, and 47 were won by top 16 players. Excluding the two unranked winners, the average rating of the winner in that series was 15. In the same time period, there were 29 events with best-of-9 matches. One of them was won by a player outside of the top 32, six were won by players in the 17-32 group, and the other 22 were won by top 16 players. The average ranking of the winner was just over 12. There were also nine events with best-of-11 matches in this period, all won by top 16 players, with the average rating of the winner at exactly 6. And, unsurprisingly, if you only look at the World Championship over this six-year span, the average rating of the winner gets even lower. I think there can't be any question whether the shortening of matches hurts the top players or not. It levels the playing field and created more variance the shorter you go.
                            so you didn't watch snooker in the 90's but you think young players of previous generations were better , do you think for example the top 32 in 1992/93 was better than it is today , if it wasn't as good in 92/93 then how can you be sure that young players were better then when it may be more difficult to break through now , Stephen hendry has said that the standard has risen since he won at the crucible , do you think that he was spouting empty platitudes along with Steve Davis

                            Comment


                            • Originally Posted by trains View Post

                              so you didn't watch snooker in the 90's but you think young players of previous generations were better , do you think for example the top 32 in 1992/93 was better than it is today , if it wasn't as good in 92/93 then how can you be sure that young players were better then when it may be more difficult to break through now , Stephen hendry has said that the standard has risen since he won at the crucible , do you think that he was spouting empty platitudes along with Steve Davis
                              I'm not going to try to guess how the top 32 from that time would to today, but yes, the young players in the 90s were better than those coming through today. We know this because many of them are still playing and are at the top of the game right now, whereas young players coming through in the last ten years or so are hugely outnumbered by the old guard. You cannot genuinely think that the likes of Yan Bingtao, Zhou Yuelong, Zhao Xintong, Scott Donaldson or Alexander Ursenbacher (the five highest-ranked players aged 25 or younger) are a stronger generation than the O'Sullivan generation was back in the 90s? Those players are 45 now and are still better. It's not even close.

                              Comment


                              • Originally Posted by Odrl View Post

                                I'm not going to try to guess how the top 32 from that time would to today, but yes, the young players in the 90s were better than those coming through today. We know this because many of them are still playing and are at the top of the game right now, whereas young players coming through in the last ten years or so are hugely outnumbered by the old guard. You cannot genuinely think that the likes of Yan Bingtao, Zhou Yuelong, Zhao Xintong, Scott Donaldson or Alexander Ursenbacher (the five highest-ranked players aged 25 or younger) are a stronger generation than the O'Sullivan generation was back in the 90s? Those players are 45 now and are still better. It's not even close.
                                you're obviously a keen fan and I think it's cool that someone from Slovenia is an avid viewer and takes the time to post about snooker ( no empty platitudes or any kind of ingration intended whatsoever ) but if you step back a second and think about it some things you come across saying seem a little amiss , if you're not going to guess how the top 32 from then would do now then doesn't that defeat the point of saying anything else ,you were implying last week that o Sullivan isn't as good now as he was in 99 because Trump and Selby have been ranked higher than him for a long time , so what , that doesn't mean he isn't as good now as then , he's a much better safety player now , all the top players have exclusive paid access to wst tables while boosting their tablecraft at the same time in a physically negligible sport , why would any of those young players you mentioned be expected to beat them , 45 , sorry but literally so what.

                                do any of these stats or deductions you or I post perhaps indicate that it's harder for younger players to break through now than then , do you really think if 1997 alain robidoux was transported into the 2021 crucible that he'd make the semi final now , and if you perhaps want to use Gary Wilson in 2019 Wilson was much better than robidoux then , I did actually watch snooker then and I'm not making any empty platitudes , why would I have any need to , what bias would I be peddling.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X