chengdufan wrote:As I've mentioned further up, the thing that has struck me so far is how few players there have been at the top of the game.
While I think it's great that some of the forgotten journeymen have been given some due attention (as well as a few younger players who will no doubt move quickly up this list), I did think the 150-200 group would consist of those players who spent a lot of time ranked 20-30, rather than those who were generally ranked 50-70.
Can you imagine being among the 200 best players in your sport over the last 40 years and basically having scraped a living out of the game and being unknown or forgotten to the vast majority of the fans?
Don't forget, you're leaving out 10-20 players who were bigger names prior to rankings becoming a thing. So these guys you're going through now are kinda there due to the luck of the ranking system's introduction date.
Also, your perception might be heavily influenced by football, which is much more of an anomaly sport that requires lots of big names every season to promote itself and has a marketing budget equivalent to a small country.
Most sports are quite similar to snooker and wont have produced many top tier players that are well known even within the fans, even other team-based sports, in just 40 years of competition.