Has John Higgins got a realistic chance of winning Worlds?

I'd quite like to see Ding win The Crucible, but not sure that he will.

i do get that fans of a player wants that player to still be winning but cant understand why you would want Ronnie playing a 40 year old in a world final.

its the showcase of our sport and its not very encouraging for potential Sponsors to not see young players coming through.

its so important on all levels.

I don't think sponsors care about the age of the finalists at all, just that they're marketable and people will tune in to watch them.

ROS v Higgins final would attract huge viewing IMO.

Wildey wrote:i do get that fans of a player wants that player to still be winning but cant understand why you would want Ronnie playing a 40 year old in a world final.

its the showcase of our sport and its not very encouraging for potential Sponsors to not see young players coming through.

its so important on all levels.

Ronnie is still the biggest draw in the sport - so he is still relevant on all levels. However I totally agree with what you are saying, I'm disappointed that all the promising talent has failed to live up to their expectations, it is turning into an old-mans game at the moment when it used to be all about the young, care-free sensations blasting people off the table.

Hopefully it's just a phase, and I don't know why it's panning out this way, I personally think it's a generation-thing, not sure who said it here recently but there was mention of all the technology distractions with all this twitter and facebook crap that is distracting people from their jobs, I think that is definitely affecting concentration levels with some of the young hopefuls - it's like they care too much about their image and how they're portrayed rather than collecting silverware.

What Wild wants: young players
What Holden wants: old legends
What we actually get: Stuart Bingham

kolompar wrote:What Wild wants: young players
What Holden wants: old legends
What we actually get: Stuart Bingham

One-Sideded Drab Final.

kolompar wrote:What Wild wants: young players
What Holden wants: old legends
What we actually get: Stuart Bingham

Holden Chinaski wrote:

Wildey wrote:

kolompar wrote:What Wild wants: young players
What Holden wants: old legends
What we actually get: Stuart Bingham

IMO Stuart Bingham's victory is a sign of snooker's change. It is a symptom of the clustering of good pros at the top, but each unable to consistently win because the regular large break sizes have led to a disruption of the sporting, bell-shaped "normal" distribution: Match win percentage on the x-axis and number of pros on the y-axis; for snooker, it is a graph with the hump now skewed to the right.

Andy Spark wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:

Wildey wrote:

kolompar wrote:What Wild wants: young players
What Holden wants: old legends
What we actually get: Stuart Bingham

IMO Stuart Bingham's victory is a sign of snooker's change. It is a symptom of the clustering of good pros at the top, but each unable to consistently win because the regular large break sizes have led to a disruption of the sporting, bell-shaped "normal" distribution: Match win percentage on the x-axis and number of pros on the y-axis; for snooker, it is a graph with the hump now skewed to the right.

They need to make the pockets tighter and the cloths a little bit thicker. These easier tables have leveled the playing field far too drastically imo.

Cloud Strife wrote:

Andy Spark wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:

Wildey wrote:

kolompar wrote:What Wild wants: young players
What Holden wants: old legends
What we actually get: Stuart Bingham

IMO Stuart Bingham's victory is a sign of snooker's change. It is a symptom of the clustering of good pros at the top, but each unable to consistently win because the regular large break sizes have led to a disruption of the sporting, bell-shaped "normal" distribution: Match win percentage on the x-axis and number of pros on the y-axis; for snooker, it is a graph with the hump now skewed to the right.

They need to make the pockets tighter and the cloths a little bit thicker. These easier tables have leveled the playing field far too drastically imo.

Absolutely!

Could you make your thoughts on tight pockets clearer, by publishing a graph demonstrating it?

SnookerFan wrote:Could you make your thoughts on tight pockets clearer, by publishing a graph demonstrating it?

Basics first. The most obvious problem comes in misunderstanding the nature of the normal bell-shaped distribution. People such as Dave Hendon seem to be suggesting that "strength in depth" leads to a change in its shape.

In March I said "No". But after what happened since then I have to change that to a "maybe". I mean Bingham winning the Worlds, Higgins surpassing Ronnie on ranking wins. Only a year ago it was ridiculous to even think about the possibility of that happening. Anything can happen now...