Post a reply

Re: 74.1%

Postby Andy Spark

Yes, I've seen this stat. Not just slightly ahead of the relevant comparative statistics of his rivals, but massively ahead! You look for reasons why there might be a distortion, a bias to Ronnie's way of entering tournaments, but the only bias is when compared to the older players like Davis and Hendry who compete past their best. Simply snooker genius. :-)

Re: 74.1%

Postby Cloud Strife

Fantastic stat.

Ronnie > Hendry

Re: 74.1%

Postby PoolBoy

Utterly meaningless!
The only stats that count are actual competition wins...

Worlds: Hendry > O'Sullivan (7-5)
Masters: Hendry > O'Sullivan (6-5)
'Triple-Crown' titles: Hendry > O'Sullivan (18-15)
Ranking Tournaments: Hendry > O'Sullivan (36-27)

For example, theoretically, player 'A' could enter 13 Masters tournaments and reach the final in every one - but lose them all. That's 39 wins from 52 matches = 75%.
Player 'B' entered the same 13 tournaments and lost in the first round in 12 of them - but won one actual title.
Yes, Just 4 match wins from 16, equating to a dismal 25%, but player 'B' for my money, is more successful!

Re: 74.1%

Postby Andre147

Why didn't you included the UK Champs there?

Or have you forgotten it's 5-5 between Ronnie and Hendry? :wave: Or maybe because Davis is the one who holds the record, but still you should have included that.

I do agree though this stat isn't very significant.

Re: 74.1%

Postby Holden Chinaski

I didn't say this stat proves who is the greatest. I just think it's an impressive and interesting stat. A 74% match win percentace after having played more than a 1000 matches is pretty impressive in my opinion.

Re: 74.1%

Postby PoolBoy

Andre147 wrote:Why didn't you included the UK Champs there?

Or have you forgotten it's 5-5 between Ronnie and Hendry? :wave: Or maybe because Davis is the one who holds the record, but still you should have included that.

I do agree though this stat isn't very significant.

I knew I'd get 'busted; for that!
Deliberately omitted, for the reasons you state! <laugh>

Re: 74.1%

Postby Vallomas

I wonder what was Jimmy White's win percentage before 2005, if he's still too high in the list. At least before 2010.

Re: 74.1%

Postby kolompar

Ronnie also leads in the Triple Crown finals against Hawkinses stat.

Re: 74.1%

Postby Holden Chinaski

kolompar wrote:Ronnie also leads in the Triple Crown finals against Hawkinses stat.

Hawkins is a great player so what's your point?

Hendry, Higgins, Davis, Williams, Hunter, Robertson, Selby... Ronnie has beaten them all.

You lead in the clueless snooker fan stat. :wkr:

Re: 74.1%

Postby Andy Spark

PoolBoy wrote:Utterly meaningless!
The only stats that count are actual competition wins...


If you insist on that then Steve Davis is the best with 81 pro wins. Your rules, not mine!

And if you break down the events then it becomes subjective. You need to consider a variety of statistics. There is no right answer, but to ignore some statistics is wrong.
Last edited by Andy Spark on 17 Jan 2016, edited 1 time in total.

Re: 74.1%

Postby vodkadiet

It is all about youtube viewing figures. O'Sullivan has the most hits so therefore he is the greatest.

Re: 74.1%

Postby Andy Spark

vodkadiet wrote:It is all about youtube viewing figures. O'Sullivan has the most hits so therefore he is the greatest.

My point is that it is not all about any individual statistic or any individual category of statistics like tournament wins. Why shouldn't youtube viewing figures be a relevant stat? Snooker is the entertainment industry after all.

Re: 74.1%

Postby vodkadiet

Andy Spark wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:It is all about youtube viewing figures. O'Sullivan has the most hits so therefore he is the greatest.

My point is that it is not all about any individual statistic or any individual category of statistics like tournament wins. Why shouldn't youtube viewing figures be a relevant stat? Snooker is the entertainment industry after all.


More people watch Jeremy Kyle than Newsnight therefore Jeremy Kyle is a better quality programme.

Re: 74.1%

Postby Wildey

Andy Spark wrote:
PoolBoy wrote:Utterly meaningless!
The only stats that count are actual competition wins...


If you insist on that then Steve Davis is the best with 81 pro wins. Your rules, not mine!

And if you break down the events then it becomes subjective. You need to consider a variety of statistics. There is no right answer, but to ignore some statistics is wrong.

for stats to be meaningful using what Steve Davis has done in the last 15 to 20 years to work out % is pretty stupid when his break building and game has declined.

for stats to be accurate you got to pick out their peak years of 5 or 10 years and work it out on that.

Re: 74.1%

Postby vodkadiet

1.74

That is Djokovic's price to win The Australian Open. It is the shortest price I have ever seen for a male player to win a Grand Slam before the event starts.

Re: 74.1%

Postby Andre147

vodkadiet wrote:1.74

That is Djokovic's price to win The Australian Open. It is the shortest price I have ever seen for a male player to win a Grand Slam before the event starts.


And who would bet against him?

Atm I think Murray has the best chance of beating him, he's been in this Final for 4 of the Last 5 years I think.

Federer? No chance, Nadal? even worse. Maybe Wawrinka, but I doubt it as well.

Djoko will surely win a 6th Aussie Open.

Re: 74.1%

Postby Cloud Strife

vodkadiet wrote:1.74

That is Djokovic's price to win The Australian Open. It is the shortest price I have ever seen for a male player to win a Grand Slam before the event starts.


Has Nadal never been shorter for the French?

That price on Djokovic actually looks decent.

Re: 74.1%

Postby vodkadiet

Cloud Strife wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:1.74

That is Djokovic's price to win The Australian Open. It is the shortest price I have ever seen for a male player to win a Grand Slam before the event starts.


Has Nadal never been shorter for the French?

That price on Djokovic actually looks decent.


You might be right. I have seen 1.77 Nadal for The French but it may have been shorter one year.

I agree that Djokovic looks nigh on unbeatable.

Re: 74.1%

Postby Holden Chinaski

Wildey wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:
PoolBoy wrote:Utterly meaningless!
The only stats that count are actual competition wins...


If you insist on that then Steve Davis is the best with 81 pro wins. Your rules, not mine!

And if you break down the events then it becomes subjective. You need to consider a variety of statistics. There is no right answer, but to ignore some statistics is wrong.

for stats to be meaningful using what Steve Davis has done in the last 15 to 20 years to work out % is pretty stupid when his break building and game has declined.

for stats to be accurate you got to pick out their peak years of 5 or 10 years and work it out on that.

You're right about that. But we can't do that on cuetracker.

What we can do, is look at the stats of someone like Selby for example who is 32 years old and probably in his prime now or just past it. Selby's match percentage is 67.4% That is a very high percentage. Neil Robertson for example has 63.5% Now, if you compare these percentages to Ronnie's 74.1% you have to say that's an impressive stat for a 40 year old who's been playing since 1992. John Higgins and Mark Williams, two of the greatest players ever, started in the same year as Ronnie. Higgins has 68% and Williams 64%

Re: 74.1%

Postby Andy Spark

vodkadiet wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:It is all about youtube viewing figures. O'Sullivan has the most hits so therefore he is the greatest.

My point is that it is not all about any individual statistic or any individual category of statistics like tournament wins. Why shouldn't youtube viewing figures be a relevant stat? Snooker is the entertainment industry after all.


More people watch Jeremy Kyle than Newsnight therefore Jeremy Kyle is a better quality programme.

I wouldn't sneer too much at ratings Vodka. It's ratings that got snooker on the TV in the first place and it's ratings that sustain it there. Many is the time I've read the lead article in Snooker Scene magazine and Clive Everton mentions what the ratings are doing.
Last edited by Andy Spark on 17 Jan 2016, edited 1 time in total.

Re: 74.1%

Postby Holden Chinaski

Indeed. Without Alex Higgins, Jimmy White and Ronnie O'Sullivan this sport would have been in dire straits.

Re: 74.1%

Postby Wildey

Holden Chinaski wrote:Indeed. Without Alex Higgins, Jimmy White and Ronnie O'Sullivan this sport would have been in dire straits.

Lets be honest without Alex Snooker wouldn't have taken off but what caught the imagination was the contrast and rivalries he had with Reardon Spencer, Thorburn and eventually Steve Davis.

So to be a success you need contrasts of style and personalities.a tour full of Ronnie Clones would be just as Boring as a tour full of Rory McLeod's.

Re: 74.1%

Postby Holden Chinaski

74.1 is 147 backwards. :-D

Re: 74.1%

Postby vodkadiet

Holden Chinaski wrote:74.1 is 147 backwards. :-D


It must be 74.2 now?

Re: 74.1%

Postby Holden Chinaski

vodkadiet wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:74.1 is 147 backwards. :-D


It must be 74.2 now?

I think it was 74.12 and now it's 74.15

Re: 74.1%

Postby vodkadiet

Holden Chinaski wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:74.1 is 147 backwards. :-D


It must be 74.2 now?

I think it was 74.12 and now it's 74.15


You round up to 1 decimal place... <cool>

Re: 74.1%

Postby Andy Spark

Wildey wrote:
Holden Chinaski wrote:Indeed. Without Alex Higgins, Jimmy White and Ronnie O'Sullivan this sport would have been in dire straits.

Lets be honest without Alex Snooker wouldn't have taken off but what caught the imagination was the contrast and rivalries he had with Reardon Spencer, Thorburn and eventually Steve Davis.

So to be a success you need contrasts of style and personalities.a tour full of Ronnie Clones would be just as Boring as a tour full of Rory McLeod's.

Agreed.


   

cron