Post a reply

Who will reach 800 centuries first?

Judd Trump
27
100%
Neil Robertson
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 27

Re: Who will reach 800 centuries first?

Postby Ck147

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Trump likely to play more matches as a serial finalist

+1

Re: Who will reach 800 centuries first?

Postby Andre147

Tight call but I voted Trump.

Merely because I think Trump will reach the latter stages of tournaments more often.

Re: Who will reach 800 centuries first?

Postby SnookerFan

Dan-cat wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:Not sure I'm that bothered.


No, but the OP is. Or he's bored!

Trump makes them at a faster rate so I'm saying the Trumpet


I'll guess Trump, but would prefer Robertson.

Re: Who will reach 800 centuries first?

Postby badtemperedcyril

In the 1930's, the leading billiards professionals were compiling enormous breaks with such regularity that it became repetitive and for the average fan, monotonous. There were other contributing factors too but nonetheless, billiards probably holds the distinction of being the only sport that was virtually killed off because it's leading exponents became so good.

You may wonder what this has to do with this thread but it leads me to the question: Are the top snooker professionals making so many century breaks that it too is becoming monotonous?
Only last month we saw Matt Selt make a ridiculous FIVE centuries on his way to a 6-0 first round demolition of Moroccan Amine Amiri. Now I know Selt is a fine player on his day but does it not suggest that perhaps the conditions are getting too favourable towards big break making, when a geezer who, in almost twenty years as a pro, has never been in the top 16?

I say, thicken up the cloth and make the balls heavier... like they used to be when Joe and Fred ruled the world.

Re: Who will reach 800 centuries first?

Postby Empire State Human

Re. Cyril: Generally spectators prefer quick frames with big breaks over tactical frames. I'm sure everyone likes the occasional tense frame, but I was surprised at myself at how bored I felt towards the end of the Trump-Robertson UK final when the frames started averaging 30 minutes, and clearly both players were feeling it. It would've been great just as a deciding frame, but 5 hours in that style was a bit much. Perhaps the absence of a crowd is felt particularly acutely when there's prolonged broken play.

It would be fun, as an experiment, to throw the top 16 in a tournament with a thick cloth and dull cushions to see who comes out on top/who gets most rattled by the conditions, but there's isn't a big enough audience for that style of play continuously. Although recently I found a lament by Steve Davis in an interview around 2005, basically saying what Cyril said, that the really fast cloths and one-visit scoring were an alien game to him and had effectively de-skilled break building. I was a little surprised at reading that, as I didn't remember Davis putting it in such blunt terms before, but I guess it's a sentiment probably shared by older players who had learned to breakbuild in a different way.

The problem with one scoring visits is that they decide matches on smaller margins. If a fluke or fortuitous nudge, or lucky pack split, turns into a hundred break, you'd probably need to decide matches over more frames to minimise the effects of this. However, as long as people generally agree that the best players are winning tournaments consistently - Trump, O'Sullivan, Selby, Robertson are consistent winners - then there won't be any push to change the conditions.

Re. the original question: I do find the talk about centuries monotonous. This isn't to slight the OP, but I don't want Dennis Taylor or Phil Yates telling me this is John Higgins' 837 career century break - a number which means nothing - each time they approach 100. In terms of separating skill between players, I'm really only interested in the century strike rate per frames, as all other stats are distorted by number of frames or matches played per season, length of career, etc. And even then, it's not like all players are trying equally hard to make centuries in the first place (e.g. Jimmy White, Mark Williams, etc...)

Re: Who will reach 800 centuries first?

Postby Juddernaut88

I want Judd to get revenge on Robbo in a final this season, ideally the Masters! that UK championship final is still a painful one.

Re: Who will reach 800 centuries first?

Postby chengdufan

I think we're a very long way off the standard being 'too good'.
Winning a frame in one visit is by far and away the exception rather than the rule, and when you get the rare matches where this happens in almost every frame (often finals), they are brilliant to watch. It's the pinnacle of the sport.

And we've seen one visit frame win matches since the early 90s. It's not a new thing.

Re: Who will reach 800 centuries first?

Postby Iranu

badtemperedcyril wrote:In the 1930's, the leading billiards professionals were compiling enormous breaks with such regularity that it became repetitive and for the average fan, monotonous. There were other contributing factors too but nonetheless, billiards probably holds the distinction of being the only sport that was virtually killed off because it's leading exponents became so good.

You may wonder what this has to do with this thread but it leads me to the question: Are the top snooker professionals making so many century breaks that it too is becoming monotonous?
Only last month we saw Matt Selt make a ridiculous FIVE centuries on his way to a 6-0 first round demolition of Moroccan Amine Amiri. Now I know Selt is a fine player on his day but does it not suggest that perhaps the conditions are getting too favourable towards big break making, when a geezer who, in almost twenty years as a pro, has never been in the top 16?

I say, thicken up the cloth and make the balls heavier... like they used to be when Joe and Fred ruled the world.

I think the standard’s a long, long way from centuries being frequent enough that the sport loses interest for that reason.

Re: Who will reach 800 centuries first?

Postby Dan-cat

chengdufan wrote:I think we're a very long way off the standard being 'too good'.
Winning a frame in one visit is by far and away the exception rather than the rule, and when you get the rare matches where this happens in almost every frame (often finals), they are brilliant to watch. It's the pinnacle of the sport.

And we've seen one visit frame win matches since the early 90s. It's not a new thing.


The Nugget was in the 80s.

Re: Who will reach 800 centuries first?

Postby SnookerEd25

Centuries in snooker are infinitely more watchable than centuries in billiards, where the compiling of the break often involved the ‘action’ taking place in an area of the table significantly smaller than a square foot.

Re: Who will reach 800 centuries first?

Postby Dan-cat

SnookerEd25 wrote:Centuries in snooker are infinitely more watchable than centuries in billiards, where the compiling of the break often involved the ‘action’ taking place in an area of the table significantly smaller than a square foot.


This x1000

Re: Who will reach 800 centuries first?

Postby Andre147

SnookerEd25 wrote:Centuries in snooker are infinitely more watchable than centuries in billiards, where the compiling of the break often involved the ‘action’ taking place in an area of the table significantly smaller than a square foot.


It takes different skills to compile a century break in Billiards. I doubt most current Tour players could make one. A lot of high precision canons are required.

But yes, it's definately more watchable in Snooker, mainly because it involves all the table and all the balls, and not just 3 balls like at billiards.

Re: Who will reach 800 centuries first?

Postby Iranu

HappyCamper wrote:what about centuries in cricket!!!

“What about [achievement] in [rubbish sport]!!!”

Re: Who will reach 800 centuries first?

Postby Johnny Bravo

Empire State Human wrote:In terms of separating skill between players, I'm really only interested in the century strike rate per frames, as all other stats are distorted by number of frames or matches played per season, length of career, etc.

Century strike clearly shows ROS as the best of all time.