Post a reply

Re: Ladbrokes Players Championship Final!

Postby Pedro147

Sickpotter wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:
PoolBoy wrote:I'd argue that if you're ranked at number 6 in the world in any individual sport, then you're entitled to be considered amongst the elite in that event.

I would disagree, ranking is just one stat among many, besides, it tends to be manipulated for political reasons. Allen hasn't won any of the "big three" events in snooker (played 35, won none!), he is not really one of the "elite". He is championship league rather than premier league.



Sorry but if you've made the top 10 you're elite.

No one is suggesting Allen is an all time great of the game but to be suggesting players in the top 16 aren't elite is ludicrous. :shrug:


I see that point you're making but when you get to the top of the game there elite are seperate from the other players who are world class. I mean Coutinho is a world class footballer but he's not elite like Messi or Ronaldo.

I think what Davis said was a little off the mark by saying a championship player. I agree with the premise of what he said just not the analogy used.

Re: Ladbrokes Players Championship Final!

Postby SnookerFan

It's the BBC, ain't it?

They judge a players worth based on whether he's won a lot of BNC tournaments.

Daovs probably thinks Mark Allen has never won a ranking event.

Re: Ladbrokes Players Championship Final!

Postby TheRocket

Sickpotter wrote:Sorry but if you've made the top 10 you're elite.

No one is suggesting Allen is an all time great of the game but to be suggesting players in the top 16 aren't elite is ludicrous. :shrug:



It all depends what elite player means to you. If being a (current) Top 10 player is enough, then allright but for most of the people it's not. Allen hasn't won a Triple Crown title yet despite being a Top 16 player for so long now, so there's no way he's on par with the very topplayers (like ROS,Robertson, Selby).

You'll always have the 5-6 outstanding players inside the Top 16 who just have a better peak game (A-game) than the others and who are the red-hot favourites to win any title and especially the World/UK/Masters. These are the players I'd call elite.
And then you'll have the rest of the Top 16 who are capable of winning a ranking title here and there if they play out of their skin or if the big guns just don't produce and have a bad day.

Re: Ladbrokes Players Championship Final!

Postby Iranu

TheRocket wrote:
Sickpotter wrote:Sorry but if you've made the top 10 you're elite.

No one is suggesting Allen is an all time great of the game but to be suggesting players in the top 16 aren't elite is ludicrous. :shrug:



It all depends what elite player means to you. If being a (current) Top 10 player is enough, then allright but for most of the people it's not. Allen hasn't won a Triple Crown title yet despite being a Top 16 player for so long now, so there's no way he's on par with the very topplayers (like ROS,Robertson, Selby).

You'll always have the 5-6 outstanding players inside the Top 16 who just have a better peak game (A-game) than the others and who are the red-hot favourites to win any title and especially the World/UK/Masters. These are the players I'd call elite.
And then you'll have the rest of the Top 16 who are capable of winning a ranking title here and there if they play out of their skin or if the big guns just don't produce and have a bad day.


The better analogy would be that he's an Everton rather than a Manchester United.

Re: Ladbrokes Players Championship Final!

Postby Cheshire Cat

TheRocket wrote: You'll always have the 4-5 outstanding players inside the Top 16 who just have a better peak game (A-game) than the others


Eh, this somewhat much sums up my view in a nutshell. I see almost all of the top 16 as 'premiership' myself. I will almost always keep track of / watch a match involving a top 16 player, because they're so consistently good and more often than not they produce the goods. I try watching PTCs and try watching the lower-ranked players, but it makes you realise just how huge the difference in standard and consistency is between top 16 and almost everyone else.

Yes that's down to inexperience and whatnot but tough, that's sport. If you want to be 'premiership' or whatever, you have to start stepping up consistently and proving to people that you deserve to be noticed and right now, there's not enough players challenging for top 16 outside of the usual bunch. You beat ROS in a qualifier? Good, do it again. You beat Robbo in the first round of a tourney? Good, do it again. And again. And again. Stop putting in world-beater performances one day and then playing like utter dross the next.

Hearn has done big things for this game, with all the events and taking away protectionism from the top players, but it's still the usual names that are at the top of the game. Where are all these up and coming players? Where is Anthony McGill? Where is Jack Lisowski? They're still on the 'up' evidently, but I don't see any consistency to suggest that they'll be 'coming' anytime soon.

// End rant. Need a cup of bloomin' tea.


   

cron