Post a reply

Re: mark williams

Postby N_Castle07

Apart from The Masters, non rankers don’t hold too much prestige. The players are invited to play and there are no ranking points at stake taking the pressure and sometimes quality from the tournaments. I don’t think this stat will bother Williams too much. Davis was a player who would treat all professional tournaments the same and wanted to win everything in sight.

Re: mark williams

Postby N_Castle07

Steve Davis 53 Non Rankers
Stephen Hendry 38 Non Rankers
Ronnie O’Sullivan 22 Non Rankers
Jimmy White 19 Non Rankers

Re: mark williams

Postby Roland

"He turned professional in 1992 and finished his first season ranked 119, and within three seasons was ranked in the Worlds top 16"

Now that is a sign of class.

I would be interested to see a list of number of seasons it's taken various players to reach the top 16. If Liang Wenbo gets a few results in the remaining two tournaments his must surely be the shortest time on tour to get top 16 in recent memory?

Re: mark williams

Postby Monique

N_Castle07 wrote:Apart from The Masters, non rankers don’t hold too much prestige. The players are invited to play and there are no ranking points at stake taking the pressure and sometimes quality from the tournaments. I don’t think this stat will bother Williams too much. Davis was a player who would treat all professional tournaments the same and wanted to win everything in sight.


Some comments though.
Amongst the 53 non-rankers won by Davis, you have 2 UK titles before it became ranking. Tournaments status have changed over time.
You might argue that because tournaments are not ranking pressure is lower, true. Does that make it lower quality, I'm not sure (think Victoria Challenge!). Under less pressure the players will usually produce more attacking, show-type snooker. People tend to forget that this entertaining aspect is important: no sport like snooker can survive without an audience. Outside the hardcore fans, it is important to also attract a more "casual" public and/or a younger public. Plus the more relaxed atmosphere of the many non ranking events in the past helped hugely to build the so called "characters" in the game, which is also important for its image.
I'm afraid my take on Williams is indeed he couldn't be bothered much ... which means he didn't do his promotion bit, contary to Davis, Hendry, Ronnie, Jimmy and others.

Re: mark williams

Postby Wildey

yes but also in the 53 Non Rankers by Davis there are 3 Pot Blacks and god knows how many overseas tournament during the 80s organised by Barry Hearn that consisted of about 4 or 5 Professionals.

my point being in 20 years time when people look in the record books it sais Steve Davis has won the record amount of tournaments it does not say exactly what those tournaments are.

players should think in that vain and want to rack up as much as possible to try and eclipse the Davis or Hendry totals on all level of the game.

Re: mark williams

Postby N_Castle07

Agreed Wild, that’s why I don’t look at player’s non rankers and why I think Williams won’t be bothered how many he has. To look back at a players career the only way to judge there talent is on Ranking Events.

Stephen Hendry 36
Steve Davis 28
Ronnie O’Sullivan 22
John Higgins 21

Re: mark williams

Postby N_Castle07

Or better yet judge them on there Majors

Stephen Hendry 22
Steve Davis 18
Ronnie O'Sullivan 12
John Higgins 11
Mark Williams 9
Ray Readon 8
Alex Higgins 5
Cliff Thorburn 4
John Spenser 4
Jimmy White 4
Dennis Taylor 3
Paul Hunter 3
Peter Ebdon 3
Terry Griffiths 3
Doug Montjoy 3

Re: mark williams

Postby Rocket_ron

N_Castle07 wrote:Steve Davis 53 Non Rankers
Stephen Hendry 38 Non Rankers
Ronnie O’Sullivan 22 Non Rankers
Jimmy White 19 Non Rankers

wheres higgins in your list?

Re: mark williams

Postby Roland

rocket_ron wrote:what tournys do you class as majors? WC UK GP


WC UK and Masters are the big 3 for snooker

Re: mark williams

Postby Rocket_ron

Sonny wrote:
rocket_ron wrote:what tournys do you class as majors? WC UK GP


WC UK and Masters are the big 3 for snooker

but N_castle above must of added GP in the list

Re: mark williams

Postby Roland

Some may rank the GP 4th because it's been a regular BBC event and the traditional curtain raiser for years but I don't class it a major. Especially with all the format tinkering they've done over the last few seasons.

Re: mark williams

Postby Wildey

N_Castle07 wrote:Agreed Wild, that’s why I don’t look at player’s non rankers and why I think Williams won’t be bothered how many he has. To look back at a players career the only way to judge there talent is on Ranking Events.

Stephen Hendry 36
Steve Davis 28
Ronnie O’Sullivan 22
John Higgins 21


right in some respect however if snooker is to move forward players and the public has to learn to embrase all tournaments again...

i was brought up during the 80s where a snooker tournament was a snooker tournaments rankings hardly got mention.....today fans see them as the be all and end all of the sport i don't.

to have a great tour we got to have a mixture of both.

Ranking tournaments are needed but i dont think a 15 ranking tour is possible in snooker so we want it up to around 10 or 11 with other invitational tournaments around them as main tour tournos and not just throw away tournaments because players got nothing better to do.

Re: mark williams

Postby Witz78

wildJONESEYE wrote:
N_Castle07 wrote:Agreed Wild, that’s why I don’t look at player’s non rankers and why I think Williams won’t be bothered how many he has. To look back at a players career the only way to judge there talent is on Ranking Events.

Stephen Hendry 36
Steve Davis 28
Ronnie O’Sullivan 22
John Higgins 21


right in some respect however if snooker is to move forward players and the public has to learn to embrase all tournaments again...

i was brought up during the 80s where a snooker tournament was a snooker tournaments rankings hardly got mention.....today fans see them as the be all and end all of the sport i don't.

to have a great tour we got to have a mixture of both.

Ranking tournaments are needed but i dont think a 15 ranking tour is possible in snooker so we want it up to around 10 or 11 with other invitational tournaments around them as main tour tournos and not just throw away tournaments because players got nothing better to do.


<ok>

Re: mark williams

Postby Witz78

Witz78 wrote:
wildJONESEYE wrote:
N_Castle07 wrote:Agreed Wild, that’s why I don’t look at player’s non rankers and why I think Williams won’t be bothered how many he has. To look back at a players career the only way to judge there talent is on Ranking Events.

Stephen Hendry 36
Steve Davis 28
Ronnie O’Sullivan 22
John Higgins 21


right in some respect however if snooker is to move forward players and the public has to learn to embrase all tournaments again...

i was brought up during the 80s where a snooker tournament was a snooker tournaments rankings hardly got mention.....today fans see them as the be all and end all of the sport i don't.

to have a great tour we got to have a mixture of both.

Ranking tournaments are needed but i dont think a 15 ranking tour is possible in snooker so we want it up to around 10 or 11 with other invitational tournaments around them as main tour tournos and not just throw away tournaments because players got nothing better to do.


<ok>



oops, the drink must be kicking in............ rofl

Re: mark williams

Postby Witz78

rocket_ron wrote:witz, i thought you'd gone out?


Im finished the Kopparberg and just having a few Donovan Baileys now hic rofl


hell, i need some Dutch Courage before i hit the karoke hahaha Snooker Loopy nuts are we.......here i come <ok>

Re: mark williams

Postby Wildey

rocket_ron wrote:witz, i thought you'd gone out?


and that was 3 years ago rofl

Re: mark williams

Postby Rocket_ron

Witz78 wrote:
rocket_ron wrote:witz, i thought you'd gone out?


Im finished the Kopparberg and just having a few Donovan Baileys now hic rofl


hell, i need some Dutch Courage before i hit the karoke hahaha Snooker Loopy nuts are we.......here i come <ok>

yeae get on karoke, tell smart to video you

Re: mark williams

Postby Roland

Sonny wrote:"He turned professional in 1992 and finished his first season ranked 119, and within three seasons was ranked in the Worlds top 16"

Now that is a sign of class.

I would be interested to see a list of number of seasons it's taken various players to reach the top 16. If Liang Wenbo gets a few results in the remaining two tournaments his must surely be the shortest time on tour to get top 16 in recent memory?



Can anyone provide the stats about minimum seasons to reach the top 16?

Re: mark williams

Postby Alex0paul

Sonny wrote:
Sonny wrote:"He turned professional in 1992 and finished his first season ranked 119, and within three seasons was ranked in the Worlds top 16"

Now that is a sign of class.

I would be interested to see a list of number of seasons it's taken various players to reach the top 16. If Liang Wenbo gets a few results in the remaining two tournaments his must surely be the shortest time on tour to get top 16 in recent memory?



Can anyone provide the stats about minimum seasons to reach the top 16?


Top 16 plus a few others;

O'Sullivan - 2
Maguire - 7
Murphy - 8
Higgins - 3
Carter - 10
Day - 8
Selby - 8
Fu - 2
Robertson - 8
Hendry - 3
Allen - 3
Perry - 10
Ding - 4
Ebdon - 3
Williams - 4
King - 9
McManus - 2
Morgan - 4
Hunter - 4
Clark - 3
Doherty - 3
Dott - 6
Stevens - 4
Swail - 3
Robidoux - 3
Parrott - 4
Wattana - 3
Wilkinson - 6

Wenbo would have taken 6 years if he gets in this season.

Re: mark williams

Postby Roland

Cheers Alex. There are a few surprises in amongst that lot for sure. Allen and Ding on 3 and 4 are the most recent. Did Ding's win at China which didn't count delay his top 16 by a season?

Re: mark williams

Postby Alex0paul

Sonny wrote:Cheers Alex. There are a few surprises in amongst that lot for sure. Allen and Ding on 3 and 4 are the most recent. Did Ding's win at China which didn't count delay his top 16 by a season?


Yes, he ended that season in 62nd position and then after winning the UK Championships the following year he ended it in 26th. If the China Open win had carried points he would have ended up in 44th and then 14th after the 2005/06 season.

Re: mark williams

Postby Sickpotter

Ronnie's tied for quickest with Fu and McManus.

Ronnie I understand, fully expected him to be among the fastest risers but quite shocked to see Fu and McManus there :huh:

Re: mark williams

Postby Rocket_ron

sickpotter wrote:Ronnie's tied for quickest with Fu and McManus.

Ronnie I understand, fully expected him to be among the fastest risers but quite shocked to see Fu and McManus there :huh:

mcmanus in the early 90's was the don. one of the only players to live with hendry

Re: mark williams

Postby Sickpotter

Fair point.....how do we explain Fu though :huh2:

Re: mark williams

Postby Monique

rocket_ron wrote:
sickpotter wrote:Ronnie's tied for quickest with Fu and McManus.

Ronnie I understand, fully expected him to be among the fastest risers but quite shocked to see Fu and McManus there :huh:

mcmanus in the early 90's was the don. one of the only players to live with hendry


Yes but Swail, Clark and Robidoux did also. And that for me is further evidence that outside the top 4 (maybe 8) the opposition was quite weak in the late 80th, early 90th because none of them really did antything remarkable and went down the rankings mid 90th very quickly.

Re: mark williams

Postby JohnFromLondonTown

Was there a Top 16 at the end of the '79 season? Reason I ask, Terry Griffiths must have made a pretty quick impact into the Top 16 if there was?