winners vs. top players

Warning: long text ahead, no zebra references!


Just some random thoughts crossing my mind, but what do you make of the following rambling?


I've got the impression that there is so very little between the top players nowadays playing ability wise that I would say the difference between anyone of the top 16 is like max 1 or 2% if I had to put numbers on it. Let's just for the sake of argument set Ronnie's natural talent at 100% and Selby's determination or tactical battling abilities at 100% and so on for other major important perks you need to excel at the game of snooker such as pressure resistence, long potting, breakbuilding... etc..


I would think every top 16 players (and some upcoming lower ranked players) scores ,let's say, at least 98% on each perk on average. The playing field is very strong in depth nowadays, as opposed to the 80's where you would really only had a handful of players excelling in each department (Davis for one), also the nineties with Hendry and the upcoming class of '92. But the last decade it seems anyone can beat anyone on any given day, whereas opposed to the 80's Davis losing to a lower ranked player would be considered a big shock or a particularly bad day at work for him.


I believe the potential abilities of the top 16 are nearly identical on each department, i.e. 98-100% (obviously some players excel more at some departments like for example selby's safeties or tactics, trumps long potting, ronnies breakbuilding,... but the differences between them are just marginally small, but they show and can make a big difference).

But it's the current ability on every aspect of their game that decides their succes at tournaments.


This current ability would be hard to control outside of training, the rest can just be natural variaton, tiredness, confidence probably a major factor and so on... a melange of things explaining why a player can sometimes perform dramatically above or below his average level on a short timespan without any obvious reason and probably without the player having a lot of control over it (Barry Hawkins anyone?)


this explains for me why for example bingham won the WC, and it didn't surprise me, if for him every aspect of his game came together at the same time, perhaps largely just by luck, than why would be shocked that a former 'journeyman' wins the WC knocking out Ronnie and trump on his way to the final. He would already be in the 98-100% group, so just a marginal rise in form could give him the edge on other higher estimated players who perhaps happen to experience a slight dip in form out of their own control?


But this is not about Bingham or any particular player, lest I be accused of being a Bingham fanboy!


What strikes me tho is that all of the above is invalidated by looking at the winners list of all the big tournaments: it amazes me how many times the same names keep reappearing, with just the odd new name here and there (the likes of day, brecel, jimmy robertson, michael white,...)


do I need to rethink and believe that the big boys (ronnie, higgins, williams, selby, ding,... et al) are really a class apart playing ability wise? (like if they play at 110 - 120% and that there is then a gap with the other players who on average only reach 98% if that makes any sense) I find that hard to believe because almost literally every player on tour can play to an unbelievable standard on a good day the like of the big boys. Whereas I believe thuis was not true in the 80's or 90's? I only started following snooker semi serioulsy from the mid 00's though... off course ronnie can make some shots that not every player can, ditto for some incrdible long screw shots from trump / murphy, or the safeties/snookers from selby, but it's only ever so often that these qualities are useful enough to win frames, let alone matches or tournaments by themselves to explain why said players are considered elite.


So is it just small things that are largely genetically distributed like concentration, wanting it more, pressure resistance,... that dictates over just the ability to play the game and pot balls, breakbuild and defend? the former perks could perhaps only slightly increase with age and determination (explaining the longeivety of some players?)

rekoons wrote:Warning: long text ahead, no zebra references!


Just some random thoughts crossing my mind, but what do you make of the following rambling?


I've got the impression that there is so very little between the top players nowadays playing ability wise that I would say the difference between anyone of the top 16 is like max 1 or 2% if I had to put numbers on it. Let's just for the sake of argument set Ronnie's natural talent at 100% and Selby's determination or tactical battling abilities at 100% and so on for other major important perks you need to excel at the game of snooker such as pressure resistence, long potting, breakbuilding... etc..


I would think every top 16 players (and some upcoming lower ranked players) scores ,let's say, at least 98% on each perk on average. The playing field is very strong in depth nowadays, as opposed to the 80's where you would really only had a handful of players excelling in each department (Davis for one), also the nineties with Hendry and the upcoming class of '92. But the last decade it seems anyone can beat anyone on any given day, whereas opposed to the 80's Davis losing to a lower ranked player would be considered a big shock or a particularly bad day at work for him.


I believe the potential abilities of the top 16 are nearly identical on each department, i.e. 98-100% (obviously some players excel more at some departments like for example selby's safeties or tactics, trumps long potting, ronnies breakbuilding,... but the differences between them are just marginally small, but they show and can make a big difference).

But it's the current ability on every aspect of their game that decides their succes at tournaments.


This current ability would be hard to control outside of training, the rest can just be natural variaton, tiredness, confidence probably a major factor and so on... a melange of things explaining why a player can sometimes perform dramatically above or below his average level on a short timespan without any obvious reason and probably without the player having a lot of control over it (Barry Hawkins anyone?)


this explains for me why for example bingham won the WC, and it didn't surprise me, if for him every aspect of his game came together at the same time, perhaps largely just by luck, than why would be shocked that a former 'journeyman' wins the WC knocking out Ronnie and trump on his way to the final. He would already be in the 98-100% group, so just a marginal rise in form could give him the edge on other higher estimated players who perhaps happen to experience a slight dip in form out of their own control?


But this is not about Bingham or any particular player, lest I be accused of being a Bingham fanboy!


What strikes me tho is that all of the above is invalidated by looking at the winners list of all the big tournaments: it amazes me how many times the same names keep reappearing, with just the odd new name here and there (the likes of day, brecel, jimmy robertson, michael white,...)


do I need to rethink and believe that the big boys (ronnie, higgins, williams, selby, ding,... et al) are really a class apart playing ability wise? (like if they play at 110 - 120% and that there is then a gap with the other players who on average only reach 98% if that makes any sense) I find that hard to believe because almost literally every player on tour can play to an unbelievable standard on a good day the like of the big boys. Whereas I believe thuis was not true in the 80's or 90's? I only started following snooker semi serioulsy from the mid 00's though... off course ronnie can make some shots that not every player can, ditto for some incrdible long screw shots from trump / murphy, or the safeties/snookers from selby, but it's only ever so often that these qualities are useful enough to win frames, let alone matches or tournaments by themselves to explain why said players are considered elite.


So is it just small things that are largely genetically distributed like concentration, wanting it more, pressure resistance,... that dictates over just the ability to play the game and pot balls, breakbuild and defend? the former perks could perhaps only slightly increase with age and determination (explaining the longeivety of some players?)

Here is the thing. Top players are pretty close to each other in terms of their overall game. And as you said, on any given day, they can all beat each other. The reason only some of them win the big events comes down to 2 major factors: ability to handle pressure and talent.
It doesn't matter that Hawkins for example is just as good or better than for example Bingham ability wise, he simply isn't as strong mentally. That's the reason someone like Selbo has won a lot of major events in the 10's, although he's one of the least talented top players. He's simply stronger mentally.

I'd agree that the topplayers are very evenly matched in terms of pure ability. On a good day anyone can play to a very high standard. We've seen in recent time including today how well someone like David Gilbert for instance can play.

I think its the ability to play under pressure (obvious factor) but also the consistency which differentiate the winners from the others. Some players just can't play two or three good matches on the trot. They'll play one really good match and then perish in the next round. They struggle to maintain a high enough level over a long period to win tournaments.

Someone like Bingham always had the ability to play to a high standard. In the 2000 World Championship (when he was a journeyman) he knocked out the defending champion Hendry in the first round. But back then he simply hadn't had the consistency to repeat that kind of performance in the next rounds.

In 2015 though he did. He did play 3 really good matches which he needed to do to beat Ronnie,Trump and Murphy.

Good post, I did read it, I just couldn't resist. Also something about that Zebra makes me happy. It's just so silly.

Glad to hear my thoughts make some sense.

rekoons wrote:Warning: long text ahead, no zebra references!


Just some random thoughts crossing my mind, but what do you make of the following rambling?


I've got the impression that there is so very little between the top players nowadays playing ability wise that I would say the difference between anyone of the top 16 is like max 1 or 2% if I had to put numbers on it. Let's just for the sake of argument set Ronnie's natural talent at 100% and Selby's determination or tactical battling abilities at 100% and so on for other major important perks you need to excel at the game of snooker such as pressure resistence, long potting, breakbuilding... etc..


I would think every top 16 players (and some upcoming lower ranked players) scores ,let's say, at least 98% on each perk on average. The playing field is very strong in depth nowadays, as opposed to the 80's where you would really only had a handful of players excelling in each department (Davis for one), also the nineties with Hendry and the upcoming class of '92. But the last decade it seems anyone can beat anyone on any given day, whereas opposed to the 80's Davis losing to a lower ranked player would be considered a big shock or a particularly bad day at work for him.


I believe the potential abilities of the top 16 are nearly identical on each department, i.e. 98-100% (obviously some players excel more at some departments like for example selby's safeties or tactics, trumps long potting, ronnies breakbuilding,... but the differences between them are just marginally small, but they show and can make a big difference).

But it's the current ability on every aspect of their game that decides their succes at tournaments.


This current ability would be hard to control outside of training, the rest can just be natural variaton, tiredness, confidence probably a major factor and so on... a melange of things explaining why a player can sometimes perform dramatically above or below his average level on a short timespan without any obvious reason and probably without the player having a lot of control over it (Barry Hawkins anyone?)


this explains for me why for example bingham won the WC, and it didn't surprise me, if for him every aspect of his game came together at the same time, perhaps largely just by luck, than why would be shocked that a former 'journeyman' wins the WC knocking out Ronnie and trump on his way to the final. He would already be in the 98-100% group, so just a marginal rise in form could give him the edge on other higher estimated players who perhaps happen to experience a slight dip in form out of their own control?


But this is not about Bingham or any particular player, lest I be accused of being a Bingham fanboy!


What strikes me tho is that all of the above is invalidated by looking at the winners list of all the big tournaments: it amazes me how many times the same names keep reappearing, with just the odd new name here and there (the likes of day, brecel, jimmy robertson, michael white,...)


do I need to rethink and believe that the big boys (ronnie, higgins, williams, selby, ding,... et al) are really a class apart playing ability wise? (like if they play at 110 - 120% and that there is then a gap with the other players who on average only reach 98% if that makes any sense) I find that hard to believe because almost literally every player on tour can play to an unbelievable standard on a good day the like of the big boys. Whereas I believe thuis was not true in the 80's or 90's? I only started following snooker semi serioulsy from the mid 00's though... off course ronnie can make some shots that not every player can, ditto for some incrdible long screw shots from trump / murphy, or the safeties/snookers from selby, but it's only ever so often that these qualities are useful enough to win frames, let alone matches or tournaments by themselves to explain why said players are considered elite.


So is it just small things that are largely genetically distributed like concentration, wanting it more, pressure resistance,... that dictates over just the ability to play the game and pot balls, breakbuild and defend? the former perks could perhaps only slightly increase with age and determination (explaining the longeivety of some players?)

Good post, and... I think... I agree.
I'd say the big difference is when it comes to the pressure frames. Most players get nervous and their standard drops. They struggle to get over the line. Particularly if they've made it to at least the quarters. The top players though get steely determined at that point. Their concentration peaks and their competitive spirit comes to the fore.

Or it could just be that they are a bit more talented!