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?)
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 - Posts: 2638
- Joined: 15 November 2018
- Location: Belgium
- Snooker Idol: Bingo
- Highest Break: 36