Is Judd a bottler/choker despite his success?

Holden Chinaski wrote:I wouldn't say he's a bottler. He does get a lot of flukes.

He does indeed get more flukes, but that is mainly due to the fact that he smashed the balls harder. The more they move on the table, the more likely they are to go in somewhere.

As for him being a bottler, that's not exactly true. He is not the mentally strongest out there, but he ain't weak either.
He has indeed lost many matches to Higgins,but all players have certain boogeymen.

Anyone who thinks a certain player gets more flukes is a fucken idiot

Ronnie has bottled more big leads than probably everybody else. Is he a bottler?

Well I wouldn't say so.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Anyone who thinks a certain player gets more flukes is a fucken idiot

Learn some snooker and then come back to us. It is only logical for someone to get more flukes if he smashes the balls harder.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Anyone who thinks a certain player gets more flukes is a fucken idiot

Learn some snooker and then come back to us. It is only logical for someone to get more flukes if he smashes the balls harder.

bucking plum post

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Anyone who thinks a certain player gets more flukes is a fucken idiot

Learn some snooker and then come back to us. It is only logical for someone to get more flukes if he smashes the balls harder.

You also increase the chances of going in-off or a colour going in by mistake. So whether smashing the balls is more likely to result in good luck depends on how many reds there are left vs colours.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Anyone who thinks a certain player gets more flukes is a fucken idiot

Learn some snooker and then come back to us. It is only logical for someone to get more flukes if he smashes the balls harder.

bucking plum post

It was an orange post

McManusFan wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Anyone who thinks a certain player gets more flukes is a fucken idiot

Learn some snooker and then come back to us. It is only logical for someone to get more flukes if he smashes the balls harder.

You also increase the chances of going in-off or a colour going in by mistake. So whether smashing the balls is more likely to result in good luck depends on how many reds vs colours there are left.

U are correct, but on most occasions there are more reds on the table.

Yesterday Kyren Wilson wanted to pot a red near the black spot area. The white was not far from the red. He decided to hammer the red in with force. The red rattled in the jaw and because he played it with such force the red flew across the table and went in the pocket on the other side of the table.

Had he not played it that hard, a fluke would have never happened.

Judd also likes to play this hard. But, the difference is, Judd almost never refuses a pot. He takes on a lot more pots than most other players. So the fact that he takes on so many shots, and that he uses so much power, is what causes him to get more flukes.

Yes, occasionally the cue ball goes in, or a colour goes in, but that really doesn't happen as much as a fluke. This is just an observation of mine. I've been watching snooker for a long time and it really seems to me that when I watch Judd play, I see him getting a lot more flukes compared to others. I know I'm not the only one who has noticed this. I noticed this years ago, it is not as bad now as it used to be... It used to be worse because he takes on slightly less shots now than when he was younger...

I think a certain style of play can create more flukes. I don't think that's crazy when you think about it. It also takes nothing away from Judd, he is an awesome player and he deserves to be number one and world champ. I just think it's a bit much that he tends to talk about luck a lot when he loses...

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Anyone who thinks a certain player gets more flukes is a fucken idiot

Literally everybody thinks Judd gets more flukes except you.

SnookerFan wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Anyone who thinks a certain player gets more flukes is a fucken idiot

Literally everybody thinks Judd gets more flukes except you.

Only idiots.

The sort that read their horoscope every day.

Only thing that would convince me would be if there was a statistical log of these and that backed up the hypothesis.

At the moment a few people shout loudly when he gets a fluke which re-enforces their belief. Commonly seen.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Anyone who thinks a certain player gets more flukes is a fucken idiot

Literally everybody thinks Judd gets more flukes except you.

Only idiots.

The sort that read their horoscope every day.

Only thing that would convince me would be if there was a statistical log of these and that backed up the hypothesis.

At the moment a few people shout loudly when he gets a fluke which re-enforces their belief. Commonly seen.

But we've already discussed how his style encourages flukes.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Anyone who thinks a certain player gets more flukes is a fucken idiot

Literally everybody thinks Judd gets more flukes except you.

Only idiots.

The sort that read their horoscope every day.

Only thing that would convince me would be if there was a statistical log of these and that backed up the hypothesis.

At the moment a few people shout loudly when he gets a fluke which re-enforces their belief. Commonly seen.

Remember that time you were crabbing that he didn't get more flukes then he instantly got a fluke?

Are there any players who you never see get flukes? If it were somone like Fu or Williams, that would support the 'lucky basher' hypothesis.

McManusFan wrote:Are there any players who you never see get flukes? If it were somone like Fu or Williams, that would support the 'lucky basher' hypothesis.

I think it's impossible to play snooker and never get flukes. I do think it is possible to get more flukes than others. If you take on more shots, and you play hard, logic says there is more chance of something going in than when you play safe.

Holden Chinaski wrote:

McManusFan wrote:Are there any players who you never see get flukes? If it were somone like Fu or Williams, that would support the 'lucky basher' hypothesis.

I think it's impossible to play snooker and never get flukes. I do think it is possible to get more flukes than others. If you take on more shots, and you play hard, logic says there is more chance of something going in than when you play safe.

Sorry I meant rarely rather than never. And are we only talking about fluked pots, what about fluked snookers, or fluked position?

McManusFan wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:

McManusFan wrote:Are there any players who you never see get flukes? If it were somone like Fu or Williams, that would support the 'lucky basher' hypothesis.

I think it's impossible to play snooker and never get flukes. I do think it is possible to get more flukes than others. If you take on more shots, and you play hard, logic says there is more chance of something going in than when you play safe.

Sorry I meant rarely rather than never. And are we only talking about fluked pots, what about fluked snookers, or fluked position?

I'm only talking about pots.

My mate who I play pool with here gets loads of flukes because he slams the balls so hard sometimes.

There is definately something plausible to the argument. It would be nice to have the data though. If people are interested (and I can be bothered closer the time) I could try and keep track of the flukes at the worlds this year.

SnookerFan wrote:
But we've already discussed how his style encourages flukes.

I understand that hitting a ball hard increases the chance of a ball chasing round the table and going in.

What I have never seen is hard evidence of the quantity of one player flukes over another.

Equally never seen evidence of the relative force with which one player hits the ball compared to another.

McManusFan wrote:There is definately something plausible to the argument. It would be nice to have the data though. If people are interested (and I can be bothered closer the time) I could try and keep track of the flukes at the worlds this year.

I would be interested. Happy to share out sessions as it is a lot of work. A clear definition of 'fluke' seems easy enough. The best measure would be flukes/frame I guess.

Would doing it at the worlds provide enough unbiased data??

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:
But we've already discussed how his style encourages flukes.

I understand that hitting a ball hard increases the chance of a ball chasing round the table and going in.

What I have never seen is hard evidence of the quantity of one player flukes over another.

Equally never seen evidence of the relative force with which one player hits the ball compared to another.

Hitting the ball hard is just one part of it, in my opinion. The other part is that Judd goes for a lot more shots than other players. This gives him more chance of a fluke as well. If you go for a pot there is more chance of a fluke than when you play safe.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

McManusFan wrote:There is definately something plausible to the argument. It would be nice to have the data though. If people are interested (and I can be bothered closer the time) I could try and keep track of the flukes at the worlds this year.

I would be interested. Happy to share out sessions as it is a lot of work. A clear definition of 'fluke' seems easy enough. The best measure would be flukes/frame I guess.

Would doing it at the worlds provide enough unbiased data??

Well the worlds alone probably wouldn't provide enough to answer the question definitively (imagine if Judd goes out first round), but don't think there are many tournaments where it'd be feasable to measure flukes. You need every match to be viewable, so the only candidates would be the worlds, the masters, and maybe the tour championship, oh and of course the shootout. Worlds will give the most frames, so therefore the most data.

I'm thinking the best way to do it would be to make a thread where people could report fluked pots.

McManusFan wrote:There is definately something plausible to the argument. It would be nice to have the data though. If people are interested (and I can be bothered closer the time) I could try and keep track of the flukes at the worlds this year.

This would be a worthwhile if tricky mission

That's a good idea... Have a thread... Crowd source the data

Good idea!

What i don’t think has been mentioned is also the fact that trump gets a lot of tv table time (rightly so because he’s good) thus increasing the chanche of watching him play, coupled with him reaching the later stages of tournaments frequently, or winning them. So statistically it’s also obvious you would see that player get a lot of flukes compared to others, just because he plays a lot of frames compared to players crashing out of tournaments early.

This is just another aspect, playing style probably also has it’s influence because i don’t think Ronnie had as many flukes during his succesfull 2018...

rekoons wrote:Good idea!

What i don’t think has been mentioned is also the fact that trump gets a lot of tv table time (rightly so because he’s good) thus increasing the chanche of watching him play, coupled with him reaching the later stages of tournaments frequently, or winning them. So statistically it’s also obvious you would see that player get a lot of flukes compared to others, just because he plays a lot of frames compared to players crashing out of tournaments early.

This is just another aspect, playing style probably also has it’s influence because i don’t think Ronnie had as many flukes during his succesfull 2018...

I dunno... He had a few very choice ones... Like snookering Selby on the last red in that semi in the decider...

#PrayForIranu

Iranu wrote:Every player loses matches they should have won.

I don’t think any top player can really be called a bottler.

Matthew Stevens?

mick745 wrote:

Iranu wrote:Every player loses matches they should have won.

I don’t think any top player can really be called a bottler.

Matthew Stevens?

By top players I meant greats of the game, which Judd is now cemented as.

Stevens was a great player but won’t go down as one of the top players in snooker’s history.