Snooker
Well, my records only go back to the 2015-16 season, but I thought it would be interesting to look at things purely from a scoring perspective.
If we rank players purely on the rate at which they make 50+ breaks, those hitting "top 16" figures in 2017/18 (used this season to try to retain as many current players as possible whilst still providing meaningful data) were scoring one every 2.67 frames. Today, that number has dropped to every 2.45 frames, a difference of 0.22 frames.
If we rank players purely on the rate at which they make 50+ breaks, those hitting "top 32" figures in 2017/18 were scoring one every 3.2 frames. Today, that number has dropped to every 2.72 frames, a difference of 0.48 frames.
If we rank players purely on the rate at which they make 50+ breaks, those hitting "top 64" figures in 2017/18 were scoring one every 4.28 frames. Today, that number has dropped to every 3.34 frames, a whopping difference of 0.94 frames.
No less than 58 of the players who have played in ranking events this season are scoring 50+ breaks at their fastest ever rate within that period (2015/16 to 2022/23), and that is excluding players in their first season. That in itself is an INSANE number (all other things being equal). It's something I first clocked early on in the season, but I felt sure it would have unwound more than it has by now. The gap between top and bottom has certainly never been tighter.
As for the cause? Maybe players are now working harder than ever? Maybe the way some of them break build has changed? (balls open = better chance to make a telling contribution) Maybe the tables are playing easier? My gut feeling is that it's a combination of the three. Easier tables = more confidence to take on pots that you might not have taken on previously, plus a realisation that if you are to do well from the game, you need to put the work in away from the match table....
|
By:
Interesting. I love Steve Davis, but everytime i hear him on the beeb i hear him saying this, and i just don't believe it. You must watch a lot of snooker Latalomne like i do, and some of the dirge in the qualifiers is embarrassing, I see matches when either player can barely make 20, yet we are continually told the standard has never been higher.I just don't believe it. I think the 90's was peak standard, we had ronnie, hendry, hunter, williams, stevens etc all playing wonderful stuff.
|
|
By:
Just for you, Pandora, I shall run a couple of players' season-long stats for the 90s.
Hendry 1990/91 - 2.59 1991/92 - 2.94 1992/93 - 2.47 1993/94 - 2.49 1994/95 - 2.72 1995/96 - 2.18 1996/97 - 2.67 1997/98 - 2.71 1998/99 - 2.66 1999/2000 - 2.73 Best - 2.18, which would place him joint 5th this season. His average across that decade is 2.61, which would put him 21st this season. Ronnie 1993/94 - 4.01 1994/95 - 2.65 1995/96 - 2.78 1996/97 - 3.09 1997/98 - 2.74 1998/99 - 3.04 1999/2000 - 2.43 Best - 2.43, which would place him 12th this season. His average across that decade is 2.96, which would put him 48th this season. I was going to do Paul Hunter, but I think his numbers might be off. Surely he must have made at least one 50 in his 1998 WC Last 96 and Last 64 victories? (each BO19s) Statistically at least, it is impossible to argue that there are not more 50 breaks now than ever before (which can be explained for a variety of, and likely combinations of, reasons, not all of which necessarily mean that the standard is actually higher). |
|
By:
And of course, the one thing that doesn't take into consideration is the number of chances a player needs in order to make that 50+ break, eg it's easier to do it with the frame already secured and the balls nicely spread.
|
|
By:
Great stuff lats. We all understand the "standard has never been higher" mantra is a standard WS/BBC tactic to convince/fool the average punter and maybe sponsors into believing everything is rosy in the garden. Do they actually believe their own rhetoric? Some definitely I'd say, but if they actually subjected these claims to even the most rudimentary analysis, I've no doubt they'd willingly concede it's more full of holes than a smelly Dutch cheese.
Have some deeper thoughts on it, as I think we all do, and will expand a bit more when I get time. Seriously good analysis mate. |
|
By:
Good stuff Lat, however it's cloth ball and table dimensions you will b very year or be told ,he truth.
I'm 100% sure about these standards of modern day are not what they say. |
|
By:
BTW, the extension to Ronnie's numbers above see him taking just 1.9 frames per 50+ break (prior to this afternoon's match) this season, which is a tiny fraction below his best on my numbers (1.88).
|
|
By:
Is the supposed modern 'bucket pockets' issue a factor in these kind of stats comparisons?
|
|
By:
I've loved the milkmans talent for many a year but there's only one reason he is thriving now.
TOLERANCE. |
|
By:
Pockets are a factor for definite. They simply cannot be. I would say pocket receptiveness to be more technically accurate as it may well be that the size remains standard but, for various reasons, balls will drop more easily.
For me, the biggest development is in the cloth, that's where the modern player has the most critical advantage. Faster tables, springier cushions, packs split more easily and cue ball can be manoevred around table with minimal effort. Goes without saying, not having to strike the white as hard to get desired result will lessen the risk of missing the pot. Cue power still a useful weapon but you only have to look at the current form and achievements of the pistol to see how a player can happily do without. |
|
By:
*Simply cannot NOT be
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Thanks lat, if you agree with John and we do, that's where the mindset of confidence has derived.
It's only been 25 years, so something has indeed changed. |
|
By:
The historical comparison is what would a prime Hendry be like on these current tables...might be a frightening thought I reckon.
Even a prime Jimmy White would poss be knocking some heavy stats in...? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
I recall Hendry saying in an interview, or maybe in his book, that there were certain shots he tried to avoid because they weren't in his locker and while I can't remember him being specific, I'm pretty certain they came down to power shots, deep screw etc. Wouldn't have bothered him on these tables I don't think, I mean him in his prime not the washed up has been who occasionally turns up these days.
|
|
By:
Well let you had me coming round until I just saw Rob literally soak his cue to the floor :laugh:]
|
|
By:
Well Lat*
|
|
By:
Throw his cue on the floor* ffs
|
|
By:
Just the number of matches catching up with him, hopefully (plus he said he'd been commuting, which won't have helped). He was dreadful last night, but then Ali was very good indeed.
|