UK Championship 2013/2014

[JeeSe]

Not worthy to create a new thread, but Ding's two centuries yesterday has seen him go to fourth on the century makers list overtaking Steve Davis. Hendry, O'Sullivan and J. Higgins in front of him.

The problem is, they play so so so many more frames of snooker these days. They keep on about how some players are making 60 or so a season now, but seem to ignore the fact they are playing 75% more snooker.

Is it not time we ignore the total centuries record and started following a system of 'Century's made, per frame played'? (the only accurate way I can think of using now) - and if we do that, we discover that Ding is possibly the best century maker of them all, here is a list.... (not including all players, just 10 examples, there are obviously players that would be in the top 10 I have not used) - Note Not up to date either!

Ding Junhui 1 century every 11.1 frames
Ronnie O'Sullivan 1 century every 12.34 frames
Judd Trump 1 century every 13.73 frames
Neil Robertson 1 century every 14.43 frames
Stephen Hendry 1 century every 15.13 frames
Mark Selby 1 century every 16.02 frame
John Higgins 1 century every 16.75 frames
Shaun Murphy 1 century every 18.51 frames
Mark Williams 1 century every 26.88 frames
Steve Davies 1 century every 35.08 frames
Jimmy White 1 century every 35.55 frames

[DeanH]

see http://www.cuetracker.net/pages/centuries.php?rate
that has Ding centuries/frames rate of 11.1
ahead of ROS, Trump, Robbo, SH, etc.

[JeeSe]

see http://www.cuetracker.net/pages/centuries.php?rate
that has Ding centuries/frames rate of 11.1
ahead of ROS, Trump, Robbo, SH, etc.

Above, beat you to it!

is there a more accurate statistic to use though? this is the best one I can think of, that is not affected by how much opportunity the past players had to make centuries compared to today's players.

[DeanH]

doh!
I think the century/frame rate is a good indicator that allows for the differences in amount of snooker actually played, but as can be seen in the listing you have the oddities of the 1 century in 6 frames, etc

[JeeSe]

doh!
I think the century/frame rate is a good indicator that allows for the differences in amount of snooker actually played, but as can be seen in the listing you have the oddities of the 1 century in 6 frames, etc

Yeah you are quite right, new players may well end up at the top of the list but it will all even out. I guess if someone is on the circuit a very short time and made a few centuries it could cause an odd statistic.

[billabong]

Like I've posted before though, I don't understand the mystique surrounding the 100 break
( a predisposition for stats perhaps ) .

Some players maybe have a tendancy to take their foot off the gas after >80, as the frame is won, but don't get 100.

A 110 break isn't neccessary a greater break than a difficult 95 break either.

Just a quirk of our base 10 numbering system ( would be a 64 break in hexadecimal base 16 LOL ) .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Billy]

Like I've posted before though, I don't understand the mystique surrounding the 100 break
( a predisposition for stats perhaps ) .

Some players maybe have a tendancy to take their foot off the gas after >80, as the frame is won, but don't get 100.

A 110 break isn't neccessary a greater break than a difficult 95 break either.

Just a quirk of our base 10 numbering system ( would be a 64 break in hexadecimal base 16 LOL ) .

I agree. It's very much a tradition now; to applaud a century break. Back in the early years of snooker, heavy cloths full of nap, unresponsive balls and cushions, etc, a century would have been an amazing achievement. Now I'm not saying it's a walk in the park these days, but as you say a 132 break with the balls spread out like a practice session, is probably less of an achievement than an 82 break with six reds on the cushions and the pink tied up.

[motorhead]

speaking of that great free ball Selby made Hawkins play

what a shot!

[Odrl]

Looking forward to the first semi-final in a couple of minutes...

I think I am right in saying that Neil Robertson and Stuart Bingham have never met in a medium-length ranking match before, let alone a two-session one. They've met in a lot of short stuff, where Bingham has the edge, the most memorable victory coming in the Premier League in shot-clock snooker, when he beat Robertson 6-0 with a really good performance. He also has quite a few wins over him in the PTCs and the Championship League, mostly coming in 2012 and 2013, so one thing in his favour is certainly that he won't have any fear of Robertson or any mental block against him. Robertson of course is a veteran performer in these major finals and semi-finals, very good at getting the most out of every session, and his record at the business end of tournaments is top notch.

They've both played well in this tournament, obviously they've had to, to reach this stage. But I also think both have room for improvement. Bingham made some good breaks against O'Sullivan, but also wasted some chances when he could have won more comfortably. Robertson also let Maguire in too many times, but was lucky that every possible thing seemed to go wrong for Maguire. Robertson did apply pressure with some good potting and scoring when he needed to though, and he never looked like losing. On paper he is stronger than Bingham in every element of the game. He has the edge tactically, currently scores as heavily as anyone has ever done, he is a great potter, and he also has the ability to raise his game under pressure. In Bingham's favour is the head-to-head, as well as the underdog status, even though Robertson tried to claim that in his post-match comments yesterday. :smile:

Thinking back to how Robertson won the Wuxi Classic final earlier this season, he played six great frames from 5-2 down to lead 8-5, and I think this match could be similar... Robertson is a tough player to get a number of frames in a row against, and at the same time hard to stop him doing it to you. In the evening session when the pressure is really on, I fancy Robertson to be the stronger and pull away. 9-6.

[cyberheater]

I agree. It's very much a tradition now; to applaud a century break.

I remember when they used to applaud for a 50 break.

[Masterdoctorgenius]

bingham may lead after the first session but he has tendacies to play bad in all 2nd or 3rd deciding session.

in a besto of nine or eleven he may not struggle that much but in longer matches he chokes sometimes. See his match against Ding in 2011, maguire this year at the welsh or ronnie at the CoC

think neil will come through

[Masterdoctorgenius]

stuart missing the long one by miles

[cyberheater]

What an amazing break by Bingham. He's on top form and he's going to be a hard man to beat today.

[Masterdoctorgenius]

But stuart long potting is more awefull than ronnies

[Masterdoctorgenius]

stuart should have led 4-0

but if its gonna be 2-2 stuart should be unhappy