Is break building an indication of how good a player is?

[mchpddl1]

Is the highest break (or freqeucy of breaks), a good indicator of how good a player is?

[mihnea]

I think it is. A poor player could place the black and pink balls on coushions, maybe the blue ball and so he could win the game, but he is not better than a 50+ break player.

[magicman]

Well it's a good indicator of how good a player is at breakbuilding. However, shot choice, safety, angles, nerve, and knowing your way around the table are all important attributes for a player aswell.

[lennon11]

i think it probably is a good indicator,obviously there will be exceptions to this,where a player has had a big break,but no others anywhere near that.therefor i feel frequency of the big breaks/how many is a better indicator.

[warren132]

I remember reading that the south africain Perrie Mans won the 1979 Benson & Hedges Masters competition without making a break ofer 50 ! and on his way to victory he beat Cliff Thourbourn,Ray Reardon and none other than Alex Higgins in the final.

[spike]

I remember reading that the south africain Perrie Mans won the 1977 pot black competition without making a break ofer 50 ! and on his way to victory he beat Doug Mountjoy,Cliff Thourbourn,Ray Reardon and none other than Alex Higgins in the final.

It was the 1979 B&H Masters not Pot Black 1977..

[cantpotforshíte]

Well it's a good indicator of how good a player is at breakbuilding. However, shot choice, safety, angles, nerve, and knowing your way around the table are all important attributes for a player aswell.

Surely shot choice, angles, nerve and knowing your way around a table will get you bigger breaks anyway?
Personally I think that somebody's break building ability is a perfectly adequate measure of their playing ability.
It's the first thing you ask somebody when you want to know how good they are. Of course, some players are better at safety; and this can be paramount in our local leagues where we only play one frame a week.
Breakbuilding however, is the only none-subjective way that that we have of measuring our competence. And it gives us a concrete target to beat.

[pigeonslayer]

I think a players highest break is indicative of their ability.

But when you start talking about 1 frame snooker as per local leagues, then i dont think highest league break is particularly relevant - in a single frame situation a 30+ break at the right time will win the frame, and a 60+ break at any time virtually guarantees the victory.

These one frames tend to be fairly tight affairs so the number of opportunities to make a break are less than if you were playing a best of 9, where you could afford to open them up a bit as losing the frame would not be the end of the match.

[ADR147]

to be honest the two will go together normally - if a player for example often makes breaks of 50-60 they will have a high break of maybe 80-100 and so on.

[magicman]

Obviously any player who has had a total clearance or a 140+ is a very good player and their break tells you that. Over the years, however, I have played many players whose highest break may be, say 142/144, and yet they are better all round players than people I've known who have had, for instance, one maximum.

The same can be said for slightly lesser players. When I was regularly coaching juniors, I had two lads who had only made 2/3 centuries with their highest breaks around 107-112. Both could regularly beat some senior players with 136/138 total clearances to their names.

So all I'm saying is that highest breaks are a good indicator of standard, but by no means should be regarded as the be all and end all.

[wildJONESEYE]

Is the highest break (or freqeucy of breaks), a good indicator of how good a player is?

not really Robin Hull in his 13th pro season made 100 centuries Greame Dott in his 16th season is on 90 centuries with a World Title,a World Runner Up and many years in the top 16 behind him.

[circle]

Hmm

I agree with Magicman, i have experienced the same. It often boils down to how the breaks were made........as in hacking the pack open and replacing the colours on their spots or scattering the balls and claiming to have made a 147.


This is why Clive (snooker scene) stopped reporting amateur 147s, as too many people were claiming them, but nobody could be sure under what conditions the breaks were made.


As for Robin Hull v Dott.........id rather have Robin's cue action and snooker ability........but Graeme is probably more driven and determined. I can think of many players with exceptional ability who never made it down to other extraneous variables.

[wildJONESEYE]

I agree with Magicman, i have experienced the same. It often boils down to how the breaks were made........as in hacking the pack open and replacing the colours on their spots or scattering the balls and claiming to have made a 147.


This is why Clive (snooker scene) stopped reporting amateur 147s, as too many people were claiming them, but nobody could be sure under what conditions the breaks were made.


As for Robin Hull v Dott.........id rather have Robin's cue action and snooker ability........but Graeme is probably more driven and determined. I can think of many players with exceptional ability who never made it down to other extraneous variables.

thats the point cue action and snooker ability does not prove nothing at the end of the day same thing could be said of others Willie Thorne for instance in practice he made centuries for fun and a class player but in matches he was not the greatest. what makes good players the ability to make breaks under pressure not the ability to make breaks. a pressure 70 is better than a flamboyant century any day.

[gettingbetter]

I'd have to say that is. If you look at those players who have made over 200 century breaks in there careers you will notice that these are the players who have won the most ranking tournaments and the Masters - Hendry, O'Sullivan and Higgins are all above 400 century breaks and the likes of Williams, Davis, White, Parrott, Ebdon and Doherty are feature prominently too.

Obviously there is always an exception to the rule, notably Hamilton and Hull, but in saying that though, most players who have won the World Championship have made over 100 100s in there career. Dott, Johnson, Spencer and maybe another are the only exceptions that I can think of.

[wildJONESEYE]

I'd have to say that is. If you look at those players who have made over 200 century breaks in there careers you will notice that these are the players who have won the most ranking tournaments and the Masters - Hendry, O'Sullivan and Higgins are all above 400 century breaks and the likes of Williams, Davis, White, Parrott, Ebdon and Doherty are feature prominently too.

Obviously there is always an exception to the rule, notably Hamilton and Hull, but in saying that though, most players who have won the World Championship have made over 100 100s in there career. Dott, Johnson, Spencer and maybe another are the only exceptions that I can think of.

yes but more tournaments you win,more matches you win,more frames you win and more importantly more frames you play in with a chance to make big breaks....without the ability to win you wont be making breaks.