23.3.09

31ST CENTURY BOY

Here are the top ten century makers based on all professional tournaments staged so far this season...

1) Ronnie O’Sullivan – 31
2) Mark Selby – 27
3) John Higgins – 25
4) Ding Junhui – 18
5) Ali Carter, Joe Perry - 17
7) Stephen Maguire, Judd Trump – 15
9) Marco Fu, Ricky Walden – 14

Last season, O'Sullivan made 50 in total. He will need a good run in both the China Open and World Championship to reach this figure again.

Selby is just four behind, which gives a lie to the suggestion that he is some sort of grinder, grafting out results by tieing his opponents in knots.

Perhaps more interesting, though, are the players not in the top ten who you may expect to see there.

Shaun Murphy made 24 centuries last season but has compiled only six during the current campaign.

Ryan Day constructed 20 during 2007/08 but has so far made nine this season.

Stephen Hendry, who leads O'Sullivan by 166 at the top of the list, has eight to his name in the current season.

21 comments:

JohnH said...

players appearing on the list at this stage tend to have played in the premier league (O'Sullivan, Selby,Higgins, Ding,Perry)- and thus have had many more professional frames played with opportunity to score centuries- or had good runs at the Uk championships (Maguire, Fu)- Murphy is low as he has played so few matches in spite of winning the UK. As has Day who has lost a string of first rounders. Walden and Trump appear as they have started in the qualifiers and played many matches.
Is there a stat somewhere showing who has made the highest percentage of centuries for the number of frames they have actually played?

CUPC said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CUPC said...

JohnH - There is indeed, courtesy of Cuefactor/GSC:

http://www.global-snooker.com/cuefacts-world-snooker-tour-stats-2008-09.asp (100 break rate)

The stats differ quite a bit from Dave's though. I think they only count WSA tournaments, and not the Premier/Championship leagues.

Monique said...

I think the cuefactors site does count the premier league but not the Championship Snooker League where both Selby and Higgins have been very prolific.

It is also interesting to look at the 50+ break stats there.

Anonymous said...

O'Sullivan is the only one who is really suggesting that Selby is a dour player. The first time he did that was when Selby beat him, so that was probably more sour grapes than anything else. I find Selby to be good to watch in all aspects of the game.

Anonymous said...

Snooker The Fine Art Method
www.snooker-fineart.com
A sectret is wasted if not shared.

The wonder break by the Hurricane man against Jimmy White is always good copy, but technically is a myth and really a plug for that silly daft expression: “A single ball potter”.

A top class player would have apologised for playing so many wayward shots without once finding close position.
No pro player will openly disagree with general opinion of great stuff Alex; you have to believe or you’re a spoil sport.

Alex place that day was in the Bookies Shop as he kept backing winners, and every one a “stummer” of at least ten to one.

It was wonderful entertainment for TV viewers that didn’t realise that Alex ran out of position every shot and not once found the correct address on the cue ball.
Maybe the "hush hush" attitude is another reason for the sponsors absence. Mr. hey you

Dave H said...

I've been through the centuries again.

Judd Trump's definately had 15 this seaosn, not 19 as it claims on Cue Facts.

I count all professional tournaments, including the PL and CLS.

Anonymous said...

i dislike stats that include invitational events as it does not paint a balanced picture or an even playing field as not "all" can be invited at once to certain comps.....

good to see though, but not really worth it unless its comps all pros CAN enter, IMHO.

also, it was Ron who first moaned about Selby and now its mostly his fangirls and fanboys doing it.

Black_cat from TSF said...

Definately ;) , Dave.

Dave H said...

You could equally argue that players who start in the first qualifying round of tournaments are at an advantage because they theoretically get to play more matches.

But the top players always make the most centuries for one very good reason: they are the top players.

There should be more - many more - invitation events. The obsession with staging ranking events - and nothing else - is one of the reasons snooker has come close to disappearing from the radar.

Anonymous said...

players in the all time list werent always through to the qualifiers so theyd have accumulated the extra rounds getting to where they are, and will do so again if and when they slip down, as all players who play can and will.

your last post is not relevant at all. im not saying only stage ranking events, or anything close to similar.

i am saying that accumulating stats by adding in professional tournaments that only a select few CAN get invited to in any one year.season makes the overall figure not accurate as its not a level playing field

i am willing to type it again if it will be clearer my friend ;)

Anonymous said...

its akin to there being 2 extra tournaments at tennis where only the top 4 play and they play dozens of sets v each other....lumping all their aces in to the total for the season which obviously will bias their stats as they should/could/will have more attempts than the majority to have more

that is all i am saying

your obviously entitled to keep stats in any way you wish and add whatever tournaments in that you wish also

but as this part is here to comment on your blog and i wished to say that i think that by doing so "you" warp the stats of those not on a level playing field by doing so, i posted. :)

Dave H said...

Yeah, I got it the first time I just don't agree

The playing field is level: win something and you'll be invited to invitation tournaments, as Ricky Walden proved

JohnH said...

interesting comments here. I think showing the centuries made this season is a useful form guide in some ways and doing this does not claim that 'these are the best players'

Anonymous said...

Trade Lead Description:

I am currently looking for bidders in making a Diamond Snooker Cue, of specific spec. This cue will be held on a yearly basis by the snooker player (John Higgins for example) that wins the diamond Series 'Jackpot Snooker' tournament being set up in cooperation with Pat Mooney (CEO World Series of Snooker). This global tournament will be televised live by Eurosport starting on the 4th & 5th of July 2009 at the Expo Centre Warsaw Poland. The Successful Bidder will be under contract for 1 year and will supply The PA Club Poland/World Series of Snooker with a diamond Cue of Specific Spec and 3 million Euro in Sponsorship funding for the Contract year. In return The PA Club Poland/World Series of Snooker will grant the bidder full exclusive official sponsor placement throughout the Global Tournament.
If you are interested in placing a bid with those minimum terms as previously stated please contact me on 0048783741212
Best Regards,
Marc Babbitt
CEO
The PA Club Poland
Posted from Poland - Mazowieckie on 22 March, 2009

kimball said...

Dear Dave,
the obsession with staging rankingtournaments a reason for snooker disappearing from the radar??!!
There are more invitaional tournaments now, on an international level (of high quality),than anytime.
Certainly, rankingtournaments are the salt of prosnooker, but maybe slight changes are needed.
Top 16 for the final stage is one way, thursday-sunday, so much more intense and eurosport would love to
see a better "build up" of the pro-
tour and gladly broadcast 12 rankingtournaments, qualifications
streamed too, if WSA would make a
move!
A good reason why snooker started
the slide is the "boring" 90,s
except for Paul Hunter and Matthew
Stevens there were not a single,
new starprospect.
Much better now actually.

Dave H said...

There were loads of new faces in the 1990s, far more than today.

And there aren't as many invitation tournaments. There are pro-ams but that's different altogether.

kimball said...

Certainly there were loads of new faces in the 1990,s , but I thought you understood that I did not count those that became pros 90- 93.
I think I am pretty right in saying that there were no more faces than Stevens and Hunter in the last part of the 90,s.

You can very well compare Junhui,Allen,Trump,Wenbo,Walden
and Cope with Higgins-Ebdon-Williams-Doherty, what more?
Hamilton and Lee, I am running out
of starnames.
I havn,t named Murphy,Maguire,Selby
Robinson though.
Fu and Carter comes in between I suppose.
I think the game actually is a bit
healthier now, than for a long time.Not saying much anyway, I suppose.
I suppouse you are familiar with the way the closed protour worked
in the middle eightes. New faces
were just not allowed in more than
a drip-drop fashion.

Anonymous said...

Dave H said...
Yeah, I got it the first time I just don't agree

The playing field is level: win something and you'll be invited to invitation tournaments, as Ricky Walden proved

9:10 PM
---------------------

complete rubbish

the playing filed is not level

thanks for removing my other post because it showed that your post isnt factually correct

win something and you CAN be invited.

there are not enough spaces for everyone to play in all the events and that is why including the PL distorts the real stats of what everyone plays in as a pro member

as i said your entitled, obviously, to collate and show stats in any way you feel, but any that include PL isnt a level playing filed.

i have asked many people this, including several pros, and EVERY single one said that adding in PL figures distorts it....

Dave H said...

I removed your post because it was deliberately offensive. Add in the recent spamming and I'm minded to turn comment moderation back on - not something I want to do but this blog is starting to become more trouble than it's worth when I have to wade through insulting comments or people trying to advertise this that or the other.

By the way, it's not up to players to decide how statisticians do their job and most of the ones I know couldn't care less.

Anonymous said...

i dont think i was offensive at all. that is your outlook though.

i have never spammed.

i wasnt insulting. i was giving my opinion, never swore or said anything insulting at all IMO.

i never advertise.

i never said it was up to players how stats do whatever, so ....

all in all i think your blog is excellent and i read it every day and join in most conversations.

i have yet to see you admit to being wrong or incorrect or change viewpoint or be swayed in any other way more than once in all the months/year.s ive read here.

now i am not saying you are regularly wrong, because you arent, but people post their opinions. when its not a facts based discussion they are entitled to disagree.

that is what i did yesterday and somehow you though i was insulting or offensive when in fact you were taking offence that wasnt there, or indeed intended

i was merely giving my opinion on topic, on your blog.

if by not agreeing with you that is offensive, then i guess thats that then.