Sky and Shane Squabble

[easy-e]

On the other hand, Shane has been beating Dennis by 20-30 game margins in races to 100 since the TAR days 10 years ago. Roughy the same margin percentage wise.

He wasn't 21 in those days either.

 

[iusedtoberich]

There are a couple more angles for consideration:

1) Some pros, especially in years past, delayed the start of their tournament career to extend the length of their gambling career. CJ Wiley is a prime modern example. He didn't play a professional tournament until about 28 years old (according to some of his writings/podcasts, I can't remember which). Yet when he started those professional events, he was already a tournament favorite. I'm not certain of Shane's exact situation, but from what do I recall, almost no-one outside of his home state ever heard of him before TAR1 with Corey. Is it possible he wasn't competing nationally/internationally in his late teens/early 20's? I know he was competing nationally in the bar league stuff for years, but many of us serious fans don't pay any attention to that even today.

2) A player can be the exact same speed today or 5 years ago, or 5 years in the future. Yet their tournament performance will vary. Shane doesn't win every US Open he enters. He gets knocked out in the top 1/3rd of the pack enough times today, that it doesn't mean if at age 21 he got knocked out at top 1/3rd of the pack he was worse then.

I do appreciate everyone's viewpoint, and its a fun discussion. As I said earlier, my opinion is not popular, but its mine

 

[sjm]

A player can be the exact same speed today or 5 years ago, or 5 years in the future. Yet their tournament performance will vary. Shane doesn't win every US Open he enters. He gets knocked out in the top 1/3rd of the pack enough times today, that it doesn't mean if at age 21 he got knocked out at top 1/3rd of the pack he was worse then.

Wow, I think Shane is a perfect example of a player who didn't peak early.

Shane did, in fact, show some world class pedigree quite early in his career. I was there when he managed a third place in Vegas at one of the BCA pro events at the Riviera. I wish I could remember the year, but I'm guessing 2003, when he'd have been just 20. That said, despite his great skills, which were enough to win him the US Open in 2007, I'd guess that the Shane of 2007 needed the seven ball from the Shane of 2012-16. For those who've been watching all these years, you'll recall that Shane's speed control went up a whole level when he got serious about one pocket in 2008 and 2009. There is also no question that as a pattern player, the Shane of 2007 still had a long way to go, but over the next several years after that, he refined the angle management portion of his game. The pattern play skills and speed control he added were major reasons he was able to win back to back Master of the Table Championships at DCC in 2011 and 2012, aged 28 and 29, and it was then that his much more refined and more complete package of skills enabled him to win four of the next five US Opens. Like most players who go on to be superstars, Shane showed plenty of form when he was young, but his peak came much later.

 

[jasonlaus]

All I know is I'm pretty darn sure that a 21 year old SVB would never have beaten Orcollo by 50+

There's also not one single person here that would have bet Shane beats Dennis by 20 let alone 57.

Flukes happen, and that is exactly what it was. I'll take Dennis and 25 games if anybody wants it, my guess is crickets.

 

[sjm]

I do appreciate everyone's viewpoint, and its a fun discussion. As I said earlier, my opinion is not popular, but its mine

On balance, I think you've made your point quite well in this thread.

I think there's a lot of truth in what you're trying to say. You point out that most of the great ones show world championship pedigree by age 21. I agree 100%. You also note that from a physical skills standpoint, great players peak at a very young age. I agree 100%. Hence, I'm totally on board with much of what you say.

I just think that part of what makes the best the best is that they not only refine but add skills in the early portion of their careers. Contrastingly, some players who show great promise fail to do so and, consequently, fail to reach the upper echelon of the game.

Also, when it comes to the superstars, their games mature, or to put it another way, their conceptualization skills gradually reach a higher and higher level. Similarly, their mental games develop and mature very gradually. Hence, from my vantage point, a player peaks when their conceptualization skills and mental game catch up with their execution skills.

Agreed that it was a fun discussion.

 

[Cameron Smith]

We had this discussion many times before. One year I did a thread asking for help calculating all the ages of the winners from the Major events. I think AtLarge came through and showed us stats for the US Open, WPA World championship, and maybe Japan open. The age was much lower than 30. This was even before Filler and Kaci came on the scene I believe, so the age would be even younger now.

I maybe used the word "peak" too precisely. I do agree players can improve a small amount in their mid to late 20's to early 30's. But that improvement is maybe to learn one safe every year they never saw before. Or maybe they are more seasoned in international competition, for example. But the physical act of moving the stick isn't any better. The physical act of moving the stick is developed and pretty much peaks by the time a player is late teens/early 20's. That pyhsical act of moving the stick is needed 100% of the shots. The runout patterns are also developed during this same time period. These two items, physically moving the stick and picking the runout patterns are 95% of the game. Yes, some of the other stuff might get stronger in the later 20's and early 30's, but its such a small part of the game compared to moving the stick and pattern selection, that even if a player improves those items, it won't budge their location on the pecking order.

Lets take the case of Corey at age 21. Maybe the only player in the country at that time that would have been a betting favorite over him was Archer. And guess what, 10 years later Archer was still a betting favorite over Corey. Also in the case of Corey he was probably feared more at age 21 than at age 31. Lets take Sigel and Strickland. Maybe at age 16 Sigel was a favorite over Strickland (as he was older). But by the time Strickland was 21 or 22, there is no way Sigel would have been a betting favorite. Maybe a pickem. Daulton vs Varner in Bank Pool. At Daulton age 16 Varner would have been the favorite. At Daulton age 21 it was probably a pickem. How about McCready since we have a personal line on him via Jam. At Kieth age 16 Buddy maybe could have given him the 8. At age 20 there is no way that would have happened.

Now, I will say the peak "range" of a player is about age 19 to age 35. During that whole range I think the overall speed of a player will be maybe within 2% or 3% variation. After that, things start to go south slowly. Not only for physical reasons, but also for mental reasons. The hunger is not there nearly as strong.

As I said, I can understand and perhaps agree that a top player's execution peaks at age 21. But where I would disagree is just how we weigh the other aspects of the game. I think competitive experience, tactical play, and decision-making are the key areas that improve over time and make the difference between a champion and a great player. It's the main reason why we will occasionally see old champions have good performances in tournaments even though they sometimes struggle to make a long ball on the tv table that any 650 level player would drill with consistency.

And even though a 21-year-old Darren Appleton may have been better at completing skills drills than his 35-year-old counterpart, I think the older Darren would totally outplay his younger self. I think that is generally true for most top players that maintain their hunger and dedication into their adult years.

We are also most certainly seeing now that the top snooker players appear to be hitting primes in their 30's or late 20's. Guys like Judd Trump, Mark Selby, Neil Robertson all became better competitors as they got older even if they don't push the cue through better than they did at an early age. But their decision-making, break-building, and shot selection are miles ahead of where they were at that time. Judd Trump especially has become almost unbeatable in his mid-early 30's (He won something like 83% of his matches in 2019 and 74% in 2020). Lower in the rankings we've seen this too as it appears to be taking longer for the modern top snooker player to mature into a full package, given that the standard is so high nowadays.

But that peak in execution may also just be because it's the first and 'easiest' of the pro-level skills to develop. It may not have anything to do with physiology because we see high-level amateurs improving their execution long past those tender years.

 

[penguin]

A top player's execution may peak in their early 20's, but staying in tough competition can keep them sharp well into their 40's.

Some might even say that playing in the Mosconi Cup makes Shane feel like he is still a teenager.