Who will be Player of the Decade?

[vjmehra]

I give up. It is too difficult to argue with your logic, and way of thinking.

You mean using those pesky facts?

In my mind, SVB has delivered on the world stage.

The key statement being in your mind...in reality he hasn't.

Please don't take that as me insulting him, I suspect if you had the conversation he would be very open about the fact that with his ability he has underachieved.

Also, he's still playing, he may yet become a multiple World Champion and hence a true great.

He has had some pretty good success at the W9BC, with 2 back to back runner up finishes, in very tough fields of players.

Agreed...he's done pretty well...however he has never won, in the world of professional sport that makes him a well paid loser (again I don't mean that as an insult to his ability, he's a very talented player, I'm sure he'd be the first to say he would trade X other tournament wins for just 1 World title).

You may have your own opinion (which I imagine that not 1 single person would agree with).

You keep imaging that, all I'm doing is presenting a logical argument backed up with facts, you don't have to accept statistics as factual if you don't want to, but let others decide for themselves.

I am finished replying to you.

No worries, thank you for the debate.

 

[PoolBum]

Also, he's still playing, he may yet become a multiple World Champion and hence a true great.

Do you think a player can be player of the year without winning the world championship?

 

[vjmehra]

Do you think a player can be player of the year without winning the world championship?

I was waiting for someone to bring this up and yes you have potentially found a weak spot in my argument here as I would have to concede yes I do think a player could be player of the year without winning the WC.

However....if that pattern repeated over a number of years it would suggest they couldn't deliver on the biggest stage, hence I wouldn't apply the same logic over a prolonged period such as 10 years or an entire career.

A single year in isolation, a great player could have had bad luck in a single match, which may cost them, but if that happens 10 years out of 10...its probably not luck!

 

[PoolBum]

I was waiting for someone to bring this up and yes you have potentially found a weak spot in my argument here as I would have to concede yes I do think a player could be player of the year without winning the WC.

However....if that pattern repeated over a number of years it would suggest they couldn't deliver on the biggest stage, hence I wouldn't apply the same logic over a prolonged period such as 10 years or an entire career.

A single year in isolation, a great player could have had bad luck in a single match, which may cost them, but if that happens 10 years out of 10...its probably not luck!

I agree that a player can be player of the year without winning the world championship, but I think it's obvious that if someone were the player of the year every year for a decade, that they would be the player of the decade.

 

[vjmehra]

I agree that a player can be player of the year without winning the world championship, but I think it's obvious that if someone were the player of the year every year for a decade, that they would be the player of the decade.

I'm not sure what the correct term is for US sports, but here we would call a player in a team sport 'man of the match' if they performed well despite the result.

The player could be 'man of the match' every game for their team in a losing campaign, but would almost certainly not be considered for player of the season.

Its a similar logic, you can't apply the same judgement criteria over two different periods.

I would also suggest, the scenario you describe is incredibly unlikely (although not impossible)...if it happened we could have that debate then

 

[RichSchultz]

come on folks...why can't we answer the OP's question as he wrote it?

 

[PoolBum]

I'm not sure what the correct term is for US sports, but here we would call a player in a team sport 'man of the match' if they performed well despite the result.

The player could be 'man of the match' every game for their team in a losing campaign, but would almost certainly not be considered for player of the season.

Bad analogy. We're not talking about being player of the match, we're talking about being player of the league for the year, which includes all other players, on winning teams or not. Then the claim would be that, despite being player of the league every year for ten years, somehow that player is not the player of the decade for the league.

If player A is better than player B every year for ten years, player B cannot magically become the best player over that decade, when player A was better than player B for every year of that decade (which already includes taking the world championship results into account, by the way).

 

[vjmehra]

Bad analogy. We're not talking about being player of the match, we're talking about being player of the league for the year, which includes all other players, on winning teams or not. Then the claim would be that, despite being player of the league every year for ten years, somehow that player is not the player of the decade for the league.

If player A is better than player B every year for ten years, player B cannot magically become the best player over that decade, when player A was better than player B for every year of that decade (which already includes taking the world championship results into account, by the way).

Agreed, its imperfect.

But so is your scenario...you can't apply the same criteria of judgement over a 1 year period as you could for a 10 year period.

For example when Jimmy White lost his first World snooker Championship final he probably felt he'd had a pretty good year...after his 6th final defeat I think its fair to say he did not see things the same way!

A player who fails to win the World title but has a good season could consider the year a success, but if that pattern repeated, on retirement they would not feel the same way.

No pro player would trade a World Championship victory for anything else, yet they would trade multiple other tournament wins for just 1 World Championship victory.

 

[vjmehra]

come on folks...why can't we answer the OP's question as he wrote it?

Actually a fair point, he did say titles aside (by which I assume he meant World titles) and in which case he is (possibly) correct, although personally I'd suggest Darren Appleton has achieved more.

At the 3/4 mark, will Shaw's back-end outweigh Darren's start and overall consistency?

Personally, titles aside, I think Shane has been the best player.

Will Ko do something to steal it?

Someone else?

 

[justinb386]

I was waiting for someone to bring this up and yes you have potentially found a weak spot in my argument here as I would have to concede yes I do think a player could be player of the year without winning the WC.

However....if that pattern repeated over a number of years it would suggest they couldn't deliver on the biggest stage, hence I wouldn't apply the same logic over a prolonged period such as 10 years or an entire career.

A single year in isolation, a great player could have had bad luck in a single match, which may cost them, but if that happens 10 years out of 10...its probably not luck!

We are talking about pool, not other sports. With pool, it is a toss up with at least the top 10 players in the world (maybe even top 20). How many different players have won the W9BC in the past 20 years? Have any of them won it in back to back years? Shane came very close 2 times in a row, and in his match against Ko Pin Yi, it was within just a few games of that match for the title. He just got a few bad rolls I think, and I think I remember Ko getting several good rolls in that match.

 

[PoolBum]

Agreed, its imperfect.

But so is your scenario...you can't apply the same criteria of judgement over a 1 year period as you could for a 10 year period.

For example when Jimmy White lost his first World snooker Championship final he probably felt he'd had a pretty good year...after his 6th final defeat I think its fair to say he did not see things the same way!

A player who fails to win the World title but has a good season could consider the year a success, but if that pattern repeated, on retirement they would not feel the same way.

No pro player would trade a World Championship victory for anything else, yet they would trade multiple other tournament wins for just 1 World Championship victory.

The world championship is the most coveted title in any sport (except for the Olympics), so of course the disappointment with not winning the world title is greater than with not winning any other title.

We're talking about what the criteria should be for best player though, not how disappointed someone is for not winning a world title.

Here are two players and their number of world titles:

Daryl Peach 1
Shane Van Boening 0

So, by your criteria, do you rate Peach higher overall, for his career, than Shane?

 

[vjmehra]

The world championship is the most coveted title in any sport (except for the Olympics), so of course the disappointment with not winning the world title is greater than with not winning any other title.

We're talking about what the criteria should be for best player though, not how disappointed someone is for not winning a world title.

Here are two players and their number of world titles:

Daryl Peach 1
Shane Van Boening 0

So, by your criteria, do you rate Peach higher overall, for his career, than Shane?

I like your arguments, you actually come up with very good points unlike many others and are really testing my argument!

SVB is a more successful player than Daryl Peach overall, however Daryl Peach did step up and delivery on the biggest stage...do I think he will be remembered as one of the all time greats...no probably not (although if I recall they didn't have a World 9-Ball Championship for a year or 2 after he won so technically he was the champ for longer than most ;-)

However it doesn't detract from the fact that SVB has not won the title that Daryl Peach (the supposedly lesser player) has.

I guess the simple answer is that I think overall SVB has had the more successful career (I'd have to check the stats properly, as Peach has won other events too, so just off the top of my head), however neither would qualify as greats (just to be clear, whilst I'm saying you have to have won a world title to be considered a great, it doesn't mean because you win one you automatically are).

 

[vjmehra]

We are talking about pool, not other sports. With pool, it is a toss up with at least the top 10 players in the world (maybe even top 20). How many different players have won the W9BC in the past 20 years? Have any of them won it in back to back years? Shane came very close 2 times in a row, and in his match against Ko Pin Yi, it was within just a few games of that match for the title. He just got a few bad rolls I think, and I think I remember Ko getting several good rolls in that match.

If its a toss up you would expect a truly great player to get the run of the balls at some point within a 10 year period...it hasn't happened on the world stage yet for SVB.

That said it still might, if we're talking 2010-2020 there's still time.

Coming close is irrelevant, I used the snooker example to demonstrate that, replace Jimmy White with SVB and lets assume SVB loses the next 3 World finals he's in...if anything that just re-enforces my point. It definitely doesn't enhance yours!

 

[PoolBum]

I like your arguments, you actually come up with very good points unlike many others and are really testing my argument!

SVB is a more successful player than Daryl Peach overall, however Daryl Peach did step up and delivery on the biggest stage...do I think he will be remembered as one of the all time greats...no probably not (although if I recall they didn't have a World 9-Ball Championship for a year or 2 after he won so technically he was the champ for longer than most ;-)

However it doesn't detract from the fact that SVB has not won the title that Daryl Peach (the supposedly lesser player) has.

I guess the simple answer is that I think overall SVB has had the more successful career (I'd have to check the stats properly, as Peach has won other events too, so just off the top of my head), however neither would qualify as greats (just to be clear, whilst I'm saying you have to have won a world title to be considered a great, it doesn't mean because you win one you automatically are).

If you think that SVB has had the better career, then it seems to me that you're being inconsistent.

On the one hand you're saying that world titles trump all other criteria when we compare players over the span of a decade or more, but now in the case of SVB vs. Daryl Peach you're saying they don't.

 

[one stroke]

Add Josh Roberts to that list

Untill they start winning US Opens and World titles their not in the conversation



1

 

[vjmehra]

If you think that SVB has had the better career, then it seems to me that you're being inconsistent.

On the one hand you're saying that world titles trump all other criteria when we compare players over the span of a decade or more, but now in the case of SVB vs. Daryl Peach you're saying they don't.

Fair point, my stance though is about who can feature in a greatest conversation. SVB can not, Daryl Peach techniquely meets my minimum criteria and with no disrespect to a very fine player I wouldn't include him in my greatest players of the decade list (to be fair he won it in 2007 I think, so wouldn't qualify anyway).

Talent/ability is a different question of course and success is also subjective, perhaps I could have worded it better, by saying SVB is more successful I mean he has won more overall, however by not having won the big event he can not be included in a greatest list.

 

[Cameron Smith]

The problem with the world championships in pool is, there isn't anything about it really that differentiates it from other major tournaments. Except of course representation from every pool playing country. Snooker differentiates the world championships with the format, every match is a marathon. It's the same in Tennis with their majors, each event is a best of 5 sets, whereas other tour events are a best of 3. Golf majors typically have more challenging courses, especially the US Open.

In pool, last years event were just races to 11 with a race to 13 in the final. The prize money wasn't even that much better than other events. So in my estimation, it's really no more difficult to win than the China Open. It is still a great accomplishment, but the title attached to the event is hyperbolic given the format and prize money.

If each match was a race to 25 and they were still playing for a 100k first prize it would be a different story.

It is also worth noting that, although SVB doesn't win much internationally, neither does Ko Pin Yi it seems or Jung-Lin Chang. Most of their victories are in China or Taiwan, not unlike SVB winning most of his events in North America. The Europeans and Phillipinos seem to the be the ones who win consistently in different continents.

 

[vjmehra]

The problem with the world championships in pool is, there isn't anything about it really that differentiates it from other major tournaments. Except of course representation from every pool playing country. Snooker differentiates the world championships with the format, every match is a marathon. It's the same in Tennis with their majors, each event is a best of 5 sets, whereas other tour events are a best of 3. Golf majors typically have more challenging courses, especially the US Open.

In pool, last years event were just races to 11 with a race to 13 in the final. The prize money wasn't even that much better than other events. So in my estimation, it's really no more difficult to win than the China Open. It is still a great accomplishment, but the title attached to the event is hyperbolic given the format and prize money.

If each match was a race to 25 and they were still playing for a 100k first prize it would be a different story.

It is also worth noting that, although SVB doesn't win much internationally, neither does Ko Pin Yi it seems or Jung-Lin Chang. Most of their victories are in China or Taiwan, not unlike SVB winning most of his events in North America. The Europeans and Phillipinos seem to the be the ones who win consistently in different continents.

Best post so far! You make some really good points.

 

[mikepage]

Fair point, my stance though is about who can feature in a greatest conversation. SVB can not, Daryl Peach techniquely meets my minimum criteria and with no disrespect to a very fine player I wouldn't include him in my greatest players of the decade list (to be fair he won it in 2007 I think, so wouldn't qualify anyway).

Talent/ability is a different question of course and success is also subjective, perhaps I could have worded it better, by saying SVB is more successful I mean he has won more overall, however by not having won the big event he can not be included in a greatest list.

I certainly get that you place a high value on winning a world championship tournament, and that you see a player's ultimate stature at the top level as being tied tightly to this. That's fine. I have a few comments though.

First you site as support for this view the fact top players themselves value it so highly--the Olympic Gold Medals of sorts. I think you're right. But I also think we should all be a little careful not to over-interpret that fact. Whatever the fans see as the pinnacle the players will gravitate to seeing as the pinnacle. And so fans arguing the player's view makes it the pinnacle is a bit circular.

The second point is that I wonder whether you have at least a little discomfort with the format of these pinnacle events, 32-player single-elimination races to 11, where the world's best player can easily get knocked out 1st round losing a single match 11-10 or even fail to make that final stage.

How do you think Pool's world-championship format compares to choosing the world-champion golfer by 32-players doing single elimination pairings playing 9 holes in each outing? Tiger Woods shoots 3 under for 9-holes 1st round, and his two-some partner shoots 4-under, and so Tiger Woods is eliminated from the competition.

 

[PoolBum]

Fair point, my stance though is about who can feature in a greatest conversation. SVB can not, Daryl Peach techniquely meets my minimum criteria and with no disrespect to a very fine player I wouldn't include him in my greatest players of the decade list (to be fair he won it in 2007 I think, so wouldn't qualify anyway).

Talent/ability is a different question of course and success is also subjective, perhaps I could have worded it better, by saying SVB is more successful I mean he has won more overall, however by not having won the big event he can not be included in a greatest list.

Your original claim was that SVB cannot be the player of the decade unless he has won a world title.

The player of the decade has to have stepped up on the World stage, not just in the US.

That's the claim I'm disputing (and by "stepped up on the world stage" you actually mean have won a world title, not just finished high in world title events, since I think that finishing second two years in a row in the world championship is stepping up on the world stage).

You've said that you would rate SVB over Daryl Peach, despite the fact that SVB does has not won a world championship, while Peach has. But if that's the case, then you cannot say that the player of the decade must be someone who has won a world title, since it is possible to have a decade of world champions like Daryl Peach.