Watching a match / RANK147
Reading match statistics: pot success, average break and shot time
What each of the nine statistics on a match page answers, how to read them together and where they mislead, with a real match worked through line by line.
Covers the WST single-match statistics shown on this site's match pages. Values are displayed as published by the source and are not recalculated here; one match is never a verdict on a player.
Score first, statistics second
Statistics explain how a scoreline came about; they do not replace it. In a 1–4 match the winner usually has the better numbers, but the statistics show whether the gap came from scoring power, the number of visits or finishing frames.
A useful reading order is: match score → frame scores → scoring statistics (total points, breaks) → efficiency (pot success) → tempo (shot time, time at table). Every number then has context instead of being compared in isolation.
What each statistic answers
The statistics on our match pages come from the WST match centre. Missing values show as “—”, never as zero. The table groups them by question; read each row together.
| Question | Statistic | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| Who scored more | Total points | Points scored plus penalty points received across the match; the plainest measure of who controlled it |
| How far a visit goes | Average break, highest break | Average break shows consistent scoring depth; highest break shows the best single visit |
| Can a player close frames | 50+ breaks, century breaks | A visit of 50 or more often leaves the opponent needing snookers |
| Shot quality | Pot success | Share of attempted pots that went in; safety shots are generally not counted as attempts |
| Tempo | Average shot time, shots taken, time at table | Who held the table longer and how quickly they played; strongly shaped by the opponent's style |
Three numbers that are easy to misread
First, a high share of time at the table is not automatically good. Long safety exchanges, or many short visits that score little, also add table time. Read it alongside total points and average break.
Second, pot success depends on the positions a player faces. A frame full of long opening chances lowers it; simple clearances raise it. Comparing pot success across two different matches is rarely fair.
Third, average break is sensitive to sample size. In a short-format match there are only a handful of visits, so a single break of 60 lifts the average sharply. Check it with the number of shots and the highest break.
Worked example: Reanne Evans 1–4 Huang Jiahao
This best-of-seven first-round match in the 2026 Northern Ireland Open qualifiers finished with frame scores of 12–70, 64–52, 6–94, 13–70 and 60–72. Evans won only the second frame; total points were 155–358.
The gap was scoring depth. Huang averaged 21.4 per break with a highest of 65 and two 50+ breaks; Evans averaged 10.8 with a highest of 30 and no 50+. Pot success of 63% against 48% shows Huang converted his chances as well as creating more of them.
Tempo fills in the picture. Huang took 154 shots and held 60% of table time, averaging 28.2 seconds per shot, slightly slower than Evans's 25.8. He was not playing faster; his visits simply lasted longer. The fifth frame, 60–72, was the closest: Evans fought back from behind but could not finish it in one visit.
From one match to a wider view
Single-match statistics answer “what happened in this match”, not “who is better”. Judging form needs a trend across several matches, with attention to opponents and match length.
Our player pages list recorded matches and a win–loss summary, but they cover only the matches collected here, not a complete career. When a number stands out, open the match and check the score and frame scores before drawing a conclusion.