Everything asserted that follows is the result of my exhaustive research into the subject, spanning all of the last ten minutes. If any or all of it is wrong, that process will explain the deficiency:
Problem here is there is really neither the quantity, or diversity, of data to make it worthwhile. There are only 131 currently ranked players, and only 9 nations that have more than one ranked player. As you can see from the chart below:
This means there's almost nothing to work with - top 10's are obviously useless, with only three qualifying nations. Also, in such small data populations, single data points can (and here very much do) skew the results wildly.
Anyway, despite all of that rendering the exercise almost useless, I did a quick pass, using 'top threes', to include 8 countries for a super vague, 'fun', comparison Unsurprisingly, England wins!
__________________
Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.
Maybe more the best player is slightly flawed. Although I don't know the intracies of the rankings system these days as I did many years ago when it was much fewer events, snooker can't really surely have rankings just to suit his schedule or say have a vote on it. The sport no doubt wants to grow and encourage players to play the various ranking events, particularly far afield. If it has different big champions and ranking leaders so be it. Or do many people think that there are too many ranking events and / or badly weighted rankings? - clearly an occasional discussion in tennis.
I'm thinking snooker is a bit short of convincing the IOC that it's becoming a truly globally competitive sport !