Post a reply

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby LDS

Nice to see Davis still making the quarters all the way up in 1999. The memory of Davis for most people doesn't extend that far, but he was still very much a going concern, even (in) amongst all those amazing new talents.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby SnookerEd25

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:The ranking system was a total farce at the time.


It's always been flawed. It's still pretty farcical, equating money to points. It's like Hearn is obsessed with the stuff or something...:chin:

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby LDS

I think it's always been the case that if you win lots of matches you eventually get in the top 16 and that if you consistently win lots of matches you'll keep there indefinitely. How people reinvent that all the time will always benefit some slightly more than others, meaning that it'll slightly hinder some in favour of others, depending on which angle you're favouring.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

Although the focus of these rankings is at the top end, what we see is that there isn't a great deal of difference there. The players get into and leave the top 16 a bit sooner than in the official rankings, but overall the differences are small.

Where the real difference is, is lower down the rankings. There are very significant gaps between players' rankings here, and the official rankings. For the majority of the important snooker players on tour (ranked 17-128) getting the ranking right can be the difference between having a career in snooker, or having to find another job.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

The worst thing about the rankings back then was them being only updated once a year. It sort of summed up how badly Snooker was run that they couldn't even update their ranking list regularly. Every World Championship had outdated seedings and qualifications.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby LDS

chengdufan wrote:Although the focus of these rankings is at the top end, what we see is that there isn't a great deal of difference there. The players get into and leave the top 16 a bit sooner than in the official rankings, but overall the differences are small.

Where the real difference is, is lower down the rankings. There are very significant gaps between players' rankings here, and the official rankings. For the majority of the important snooker players on tour (ranked 17-128) getting the ranking right can be the difference between having a career in snooker, or having to find another job.


That is all subjective though. For the past 20 years Joe Perry has sat quite happily at rank 17-25, he's been through a gazillion ranking tinkers but his ranking never changes. That's one example to prove how the tinkering doesn't change much even down the lists.

And then you have to consider the experienced players dropping out the rankings. Like, having a year off to tour the world or whatever else. Sure, their rankings get dumped, but surely they've already 'earned' the 'right' to be placed when they come back - rather than give the place to someone who potentially just had one lucky run in one big money competition once, but is generally not a 'winning' type player.

And also you have to consider whether snooker ever intended to support 128 professionals in the first place. Barry Hearn can work miracles, there's no doubt, but to go from part-timers with a handful of pros to 128 well payed professionals in 20 years is quite the leap, and many, including myself, don't know whether that's even a realistic goal to aim for.

The real problem is the same as it's ever been - the leap from full-time snookering in your youth suddenly changing to "I need to make a living wage now", meaning that the player can't dedicate themselves to snooker full-time unless they're already winning lots of matches - hence why you get a lot of drop-offs occurring from people's early 20s onwards. It's a form of socialism to suggest supporting the poorer players in their endeavours rather than an issue of ranking positions and ranking tinkering.

The old chicken and the egg, I can't improve my snooker to win matches because I have to work to pay my bills whereas the established pros can practice full-time meaning they're much more likely to beat me in snooker matches, hence I never get the opportunity to quit the day job with my winnings to help me get more winnings.

You could subsidize promising players, but then who decides who's 'worthy' and who's not. And who can ever predict the future mental state of any person as to their future consistency potential.

Which is why Rex Williams and his generation were so keen on the idea of raw natural talent and light hearted dedication. A sort-of You've Either Got It Or You Haven't approach that doesn't 'care' too much if people fall by the wayside, because the naturally talented people will still win-out anyway and will still rise quickly to the top anyway. But to not be mean about it, just treat it as the wonders of a random life, who turns up turns up, who falls down, falls down. The most important thing is ensuring that the players who show up on tele are interesting and engaging potential fan favourites.

And viewers tend to like naturally talented players rather than 'workhorses'. (Naturally talented players wouldn't need to practice full time to win matches regularly).

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:The worst thing about the rankings back then was them being only updated once a year. It sort of summed up how badly Snooker was run that they couldn't even update their ranking list regularly. Every World Championship had outdated seedings and qualifications.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. :goodpost:

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

1999 Grand Prix - Guild Hall, Preston
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Grand_Prix_(snooker)

A 20-year-old Ali Carter made headlines at the 99 Grand Prix by reaching the semi-finals. He had only made the last 64 once prior to this. He beat Steve Davis, Stephen Hendry, and Marco Fu en route.

The final was contested between John Higgins and Mark Williams. Although Williams took a 6-2 lead, Higgins came back, and eventually won in a decider.

QFs:
Dave Harold (15) 5-2 Anthony Hamilton (12)
Mark Williams (3) 5-3 Ken Doherty (6)
John Higgins (1) 5-3 Ronnie O'Sullivan (4)
Ali Carter (144) 5-3 Marco Fu (16)

SFs:
Williams (3) 6-5 Harold (15)
Higgins (1) 6-3 Carter (144)

Final:
Higgins (1) 9-8 Williams (3)

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

Following the 1999 Grand Prix

Top 16
1 = John Higgins 24631
2 +1 Mark Williams 22487
3 -1 Stephen Hendry 22282
4 = Ronnie O'Sullivan 16366
5 +1 Ken Doherty 14099
6 -1 John Parrott 13389
7 = Stephen Lee 12844
8 +1 Alan McManus 11866
9 -1 Matthew Stevens 11729
10 +1 Paul Hunter 9818
11 -1 Peter Ebdon 9579
12 = Anthony Hamilton 9489
13 +2 Dave Harold 8617
14 +2 Marco Fu 8492
15 -2 Fergal O'Brien 8413
16 -2 Steve Davis 7589

Top 32
In: Marcus Campbell; Dave Finbow; Jimmy Michie
Out: Dominic Dale; Gary Ponting; Bradley Jones

Top 64
In: Andy Hicks; Shokat Ali; Jason Ferguson
Out: Joe Johnson; Chris Scanlon; Nick Pearce

Top 128
In: Ali Carter; James Reynolds; Mark Selby; Eddie Manning
Out: Darryn Walker; Jason Weston; Bjorn Haneveer; John Whitty

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

1999 UK Championship - Bournemouth International Centre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_UK_Championship

The 99 UK Championship final was an all Welsh affair, after Mark Williams and Matthew Stevens had taken care of the Scottish challenge in the semis.
Williams went into a 6-2 lead before Stevens pulled it back to 6-6. Williams won the next three to be on the cusp of victory. Stevens than knocked in breaks of 76 and 71 to get within one, but Williams was able to close out the match in the 18th frame.

21 year-old Michael Holt was the surprise package of the event, beating McManus and Drago on his way to the quarter-finals.

L16
John Higgins (1) 9-4 Steve Davis (16)
Michael Holt (57) 9-4 Lee Walker (44)
Matthew Stevens (9) 9-4 Joe Swail (19)
Ronnie O'Sullivan (4) 9-1 Anthony Hamilton (12)
Mark Williams (2) 9-8 Jimmy White (21)
Darren Morgan (31) 9-7 Drew Henry (48)
Dave Harold (13) 9-8 Ken Doherty (5)
Stephen Hendry (3) 9-3 Paul Wykes (75)

QFs:
Higgins (1) 9-6 Holt (57)
Stevens (9) 9-3 O'Sullivan (4)
Williams (2) 9-1 Morgan (31)
Hendry (3) 9-5 Harold (13)

SFs:
Stevens (9) 9-7 Higgins (1)
Williams (2) 9-6 Hendry (3)

Final:
Williams (2) 10-8 Stevens (9)

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

Following the 1999 UK Championship

Top 16
1 = John Higgins 24435
2 = Mark Williams 24211
3 = Stephen Hendry 23230
4 = Ronnie O'Sullivan 15902
5 +4 Matthew Stevens 14552
6 -1 Ken Doherty 13309
7 -1 John Parrott 12352
8 -1 Stephen Lee 11939
9 -1 Alan McManus 11359
10 +3 Dave Harold 10070
11 -1 Paul Hunter 9960
12 = Anthony Hamilton 9833
13 +1 Marco Fu 8692
14 -3 Peter Ebdon 8660
15 +1 Steve Davis 8419
16 -1 Fergal O'Brien 8326

Top 32
In: Michael Holt; Drew Henry; Lee Walker
Out: Dave Finbow; Quinten Hann; Nigel Bond

Top 64
In: Paul Wykes; Stuart Pettman; Joe Johnson
Out: Jason Ferguson; Rod Lawler; Dean Reynolds

Top 128
In: Mehmet Husnu; Noppadon Noppachorn
Out: Eddie Manning; Graham Horne

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby SnookerEd25

chengdufan wrote:
KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:The worst thing about the rankings back then was them being only updated once a year. It sort of summed up how badly Snooker was run that they couldn't even update their ranking list regularly. Every World Championship had outdated seedings and qualifications.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. :goodpost:


Although it should be acknowledged ‘provisional’ rankings were issued after every Ranking Tournament so they gave an accurate indication of what the rankings would be were there a rolling list.

This is how players such as Andy Hicks and Dominic Dale (amongst others) were never officially Top 16 players, but had ‘provisionally’ been ranked amongst the elite during certain seasons.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby csprince

SnookerEd25 wrote:
chengdufan wrote:
KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:The worst thing about the rankings back then was them being only updated once a year. It sort of summed up how badly Snooker was run that they couldn't even update their ranking list regularly. Every World Championship had outdated seedings and qualifications.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. :goodpost:


Although it should be acknowledged ‘provisional’ rankings were issued after every Ranking Tournament so they gave an accurate indication of what the rankings would be were there a rolling list.

This is how players such as Andy Hicks and Dominic Dale (amongst others) were never officially Top 16 players, but had ‘provisionally’ been ranked amongst the elite during certain seasons.


provisional rankings are the last full season plus the current season so less than 2 years results. rolling rankings would be the last two years. provisional rankings are an indication of how the official rankings would be at the end of the season if positions didn't change.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

1999 China Open - Beijing University Students' Gymnasium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_China_Open_(snooker)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing

I had a meeting with some colleagues in Beijing this morning. They said it was -19 degrees there today! Thankfully I am further south and it was a video call :-)
:snowman:
So I hope the players wrapped up warm for a winter trip there, for what would be the last ranking event of the 20th century.
It's noteworthy that Wiki has the wrong dates for the tournament listed, having it as a November event, when in fact it took place in December.

Ronnie O'Sullivan, who hasn't been in a final for a while, took the title. He beat Stephen Lee in the final, who similarly had not been to that stage for a while. This all English final broke up the dominance from teh Scottish and Welsh players of recent times.
It was a comfortable 9-2 win for O'Sullivan, with 2 centuries and 3 other 50+ breaks.

There were quite a few surprises. Peter Lines beat Higgins 5-1 in the first round, and the Ebdon in a decider.
Paul Sweeny made it as far as the quarters, including a win over Doherty on the way. And Brian Morgan pulled a good run out of nowhere, getting as far as the semis. Although the only top 16 player he faced was Steve Davis, he did push Ronnie hard in the semis, forcing a decider.

We have a new number 1 in the rankings...

QFs:
Brian Morgan (49) 5-4 Peter Lines (58)
Ronnie O'Sullivan (4) 5-1 Paul Sweeny (71)
Stephen Lee (8) 5-4 Mark Williams (2)
Stephen Hendry (3) 5-4 Joe Perry (18)

SFs:
O'Sullivan (4) 6-5 Morgan (49)
Lee (8) 6-4 Hendry (3)

Final:
O'Sullivan (4) 9-2 Lee (8)

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

Following the 1999 China Open, these are the final rankings of the 20th century!

Top 16
1 +1 Mark Williams 24722
2 +1 Stephen Hendry 23712
3 -2 John Higgins 22689
4 = Ronnie O'Sullivan 16929
5 = Matthew Stevens 13075
6 +2 Stephen Lee 13059
7 -1 Ken Doherty 12648
8 -1 John Parrott 11298
9 = Alan McManus 10760
10 = Dave Harold 9681
11 = Paul Hunter 9367
12 = Anthony Hamilton 9193
13 +1 Peter Ebdon 9034
14 -1 Marco Fu 8677
15 +3 Joe Perry 8361
16 +1 Joe Swail 8139

In: Joe Perry; Joe Swail
Out: Steve Davis; Fergal O'Brien

Top 32
In: Brian Morgan; Dave Finbow
Out: Tony Drago; Marcus Campbell

Top 64
In: Paul Sweeny; Wayne Brown
Out: Andy Hicks; Gary Wilkinson

Top 128 - no change

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby HappyCamper

D4P wrote:If I'm not mistaken, Ronnie was the only member of the Co92 not to have made it to #1 in the rankings by this point...


wow, even joe perry!

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

2000 Welsh Open - Cardiff International Arena
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Welsh_Open_(snooker)

The first ranking event of the new century was a return to winning ways for John Higgins, who beat Stephen Lee in the final. No more then 2 frames separated the two players throughout the match, but Higgins prevailed despite only having leads at 1-0 and 9-8. Higgins came back from 8-6 down to win.

There were some suprise quarter-finalists.
Ian McCulloch reaching that stage probably wasn't too surprising as he was on the way up, but Bradley Jones getting there was. He had been slipping down the rankings and hadn't won many matches this season, after peaking at number 17 at one point.
And Jimmy White making the semi-finals was somewhat surprising too, though at that point in history (aged 37) he was still very capable of turning on the style. He had a shock win over O'Sullivan in the last 16.

Hendry was beaten by Jason Ferguson in the first round.

QFs:
Stephen Lee (6) 5-2 Matthew Stevens (5)
JImmy White (19) 5-1 Ian McCulloch (48)
John Higgins (3) 5-1 Bradley Jones (45)
Peter Ebdon (13) 5-2 Fergal O'Brien (18)

SFs:
Lee (6) 6-5 White (19)
Higgins (3) 6-4 Ebdon (13)

Final:
Higgins (3) 9-8 Lee (6)

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

Following the 2000 Welsh Open, John Higgins returns to the number one spot, after his brief slip down over the new year.

Top 16
1 +2 John Higgins 24947
2 -1 Mark Williams 24860
3 -1 Stephen Hendry 23528
4 = Ronnie O'Sullivan 17317
5 +1 Stephen Lee 15507
6 -1 Matthew Stevens 14110
7 = Ken Doherty 13216
8 = John Parrott 10820
9 +4 Peter Ebdon 10309
10 = Dave Harold 10277
11 +3 Marco Fu 10133
12 -3 Alan McManus 10069
13 -1 Anthony Hamilton 8993
14 -3 Paul Hunter 8956
15 = Joe Perry 8720
16 +2 Fergal O'Brien 8703

In: Fergal O'Brien
Out: Joe Swail

Top 32
In: Anthony Davies; Michael Judge; Ian McCulloch
Out: James Wattana; Dave Finbow; Nick Walker

Top 64
In: Jason Ferguson; Robert Milkins; David Gray; David Roe
Out: Wayne Brown; Jamie Burnett; Steve James; Gerard Greene

Top 128
In: Ryan Day; Nick Dyson; Eddie Manning; Munraj Pal; Gareth Chilcott
Out: Barry Mapstone; Nigel Gilbert; Karl Payne; Simon Bedford; Joe Delaney

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

There's an interesting mix of players in the 65-128 bracket at the moment:

Steve James, Stephen Maguire, Ali Carter, Willie Thorne, Gary Wilkinson, Mark Davis, Dean Reynolds, Alain Robidoux, Neal Foulds, Dene O'Kane, Ryan Day, Tony Knowles, Mark Selby, Dennis Taylor.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

2000 Malta Grand Prix - Mediterranean Conference Centre, Valletta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Malta_Grand_Prix

Ken Doherty won his first ranking title since the 1997 World Championship, beating Mark Williams in the final. He won 6 frames in a row from 3-3 to comfortably win 9-3.
The Darling of Dublin had beaten Stephen Lee and Ronnie O'Sullivan on his way to the final.

John Higgins was knocked out by Marco Fu, who also beat McManus and Ebdon.

Matthew Stevens was the only top 8 player not to make the quarter finals. He was beaten by Hendry in the last 16.

QFs:
Ken Doherty (7) 5-2 Ronnie O'Sulllivan (4)
Stephen Lee (5) 5-2 Stephen Hendry (3)
Marco Fu (11) 5-3 John Higgins (1)
Mark Williams (2) 5-1 John Parrott (8)

SFs:
Doherty (7) 6-4 Lee (5)
Williams (2) 6-3 Fu (11)

Final:
Doherty (7) 9-3 Williams (2)

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

Following the 2000 Malta Grand Prix, Mark Williams returns to the number 1 spot.

Top 16
1 +1 Mark Williams 25934
2 -1 John Higgins 24562
3 = Stephen Hendry 22704
4 = Ronnie O'Sullivan 16968
5 = Stephen Lee 16224
6 +1 Ken Doherty 15300
7 -1 Matthew Stevens 14183
8 +3 Marco Fu 11650
9 -1 John Parrott 11221
10 +2 Alan McManus 10246
11 -1 Dave Harold 10095
12 -3 Peter Ebdon 10018
13 = Anthony Hamilton 8788
14 +2 Fergal O'Brien 8612
15 = Joe Perry 8569
16 +2 Steve Davis 8390

In: Steve Davis
Out: Paul Hunter

Top 32
In: Nigel Bond
Out: Graeme Dott

Top 64
In: Rod Lawler; Wayne Brown
Out: Joe Johnson; Euan Henderson

Top 128 - no change

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

2000 Thailand Masters - Montien Riverside Hotel, Bangkok
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Thailand_Masters

Mark Williams cemented his place at the top of the rankings by beating Stephen Hendry in the final in Bangkok. This was the soon to be 25 year-old's 8th ranking title.
Hendry took a 5-2 lead in the match, but astonishingly, Williams won the next 7 to claim a 9-5 victory.

John Lardner reached the last 16 of this event. I hadn't heard the name before this rankings revisit, but he made the Crucible in 1999, and has been winning a good number of matches over the last couple of seasons.
He's a semi-interesting one to read about on wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lardner and I wonder what he's up to these days. Perhaps surprisingly, he has never entered Q School.
Lardner is now at 44th in these rankings, which I suspect will be his peak.

Higgins lost to Snaddon, while King beat O'Sullivan.

QFs:
Mark Williams (1) 5-3 Stephen Lee (5)
Dominic Dale (51) 5-2 Mark King (24)
Ken Doherty (6) 5-3 Billy Snaddon (47)
Stephen Hendry (3) 5-1 Matthew Stevens (7)

SFs:
Williams (1) 5-1 Dale (51)
Hendry (3) 5-3 Doherty (6)

Final:
Williams (1) 9-5 Hendry (3)

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

Following the 2000 Thailand Masters

Top 16
1 = Mark Williams 27922
2 +1 Stephen Hendry 24722
3 -1 John Higgins 24478
4 = Ronnie O'Sullivan 17344
5 = Stephen Lee 17153
6 = Ken Doherty 16486
7 = Matthew Stevens 14711
8 = Marco Fu 11123
9 = John Parrott 11016
10 +1 Dave Harold 10126
11 +1 Peter Ebdon 10049
12 -2 Alan McManus 9756
13 = Anthony Hamilton 9434
14 = Fergal O'Brien 8616
15 +4 Jimmy White 8575
16 -1 Joe Perry 8509

In: Jimmy White
Out: Steve Davis

Top 32
In: Billy Snaddon; Dominic Dale; James Wattana
Out: Darren Morgan; Ian McCulloch; Paul Davies

Top 64
In: Stephen Maguire; Joe Johnson
Out: Quinten Hann; Paul Wykes

Top 128
In: Nigel Gilbert
Out: Peter McCullagh

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby SnookerEd25

chengdufan wrote:John Lardner reached the last 16 of this event. I hadn't heard the name before this rankings revisit, but he made the Crucible in 1999, and has been winning a good number of matches over the last couple of seasons.
He's a semi-interesting one to read about on wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lardner and I wonder what he's up to these days. Perhaps surprisingly, he has never entered Q School.


Described on his Twitter Profile as ‘Socialiser, thinker, former pro’ snooker player, current gambler!’

Feed seems to be mostly about music (particularly U2), Glasgow and football, though there is a picture of him playing a fruit machine in a pub with snooker on the TV behind him, Mike Dunn playing & Lardner describing him as ‘old friend’...