Post a reply

The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby SnookerFan

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot there was a thread on this from like April. It's been officially announced today on the World Snooker website what we already knew.

I've posted the link in the other thread.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Monique

Living Snooker wrote:Stuart Bingham gives his verdict on the new rankings system in his latest blog at http://www.livingsnooker.com


I know I will go off topic but as we already have a thread about the prize money ranking, this one can as well be used for something else and the admins to change the title…

So let's go.
First about the "on topic" .
this
The argument against it is that it's going to favour the top players, because they may only need to win one match in a major event and will still earn a lot more than a players who's won several earlier rounds already. But as one pro said, he's earned his right to be a top-16 player, so why should he be punished.
shows that many pros don't understand the changes that Barry Hearn want to introduce. The money list can only work fairly if the structure of tournaments becomes flat and therefore whether you are n°1 or n°100 won't make any difference, you will have to win 7 matches to win the title.

Now the "off topic".
The general mental attitude Stuart is displaying - and not only him, most players actually - appalls me. "He's the boss and there is nothing we can do, so be best go along with it" (this is not a quote, it's a kind of summary I have written). This is exactly the type of mental attitude that has lead to some of the most terrible atrocities in human history. It's extremely unhealthy and dangerous when people stop thinking and just accept what the "authorities" decide and hide behind "authority" to justify their own cowardliness and laziness.Of course Barry Hearn isn't Pol Pot or Hitler and nobody will die for disagreeing with WSA. But the mental attitude of most snooker players is just the same attitude that lead to the Pol Pot or Hitler of this world to do what they have done without being stopped.
Players who speak their mind or want it their own way are punished and the worst thing is that many fans think that's right. Those players should be applauded and supported. It's extremely unhealthy for any organisation when people stop thinking, voicing opinions, challenging the way things are done: it usually means societal sclerosis and death of freedom. Even if those players are wrong in occasions, it's still preferable to have them expressing themselves rather than having a flock of sheep playing snooker and accepting whatever is thrown at them without a word.
I admire Mark Williams for persisting on twitter despite his 4000£ fine - totally unjustified for a throwaway comment for which he explained himself and apologized - and I wonder who "Not Mark Williams" is but I wouldn't be surprised if that person was someone very close to Mark and the tandem working as a team. It would be very clever …
I can't help to think that Mark has been punished in other ways as well, as has been Maguire for saying that he felt "like a prostitute" to play in the PTCs. If the PL - a very lucrative tournament where nearly all players want to be in whatever Roland thinks ;-) - is the place for winners, then Higgins has nothing to do in there this season, and Murphy neither (the Brazilian Masters was nothing than a depleted invitational that most players didn't take seriously and where Selby came to play in shattered from the SM and jet-lag-dead). Instead both Maguire and Williams who made the finals of multiple rankers should have been there. But the "good boys" must be rewarded and the "bad boys" punished. That's my perception and I don't like it at all.
Then of course there was ROS and the contract. Whatever many will chose to believe this wasn't about money or having a contract different from other players. I have spoken with people who have read the contract and it is actually very onerous and one person - an non-UK amateur who had to sign it to play in a PTC - even challenged the legality of some of the paragraphs in there. My understanding is that this contract basically puts the players under a lot of constraints that deprive them of the freedom and benefits of being self employed while they still have to take all the financial risks associated to that status. It also demands for a lot of "free" work - it actually costs them when they have to turn up to abroad tournaments days before the are scheduled to play - while this work clearly brings a value to WS. It also asks them to give away quite a lot of their "image rights". I haven't seen the contract myself and by writing this I can only rely on what those persons told me. I want to stress firmly that ROS was NOT one of those persons.
I didn't like the way WSA communicated about it neither. Basically - for those who can read and use their brains - they suggested but didn't actually write that ROS asked for "appearance money" which everyone understood as "money to turn up and play". He didn't and that became clear reading BH quotes in SS as well as Django Fung answer. What he asked for is that promo work should be rewarded because there is a value to it, and he never said that it should be only for him, but of course he's the one who is asked the biggest contribution especially now that he's the WC. So that press releasedwasn't actually a lie, but is was misguiding and I really struggle to believe that it wasn't done on purpose. Similarly I don't buy the statement that "Barry just explained the contract to ROS and he signed it". As thick as ROS might be seen by some fans - and he isn't - BH certainly wouldn't spend 11 hours to explain him the contract and extend the deadline of a major tournament if it wasn't extremely important for him - Barry Hearn - to have him on board. So I'm quite certain that there was a lot more than meets the eyes behind that "discussion".

Players who think they can do nothing about the situation are wrong. Yes Barry Hearn bought the game and has all the power and as individuals they can't do much maybe, except for some of the top guys. But ultimately if they refuse to play, if they boycott tournaments, then there is nothing Barry Hearn can do neither and he will be in trouble with his own contractual obligations. "Désobéissance civique" works and history of India with Gandhi proved it. He owns the game but they are the ones who play it, he needs them and don't be fooled, nobody becomes a top player with an image overnight, so he can't replace them just like that.

To conclude this rant two things.

1.Mark Allen. It's no secret I don't like like him and that I think some of his comments were bang out of order. Not his criticisms of Barry, but his racist comments about the Chinese. But even so, I think it's better to have his kind around and able to voice their opinion, wrong as it might in my eyes, than having players shut up.
2. Barry Hearn. There is no question that he has done a lot of good things and that he's introduced a well needed dynamism in snooker again. I have been vocal against him at times - and again now - but it's in a big part in reaction to those who seem to think that all he does is wonderful and should be accepted. He's got ideas, he's working hard, he's competent, but he's also extremely arrogant and like everyone he makes mistakes. That's why snooker needs some people, including players and managers, to raise their voice against him just as much as it needs him. So that a balance is kept for the best to everyone.
Last edited by Monique on 02 Sep 2012, edited 1 time in total.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby snooky147

Good post Mon. I am of the same opinion on the resigned attitude of players regarding Hearns dictatorship, and that's what it is. But organised dissent is always useful so the players should get together and explore that but I fear it will never happen. I like a lot of what Hearn is doing but not his habit of running roughshod over the very people he needs, the players.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Alan Craig

I’ve spent the last few hours this morning reading all the comments and reactions on various forums.

You’ve saved me a lot of typing Monique with your excellent post. It’s spot on.

I too was flabbergasted to read Stuart Bingham’s blog. No wonder the pro game lurches around the way it does. His attitude is irresponsible at worst and naïve at best. However the problem for the pro players is that they are not adequately represented by their own association the WPBSA Ltd, hence his obvious resignation to accept what ever is thrown his way.

The cash ranking list has had a lot of coverage and comment and the worst faults have been totally exposed. The ironic part is, as many have pointed out, that it only works with a flat structure and prize money paid out from the first round of an event.

Bazza’s reasoning for introducing this has no foundation. He can publish a list of players’ winnings at any time. What’s the problem?

There is no real empirical need for a cash ranking list. It actually restricts flexibility in tournament formats. Tiered ranking events may still be necessary for a few years yet in order to promote the game and hone the tour structure world wide

A ranking list should reflect a player’s overall performance in a season and also his position in relation to other players after each event for it to be really useful. In each tournament there should be a consistent increasing difference in points won between each round, EG. 125%.

As stated elsewhere each tournament should be graded to reflect the prestige, monetary value and the format. This would be easily achieved by just applying a multiplier to each event’s ranking system.

I remember Hearn criticising the ranking list when he took over, and the subsequent tinkering hasn’t made it any better.

I have a copy of the players’ contract on behalf of our Scottish amateur players who have entered some PTCs and I find it quite disturbing to say the least. Advising our amateur players not to sign it is fraught with difficulty. I can’t believe that this document has been approved by the board of the WPBSA on behalf of their players.

I’m in line with your last two paragraphs as well. I don’t like players throwing abuse at people but they are entitled to their constructive opinions no matter how critical.

Hearn is dynamic but the big problem is that he doesn’t listen because he doesn’t need to do so at the moment. World Snooker’s attitude and interface with grass roots snooker is also appalling, but that’s another rant

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Roland

I guess Bingham's stance is similar to most pros; don't care about politics and happy to be a passenger and just play snooker. As long as there are tournaments to play in they're happy and everything else will take care of itself.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Skullman

The only problem I see with civil disobedience is that Hearn doesn't just make his money from snooker. If the players stop entering tournaments to make a point, what's stopping Hearn from just dropping snooker and letting it rot?

At the moment snooker needs Hearn but Hearn doesn't need snooker, unfortunately.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Monique

Sonny wrote:I guess Bingham's stance is similar to most pros; don't care about politics and happy to be a passenger and just play snooker. As long as there are tournaments to play in they're happy and everything else will take care of itself.


You're almost certainly right about Stuart's stance and this was not a go at Stuart as a person. He is a nice "ordinary" bloke who cares to make a good living for his family and probably isn't interested in the politics as long as it doesn't effect his life too much. But as the blog was his I couldn't take him out of the picture even if he certainly isn't the only one seeing things this way. And precisely, there is the danger. That passive acceptance of whatever is decided on their behalf is what has got a lot of people - entire nations at times - in big trouble. When they wake up, if they do, the damage is done.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Alpha

I can fully understand Hearn's "benevolent dictator" attitude towards the sport. The game has been damaged by politics and other nonsense for far too long and I agree with Sonny that Bingham, without having read the blog myself just wants to get down and play snooker, the same reason why the players got Hearn to replace Rodney Walker in the first place.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Wildey

snooky147 wrote:Good post Mon. I am of the same opinion on the resigned attitude of players regarding Hearns dictatorship, and that's what it is. But organised dissent is always useful so the players should get together and explore that but I fear it will never happen. I like a lot of what Hearn is doing but not his habit of running roughshod over the very people he needs, the players.

im a big fan of what Barry Hearn has done but i wouldn't sit on any fence if its not in snookers interests.

the main problem is snooker players aren't really interested in the sport as a whole they only interested in themselves as individuals and look after their own self deluded importance to the sport.

ive said many times if the players of each generation had put snooker first there would no need to be a call for Barry Hearn to get involved.

Today players still haven't learned the lesson and still think they know best.

Regarding money rankings well thats a pile of horse rubbish crap and don't accurately reflect a true picture of Rankings if you have Ali done buck all for a long time carter is ranked 7 based on fluking a world final.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Wildey

Living Snooker wrote:A different point of view on this hotly-debated topic from another of our bloggers, David Grace http://www.livingsnooker.com

David Grace makes good points and obviously it would work better with a Flat System But even then it will give to much protection for Top Players who happen to play well in the Right Tournaments as appose to having consistent form over a 2 year Period which what Rankings is all about that's why its a "2 year Rolling Rankings" and Not "play well in some events Rolling Rankings" of course winning the Real Majors is what All Players ultimately wants to do but that is separate to the Rankings hence why the Masters is a Major but not Ranking.

By overstating Majors you devalue Lesser Events and in Turn that's Counterproductive to the Aim of Snooker Building up a Worth While Tour that consists of Different Level of Events.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Monique

If the structure is flat "protection" doesn't mean anything anymore. Everyone starts at round 1.
Rankings should be about who is the best and, who is the best is judged by the players tally, hence what they WIN.
I'm slightly amused by your stance here wild, you who always praised how Hendry wanted to win everything and wasn't content to just do well consistently; you expressed your contempt for such attitude often enough. Well that's exactly what the money list is all about, rewarding the winners, rather the "good boys" who play in everything and are happy to do well but don't actually win much.
And yes it will devaluate some events unless they start to offer proper reward to the players. They will put a stop both to the ranking blackmail and the selling cheap of the game. It will also offer more flexibility to the players. Bring it on!

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Skullman

Rankings should be about who is best over the entire period of time. Higgins was best for about four months out of twenty four, while Ronnie was best for about four weeks. They really don't deserve to be N1 and N2 and they still get undeserved protection for too long.

It's true that the protection won't mean as much under a flat structure, but when is the flat structure going to be implemented? Hearn's been talking about for some time now and we're not any closer to it for most events.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Roland

If it was a flat 128 draw always, then what would be the point of the rankings?

Of all the ideas Hearn has come up with, this is the one I don't have time for. I think it 's a rubbish idea. I don't see any pluses to a money based rankings list whatsoever.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Monique

;-) why am I not surprised?

The flat structure is an excellent idea as it actually does give choices to the players as how they manage their career as they become older and find themselves at different places in life. All of them get there sooner or later; snooker isn't a game where you retire at 30 with a fortune and older players have still a lot to offer. And indeed it makes rankings meaningless except for who plays in the Masters or the PL, or other invitationals if they come along. Just like the order of merit is meaningless except for who plays in the Grand Final. It's about rewarding - financially - those who do best and that's why those events shouldn't count because it would distort the list far too much. Currently the PTC GF offers 3000 ranking points to the winner, it's a bonus but it's nothing decisive, 100 000£ would be.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Skullman

Rankings would still have a point in flat draws as they'd be used to seed players. I don't think there's any other sport that has a system like snooker's, probably because it's too protectionist and labyrinthine. Plus they'd be used for invitionals like Monique said.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:If it was a flat 128 draw always, then what would be the point of the rankings?

Of all the ideas Hearn has come up with, this is the one I don't have time for. I think it 's a rubbish idea. I don't see any pluses to a money based rankings list whatsoever.

personally if it was a flat draw there's no real need for a Rolling Ranking system...i think Rolling rankings work best in a tiered system.

they might as well revert back to static rankings but make it a 1 year ranking which currently looks like this http://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?te ... eason=2012

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Wildey

Skullman wrote:Why would there be no need for rolling rankings? There's a lot of snooker in a season and we have the same problem of protecting people when they don't deserve it.

well everybody will start in the same round like sonny says you don't really need rankings at all apart from working out who plays in the masters and the 64 that play in the shootout

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Witz78

of course you need rankings under a flat system

or else if theres no seedings getting updated then a world number 65 at the start of the season could win the first few rankers of the season and be provisionally high up yet still get drawn against all the big guns in the 1st round (last 128)

Rolling rankings, flat 128 qualifiers and order of merit all go hand in hand.

Trust me, come 2014-15 the new era of snooker will officially start and this 4-5 year transitional phase will end.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Casey

Witz78 wrote:of course you need rankings under a flat system

or else if theres no seedings getting updated then a world number 65 at the start of the season could win the first few rankers of the season and be provisionally high up yet still get drawn against all the big guns in the 1st round (last 128)

Rolling rankings, flat 128 qualifiers and order of merit all go hand in hand.

Trust me, come 2014-15 the new era of snooker will officially start and this 4-5 year transitional phase will end.


Tennis doesn't have a flat system for their tournaments (apart from slams) in fact you can't even get into the high ranked tournaments unless you have a higher ranking.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Roland

The current system is perfect. The problem lies in the following:

1) World Snooker are rubbish at publishing the official rankings in a comprehensive way that people understand, and also publish them on a crappy looking document which looks like a scanned printout from a 20 year old printer in need of a new cartridge. This should be done electronically with an option to see all the workings out. Transparency = trust.

2) World Snooker consistently leave it too late to define the cut off points leading to suggestions they can rig the timings to suit certain players.

3) The rankings are not rolling enough, they should be updated after every single tournament and the points that come off should be:
- the same tournament that has just finished but 2 years ago (so for each annual event the two most recent occurrences count, no more)
- if this is not the case then the last tournament to finish over 2 years ago

4) The points schedule should reflect the event. This should be based mainly on number of frames per round except in special circumstances (e.g. the PTC finals, innovations like the World Open where best of 5s counted higher than usual to increase pressure on players and generate interest from the general public). Currently the World Championship does not have enough points relative to the UK or other events.


The benefits of keeping the current system are:

1) It doesn't matter if the event is structured 128 flat draw or staggered seeded. This allows for a mixture of events and also rewards those higher up the rankings which gives incentive to rise up the rankings.

2) Existing tournaments and venues will not be discarded because they cannot hold enough tables or players.

3) It is fully up to date. 2 years of events count at all times, and no more. I personally believe 2 years is fairer than 1 on all players.

4) No shitclock events count.


The suggestion that money rankings are more up to date is completely false if rolling rankings are more frequently updated.

The suggestion that players will rise faster up the rankings on a money list is a myth if you make the points schedule more fair (point 4) and update after every tournament.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Witz78

Ultimately i just want a fair system though until we go to a flat 128 then neither money order of merit or the Status Quo offers that

if the points were properly allocated proportionate to an events significance then id be happy enough, but as you say the World is greatly undervalued, mainly because its value has remained at 10,000 points when the TOTAL points per seasons available now has more than doubled, therefore the Worlds has lost over half its significance in terms of ranking impacts.

And properly rolling rankings are something i want, the current calendar is a mess anyway and surely a structure like this would be simple and easy to follow for all players and fans, and even WS could cockerel it up ??

WEEK 1 - Qualifiers for ranker 1
WEEK 2 - Ranker 1
------------------------------------ UPDATE RANKINGS
WEEK 3 - Qualifiers for ranker 2
WEEK 4 - Ranker 2
--------------------------------------UPDATE RANKINGS
etc etc
ok, this is a simplistic model, but yous get the general gist.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby kolompar

Casey mentioned tennis and thats a very good example look at tennis its similar to snooker, but we all know its a bit boring and much less exciting :-D still its much more popular and thats probably because they have a much better ranking system and more events, so i think if Barry Hearn wants to make snooker more popular he should copy everything from tennis and not using his system he has at darts he should see it wasnt a big success at darts why would it be at snooker

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Witz78

the tennis rankings are heavily weighted towards the 4 Slams compared to other events

Snooker fans like Wild moan about the prospect under an order of merit, of a WC finalist Carter being in the top 8 off the back of pretty much that result, but under a system similar to tennis, the same would happen.

Another factor in tennis worth noting though is that the top guys are totally dedicated to their sports and careers and accept that they will be living out of a suitcase most of the year, playing in events all over the globe week in week out. Some may say, yeh but tennis players careers are over by the time there 30....so the golfers argument can then get thrown into the mix, as these guys play on for as long, if not longer than your average snooker players career is.

Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today

Postby Cheesyman99

In my opinion what snooker should be aiming for is playing the qualifiers of each event in the location the main ranking tournament is being held, like tennis. Also the game should go open, again similar to tennis where you could have hundreds of players fighting away in tourneys all over the world.
Obviously we're still quite away from being able to do this, not many British-based players are gonna fly to China if they need to win 2/3 matches just to earn £500 or so, and the prize money will have to rise if more minor events are to be funded.
However this will enable players all over the world to have a more equal opportunity if this is the case, it will also create more interest locally in the tournament if there are local players involved. Wildcards can also be placed in the qualifying tournament (or like tennis there could be places in the 32/64/128 however many in the main draw), making it fairer for everyone, people who work hard and earn their place won't have to play an extra match.
With many tournaments with different statuses all over the world, players could pick and choose and those who are more committed would be rewarded. Young players could ply their trade in smaller tournaments and work their way up by winning them, while snooker would benefit because the tournaments would be competitive with each other, throwing more prize money in in order to attract the best players.
In men's tennis you have the ATP 1000, 500, 250, Challenger and Futures series. This is a clear structure that is adequate for hundreds of players giving them hundreds of playing opportunities throughout the season. Obviously snooker is far from tennis in terms of finances but this should be the aim. Letting the players choose when they play and giving them all equal opportunity, while rewarding the most committed