Re: The Rolling Prize Money officially announced today
Teasing set apart, I do think that the flat structure should be adopted, with no points/money for first round losers and every other round rewarded, whatever the ranking system, points based or money based. I think that even if the system remains points based, first round winners should cover reasonable expenses in every event. Every event that can't guarantee that should be scrapped.
As I already said it does render ranking less relevant, so it gives players more choice in the way they manage their career. It also would allow young/debutant talented and hungry players to "climb" faster and to reach the television stages more often and earlier because they would have to win only two matches to do so instead of 4 with the current system. It would also allow them to earn a living if they win whilst now they sometimes have to win 3 matches before getting any money. There would be no protection for players who are not up the marks.
I'm perfectly aware that the tiered system allows to guarantee the big names in events, and the flat structure does not. However I'm confident that most top players will make it to the last 32 in every event, especially the ones with a longer format and a motivating prize money. Having a few less usual suspects in every event, especially if some new talented players manage to come through, will only make it more interesting, not less.
Now for something that will not please the "boss" here. My opinion is that a ranking system should reflect excellence and there is no way that a correct ranking system reflecting excellence could have a player who only has won two ranking events in his whole career, and neither the World Championship or the UK championship as a runaway number 1. I know that Selby has won the Masters twice, but that doesn't count in his ranking. His ranking comes from his performances in ranking events only and his number one position there shows that the current rankings don't reflect excellence, they reflect consistency and dedication instead. Now sport should be about winning, not about "doing well" in every event. At least that's my view.
The "provisional" money list as published by WS shows surprisingly few discrepancies with the points ranking list. Most players are only up or down 2 or 3 places. That surprised me to an extend, but then indeed it shows that whatever the system the best players will be on top and the "average" ones, will be "average". But the few differences it shows go in the direction of rewarding the winning mentality rather than dedication and consistency. Of course the same result could be obtained in a point based system, provided that the "tension" between points won at each round would be increased.
I'm not saying that Selby is a "false" number one. He's number one because he accumulated more points than anyone else. But he isn't the best player in the World, not in my eyes. He's the more consistent and dedicated and that's what his ranking assesses, but not the best. Not until he starts winning more or gets at least one of the major ranking tournaments.
As I already said it does render ranking less relevant, so it gives players more choice in the way they manage their career. It also would allow young/debutant talented and hungry players to "climb" faster and to reach the television stages more often and earlier because they would have to win only two matches to do so instead of 4 with the current system. It would also allow them to earn a living if they win whilst now they sometimes have to win 3 matches before getting any money. There would be no protection for players who are not up the marks.
I'm perfectly aware that the tiered system allows to guarantee the big names in events, and the flat structure does not. However I'm confident that most top players will make it to the last 32 in every event, especially the ones with a longer format and a motivating prize money. Having a few less usual suspects in every event, especially if some new talented players manage to come through, will only make it more interesting, not less.
Now for something that will not please the "boss" here. My opinion is that a ranking system should reflect excellence and there is no way that a correct ranking system reflecting excellence could have a player who only has won two ranking events in his whole career, and neither the World Championship or the UK championship as a runaway number 1. I know that Selby has won the Masters twice, but that doesn't count in his ranking. His ranking comes from his performances in ranking events only and his number one position there shows that the current rankings don't reflect excellence, they reflect consistency and dedication instead. Now sport should be about winning, not about "doing well" in every event. At least that's my view.
The "provisional" money list as published by WS shows surprisingly few discrepancies with the points ranking list. Most players are only up or down 2 or 3 places. That surprised me to an extend, but then indeed it shows that whatever the system the best players will be on top and the "average" ones, will be "average". But the few differences it shows go in the direction of rewarding the winning mentality rather than dedication and consistency. Of course the same result could be obtained in a point based system, provided that the "tension" between points won at each round would be increased.
I'm not saying that Selby is a "false" number one. He's number one because he accumulated more points than anyone else. But he isn't the best player in the World, not in my eyes. He's the more consistent and dedicated and that's what his ranking assesses, but not the best. Not until he starts winning more or gets at least one of the major ranking tournaments.
-
Monique - Posts: 4597
- Joined: 02 February 2010
- Location: Brussels
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie
- Highest Break: 25
- Walk-On: Kodachrome (Paul Simon)