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.

So basically you think the current system isn't good enough because Mark Selby is number 1 and he's only won 2 ranking events despite being probably the most consistent player in terms of reaching the latter stages of tournaments, which is generally how most sportsmen get to be world number 1.

I agree that tournament winners deserve more points than anyone else, but not 4 times the amount of the losing semi-finalists for example and double the amount of the runner-up. If you take what I said about the points allocation then to me that is the only flaw in the current system apart from more regular updates. It's plain to see from looking at the points allocation that some events contain more elevated points in relation to the World Championship than the fans rate them.

I'm sure Ronnie would be doing just fine in the rankings if the points allocations were better structured.

Monique, Sonny, cant believe yous end up turning it into a Ronnie v Selby personal interests agenda here when theres a far bigger issue at stake

For what its worth i agree more with Monique, Selby is effectively more of a Safina or Wozniaki type nimber 1. Id far rather see a world number 1 who wins or does well (semis at least) in the big ranking events than someone who is consistent at all the small rankers that the bulk of the tour dont enter or take seriously. It backs up the argument that the ranking points allocations are flawed, sure, the Order of Merit might be taking things from one extreme to the other but its def fairer than the current system IMO.

Any set up that encourages players to try and achieve stuff rather than just do what theyve got to do to maintain their rankings has to be better, The standards will surely rise as more players try for vital wins, and with the flatter 128 set up theres a realsitic target now for lower ranked guys and newcomers to know that they will properly be rewarded for good runs in tournaments as well.

Wild, youve always had a gripe with the Order of Merit. Losing the decider has nothing to do with anything, under any system in operation or proposed you get the same whether you lose 18-17 or 18-0.

Sonny wrote:So basically you think the current system isn't good enough because Mark Selby is number 1 and he's only won 2 ranking events despite being probably the most consistent player in terms of reaching the latter stages of tournaments, which is generally how most sportsmen get to be world number 1.

I agree that tournament winners deserve more points than anyone else, but not 4 times the amount of the losing semi-finalists for example and double the amount of the runner-up. If you take what I said about the points allocation then to me that is the only flaw in the current system apart from more regular updates. It's plain to see from looking at the points allocation that some events contain more elevated points in relation to the World Championship than the fans rate them.

I'm sure Ronnie would be doing just fine in the rankings if the points allocations were better structured.

Once again you turn what I wrote into something else.
I think that the current system is rewarding consistency and dedication too much over the winning mentality and I think that Selby's position reflects that, yes and so does Murphys. But it's nothing against Selby as a person and a player and It's nothing to do with ROS neither whatever you chose to think.
My opinion on Selby to make it crystal clear is that he is better than his tally shows and it's up to him to change that tally by starting to play to win in all matches instead of going into negative mode when he feels the pressure or isn't in a good day. He's certainly capable of doing it.

So you yourself say don't bring Ronnie and Selby into it and you basically say the current system is flawed only because Selby is number 1!

Well to be honest Witz it's been pretty obvious to me that so far in 2012 the only players who have at least matched the form of Selby are Robbo and Ronnie, and given that Selby was injured and pulled out of China and effectively the Worlds too (hence not earning the points his form deserved), and given that Ronnie has played nowhere near his full quota of events recently it stands to reason that under most ranking systems Selby and Robbo would and should both be ranked higher than Ronnie.

Monique wrote:My opinion on Selby to make it crystal clear is that he is better than his tally shows and it's up to him to change that tally by starting to play to win in all matches instead of going into negative mode when he feels the pressure or isn't in a good day. He's certainly capable of doing it.

Sonny wrote:So you yourself say don't bring Ronnie and Selby into it and you basically say the current system is flawed only because Selby is number 1!

Well to be honest Witz it's been pretty obvious to me that so far in 2012 the only players who have at least matched the form of Selby are Robbo and Ronnie, and given that Selby was injured and pulled out of China and effectively the Worlds too (hence not earning the points his form deserved), and given that Ronnie has played nowhere near his full quota of events recently it stands to reason that under most ranking systems Selby and Robbo would and should both be ranked the higher than Ronnie.

No Sonny I don't say that the current system is flawed BECAUSE Selby is n°1, I say that the current system is flawed because it rewards the wrong mentality, namely being happy with doing well in all events rather than playing to WIN the events and my opinion is that Selby and Murphy's positions (if we look at the top 16) reflect that. Murphy's constant statements about having had a good season in 2011/12 while he actually had a pretty terrible one exemplify that mentality.

I was talking to Witz

I understand what you're saying though but I don't think Selby is satisfied with anything other than winning. And that's true of all top players.

Sonny wrote:I was talking to Witz

Ok, feel free to delete my former post...

I actually share David Hendon's opinion on talk about the rankings structure, however I agree with Monique here. The sooner a flat structure is implemented the better. The rankings and prize money structure will be much easier to understand without this rolling rankings/money list donkey doo.
But Monique and Sonny are both wrong on who deserves to be World no.1. O'Sullivan might be World champion but I've lost track of the amount of ranking events big or small he's pulled out of over the last two seasons (and his contract nonsense has done him no favours).
But Selby has done nothing to deserve to be so far ahead of the pack since Shanghai (apart from reaching the Welsh final). He's won two PHC's but in the major ranking events, not good enough.

It's easy to say not good enough isn't it? Tell me who has done better then. Maguire? No. Robbo? No. Judd? Slightly but he's still got 6 months of free scoring to catch up (his form didn't shoot up until March/April 2011). You said yourself Ronnie doesn't deserve it.

Ah anyway I don't care who is WN1, I don't just think I KNOW that the current system with fully rolling updates and a better poinst structure beats the crap out of any money list idea. But it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks, Hearn has his agenda and nothing will stop him.

That made me smile sonny. Being the best is not something you "deserve" it's something you ARE, or are not. And that's what the rankings should be about. And Selby isn't the best. There are at least three players currently better than him, because in the end it's what you win that counts, not how often you come close to it.

Sonny wrote:It's easy to say not good enough isn't it? Tell me who has done better then. Maguire? No. Robbo? No. Judd? Slightly but he's still got 6 months of free scoring to catch up (his form didn't shoot up until March/April 2011). You said yourself Ronnie doesn't deserve it.

Ah anyway I don't care who is WN1, I don't just think I KNOW that the current system with fully rolling updates and a better poinst structure beats the crap out of any money list idea. But it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks, Hearn has his agenda and nothing will stop him.

I don't want to say it because I like Selby. But since Shanghai he's taken his foot off the gas (his neck injury notwithstanding). Don't know why but the results speak for themselves, despite regularly reaching the latter stages of events. You asked who has done better. Maguire, no. Robertson, possibly. Trump, yes (he'd be there right now if not for letting Carter off the hook at the Crucible).

Well Judd is WN2 and like I said, has 6 months of free points to increase his tally further because he's not going to lose many points over that period. So if Judd was WN1 just say, then I think no one would have a problem with Selby being at WN2, it's just because he's WN1 that people have a problem, just like they have a problem whenever he wins anything. You can't win if you're a Selby supporter!

Anyway, I covered my take on this in another topic but basically he didn't take his foot off the gas, he suddenly had to deal enormous pressure of being WN1 and it showed in his snooker. He put that right back in the Welsh (where he lost to Ding in the final, no shame in that one esp considering the break he made towards the end) and then was starting to fly again before the neck injury struck.

The problem is it's difficult to say who's done better. There's no small group clearly dominating consistently throughout the season and a lot of players do similiarly well, so there isn't a clear number one like in the days of Hendry and Davis. It's difficult to objectively decide who's done better. Trump has won one more ranker in the two years than Selby, but Selby has been to more finals and semis.