Post a reply

Change in seedings structure

Postby motorhead

Matthew Selt @MattSelt
World Snooker don't mind changing draw structures and seedings half way through a season

snookerbacker @snookerbacker
@stedz1 @ABOFLONDON 1v64 2v63 3v62 etc. with immediate effect.

Re: Change in seedings structure

Postby whitespider

Not sure if this will have much impact in terms of playing different people. The entrants and therefore seedings differ with each event and so do the rankings. So I don't think people will end up playing the same person over and over again in the last 64.

QF's may be different though as there is less movement at the top so we may get the same QF's if the top seeds progress. Not sure if it goes that far pre determined though.

Re: Change in seedings structure

Postby motorhead

Players ranked 56-64 are at a great disadvantage now.
48-57 to a lesser extent but still in a worse position.
To me this reduces their chances to climb the rankings big time.
I'm surprised most of the playes didn't even know about this change....I'd be quite snake hissed if I were one of them.

Re: Change in seedings structure

Postby PLtheRef

whitespider wrote:Not sure if this will have much impact in terms of playing different people. The entrants and therefore seedings differ with each event and so do the rankings. So I don't think people will end up playing the same person over and over again in the last 64.

QF's may be different though as there is less movement at the top so we may get the same QF's if the top seeds progress. Not sure if it goes that far pre determined though.



Made a post about this on the site last night but it crashed.

How many times do we see a tournament where we have players which haven't entered. Other than Ronnie when he is taking sabbatical like he is now, the only real time we have a tournament where players some don't enter is the Australian Open.

I'm not convinced that this is a good idea to be honest. It should never be that there is in theory an advantage to being further down the ranking list. - Now which position is someone going to be the preferred one from these two. Would you rather be 63rd in the rankings, or 66th? The only positive to it now is that in theory with the rolling rankings these could change a lot quicker than it has done in years before, Could you imagine this in an era of season long rankings? but that won't be consolation to a player who is in 63rd and could in theory come across Stuart Bingham in the last 64 of every ranking tournament as there is where the fixed positions truly begin as Stuart will be seeded 2 for any tournaments bar the ones he defends other than the champion not taking part.

For this to work, I think there needs to be an incentive laying with the lower ranked player. Perhaps the seeded player being credited with half money towards his ranking similar to what happened with the seeded loser ranking points.

At least according to SB there is an element of this being introduced at the request of the broadcasters/sponsors. That's all well and good but what happens when the suggestions requested begin to arguably not be in the best interests of the sporting side of the sport what happens?

Re: Change in seedings structure

Postby fridge46

I follow a lot of sports, and I hate these type of "draws", because more often than not the same matchups appear over and over - so I really hope this isnt true

When I first got into snooker, it was just the WC. With that being the system in place since before the Crucible era started, I was ok with it - being tradition and all.

Then they introduced it to the UK Championships. Wasnt exactly thrilled with the idea, but the UK is the second most important ranker, that with the new rolling rankings and being 6 months from the WC - I made my peace with it.

But now.... what hope will anyone new joining the tour have? Knowing that are going to be drawn against a top-32 player at every ranking event?! This will make PTC's more important than ever (as these draws are done using a different rankings list), but those are going to be gone in a one/two season/s. They will be lucky to make £10,000/season - regardless of how good they are.

It is tough enough already - look at Scott Donaldson and Michael Wasley. Both talented players who just missed out of getting Top 64 places at the end of 2013/14. Starting 14/15, they had to start again with 0 ranking points/money. As it stands, they have ~£15,000 - in all likely hood they will not make the Top-64 again and will have to go through the cycle again...

All this does is give a huge amount of protection to the Top..... I would go as far and say the Top 48! I wish World Snooker would just say - moving a flat-128 system was a mistake, we are moving back to the tiered system. Ok, that system wasnt perfect, but it allowed the top players to be at the venue and enabled lower ranked players the chance to face similar ranked opposition and win matches, then progress to play those 10-15 places higher, etc...

I really like what Barry Hearn has done since he has taken control, but for all the good he has done for snooker, he is really starting to balls all that up by messing with the ranking and seeding system.

Re: Change in seedings structure

Postby PLtheRef

fridge46 wrote:I follow a lot of sports, and I hate these type of "draws", because more often than not the same matchups appear over and over - so I really hope this isnt true

When I first got into snooker, it was just the WC. With that being the system in place since before the Crucible era started, I was ok with it - being tradition and all.

Then they introduced it to the UK Championships. Wasnt exactly thrilled with the idea, but the UK is the second most important ranker, that with the new rolling rankings and being 6 months from the WC - I made my peace with it.

But now.... what hope will anyone new joining the tour have? Knowing that are going to be drawn against a top-32 player at every ranking event?! This will make PTC's more important than ever (as these draws are done using a different rankings list), but those are going to be gone in a one/two season/s. They will be lucky to make £10,000/season - regardless of how good they are.

It is tough enough already - look at Scott Donaldson and Michael Wasley. Both talented players who just missed out of getting Top 64 places at the end of 2013/14. Starting 14/15, they had to start again with 0 ranking points/money. As it stands, they have ~£15,000 - in all likely hood they will not make the Top-64 again and will have to go through the cycle again...

All this does is give a huge amount of protection to the Top..... I would go as far and say the Top 48! I wish World Snooker would just say - moving a flat-128 system was a mistake, we are moving back to the tiered system. Ok, that system wasnt perfect, but it allowed the top players to be at the venue and enabled lower ranked players the chance to face similar ranked opposition and win matches, then progress to play those 10-15 places higher, etc...

I really like what Barry Hearn has done since he has taken control, but for all the good he has done for snooker, he is really starting to balls all that up by messing with the ranking and seeding system.


This is the problem. I've had more than a few grumbles at some of the things that Hearn has done, e.g. reducing the format of the UK Championships but the ranking list and I'll admit it the format of having the 128 man field starting from the first round has worked and the balance has kept an importance to the ranking system. There remains an incentive within it. - Higher up the list the greater the prospects of a Crucible spot and an easier draw for the World and UK Championships

The real problem is that it has never been on this scale before. A draw for a tournament which has a power of 17 e.g. 1-16 8-9 isn't as bad as a power of 65 which this will be. Like I said last night, the only way I see this working is if they bring something back like a seeded loser scenario where players are credited with half money in the same way they are if they lose matches in tiered events.

Part of me, like SB suspects that this could see a return to tiered structure which would be a shame because for all its faults (and I do think it was rushed) 128 has had, it's become a good structure.

Re: Change in seedings structure

Postby Wildey

motorhead wrote:Players ranked 56-64 are at a great disadvantage now.
48-57 to a lesser extent but still in a worse position.
To me this reduces their chances to climb the rankings big time.
I'm surprised most of the playes didn't even know about this change....I'd be quite snake hissed if I were one of them.

the players down the rankings has a great opportunity beat the top 8 player early before they get in their stride and the draw opens up for them.

if players have ambition this should inspire them.

Re: Change in seedings structure

Postby PLtheRef

Wildey wrote:
motorhead wrote:Players ranked 56-64 are at a great disadvantage now.
48-57 to a lesser extent but still in a worse position.
To me this reduces their chances to climb the rankings big time.
I'm surprised most of the playes didn't even know about this change....I'd be quite snake hissed if I were one of them.

the players down the rankings has a great opportunity beat the top 8 player early before they get in their stride and the draw opens up for them.

if players have ambition this should inspire them.



I guess there is a chance that it could prove to inspire some players and that there is an incentive that if you defeat a player in the top four in particular you shouldn't be running into a top 20 player for three rounds. However the prospect of playing a top eight player in the first round on a regular basis isn't going to inspire tonnes of confidence. -

The top eight players may have the off day and be defeated in the first round of a ranking tournament but in the tournaments with fixed seeding positions how many top 8, top 16, top 32 players have failed to reach the second round?

Re: Change in seedings structure

Postby Wildey

Last season alone Ding Junhui failed twice, Mark Selby lost to Oliver Lines and this season Ricky Walden defending International Champion lost to Tian Pengfei and Maguire was beaten 6-2 by Noppon Saengkham.

never think about losing think about winning ....if players think ohh no its Ronnie then they should look for another Job Snooker is not for them.