Why are the rankings based over 2 seasons?

Back in the bad old days, it made sense to base the rankings on performances over two seasons rather than one, because we only had six or seven ranking tournaments per year.

But even then, points from the first season were only worth half. Nowadays, both seasons are considered of equal value - but why should a tournament from two years ago be worth as much as one that happened last week?

I think this is distorting the rankings. Stuart Bingham has been able to stay in the top two courtesy of winning a tournament two years ago, which I think is misleading even if that tournament was the World Championship!

I'd say either makes points from season one worth half those of season two, or, preferably, base the rankings on just one season. We have 19 ranking tournaments this season, which is more than enough to determine who the best player is.

Pink Ball wrote:Back in the bad old days, it made sense to base the rankings on performances over two seasons rather than one, because we only had six or seven ranking tournaments per year.

But even then, points from the first season were only worth half. Nowadays, both seasons are considered of equal value - but why should a tournament from two years ago be worth as much as one that happened last week?

I think this is distorting the rankings. Stuart Bingham has been able to stay in the top two courtesy of winning a tournament two years ago, which I think is misleading even if that tournament was the World Championship!

I'd say either makes points from season one worth half those of season two, or, preferably, base the rankings on just one season. We have 19 ranking tournaments this season, which is more than enough to determine who the best player is.

The ranking list used to be over three seasons - it only went to two when it became established that the vast majority of tournaments, taking away the Masters, overseas minor events and the national championships were to be ranking - it also used to be rather simpler, with a tariff of 6 for the winner, 5 for runner up 4 for semi-finalists etc down to 1 point for last 32 losers (providing they hadn't been seeded to that stage) - Then again, the ranking list was only updated annually.

Yes, it might seem odd that a £300,000 single payday from an event nearly two years ago is what keeps Stuart Bingham in the excellent position he holds in the rankings at the moment - but it also adds an extra layer of pressure to him - or to anyone who has a fantastic event like he did at the Crucible when the two year anniversary event approaches. Bingham knows that when the Crucible approaches that unless he has a relatively decent run, he'll be facing a rather quick drop. (Despite his fantastic run in 2015, Bingham has also gone out in the first round at the Crucible in three of his last five World Championships)

An unscientific suggests that his total from season 2015/16 and 2016/17 would give him over £195,000 from the past twos seasons, which if a total amount for a two year period would leave him suddenly in 16th place in the rankings.

Yes, you could argue that this could easily replicate itself in a single one year rolling list - and given the number of ranking events we have now compared to the times when the two season ranking was brought in may make more sense. The only arguments against one year is that it would make the race to the Players Championship as it stands obselete (unless alternative plans are in the pipeline). The major issue is a player may be punished for a good run if a tournament isn't held again. Under a two year system there is an element of protection if this occurs.