Too much emphasis on Crucible?

TWITTER ATTACK!

Mark Allen
Mark Allen @pistol147
Is there too much emphasis on winning the world championships these days rankings wise? Selby can't be caught for pretty much 2 years now!!

What do people think? Agree? Disagree?

Even if you took the crucible out of it, Selby would still be No. 1. Allen has got no bottle and that is why he will never win another ranker. Bellend

I Agree with him its ridiculous the amount of points it carries.

Bingham was no 2 for 2 seasons and quite clearly other players were more successful than him during that time.

The point of Rolling rankings was so that current form is used for rankings but with the WC Carries un proportionate amount of points that's not always the case.

Its the World Championship, I think winning the Worlds 3 times in 4 years warrants that, and I'm someone whose sick to death of him at this stage

So who should be world no.1 on current form then? Presumably you would have had Mark King as World No.1 in November last year and Hamilton after the German.

The WC is the truest test of the players and it should be more heavily weighted.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:So who should be world no.1 on current form then? Presumably you would have had Mark King as World No.1 in November last year and Hamilton after the German.

The WC is the truest test of the players and it should be more heavily weighted.

not that much its only 2 weeks out of a year at the end of the day

It's the Blue Riband event. More rounds, more frames per match, more pressure.

You've dodged the question Wild and are backtracking. Just admit you are wrong, and I'll say no more about it.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:So who should be world no.1 on current form then? Presumably you would have had Mark King as World No.1 in November last year and Hamilton after the German.

The WC is the truest test of the players and it should be more heavily weighted.

The question isn't "so who should be world number no.1 on current form then?" The question asked by the OP is: Is there too much emphasis on the World Championship?

I believe there is, but that was always going to be a possibility with the shitty money based ranking system.

And for the record, Selby is deservedly ranked top as he's been the most successful player the last 2 years even without his world titles, so I'm not sure where you're coming from regarding Mark King and Hamilton.

It sort of defeats the purpose of even having rankings when someone can be ranked number 1 based on how do they in one tournament. True the World Championship is the toughest test and the most prestigious event therefore it should be weighted significantly higher than all other tournaments, but not to this extent.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:So who should be world no.1 on current form then? Presumably you would have had Mark King as World No.1 in November last year and Hamilton after the German.

The WC is the truest test of the players and it should be more heavily weighted.

I agree with Wild. Of course the WC should carry the most points, by a distance, but the amount it does carry overshoots the runway. It's the major fault I have with money rankings.

OK point taken but I like the fact that that you need to win the WC to be No 1. It is kind of arbitrary how much weighting you give it and straight money seems the simplest.

Allen just has the blue frog because he is never going to be near the top.

HappyLuckyGo.

I agree with the folks here. If an another player is having an opponent already on the ropes only to lose the match it should be punished. With a major point losses, no matter what part of the season it is on.

A many players are just too ambitious these days. Some stylish player like Matt Selt should just be happy to make a career. Like he has does it. At times it is just a really ridiculous chaos when most of the players are just trying to find a tactic after a tactic in order to get up rankings and to get a deep run after a deep run. I can´t see that should be the case.

HappyLuckyGo.

Now that´s an another thing always should be punished. HappyLuckyGo. Instead of having an any long term plan how to make a career.

How did Ding get to No. 1 position even though he was playing shiite?

I don't have a problem really. Selby has won 3 of the last 4 WC so he is the top player. If Selby loses in round 1 in the next 2 years and wins nothing he will be lower end of top 16.

There are enough big money tournaments now so that the World Champion is not automatically number one.

It's around 2.5 World Opens or ICs or CCs and I think that's about right. Bingham's ranking was wrong because the rankings are over 2 years (and because he should have never won the WC). I think there's enough tournaments now for a 1 year ranking.

PDC Darts has the same ranking system except with fewer big money ranking tournaments so the World Championship has even more weight. Yet twice this decade a player has won back to back world titles (Adrian Lewis 11-12 & Gary Anderson 15-16) without being World No.1. In a one year list both would have had brief runs at the top but Phil Taylor and Michael Van Gerwen were consistently winning big titles through the rest of the year, something that top Snooker players don't do.

kolompar wrote:It's around 2.5 World Opens or ICs or CCs and I think that's about right. Bingham's ranking was wrong because the rankings are over 2 years (and because he should have never won the WC). I think there's enough tournaments now for a 1 year ranking.

There's no should.

Bingham DID win the World Championship. Like it or not.

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:PDC Darts has the same ranking system except with fewer big money ranking tournaments so the World Championship has even more weight. Yet twice this decade a player has won back to back world titles (Adrian Lewis 11-12 & Gary Anderson 15-16) without being World No.1. In a one year list both would have had brief runs at the top but Phil Taylor and Michael Van Gerwen were consistently winning big titles through the rest of the year, something that top Snooker players don't do.

Interesting point.

SnookerFan wrote:There's no should.

Bingham DID win the World Championship. Like it or not.

I don't like it.

kolompar wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:There's no should.

Bingham DID win the World Championship. Like it or not.

I don't like it.

Tough.

SnookerFan wrote:

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:PDC Darts has the same ranking system except with fewer big money ranking tournaments so the World Championship has even more weight. Yet twice this decade a player has won back to back world titles (Adrian Lewis 11-12 & Gary Anderson 15-16) without being World No.1. In a one year list both would have had brief runs at the top but Phil Taylor and Michael Van Gerwen were consistently winning big titles through the rest of the year, something that top Snooker players don't do.

Interesting point.

I think that's partly to do with the fact that the ranking money back then was obviously lower than it is now. If someone on Nil ranking money went on to win the PDC World championship in 2018 a quick glance at the order of merit suggests that the winner would move to At lowest 6th.

It's an interesting concept because if we had a World Championship which carried the same format, same length of matches (only that it wasn't a ranking event) then I'm not sure that it would diminish the status, prestige or affection that people have for the World Championship.

Then again, it could be argued that it is a little odd that you'd have the event considered the sports pinnacle and potentially there being no movement in the rankings because of it.(Then again the offset of that is that the World Champion gets an automatic seeding for all the events anyways)

For a comparison. The World Championship winners cheque represents 21% of the all money available to a single player in a single season.

Back in the 1980s the World Championship represented 25% of the total ranking points available to a player

SnookerFan wrote:

kolompar wrote:It's around 2.5 World Opens or ICs or CCs and I think that's about right. Bingham's ranking was wrong because the rankings are over 2 years (and because he should have never won the WC). I think there's enough tournaments now for a 1 year ranking.

There's no should.

Bingham DID win the World Championship. Like it or not.

Played brilliantly, deserved to win.

Dan-cat wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

kolompar wrote:It's around 2.5 World Opens or ICs or CCs and I think that's about right. Bingham's ranking was wrong because the rankings are over 2 years (and because he should have never won the WC). I think there's enough tournaments now for a 1 year ranking.

There's no should.

Bingham DID win the World Championship. Like it or not.

Played brilliantly, deserved to win.

Absolutely right - Bingham captured the essence of 'the moment'. His ability to handle the pressure was remarkable and he fully deserved his title. Interesting psychology study since then though!

Pink Ball wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:So who should be world no.1 on current form then? Presumably you would have had Mark King as World No.1 in November last year and Hamilton after the German.

The WC is the truest test of the players and it should be more heavily weighted.

I agree with Wild. Of course the WC should carry the most points, by a distance, but the amount it does carry overshoots the runway. It's the major fault I have with money rankings.

it makes a rolling ranking pointless at the top end of the list.

There is no way anyone can even come close to Selby until end of 2018 WC when his 2016 WC Points will be removed.

by that time he would have been World no 1 More weeks than Ronnie, Higgins and Williams.


yes of course he deserves that hes top dog he has won 6 ranking titles that includes 2 WC during a 2 year cycle.

but its not the best and most exciting way of having a rolling ranking list.

What I think it does well is give a true picture of the best players. Hard to say that this list is far off the mark at the moment I would say

1 Mark Selby
2 John Higgins
3 Judd Trump
4 Ding Junhui
5 Shaun Murphy
6 Marco Fu
7 Barry Hawkins
8 Neil Robertson
9 Stuart Bingham
10 Ronnie O'Sullivan
11 Mark Allen
12 Ali Carter
13 Kyren Wilson
14 Liang Wenbo
15 Luca Brecel
16 Ryan Day

That list does look about right. And Selby does deserve to be that far out in front. I know some people on here say that the money ranking list is nonsense, and yet... it looks like it's working? <runs off to hide>

Badsnookerplayer wrote:What I think it does well is give a true picture of the best players...

Surely this is its only function? Mr Ranking list, you have one job...

A lot of the time you have nearly a different winner of every ranking event in a season which will inevitably lead to the winner of the biggest one having the most points. It doesn't help that an event as big as the Masters doesn't count as it often leaves certain players much lower than they should be. There could easily be a way to include it without giving the Top 16 an unfair advantage in a points based. Not so much in a money list.

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:A lot of the time you have nearly a different winner of every ranking event in a season which will inevitably lead to the winner of the biggest one having the most points. It doesn't help that an event as big as the Masters doesn't count as it often leaves certain players much lower than they should be. There could easily be a way to include it without giving the Top 16 an unfair advantage in a points based. Not so much in a money list.

The fact that The Masters isn't ranking is one of its best qualities in my opinion.