Post a reply

Re: Rankings

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

Truth wrote:I see, good point. May I ask what resources you used to check these results? I've not been able to locate any concise sources online that show the ranking points available for each round in historic tournaments. Or did you use the modern system of applying prize money for each round as ranking points? Also, how did you calculate rolling rankings in the 80s? Many open tournaments weren't rankers in the 80s, especially in the earlier part of the decade.

Thanks


I was just guessing based on the results each player had on cuetracker. I don't know what points they used in the 80's and 90's but Davis was well ahead of everyone else from 83-90 so he would have been safe. The early 90's is harder to tell.

Re: Rankings

Postby Ash147

Marco Fu is provisionally ranked at 45. :shock:

Re: Rankings

Postby Wildey

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:
Truth wrote:I see, good point. May I ask what resources you used to check these results? I've not been able to locate any concise sources online that show the ranking points available for each round in historic tournaments. Or did you use the modern system of applying prize money for each round as ranking points? Also, how did you calculate rolling rankings in the 80s? Many open tournaments weren't rankers in the 80s, especially in the earlier part of the decade.

Thanks


I was just guessing based on the results each player had on cuetracker. I don't know what points they used in the 80's and 90's but Davis was well ahead of everyone else from 83-90 so he would have been safe. The early 90's is harder to tell.

Winner=6

Runner up=5
Semi finalist=4
quarter finalist=3
last 16=2
last 32=1
last 64-= merit points then frame won etc etc

World Championship
Winner=10
Runner up=8
Semi finalist=6
quarter finalist=4
last 16=2
last 32=1
last 48-=merit points then frame won etc etc

Re: Rankings

Postby The_Abbott

Fergal could be gone at the end of the season. In fact a few old timers might slip off the tour this year.

Re: Rankings

Postby Alex0paul

The_Abbott wrote:Fergal could be gone at the end of the season. In fact a few old timers might slip off the tour this year.


Fergal will be fine as he will be top 8 on one year list if he drops out the 64

Re: Rankings

Postby Johnny Bravo

The_Abbott wrote:Fergal could be gone at the end of the season. In fact a few old timers might slip off the tour this year.


Good riddance :td:

Re: Rankings

Postby SnookerFan

The_Abbott wrote:Fergal could be gone at the end of the season. In fact a few old timers might slip off the tour this year.


Hearn Wildcard Attack.

Re: Rankings

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Perhap's Fergal could improve his form by working with Dr Steve Peters on his 'Gimp Management' techniques.

Re: Rankings

Postby Vallomas

I think that Hamilton is OK with his top 64 status after India's run. He would be safe through the 1-year list anyway, but it's good for him that he will keep the good ranking money/points he has earned this season.

Jamie Jones needs a miracle to save his place after his 1 year ban.

Re: Rankings

Postby The_Abbott

Vallomas wrote:I think that Hamilton is OK with his top 64 status after India's run. He would be safe through the 1-year list anyway, but it's good for him that he will keep the good ranking money/points he has earned this season.

Jamie Jones needs a miracle to save his place after his 1 year ban.


Yeah Jones is gone off the tour it seems. You get 10,000 or something for winning one round at the WC. Hamilton not secure yet either but in a better position. He only needs to beat an amateur to gain enough points at the Gibraltar Open to leap over Liam Highfield.

Re: Rankings

Postby Johnny Bravo

Now that Selbo has failed miserably in yet another event, does that mean he'll loose the no.1 spot at the end of this event ?

Re: Rankings

Postby Cloud Strife

Johnny Bravo wrote:Now that Selbo has failed miserably in yet another event, does that mean he'll loose the no.1 spot at the end of this event ?


Selbo is number 1 for life.

Re: Rankings

Postby Johnny Bravo

Cloud Strife wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:Now that Selbo has failed miserably in yet another event, does that mean he'll loose the no.1 spot at the end of this event ?


Selbo is number 1 for life.

Coland, is that u ? :chuckle:

Re: Rankings

Postby HappyCamper

Johnny Bravo wrote:Now that Selbo has failed miserably in yet another event, does that mean he'll loose the no.1 spot at the end of this event ?


No. There are not enough points available at the PC for Williams to catch him.

Re: Rankings

Postby Johnny Bravo

HappyCamper wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:Now that Selbo has failed miserably in yet another event, does that mean he'll loose the no.1 spot at the end of this event ?


No. There are not enough points available at the PC for Williams to catch him.

I was thinking more in terms of ROS surpassing him than Willo.
And aren't points suppose to be deducted from Selbo ?

Re: Rankings

Postby Iranu

Selby lost in the 2nd round in 2017 so not many points to come off.

Re: Rankings

Postby HappyCamper

Johnny Bravo wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:Now that Selbo has failed miserably in yet another event, does that mean he'll loose the no.1 spot at the end of this event ?


No. There are not enough points available at the PC for Williams to catch him.

I was thinking more in terms of ROS surpassing him than Willo.
And aren't points suppose to be deducted from Selbo ?


O'Sullivan is further behind than Williams.

Selby only got to the second round of the PC two years ago. So won't lose many points here

Looking at the dates though, the next seeding revision won't be until after the China Open. Which Selby won in 2017 so he'll lose a chunk of points for that. But Williams was runner up so is also defending a fair amount.

After that he loses the world championships from 17. So that's the most likely time for it to happen. Assuming he doesn't win the TV or CO of course.

Re: Rankings

Postby SnookerFan

It still seems odd to me that Mark Selby is WN1.

He's not done anything for what seems like forever.

Re: Rankings

Postby D4P

SnookerFan wrote:It still seems odd to me that Mark Selby is WN1.

He's not done anything for what seems like forever.


He had a huge lead in the rankings at one point, with roughly twice as many points as the person behind him. Plus, his wins in China are always worth lots of RANKING POINTS!...

Re: Rankings

Postby HappyCamper

D4P wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:It still seems odd to me that Mark Selby is WN1.

He's not done anything for what seems like forever.


He had a huge lead in the rankings at one point, with roughly twice as many points as the person behind him. Plus, his wins in China are always worth lots of RANKING POINTS!...


Also of his two chief rivals; one skips half the tournaments anyway, and the other has been on a massive piss-up for the last six months or so.

Re: Rankings

Postby Koninkaulus

SnookerFan wrote:It still seems odd to me that Mark Selby is WN1.

He's not done anything for what seems like forever.


I don't understand comments like this to be honest.

2017 China Open
2017 World Championship
2017 International Championship
2018 China Open
2018 China Championship

Why would it be odd that someone who's won five big-money ranking events in the last two years is WN1?

Re: Rankings

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Koninkaulus wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:It still seems odd to me that Mark Selby is WN1.

He's not done anything for what seems like forever.


I don't understand comments like this to be honest.

2017 China Open
2017 World Championship
2017 International Championship
2018 China Open
2018 China Championship

Why would it be odd that someone who's won five big-money ranking events in the last two years is WN1?

:goodpost:

Re: Rankings

Postby Iranu

Koninkaulus wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:It still seems odd to me that Mark Selby is WN1.

He's not done anything for what seems like forever.


I don't understand comments like this to be honest.

2017 China Open
2017 World Championship
2017 International Championship
2018 China Open
2018 China Championship

Why would it be odd that someone who's won five big-money ranking events in the last two years is WN1?

It's the fact that he's done so little apart from those wins.

Add to that the fact that 4 of those 5 are in China and easily missed because of timezones and it creates a perception that he's had a rough couple of years since winning his last WC (which he has in terms of consistency and some awful losses).

With Ronnie and MJw also winning 5+ rankers each over the last couple of years in tournaments with higher visbility for the UK majority on here, you can see why people might think it's odd that Selby's WN1.

But obviously he's there for a good reason.

Re: Rankings

Postby Koninkaulus

Iranu wrote:
Koninkaulus wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:It still seems odd to me that Mark Selby is WN1.

He's not done anything for what seems like forever.


I don't understand comments like this to be honest.

2017 China Open
2017 World Championship
2017 International Championship
2018 China Open
2018 China Championship

Why would it be odd that someone who's won five big-money ranking events in the last two years is WN1?

It's the fact that he's done so little apart from those wins.

Add to that the fact that 4 of those 5 are in China and easily missed because of timezones and it creates a perception that he's had a rough couple of years since winning his last WC (which he has in terms of consistency and some awful losses).

With Ronnie and MJw also winning 5+ rankers each over the last couple of years in tournaments with higher visbility for the UK majority on here, you can see why people might think it's odd that Selby's WN1.

But obviously he's there for a good reason.


I suppose one would just expect people on a snooker-related forum to follow all tournaments, not just UK ones. Everything on TV can be recorded, so the timezone thing is a non-issue for fans. Not watching tournaments because they're on at different times just seems really weird to me.

This kind of confusion over how the rankings work and who's won what etc. is something I'd expect to see on Twitter.

Re: Rankings

Postby Koninkaulus

Badsnookerplayer wrote:I agree Konni. Some very clueless posts on here from Iranu and Snookerfan.


Apart from the fact that Williams hasn't won 5+ rankers in the last few years and O'Sullivan's tally of titles isn't exactly comparable without the World title, I don't think Iranu's post was that clueless. He just explained the "confusion" from the point of view of the most casual fans.