Ronnie threatening to miss the triple crown events

Deewee wrote:Ranking tournaments entered for the top 16 18/19:
Ronnie O'Sullivan 8
Judd Trump 15
Mark Williams 14
Neil Robertson 16
John Higgins 14
Mark Selby 14
Mark Allen 14
Kyren Wilson 19 (Indian Open)
Barry Hawkins 17 (Paul Hunter, Indian)
Ding Junhui 10
Jack Lisowski 18 (Shootout)
David Gilbert 18 (Paul Hunter)
Stuart Bingham 19 (Paul Hunter)
Shaun Murphy 18 (all tournaments eligible)
Luca Brecel 17 (all eligible)
Stephen Maguire 15

That confirms my suspicions. Most of those include at least two of the ITV ranking events, and the ones over 15 are from those chasing ranking titles, trying to find form, or are well known for playing in as much as possible.

Deewee wrote:Ranking tournaments entered for the top 16 18/19:
Ronnie O'Sullivan 8
Judd Trump 15
Mark Williams 14
Neil Robertson 16
John Higgins 14
Mark Selby 14
Mark Allen 14
Kyren Wilson 19 (Indian Open)
Barry Hawkins 17 (Paul Hunter, Indian)
Ding Junhui 10
Jack Lisowski 18 (Shootout)
David Gilbert 18 (Paul Hunter)
Stuart Bingham 19 (Paul Hunter)
Shaun Murphy 18 (all tournaments eligible)
Luca Brecel 17 (all eligible)
Stephen Maguire 15

Rest of the top 32:

Ali Carter 16
Ryan Day 15
Joe Perry 18
Gary Wilson 18
Yan Bingtao 17
Graeme Dott 16
Anthony McGill 16
Jimmy Robertson 19
Xioa Guodong 17
Lyu Haotian 15
Tom Ford 18
Mark King 18
Li Hang 15
Ricky Walden 16
Zhou Yuelong 17
Martin Gould 11
Only one qualified for the Tour Championship and only three for the Players Championship. Effectively 18 ranking tournaments.

It still amazes me how Hawkins, who has only ever won 3 ranking events, has been ranked in the top 16 since 2012. He enters almost everything, but hasn’t won a ranking title in over two years. He’s basically the polar opposite of someone like Ronnie, who enters a handful of events, but wins most of them.

The tour certainly favours quantity over quality these days.

Ash147 wrote:It still amazes me how Hawkins, who has only ever won 3 ranking events, has been ranked in the top 16 since 2012. He enters almost everything, but hasn’t won a ranking title in over two years. He’s basically the polar opposite of someone like Ronnie, who enters a handful of events, but wins most of them.

The tour certainly favours quantity over quality these days.

That is bullocks.

Ronnie is number one but played less tournaments

To get into the spring ITV4 events last season you needed at least

WGP - £48,600
PC - £105,500
TC - £190,500

Last season Ronnie only played three counting tournaments before the WGP but his results from the first two (SF & RU) were enough to guarantee a WGP spot. Winning the UK Championship secured a spot in both the Players & Tour Championships and that tournament alone would have left him only 20,000 off the Tour Championship.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Ash147 wrote:It still amazes me how Hawkins, who has only ever won 3 ranking events, has been ranked in the top 16 since 2012. He enters almost everything, but hasn’t won a ranking title in over two years. He’s basically the polar opposite of someone like Ronnie, who enters a handful of events, but wins most of them.

The tour certainly favours quantity over quality these days.

That is bullocks.

Ronnie is number one but played less tournaments

That’s because Ronnie happened to win most of the tournaments he played in. The point I’m making is that you can enter everything, not win a single event for 3 seasons, and still comfortably be in the top 16.

Well you should be able to be top 16 if you are consistently reaching the latter stages.

The top 16 fairly reflects the best players IMO

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Well you should be able to be top 16 if you are consistently reaching the latter stages.

The top 16 fairly reflects the best players IMO

Hawkins doesn’t consistently finish in the latter stages though. This season he’s made the final once, and semi-final twice. He’s exited before the quarter-finals 15 times. That’s consistently poor.

Ash147 wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Ash147 wrote:It still amazes me how Hawkins, who has only ever won 3 ranking events, has been ranked in the top 16 since 2012. He enters almost everything, but hasn’t won a ranking title in over two years. He’s basically the polar opposite of someone like Ronnie, who enters a handful of events, but wins most of them.

The tour certainly favours quantity over quality these days.

That is bullocks.

Ronnie is number one but played less tournaments

That’s because Ronnie happened to win most of the tournaments he played in. The point I’m making is that you can enter everything, not win a single event for 3 seasons, and still comfortably be in the top 16.

Rankings has always been based on consistancy its never favoured winners more than it does today.


What your saying is Jimmy Robertson and Matt Selt should be ranked higher than Hawkins.

Wildey wrote:

Ash147 wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Ash147 wrote:It still amazes me how Hawkins, who has only ever won 3 ranking events, has been ranked in the top 16 since 2012. He enters almost everything, but hasn’t won a ranking title in over two years. He’s basically the polar opposite of someone like Ronnie, who enters a handful of events, but wins most of them.

The tour certainly favours quantity over quality these days.

That is bullocks.

Ronnie is number one but played less tournaments

That’s because Ronnie happened to win most of the tournaments he played in. The point I’m making is that you can enter everything, not win a single event for 3 seasons, and still comfortably be in the top 16.

Rankings has always been based on consistancy its never favoured winners more than it does today.


What your saying is Jimmy Robertson and Matt Selt should be ranked higher than Hawkins.

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. Jimmy Robertson and Matthew Selt have been awful, outside of their respective ranking event wins. The rankings clearly do not favour consistency, they favour players just turning up to every event. Someone going out before the quarter-finals in 15 of the 20 events is not a consistently good player.

There are more tournaments these days. If a player enters them all, and wins a few matches here and there, that’s enough to get you into the top 16. I don’t think that’s good enough.

Ash147 wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Well you should be able to be top 16 if you are consistently reaching the latter stages.

The top 16 fairly reflects the best players IMO

Hawkins doesn’t consistently finish in the latter stages though. This season he’s made the final once, and semi-final twice. He’s exited before the quarter-finals 15 times. That’s consistently poor.

He also got to two semis and a final last season. One of those semis was the Worlds which given its weighting is bound to prop him up a bit, rightly or wrongly.

Hes won more than a few matches here and there hes won about 100 in 2 seasons. im al for rewarding players that gets off theiree baboons shiny behinds and show comitment as a pro and Barry Hawkins done that.



on the 1 year list hes 15th every other tour players had the same chances as him if they cant be fussed why should Barry give a buck.

Iranu wrote:

Ash147 wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Well you should be able to be top 16 if you are consistently reaching the latter stages.

The top 16 fairly reflects the best players IMO

Hawkins doesn’t consistently finish in the latter stages though. This season he’s made the final once, and semi-final twice. He’s exited before the quarter-finals 15 times. That’s consistently poor.

He also got to two semis and a final last season. One of those semis was the Worlds which given its weighting is bound to prop him up a bit, rightly or wrongly.

I think his World Championship form has certainly helped keep him in the top of 16. Outside of that he might have a good run in one or two tournaments. For the remaining ranking events he disappears. He’s basically the same as Bingham in that regard. Hawkins could just have easily have won the World Championship too. Neither played well when there were fewer tournaments and better opposition. Like I said earlier, these are the kind of players who rely on entering everything to keep their top 16 spots. The best in the world don’t need to do that.

Hawkins and Bingham are in the top 16 by right.

Fantastic players IMO

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Hawkins and Bingham are in the top 16 by right.

Fantastic players IMO

They are in the top 16 because the current system rewards mediocrity.

Ash147 wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Hawkins and Bingham are in the top 16 by right.

Fantastic players IMO

They are in the top 16 because the current system rewards mediocrity.

So which players in your opinion should be in their place?

Ash147 wrote:

Iranu wrote:

Ash147 wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Well you should be able to be top 16 if you are consistently reaching the latter stages.

The top 16 fairly reflects the best players IMO

Hawkins doesn’t consistently finish in the latter stages though. This season he’s made the final once, and semi-final twice. He’s exited before the quarter-finals 15 times. That’s consistently poor.

He also got to two semis and a final last season. One of those semis was the Worlds which given its weighting is bound to prop him up a bit, rightly or wrongly.

I think his World Championship form has certainly helped keep him in the top of 16. Outside of that he might have a good run in one or two tournaments. For the remaining ranking events he disappears. He’s basically the same as Bingham in that regard. Hawkins could just have easily have won the World Championship too. Neither played well when there were fewer tournaments and better opposition. Like I said earlier, these are the kind of players who rely on entering everything to keep their top 16 spots. The best in the world don’t need to do that.

I know what you mean but I still think you underestimate the impact of getting comfortable playing on TV.

Iranu makes a good point. Jimmy R has had a terrible time in TV tournaments often as it ramps up the pressure for him.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Ash147 wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Hawkins and Bingham are in the top 16 by right.

Fantastic players IMO

They are in the top 16 because the current system rewards mediocrity.

So which players in your opinion should be in their place?

I don’t have a clue.

Ash147 wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Ash147 wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Hawkins and Bingham are in the top 16 by right.

Fantastic players IMO

They are in the top 16 because the current system rewards mediocrity.

So which players in your opinion should be in their place?

I don’t have a clue.

That is because the rankings work IMO

Saw this on reddit. Ronnie's ranking jumping up and down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmeDzg_0t2Q

Absolutely superb that KK

Ash147 wrote:
I don’t have a clue.

This is accurate.

Iranu wrote:

Ash147 wrote:
I don’t have a clue.

This is accurate.

When all is said and done, no one cares about Masters or UK titles. It is the World Championship haul where a player is ultimately judged and O'Sullivan has failed to make the grade. He hasn't been good enough. He is snooker's Nick Kyrgios.

vodkadiet1 wrote:When all is said and done, no one cares about Masters or UK titles.

This should go without saying, but the fact that you don't care about them doesn't mean that no one else does.

The sport of snooker has declared that 3 tournaments each year make up the Triple Crown, and the players want to win those 3 events more than they want to win the others. Your perspective doesn't match up with that of the sport or the players who play it...

I like the Masters and - to a lesser extent - the UK.

However, Vodka is correct in that the WC stands out.

Just 15 days until the start of the new season.

The Brexit party going to do a Ronnie tonight in the Euro’s: Not around for most of the time and yet still managing to beat everyone!

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Ash147 wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Ash147 wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:Hawkins and Bingham are in the top 16 by right.

Fantastic players IMO

They are in the top 16 because the current system rewards mediocrity.

So which players in your opinion should be in their place?

I don’t have a clue.

That is because the rankings work IMO

When Barry was at his best he was top 4 the jump from Hawkins at 9 and Kyren Wilson in 8th is 151,725 thats how Hawkins and Bingham has managed to stay in the top 16 because if you win tournaments you get in to the top 8.