Post a reply

Improving the Wuhan Open and International Championship

Postby gninnur karona

The draws for these two competitions which seed the top 64, made days apart, are based on the same ranking list.

The result as stands is that every player seeded from 5 to 60 will face the same opponent in round two of both competitions if both seeded players win their opening matches (the top four seeds only escape this scenario because they are not in the same seeded position in both draws).

One straightforward change would reduce the number of those potential clashes to zero.

Swap the matches in the second of these competitions involving seeds 7 & 8, 11 & 12, 15 & 16, and so on to 51 & 52, 55 & 56, and 59 & 60.

Effectively this would result in the odd-numbered seeds occupying the top half of the draw and the even-numbered seeds being placed in the bottom half. The second round would see 31 v 33 and 32 v 34 rather than 32 v 33 and 31 v 34. Furthermore this cascades into round 3 where 5 would meet 27 whilst 6 met 28 again preventing a double confrontation in the two competitions. And again for round 4 and onwards.

Simple to implement.

If only WST cared.

Re: Improving the Wuhan Open and International Championship

Postby lhpirnie

Yes I agree. The deep seeding is used by too many tournaments. There's no material difference between players ranked 31 and 32, say. There are a huge number of re-matches on the current schedule, and absolutely nobody wants that.

Given the unfair nature of WST's ranking system, particularly early in the season, it also leads to unfair draws for some players. Yesterday I saw Stuart Carrington play superbly - probably the best performance of anyone in these qualifiers. He's currently ranked 111.

Re: Improving the Wuhan Open and International Championship

Postby lhpirnie

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:
GeF wrote:Just stop scheduling qualifiers months before main event.

Saw an idea suggested last season that for Chinese events they should just invite the top 64 and have the rest of the tour play a "B" ranking event the same week.

Yes, if a tournament doesn't have the capacity for 128 players, smaller events should be possible. Unfortunately this completely breaks the rankings. It the ranking system which is to blame for all these problems. That's why I implemented an alternative one.