Post a reply

ranking points

Postby csprince

Tuesday 14 Sep 2021 03:09PM
WST is pleased to confirm that, following consultation with both the WPBSA, and the WPBSA Players Board, this season players will receive both prize money and their ranking points where they lose in round one of any Cazoo Series event. This is a change from the previous position where players would only receive the prize money.

This is conditional on players both competing and completing their round one match. Players unable to complete their match for any reason will not receive the associated ranking points.

For the avoidance of doubt the Cazoo Series includes all of the following events: Cazoo World Grand Prix, Cazoo Players Championship and Cazoo Tour Championship.

Re: ranking points

Postby lhpirnie

Actually, this is a step backwards rather than a step forwards.

WST have no clue about how to make a fair ranking system. They are innumerate.

It's all just about trying to boast that snooker is a millionaire sport.

Re: ranking points

Postby Iranu

lhpirnie wrote:Actually, this is a step backwards rather than a step forwards.

WST have no clue about how to make a fair ranking system. They are innumerate.

It's all just about trying to boast that snooker is a millionaire sport.

I agree that it’s a step backwards - you shouldn’t get ranking points for not winning a match.

I don’t think it has anything to do with boasting that snooker’s a millionaire sport, though. Cazoo tournaments and their coverage already promote prize money lists ahead of actual rankings and the money earned hasn’t changed.

If there’s a problem it’s that it helps top players stay ahead of the rest. Although it does also mean that any player who has a good start to the season ahead of the WGP will get an additional boost just for getting into that. Not necessarily fair but at least potentially helpful for young players, of which there are usually several that make it to the WGP.

Re: ranking points

Postby GeF

If they do it for Coral Cazoo Series events, why not for the Worlds (qualification and main event)?

Re: ranking points

Postby lhpirnie

Iranu wrote:If there’s a problem it’s that it helps top players stay ahead of the rest. Although it does also mean that any player who has a good start to the season ahead of the WGP will get an additional boost just for getting into that. Not necessarily fair but at least potentially helpful for young players, of which there are usually several that make it to the WGP.

Yes, but mostly it just helps the established players stay there, perhaps shretching their lead for another couple of years. That's what WST seem to want - the well-known players to stay near the top. Recognition factor is more important than developing the game.


It's very disillusioning then WST comnentrate their brainpower on improving their ranking system... and come up with this. If they weren't intending to improve their ranking system then they should. Every organisation should aim for improvement.

Re: ranking points

Postby gninnur karona

There is a case for these three events not to award ranking points at all - as the entry is restricted.

On the other hand, all tour players begin the season with an 'equal' chance to gain the ranking points needed to qualify so there is also a case to award ranking points.

However, qualification acquired, the guarantee of further prize money should not be accompanied by guaranteed ranking points. In all other ranking events ranking points are awarded to players who have won at least one match in that particular tournament. It could be considered a question of consistency. Either all first round losers, all ranking events, should receive ranking points or none should receive ranking points. In fact, though, if there is to be any inconsistency it is these three particular tournaments with their limited entry which above all should not award ranking points to first round losers.

Last season Liang Wenbo, Robert Milkins and Michael Holt were among the Grand Prix qualifiers, Thepchaiya Un-Nooh and Graeme Dott among those that missed out. All five players sat on 26000 one season ranking points at the cut-off. Checkback how close the margin can sometimes be. There's no justification for a 5000 ranking point gap to be automatically generated purely because a player fell the right side of the qualifying line.

A bad decision by WST and WPBSA.

FTR If this measure had been in place last season it would have resulted in Shuan Murphy and Jamie Jones, thanks to first round Grand Prix defeats, qualifying for the Players instead of Mark Williams and Stuart Bingham.

Re: ranking points

Postby McManusFan

That's disapointing, has any explanation been given? Because I can't think why they'd do this.

Re: ranking points

Postby SnookerFan

The Coral/Cazoo series always felt like it was giving double rewards to me anyway. I know that it's a year-long money list, and that's how you qualify for it etc. So in that respect, it's just like a ranking event with a qualifying structure.

But I always thought it would be better to make it non-ranking. It does seem like an excuse to give the top players more ranking points.

Not as silly as the Shoot-Out being a ranking event though.

Re: ranking points

Postby HappyCamper

just have a sensible designed ranking system that is only based on strength of opponent, length of match , and margin of victory. then there is no need for pointless distinctions like ranking vs non ranking.

you can still use prize money for promotion without having it affecting the rankings.