Post a reply

Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professionals?

Postby gninnur karona

Under the current regime it is difficult to break into the top 64, especially for players embarking upon their very first professional steps. 16 players have achieved it for the first time at the end of the last five seasons. Only two, Yan Bingtao (in his debut season) and Joe O'Connor, have integrated the top 64 from their initial two-year tour card.

I guess that WST have no wish to change either the current ranking system or the supposed 128 tour cards.

So an idea to discuss:
Retain the two-year accumulation of ranking points;
Scrap two-year tour cards;
At end season award one-year tour cards to 96 current tour players: the top 80 on the two-year list, and from those placed 81-128 the top 16 on one-year points;
All those 96 players carry forward their acquired points in the way that the top 64 do today;
To make up to 128 add 32 new players from all the usual sources who start off with zero as they do today.

A player joining the WST for the first time would be guaranteed to retain their place by finishing in the top 96 year one, top 80 subsequent seasons.

Does this idea have some merit?

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby McManusFan

When I read the title I thought, "that's a terrible idea", but moving the goalpost from 64 to 96 is pretty intriguing.

My only worry is that it's a lot easier to get into the 96 than the 64, so it'll cement in lower ranked players into the tour. This might stifle new talent, as they'll be less 'churn' in the lower rankings.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby mick745

Not everything needs to be a straight knock out type competition. There is no reason why there couldnt be some sort of league system run throughout the season between players of similar ranking or between all the new professionals, on top of the existing tournaments, giving those who finish below say 64 or 96 to have an opportunity to stay on tour.

These matches could easily be arranged at quslifying venues when the tables are set up anyway.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby Minimum Break

mick745 wrote:Not everything needs to be a straight knock out type competition. There is no reason why there couldnt be some sort of league system run throughout the season between players of similar ranking or between all the new professionals, on top of the existing tournaments, giving those who finish below say 64 or 96 to have an opportunity to stay on tour.

These matches could easily be arranged at quslifying venues when the tables are set up anyway.


I agree with that. I think the current system is really unfair on new Tour Card holders. Just look at the matches Reanne Evans has played this season. It's not at all surprising that most new professionals fail to get into the Top 64 in 2 years with flat 128 draws. The old Tiered system would be much better to allow new players to play matches against players of similar ability and build up some confidence before having to play the higher ranked players.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby cupotee

there would have been a similar discussion ten years ago which is why they started going with flat 128's around 2013 , without a strong amateur system its almost irrelevant what system they use as the experienced players will always have an advantage in an exclusive game anyway.
the goal should be to make a really strong amateur system in the uk and plenty of other places too so that players like these chinese teenagers can literally and realistically beat anyone , its not impossible at all it just needs investment and or possible cooperation with world snooker to make it happen.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby lhpirnie

Minimum Break wrote:I agree with that. I think the current system is really unfair on new Tour Card holders. Just look at the matches Reanne Evans has played this season. It's not at all surprising that most new professionals fail to get into the Top 64 in 2 years with flat 128 draws. The old Tiered system would be much better to allow new players to play matches against players of similar ability and build up some confidence before having to play the higher ranked players.

Well, she did lose 4-1 to Soheil Vahedi, who is not even on the tour. It's true her draws have been difficult, but she's had several players who she might have done better against. In the old days, there were many fewer tournaments and 'winnable' matches. But frankly, the women players are there for development purposes. Unfortunately they aren't anywhere near competitive enough. If they win a match, it will be because their opponent had a stinker.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby lhpirnie

cupotee wrote:there would have been a similar discussion ten years ago which is why they started going with flat 128's around 2013 , without a strong amateur system its almost irrelevant what system they use as the experienced players will always have an advantage in an exclusive game anyway.
the goal should be to make a really strong amateur system in the uk and plenty of other places too so that players like these chinese teenagers can literally and realistically beat anyone , its not impossible at all it just needs investment and or possible cooperation with world snooker to make it happen.

Yes they need to increase participation rates to boost the amateur game. I've explained many times how WST could do that, without any investment at all. But they won't. They are only interested in keeping Ronnie O'Sullivan, Judd Trump, John Higgins, Mark Selby, Mark Williams, Kyren Wilson and a few other 'big names' at the top for as long as possible. They are the guys who bring in the revenue, right?

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby cupotee

lhpirnie wrote:
cupotee wrote:there would have been a similar discussion ten years ago which is why they started going with flat 128's around 2013 , without a strong amateur system its almost irrelevant what system they use as the experienced players will always have an advantage in an exclusive game anyway.
the goal should be to make a really strong amateur system in the uk and plenty of other places too so that players like these chinese teenagers can literally and realistically beat anyone , its not impossible at all it just needs investment and or possible cooperation with world snooker to make it happen.

Yes they need to increase participation rates to boost the amateur game. I've explained many times how WST could do that, without any investment at all. But they won't. They are only interested in keeping Ronnie O'Sullivan, Judd Trump, John Higgins, Mark Selby, Mark Williams, Kyren Wilson and a few other 'big names' at the top for as long as possible. They are the guys who bring in the revenue, right?


I asked paul collier a few years ago why dont they introduce more pro ams like the ptc’s to give youngsters that bit of experience to get the fires burning so to speak , he said there was a sponsorship problem , i dont gladly say that i didnt really believe him , as you’ve said on here yourself before they seem to be more interested in letting generations waste away , like if they cant become world champions and top players themselves then no one else will either , i dont know.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby Iranu

lhpirnie wrote:
Minimum Break wrote:I agree with that. I think the current system is really unfair on new Tour Card holders. Just look at the matches Reanne Evans has played this season. It's not at all surprising that most new professionals fail to get into the Top 64 in 2 years with flat 128 draws. The old Tiered system would be much better to allow new players to play matches against players of similar ability and build up some confidence before having to play the higher ranked players.

Well, she did lose 4-1 to Soheil Vahedi, who is not even on the tour. It's true her draws have been difficult, but she's had several players who she might have done better against. In the old days, there were many fewer tournaments and 'winnable' matches. But frankly, the women players are there for development purposes. Unfortunately they aren't anywhere near competitive enough. If they win a match, it will be because their opponent had a stinker.

They could also win because they play well - Reanne was one bad cannon from beating Mark Allen at the British Open. I also think that Reanne and On Yee have to deal with a pressure in each match that 99%+ of the tour can scarcely appreciate.

But I agree the tour cards are more to benefit the future than the present. And honestly I think that’s absolutely fine.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby lhpirnie

Iranu wrote:...
They could also win because they play well - Reanne was one bad cannon from beating Mark Allen at the British Open. I also think that Reanne and On Yee have to deal with a pressure in each match that 99%+ of the tour can scarcely appreciate.

But I agree the tour cards are more to benefit the future than the present. And honestly I think that’s absolutely fine.

Yes, there is pressure on them, but also on their opponents, who are terrified of being tomorrow's headline news.


I'm not against these tour cards in principle, but if they don't win a match for the whole 2 years it might backfire. I remember watching the African Champion Basem Eltahhan play really well against Selby in the UK Championship - only experience prevented him from winning that match. But at the end of his 2 years he'd lost all of his matches, was utterly dejected, and could hardly win a frame. His last match was a 10-0 loss in the first round of the World Championship.

If we get 4 women on tour next season, and they can't beat anyone (except each other), is that really good for snooker? It just discredits the whole venture, and introduces weak points in the draws. Ultimately snooker has to be an elite competitive sport, and handing out tour places too easily makes a mockery of the system. There should be some 'open' tournaments with women, junior, senior (e.g. over 50), regional champions, etc. participating. But not every event. The full tour is punishing.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby Iranu

lhpirnie wrote:Yes, there is pressure on them, but also on their opponents, who are terrified of being tomorrow's headline news.


I'm not against these tour cards in principle, but if they don't win a match for the whole 2 years it might backfire. I remember watching the African Champion Basem Eltahhan play really well against Selby in the UK Championship - only experience prevented him from winning that match. But at the end of his 2 years he'd lost all of his matches, was utterly dejected, and could hardly win a frame. His last match was a 10-0 loss in the first round of the World Championship.

If we get 4 women on tour next season, and they can't beat anyone (except each other), is that really good for snooker? It just discredits the whole venture, and introduces weak points in the draws. Ultimately snooker has to be an elite competitive sport, and handing out tour places too easily makes a mockery of the system. There should be some 'open' tournaments with women, junior, senior (e.g. over 50), regional champions, etc. participating. But not every event. The full tour is punishing.

Oh, agreed. Although I’m not sure being a headline compares to the pressure of ~50% of the planet in your mind, particularly as the headline will to some extent apply to the women regardless of win or lose.

With your Elltahhan example, how many of his matches were televised to the extent that WST seemed to be planning for the future? At least Reanne and On Yee appear to get semi-regular airtime, i.e. any girls watching this, you can mix it and improve on what these women are doing.

Handing out tour cards too easily may be an issue. But I personally would forgo ‘legacy’ cards in an instant before refusing women or Africans or any other potential market.

I think the tour card system needs some overhaul. I’d focus on the likes of Steve Mifsud who take up a place ever year without even entering a tournament before kicking out women who make an effort and suffer admirable losses.

(Just to be clear, I’m not aiming the above at you specifically or suggesting you disagree.)

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby Minimum Break

lhpirnie wrote:
Minimum Break wrote:I agree with that. I think the current system is really unfair on new Tour Card holders. Just look at the matches Reanne Evans has played this season. It's not at all surprising that most new professionals fail to get into the Top 64 in 2 years with flat 128 draws. The old Tiered system would be much better to allow new players to play matches against players of similar ability and build up some confidence before having to play the higher ranked players.

Well, she did lose 4-1 to Soheil Vahedi, who is not even on the tour. It's true her draws have been difficult, but she's had several players who she might have done better against. In the old days, there were many fewer tournaments and 'winnable' matches. But frankly, the women players are there for development purposes. Unfortunately they aren't anywhere near competitive enough. If they win a match, it will be because their opponent had a stinker.


I wasn't bringing up Reanne to talk about her specifically, just as a general example of the type of run a new Tour Card holders gets at the moment. You would have to be exceptionally good to get into the Top 64 in that situation. Your Basem Eltahhan example also highlights the knock to your confidence that losing every match provides.

My basic point is the 128 Tour Card system with only the top 64 retaining their cards, which is exactly the same in PDC darts only without any extra cards from the 1 year list, is always going to result in a lot of good players dropping off the Tour every year, and paying lots of money to attend Q School. Which is probably exactly what was intended when the system was brought in.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby lhpirnie

Iranu wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:Yes, there is pressure on them, but also on their opponents, who are terrified of being tomorrow's headline news.


I'm not against these tour cards in principle, but if they don't win a match for the whole 2 years it might backfire. I remember watching the African Champion Basem Eltahhan play really well against Selby in the UK Championship - only experience prevented him from winning that match. But at the end of his 2 years he'd lost all of his matches, was utterly dejected, and could hardly win a frame. His last match was a 10-0 loss in the first round of the World Championship.

If we get 4 women on tour next season, and they can't beat anyone (except each other), is that really good for snooker? It just discredits the whole venture, and introduces weak points in the draws. Ultimately snooker has to be an elite competitive sport, and handing out tour places too easily makes a mockery of the system. There should be some 'open' tournaments with women, junior, senior (e.g. over 50), regional champions, etc. participating. But not every event. The full tour is punishing.

Oh, agreed. Although I’m not sure being a headline compares to the pressure of ~50% of the planet in your mind, particularly as the headline will to some extent apply to the women regardless of win or lose.

With your Elltahhan example, how many of his matches were televised to the extent that WST seemed to be planning for the future? At least Reanne and On Yee appear to get semi-regular airtime, i.e. any girls watching this, you can mix it and improve on what these women are doing.

Handing out tour cards too easily may be an issue. But I personally would forgo ‘legacy’ cards in an instant before refusing women or Africans or any other potential market.

I think the tour card system needs some overhaul. I’d focus on the likes of Steve Mifsud who take up a place ever year without even entering a tournament before kicking out women who make an effort and suffer admirable losses.

(Just to be clear, I’m not aiming the above at you specifically or suggesting you disagree.)

You are absolutely right. The Steve Mifsud example was a particularly cynical episode: his prizemoney for winning the Oceania trophy was conditional on him taking up his professional tour card, so he came here and played one match. Even now, he's still top of the Australian rankings. So much for 'development'.

But I really do think 4 women is far too many. In my view a more appropriate development strategy would be to allow the Women's World Champion a 1-year tour card each year. This breaks the '2-year system', but it's better to do that than have several players (not just the women) who are just cannon fodder.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby lhpirnie

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:Tour Cards don't make sense in Snooker. It comes from Golf but it isn't a one on one sport and it has regional tours rather than one World tour.

Yes I agree it's bad to just lift things from golf, or darts. I really wish WST would do some proper research and actually calculate the implications of what they do in the snooker world, with the range of players we have.

The idea of 'tour cards' is important in that it gives players security, that they will gain entry to a certain number of tournaments. Players lower down the rankings need to obtain bank loans, get mortgages, visas, etc. and so they need to have some kind of guarantees. The problem is the rigidity: 128 players, all 'ranking' tournaments. We need more flexibility, and also to spread tournaments around the world. Globalisation is vital for snooker to be successful, but rigid structures mean everyone has to live full-time in the UK, which is absurd.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby lhpirnie

Minimum Break wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:...


I wasn't bringing up Reanne to talk about her specifically, just as a general example of the type of run a new Tour Card holders gets at the moment. You would have to be exceptionally good to get into the Top 64 in that situation. Your Basem Eltahhan example also highlights the knock to your confidence that losing every match provides.

My basic point is the 128 Tour Card system with only the top 64 retaining their cards, which is exactly the same in PDC darts only without any extra cards from the 1 year list, is always going to result in a lot of good players dropping off the Tour every year, and paying lots of money to attend Q School. Which is probably exactly what was intended when the system was brought in.

It would help if Q School had a better format, so that it really did find the best players. The knockout structure is too random, and the 'Order of Merit' is particularly unfair. On average each year two players will qualify who aren't even in the top 20 best performances, simply because they get an easy section in the draw. Conversely, some of the best players will knock each other out and so someone who deserves a tour place will not get in.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby primitivesludge

It would be hard to facilitate but the Q School should pack tournaments in - which are of limited commercial appeal anyway to all but us diehards, but more importantly rarely act as any indicator given that patches of form are easier come by than real consistency - and be something akin to a 64 or even 128 person round robin that is played in a number of stages in parallel to the main tour.

In knockout tournaments that are best of 5 with varying levels of travel, rest, financial hardship, etc, you're going to get good prospects rolling over early to a well-rested local or an ex-pro who has too much experience to be beaten easily. And then they lose, go home to a practice table, while players who don't need tournament time get more of it.

If everyone plays everyone then the good will out over time, even in best of fives. Everyone gets the same table time and you could give someone/some people a 2 year card knowing that they have won a lot of snooker matches and can't possibly learn much more at a lower level.

This way you could still have players who get called up to the main tour to fill in gaps and have them play whatever matches they need to down the line. Parity of experience, I think, should be paramount. Lots of snooker developing lots of players and lots of referees too.

Just a thought. I know people do like the classic tournament but I have to query their use as a tool of development, if that is what life outside the top 128 is meant to be.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby lhpirnie

primitivesludge wrote:It would be hard to facilitate but the Q School should pack tournaments in - which are of limited commercial appeal anyway to all but us diehards, but more importantly rarely act as any indicator given that patches of form are easier come by than real consistency - and be something akin to a 64 or even 128 person round robin that is played in a number of stages in parallel to the main tour.

In knockout tournaments that are best of 5 with varying levels of travel, rest, financial hardship, etc, you're going to get good prospects rolling over early to a well-rested local or an ex-pro who has too much experience to be beaten easily. And then they lose, go home to a practice table, while players who don't need tournament time get more of it.

If everyone plays everyone then the good will out over time, even in best of fives. Everyone gets the same table time and you could give someone/some people a 2 year card knowing that they have won a lot of snooker matches and can't possibly learn much more at a lower level.

This way you could still have players who get called up to the main tour to fill in gaps and have them play whatever matches they need to down the line. Parity of experience, I think, should be paramount. Lots of snooker developing lots of players and lots of referees too.

Just a thought. I know people do like the classic tournament but I have to query their use as a tool of development, if that is what life outside the top 128 is meant to be.

Q School has to be run as a single event. Not all players are British, and overseas players can't keep coming for shorter events, like the Q Tour.


The correct format for Q School would be a 'Swiss Elimination'. Unfortunately, nobody in snooker seems to have heard of such a format, so we're stuck with these inadequate and unfair knockouts, because of ignorance.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby primitivesludge

A Swiss style would be good in terms of giving everyone adequate table time, so I can accept that to a certain extent. My small issue with it would be that after 3/4 defeats you might see players rolling over a bit easier, having little to gain. That said with my idea you might get 60 games into a 127 game RR and only have 10/15 wins and just quit altogether.

As I say, and as you point out, the practicalities of it are hard, but I also think WST should be contributing something to the development of its second string system.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby lhpirnie

primitivesludge wrote:A Swiss style would be good in terms of giving everyone adequate table time, so I can accept that to a certain extent. My small issue with it would be that after 3/4 defeats you might see players rolling over a bit easier, having little to gain. That said with my idea you might get 60 games into a 127 game RR and only have 10/15 wins and just quit altogether.

As I say, and as you point out, the practicalities of it are hard, but I also think WST should be contributing something to the development of its second string system.

In a Swiss Elimination, anyone who can no longer qualify is eliminated: they go home.


My scheme would be a 12-round Swiss, with 9 wins needed to qualify. Matches best-of-7. Anyone who gets through that will be really match-sharp, and as well-prepared as they are ever likely to be. With 10 tables it would take 15 days, although I would split the first 5 rounds into two halves. That way players turn up for 5 days and play a one match each day. If they get through that stage (3 wins or more), they come back for a maximum of 5 days to play rounds 6-12, being eliminated after their 4th loss. This will save a huge amount of money for players travelling and staying in hotels. You end up with a complete ranking 1-200, so qualifiers and top-up list, and everyone knows where they stand.

If you want a computer simulation of this, see:
https://bitbucket.org/lhp_docker/swissq ... swiss.html

It's a single HTML page - just save the code and open it in a browser.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby primitivesludge

very impressive work Lewis. my simulation of it fancied Billy Joe Castle to sweep the board in 2 out of 5 runs through. i prefer this infinitely to the current method, and though I prefer mine for sheer parity, I recognise its unworkability.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby lhpirnie

primitivesludge wrote:very impressive work Lewis. my simulation of it fancied Billy Joe Castle to sweep the board in 2 out of 5 runs through. i prefer this infinitely to the current method, and though I prefer mine for sheer parity, I recognise its unworkability.

Yeah, I mean anyone who gets 9 wins has fulfilled their objective to qualify. But it's nice to have a No.1 champion, make the event even more presigious. The main thing is it's massively fairer than the current Q School, in that the best players are much more likely to get through. There will on average be 2 players each season who get an easy ride with the knockout draws.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby SnookerFan

Iranu wrote:They could also win because they play well - Reanne was one bad cannon from beating Mark Allen at the British Open. I also think that Reanne and On Yee have to deal with a pressure in each match that 99%+ of the tour can scarcely appreciate.

But I agree the tour cards are more to benefit the future than the present. And honestly I think that’s absolutely fine.


Yeah, I don't really agree with keep giving wildcards to people like Jimmy White, who basically never win matches, drop off the tour and then get invited back on due to popularity.

I get that Jimmy White brings in the money and brings in fans, but how many televised matches does he have? Having his matches shown on Discovery+ don't really help anything, unless you're heavily hyping the match like they did with the Hendry one at The Crucible. People aren't going to rush out and buy the App to watch Jimmy if they don't know he's on playing on the App. And it's like he's even on Discovery+ very often, let alone getting to the main stages. What's the point him even being there? For the off-chance he'll make the venue one day, and get some high ratings for like one match? You see more of Jimmy on TV at The Seniors than on the tour.

The wildcard is supposed to help young players, give people from countries with no snooker heritage time to bed themselves onto the tour. That sort of thing.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby Juddernaut88

SnookerFan wrote:
Iranu wrote:They could also win because they play well - Reanne was one bad cannon from beating Mark Allen at the British Open. I also think that Reanne and On Yee have to deal with a pressure in each match that 99%+ of the tour can scarcely appreciate.

But I agree the tour cards are more to benefit the future than the present. And honestly I think that’s absolutely fine.


Yeah, I don't really agree with keep giving wildcards to people like Jimmy White, who basically never win matches, drop off the tour and then get invited back on due to popularity.

I get that Jimmy White brings in the money and brings in fans, but how many televised matches does he have? Having his matches shown on Discovery+ don't really help anything, unless you're heavily hyping the match like they did with the Hendry one at The Crucible. People aren't going to rush out and buy the App to watch Jimmy if they don't know he's on playing on the App. And it's like he's even on Discovery+ very often, let alone getting to the main stages. What's the point him even being there? For the off-chance he'll make the venue one day, and get some high ratings for like one match? You see more of Jimmy on TV at The Seniors than on the tour.

The wildcard is supposed to help young players, give people from countries with no snooker heritage time to bed themselves onto the tour. That sort of thing.


:goodpost:

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby lhpirnie

SnookerFan wrote:
Iranu wrote:They could also win because they play well - Reanne was one bad cannon from beating Mark Allen at the British Open. I also think that Reanne and On Yee have to deal with a pressure in each match that 99%+ of the tour can scarcely appreciate.

But I agree the tour cards are more to benefit the future than the present. And honestly I think that’s absolutely fine.


Yeah, I don't really agree with keep giving wildcards to people like Jimmy White, who basically never win matches, drop off the tour and then get invited back on due to popularity.

I get that Jimmy White brings in the money and brings in fans, but how many televised matches does he have? Having his matches shown on Discovery+ don't really help anything, unless you're heavily hyping the match like they did with the Hendry one at The Crucible. People aren't going to rush out and buy the App to watch Jimmy if they don't know he's on playing on the App. And it's like he's even on Discovery+ very often, let alone getting to the main stages. What's the point him even being there? For the off-chance he'll make the venue one day, and get some high ratings for like one match? You see more of Jimmy on TV at The Seniors than on the tour.

The wildcard is supposed to help young players, give people from countries with no snooker heritage time to bed themselves onto the tour. That sort of thing.

Yes, I agree. WST keep making these big statements about the Olympics and SPOTY. But if snooker really is a competitive sport, you can't give wildcards to former top players just for nostalgia. The senior tour is there for that. I'm not totally against wildcard entries for some tournaments, but a full tour card is way over the top.

Re: Would scrapping two-year tour cards help new professiona

Postby gninnur karona

lhpirnie wrote:
primitivesludge wrote:very impressive work Lewis. my simulation of it fancied Billy Joe Castle to sweep the board in 2 out of 5 runs through. i prefer this infinitely to the current method, and though I prefer mine for sheer parity, I recognise its unworkability.

Yeah, I mean anyone who gets 9 wins has fulfilled their objective to qualify. But it's nice to have a No.1 champion, make the event even more presigious. The main thing is it's massively fairer than the current Q School, in that the best players are much more likely to get through. There will on average be 2 players each season who get an easy ride with the knockout draws.


I agree that Swiss elimination would be a great improvement on the current system.

Among the various options there are in setting this up I particularly like having two pre-determined rounds to begin (rather than one) which allows everyone to be given a closer to equal chance. To explain by example: In a 32 player field players can be paired by their relative rankings ensuring each pair's total equals 33. Then for the first two rounds those two players each play another pair whose relative rankings also add up to 33. For example 1 v 9 32 v 24 1 v 24 32 v 9.

Something baffles me however. I would like to understand the mathematical rule within your proposition that explains why after five rounds of a Swiss elimination eliminating players after three defeats, regardless of whether there are one or two pre-determined rounds, or how many players are in the section, or how many players are eliminated after the third and fourth rounds, are exactly half the players in total eliminated?