Post a reply

Seeding system

Postby PLtheRef

Just heard from a friend of mine close to WS that the seeding system is proposed - to be changed from 2011/12 season onwards.

The change would be that at each tournament the top 16 in the seeding list would be seeded, as in it would reflect the rankings, in this case winning a tournament wouldnt automatically guarantee the number 1 seeding for the year after and that the world champion could be due to defend his title, but not seeded.

Also, it is being discussed about some tournaments seedng 8 players, others 16 etc.

What's peoples opinions?

Re: Seeding system

Postby GJ

PLtheRef wrote:Just heard from a friend of mine close to WS that the seeding system is proposed - to be changed from 2011/12 season onwards.

The change would be that at each tournament the top 16 in the seeding list would be seeded, as in it would reflect the rankings, in this case winning a tournament wouldnt automatically guarantee the number 1 seeding for the year after and that the world champion could be due to defend his title, but not seeded.

Also, it is being discussed about some tournaments seedng 8 players, others 16 etc.

What's peoples opinions?



thats how they do it in tennis

but the world champion should be number 1 seed the following year in it :D :ahh:

Re: Seeding system

Postby Bourne

Good, the 'defending champion top seed' system is utter pants, someone's form can drop off so much in the space of 12 months so you could have an absolute dud as the top-seed.

Re: Seeding system

Postby PLtheRef

Bourne wrote:Good, the 'defending champion top seed' system is utter pants, someone's form can drop off so much in the space of 12 months so you could have an absolute dud as the top-seed.


I know, I'm dreading April rofl

Re: Seeding system

Postby GJ

PLtheRef wrote:
Bourne wrote:Good, the 'defending champion top seed' system is utter pants, someone's form can drop off so much in the space of 12 months so you could have an absolute dud as the top-seed.


I know, I'm dreading April rofl



:roll: :chin:

Re: Seeding system

Postby Bourne

PLtheRef wrote:
Bourne wrote:Good, the 'defending champion top seed' system is utter pants, someone's form can drop off so much in the space of 12 months so you could have an absolute dud as the top-seed.


I know, I'm dreading April rofl

lol ...

Re: Seeding system

Postby Witz78

im guessing this means a scenario similar to 2005 when Murphy won the WC but only rose to 21 in the rankings but was automatically seeded for ALL events the following season will end.

It also means that anyone winning a tournament who isnt in the top 16 come the same tournament the following season will have to qualify.

I agree with this, why should someone who wins a tournament get a boost to their rankings by being put through to the last 32 and the venue if they would normally have to qualify to make it there.

Re: Seeding system

Postby Tubberlad

PLtheRef wrote:Just heard from a friend of mine close to WS that the seeding system is proposed - to be changed from 2011/12 season onwards.

The change would be that at each tournament the top 16 in the seeding list would be seeded, as in it would reflect the rankings, in this case winning a tournament wouldnt automatically guarantee the number 1 seeding for the year after and that the world champion could be due to defend his title, but not seeded.

Also, it is being discussed about some tournaments seedng 8 players, others 16 etc.

What's peoples opinions?

I agree with this change...

But would the defending champion still be entitled to an automatic qualifier as champion? It would strike me as odd if the World Champion wasn't at the World Championship, as unlikely as that may be. I'm guessing it's not automatic.

And would the World Champion still play on day one of the tournament? I presume so?

Re: Seeding system

Postby Witz78

Tubberlad wrote:
PLtheRef wrote:Just heard from a friend of mine close to WS that the seeding system is proposed - to be changed from 2011/12 season onwards.

The change would be that at each tournament the top 16 in the seeding list would be seeded, as in it would reflect the rankings, in this case winning a tournament wouldnt automatically guarantee the number 1 seeding for the year after and that the world champion could be due to defend his title, but not seeded.

Also, it is being discussed about some tournaments seedng 8 players, others 16 etc.

What's peoples opinions?

I agree with this change...

But would the defending champion still be entitled to an automatic qualifier as champion? It would strike me as odd if the World Champion wasn't at the World Championship, as unlikely as that may be. I'm guessing it's not automatic.

And would the World Champion still play on day one of the tournament? I presume so?


suppose the odds are now with rolling rankings that if someone outwith the top 16 won the WC and was still outwith the top 16 then, by the time the rankings cut off came before the WC the following season theyd be in the top 16 cos theyd still have the 10,000 points from the previous seasons win in their total.

Re: Seeding system

Postby Wildey

PLtheRef wrote:Just heard from a friend of mine close to WS that the seeding system is proposed - to be changed from 2011/12 season onwards.

The change would be that at each tournament the top 16 in the seeding list would be seeded, as in it would reflect the rankings, in this case winning a tournament wouldnt automatically guarantee the number 1 seeding for the year after and that the world champion could be due to defend his title, but not seeded.

Also, it is being discussed about some tournaments seedng 8 players, others 16 etc.

What's peoples opinions?


i do think the World Champion should be No 1 seed no matter where in the Rankings he is however for other Tournaments its not as Big a deal so id Go along with that but you got to have the WC in the WC Defending the title he won the Previous year and not in threat of losing in qualifying.

but unlike the case with Murphy in 05/06 where he was seeded in to all events that wouldn't be the case with that proposal.

Re: Seeding system

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

I like having only eight seeds for tournaments. Right now it could lead to matches like Higgins-Hendry or Ding-O'Sullivan in the first round.

Re: Seeding system

Postby Monique

I think the defending champion should be there at all times. I'm not sure the World Champion should although with the amount of points that the WC carries it's unlike that he would drop out of the 16 although Murphy didn't start the season in the top 16 after he won the WC.
I don't see any advantage to reduce the number of seeds to 8: the top 8 has fixed "spots" in the seedings but except for the WC and the Masters the seeds 16-9 are randomly "drawn". So we can have those matches in round 2 provided that the seeds win their first round and this week has shown that's not a gimme. I'm not in favour of having some of the top going out in round 1, not because they play badly but just because they are unlucky to be drawn against another top and one of them has to go out. I said this before about the GP and the World Open and I'll say it again: it's unfair on the players and it's unfair on their rankings. They have earned their spot in top 16.

Re: Seeding system

Postby sundaygirl

I agree that the defending champion should get the chance to appear at the main venue. In the unlikely event that they are ranked 16 plus, maybe their final qualifier could be transfered. At the Welsh Open matches of local interest have been carried forward.

Re: Seeding system

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:I think the defending champion should be there at all times. I'm not sure the World Champion should although with the amount of points that the WC carries it's unlike that he would drop out of the 16 although Murphy didn't start the season in the top 16 after he won the WC.
I don't see any advantage to reduce the number of seeds to 8: the top 8 has fixed "spots" in the seedings but except for the WC and the Masters the seeds 16-9 are randomly "drawn". So we can have those matches in round 2 provided that the seeds win their first round and this week has shown that's not a gimme. I'm not in favour of having some of the top going out in round 1, not because they play badly but just because they are unlucky to be drawn against another top and one of them has to go out. I said this before about the GP and the World Open and I'll say it again: it's unfair on the players and it's unfair on their rankings. They have earned their spot in top 16.


unless the venue starts at the last 16 stage there is absalutly no point in only having 8 seeds because another 8 will be seeded through to the last 32 anyway.

Re: Seeding system

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:
Monique wrote:I think the defending champion should be there at all times. I'm not sure the World Champion should although with the amount of points that the WC carries it's unlike that he would drop out of the 16 although Murphy didn't start the season in the top 16 after he won the WC.
I don't see any advantage to reduce the number of seeds to 8: the top 8 has fixed "spots" in the seedings but except for the WC and the Masters the seeds 16-9 are randomly "drawn". So we can have those matches in round 2 provided that the seeds win their first round and this week has shown that's not a gimme. I'm not in favour of having some of the top going out in round 1, not because they play badly but just because they are unlucky to be drawn against another top and one of them has to go out. I said this before about the GP and the World Open and I'll say it again: it's unfair on the players and it's unfair on their rankings. They have earned their spot in top 16.


unless the venue starts at the last 16 stage there is absalutly no point in only having 8 seeds because another 8 will be seeded through to the last 32 anyway.


It could be that 32 play at the venue but only the top 8 qualify and there are 24 qualifiers.


Qualifying Round 1 -ranked 57-80 play 81-96 (8 players get byes)
Qualifying Round 2 - ranked 33-56 play 24 winners of QR1
Qualifying Round 3 - ranked 9-32 play 24 winners of QR2

Re: Seeding system

Postby Wildey

so Ronnie goes to the acadamy then <ok>

Re: Seeding system

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:so Ronnie goes to the acadamy then <ok>


In this instance yes he would.

Anyway how it affects individual players is irrelevant, how it affects the tour as whole and whether its the right thing is whats the important issue.

Re: Seeding system

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:
Wild wrote:so Ronnie goes to the acadamy then <ok>


In this instance yes he would.

Anyway how it affects individual players is irrelevant, how it affects the tour as whole and whether its the right thing is whats the important issue.

i think the seeding thing could be right only 8 seeds wouldn't you risk losing players before the venue that would add to the event.

the way the rankings work now with PTC the likes of Selby who won more points in the PTC than he would get for being World Champion will have all them to defend in 2 years time if he flops in the PTC at that time Could easily find himself out of the top 8 and same for other players.

Re: Seeding system

Postby PLtheRef

Monique wrote:I think the defending champion should be there at all times. I'm not sure the World Champion should although with the amount of points that the WC carries it's unlike that he would drop out of the 16 although Murphy didn't start the season in the top 16 after he won the WC.
I don't see any advantage to reduce the number of seeds to 8: the top 8 has fixed "spots" in the seedings but except for the WC and the Masters the seeds 16-9 are randomly "drawn". So we can have those matches in round 2 provided that the seeds win their first round and this week has shown that's not a gimme. I'm not in favour of having some of the top going out in round 1, not because they play badly but just because they are unlucky to be drawn against another top and one of them has to go out. I said this before about the GP and the World Open and I'll say it again: it's unfair on the players and it's unfair on their rankings. They have earned their spot in top 16.


How though? - The system the way I see it would be that the same system we have now - such as the top 16 would automatically qualify for the tournament - only eight would be seeded.

Re: Seeding system

Postby PLtheRef

A system to incorprorate everything that folk have said on here is.

For 8 seeded 32 man events

Invite the top 16 to the tournament, plus the 4 semi-finalists from the previous year. - That leaves room for 12-16 places for qualifiers.

Re: Seeding system

Postby Wildey

i just think that will be confusing and no need for it

top 16 v 16 qualifiers what's wrong in that

we are now looking for non existent problems when there's enough existing ones that needs sorting

Re: Seeding system

Postby Witz78

PLtheRef wrote:A system to incorprorate everything that folk have said on here is.

For 8 seeded 32 man events

Invite the top 16 to the tournament, plus the 4 semi-finalists from the previous year. - That leaves room for 12-16 places for qualifiers.


the previous semi finalists, whilst likely all to be in the top 16 anyway making this hypothetical, should not get an automatic qualification to the following years event. They should earn that place based on the rankings alone.

Re: Seeding system

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:i just think that will be confusing and no need for it

top 16 v 16 qualifiers what's wrong in that

we are now looking for non existent problems when there's enough existing ones that needs sorting


I tend to agree that the top 16 are the elite, ie. the best 16 players at any given time based on the last 2 years points earned, howver below this in the qualifying events, id like to see the teirs of rankings done away with such as 17-32, 33-48 etc.

i think all the qualifiers should be in from round 1 similar to what they did with the German Masters qualifying with all 80 players outwith the top 16 entering in the first qualifying round, though this draw being seeded so where you are in the rankings affects your opponent/s in qualifying.

Its always struck me as unfair that those in the 17-32 bracket had only 1 qualifier compared to 4 for those in the 81-96 bracket. Id open the qualifying so it was a slightly leveller playing field. Be fairer with everyone starting on the same minimum ranking points too and having the same number of games to play in order to qualify. If the ones higher up the rankings are good enough then they will still win and qualify for the venue. If not then they will be found out and will drop down the rankings to a truer position.

The rolling rankings system has helped to make the rankings fairer, this additional change to qualifying set up would truly make everything a level playing field and everyone would end up where they belonged in the rankings, rather than an element of protection still existing for those higher up the rankings. They should have to earn their position like the rest.

Re: Seeding system

Postby Bourne

Witz that's what they do in tennis qualies, you've got your 24/32 players or however many it is that are the highest ranked players to miss out on the main draw, the top 8 are seeded and the rest all unseeded and can be drawn anywhere in R1. It works fine and makes every tournament 'fresh' instead of becoming a bit monotonous <ok>

Re: Seeding system

Postby Witz78

Bourne wrote:Witz that's what they do in tennis qualies, you've got your 24/32 players or however many it is that are the highest ranked players to miss out on the main draw, the top 8 are seeded and the rest all unseeded and can be drawn anywhere in R1. It works fine and makes every tournament 'fresh' instead of becoming a bit monotonous <ok>


yeh i mean take the current snooker system.

law of averages and statistically probably 11/16 of those ranked 17-32 win their sole qualifying match to make the venue so that means your average tournament has 5/64 players outwith the top 32 in it, just makes it hard as anything for these guys lower down who have to beat up each other for the right to face those 17-32 in a shootout.

whereas if everyone 17-96 was in the qualifiers from day one it would be so fresh and you couldnt even begin to speculate whod make it through. Obviously those seeded 17-32 would be the favourites to come through their part of the qualifying draw but to do so theyd have to win 3 qualifying games just like the guy 96th in the rankings would have to.

Re: Seeding system

Postby Wildey

i think with the previous ranking system getting rid of Rankings 17 to 96 as such would have been ok however now having it stagnated where players go in to PTC Tournament and to cut off points with definite goals is the best.

65-96 trying to get in top 64
49-64 trying to get in top 48

etc etc

Re: Seeding system

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:i think with the previous ranking system getting rid of Rankings 17 to 96 as such would have been ok however now having it stagnated where players go in to PTC Tournament and to cut off points with definite goals is the best.

65-96 trying to get in top 64
49-64 trying to get in top 48

etc etc


yeh but thats whats wrong for me, players should aspire to get higher than just getting into a top 48 or 64 and stagnating there.

the system i propose would give equal opportunties to all (bar the elite 16) and it would be up to them all to win qualifying games to justify their position in the rankings. at the moment everythings still slightly stagnant despite the "partial rolling" rankings system in place.

Look at the top 64 presently, who have we got, Jogia, McGill, Lisowski and Burden of all the tour newcomers who are gonna survive on tour. Still too much protection to the existing players and hard for the new players to make an impact as there still beating each other up in the first qualifying rounds.