Having studied the latest provisional rankings on Pro Snooker Blog (see attached) i have a few queries to make with regards to the newcomers to tour.........http://prosnookerblog.com/rankings/late ... -seedings/
1) The newcomers to the tour start the season on a total of 12,165 and are joint 73rd in the rankings sitting a whopping 3,425 points behind Rod Lawler who occupies 64th place, where these tour newcomers are aiming for to have less qualifiers to play and ultimately make sure they survive on tour at the end of the season.
2) Why should these newcomers start off with 2010-11 points based on Igor Figueridos points from last season (8,325). Yes, he was the 8th man to survive on tour via the PTC, but these points earned last season werent enough to keep him on tour. It was down to his PTC order of merit position, he was actually 80th in the end of season rankings, so why should this seasons newcomers be victimised with this poor points total around their neck all season when it was clearly not good enough last season to solely keep a player (namely Figeurido) on tour ?
3) The way i see it these tour newcomers should receive starter points equivalent to what either the 64th placed man (Guodong) at the end of last season earned (11,860) so they start almost on a par with those on the brink of the top 64, so they are not chasing a major deficeit from the start of the season
4) Or even if they got what the 72nd placed man at the end of last season, Kyren Wilson earned (9,980) then it would seem fairer as technically in the old days 72nd place (64+8) should keep you on tour.
5) Or perhaps they should get double points from their total at the end of the season as this truly reflects their own form, rather than having a random set of starter points added on, which clearly seems to be too less.
6) One interesting point too, is that the guys who got back on tour either via Q School or with a wildcard have the starter points for last season based on their points earned last season. Is this fair to those like Maflin, Gilbert and co who start 5,000+ points away from top 64 safety, or should the fact they got back on via Q School mean they should start with a clean slate and be classed the same as the others who got on via Q School.
7) Also i see Wattana who didnt survive on tour despite a decent first year back on tour, got a wildcard and thanks to the points explanation in point (6) above, actually sits inside the top 64 already. This surely the perfect example that it was simply the minimal starting points he carried last season that stopped him staying on, not his own actual form and results. Sadly with similar unfair starting points given to the other tour newcomers this season, we will see countless others fail to break into that top 64 and survive on tour, through no fault of their own.
Can't have a rankings debate without me wading in here!
First thing I'd say is that with regard to that list I have put up, it's not 100% definite that it is going to be like that as I've said in three articles on the blog recently, that's my interpretation as to the World Snooker points schedule that has been released at the minute.
Basically see here near the bottom for my uncertainty:http://prosnookerblog.com/2011/06/20/au ... tics-news/
In reply to your bullet points Witz
1) Yes that is my interpretation at the minute. Only thing I would say there is that while they newcomers have less points than Rod etc, they also have a less coming off this season than many (nearly all), inside the 64 so should gain throughout the season. The points coming off this year come from Ben Woollaston's 8th on the one year list in 2009/10 if anyone was wondering.
2) I agree. Has always been the same argument though. You say later on that the old system was that it was 72nd but that isn't quite right because the old system was the top 8 on the one year list and they didn't necessarily have to finish 72nd on the two year list that season. If that makes any sense.
Simple thing here is that as I've said on my blog, the points schedule says:Players who have joined The Tour commencing the 2011/2012 season will receive starter points equivalent to points earned in the 2010/2011 season by the lowest ranked player retaining a place on the 2011/2012 Tour
Now is that 64th? Is that Igor? Or even worse is that Wicheard, which would be a farce if you ask me. Simply put I don't know. I've gone with Igor on my list for now but I think it's open to different interpretations.
3) Wouldn't disagree.
4) Slightly different logic, but Kyren was 8th on the one-year list last season I believe so in previous years his points would have been used yeah. Wouldn't make sense to use them now as it would be a fudge of the new/old systems I think but I can see where you are coming from.
5) Long been argued in previous years that they should have done that and in the past I completely agreed with it. Wouldn't quite work now with the seedings though as we wouldn't know this total until the end of the season.
6) Fair point. This has again always happened though with wildcards which is why I've given them those points. The WSA points schedule also indicates this too. Can see the argument but looking at Morris, while he suffers as a result of last season's poor form, he has more points than the starter points for 09/10 so it works both ways. Personally I think that they have got this right, if they have competed on the tour in both 09/10 and 10/11 then they may as well use those points rather than have starter points.
7) Wouldn't agree there with Wattana, think the main reason he missed out was because he did nothing on the PTC last season and gave a lot of points away to those around him. More starter points for 2008/9 might have kept him on...but I'd say the PTC was a bigger factor.
That's my two cents worth anyway.