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.

Alfie Burden,Jack Lisowski,Jamie Jones,Anthony Mcgill all managed to get inside the top 64 with the current system.....

for whatever reason you want young players to have a silver spoon in their mouths.

Win matches you will get there dont and you wont.

Wild wrote:Alfie Burden,Jack Lisowski,Jamie Jones,Anthony Mcgill all managed to get inside the top 64 with the current system.....

for whatever reason you want young players to have a silver spoon in their mouths.

Win matches you will get there dont and you wont.

eh thats 4 players out of 24

your just too blind to see the true picture, the problem is its not just as simple as saying "win matches and youll get in the top 64"

cos of this flawed system they have to win far more than those above them need to, to have a chance of getting in the top 64

its hardly a silver spoon i want for these players, i want them to have a fair crack at the whip and a genuine chance of getting into that top 64.

why should they start the season thousands of points behind the guy whos sitting safe on the line ranked 64. The only fair way for me is that the tour newcomers start all ranked joint 65th, a token 1 point behind the guy in 64th, then its a fair chance for them and the guys above them truly have to earn their place in the top 64.

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:Alfie Burden,Jack Lisowski,Jamie Jones,Anthony Mcgill all managed to get inside the top 64 with the current system.....

for whatever reason you want young players to have a silver spoon in their mouths.

Win matches you will get there dont and you wont.

eh thats 4 players out of 24

your just too blind to see the true picture, the problem is its not just as simple as saying "win matches and youll get in the top 64"

cos of this flawed system they have to win far more than those above them need to, to have a chance of getting in the top 64

its hardly a silver spoon i want for these players, i want them to have a fair crack at the whip and a genuine chance of getting into that top 64.

why should they start the season thousands of points behind the guy whos sitting safe on the line ranked 64. The only fair way for me is that the tour newcomers start all ranked joint 65th, a token 1 point behind the guy in 64th, then its a fair chance for them and the guys above them truly have to earn their place in the top 64.

so what if its 4 out of 24 what makes you think the others deserved to get in the top 64 reason they didnt they werent good enough thoes 4 was.

the guy in 64th place earned thoes points what gives newbies the right to get the same points ???

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:Alfie Burden,Jack Lisowski,Jamie Jones,Anthony Mcgill all managed to get inside the top 64 with the current system.....

for whatever reason you want young players to have a silver spoon in their mouths.

Win matches you will get there dont and you wont.

eh thats 4 players out of 24

your just too blind to see the true picture, the problem is its not just as simple as saying "win matches and youll get in the top 64"

cos of this flawed system they have to win far more than those above them need to, to have a chance of getting in the top 64

its hardly a silver spoon i want for these players, i want them to have a fair crack at the whip and a genuine chance of getting into that top 64.

why should they start the season thousands of points behind the guy whos sitting safe on the line ranked 64. The only fair way for me is that the tour newcomers start all ranked joint 65th, a token 1 point behind the guy in 64th, then its a fair chance for them and the guys above them truly have to earn their place in the top 64.

so what if its 4 out of 24 what makes you think the others deserved to get in the top 64 reason they didnt they werent good enough thoes 4 was.

the guy in 64th place earned thoes points what gives newbies the right to get the same points ???

someone with common sense enter this debate please

im asking the question ?

answer it.

i already answered it.

they dont fully get what they deserve because of the handicap of having a total season starter points that are low added onto their total.

in other words, if new players totals were doubled then this would be the fairest guage of where they truly deserve to be.

Witz78 wrote:i already answered it.

they dont fully get what they deserve because of the handicap of having a total season starter points that are low added onto their total.

in other words, if new players totals were doubled then this would be the fairest guage of where they truly deserve to be.

Not really as they would still be miles behind everyone as they'd start on 0 points. It would then take until the end of the season for them to get into the 64.

Alex0paul wrote:

Witz78 wrote:i already answered it.

they dont fully get what they deserve because of the handicap of having a total season starter points that are low added onto their total.

in other words, if new players totals were doubled then this would be the fairest guage of where they truly deserve to be.

Not really as they would still be miles behind everyone as they'd start on 0 points. It would then take until the end of the season for them to get into the 64.

yes im aware of that, there would have to be some adjustment made, even if it was on a pro-rata basis at the end of each rankings cut off.

this is a simple example but say after 1/4 of the season you have earned 3,000 points then it would be assumed you would earn 12,000 points that season so you would in effect be given the extra 9,000 points but also be defending them in addition to the previous seasons points to defend, which would also be based on your points earned to date this season on a pro-rata basis.

Witz78 wrote: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.

matt as a studier of rankings for many years ....

why should new players get equivalent points to someone who stayed on tour as of right ie Guodong at no 64 ?

if im honest i see that as some sort of quick fix to get rid of players that stayed on via PTC rather than those inside the top 64.

in one season jamie jones went from being a new pro to inside the top 48 so its possible to really get up now

Rankings
Jamie Jones 47
Jack Lisowski 52
Alifie Burden 57
Ant Mcgill 59
Liu Song 62 (Last minute Replacement)

Provisional Seedings
Jamie Jones 42
Jack Lisowski 49
Alfie Burden 55
Ant Mcgill 57
Liu Song 61

so for witz to say its not possible currently is wrong you just have to be good enough.

cheers for the detailed reply Matt

yeh whilst the newcomers lose slightly less points than most guys on the tour during the season, this overall, doesnt quite compensate for the gap in starter points they have to make up on those in the top 64.

what would be fair for me would be for the tour newcomers to start on the same starter points as the guy in 64th but also with the same points to come off through the season as the guy in 64th. That way it would be a level playing field.

Personally I don't think it's 'not possible' for the new players to survive, it's more possible than it has been in the last decade or so to be honest as the likes of Lisowski and McGill proved last year.

That said if they are given Igor's points then I do think it is an arbitary figure, indeed in the past I always thought it was wrong to give them an arbitrary figure of the total that somebody got on the one year list two years previously.

In the past the solution was easy, just given them double points for their season on tour. But obviously back then when the vote was open to the top 64, they were never going to vote that in and prejudice their own interests, understandably so!

Now...I'm not sure what the best way to do it would be in truth. can see both sides. Not ultimately convinced that it's so massive, thinking of Lisowski and McGill. Chances are if a player does well early season they will crack top 64 at the first or second cut-off and then should stay there with less coming off. If they just miss out despite a good start to the PTC, they might have a good chance of staying on via the PTC list, just like White and Highfield did. Not sure that works out in practice, just thinking out loud really. The one who doesn't fall into either bracket is of course Wattana.

The thing that doesn't make sense is that the rankings cover two years but theres promotion/relegation every season. In Golf, where this whole tourcard thing comes from, the World Rankings cover two years but they don't determine who qualifies for the tour as they have their own Order of Merit which covers one season. If Snooker was to copy this then the PTC standings alone would be used with exemptions for higher ranked players. Either that or just do a one year world rankings like tennis which would be the best way.

By way of update, it has today been confirmed that all newcomers to the tour for 2011/12 including those who made it via the Q School (including those like Maflin and Morris who have re-qualified), plus wildcards like Wattana will get the starter points.

That being the case, I've altered my list a tad, bad news for Wattana, good news for Morris, Gilbert, Bedford and Wicheard!

Still awaiting confirmation on the points that will drop on and starter points. Have gone for my best educated guess at the minute.

Matt_2745 wrote:By way of update, it has today been confirmed that all newcomers to the tour for 2011/12 including those who made it via the Q School (including those like Maflin and Morris who have re-qualified), plus wildcards like Wattana will get the starter points.

That being the case, I've altered my list a tad, bad news for Wattana, good news for Morris, Gilbert, Bedford and Wicheard!

Still awaiting confirmation on the points that will drop on and starter points. Have gone for my best educated guess at the minute.

Thats its a joke IMO that Wattana who got a wildcard doesnt get to keep the points he had last season.

It just shows that with the points he earned last season which werent enough to keep him on tour, then now he gets them chopped and lower starting points this season, that my argument that these "new"comers are totally up against it is true.

It seems to me in terms of points, starter points, tour qualification etc, that WPSBA are making up the rules as they go along at the moment.

Witz78 wrote:

Matt_2745 wrote:By way of update, it has today been confirmed that all newcomers to the tour for 2011/12 including those who made it via the Q School (including those like Maflin and Morris who have re-qualified), plus wildcards like Wattana will get the starter points.

That being the case, I've altered my list a tad, bad news for Wattana, good news for Morris, Gilbert, Bedford and Wicheard!

Still awaiting confirmation on the points that will drop on and starter points. Have gone for my best educated guess at the minute.

Thats its a joke IMO that Wattana who got a wildcard doesnt get to keep the points he had last season.

It just shows that with the points he earned last season which werent enough to keep him on tour, then now he gets them chopped and lower starting points this season, that my argument that these "new"comers are totally up against it is true.

It seems to me in terms of points, starter points, tour qualification etc, that WPSBA are making up the rules as they go along at the moment.

i agree there really needs to be total clarification before a single ball is potted ....mid season clarification points regarding rankings or anything is pretty amateurish TBH...

but its not holding young players back its a level playing field they have to beat these players Wells failed today against Wattana that was him not a WPBSA Problem.

the only thing World Snooker.com consistently does up to date is players tweets http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/blogsa ... 49,00.html

the seeding list despite we are in the middle of a ranking event is how it looked at the World Championship http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/Seedin ... 35,00.html

god how bad is that

Right, more has become clear today!

World Snooker have published the new tour points schedule here:

http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/PointSchedule

So reading that, it looks like Wattana keeps his points which were higher than the starter points, but those lower than the starter points have them rounded up. Which makes more sense.

We're getting there slowly but surely. Confirmation of who's starter points are being used for 10/11 and confirmation of which points will be coming off are the two things we need to know now.

Apologies for any confusion caused on my part, to say it's a minefield would be an understatement. Once we know the above things we'll be good for the season hopefully.

Witz78 wrote:u just dont get it do you............

newcomer finish 64th this season = half his total points
starter points from last season equivalent to 80th place = projected to be 72nd in rankings.

top 48 finish on this years one year list only hope for tour newcomers to make the top 64 and stay on tour.

top 48 finish on one year list is very gettable and something to aim for.

why should players who dont get in to the top 48 on the one year list stay on tour yes its hard players like Selby,Murphy,Robbo has had to do that with so little events.

i think the tide is changing young players will get up the rankings by the end of the season if they win matches its a tough school if they cant win against ranked 64 what hope have they to progress anyway.and it will be a tough lesson they learn for the future if they fall off tour.

just want to add i might re assess things by the end of the season but i think there will be a fair amount that makes it.

everyone wont thats just life.

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:u just dont get it do you............

newcomer finish 64th this season = half his total points
starter points from last season equivalent to 80th place = projected to be 72nd in rankings.

top 48 finish on this years one year list only hope for tour newcomers to make the top 64 and stay on tour.

top 48 finish on one year list is very gettable and something to aim for.

why should players who dont get in to the top 48 on the one year list stay on tour yes its hard players like Selby,Murphy,Robbo has had to do that with so little events.

i think the tide is changing young players will get up the rankings by the end of the season if they win matches its a tough school if they cant win against ranked 64 what hope have they to progress anyway.and it will be a tough lesson they learn for the future if they fall off tour.

top 48 on one year list isnt very gettable for tour newcomers

with the almost similar calendar last season only THREE players managed it (Jones, Liswoski and Burden) so its hardly a realistic target for most players.

Bear in mind also, that those newcomers last season were getting starter points equivalent to the 8th guy on the one year list at the end of 09-10 Ben Woolaston, who coincidentally finished that season 74th, not 80th like Figuerido who this seasons newcomers starter points are based on.

Bear on mind that for the bulk of the season all the tour newcomers find themselves in the first round of qualifying, so these guys are beating each other up with only half of them even getting a crack at the guys above them from tournament to tournament.

Thats why id like to see qualifying for all ranking events on a similar basis to the PTCs where everyone (bar the top 16 who would qualify for the venue) placed in the first qualifying round on a seeded basis.

That way its a level playing field with all the guys having to win a similar amount of matches to reach a venue, and also there not being teired minimum ranking points per event.

For example for a bog standard ranker, if your top 16 and you dont win your opening game then why should you get 700 ranking points when a guy whos 65th in the rankings has won one qualifying game yet still ends up getting 650 (50 points less) than you for this event?

To put things into context a tour newcomer has to win 2 matches to even reach the last 64 stage in a tournament, wheras my research shows that to realistically survive on tour he will have to consistently reach the last 48 (final qualifying round) to ensure survival, meaning he has to win his first 3 qualifying games.

Its alright saying, just go out there and beat the guys in front of you, but surely even you Wild must see the odds are against these guys before they even start off their seasons.

Bear in mind also, that those newcomers last season were getting starter points equivalent to the 8th guy on the one year list at the end of 09-10 Ben Woolaston, who coincidentally finished that season 74th, not 80th like Figuerido who this seasons newcomers starter points are based on.

ok you are putting over a good argument there.

they should really get starter points no lower than 72nd , 80 is 2 low i can see that now.

Witz

as our resident Rankings nerd what do you make of the updated Rankings which sees Wells and Norman down the bottom http://www.worldsnooker.com/page/WorldR ... 76,00.html almost 2000 points less than Sam Baird.

its obvious they are carrying the points they earned during 2009/2010 season when they was on tour in to this season.

rules are rules

Have just had a quick look at this and also over at Matts PSB site and there seems to be a general opinion that WPSBA have got it wrong yet again with this, in addition to there lowly starter points given to the actual true tour newcomers this season.

Come the end of the season when few new players survive on tour, surely the penny will drop and things will change.

Witz78 wrote:Have just had a quick look at this and also over at Matts PSB site and there seems to be a general opinion that WPSBA have got it wrong yet again with this, in addition to there lowly starter points given to the actual true tour newcomers this season.

Come the end of the season when few new players survive on tour, surely the penny will drop and things will change.

ive actually come round to your way of thinking regarding give then ranked 64th place points and then may the most successful players be top 64 at first cut off.

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:Have just had a quick look at this and also over at Matts PSB site and there seems to be a general opinion that WPSBA have got it wrong yet again with this, in addition to there lowly starter points given to the actual true tour newcomers this season.

Come the end of the season when few new players survive on tour, surely the penny will drop and things will change.

ive actually come round to your way of thinking regarding give then ranked 64th place points and then may the most successful players be top 64 at first cut off.

yeh youve finally saw sense

nah seriously though, it really is a tall ask for any of the newcomers getting Figueridos starting points to make the top 64 this season, an error of gross proportions, giving them the points equivalent to 80th last season. Just so unfair.

Im almost thinking now that there should be the one year list brought back to save 8 people on tour who arent already in the top 64 as the odds are these will likely be the new guys who cant quite scrape into the top 64 thanks to the being lumbered with Igors points.

Then have 8 who surive on tour via the PTC be it as amateurs or pros, then the remaining 20 places to take the tour up to 100 to come from the Q School, do away with nominations and wildcards completely and have 3 Q School events and an order of merit over the 3 events with the top 20 getting on tour.

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:Have just had a quick look at this and also over at Matts PSB site and there seems to be a general opinion that WPSBA have got it wrong yet again with this, in addition to there lowly starter points given to the actual true tour newcomers this season.

Come the end of the season when few new players survive on tour, surely the penny will drop and things will change.

ive actually come round to your way of thinking regarding give then ranked 64th place points and then may the most successful players be top 64 at first cut off.

yeh youve finally saw sense

nah seriously though, it really is a tall ask for any of the newcomers getting Figueridos starting points to make the top 64 this season, an error of gross proportions, giving them the points equivalent to 80th last season. Just so unfair.

Im almost thinking now that there should be the one year list brought back to save 8 people on tour who arent already in the top 64 as the odds are these will likely be the new guys who cant quite scrape into the top 64 thanks to the being lumbered with Igors points.

Then have 8 who surive on tour via the PTC be it as amateurs or pros, then the remaining 20 places to take the tour up to 100 to come from the Q School, do away with nominations and wildcards completely and have 3 Q School events and an order of merit over the 3 events with the top 20 getting on tour.

one year list last season
1 Michael White
2 Liam Highfield
3 Ben Woolaston
4 Matt Couch
5 Andrew Pagett
6 Kyren Wilson
7 James Wattana
8 Bjorn Haneveer
9 Paul Davison
10 James Mcbain
11 Patrick Wallace
12 Igor Figuiredo
13 Dave Gilbert
14 Simon Bedford
15 Joe Dalaney
16 David Morris

Players in Bold got on via PTC and thoes in red are on tour anyway

Top 8 on 1 year list

1 Michael White
2 Liam Highfield
3 Ben Woolaston
4 Matt Couch
5 Andrew Pagett
6 Kyren Wilson
7 James Wattana
8 Bjorn Haneveer

Next 8 on PTC List

Paul Davison
Igor Figuiredo
Jimmy Michie
Issara Kachaiwong
James Mcbain
Patrick Wallace
Justin Astley
Adam Wicheard

Next 8 Thats Including Amataurs

Daniel Wells
Paul Davison
Igor Figuiredo
Allan Taylor
Michael Wasley
Jimmy Michie
Issara Kachaiwong
James Mcbain