Post a reply

My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Witz78

Id wrote up a massive introduction to this but it didn’t upload and I lost the whole damn thing so ill keep this brief.

With the tour going to 128 players in the future I now propose the a ranking system based on POINTS rather than a money based order of merit.

The main benefits of this system will be.

- An easy to follow system that everyone can understand.
- Tournament winners fairly rewarded
- The points increment per round will increase by the same amount for a win so all wins treated equally apart from the final where double "win" points will be on offer.
- Scope for tournaments to be raised to a higher points tariff level should their prize money increase.


The PTC model currently uses the following ranking points.

Last 128 - 0 points
Last 64 - 360 points
Last 32 - 560 points
Last 16 - 760 points
QF - 1000 points
SF - 1280 points
R-up - 1600 points
Winner - 2000 points

For PTCs this is the points increments I propose, so the PTC's would be known as a 2000 tariff event.

Last 128 - 0 points
Last 64 - 250 points
Last 32 - 500 points
Last 16 - 750 points
QF - 1000 points
SF - 1250 points
R-up - 1500 points
Winner - 2000 points


Basically all wins are rewarded with the same 250 points until you reach the final where double points are on offer. With the teired system no longer in use, there will be no need to offer bigger points to round 1 wins, so all wins should be treated equally expect a final.

The next level up would be a small main ranker at a 6000 points tariff. Tournaments like Welsh Open, German Masters, Australian Open and Shanghai Masters would be classed as 6000 points events.

The ranking points on offer would be pro-rata'd up from the PTC so the points would look like this.

6000 points event

Last 128 - 0 points
Last 64 - 750 points
Last 32 - 1500 points
Last 16 - 2250 points
QF - 3000 points
SF - 3750 points
R-up - 4500 points
Winner - 6000 points


The next bracket of ranking events would be 8000 tariff events with the World Open and China Open. This is mainly based on the prize money on offer being greater than the 6000 points events.

8000 points event

Last 128 - 0 points
Last 64 - 1000 points
Last 32 - 2000 points
Last 16 - 3000 points
QF - 4000 points
SF - 5000 points
R-up - 6000 points
Winner - 8000 points


The UK is the 2nd biggest event of the season but in time I see the China Open becoming a "major" and reaching the same level. At the moment im classing the UK as a 10000 tariff event.

10,000 points event

Last 128 - 0 points
Last 64 - 1250 points
Last 32 - 2500 points
Last 16 - 3750 points
QF - 5000 points
SF - 6250 points
R-up - 7500 points
Winner - 10000 points


The World Championship is the crown jewel of the season with the most prize money and prestige. To truly reflect the importance of the WC, given how many other events there now are in a season carrying ranking points, im making this a 15000 points event.

15,000 points event

Last 128 - 0 points
Last 64 - 1875 points
Last 32 - 3750 points
Last 16 - 5625 points
QF - 7500 points
SF - 9375 points
R-up - 11250 points
Winner - 15000 points

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Skullman

If you're going to have a ranking points systems instead of a money based order of merit, it seems strange that you still rate some tournaments as smaller due to prize money instead of prestige. Don't mix systems.

As for the system itself, I think that number of points for each win should get progressive, as theoretically you will be playing better players in the latter stages of the tournament and should be rewarded for it.

Otherwise seems fine to me.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Witz78

Skullman wrote:If you're going to have a ranking points systems instead of a money based order of merit, it seems strange that you still rate some tournaments as smaller due to prize money instead of prestige. Don't mix systems.

As for the system itself, I think that number of points for each win should get progressive, as theoretically you will be playing better players in the latter stages of the tournament and should be rewarded for it.

Otherwise seems fine to me.


well it means theres an incentive for events to be more likely to have a full attendance from the top players if the prize money is higher, which i think would be reflected with a ranking points boost (once a tournament has established itself as a big draw after a few years)

Id certainly favour points getting more per round rather than getting less. Look at tournaments at the moment for example where you get 2,400 points for winning a round 1 game in the worlds but only 2,000 points for winning the world final.

The difference with this system though is that the base which everyone starts at is ZERO points so the need to over weight points towards wins further in events is not overly critical. Ultimately those highest up the ranking list will be those who have done well in the main rankers.

Im keen to reward winners better than at present, but if you weight too much towards the later rounds, then it becomes similar to the money based order or merit that upsets Wild and others.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby roy142857

Pretty good Witz, only tweaks I'd give is to have an intermediate level between the 2000 and 6000 point events, I think some of the PTCs that aren't ready for full ranking status but do draw a crowd would fall into that. And I still like the idea of some reward to the loser for frames won, it seems to me there's a world of difference between a 4-5 loser and a 0-5 loser for instance. 10 points a frame perhaps?

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Witz78

roy142857 wrote:Pretty good Witz, only tweaks I'd give is to have an intermediate level between the 2000 and 6000 point events, I think some of the PTCs that aren't ready for full ranking status but do draw a crowd would fall into that. And I still like the idea of some reward to the loser for frames won, it seems to me there's a world of difference between a 4-5 loser and a 0-5 loser for instance. 10 points a frame perhaps?


yeah these levels i suggested were just for starters but plenty of scope for other tariff points in between

and yeah id be tempted to say the big European PTCs should be 3,000 level anyway.

ive never been convinced by points per frame to be honest, the all or nothing win or bust element of snooker is what i like. I'll play a best of 19 with a mate and well have 400quid at the side of the table and whether its a 10-3 or a black ball decider in 19th frame, the winner walks away with the dosh and the loser walks away with zilch.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Skullman

Finally got my tweaked version sorted. Excel wouldn't work for some reason, so had to do it the old fashioned way. This system is similar Witz's but have slight increase for each win, as theoretically better players will reach further rounds and players should be rewarded more for beating better players. Had to change PTc from 2,000 to 2,500 to make it work though.

PTCs -2,500 pts

L128 - 0
L64 - 300
L32 - 630
L16- 970
QF - 1,330
SF - 1,710
RU- 2,100
Winner- 2,500

For the smaller rankers, Wales, Australia and the Indian event next year you just triple the PTC points.

Small Rankers - 7,500 pts

L128 -0
L64 - 900
L32 - 1,890
L16- 2,910
QF - 3,990
SF - 5,130
RU- 6,300
Winner - 7,500

More popular events like Germany and the Chinese events, will have quadruple points.

Larger Rankers - 10,000 pts

L128 - 0
L64 - 1,200
L32 - 2,520
L16 - 3,880
QF - 5,320
SF - 6,840
RU - 8,400
Winner - 10,000

While the UK has been shortened to best of elevens, it is still the second most prestigious ranker, and will receive sextuple points as a PTC.

UK Championship - 15,000 points

L128 - 0
L64 - 1,800
L32 - 3,780
L16 - 5,820
QF - 7,980
SF - 10,260
RU - 12,600
Winner - 15,000

Finally, the best tournament of them all will receive octuple points, due its prestige and long format.

World Championship - 20,000 pts

L128 - 0
L64 - 2,400
L32 - 5,040
L16 - 7,760
QF - 10,640
SF - 13,680
RU - 16,800
Winner - 20,000

The World and UK only occur once during the season, so get a lot more points than the run of the mill rankers. One downside of this system is that it isn't as easy to calculate total ranking points as Witz's.

Thoughts?

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Monique

I definitely agree that the flat structure is the way forward. Whether the "ranking" is based on points or money, the first round losers should get nothing - points/money wise - , the second round losers should at least cover their expenses, from round 3 on the players should actually earn money.
Now for the sake of discussion what about these ideas?

The tour is made of 128 players, 64 who kept their card from the previous season(s), 64 "new" players (some of them might actually be "back" after dropping out).
In each tournament the only "seeding" that would be taken into account in that in round 1, the 64 "previous season's top" would be drawn vs the 64 "newbies". No other protection.
The "ranking" would be computed over one year. No protection from previous years. Everybody starts afresh after the WC.
The ranking - that wouldn't affect the seeding, would not be actually rolling and would take into account a limited number of majors - mandatory tournaments - and and pre-defined number of "minors" best results. Players not playing in enough "minors" would be punished by not getting points, simply, and might "drop" in the rankings.

As majors - all long format tournaments - best of 11 at least from round 1 - I can see:
- the World - of course
- the UK - back to its best of 17 throughout format (19 final)
- one major in China
- one major in Europe (currently Berlin, or alternatively Berlin/Antwerp)

other than that I would take 8 other best results into account, for the players to manage how they want to do it.

The Masters would be maintained, as it is, not ranking but with substantial prize money, and open to the top 16 of the previous season. Reward needs to be kept for being the best.

Other invitationals should also be available to "the x best" of certain categories.

- I would definitely keep the Premier League, in its former form but spread over the season, and make it available to the defending champion, the 4 majors winners, the best under 25 player and the remaining spots to be defined at the organisers discretion. Winners of tournaments should be favoured of course. The reason I would keep the PL is because it brings live snooker regularly in places where it's
no more available.
- why not a "young Masters" for the 16 best under 25 of the previous season?
- I also can see the World cup there, although IMO it needs some tweaking regarding the format.

Regarding players entries/withdrawals… this would make it a lot simpler. As the last 128 would carry no money or points for the losers, if a player withdraws, he/she doesn't get anything. That's enough. At that stage you would expect that there would be enough "interesting" matches to show/watch for a rather late minute withdrawal not being a problem. Simple courtesy of course would dictate that players have to notify WSA, say, at least 48 hours in advance. Their entry fees would stay in the pot, their opponent gets a w/o. Keep it simple.
As much as possible tournaments should be played in "one go" at or near the final venue … PTC like, at one place. This might prove impossible for the majors though.

WSA should devote some resources to negotiate deals for decent but affordable accommodations and travels, maybe as part of sponsorship, to help the players to face the expenses.

With this system of course tournaments with poor reward will probably not attract the cream. Which should be an incentive for sponsors to put the money in. Sponsoring is about image and prestige. It would also encourage tournament organisers to try and give their events some kind of distinctive, attractive identity and not necessarily "format" based. The "Pink PTC" for instance was a good example of how a specific different dress code can work to serve a cause.

At the end of the season the top 64 stay, 64 are added through predefined channels. I would definitely scrap the "nominations". Let's have an Asian and an European Q-school instead.

Just ideas to discuss … politely and friendly and after taking a couple of minutes to actually think about them before jumping at the author… if possible.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Skullman

Interesting ideas Monique.

I have no problem with a one year list, although I think it should be rolling. I also think that tournaments that are full rankers now but not "majors", such as the Welsh Open, should all count towards the ranking points tally, although entry will not be mandatory. Minor events such as PTCs should be a best of 6 results.

As for seeding, I disagree with giving last years 64 survivors a seeding and then only have the seeding organised so that seed faces a non-seed. The second best player in the tournamnet shouldn't have to face the best in the second round.

Events with poorer rewards than other will have less entries, but I don't agree that it will lead sponsors to put more money. Sponsors may only be willing to give so much money, before deciding to stop investing in the sport altogether.

Finally, while I agree with the idea of scrapping nominations, I disagree with having regional Q-Schools. It seems too similar to the nomination system, where the best players from that region's amateur tour would be put forward. I also think it is form of positive discrimination, where a certain proportion of players will get in due to their nationality. I think all potential tour players should have to face each other. If this means that 80+% of the new qualifiers end up being British, then tough. Those British players were the best and deserve to be there.

Edit: Just to clarify, I do like a lot of your ideas, so you don't think this post is all negativity. Especially the Young Masters, although it may be unfair with Judd Trump in it :-)

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Monique

Thanks for reading and taking the time to answer… :-)

So to clarify a few things:

- With a flat structure and (nearly) no seeding the ranking during the season is actually irrelevant. Therefore there is no benefit for it to be rolling. If we adopt the "best of n" results for some type of events a rolling system might become too complex to follow for the fans (and the players ;-) )
- Nowadays the Q-shool is massively biased toward Brits. Less than the PIOS were - simply because it's more compact - but still. It takes a lot more efforts and money to have to travel - say - from Thailand or China and face a completely alien environment and deal with a language you don't master than to compete in your own country inside a structure that is familiar to an extend. That's why I was thinking regional Q-school. In particular in Asia where there are many players and many good young players.
- I agree that sponsors/local authorities will not automatically be willing to invest more money. They might indeed drop the idea altogether. However IF they want to invest in snooker then they will know that they can't get it cheap if they want a quality field. Bit of a gamble, but it might work.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Skullman

In answer to your first point, I understand what you were saying in your idea about seedings, I'm just saying it would be preferable to have seeding similar to the current seeding we have, so top players kept in separate sections.

As for the rolling, under your system it is possible for someone for someone to play very well for the first quarter of the season, mediocre for the rest of the season and continuing to play badly for the second sesaon and keeping their places as a seeded player for teh whole second season. Under rollling rankings, he would lose his points from early in the first season and be unseeded until he played well enough to deserve being a seed.

I understand your point about the Q-School being biased towards British players. Maybe place it somewhere everyone is equally inconvienced ;-) .

In all seriousness, I'm not sure how to fix the problem, but I personally wouldn't be happy if the new qualifiers were a third British, third Chinese and third European if there were British amateurs who were more deserving/better players than some of the qualifiers and didn't get a place due to not being Chinese/European.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Witz78

Monique, that ranking suggestion is back to the bad old days of fixed rankings for a season

one year rolling rankings will ultimately be the way to go in a full calendar and its a doddle to implement

with regards to rankings, yes in flat 128 system they will have less importance as everyone will have to win 7 games to win a tournament, but the draw will still be seeded, ie 1 and 2 in opposite halves etc.

Basically the tennis model is going to be the blueprint for snooker in so many ways.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Monique

A rolling system is not that simple to implement if not all events count towards the rankings, but only the "n best results" and it would be hard to follow for the fans.
What I propose is actually a "no seeding" system except for the "top 64" playing the "65-128" in round 1. No protection.
Ranking would only be relevant as a ticket to enter some lucrative invitationals and, at the end of the season to decide who stays and who is relegated.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Wildey

i think people tend to forget the excitement rolling ranking tier system produced at the back end of last year regarding a nothing PTC and Ronnies possition in the top 16.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:i think people tend to forget the excitement rolling ranking tier system produced at the back end of last year regarding a nothing PTC and Ronnies possition in the top 16.


teired positions plus top 16s etc wont work under a 128 system

the excitment of young players only having to win 2 games to make a venue will be far superior.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:
Wild wrote:i think people tend to forget the excitement rolling ranking tier system produced at the back end of last year regarding a nothing PTC and Ronnies possition in the top 16.


teired positions plus top 16s etc wont work under a 128 system

the excitment of young players only having to win 2 games to make a venue will be far superior.

i think as it is it adds something to the imprtance of PTC Early season that a flat system will not do.

i think there should be a mixture of formats from events

Flat system,totally tiered system and also german masters module so events are different and not same in different countries.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Witz78

Monique wrote:A rolling system is not that simple to implement if not all events count towards the rankings, but only the "n best results" and it would be hard to follow for the fans.
What I propose is actually a "no seeding" system except for the "top 64" playing the "65-128" in round 1. No protection.
Ranking would only be relevant as a ticket to enter some lucrative invitationals and, at the end of the season to decide who stays and who is relegated.


im against the top 16 getting automatic entry to events as this is a disadvantage to the other players on tour

but NOT seeding players is a disadvantage to the top players which is taking things to the opposite end of the scale.

you could have all the big names virtually wiped out by meeting each other in the first few rounds. If they lose against lower ranked players then fair enough but seedings should be in place or else theres even less incentive for players to enter events as they wont even be seeded and theoretically face an easier route to venues and in tournaments.

as for a rolling ranking counting so many events not being feasible, well golf has a system like this.

Lets just pretend the rolling rankings were over 2 years and it was based on a set number of events

the World Championship and UKs would mandatorily be counted for both seasons towards your ranking as they are the most important events.

so for 2 seasons of rolling rankings with a set number of events counting id go with this.

World Championship x 2
UK Championship x 2
Other rankers - Welsh, China, World Open, Australian Open, German Masters, PTC Finals, Shanghai Masters = 7 events x 2 seasons = 14. Best 8 events counting.

PTCs - 2 seasons = 24 events. Best 12 events counting

so over 2 years there would be 24 events counting towards your ranking.

of course the more events you enter then the more chance you have of getting a higher aggregate total of your "best events", whereas it also gives the option to pick and choose events you enter.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Monique

You both have often accused me to try and protect the players and you ask for them to make sacrifices to the point they should actually lose money for the right to play. I deny the first and refuse the latter. I want winners to earn money, decent money. With the tiered system money is given - at all levels of the seedings - to players who lose their first round matches. This is not right and what I want is that this money is actually reused to reward the winners. The flat structure allows it in an easier way.
Also I want for the players to be able to make choices, in their career and in their lives, to an extend of course. The player who doesn't enter an event loses money - prize money and sponsoring money. He/she also possibly goes down in rankings. However snooker is not just a young men's game and over time, people find themselves at different places in their lives. That doesn't mean that they don't have anything to offer to the sport anymore, far from it. It's a matter of making choices. I am convinced that introducing flexibility in the players career is a win-win move. Nobody is at their best under duress.
Last edited by Monique on 22 Feb 2012, edited 1 time in total.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Witz78

in years to come i envisage snooker being like golf where players earn a fortune during their peak years, then they can either retire, slide into obscurity or if they still have hunger despite not needing the money, they can remain near the top.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Monique

Also I'm not saying that a rolling system with 'best n results out of x" is not feasible, just that it would be harder to follow by fans and players alike. Just think about how much people struggle already nowadays with the rolling rankings without the further complexity added by the fact that not all events would count and not the same events foe each player.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Wildey

Casey wrote:It is pretty sad that some players in the top 48 don't even earn £30k in a year. Hopefully that will change over the next 5 years.

thats the point over the next x amount of years it will take time and effort from everyone to get it in to that possition.

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby Witz78

Monique wrote:Also I'm not saying that a rolling system with 'best n results out of x" is not feasible, just that it would be harder to follow by fans and players alike. Just think about how much people struggle already nowadays with the rolling rankings without the further complexity added by the fact that not all events would count and not the same events foe each player.


itd be far easier to follow for casual fans and those who arent mathematical genuises IF

-qualifiers were played just before events and within the same rankings window period

-world snooker didnt updated the official rankings after events when they are irrelevant and only confuse things

-rankings updated after each event so they were truly rolling

Re: My ranking points proposal for a 128 player tour.

Postby roy142857

Witz78 wrote:
Monique wrote:Also I'm not saying that a rolling system with 'best n results out of x" is not feasible, just that it would be harder to follow by fans and players alike. Just think about how much people struggle already nowadays with the rolling rankings without the further complexity added by the fact that not all events would count and not the same events foe each player.


itd be far easier to follow for casual fans and those who arent mathematical genuises IF

-qualifiers were played just before events and within the same rankings window period

-world snooker didnt updated the official rankings after events when they are irrelevant and only confuse things

-rankings updated after each event so they were truly rolling


Ah, we can but dream ...