Prize Money Rankings are here!

Dannyboy wrote:The Worlds is by far the most prestigious tournament of the year and rightly has the most prize money. Does winning the World Championship in consecutive seasons not deserve you a place at the top of the pile.

If ROS believes one event a year is the way forward, then he can go right on ahead - if he had gone out in the L32, he certainly wouldn't have been top!

there's other flaws as well Peter Ebdon top 16 give me a break that's almost as bad Ebdon's whole 2 year period consists of March to July 2012 the rest of the time hes been rubbish and the points rankings has it spot on.

Money Ranking List after the Wuxi Classic was published this morning
I have a question: Do the new players with a two year tour card add to the Top 64 or do they replace the lowest ranked players in the top64 ?

snookerfan97 wrote:Money Ranking List after the Wuxi Classic was published this morning
I have a question: Do the new players with a two year tour card add to the Top 64 or do they replace the lowest ranked players in the top64 ?

that was not the 2 year rolling money ranking list that was published this morning thats bascly the points that will be used when the rankings goes money at the end of the 2014 World similar to what matt is doing at pro snooker blog http://www.prosnookerblog.com/rankings/ ... oney-list/ there are discrepancies from the WSA issued list that im sure matt will explore in detail when he has time.

a full rolling ranking list should have tournaments from Australia 2011 to Wuxi 2013

those list has tournaments from beginning of 2012/2013 season to date.

but to answer your question if a player without a 2 year tour card goes bellow 64 in the money list he is eliminated from tour and in to q school.

currently on the list Aditya Mehta is 65 if he stays 65 then he loses his tour card.

I think it's pretty obvious that the upcoming money ranking system isn't fair. Don't get me wrong, I also think the point rankings became flawed a couple of years ago after every Chinese event suddenly was worth 7000 points instead of 5000. A money system itself isn't flawed but the way it will be applied is. Let's make an example: the UK Championship

Point system:

640
1440 (+125%)
2240 (+55%)
3040 (+36%)
4000 (+32%)
5120 (+28%)
6400 (+25%)
8000 (+25%)

Money system:

0
3.000
9.000 (+200%)
12.000 (+33%)
20.000 (+66%)
30.000 (+50%)
70.000 (+133%)
150.000 (+114%)

There are so many problems, I don't even know where to begin. In the point rankings there's a smooth increase of points every round, the increase percentage rate is even slightly falling every round. It's a fair system overall, the only problem with this system was that the major titles like the UK and especially the Worlds became devaluated because of the amount of new ranking events, most of them worth 7/10 of the WC.

First problem in the money rankings: Why is the round 4 (12.000 pound) only such a slight increase to round 3? That means it doesn't make much of a difference if a player loses in round 3 or round 4.
The biggest problem though is the extreme increase for getting to the final. This clearly doesn't favour consistent players but players who have 1 good run to the final. In the point system a win of the UK equals 2 quarter finals in the same event. In the money system a win of UK equals 7,5 (!!!) quarter finals in the same event. That's just completely screwed.

I know that this system clearly favours players like Ronnie but that doesn't mean it's fair or I'm satisfied with it.

The only solution is to increase the price money of the rounds 1-4 and quarter finals accordingly, to make it smoothly increasing again. Unfortunately I don't think this will happen though because Hearn would probably pay the winner even more if he had more money available.

yea there's too much fluctuation in prize money to make it fair.


basically its not about consistency which rankings should be about but hit form at the right time or Fluke a few Results in the right tournament.

The UK Championship is the 6th Ranking tournament of the season but if Ricky Walden would win it and the 150,000 Ranking Points it would wipe out the fact he has only reached the last 32 in other Tournaments this season....that is not what rankings is about its about Keeping your form for a sustained Time frame not here or there.

Plus most of the time the winner gets twice as much as the runner up despite only winning one more match out of seven. Never sat well with me.

What they should have done is altered the points allocation slightly. I think that for each round a player wins, he should gain more points than if he won in the previous round (not less as we saw in some cases). As the UK points stand, we have:

W: 8000 (+1600)
RU: 6400 (+1280)
SF: 5120 (+1120)
QF: 4000 (+960)
L16: 3040 (+800)
L32: 2240 (+1000)
L64: 1440 (+800)
L128: 640

And as highlighted with the money rankings, the jumps are too big:

W: 150,000 (+80,000)
RU: 70,000 (+40,000)
SF: 30,000 (+10,000)
QF: 20,000 (+8,000)
L16: 12,000 (+3,000)
L32: 9,000 (+6,000)
L64: 3,000 (+3,000)
L128: 0

In my opinion a player should gain more points for winning a L32 match than winning a L64 match.

I can understand why there is a switch to money rankings (to award those going deep in competitions), and having a flat L128 format (as not to favour higher ranked players)... but I doesnt work with the current systems. They should have merged the rankings so we can have something like (for the UK for example):

W: 8000 (+1760)
RU: 6240 (+1440)
SF: 4800 (+1280)
QF: 3520 (+1120)
L16: 2400 (+1000)
L32: 1440 (+800)
L64: 640 (+640)
L128: 0

I have taken a leaf from Tennis' book, that any player losing his first match should get 0 points (so for a tiered system, the top 16 losing in L32, should get 0 points; 16-32 losing in L48 get 0 points, etc)

And the maximum points allocation should be changed (and as such, the points above adjusted) to:

10,000 - World Championship
5,000 - UK Championship/International Championship
2,500 - Other Majors
2,000 - PTC Finals
1,000 - UK/European PTC's
500 - Asian PTC's (as winners only get £10,000 compared to ~£20,000 for UK/Euro winners)

if they were still playing the points rankings Ronnie could win 2 World titles in a 2 year rolling rankings and end up ranked 33 http://www.prosnookerblog.com/rankings/ ... eedings-2/

i still think points is a fairer system but it is clear the allocation of points is way off.

Wildey wrote:Prize money rankings are sloppy and useless ill never agree with such a ametarish way of ranking players its neither acurate or fair of who the best players is its totally in hands of sponsors whitch means the winner of the PTC Grand Final has double the points of the welsh open whitch makes a mockery of players being consistant all you have to do is have a Purple Patch at the Right time.
.

I generally agree with this statement. Tennis has a tried, tested, and almost faultless ranking system. Barry has been in charge years and has FINALLY got around to addressing an issue that should have been fixed within a month of him coming to power... and his grand scheme is counting money. Not surprising from a man who thinks that's all that matters, and misses the point about competitive sport entirely. People like Hearn miss out on the finer parts of life, because they see the same pictures we do, but it's always black and white to them- never any colour or appreciation for the nuances that make it up. He seems happy enough, so that's his lot, but I'm so glad I don't see the world as utterly void of passion as him. What good is all of Hearn's money if life is so rigid and baseless. Get off your fat, egotistical ass, Hearn, and come up with a system that can be called professional. I could come up with something better than this while scrubbing clinkers off my bottom in the bath.

The only good news is, money rankings are better than the shambles we have at present.

The distribution of ranking points depending on tournament finish is vastly different between Tennis and Snooker. The current money system is far more reflective of the truth IMO than a system based on the current ranking point distributions. However, is truth synonymous with practicality when it comes to the promotion of the sport of snooker and the influx of newer generations and their opportunities? I think it will work well, actually, given other changes that are occurring concurrently that do much to offer further opportunity to many next generational aspiring snooker pros.

Start of 2014/2015 Top 32

if Ronnie Wins

1 Ding Junhui
2 Neil Robertson
3 Ronnie O'Sullivan
4 Mark Selby

if Selby Wins

1 Mark Selby
2 Ding Junhui
3 Neil Robertson
4 Ronnie O'Sullivan

5 Barry Hawkins
6 Judd Trump
7 Shaun Murphy
8 Marco Fu
9 Mark Allen
10 Ricky Walden
11 John Higgins
12 Stuart Bingham
13 Ali Carter
14 Stephen Maguire
15 Joe Perry
16 Mark Davis
-------------------------------------------------------
17 Graeme Dott
18 Mark Williams
19 Matthew Stevens
20 Robert Milkins
21 Ryan Day
22 Michael Holt
23 Xiao Guodong
24 Dominic Dale
25 Peter Ebdon
26 Liang Wenbo
27 Michael White
28 Mark King
29 Alan McManus
30 Martin Gould
31 Fergal O'Brien
32 Tom Ford

Before the Start of the World Championship Ronnie O'Sullivan was Ranked 33rd on the points Rankings then he reached the final and dropped down to 39th.

On the Money List unless you defend points to the max the drop will be even more dramatic so players that look safe on tour at say 48 could see themselves off tour between the China Open and The World Championship.

although Money rankings will give players Like Ronnie, Robertson, Ding and Selby the chance to pick and choose, Most inside the top 16 will have to work even harder during the season to maintain a top 16 place or come the 2015 World championship they will have to win 3 matches to Qualify.