by fridge46 » 06 Dec 2013 Read
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)