by Monique » 30 Aug 2012 Read
The main problem with the true rolling system for now is the tiered structure with the qualifiers separated from the main event. It is of course always possible to keep qualifying points/money on hold for a while but somehow this defeats the purpose of a true rolling system with rankings refreshed after each tournament. So, yes, it would be good but not until we have a flat structure and the whole tournaments played in one go at one venue.
The problem some lower ranked players have raised is that nowadays there isn't enough money to allow 96 players to make any sort of living. As Ali Carter highlighted there should be an "expenses" list going with the "prize money" list so that people realise what the guys actually earn and how many are out of their pocket by a large margin DESPITE winning a fair share of their matches. So they ask themselves, rightly, how an extended tour to 128 can possibly work.
Other than that if you look at the "money" list published by WSA - and forget the discrepancy introduced by the fact that newcomers and re-qualifyers start at 0 , while some players who aren't anymore on the tour still have earnings counted there - so, if you look at the 64 players who stayed on the tour last May, there is surprisingly little difference with the current rankings.
The more striking ones at the top being:
Ronnie is up to n°2. Well yes, he's the current WC, the winner of 2 ranking events and 2 PTCs last season, more than anyone else. So this is indeed a better reflection of his ranking than the points list.
Mark Selby is n°4 and well behind the heading trio, which again is fair IMO as he has won only one ranking event in the last 2 seasons. He's been consistently in the latter stages - so he's won his fair share of money - but he hasn't won events.
Shaun Murphy is down to 10, which again is a fair reflection of a very poor last season.
The money list can only work fairly if the structure of tournaments is flat and if every win is rewarded. Otherwise it's massively unfair to the young, the debutants and the lower ranked players. However, if those conditions are met, it will reward excellence and the winning mentality rather than dedication and being happy with doing well on average, which is in my opinion how it should be. It will give players more choice in the way they manage their career because whatever their ranking they would all start with the same chances in every tournament. It will also stop the "selling snooker cheap" current state of affairs as the top boys won't be bothered to go if the money isn't there, which again is a good thing. If a promoter/organiser/broacaster wants them on board, the event will have to be attractive enough. That's how it works in other sports BTW. There is value in the work the top players have put in to get where they are, and there is value in the entertainment their talent provides. It should be recognised and rewarded.
Invitational events of course should not count because it would not be fair.
There is the question of the PTC Grand Final and the Masters. The PTC Grand Final carries a lot of money but is only open to the players reaching the top 24/32 (depends how you look at it) of the Order of merit. Masters is only open to the top 16. Some argue that eveyone starts with the same chances to reach the PTC GF so it should count. Well with a real flat structure the same would be true for the Masters. Everyone starts with the same chances to make it to the top 16. So they should either both count or both be excluded in my eyes. Actually both be excluded because they offer to much protection to those already at the top: they just add a big bunch of money to what those who earned the most already got.
You will tell me that without the attraction of the PTC Grand Final the PTC will suffer. So be it. Either they will offer proper reward or they will go and good riddance. I don't buy the argument that they develop snooker in new countries. Snooker doesn't need development in China and APTCs are there for different reasons - they are the embryo of a local Main Tour qualifying system IMO. The Paul Hunter Classic is established for years, snooker in Belgium has always been big - ask Janie if you doubt me - and those 2 PTCS are the ones that were big successes. Other than that we have one in Scotland which, last time I checked is in UK and we also have two others - in Poland and Germany - with qualifiers played in Sheffield which basically excludes most "local" players. So let's stop the pretense. PTCs are nothing but cheap tournaments set up to fulfill contractual obligations towards broadcasters and either they should become properly rewarded events or they should go. A money list will force things one way or the other. There is no reason for promoters to put more money in events if they can have them for cheap and still get the best on board. The PTCs only stand a chance to develop into proper events if there is an incentive for promoters to put more money in them and the money list will provide that incentive.