Post a reply

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles ... 155,00.pdf

The Fact John Higgins is no 1 after 2 Seasons when he only Really played for Half of 1 season shows how un acurate it is.

He Did not Produce at all last season with only 2 Quarter Finals in Main Rankers and no semi Final. His PTC Record wasent Much Better and then he missed the start of this Season and he is Still No 1 :shrug:

that does not show accuracy

the same with Ronnie he missed Most of 2010/2011 Season and Events he played in he Lost a Lot of first Rounds and hes No 2 and as for Ali Carter well that's a Joke.

For me the Point Rankings are far more accurate of where these three players Should be Ranked.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

and another thing with Prize money Rankings Daniel Wells who won only 3 Matches last season and 1 this season is 76th and Aditya Meata whos won 26 matches in the Last 2 seasons is 78th :dizzy:

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Skullman

Maybe World Snooker were too lazy to figure things out for the lesser players and just made numbers up. Wouldn't put it past them...

And apparently there's the 160 or so invisible players on the ranking points list judging by some of the dodgy numbers they've come up with.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby SnookerFan

TWITTER ATTACK!

Shaun Murphy ‏@Magician147
Great news today announced by @WorldSnooker1 to change to a money list over an outdated and flawed points system.

Interesting that he is in favour of it. Most fans I've spoken to either are indifferent to it, or think it's a stupid idea.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Roland

I wondered the same thing. In fact I dared to suggest that he's a brown noser who backs everything World Snooker suggests. Am I bad?

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby SnookerFan

Sonny wrote:I wondered the same thing. In fact I dared to suggest that he's a brown noser who backs everything World Snooker suggests. Am I bad?


Yes. You're going straight to hell. :grrr:

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

SnookerFan wrote:TWITTER ATTACK!

Shaun Murphy ‏@Magician147
Great news today announced by @WorldSnooker1 to change to a money list over an outdated and flawed points system.

Interesting that he is in favour of it. Most fans I've spoken to either are indifferent to it, or think it's a stupid idea.

yup seen it and answered him.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby SnookerFan

Wild WC wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:TWITTER ATTACK!

Shaun Murphy ‏@Magician147
Great news today announced by @WorldSnooker1 to change to a money list over an outdated and flawed points system.

Interesting that he is in favour of it. Most fans I've spoken to either are indifferent to it, or think it's a stupid idea.

yup seen it and answered him.



Funny you should say that. I just came on here to post your answer.

E JONES ‏@wildey_1
@Magician147 @WorldSnooker1 you are Joking i hope bucking hell are all snooker players bucking stupid or what ?

Eloquent as ever. rofl

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Monique

Sonny wrote:I wondered the same thing. In fact I dared to suggest that he's a brown noser who backs everything World Snooker suggests. Am I bad?


;-) He's a good boy, is he? and not the only one (not naming the names)

What I find striking though is that for the players established on the Main Tour (the top 64 at start of the season) there isn't much difference with the current ranking. Ronnie is probably the biggest "discrepancy"

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Muppet147

SnookerFan wrote:
Wild WC wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:TWITTER ATTACK!

Shaun Murphy ‏@Magician147
Great news today announced by @WorldSnooker1 to change to a money list over an outdated and flawed points system.

Interesting that he is in favour of it. Most fans I've spoken to either are indifferent to it, or think it's a stupid idea.

yup seen it and answered him.



Funny you should say that. I just came on here to post your answer.

E JONES ‏@wildey_1
@Magician147 @WorldSnooker1 you are Joking i hope bucking hell are all snooker players bucking stupid or what ?

Eloquent as ever. rofl


I very much doubt Murphy read that. I would imagine all that crackpot's tweets go straight to spam.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby SnookerFan

Monique wrote:
Sonny wrote:I wondered the same thing. In fact I dared to suggest that he's a brown noser who backs everything World Snooker suggests. Am I bad?


;-) He's a good boy, is he? and not the only one (not naming the names)

What I find striking though is that for the players established on the Main Tour (the top 64 at start of the season) there isn't much difference with the current ranking. Ronnie is probably the biggest "discrepancy"


A coincidence that will shock World Snooker staff, I'm sure.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby SnookerFan

Muppet147 wrote:
I very much doubt Murphy read that. I would imagine all that crackpot's tweets go straight to spam.


Are you suggesting that Wild's rants do more harm to the point he is trying to make? Surely not.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

SnookerFan wrote:
Muppet147 wrote:
I very much doubt Murphy read that. I would imagine all that crackpot's tweets go straight to spam.


Are you suggesting that Wild's rants do more harm to the point he is trying to make? Surely not.

Dont Think he can read so it dont matter anyway.

Seriously the WPBSA Members is like a Whos Who of Rejected Brain Transplant Patients.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Monique

SnookerFan wrote:
Monique wrote:
Sonny wrote:I wondered the same thing. In fact I dared to suggest that he's a brown noser who backs everything World Snooker suggests. Am I bad?


;-) He's a good boy, is he? and not the only one (not naming the names)

What I find striking though is that for the players established on the Main Tour (the top 64 at start of the season) there isn't much difference with the current ranking. Ronnie is probably the biggest "discrepancy"


A coincidence that will shock World Snooker staff, I'm sure.


He's the reigning World Champion and has won 5 events last season, including 2 major rakers,that's a lot more than anyone else. So despite his poor previous season and missing tournaments I think this is a better reflection of his ranking than the current one.
There is less emphasis on consistency - or actually on dedication to play in ever tiny event even if you lose money on it - and more on winning. In short it rewards excellence rather than being a "good boy".

I'm all for it and before anyone jumps at me it's nothing to do with Ronnie. I always thought this way. I always found it ridiculous - and quite infuriating - at school to get rewarded for a nice handwriting, for being a "good girl" (which BTW in my time and whereabouts implied going to Mass every day, to bow in front of the nuns and priests and above all to never challenge authority, religion and imposed prejudices) rather for being clever and mastering the subjects you were supposed to study and being able to develop original ideas.
If you have to deal with an engineer to build a bridge, or a surgeon to remove a tumor, you will not care in the least if their handwriting is nice or if they are complying to all etiquette rules. You want them to be capable. You want the bridge to be solid and reliable, you want the surgeon to restore your health. If the bridge collapses and kills people close to you, you don't want to be told "Oh but he's such a nice guy who always says the right things and always gets in the office at 9 sharp"…

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Muppet147

SnookerFan wrote:
Muppet147 wrote:
I very much doubt Murphy read that. I would imagine all that crackpot's tweets go straight to spam.


Are you suggesting that Wild's rants do more harm to the point he is trying to make? Surely not.


I never really thought he was trying to make a point. I just assumed the dribbling and foul language was part of his Tourette's Syndrome.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby JIMO96

This list is FULL of inconsistencies!!

I put my own spreadsheet together, and tried to work out why Martin O'Donnell has 576 points, despite not winning anything this season......or last(!) Turns out he reached the last 64 of 2 * UK PTC's (PTC3 & PTC4) and 1 * Euro PTC (EPTC1) in the 2010-11 season. SO....WSA have obviously included those 3 events in the list, despite being more than 2 years old.

So when I add in the 3 events, it immediately strikes me that 3 players have figures that are between £8000-£10000 different from WSA's list: Judd Trump, Barry Pinches & Tom Ford. Guess what? They're the 3 winners of those events!

Make up your mind WSA....do these 3 events count, or not?

Also, I think they're using different conversion rates for different EPTC's. I'm pretty sure the one just finished has an 80% conversion, but it's obvious some others have 81 and 83 conversion rates. Unless WSA issue a list of currency exchanges for each event, then us budding rankings compilers are well and truly screwed!

As for my opinion on a money based list.....I don't mind it, there's nothing wrong with having both World Champions in the cycle at 1 & 2....but I'll like it more if and when they bring in flat qualifying and cash for winning in the first round.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

For me the only way a Money Ranking System could be Fair if it was a One year Rolling List so that Points Earned During a Succesfull 2011/2012 season will be Removed more Immanent.

2 Year money Lists are More Protective than a 2 year Point List.

By not entering first Few Events of 2012/2013 under a one year Money List Ronnie or any other World Champion Knows that the points he gained for the 2012 WC will be removed at the End of the Season unlike 2 year list where they protected for a Full year.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Roland

Well Murphy has expanded and this is what he said:

"I just like a system that will reward success. I think on the current system it takes too long to rise. I think the rankings should be adjusted after every event. " and when asked by Michael Holt

"If you did change it how would it work logistically? We'd need new venues to be able to cope with 128.. " he replied "that's exactly why I think it should have gone to 64 not 128."


So he is advocating a reduced main tour. A closed shop. A moneylist of 64 players. Does this last a season? Is there a reduced tour for an entire year before say, the 10 worst earners of the 64 drop out and the next 10 get on board for the next year based on money they've won from a secondary tour which would probably equate to more than the worst of the 64? How do you have a more up to date list with a chance to rise quicker if you've got to be in the 64 in the first place to do this?

It sounds like he's not thought this through, and it's also easy to say close the door at 64 if you're in the top 8. I think the current system should be allowed to see itself at least a season past the time the points from the first events using this system start to drop off. There is too much confusion between the way World Snooker define and publish the current system and how it should be best done. PSB Matt is an expert on this, if he was in charge it would be fully rolling so new points from a tournament win would project the player up the rankings before the next event starts. And if you do this properly it will be more accurate a measure than any money list system.

The supposed benefits of the money list is to attract sponsors money. So just say a Chinese businessman backed a new tournament in China with a top prize of £10 million, would that be a bigger tournament than the World Championships?

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Monique

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.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Skullman

World Snooker have copped on to the fact that their previous list was full of errors and have created a 'corrected' one. Can't any see problems with it for now except there are still some strange ranking positions for the lower down players, although that could be because they're doing so poorly they're on par with the likes of Parrott who never resigned their membership.

http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles ... 163,00.pdf

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

Skullman wrote:World Snooker have copped on to the fact that their previous list was full of errors and have created a 'corrected' one. Can't any see problems with it for now except there are still some strange ranking positions for the lower down players, although that could be because they're doing so poorly they're on par with the likes of Parrott who never resigned their membership.

http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles ... 163,00.pdf

Can they do anything right ?

seriously that place is full of incompetent idiots.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Casey

Monique wrote: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.


I would hope (and it could very well happen) that as a result of rankings, sponsors will pump more money into their events to get a leg up on the other tournaments. At the moment the International Championship would become the second biggest tournament on tour ranking wise. The other Chinese event might respond and up their pot size, this can only be good for the players.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

The only way this can Work Fair is if its a Flat Structure one Year Rolling Rankings.

i think with Barry Hearn looking For increased Sponsorship for the World Championship the First Prize of £250,000 will be Going up so it will give to much Added security for a World Champion.

a Player wins the World Championship in 2014 he will be Free to Lose every Match until after the 2016 World Championship before he sees His Ranking suffering.

isnt that what Rolling Rankings was suppose to be about Poor Form Suffering instantly or Good Form rewarded instantly.

if it was a one year List even with Prize Money Ranking a World Champion will only have a year that his World Championship Points protect him...So he will have to Build up points in Other Events or Hope he Wins the World Championship Again the Following year..

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Monique

I'm not sure that if BH gets a better sponsorship for the WC, the prize money will go up. Actually I don't think it should. I don't think that the past sponsorship covered the cost of the WC. If a new sponsorship did, or covered a bigger part of it, the "saved" money should be invested in developing the game, which basically means raising the prize money for the tournaments in "new" areas so that they are made more sustainable for the players. There is no reason that the players should finance the development of the game - it's their job so they should be able to earn money out of it provided of course they win matches - and most of them don't have the money to do that anyway.

Other than that it doesn't bother me if players winning a big tournament have some protection and freedom of choice. They have earned it. It's part of being at the top in any sport. Those who would go walkabout and go lazy will find themselves in trouble soon enough anyway, just like people winning the lotto, stopping to work and starting to spend without limits…

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

it does Bother Me

John Higgins Last won a Tournament 16 months ago How is that a indication of Current Form if someone that's Done Virtually nothing for so long is WN 1 ?

his Current Ranking of 7 is a More Accurate Picture of Where hes at in the Snooker Pecking Order

AND

Ronnie has missed a lot of tournaments and although his ranking of 16 isnt exactly fair its still more Accurate than him being No 2 over a 2 year period.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Monique

John Higgins will start to suffer soon. In the coming 8 months he will "lose" the benefits of the UK, the Welsh and the WC and he will go down the money list quicker than down the ranking list. As a very rough estimation if he doesn't win a match he will find himself well out of the top 16 come May, despite the protection that the tiered system currently offers.
You shouldn't forget that rankings will become less important anyway if the structure goes flat and everyone starts at round 1 and has to win 7 matches to win the title. At best being higher in the rankings will give you a theoretically easier opening match, that's all. Mainly it will be about staying in the top 64.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:John Higgins will start to suffer soon. In the coming 8 months he will "lose" the benefits of the UK, the Welsh and the WC. As a very rough estimation if he doesn't win a match he will find himself well out of the top 16 come May, despite the protection that the tiered system currently offers.
You shouldn't forget that rankings will become less important anyway if the structure goes flat and everyone starts at round 1 and has to win 7 matches to win the title. At best being higher in the rankings will give you a theoretically easier opening match, that's all. Mainly it will be about staying in the top 64.

yea But my point is Winning the World Championship with Prize Money Protects you for 2 Years already you are Protected for one year because you seeded 2 Automaticly.

yes Flat system is the Best way for the system to be Fair BUT im questioning if that will ever be the Case after all Sponsors and TV Companies initiated that they wanted the Top Players at the venues in the first Place that's how the Current tier system was introduced.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Casey

Monique wrote:I'm not sure that if BH gets a better sponsorship for the WC, the prize money will go up. Actually I don't think it should. I don't think that the past sponsorship covered the cost of the WC. If a new sponsorship did, or covered a bigger part of it, the "saved" money should be invested in developing the game, which basically means raising the prize money for the tournaments in "new" areas so that they are made more sustainable for the players. There is no reason that the players should finance the development of the game - it's their job so they should be able to earn money out of it provided of course they win matches - and most of them don't have the money to do that anyway.

Other than that it doesn't bother me if players winning a big tournament have some protection and freedom of choice. They have earned it. It's part of being at the top in any sport. Those who would go walkabout and go lazy will find themselves in trouble soon enough anyway, just like people winning the lotto, stopping to work and starting to spend without limits…


Very true about players who win events deserve the protection - it happens in all other sports so only right it's the same in snooker.

I would hope that the prize money at the crucible rise a bit, maybe £280k for the winner and for those that qualfiy - a minimum of £15k?

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Monique

If all rounds are played in one go at the venue - as it should - it will be no problem. I'm not expecting all rounds to be on television but streaming certainly could be organised and the most interesting matches shown. There is streaming in qualifiers already, so why not in early rounds of tournaments.

One thing you seem to overlook wild is that nobody becomes a top player if they are not competitive. They may not all be as competitive as Hendry was, but you don't become a multiple event winner if you don't care about winning. The top players will try their best if the prestige and money is there and more often tan not they will reach the latter stages. Look at the last season televised PTCs results.
If one or two of them miss out in each event and we get to see a couple of new faces instead it will only make it more interesting.

Regarding form, the flat structure is more "punishing" than any ranking system. Players out of form will lose early, earn less or nothing and will not reach the television stages, hence losing sponsoring money as well as prize money.

Re: Prize Money Rankings are here!

Postby Wildey

Yea obviously Best players will make the Latter Stages maybe not Always as im Hoping we do get The Lisowskis,Yupeng,Brecel etc etc Pushing on and Maybe Leaving the Likes of Murphy even Ronnie behind at the Last 64 Stage sometime.

and if it was a Flat Structure Rankings wont Matter Much Anyway however

im Still not Happy World Champion gets that Much protection a 2 week Purple Patch out of 2 seasons will count for to much in my opinion Just think What Joe Johnson Missed out on.