Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

RANKINGS SYSTEM SET FOR MAJOR CHANGE
The ranking system is to receive its first major overhaul in two decades as part of Barry Hearn’s new plans for snooker.

The list will receive an official revision twice during the season rather than solely at the end of it.

This means that the field for the Masters and the players guaranteed to be at the World Championship will not necessarily be the top 16 as it stands now.

This is controversial because players have spent the last two years competing in tournaments unaware that a major change was coming.

But though some players will be aghast, many others will see it as a chance to more quickly rise up the list and have their success rewarded.

I understand that the first revision of the list will come at the conclusion of the World Open. The top 16 will therefore be seeded through to the final stages of the UK Championship and will be at the Masters.

The second revision will most likely come after the Welsh Open, which will give us the 16 players seeded through to the Crucible.

The new system should, in theory, better reflect current form. After all, the 16 players at the Masters are not the best 16 players in January, they are the best 16 players based on a two-year list which ended eight months before the Wembley event.

The old system caused stagnation in the game. How can it be right for players in the top 16 to win just one match in each event and hardly budge?

Hearn’s ethos is that the more success a player has, the more he should see the benefits.

Let’s take one at random: Tom Ford. He’s a good player and was a Crucible qualifier last season.

Imagine if Tom won the Shanghai Masters. Under the previous system, he would have to wait an entire year until the same event the following season to earn any reward.

Under the new system he would go up the rankings, possibly enough to get in the top 16 straight away.

Peter Ebdon dropped out of the top 16 after 16 years just last month. If he performs well at Shanghai and Glasgow he could be back in a matter of just months rather than having to wait a whole season.

I can understand some players being unhappy with all this. The system has barely changed at all since the early 1990s when it was decided to award thousands of points at a time (younger readers may be surprised to know that ranking event winners used to get just six points).

But it fits into Hearn’s aspiration to have players aiming high and receiving the rewards when they achieve.

And actually as it stands right now only two top 16 players – Ryan Day and Marco Fu – are outside the elite bracket on the one-year list, with Jamie Cope standing 15th and Ken Doherty 16th.

I can think of three players – Doug Mountjoy, Ronnie O’Sullivan and Ding Junhui – who have won the UK Championship, the biggest ranking title in the run up to the World Championship, and still had to qualify for the Crucible (Ding missed out).

Indeed, it was theoretically possible to win every title on the circuit and not be guaranteed a Crucible place.

Equally, it was possible – and it has happened – that a top 16 player can lose every match during the season and still be guaranteed a place in Sheffield.

Why should this level of protection apply to a player who is not producing the goods on the table?

And furthermore, why shouldn’t snooker try something new?

It would certainly create more media interest because it would effectively create the ‘Race for the Masters’ and the ‘Race for the Crucible.’

As with everything else in this new era, it may not be a perfect idea and it may not have the support of everyone.

But the old ranking system was like swimming through glue. The new one should at least guarantee that those who achieve on the table see the rewards - the very essence of what sport should be about.

N_Castle07 wrote:Quote
I understand that the first revision of the list will come at the conclusion of the World Open. The top 16 will therefore be seeded through to the final stages of the UK Championship and will be at the Masters.
*
*
*
Am i reading this right? The top 16 after the World Open (which is best out of 5 and could produce shock wins and defeats) will be entered into the Masters?

N_Castle07 wrote:With time i think this system will be great and will show a true reflection of the top 16. It is so exciting to be a snooker fan right now.

With this new system in place do you think it spells the end of seeing the likes of Davis, Doherty, Hendry and Ebdon in the televison stages of major events?

case_master wrote:Ding is number 1 on the one year list. So assuming he has a decent run in the first PTC event he will be the new world number 1?

Monique wrote:here is the list http://www.global-snooker.com/2009-10-O ... g-List.asp

Monique wrote:

N_Castle07 wrote:Quote
I understand that the first revision of the list will come at the conclusion of the World Open. The top 16 will therefore be seeded through to the final stages of the UK Championship and will be at the Masters.
*
*
*
Am i reading this right? The top 16 after the World Open (which is best out of 5 and could produce shock wins and defeats) will be entered into the Masters?

Yes, but points will be calculated over a year time frame, so last year points are not out of the window. It will not just be Shanghai Masters, World Open and whatever PTCs. It will be all ranking points earned after the 2009 GP. At least this my understanding.

wildJONESEYE wrote:im slightly confused how it will be worked out however i think changing it in this way is a possitive move in the right direction and i suspect once the season starts it will become clearer however at the moment what points they will start what points are dropped off etc is as clear as mud lol

Sonny wrote:

wildJONESEYE wrote:im slightly confused how it will be worked out however i think changing it in this way is a possitive move in the right direction and i suspect once the season starts it will become clearer however at the moment what points they will start what points are dropped off etc is as clear as mud lol

World Open ends September 26th, so on that date you will have all points from 26/09/09 - 26/09/10 counting towards the official rankings until 20/02/11 which is when the Welsh Open finishes so then the rankings until the end of the season will be based on 20/02/10 - 20/02/11.

At least that's my understanding.

In which case Ding should start the new season as World Number 1.

case_master wrote:

N_Castle07 wrote:With time i think this system will be great and will show a true reflection of the top 16. It is so exciting to be a snooker fan right now.

With this new system in place do you think it spells the end of seeing the likes of Davis, Doherty, Hendry and Ebdon in the televison stages of major events?

Yes it is very exciting indeed, this is a big incentive for players. Especially Judd Trump who was going backwards in the rankings.

As for the end of Davis, Doherty, Hendry, Ebdon...not sure really. Even with this system, winning your first round matches will be enough to keep you in the top 16. Davis will be out of the top 32 soon enough. Hendry is close to retiring anyway, Doherty and Ebdon will be dangerous first/second round opponents for a couple more years yet.

EDIT: World Snooker have been in touch to say the list be actually be revised three times during the season, not twice. It will be after the World Open, the UK Championship and Welsh Open.

Monique wrote:Well there is no certainty Ding will be number one. He's currently n°1 on the one year list, but John Higgins is officially number one for now and, should he be banned , then it would be Neil Robertson. After the World Open the rankings will be recalculated. Ding is currently less than 400 ahead of Higgins, 1600 points ahead of Robertson, 3240 points ahead of ROS. This means that if any of those perform well in the Shanghai Masters and World Open they could easily overtake him, would he have an upset.

case_master wrote:

Monique wrote:Well there is no certainty Ding will be number one. He's currently n°1 on the one year list, but John Higgins is officially number one for now and, should he be banned , then it would be Neil Robertson. After the World Open the rankings will be recalculated. Ding is currently less than 400 ahead of Higgins, 1600 points ahead of Robertson, 3240 points ahead of ROS. This means that if any of those perform well in the Shanghai Masters and World Open they could easily overtake him, would he have an upset.

Ah i thought they were going to start with the positions on the 1 year list rather than the current 2 year list.

Monique wrote:

case_master wrote:

Monique wrote:Well there is no certainty Ding will be number one. He's currently n°1 on the one year list, but John Higgins is officially number one for now and, should he be banned , then it would be Neil Robertson. After the World Open the rankings will be recalculated. Ding is currently less than 400 ahead of Higgins, 1600 points ahead of Robertson, 3240 points ahead of ROS. This means that if any of those perform well in the Shanghai Masters and World Open they could easily overtake him, would he have an upset.

Ah i thought they were going to start with the positions on the 1 year list rather than the current 2 year list.

Maybe indeed but the official ranking list on WPBSA is still the one calculated after the WC. I think they will keep it though. Somehow it would be a bit unfair to change that now because the players did know nothing about this new system.

The only problem with the rolling system is that it penalises players who have done well

Ronnie O'Sullivan received 4,000 points for winning the Northern Ireland. First round losers got something like 700.

So he will be losing a big chunk off his overall total while those who did no good will lose hardly anything. This doesn't strike me as tackling mediocrity.

wildJONESEYE wrote:some people just want their favarites protected at all time and does not see the excitement this will bring.

The only problem with the rolling system is that it penalises players who have done well

Ronnie O'Sullivan received 4,000 points for winning the Northern Ireland. First round losers got something like 700.

So he will be losing a big chunk off his overall total while those who did no good will lose hardly anything. This doesn't strike me as tackling mediocrity.

wildJONESEYE wrote:some people just want their favarites protected at all time and does not see the excitement this will bring.

The only problem with the rolling system is that it penalises players who have done well

Ronnie O'Sullivan received 4,000 points for winning the Northern Ireland. First round losers got something like 700.

So he will be losing a big chunk off his overall total while those who did no good will lose hardly anything. This doesn't strike me as tackling mediocrity.