Post a reply

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey » 02 Jul 2010 Read

Worlds 10,000
UK 8,000
Shanghai 6,000
Welsh 6,000
German 6,000
China 6000
World Open 5,000
PTC Final 3,000
PTC 2,000

that is the fair way

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey » 02 Jul 2010 Read

the reason they increased it to 7,000 in the first place was to compansate for lack of tournaments so now with PTC it doesent need to be as high and also lower it is the more they need PTC Points .

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Witz78 » 02 Jul 2010 Read

wildJONESEYE wrote:Worlds 10,000
UK 8,000
Shanghai 6,000
Welsh 6,000
German 6,000
China 6000
World Open 5,000
PTC Final 3,000
PTC 2,000

that is the fair way


How about

Worlds 12,000
UK 9,000
China 7,000
World Open / Shanghai / Welsh / German 6,000
PTC Final 3,000
PTC 2,000

Would make the Worlds and UK rightfully still the most important tournaments of the season with far more to win or lose at them rankings wise. Also the gap between the PTC events and proper rankers would be there too.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey » 02 Jul 2010 Read

im all for china getting more but im against world open being up there with shanghai and wales

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Witz78 » 02 Jul 2010 Read

This season the World Championship is only equating to 13% of the season ranking points wise (10,000/76,000 total points)

Whereas last season it worth 23 % (10,000/44,000 total points)

I suppose this is what we want, a season that has far many more points available and opportunties and also the rankings being fairer and based on a whole full season rather than the Worlds being so important that winning a match or 2 at the Crucible makes a bad season become a good one.

On the other hand though the Worlds now has a reduced importance rankings wise and may have lost some of its significance now, though of course the history and prestige of the Worlds means the event itself would still be as prestigious.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Witz78 » 02 Jul 2010 Read

Monique wrote:Why should China get more than Shanghai: it's exactly the same format. Exactly.


i know what your saying Monique and i agree that to reflect this increased status it gets that there should be a change to the format, be it best of 11's instead of 9's.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey » 02 Jul 2010 Read

Monique wrote:Why should China get more than Shanghai: it's exactly the same format. Exactly.


hat is why my point system is the only option.

not this load of Rubish WS came up with

Wales 5,000 ?????????????????????? 3rd longest ranking tournement now on the circuit

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey » 03 Jul 2010 Read

Bourne wrote:Do they actually have reasoned analysis as to why the World Open gets more points than Wales ?

there is absalutly no logic in it what so ever proberbly because the word World is in the title but buck me you win the UK By winning 46 frames of 2 session snooker and you only get a 1000 more point than a leisurely best of 5s stroll in the park.

ive nothing against the World Open but it has to reflect sense and giving it equal status to shanghai and china and higher status than Germany and Wales is just stupidity at it best.

personally i wouldn't even give the winner of it a notch on the Ranking Titles bedpost either.......its a tournament born out of quite rightly desperation to keep the BBC Portfolio at 4 Tournaments and it really not reflective of a snooker Tournament and what a Ranking Tournament win was in the past.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey » 03 Jul 2010 Read

Bourne wrote:Sponsorship ? :huh2:

no sponsor yet but i have every faith a sponsor will come.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Bourne » 03 Jul 2010 Read

No I mean is that why the World is getting more prestige, that it's got better sponsorship/money prize ?

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey » 03 Jul 2010 Read

Bourne wrote:No I mean is that why the World is getting more prestige, that it's got better sponsorship/money prize ?

Prestige should not be judged on Money/Sponsorship ......

was Mark Williams World Win in 2003 Worth More than Greame Dott winning in 2006 because he got £270 grand with embassy and Dott getting just £200 grand with 888.com ?

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Tubberlad » 03 Jul 2010 Read

wildJONESEYE wrote:
Bourne wrote:No I mean is that why the World is getting more prestige, that it's got better sponsorship/money prize ?

Prestige should not be judged on Money/Sponsorship ......

was Mark Williams World Win in 2003 Worth More than Greame Dott winning in 2006 because he got £270 grand with embassy and Dott getting just £200 grand with 888.com ?

Obviously not. The Masters is worth £25,000 more than the UK Championship, and has a more 'prestigious' sponsor, but I have little doubt that 90% of snooker fans and players would rate the UK Championship as more important.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Bourne » 03 Jul 2010 Read

I know it shouldn't but i'm speculating *why* it's being held in a higher light than the Welsh, no-one's really come up with a solid reason :huh2:

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey » 03 Jul 2010 Read

i just do not get how the bloody hell is the World Open worth a PTC Win more Points than Wales lol

its like The Football League if a team beats Man Utd they get 2 more points than they would beating Wigan Because Man U has WORLD Wide appeal and wigan hasn't <doh> <laugh>

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby JohnFromLondonTown » 03 Jul 2010 Read

thetubberlad wrote:I think it's got a little bit to do with insuring that the Beeb keep their faith in this tournament?

For sure, you know, keep trying to reinvent yourself at this stage to keep generating knew interest.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey » 03 Jul 2010 Read

thetubberlad wrote:I think it's got a little bit to do with insuring that the Beeb keep their faith in this tournament?


Yes great but how many ranking points has sod all to do with the BEEB its just plain stupidaty on the part of World Snooker there is no getting away from that.

im not in to ass licking barry hearn just because i wanted him in the job most things he does and has done i agree with ill say so if he or any other person cockerels up ill tell them straight no messing.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Witz78 » 03 Jul 2010 Read

wildJONESEYE wrote:
thetubberlad wrote:I think it's got a little bit to do with insuring that the Beeb keep their faith in this tournament?


Yes great but how many ranking points has sod all to do with the BEEB its just plain stupidaty on the part of World Snooker there is no getting away from that.

im not in to ass licking barry hearn just because i wanted him in the job most things he does and has done i agree with ill say so if he or any other person willies up ill tell them straight no messing.



rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

calm down dear, its only a commercial

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey » 03 Jul 2010 Read

i think it makes a mockery out of a possitive change to the ranking system and it could reward mediocraty of only needing 20 frames to get 7,000 points and clime the rankings.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Roland » 03 Jul 2010 Read

I've just had a peep at the ranking points schedule and I'm flabbergasted at how blatantly wrong the distribution is. Winner of the UK 8000, winner of the World Open 7000, winner of the Worlds 10,000 and the Welsh 5000?

World Open, German Masters should be 5000
Shanghai, China, Wales should all be 7000
UK should be 9,000
Worlds should be 12,000

or at least something like those proportions

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Witz78 » 03 Jul 2010 Read

Sonny wrote:I've just had a peep at the ranking points schedule and I'm flabbergasted at how blatantly wrong the distribution is. Winner of the UK 8000, winner of the World Open 7000, winner of the Worlds 10,000 and the Welsh 5000?

World Open, German Masters should be 5000
Shanghai, China, Wales should all be 7000
UK should be 9,000
Worlds should be 12,000

or at least something like those proportions


spot on <ok>

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey » 03 Jul 2010 Read

That is the right ballance however id Bring the Points lower than you got it so that playing in the PTC will be esential for players the arguament has been the Reason Hendry can maintain his ranking was because of World Championship performances well that would make it easier for him than currently 10,000 system.

the reason they incresed the Ranking points to 7,000 last season was because of so little tournaments however this season with 1 extra ranker and the PTC i think that should come down to 6,000 then 4,000 to World Open and German on the scale you got it

Last Season Ranking Tournaments winning points 44,000

This Season Ranking Winning points would be the way i see it 44,000 plus 27,000 for the PTC

the way it is by World Snooker 49,000 plus 27,000 points

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Monique » 10 Jul 2010 Read

no they are not wrong. The provisional rankings should not take into account those tournaments that will be cut-off at the next cut-off point. What is currently on WPBSA makes no sense. It's neither the official ranking - that does not change - nor the provisional because they haven't taken out the cut-off tournaments.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey » 10 Jul 2010 Read

Monique wrote:no they are not wrong. The provisional rankings should not take into account those tournaments that will be cut-off at the next cut-off point. What is currently on WPBSA makes no sense. It's neither the official ranking - that does not change - nor the provisional because they haven't taken out the cut-off tournaments.

Monique ignore Global and World Snooker Rankings in a word they are rubbish

they got Harold at 31 there is no way he will ever get to be seeded 31 unless he has a god almighty season....

the only relevent Rankings is on Pro Snooker Blog the others arent worth Looking at They are as useless as a chocalate Fireguard or a Plastic Sauspan....

What i will Say Global is following World Snooker unfortunally.
Post a reply