Post a reply

Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Tubberlad

Having looked over Witz recent post, I was dumbfounded to see Matthew Stevens & Judd Trump are in the top ten ranking points scorers for the season. Now, I certainly bear no grudge to either player, they've gone about their business and made the most of the PTC's, which must be respected. However, I've seen nothing from either man in mainstream rankers to suggest that either merit a top 10 position.

I like the new ranking system, the regular updates are a breath of fresh air and common sense really. However, I think the points distribution is a little bit distorted. I would like to see ALL the mainstream rankers (with the possible exception of the World Open) carrying 7,000 points for the winner. I find it bemusing that the Welsh Open and German Masters only carry 5000 points for a winner in spite of having the same formats as the Shanghai Masters & China Open which hold the same format. Both tournaments should carry the same points tariff as both Chinese events.

I think the UK's tariff should be increased by 25%, meaning 10,000 for a winner rather than 8,000. I would like to see the same increase for the World Championship, which would see 12,500 going to the winner.

Thoughts? I have no problem with 2000 points for a PTC event, and don't propose reducing that, but I think the mainstream events need to be focused on.

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Wildey

Matthew Stevens is 5th best Player this Season ....

now all credit to him to pick up those Points been really we not seen any Evidence of that and Same with Trump .

Ebdon has reached a Ranking Semi final at the World Open so thats fair enough we have seen that.

But look at Stephen Hendrys position at 28th He did rubbish in the PTC But he has managed to crawl his way back so it is possible but if there was More Points available in Germany and Wales he would be even Higher.

So i think the Points Tariff you have suggested is not unreasonable and very sensible.

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Tubberlad

Wild wrote:Matthew Stevens is 5th best Player this Season ....

now all credit to him to pick up those Points been really we not seen any Evidence of that and Same with Trump .

Ebdon has reached a Ranking Semi final at the World Open so thats fair enough we have seen that.

But look at Stephen Hendrys position at 28th He did rubbish in the PTC But he has managed to crawl his way back so it is possible but if there was More Points available in Germany and Wales he would be even Higher.

So i think the Points Tariff you have suggested is not unreasonable and very sensible.

Exactly. I actually wouldn't be against having 8,000 for the winner of a standard best-of-9, but 7,000 is the minimum for me.

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Wildey

in some respect im glad that the Rankings been Turned on it head a bit that will Focus players minds just how important even just 360 Last 64 PTC Points are. 4,320 points for 12 PTC Last 64, winning 12 last 128 matches.

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby GJ

matthew has had 2 ranking quarters and has qualfied for 4 other venues this season + qualified for ptc finals :afro:

matthew <cool> :D

So to say he shouldnt be that high up in the list is rather silly IMO :redneck:

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Wildey

GJ wrote:matthew has had 2 ranking quarters and has qualfied for 4 other venues this season + qualified for ptc finals :afro:

matthew <cool> :D

So to say he shouldnt be that high up in the list is rather silly IMO :redneck:

Fair comment its just we haven't seen much of it and we seen the likes of Ding,Robbo and Carter Winning tournaments ok masters not Ranking but its a big event.

even when hes at events he hasent had much in terms of a TV Table.

it just says how important the PTC is having the shanghai masters champion below Stuart Bingham in points won this season.

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Tubberlad

GJ wrote:matthew has had 2 ranking quarters and has qualfied for 4 other venues this season + qualified for ptc finals :afro:

matthew <cool> :D

So to say he shouldnt be that high up in the list is rather silly IMO :redneck:

Is Matthew Stevens anywhere near being the 5th best player in the World?

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby GJ

no and you said top 10 for this season mate not top 5

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby alanmartin

I'd suggest going in the other direction and actually reducing the points for all events except the World Championships, as in previous seasons, the WC constituted a much higher proportion of the total points available.
I'd like to see the rankings limited to a players best 30 results over the past 2 years (this would help newcomers to the tour, prevent mediocrity as just winning 1 match per event alone would have less value.
With 30 counting events, I'd ditribute points as:
World Champs: 10,000
UK: 6,000
Tier 3: 5,000
Tier 4 (Welsh Open etc): 4,000

PTCs: 2,000
--
With only top 30 counting, PTCs would be an essential part of a players ranking but would never replace the value of a top 16 finish in a full rankigs event!

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Wildey

there is no tier 4 for the Welsh Open or tournaments like it

1 WC
2 then if they reduce the UK that is lumbered together with all other Main Rankers
3 PTC Finals
4 PTC

thats the only tiers there should be

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:there is no tier 4 for the Welsh Open or tournaments like it

1 WC
2 then if they reduce the UK that is lumbered together with all other Main Rankers
3 PTC Finals
4 PTC

thats the only tiers there should be


so if the UK goes down to best of 6s in the opening rounds then youd group it in as being no more important than the Welsh or German <doh>

Its still gonna be the 2nd biggest ranker if we lose a couple of frames, its got the history, the prestige and 3 times the prize money at stake too <ok>

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Wildey

yes totally the same it would be stripped of all Prestiege and Davis Haul of 6 will Remain the Record for ever.

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:yes totally the same it would be stripped of all Prestiege and Davis Haul of 6 will Remain the Record for ever.


at best of 11 r1+r2, followed by best of 17 QF and SF and bo19 F, its still a substantially longer format than the other rankers so of course it should stay above them in terms of importance.

Theres more to tournaments importance than frames / formats etc. Im starting to sway towards an order of merit based on earnings being taken into account for rankings now instead as its farcial to suggest that a tournament with 100k to the winner (World Open) was the same as the Shanghai Masters 35k

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:
Wild wrote:yes totally the same it would be stripped of all Prestiege and Davis Haul of 6 will Remain the Record for ever.


at best of 11 r1+r2, followed by best of 17 QF and SF and bo19 F, its still a substantially longer format than the other rankers so of course it should stay above them in terms of importance.

Theres more to tournaments importance than frames / formats etc. Im starting to sway towards an order of merit based on earnings being taken into account for rankings now instead as its farcial to suggest that a tournament with 100k to the winner (World Open) was the same as the Shanghai Masters 35k

it would be about the same as the British Open in the 80s if they want it to remain as the second biggest they can but it will not be the UK.

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Alex0paul

The only thing I would change is the points for the winner. I would add 1000 points for every major ranking event winner to reward players in the rankings more for actually winning things.

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Witz78

Alex0paul wrote:The only thing I would change is the points for the winner. I would add 1000 points for every major ranking event winner to reward players in the rankings more for actually winning things.


thats almost swaying towards a money based order of merit actually.

look at it this way, players who win tournaments usually get twice as much (100%) more prize money those who are runner up, but they only get 1,000-2,000 points more than them (around 25%)

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Dannyboy

No way should there be an Order of Merit system. If you win the World Championship and nothing else, you're pretty much automatically going to be in the Top 2 or 3, without turning up and winning many other matches.

The system is fine as it is IMO. It doesn't award failure and you climb up the rankings quickly should you do well. Probably the only change would to be the official rankings changing on a weekly basis rather than quarterly.

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Wildey

Dannyboy wrote:No way should there be an Order of Merit system. If you win the World Championship and nothing else, you're pretty much automatically going to be in the Top 2 or 3, without turning up and winning many other matches.

The system is fine as it is IMO. It doesn't award failure and you climb up the rankings quickly should you do well. Probably the only change would to be the official rankings changing on a weekly basis rather than quarterly.

well well well that is something we can 100% agree with <ok>

Re: Points tariff overhaul?

Postby Witz78

Dannyboy wrote:No way should there be an Order of Merit system. If you win the World Championship and nothing else, you're pretty much automatically going to be in the Top 2 or 3, without turning up and winning many other matches.

The system is fine as it is IMO. It doesn't award failure and you climb up the rankings quickly should you do well. Probably the only change would to be the official rankings changing on a weekly basis rather than quarterly.


change them after every tournament <ok>

it does reward failure though. i still think theres too much emphasis / importance in winning your first game meaning you maintain your position. I think the points for this are too high and need adjusted.

One thing too that i thinks unfair is the minimum points per event. If you lose your first match i wouldnt give you any points personally. Also, why should someone higher up get more minimum points, thats just a form of protection for the elite. Take the WC for example, 65-96 ranked guys start off with 400 points whilst top 16 start off with 1,400 minimum.

Also the starting points for those new onto tour and aiming to climb up the rankings are way wrong and seriously need adjusted. Ive had a rant about this elsewhere and on numerous occasions in the past. Simple solution would be to double a tour newcomers points earned to truly reflect their form, rather than lumbering them with a miniscule points total that somebody who survived by the skin of their teeth the previous season did. <doh> Its another form of protection, this time for a lot of the lowly ranked guys who ought to really be off tour.