Post a reply

Should the World Grand Prix be a ranking event?

Poll ended at 19 Mar 2016

Yes
9
56%
No
7
44%
 
Total votes : 16

Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby sundaygirl

Should any event not open all the players on tour count towards ranking?
If the World Grand Prix does then why not the Masters?

Obviously the reason I have a bee in my bonnet about this is because Ricky Walden is the only member of the current top 16 not playing therefore I feel too biased to answer my own question.

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby PoolBoy

No! It simply should NOT be a ranking event!
It's invitational. Therefore, no.

Would it be fair to have a ranking event based on the top 16? They're already 'there' due to their ranking points. Why give them even more?
Hell, why not just make a ranker for the top 2 players? Yes, that sounds ridiculous, but where do you draw the line? At 4? At 8? At 16? Or 32 in this case!

Selby v Bingham. The winner adds a ranking tournament to their list - even though nobody else has a chance of competing!?
That's effectively what this tournament is - although on a lesser scale - the principle is the same!

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby Cloud Strife

sundaygirl wrote:And they have received ranking money in doing so? Do they deserve a bonus on top of that?


I see what you're saying, but isn't this the same as all tournaments? Those who fail to qualify get nothing and those who do qualify get the chance to earn extra points and money.

sundaygirl wrote:Isn't this protecting the top players and making it easier for those at the top to stay there?


How is it protecting the top players if they all they all had the SAME opportunity to qualify? At the start of the season all players had 0 points/money.

I'm sorry but I just don't see where you're coming from here.

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby Pink Ball

PoolBoy wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:Tournaments mean buck all to me when they don't carry points. That mightn't be popular but it doesn't make me wrong.

I like this tournament a lot now.

This tournament DOES carry ranking points!

Yes, I know, thus why I said I like it a lot now.

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

Under the current ranking system no but if there was a points based system which only included a players best x number of tournaments then it, the Masters and even the CoC could be included since every player would still be judged on the same number of tournaments. First round losers would get nothing.

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby sundaygirl

I agree with Roy that it being based on a one year list is preferable to being entitled by ranking place, it's a quirk which should give the tourney an identity of its own.

I hope it does stop here and the Masters and CoC never get included in the ranking list

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby mantorok

Pink Ball wrote:Tournaments mean buck all to me when they don't carry points. That mightn't be popular but it doesn't make me wrong.


You're not wrong to have that thinking, just odd. The players play to make a living, every tournament carries cash-winning opportunities. Even the ranking is now based on money.

A player will play their best either way as it's a means to an end - why does it make a difference to you?

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby eraserhead

I like that it rewards people having a good season, everyone has the same opportunity to get in especially with all the flat draws these days.

It can't protect the top 16 who aren't playing well Ricky Walden didn't qualify and there are many lower ranked players seeded higher for this than the some of the 16.

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby Pink Ball

mantorok wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:Tournaments mean buck all to me when they don't carry points. That mightn't be popular but it doesn't make me wrong.


You're not wrong to have that thinking, just odd. The players play to make a living, every tournament carries cash-winning opportunities. Even the ranking is now based on money.

A player will play their best either way as it's a means to an end - why does it make a difference to you?


I know that it matters to players... but for whatever reason, I don't like watching non-ranking snooker as much. Especially odd given that rankings have never been less important than they are now.

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby Wildey

sundaygirl wrote:And they have received ranking money in doing so? Do they deserve a bonus on top of that?
Isn't this protecting the top players and making it easier for those at the top to stay there?

its slightly different Points from the World Championship doesent count for this event.

All players start on equal zero points at the start of the season thats how David Grace and Tian Pengfei got in Ranked 62 and 58.

if it was protecting top players then Ricky would be in it.

what it does is reward seasons consistencies and giving the likes of Grace and Pengfei the chance to leap frog players of eual standing.

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby Wildey

Next season the top 32 on the 1 year list will qualify for the World GP like this year BUT the players championship will be played after it with only top 16 qualifying so the only players that has a chance of playing in the Players Championship are the players that qualify for the WGP and i think both events will be ranking events.

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby Wildey

sundaygirl wrote:For the record I am broadly in favour of the new system vs the old
I like that the rankings are more fluid now it's just a shame that my favourites are struggling

Ricky had a baby during the season so his focus was devided but he will be seeded at the crucible currently 10th

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby Dan-cat

They are not invitationals. The places are awarded based on ranking and performance. Yes they should carry ranking points - all tour players have had the equal chance to qualify.

If the masters and the CoC counted towards ranking, perhaps we would have a more interesting story lines in the top of the rankings and a more realistic view of who the best players are. Selbs hasn't won a tournament for two years and he's number 1. Nonsense.

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby Dan-cat

PoolBoy wrote:Not strictly true that Selby hasn't won a tournament for two-years. He won the German Masters in February 2015 and the China Open in April 2015.


Good point :) I think it was Selby in an interview who said 'I haven't won anything for two years' when he was at the Welsh... I was quoting him directly!

Why isn't it done like tennis?

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby PoolBoy

I'm not sure what other method could be used to devise a ranking list?
3 years of results is too long. And a one-season system (John Higgins would be no.1) is too short!
2 years is probably fairest. Nobody dominates the game nowadays, so even the 'top-ranked' player isn't going to have a stellar record. It's rewarding consistency. If you reached every semi-final in every event, you'd certainly be no.1.

Not counting PTCs, but instead, the 20 ranking events Selby has played over the past 2 seasons, he's failed to reach the quarter-finals in 12 of them.
But in the 8 quarters-finals he made, he won 6 of them.
6 semi-finals in 20 rankers is decent!
He won half of those - so has been in 3 finals in the past 2 seasons. But, he won all 3 - that's why he's ranked at no.1.
Although, not a dominating record, it still beats anybody else!
I'd be interested to hear of your suggestion for a 'better' system, Pink Ball!

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby PLtheRef

Given that there are no restrictions on who can compete in the event and that all players have an equal chance of qualifying for it - I don't see why not. The players championship finals always have and that included first round byes in its earlier editions and there was little discussion surrounding it. The only argument against I can think of is that it's a double reward. These players have already earned ranking points once for this - in qualifying for the event. (That said, is it not an earned reward.)

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby PoolBoy

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:A one year ranking system would be the best. Every tournament is played once a year so the rankings should reflect who the best players in the most recent staging of each tournament.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I thought one-season's results was too short - but as somebody suggested, it's used successfully in tennis. The top players are consistently where they should be, year-on-year, despite being based on one-season's results.
Now that I've thought more about it, I'd probably be in favour of that system.

Re: Should the World Grand Prix carry ranking points?

Postby MarkoPiet

I often have a clear opinion regarding questions such as this one but this time I don't. The both sides are justified and I'm not strongly on either side.

Although this tournament isn't open to all the players, in a sense it is - all the players had a chance to be in it. They had a chance but not all of them are eligible. But how does it differ from Masters, for instance? All the players have an equal chance of making it to the top 16, yet the general opinion seems to be that it shouldn't count to ranking.

It could be argued that the World Grand Prix doesn't feature only top-ranked players (unlike the Masters). However, only five players outside the top 32 made it to the tournament so the difference isn't big at all. But does it matter?

Anyway the tournament protects the top players. They have already been rewarded for their efforts, that's what the prize money is for. Now they get some extra money meaning that the gap between the best and the rest increases. The best are rewarded twice: a victory in itself brings them money but it also means that the players are eligible to earn even more money. In my opinion it doesn't matter that the places aren't allotted by the official ranking list, why should it? The players involved might not be at the top of the official list at the moment but they are still the best according to some criteria and are rewarded because of it. Like someone said earlier, why should the 32nd be able to increase the gap to the 33rd when there was almost no difference between them?

Perhaps I'm starting to lean to the no side. I can understand both sides but I can't understand how this tournament differs from the Masters. In both tournaments the best - determined by different factors - are rewarded because of being the best and all the players have an equal chance of being one of the best.


   

cron