Post a reply

Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Roland

This topic has been split from another which went off topic but it is a subject which has been much discussed on snooker forums for a long time - rolling rankings! Some are against, most are for. Discuss them here because they are going to happen.


EDIT - provisional rankings

http://prosnookerblog.com/rankings/2010 ... -rankings/

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Tubberlad

Sonny wrote:We need to see a detailed breakdown of how the ranking points system will work. Certainly when I was speaking to Mooney he had the right idea and he was Hearn's right hand man therefore I know Hearn must've heard the proper arguements for fully rolling, the main points being they are truely up to date and they mix the field up more and they add extra significance to events because they will also determine qualification to the next event. Can you imagine a match in the Welsh Open which will decide automatic qualification to the Crucible for example? And therein lies the beauty of rolling rankings.

I'm not a fan of the existing system but based over 1 year instead of 2. That's not rolling.

Rewarding players for something they did two years ago, as you say, is not rolling, and it makes a joke of the very name.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey

yes a player could win the first 2 tournaments of 2010 season and be seeded for the crucible in 2012 despite doing virtually rubbish all after that.

if they do a 1 year list they got to go rolling...

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Roland

Yes there's a vast difference between 1 year fully rolling where the results are discounted as soon as the same event the following year starts and a 1 year based on the existing system where players maintain their ranking for a full season. The second way there will be massive changes each season which will be chaotic but with the first way there will gradual changes which are easier to follow and act as a form guide.

Obviously the current rankings should hold firm for the coming season and then this time next year the rollings will kick in if it's a true rolling system.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Witz78

Sonny wrote:Yes there's a vast difference between 1 year fully rolling where the results are discounted as soon as the same event the following year starts and a 1 year based on the existing system where players maintain their ranking for a full season. The second way there will be massive changes each season which will be chaotic but with the first way there will gradual changes which are easier to follow and act as a form guide.

Obviously the current rankings should hold firm for the coming season and then this time next year the rollings will kick in if it's a true rolling system.


Yeh im certain thats the way they will phase in the rolling rankings, as of the start of next season (2011/12) where after an event that events ranking points from the previous season will be replaced by the new points earned and the updated rankings will form the seedings for the next qualification and tournament.

So in effect this season is the last old style season where there will be fixed rankings for the whole season.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Casey

I don't mind one year fixed rankings, certainly alot better than whats there now, also pretty accurate.

So whatever points you earn over 1 year instead of 2 will decide you placing <ok>

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Witz78

case_master wrote:I don't mind one year fixed rankings, certainly alot better than whats there now, also pretty accurate.

So whatever points you earn over 1 year instead of 2 will decide you placing <ok>



no no Case, the rankings as of the start of next season (2011/12) will be when the rolling rankings kick in as that season will be similar to this with the PTC events, the Majors and hopefully a few more rankers too.

It would be impossible to fairly introduce it in this coming season as this seasons tour is completely different to last seasons. So id imagine the official rankings will remain in place for the whole of this season, then after that the one year rolling rankings list will take effect with players having to defend ranking points at every event and rankings being updated after each event.....

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Casey

it would be impossible to implement a new system for this season for sure. With regards to a rolling system - , "A one-year world-ranking system to replace the two-year system in operation since the 1970s"

it doesn't say rolling, is this defiantly the case?

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Witz78

case_master wrote:it would be impossible to implement a new system for this season for sure. With regards to a rolling system - , "A one-year world-ranking system to replace the two-year system in operation since the 1970s"

it doesn't say rolling, is this defiantly the case?


Hearn has long stated that hes a fan of rolling rankings, infact when he took over in December he stated his intention to upgrade the rankings to this as he wanted them to be as up to date as possible to truly reflect form.

Come a World Championship if the seedings were based on the fixed one year rankings at the end of the previous season, there would have since been around 20 events played so the rankings would be very untrue, far more actually than the current scenario where a World Championship ranking has had 5 new ranking events played since which arent considered.

Therefore its a no brainer for me, one year rolling rankings to be implemented in a years time, once this transitional season is over.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Roland

Well from when we were chatting to Pat Mooney case before the sting he was clearly thinking along the right lines for rolling rankings and this was when he was still on the board so Hearn should know the score and do the right thing. We still need to find out exactly how the new rankings will work.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey

case_master wrote:it would be impossible to implement a new system for this season for sure. With regards to a rolling system - , "A one-year world-ranking system to replace the two-year system in operation since the 1970s"

it doesn't say rolling, is this defiantly the case?

that what a newspaper print in light of the higgins debacle do we totally rely on what they say :john:

but seriously a 1 year ranking would be shambles Mark Davis is 17th and within 400 points of being in the top 16 im not a fan of rankings being based on 1 year in the case stated what if someone wasn't feeling well for 6 months they would be rank 40+ for the following season for every tournament...that will not work.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Witz78

wildJONESEYE wrote:
case_master wrote:it would be impossible to implement a new system for this season for sure. With regards to a rolling system - , "A one-year world-ranking system to replace the two-year system in operation since the 1970s"

it doesn't say rolling, is this defiantly the case?

that what a newspaper print in light of the higgins debacle do we totally rely on what they say :john:

but seriously a 1 year ranking would be shambles Mark Davis is 17th and within 400 points of being in the top 16 im not a fan of rankings being based on 1 year in the case stated what if someone wasn't feeling well for 6 months they would be rank 40+ for the following season for every tournament...that will not work.


damn i found a link earlier on that said it would be rolling rankings but i cant remember where i saw it now <doh> <doh>

Do remember that Davis is sitting in 17th place at the moment solely based on last seasons points from SIX tournaments. The rolling rankings wont kick in to next season as it would create injustices like this as the players who suddenly had risen or fallen a lot after the end of the season wouldnt suffer or gain so much.

The new rolling rankings, once implemented at the start of next season will also be starting off with ONE seasons ranking points, however this will consist of the ranking points gained in TWENTY tournaments which is a far fairer balanced assessment of form and consistency.

The great advantage of the rolling rankings is that with the rankings being instantly updated after each event it will become clear who is in form, and there will be less of a safety net for players to think " ah well so long as i have a good run at the Crucible itll make up for my rubbish season and ill survive in the top 16"

As for players getting ill etc, im afraid that sports like golf and tennis dont protect players who have such misfortune barring exceptional circumstances. In that case youd end up with players left right and centre handing in sicknotes to protect their rankings.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Roland

Good point there witz. It's a tough school but making it this way is bound to give the viewing public more entertainment because there will be more resting on a higher percentage of matches.

Also I'm sure there will be some sort of benevolent fund to aid players who are struggling. Something previous administrations supposedly there to look after the players don't exactly have a decent track record in.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Witz78

wildJONESEYE wrote:Rolling Rankings over 1 season <ok>

1 Season static Rankings <doh>


the rankings are effectively static for one year now but the rankings players have for this season are the ranking they ended last season in ( their rankings points from 2 seasons 08/09 and 09/10), NOT their provisional ranking presently (their ranking points from last season 09/10)

Infact the provisional ranking (the one Mark Davis is 17th on) is irrelevant now as this will have no bearing on next season when the rolling one year rankings kick in.

The one year list for season 2010/11 will start as soon as the first PTC tournament begins and points start being earned. This tally will be counted up as the season progresses. Come the end of the season we will know who the new number 1 rank and where all other players rankings are, purely based on the 20 tournaments THIS season.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Roland

I've just asked the question and I've had the answer back that apparently the idea (and it is just an idea right now) is to refresh the rankings mid season so for example the top 16 after the Welsh will be the ones who get the Crucible spots.

This is a mix of the two suggestions laid out above so you have a point in the season where they're updated for the next period of several months. It's a start and I've said a million times on various other topics that the Welsh Open could be improved if the players are playing for their guaranteed spots at the Crucible. It's obvious. More matches will have extra significance and it will make for more exciting viewing as a spectator.

I think I'll probably split this topic into a seperate thread about rolling rankings....

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey

or the ranking when the qualifying round starts is the seeding for that tournament for example when the china open starts after the World quals they tell me that effectively how its done in the tennis.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Roland

Actually I've just re-read the email and it says "revise the list twice during the season" which is even better because then it'll split into 3 which is as near as damn it fully rolling rankings.

I hope they bring it in before this years Welsh because at the moment the only thing that's going to change already knowing who faces who provisionally in round 2 at Sheffield is potential bans and I don't want that to be the case.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Witz78

id be happy enough to see the rankings revised 3 times a season though a full rolling rankings set up where it is updated after each event is my preference.

Im assuming they are doing this instead, to break the rolling rankings in slowly with it fully coming into play next season. On this basis its safe to assume that the current one year rankings (last seasons points earned) will indeed be the starting points for the players this season and once 1/3rd of this season has been played these points will be added to those from last season.

Possibly after the Shanghai Masters and World Open this year they will update the rankings but last years points for the Shanghai Masters and Grand Prix will then be wiped off, so we are effectively running with a 1 year rolling ranking (albeit only updated 3 times a season, not 20)

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:id be happy enough to see the rankings revised 3 times a season though a full rolling rankings set up where it is updated after each event is my preference.

Im assuming they are doing this instead, to break the rolling rankings in slowly with it fully coming into play next season. On this basis its safe to assume that the current one year rankings (last seasons points earned) will indeed be the starting points for the players this season and once 1/3rd of this season has been played these points will be added to those from last season.

Possibly after the Shanghai Masters and World Open this year they will update the rankings but last years points for the Shanghai Masters and Grand Prix will then be wiped off, so we are effectively running with a 1 year rolling ranking (albeit only updated 3 times a season, not 20)


i think it will become clear one thing i honestly can not see happening is static over 1 year....i do think over 2 years is better and fairer in that instance where you got consistency over a longer period rather than a purple patch making you top 16 for a whole season.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Roland

Yes, this new possibility of revising either half way or third of the way (depending on how you interpret "twice during the season") will mean it can be operational immediately. I hope so! I can't wait another year for it to kick in because I love the concept so much I want it NOW!

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:Yes, this new possibility of revising either half way or third of the way (depending on how you interpret "twice during the season") will mean it can be operational immediately. I hope so! I can't wait another year for it to kick in because I love the concept so much I want it NOW!


yes that can be implemented for this coming season watch this space.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Casey

wildJONESEYE wrote:
Witz78 wrote:id be happy enough to see the rankings revised 3 times a season though a full rolling rankings set up where it is updated after each event is my preference.

Im assuming they are doing this instead, to break the rolling rankings in slowly with it fully coming into play next season. On this basis its safe to assume that the current one year rankings (last seasons points earned) will indeed be the starting points for the players this season and once 1/3rd of this season has been played these points will be added to those from last season.

Possibly after the Shanghai Masters and World Open this year they will update the rankings but last years points for the Shanghai Masters and Grand Prix will then be wiped off, so we are effectively running with a 1 year rolling ranking (albeit only updated 3 times a season, not 20)


i think it will become clear one thing i honestly can not see happening is static over 1 year....i do think over 2 years is better and fairer in that instance where you got consistency over a longer period rather than a purple patch making you top 16 for a whole season.


How is it fairer to have static rankings over two years rather than one? In one year rankings to get in the top 16 you have to earn enough points over the 20 tournaments....

If the one year rankings were in place this season Ding would be number 1 which is a fair reflection on the season past. Also Ryan Day would be out of the top 16 (again a fair reflection). Mark Davis you pointed out, he had a great season last year, in fact the two year rankings have hampered him. He would have been far further up the rankings if they were rolling or one year.

I do like the thought of the rankings updating every 1/3 of the season, it eliminates the problem with ordering tickets in advance, it will also probably help World snooker with structuring the qualifying tournaments.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey

simple case you got consistency over 24 months as appose to 12 months.

over 1 season in the 90s Alan Mcmanus would have been world no 3 but his highest ranking was 6 because he could not sustain that consistency to 2 seasons.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Casey

The rolling rankings will be based over 20 tournaments in total once it’s up fully, with one tournament being added and the corresponding tournament from the previous season dropping off. So a 12 month cycle, a one year static ranking would also be 12 months Wild.

Why should players be rewarded for something they had done 2 years ago?

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey

on rolling rankings and 20 tournaments yes its ok but you do need scope to pull it round with plenty of tournaments obviously but with 6 to 10 tournaments a year you have a poor start like Selby and Murphy has had the last 2 seasons your under massive pressure to stay in the top 16.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Casey

wildJONESEYE wrote:on rolling rankings and 20 tournaments yes its ok but you do need scope to pull it round with plenty of tournaments obviously but with 6 to 10 tournaments a year you have a poor start like Selby and Murphy has had the last 2 seasons your under massive pressure to stay in the top 16.


true but thats their tuff rubbish in many ways.

Look how brutal the Tennis rankings are, you actually lose points unless you defend your title (ronnie and Higgins would never have been number one if this was the case in snooker ;) )

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey

case_master wrote:
wildJONESEYE wrote:on rolling rankings and 20 tournaments yes its ok but you do need scope to pull it round with plenty of tournaments obviously but with 6 to 10 tournaments a year you have a poor start like Selby and Murphy has had the last 2 seasons your under massive pressure to stay in the top 16.


true but thats there tuff rubbish in many ways.

Look how brutal the Tennis rankings are, you actually lose points unless you defend your title (ronnie and Higgins would never have been number one if this was the case in snooker ;) )


yes lol

actually John would have been ranked 14 for the season he won the WC in 2007.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

The one year rolling rankings would be exiting. Imagine if this year Peter Ebdon entered the China Open ranked 11 but with full points to defend and having to make the semi-finals to hang on and qualify for the World Championship. Then theres someone like Ricky Walden who would have become a Top 16 player. The pressure might have got to him and he could have fallen away or with the momentum he had he could have pushed on further.

Re: Rolling Rankings Discussion Topic

Postby Wildey

Ding Junhui finished last season on Top of the one year list but that list is nowhere to be seen on Worldsnooker.com so is that a indication of a 1 year list i wander ? and will it be rolling as it should be ?

anyone with contacts find out lol