lhpirnie wrote:HustleKing wrote:SnookerFan wrote:Do we think there should be less flat-128, best of seven tournaments in a season?
No. Less opportunities for young or struggling players to push on or revive their careers and less opportunities to see veteran players who are still good enough not to retire.
I think there should and could be more tournaments, but they can't all have 128 players. The Home Nations events are fine, and enjoyable. It's these overseas events with qualifying rounds in Barnsely or Preston that are ill-conceived.
There could be a whole variety of tournaments, with different numbers of participants, different locations around the world, different formats (e.g. tiered knockouts, leagues, challenge matches). But not with the current ranking system.
If any tournament is to have ranking status then it needs to be one which is accessible to by the whole tour whether that is in the shape of a 128 flat draw, or a tiered system. I reserve judgement on the Grand Prix, Players Championship and Tour Championships somewhat because even with their formats, they can be accessed by all 128.
Originally, I was unconvinced by the flat draw system, but have warmed to it over time and think its good for the majority of events - and that it does allow the Crucible to stand alone. That isn't to say it doesn't have its faults, fixing the top 64 seeds for an event into the bracket doesn't necessary work, nor does just pulling out an opponent for the top 64, I'd rather them be pulled out of two pots.
The main challenge to the old system was that it was very protective - now that the seeded players in a tiered event only receive 'ranking' money if they win their first match it might actually remove this.
Also, the original ranking list was very simple, 5 for a win, 4 for a runner up and so on - if they did something similar, (with tariffs based on the status of an event - it would address the issues of ranking money not necessarily being weighted appropriately or being top heavy towards different events)
You could probably put them into 4 or 5 tiers or bands - multiplying them by 1 to 5 or 6 based on the tier/band of an event.
Last 64 1, Last 32 2, Last 16 3, QF 4, SF, 5, Runner Up 6, Winner 10
The Elo suggestion is interesting because in theory you could make every single match ranking as protected and invitationals wouldn't be as detrimental for players lower down the rankings.