Time for a change to the rankings?

[CaveBadSeed]

Hi there, my name is CaveBadSeed and this is my first post on this forum!

I thought i would begin with a post about a real bugbear of mine - the rankings system in Snooker.

I feel it should be changed - the current 2 year system seems unfair. It protects players who have poor seasons and doesn't really reflect the current form of players.

For instance last season Mark Williams had a very poor season, yet finished in the top 16, and Jamie Cope had a great season, reaching 2 finals, yet finished at 22.

That is injustice! I feel a system based over 1 year would be much more reflective & keep the players on their toes more.

Any thoughts?

[PaulTheSoave]

We had a similar discussion on here before, but a good discussion thread imo. I support you in changing the ranking system. Present form and results should have a bigger impact. And never be on past merit and form. In tennis for instance the ranking system is updated everytime after a tournament has been played. Younger players would have a faster up and coming chance, which will attract more youngsters to come into the sport.

I think it wont be changed as The WSA is very conservative.

[Semih_Sayginer]

indeed a good discussion, and agree with PTS that rankings would be better if more recent form was taken into account "more"

my suggestion would be for the 2 year ranking to stay, but with the previous years ranking points to be halfed once the next years are added on (or similar)....would need notice of when it was to be introduced though, but i reckon that would be a step in the right direction

[Alex0paul]

Jamie Cope had a great season, reaching 2 finals, yet finished at 22.

Firstly wlecome CaveBadSeed, a familiar face from 606.

The problem is if Cope had a dire season this term and would then fall right down the rankings people would say it is unfair as he has only recently been in two finals.

The tennis rankings are stupid in my opinion as players have to defend points. So a week before Wimbledon a player could be ranked 5th but then lose first round at Wimbledon as defending champion and fall right down the rankings.

[PaulTheSoave]

Think its only fair. Winning Wimbledon and next time first round exit deserves anyone to go down.

Back to snooker. Apart from the 2 season handicap, I also like to state that because of this system, players on bad form still enter the main tournament on bad form merit and even get ranking points which strengthens their position. First round loser in Sheffield gets ranking points while a player who won 8 qualifiers and goes out at number 9 gets zilch! (If I am right here, correct me if needed). Cant be fair.

Firstly wlecome CaveBadSeed, a familiar face from 606.

The tennis rankings are stupid in my opinion as players have to defend points. So a week before Wimbledon a player could be ranked 5th but then lose first round at Wimbledon as defending champion and fall right down the rankings.

[CaveBadSeed]

I feel that the current ranking system is akin to a premiership team carrying their points to the next season - if Man U won the league by 20 points and started the next season with 20 on the board, there would be an outcry.

The problem is, the average watcher of Snooker, who only tunes in for the final, does not understand the rankings so no-one really cares, apart from the hardcore element.

And Alex0paul, thanks for your welcome - you won't be seeing me anymore on 606; i quit yesterday.

[Alex0paul]

Think its only fair. Winning Wimbledon and next time first round exit deserves anyone to go down.

What if he/she is injured though?

[CaveBadSeed]

Indeed, only a few seasons ago Chris Small was in the 16, didn't win a match all season & still scored over 6,000 ranking points - totally unjust.

And as for Injury or illness - i believe a new rule was introduced to protect a player in the case of illness. Sadly this was because of Paul Hunters cancer. He was ranked 34 at the time & was going to take a season out, and be allowed to retain that ranking the next season.

Sadly he passed away of course.

[elvaago]

A seeded player who loses his first match gets less ranking points than an unseeded player who loses in that same round.

Winning a match to get to round 1 and then losing in round 1, for example, will give you more ranking points than simply being seeded into round 1 and then losing.

[PaulTheSoave]

Well known story that Eddie Charlton went up the rankings after he died! Its true. I have been PMed if a player gets points in the qualifiers of the worlds. Not sure about it. Anyone clarify?

Tennis, if injured, not fair. beaten in normal way, can live with it

Indeed, only a few seasons ago Chris Small was in the 16, didn't win a match all season & still scored over 6,000 ranking points - totally unjust.

And as for Injury or illness - i believe a new rule was introduced to protect a player in the case of illness. Sadly this was because of Paul Hunters cancer. He was ranked 34 at the time & was going to take a season out, and be allowed to retain that ranking the next season.

Sadly he passed away of course.

[PaulTheSoave]

Did not know that, thanks very much. What for instance a qualifier who wins round 1 to 8 and goes out in round 9. Does he get any poiints?

A seeded player who loses his first match gets less ranking points than an unseeded player who loses in that same round.

Winning a match to get to round 1 and then losing in round 1, for example, will give you more ranking points than simply being seeded into round 1 and then losing.

[Semih_Sayginer]

this thread was quite good

http://www.thesnookerforum.com/the-s...ghts-2203.html

[PaulTheSoave]

Indeed! Excellent thread. Cant understand I missed it at that time, might have been elsewhere.

I would tend to agree with Rambon. Other interesting comment :

The Statman (could join The WSA instantly) :

"My gut conclusion is that there is not a great deal wrong with the current system"

[Alex0paul]

When you mention Jamie Cope, his one year ranking was about the same as his two ranking, so that does show that the current ranking system is particularly fair and accurate.

[samasnookerfan]

When you mention Jamie Cope, his one year ranking was about the same as his two ranking, so that does show that the current ranking system is particularly fair and accurate.

Have to agree with Alex0paul. Two years give a player the chance to salvage their ranking, but over 1 year a player could have a particularly unfortunate string of results.