Time for a change to the rankings?

[PaulTheSoave]

Well, Tottenham hotspur have a particularly unfortunate string of results and therefore are not relegated (if occurred) as they became 5th last season.

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.

[Alex0paul]

Well, Tottenham hotspur have a particularly unfortunate string of results and therefore are not relegated (if occurred) as they became 5th last season.

I don't understand what you mean?

[PaulTheSoave]

Change Tottenham with Leeds United then, couple of seasons ago

I don't understand what you mean?

[elvaago]

PTS:

A player gets points for the round he reaches. Check the worldsnooker site, it has an overview for the points given for each round to the person who won a match to get there and the person who was seeded into that round.

[PaulTheSoave]

Thank you very much. will check

[Aggrolite]

"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."

I'll say this for that case. Cope may have gotten to 2 small ranking finals, but he didn't even qualify for either the UK or World Champs, so he stays where he belongs.

Not sure what i want for all the rankings, but a roll on/roll off system perhaps wouldn't be appropriate considering the small amount of ranking events. If that was the case, John Higgins might of been out of the top 16 for the crucible last year.

[The Statman]

There has been much talk about the apparent disparity that Williams remains in the top-16 while up-and-comings such as Allen and , particularly, Cope are not there yet.

However, a fair (in my opinion) counterargument is that Williams, probably, similarly missed out when he was a newbie while another oldie remained, while it is likely that someone like Cope will cling on in the autumn of his career at the expense of someone from the next generation of newcomers.

======

In any case, here is the points tariff schedule for this season's ranking tournaments:

Firgures for the World Championship are double those stated, and the UK 1½×, in all cases:

5,000 for the champion
4,000 for the runner-up
3,000 for semi-finalist
2,500 for quarter-finalist
1,900 for last 16
1,400 for last 32 (figure halved if it was the player's first match)
1,150 for last 48 (figure halved if it was the player's first match)
900 for last 64 (figure halved if it was the player's first match)
650 for last 80 (figure halved if it was the player's first match)
400 for last 96 (figure halved for seeds 65-80)

Different figures exist for the Grand Prix:

6,250 for the champion
5,000 for the runner-up
4,000 for semi-finalist
3,125 for quarter-finalist
2,375 for last 16
various figures for coming 3rd/4th, and 5th/6th, in the round robins, more for qualifiers than for seeds (those coming 1st/2nd, of course, progressed to the last 16).

[PaulTheSoave]

Thanks for the info! Was what I was looking for.

[davis_greatest]

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

This is how the rankings used to work some years back - i.e. they were based on points accrued in the previous complete season plus one-half of the points from the season before that.

I think that was a better system. It gave greater weight to more recent results (i.e. the previous season) while still measuring over a sufficiently long period to reduce undue volatility in the rankings (i.e. avoiding people jumping up and down the rankings dramatically based on just one or two recent results).

So, while it may be a step in the right direction, it would also be a step backwards (not necessarily a bad thing). In fact, I'd like them to go further back - a good idea would be to base the rankings on points scored in the 1981 to 1989 seasons (possibly excluding the 1982 World Championship).

[Blagonadezdins]

Not 100% sure, but I think one of the ideas behind the current ranking siystem was to reward/punish someone who has a good or bad season respectively.

So, if someone has a particularly good season, the points gained from that stay with them and count for 2 years, thus providing a suitable ranking reward for their work. Vice versa for a bad season - where they have to live with ther rubbish for 2 years too.

[Semih_Sayginer]

This is how the rankings used to work some years back - i.e. they were based on points accrued in the previous complete season plus one-half of the points from the season before that.

I think that was a better system. It gave greater weight to more recent results (i.e. the previous season) while still measuring over a sufficiently long period to reduce undue volatility in the rankings (i.e. avoiding people jumping up and down the rankings dramatically based on just one or two recent results).

So, while it may be a step in the right direction, it would also be a step backwards (not necessarily a bad thing). In fact, I'd like them to go further back - a good idea would be to base the rankings on points scored in the 1981 to 1989 seasons (possibly excluding the 1982 World Championship).

thanks for that d_g.

as you say, it may be a backward step, but may be a step in the right direction.

to me, that would say, it used to be A, its now B, but A seams fairer. at least, it adds more weight to current results, while still maintaining some form of "older" season

[dannyd0g]

I think they should leave it as it is. A two year ranking rewards consistent results over a long period. Otherwise any 'one hit wonders' would be pushing out the steady eddies far too easily.

[PaulTheSoave]

I revive this one.

The best argument to change it has been shown this season. Magure, Murphy and Selby are the outstanding players this season. But a final between anyone of them is not possible because they are all in the bottom draw. Selby and Murphy can already meet in the quarters. The top draw looks very mediocre. Its absurd!

[Alex0paul]

But with rolling rankings you'd have Hendry, Ebdon, Robertson, Dott as all potential qualifiers with players like Bingham, Perry, Allen, Cope, King as the seeds.

Plus there would be a week to sell tickets for the World Championships as nobody would know the draw until after the China Open plus the world qualifers would then have to be played.

[PaulTheSoave]

I would not mind, its fairer. All players you named wont even make the quarter finals. Apart from Allen. And for tickets sales, they can move the tournament 2/3 weeks later, starting on the bank holiday weekend.
But that sounds like a revolution.

But with rolling rankings you'd have Hendry, Ebdon, Robertson, Dott as all potential qualifiers with players like Bingham, Perry, Allen, Cope, King as the seeds.

Plus there would be a week to sell tickets for the World Championships as nobody would know the draw until after the China Open plus the world qualifers would then have to be played.