Provisional Rankings - PTC1 UPDATED

[jrc750]

last season players went in to the WC Knowing what they got to do to stay in top 16,32,48,64 but now unless they look at matt pro snooker blog they are clueless.

Surely if they just aim to win every match they will be OK
(ie think positive and not "its ok if i lose this match as i'll still be in top 48")

[wildJONESEYE]

Surely if they just aim to win every match they will be OK
(ie think positive and not "its ok if i lose this match as i'll still be in top 48")

can you imagine the confusion in players minds if snooker inst hard enough World Snooker wants them to get the calculators out to work out if they are still professionals for 2011/2012 season.

Matt is a snooker players dream.

[Matt_2745]

Haha, dunno about that, although I hope that my rankings help anyone, be it players or fans.

Just the way I see it, ultimately the current 'latest rankings list' published by the WPBSA doesn't decide the seedings for either the events between now and October, or those between October and December. It's just all a bit pointless.

Anyway I've now updated the list at the bottom by including starter points. If anyone spots any errors then feel free to let me know.

[JanieWatkins]

Haha, dunno about that, although I hope that my rankings help anyone, be it players or fans.

Just the way I see it, ultimately the current 'latest rankings list' published by the WPBSA doesn't decide the seedings for either the events between now and October, or those between October and December. It's just all a bit pointless.

Anyway I've now updated the list at the bottom by including starter points. If anyone spots any errors then feel free to let me know.

Hi Matt
I've done mine the same but can't figure out how to fit them on a narrow GS page!

But I think you've taken off Bahrain in the first Cut?? It doesn't come off until the second cut I don't think.

I took it off in my figures and then read what WSA wrote and from that I've decided that Bahrain and UK come off in the second cut point.

Please correct me if I'm wrong cos these rankings this season have scrambled my brains!!

[Souwester]

these rankings this season have scrambled my brains!!

I think I'd better maintain a tactful silence!

;-)

[Matt_2745]

Evening Janie, I've taken off Northern Ireland, Shanghai and the Grand Prix but not the Bahrain Championship which as you say comes off at the second cut.

I know what you mean about fitting them on a narrow page, not quite sure how mine is going to work once I have points in all of the events, might have to revert to 'P.Ebdon' and so on...will cross that bridge when I come to it...

[snoopy2608]

points schedule for season now on WSA site - slightly confusing comment on them re world open - so why should seeded loser points for rounds 2 and 3 and does the seeded loser in round 2 receive 1260 or 0 points (and 1610 or 0 for round 3?)

[ltfc39]

points schedule for season now on WSA site - slightly confusing comment on them re world open - so why should seeded loser points for rounds 2 and 3 and does the seeded loser in round 2 receive 1260 or 0 points (and 1610 or 0 for round 3?)

I thought the World Open was a completely random draw from Round 1 onwards?

People on here will moan any minute now about 7,000 points being given to the winner of the World Open blah blah... remember - Its a BBC Major and is more prestigious than say the Welsh Open or German Masters.

Pretty happy with the schedule of points overall though. Having said that, why can't they use just rounded up numbers to simplify things (Eg. 1000, 2000 points etc)?! I suppose this is how its always been done.

[JanieWatkins]

I think I'd better maintain a tactful silence!

;-)

Behave yourself!!!

[Odrl]

People on here will moan any minute now about 7,000 points being given to the winner of the World Open blah blah... remember - Its a BBC Major and is more prestigious than say the Welsh Open or German Masters.

Thanks for bringing this up, I would have moaned earlier had I realized it was 7,000 point for the winner.

7,000?! Seriously?! This cheap non-event is supposed to be on the same level as the likes of the China Open or the Shanghai Masters, and only 1,000 points behind the UK Championship? We might as well forget the positive changes to the ranking system now, if we are going to have this event distorting it to this extent.

Even last year, when the Grand Prix had a random draw, some people were complaining that an event such as this can't contribute to the ranking list, if it doesn't actually take seeding into account. The top two seeds met in the 2nd round there, and one of them gained a huge ranking advantage by winning that match. But now, you not only have this problem, but also the problem of ridiculously short matches, that are bound to unjustly filter out some of the top players early on. It's a joke.

And there is no prestige to talk about here, let's not kid ourselves. The Grand Prix had prestige, this event does not. At least not in my book. The fact that it will be covered by a specific TV channel should not dictate its status in terms of ranking points.

I haven't been this outraged and disgusted since the Jimmy White debacle in December.

[goldengirl]

I just cannot understand this ranking system and the last one even more so!
Why cannot we just have a system of graduated starter points for ALL players at the start of the season dependent on their finishing position in the previous season and add on the points earned in the current season with updated rankings after each event.
Or we could put the cat right amongst the pigeons and have all players starting on NIL points as we did with the GW - but I AM only joking as that would be too unfair.

[wildJONESEYE]

Thanks for bringing this up, I would have moaned earlier had I realized it was 7,000 point for the winner.

7,000?! Seriously?! This cheap non-event is supposed to be on the same level as the likes of the China Open or the Shanghai Masters, and only 1,000 points behind the UK Championship? We might as well forget the positive changes to the ranking system now, if we are going to have this event distorting it to this extent.

Even last year, when the Grand Prix had a random draw, some people were complaining that an event such as this can't contribute to the ranking list, if it doesn't actually take seeding into account. The top two seeds met in the 2nd round there, and one of them gained a huge ranking advantage by winning that match. But now, you not only have this problem, but also the problem of ridiculously short matches, that are bound to unjustly filter out some of the top players early on. It's a joke.

And there is no prestige to talk about here, let's not kid ourselves. The Grand Prix had prestige, this event does not. At least not in my book. The fact that it will be covered by a specific TV channel should not dictate its status in terms of ranking points.

I haven't been this outraged and disgusted since the Jimmy White debacle in December.

i agree 7,000 points for the World open is pathetic so basically winning the World Open and winning 20 frames gives you the same ranking points as winning the Welsh and a PTC Event and having to win 58 frames in so doing.

Come on World Snooker take your face from your ass and realise thats TOTALLY CRAP.

[armchairfan]

Haha, dunno about that, although I hope that my rankings help anyone, be it players or fans.

Just the way I see it, ultimately the current 'latest rankings list' published by the WPBSA doesn't decide the seedings for either the events between now and October, or those between October and December. It's just all a bit pointless.

Anyway I've now updated the list at the bottom by including starter points. If anyone spots any errors then feel free to let me know.

Jamie Cope's total is wrong in your list. Should be 22838.

[Matt_2745]

Cheers, have corrected that and added in all of the minimum points for the Shanghai Masters/World Open.

[snooky147]

So, what are the tournaments in the second and third cutoff's.? Is the 2008/09 WC in the third cut off or is that on its own after next years WC.?