Tweet
I see from the Pro Snooker Blog that the WSA are allocating 5850 starter points to all current professionals who did not play on the 2008-9 tour. This means the current seasons new intake, plus last seasons new pros who managed to stay on the tour. The 5850 represents the total points earned by Atthasit Mahitthi that season.
These points will "drop off" a players total as the season progresses, as an average (i.e 731.25 for each of 8 events). So, for the first ranking revision in October, 2193 points will drop off each of these players' totals, leaving them with a healthy stack of 3657 points.
This makes a lot of sense at first glance, as Tony Drago will now be comfortably inside the top 64 where his results suggest he should be (46th), instead of having to sweat. Other beneficiaries are first season pros Anthony McGill and Igor Figueirido, as well as returning pros Alfie Burden and Joe Jogia, all of whom are poised to be officially ranked in the top 64 in October.
However, Jimmy White (72nd), Paul Davies (71st) and David Gilbert (77th) are under serious pressure to hand on to their places, especially Gilbert who is out of both the Shanghai Masters and World Open.
I must admit, I wouldn't want my ranking, or for that matter, my livelihood decided by random points allocations based on a single (relegated) players performances from 2 seasons ago(!) Lets face it, these points allocations are VERY random, and in my opinion a weak attempt to balance the fact that around a third of the players on the tour have not played a full 2 seasons. In fact, the 3657 points given as starter points is annoying to Jamie Jones in particular, as he played in the 2008-9 season, and earned 4200 points in the 5 tournaments in question!
And I know it works out nice and neat for next season, with 840 (5040 divided by 6) starter points dropping off for each event, but what about the season after? By that time, it'll be 20 ranking events to drop off, and it'll become increasingly irrelevant to use one figure for every player.
It all comes back to the same old argument...annual intake, 2 year points cycle. Until this imbalance is corrected, the rankings will NEVER be accurate or satisfactory. I did hear Barry Hearn say that he'd like to phase out the 2 year ranking list by having enough counting events for a 1 season list...I hope this is one objective he carries through.
These points will "drop off" a players total as the season progresses, as an average (i.e 731.25 for each of 8 events). So, for the first ranking revision in October, 2193 points will drop off each of these players' totals, leaving them with a healthy stack of 3657 points.
This makes a lot of sense at first glance, as Tony Drago will now be comfortably inside the top 64 where his results suggest he should be (46th), instead of having to sweat. Other beneficiaries are first season pros Anthony McGill and Igor Figueirido, as well as returning pros Alfie Burden and Joe Jogia, all of whom are poised to be officially ranked in the top 64 in October.
However, Jimmy White (72nd), Paul Davies (71st) and David Gilbert (77th) are under serious pressure to hand on to their places, especially Gilbert who is out of both the Shanghai Masters and World Open.
I must admit, I wouldn't want my ranking, or for that matter, my livelihood decided by random points allocations based on a single (relegated) players performances from 2 seasons ago(!) Lets face it, these points allocations are VERY random, and in my opinion a weak attempt to balance the fact that around a third of the players on the tour have not played a full 2 seasons. In fact, the 3657 points given as starter points is annoying to Jamie Jones in particular, as he played in the 2008-9 season, and earned 4200 points in the 5 tournaments in question!
And I know it works out nice and neat for next season, with 840 (5040 divided by 6) starter points dropping off for each event, but what about the season after? By that time, it'll be 20 ranking events to drop off, and it'll become increasingly irrelevant to use one figure for every player.
It all comes back to the same old argument...annual intake, 2 year points cycle. Until this imbalance is corrected, the rankings will NEVER be accurate or satisfactory. I did hear Barry Hearn say that he'd like to phase out the 2 year ranking list by having enough counting events for a 1 season list...I hope this is one objective he carries through.
Comment