Last 48 ranking points distribution

[chasmmi]

Now I am not sure exactly how points normally work but I believe it is something like:

last 16 2800
last 32 (top 16 player) 700
last 32 (qualifier) 1400
last 48 (17-32 player) 375
last 48 (outside top 32) 700

I know that is not clear but here is my question.

Are the ranking points fixed for all players?

Lets take Group A

John Higgins is top 16
James Wattana is top 32
Dominic Dale is outside top 32

Now anyone who comes 1st or 2nd will get 2800 points as they have made the last 16.

But how does the rest work.

If John Higgins comes 3rd or 4th will he get 700 whereas Mcmanus or Dale would get 1400.

Would Wattana get 375 points for 5th place whereas Dale gets 700 regardles of where he comes.

If this is all true what happens if Higgins comes 5th or 6th?

Normally it is impossible for a top 16 player to go out in the last 48 so would he get 700 points as is normal for a top 16 player who doesnt progress any rounds or is it possible for him to get worse points than a top 16 player is entitled to.

then again if he got a minimum of 700 then it is unfair on wattana who is the only player who can score less than 700 points.


Basically I am confused. Can anyone clarify?

And whatever it is, is it a fair system?

[S100d]

http://www.worldsnooker.com/pdfs/WSA...hedule0607.pdf

it's all here

www.sportingpredictions.co.nr

[dannyd0g]

Now I am not sure exactly how points normally work but I believe it is something like:

last 16 2800
last 32 (top 16 player) 700
last 32 (qualifier) 1400
last 48 (17-32 player) 375
last 48 (outside top 32) 700

I know that is not clear but here is my question.

Are the ranking points fixed for all players?

Lets take Group A

John Higgins is top 16
James Wattana is top 32
Dominic Dale is outside top 32

Now anyone who comes 1st or 2nd will get 2800 points as they have made the last 16.

But how does the rest work.

If John Higgins comes 3rd or 4th will he get 700 whereas Mcmanus or Dale would get 1400.

Would Wattana get 375 points for 5th place whereas Dale gets 700 regardles of where he comes.

If this is all true what happens if Higgins comes 5th or 6th?

Normally it is impossible for a top 16 player to go out in the last 48 so would he get 700 points as is normal for a top 16 player who doesnt progress any rounds or is it possible for him to get worse points than a top 16 player is entitled to.

then again if he got a minimum of 700 then it is unfair on wattana who is the only player who can score less than 700 points.


Basically I am confused. Can anyone clarify?

And whatever it is, is it a fair system?

I'm glad its not my job too have to work it out. Mindyou though I wouldnt mind getting paid to do the snooker ranking admin. What i am trying to say is, it is pretty involved stuff, and I couldnt be bothered to work it all out unless i was getting paid for it.

[The Statman]

I queried this by email with World Snooker, and Martin Clark phoned me quite promptly and clarified it as follows. It is slightly misleadingly written.

The tariff sheet states, for those going out in the round robin stage at Aberdeen:

16 qualifiers from Round Robin Round 1: 1150 points
3rd and 4th, seeded loser: 1400
5th and 6th, seeded loser: 575

But what it actually means is this: All players get the figures shown above for coming 3rd to 6th, except the 16 qualifiers are guaranteed the 1150 points as stated.

So a more accurate way of displaying it would be:

3rd and 4th: 1400 points (regardless of whether you are a seed or a qualifier)
5th and 6th: 1150 points (for a qualifier) or 575 points (for a seed).

[chasmmi]

Out of interest is that Martin Clark the snooker player or another person with the same name?

[The Statman]

Yep, the very same one. Used to be a curly-haired snooker player and is now a short-haired Assistant Tournament Director to Mike Ganley, or the other way round.

[Kruger]

3rd and 4th: 1400 points (regardless of whether you are a seed or a qualifier)
5th and 6th: 1150 points (for a qualifier) or 575 points (for a seed).

Yes, that was the part I was not sure about. But seems logical and that was my undarstanding, too. It's great someone clarified with a reliable source.

Statman: from your conversation with Mr Martin Clark - do you have any clue whether this round-robin format is suppossed to be operated next season in various tournamets (TV stages)?

[rambon]

Just a thought, but I think more credit should be given the higher up the table you appear.:

Currently:
3rd 1400
4th 1400
5th 1150
6th 1150

Proposed:
3rd 1500
4th 1350
5th 1200
6th 1050

As currently stands, you could have a group as follows:

1st Won 4 lost 1
2nd Won 4 lost 1
3rd Won 4 lost 1
4th Won 1 lost 4
5th Won 1 lost 4
6th Won 1 lost 4

3rd place could get as many points as 4th despite winning 3 more games!!!

[Obligation]

Good point rambon

[snookersfun]

but then again, if you look at a finish like
1st Won 4 lost 1
2nd Won 4 lost 1
3rd Won 3 lost 2
4th Won 3 lost 2
5th Won 1 lost 4
6th Won 0 lost 5

or even
1st Won 3 lost 2
2nd Won 3 lost 2
3rd Won 3 lost 2
4th Won 3 lost 2
5th Won 2 lost 3
6th Won 1 lost 4

it looks fair again.
I remember the qualifiers round robins having some very tight groups.

[rambon]

I disagree. The higher up the League you finish the more points you deserve is the point I'm trying to make.

If you finish 4th having the same record as the guy who comes first, you lose out on frame difference/result of matches between you, etc. You still come 4th.

You could say that where players have exactly equal records you could share the points available for 3rd and 4th, for example.

I have a general problem with the rankings which I'll post elsewhere.

[Semih_Sayginer]

some good points rambon........

[archicrooks]

dont know why its been changed anyway. think the best of 5 will produce some interesting results and a few big name players may struggle !!

[Kruger]

Fair or not - hard to say. My view is that this distribution seems right. Also remember there is a differentiation of prize money so always some motivation to go one place higher in the group (even if chances to qualify for knock-out are gone).

But it is interesting that most of the top draws started to be afraid and criticise the format, isn't it? By my prediction 8 out of 16 highest ranked players will not pass the Round Robin stage.

From the marketing perspective, it is a good move to introduce that format. Just see all the discussions around... Unless we end up with one or two big names in the quarters. It happened before and I remember it was an effort to watch the tournament with pleasure...