Ssb - rankings system set for major change

[hotpot]

I am in fact a huge snooker fan, who loves to watch ALL styles of play but the thought of watching a reasonable amateur having a blisteringly good three frames against a top class player fills me with dread. Consistency in the application and implementation of ranking tournaments is vital to the fairness of the system. The ptc events are all best of seven start off. So should the World Open.

Have to say i could,nt agree more , i,ve nothing agains short formats like this and pheraps they do have a future in the game but as for a ranking tourny , no way its too much of a lottery and if all events were like this it would make a mockery of the ranking system .

[snoopy2608]

It will be an advantage to the newcomers. Two good tourments in the start of the year, can get you inside top 64 and thus having one match lesser to play and more starting points for the rest of the year.

Don't know yet how this benefits the newcomers, because it depends on what starter points they are given - and how these are then deducted over the course of the seaosn.

[steedee]

i think the simple thing to do is base ranking points on the number of frames per match. which they sort of do now anyway with the uk and worlds having the most.

i would think the new starters will have more control over their own destiny now too. a good start and then they're in the same boat as last years pros, instead of chasing all season long.

im very much for this.

[goldengirl]

BH responded to an e-mail I sent himon Wednesday stating the starter points for new players to The Tour would be the same system as was. I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong, they start with the same points as the lowest surviving player - which I think is Ben - not that I've ever understood the stupid ranking system. How can a player hardly, never win a match all season and barely move from his ranking position.
I think this new system is going to be great for the game!!
Two replies from BH the same day as I sent the e-mails - things have definitely changed!!

[goldengirl]

Ooh - I bet there's going to be some squeaky bums!!

[rambon]

HALLELUJAH!

I've been screaming for this since the heady days of the BBC Forum, as those who came from there will testify. We are finally moving into the 20th century!

Some interesting points raised, and I for one think the short format of the game should have some ranking points attached, but agree that this should be minor compared to the longer formats of the game. While a short match is more of a lottery, many games come down to final frame deciders which are essentially short matches as everything is on one frame. Should these matches be removed from the ranking system? Obviously not.

I personally think that any tournament, of any format, which involves, or to which are invited, all Professional snooker players, should carry some weight in the ranking system.

[merlin1234]

While a short match is more of a lottery, many games come down to final frame deciders which are essentially short matches as everything is on one frame. Should these matches be removed from the ranking system? Obviously not.

Not sure that's a very good comparison as the final frame decider in a longer match is a result of a complex series of events in which both players have had a number of opportunities and likely a broadly similar amount of table time. It's the fact that they have been very evenly matched over a longer period that has brought the decider about ; you can't just isolate the decider from the largely player-controlled events which caused it and then claim on that basis that them just playing one frame would have been a similarly fair test of who is playing better.

It's like saying that if two marathon runners are neck and neck 100 metres from the finish that you could have worked out which one of them was the better marathon runner by just having them run 100 metres in the first place.

[Odrl]

I always thought the old ranking system was fine as it was, and didn't really need changing. A ranking list is supposed to reflect the quality of players in the relevant time period, and I think the old system did that. But I think the new one will do that as well.

A slight problem with the old system was that the rankings only changed once a year, so there would sometimes be a big gap between a player's official and provisional ranking. With an update three times a year, those gaps should be smaller most of the time, which is the main advantage of the new system, in my opinion.

So what is the main disadvantage? The one that I've mentioned a couple of times before... A player can play a couple of very strong tournaments, which take him to a decent position in the rankings. He then has decent results for a year or so, and just about holds his position. And then, two years down the line from those original strong performances, he could play better than his ranking suggests, and still drop down the rankings because he had even better results two years ago. That would be a situation where a good performance would not necessarily mean going up the rankings, or vice versa.

Of course this was the case in the old system as well. But there was only one (possibly dramatic) change between seasons, rather than confusing changes happening all the time. The new system doesn't really address the problem of events from two seasons ago still affecting the rankings in a major way. There could still be big points from an event played almost two years ago, majorly changing the rankings by being 100% relevant one week, and not relevant at all the week after.

In my opinion, a solution to this would be to slowly diminish the relevance of past events, by knocking off a certain % of points they contribute to the rankings, after each subsequent event is played. But how confusing would that be?

not that I've ever understood the stupid ranking system. How can a player hardly, never win a match all season and barely move from his ranking position.

Well, that's not exactly how it was... Of course the players are not going to move in the rankings during the season, if the rankings are not updated. But after the season, if a player didn't win a single match, his ranking would change quite dramatically, as was the case with Doherty, Dott and Williams.

It's a bit of a myth that the top players are somehow protected in the rankings. It's one thing to say that the rankings were not very accurate because they didn't change often enough. That was a pretty legitimate concern. But to say that they were still not accurate even right after the change, that's not something I would agree with.

And when someone like Mark King wins all of his 1st round matches again, and stays in the top16 ahead of the likes of Jame Cope, I have no doubt that some people will keep blaming the ranking system, instead of adjusting their opinions about those players' ability.

[rambon]

Not sure that's a very good comparison as the final frame decider in a longer match is a result of a complex series of events in which both players have had a number of opportunities and likely a broadly similar amount of table time. It's the fact that they have been very evenly matched over a longer period that has brought the decider about ; you can't just isolate the decider from the largely player-controlled events which caused it and then claim on that basis that them just playing one frame would have been a similarly fair test of who is playing better.

It's like saying that if two marathon runners are neck and neck 100 metres from the finish that you could have worked out which one of them was the better marathon runner by just having them run 100 metres in the first place.

I agree with you, and only drew the comparison to make a point. The point being that to win the deciding frame in a best of 19 frame match, or in a best of 9 or best of 7, or dare I suggest it, a 1 frame shoot-out, takes the same skills:

The ability to pot balls
The ability to gain position on the next ball
The ability to withstand the pressure of knowing that if you miss your tournament life is on the hand

I maintain that if all professionals are invited to an officially sanctioned event, then ranking points, to a lesser or greater extent, should be available at that tournament. They may be miniscule in relation to the World Championships, but they should still apply.

What could happen then is in the various countries that feed the pro game from the amateur game, you can have similar ranking systems based on the performances in their tournaments, which can throw forward people into Preliminary round matches for the right to enter the main draw.

[miscuehamburg]

I think the more often revised ranking system is indeed a sign of modern times. What other sport still releases their rankings only once in a year? After a transition period the rankings will reflect the current order much more accurately.

As to the format of play I'd like to see what happens first. I don't think the results will be much different in Bo5s than Bo9s. After all it is about focusing on the shorter run for both players. Of course the longer formats should be valued more in the rankings, but I think that will be the case anyway.

[merlin1234]

I maintain that if all professionals are invited to an officially sanctioned event, then ranking points, to a lesser or greater extent, should be available at that tournament. They may be miniscule in relation to the World Championships, but they should still apply.

What could happen then is in the various countries that feed the pro game from the amateur game, you can have similar ranking systems based on the performances in their tournaments, which can throw forward people into Preliminary round matches for the right to enter the main draw.

Well, there are a bunch of other factors to take in to account in addition that I'd say support ranking points being available in smaller amounts as you and others have suggested.

For a start, everybody in the tournaments has had to qualify through various means so that should theoretically remove the possibility of players with inadequate skills being there in the first place. However this is dependent on how fair a test of skill the qualifying system is and I'm not sure I know enough about it to comment. Certainly wildcards can work against this principle if they're poorly chosen.

Equally, the run of the balls has an equal chance of determining the outcome of any single frame, so it's no more likely that the run of the balls determines a single frame match than the final frame of a match.

There's also the frequency of the shorter tournaments to consider. If, for instance, you scheduled three best of 5's with 5 ranking points available each, that might have a broadly similar level of 'fairness' to scheduling a single tournament best of 15 with 15 ranking points available, although that's obviously really simplified from whatever the actual scenario is so I might be way off on that.

The principle that playing shorter matches more regularly might afford players similarly fair opportunities to longer but less regular tournaments seems sound on first glance, though. The more tournaments or frames you play, the more chances you have of the random factors canceling out.

[wildJONESEYE]

HALLELUJAH!

I've been screaming for this since the heady days of the BBC Forum, as those who came from there will testify. We are finally moving into the 20th century!

Some interesting points raised, and I for one think the short format of the game should have some ranking points attached, but agree that this should be minor compared to the longer formats of the game. While a short match is more of a lottery, many games come down to final frame deciders which are essentially short matches as everything is on one frame. Should these matches be removed from the ranking system? Obviously not.

I personally think that any tournament, of any format, which involves, or to which are invited, all Professional snooker players, should carry some weight in the ranking system.

I think it makes total sense..... under the old system results obtained in 2008 would count towards a player seeding for the 2011 World Championship.

with the new system results no further back than April 2009 china open will determine seeding for the 2011 World Championship.

there is a case to make it a one year rolling ranking system but for now this is a compromise for the old and the new.

this new system will not Help Players like Stephen Hendry of late who seems to get a Good run in one or 2 tournaments but to keep your ranking up and be seeded for all tournaments he and others like him will have to keep up their standards.

don't forget you could get a player that has to qualify for Most Tournaments then have a good run in the Welsh and be seeded for the Crucible i think it makes the season more interesting and really what the sports been crying out for.

[Looki]

At first glance I like the new system. I wasn't by no means against the old rankings but this makes things much more dynamic and spices things a little, brings additional excitement.

[Rane]

Don't know yet how this benefits the newcomers, because it depends on what starter points they are given - and how these are then deducted over the course of the seaosn.

If they keep the system from now giving an average starting point to top it, it´s quite obvious that if you get to lets say last 48 two times in a row, you´ll advanvance to maybe the late fifties much earlier than with the system we have now.

[wildJONESEYE]

If they keep the system from now giving an average starting point to top it, it´s quite obvious that if you get to lets say last 48 two times in a row, you´ll advanvance to maybe the late fifties much earlier than with the system we have now.

what was wrong in the old system it let players at arms length longer that by the time they get up the rankings their form had deserted them that they fell down as soon as.

this way it gets new players that play well up the rankings quicker at a time they are playing well enough to do something with it.