Ssb - hendry slams new ranking system

[debs]

I agree and that's the whole point of the diversity in venues & formats

Yes i get that but to make it a ranking i am not so sure.
Love pressure games but boy it is taking it to another level which may be really unfair.

[cue1]

Yes i get that but to make it a ranking i am not so sure.
Love pressure games but boy it is taking it to another level which may be really unfair.

How else will players be appraised/assessed if it wasn't a ranking event?

What may be unfair to some may seem quite fair to others, so again that's the point of testing the players under different formats.

[wildJONESEYE]

Why not?!! Isn't the purpose of different formats to find out who the overall best player is? Short format, long format, shot clock... etc. It's very difficult to be the master of all but chances are the best player will end up with the best overall result:snooker:

i have no problem with it being Ranking however Getting more Points for this than the Welsh Open with best of 9s and best of 17 final makes it pathetic and a joke.

[cue1]

i have no problem with it being Ranking however Getting more Points for this than the Welsh Open with best of 9s and best of 17 final makes it pathetic and a joke.

You have a point but you also have the UK & the WC with long formats & far more ranking points at stake.

[wildJONESEYE]

You have a point but you also have the UK & the WC with long formats & far more ranking points at stake.

Winning 20 Frames for WO = 7,000 POINTS
Winning 46 Frames for UK = 8,000 POINTS

its not in proportion is it Should be 4,000 for the WO

[cue1]

Winning 20 Frames for WO = 7,000 POINTS
Winning 46 Frames for UK = 8,000 POINTS

its not in proportion is it Should be 4,000 for the WO

Well, maybe they should appoint you as a consultant for the WSA! J/k

But seriously, don't you think players prepare themselves mentally for the format they're about to play?

I would like to give a few examples to better explain my point:

- 2010 Masters first round: Robbo v ROS ---> Robbo was 3-0 up at some point but still lost the match 4-6, so the medium-length format allowed ROS to make a mini-comeback. They're both top players & they both knew they needed to win 6 frames to win the match!

- 2008 WC semifinal: Hendry v ROS ---> Hendry was 4-1 up at some point yet he lost the match 6-17. Again they both knew the format ahead of them. The long format in this case favoured ROS. While theoretically, a short format would have favoured Hendry. My point here is maybe the diversity in formats would allow great players like Hendry (who may not have the stamina they used to have) to still be able to compete with the younger players that have the stamina to go for 17, 25, 33 & 35 frames. :snooker:

- 2005 GP final: Higgins v ROS ---> Higgins won 9-2 making his 4 centuries & his 494 unanswered points, the long format didn't allow ROS a sniff in the match, and we're talking about 2 of the greats, same age too. If it was a short format, "theoretically" the score wouldn't have been very flattering to John.

- 2009 UK semifinal: Higgins v ROS ---> Higgins was up 8-2, a couple of hours later, we're witnessing a very exciting decider!!

I am not contradicting myself, I'm not for one format & against the other. I'm just saying that players know what they're gonna face & they should mentally prepare themselves for the task ahead. You cannot be the master of all (unless you're Hendry in the 90's) so you have to do your best to gather as many points as possible in a very difficult environment.

[wildJONESEYE]

Well, maybe they should appoint you as a consultant for the WSA! J/k

But seriously, don't you think players prepare themselves mentally for the format they're about to play?

I would like to give a few examples to better explain my point:

- 2010 Masters first round: Robbo v ROS ---> Robbo was 3-0 up at some point but still lost the match 4-6, so the medium-length format allowed ROS to make a mini-comeback. They're both top players & they both knew they needed to win 6 frames to win the match!

- 2008 WC semifinal: Hendry v ROS ---> Hendry was 4-1 up at some point yet he lost the match 6-17. Again they both knew the format ahead of them. The long format in this case favoured ROS. While theoretically, a short format would have favoured Hendry. My point here is maybe the diversity in formats would allow great players like Hendry (who may not have the stamina they used to have) to still be able to compete with the younger players that have the stamina to go for 17, 25, 33 & 35 frames. :snooker:

- 2005 GP final: Higgins v ROS ---> Higgins won 9-2 making his 4 centuries & his 494 unanswered points, the long format didn't allow ROS a sniff in the match, and we're talking about 2 of the greats, same age too. If it was a short format, "theoretically" the score wouldn't have been very flattering to John.

- 2009 UK semifinal: Higgins v ROS ---> Higgins was up 8-2, a couple of hours later, we're witnessing a very exciting decider!!

I am not contradicting myself, I'm not for one format & against the other. I'm just saying that players know what they're gonna face & they should mentally prepare themselves for the task ahead. You cannot be the master of all (unless you're Hendry in the 90's) so you have to do your best to gather as many points as possible in a very difficult environment.

Ronnie was Better player than Hendry in 2008 the reason he won 17-6 proved longer the matches best players wins.

[cue1]

Ronnie was Better player than Hendry in 2008 the reason he won 17-6 proved longer the matches best players wins.

I'm not saying otherwise, I'm simply saying that the new ranking system & the diversity in formats are aimed at testing players in different ways and based on many aspects... Stamina is one of them but not the only one!

Some people are slow to accept change... Some people never accept change... But it doesn't mean change is bad, right?!

[thinsy]

Winning 20 Frames for WO = 7,000 POINTS
Winning 46 Frames for UK = 8,000 POINTS

its not in proportion is it Should be 4,000 for the WO

You have to win 24 frames to win a PTC event...... Does that mean a PTC win should be worth 4500 points????

It seems the majority of players are looking forward to it, and as stated by cue1 they're not moaning they are mentally preparing

[cue1]

There is one more point worth mentioning. Those are professional snooker players... Snooker is their job and they're expected to deliver consistently throughout the year in order to secure a living (the big names are lucky enough to have secured a future for their families over the years).

Does your boss or my boss expect you to pace yourself so you can achieve your target at the end of the year? Do they give you a break when you mess up projects/deals/jobs? Most employers do quarterly appraisals to monitor the progress of their employees, don't they? Even when you're your own boss, you strive to deliver consistently to make a living!

I look at the new ranking system & the different formats the same way I look at regular jobs. You have projects that take a few days to set up while others take months to set up... At the end, you get paid your salary (+ bonus or incentive if you do something exceptional). I, personally, find it a fair comparison.

[wildJONESEYE]

You have to win 24 frames to win a PTC event...... Does that mean a PTC win should be worth 4500 points????

It seems the majority of players are looking forward to it, and as stated by cue1 they're not moaning they are mentally preparing

you do infact win 28 to win a PTC

PTC carry Ranking points but are NOT Ranking Tournaments so no i do not expect 4,500 for that.

but this is a fully fledged Ranking Tournament on a par with china interns of points but not in terms of table time.

[thinsy]

you do infact win 28 to win a PTC

PTC carry Ranking points but are NOT Ranking Tournaments so no i do not expect 4,500 for that.

but this is a fully fledged Ranking Tournament on a par with china interns of points but not in terms of table time.

I wouldn't expect PTC's to be anything more than what they are either...

But, you can't think of each event as a 'points per frame' thing, each event is a different 'task' and the person who achieves the 'task' recieves the reward on offer!!

(If you judge ranking points on how many frames you win then surely someone who only loses 5-4 in a match deserves more ranking points than someone who loses 5-0 in the same round?!?!?!?! )

[Jools]

I agree with all those who say sour grapes on Hendry's part. The new ranking system and the PTCs not only favour the best and in form player but the hardest working player so form is not necessarily a necessity. For example a just a few last 64 eliminations is work over a 1000 ranking points and surely would've protected Hendrys overall ranking. After all, they do this for a living so turning up and playing almost weekly for most of the 12 PTC's as a bare minimum still isn't a lot to ask, and Hendry would have to be abysmal not to win just 3 or 4 matches, he's not quite that surely?

[Giggity1984]

Not sure that it's "sour grapes" as a lot of people seem to be putting it!!!

He's mereley pointing out how ruthless the new ranking system is for him, I didn't read the OP as him complaining!

But, on the other hand, he has underperformed in recent years and not entering all the events on offer are sure to jeopordize things some what!!!

[thinsy]

Mark Williams dropped out of the top 16!!!!

No moaning, no complaining, just hard work, effort and results...

Back in the top 10 (i think) - JOB DONE

Advice for Hendry:

less

more :snooker:

outcome: