posted Apr 15, 2007

Park life, that stems from an earlier theory of having all pts the same for each event bar Sheffield. And someone mentioned that for that to work, all tournies would need 9,9,9,11 and 17.

My argument is that now should the system made simpler by reducing the escalation of pts, similar to the LG order of merit.

What do you think

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 15, 2007

I don't understand what you mean by 'theory'.

All the events bar Sheffield and the UK DO HAVE SIMILAR RANKING POINTS.

And all rankers ARE 9,9,9,11,17 (apart from the UK (17,17,17,17,19) and the Worlds (19,25,25,33,35) which are weighted accordingly).

It's not theory, it's practice.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 15, 2007

Yes but simplicity for the fans, look at teh LG tour, when at the start of every evnt it was made clear the standings. How about implementing an Order of Merit system that has the same weighting you describe?

And remember that not all standard rankers have the same system. Look at the GP or was that a one off, and the NI Trophy in the past has had best of sevens??

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 15, 2007

"And remember that not all standard rankers have the same system. Look at the GP or was that a one off, and the NI Trophy in the past has had best of sevens??"

The Group Stages, I'll grant you, were a one-off in the case of the Grand Prix, but it was made a special case (such as the short-lived attempt to try group stages in the tennis leagues). Every sport has its novelty formats from time to time: look at the football World Cup, which has been through a myriad guises.

The reference to the N.I. is not relevant, however: since it was not a ranker when it was b/o 7: it has to transfer to the conventional format when it gained ranking status this year (a format shared by the Welsh, Chinese and Maltese Opens, and the knock-out stages of the GP).

But I agree, we could do more to ADVERTISE the ranking system: but that doesn't mean changing it; it is fairly clear already.

We already know, for instance, what the permutations need to be for, say, Graeme Dott to maintain his lead at the top of the ranking (such that, were he to go out in the first round, we would know that we have to follow x number of players to round y, if we are to see them supercede him.)

One of the snooker websites is running a 'very provisional' ranking, which can project the running order for the 08/09 league based on ranking points from this season alone.

We just need to hype it up more in advance of each tournament.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 15, 2007

Exactly, I mentioned earlier on in the thread that we should look at the ramifications at the start of the event, like they do on Premiership matchdays, though they are only one weekend at a time, where TV comps last between 7 and 17 days.

One idea is that on the first day of a tournie, Hazel shows us the provisional rankings and after the final shows us an update, for instance, John Higgins, 10-3 win over Ken Doherty takes him up to 4th in the rankins, (based on a final). Andrew Higginson's great run takes him up to 28th in the world.

This aint necessarily what will happen but what do you think

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 15, 2007

can someone please tell me a website where i can see the ranking system?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 15, 2007

Goldhammer, try the World Snooker site

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 15, 2007

I still think the ranking system works well, though points should be awarded for The Masters!!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 16, 2007

The Problam With The Ranking System As It Was In The 80s Is Symple By Winning A Ranking Event You Got 6 Points Runner Up Got 5 And Semi Finalist 4. Now By Getting 5000 Points For Winning A Diff Of 1000 From Runner Up But The Difference Of Only 800 Points Between Runner Up And Semi Finalist Meens The Reward Of Going Further Is Far Greater Now Than Then... I Also Disagree Points Should Never Come In To The Masers. Totaly Different Tournament And Should Stay That Way For Veriaty Within Snooker.Im A Believer The Doubbles And Team Event Should Also Be Reserected To Again Have Something Different And To Keep Things Different And Fresh Throughout The Season For Fans

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 16, 2007

I agree Wild Jones, The Masters has an extra special feel - its the greatest non ranking event in snooker, and if points were to be given at The Masters then a standard field of at least 32 would be needed.

add comment | complain about this comment