Balls

World Snooker Confirms 2012/13 Ranking Points Tariffs

A brief post tonight to inform you that World Snooker have today confirmed the ranking points tariffs for the 2012/13 season, which you can view here (word doc)...

In short, the schedule is much as expected, the new International Championship having been awarded points equivalent to the UK Championship, while the new shortened formats for the Welsh Open and German Masters tournaments have also been confirmed.

Importantly, it is also confirmed that players new to the tour for 2012/13, in addition to those ranked outside of the top 64 but have regained a tour place by any means, will receive no starter points, because they have been given a two-year tour card.

My first reaction is that this is a curious move, one that I actually think would be more logical and make a lot more sense when applied in conjunction with a ranking system based on prize money. Take for example the situation in darts when outsider Kirk Shepherd defied the odds in 2008 to reach the World Championship final and was rewarded with a rise of over 150 places to 22nd, thanks to the £50,000 prize his run earned him.

Under a points based system however, such a rise would not be possible, take for example Luca Brecel, who would barely have cracked the top 64 with a rise to 55th had he won at the Crucible this season. As a result, the lack of starter points when applied to the current points system strikes me as being somewhat unfair and makes it virtually impossible for anyone currently outside of the top 64 to break into that bracket for at least 18 months.

As I say, they are just my initial thoughts, at some point over the coming weeks I will take a closer look at the numbers and see whether my gut feeling is borne out.

Finally, many have asked me when I will be posting a new projected seedings list here at PSB. In short this will be once it has been confirmed which points will be deducted at the first cut-off point, which will hopefully not be too long now…

 

  • Allineas

    Why should having no starter points be more logical under a money list than under a points list? I do see a ranking system which in fact requires removing starter points, and while I don’t know whether it will be used or not, it makes this move understandable to me (for now). But I don’t see the connection between the upcoming money list and not needing starter points…

    Also, I hoped for a few more events to use different qualifier systems like Welsh Open and German Masters do… which is not the case now. Maybe they are just testing it now – but what if it doesn’t work and they can’t change back?… Once again, it will be very interesting to see what changes will come until the next season.

    • matt2745

      Basically the three big factors to be considered are:

      1) Two-year tour cards
      2) The move to a money list
      3) The move to flat 128 man draws

      All of which will probably be common place in five years time.

      The reason I think that zero starter points will make more sense in the future is partly because of the Brecel example, I think it will be easier for lower ranked players to rise up a money list, than a list based on points.

      The other reason is that once the flatter draws come in, the top players will be protected less (meaning that the rankings are less important anyway), and again it will be easier for the lower ranked players to rise.

      I think in the long term it would make sense, but under the current set-up I don’t particularly think it works.

  • zabaks

    Yes, probably with 0 starting points its close to impossible to break into top 64 for more than a year.
    Doesnt this make Tony Drago wanting to stay on tour with his existing points for one year, instead of getting 2 year card and 0 points? The danger of being overtaken at the end of 2012/13 season is a minor one. Actually all players inside current top 64 can look forward to 2 years on tour.

  • snoopy2608

    My understanding of their rationale is as follows:

    Top 64 are the only ones who have kept their place on tour due to performance on the tour – therefore everyone else is deemed relegated.

    So whether qualified via PTC, Q school, one of other qualifying criteria, you are deemed a new player and starting from zero.

    When they change to a money list you will be able to climb quicker if you’re good enough to do very well QF+ in big events

    nb. With Hendry retired one ‘new’ player will always be getting a top 64 seeding.

  • Tore

    You are too nice on them Matt :) Of all the lame rankinglist decisions world snooker has made this tops them all.

    Effectivelly locking the top 64 for well over a year.
    In order to even break into the top 64 within a year the players outside must collect as much points as rank nr 20 or so.

    In 2 years when moneylist takes over and possibly most tournaments will have players starting in round 1 or 2 having no starterpoints makes more sense, but theres no good reason to do this kneejerk operation on the lower ranks now. It just doesn’t make sense and seems very lazy.

    They try to reason it with the 2-year card but if you look more closely all the players on the tour have a 2-year card, and thats even if new players got starting points because next season the cutoff should be much lower than 64 due to tour increasing to 128.

    PS: as far as the projected seedings go. Seems logical that only PTC 1+2 from season 10/11 are the ones to be dropped at first cutoff.(The seeding cutoff at 22.july seems to be only for the PTC order of merit).

    • Allineas

      Where is the difference between “0 starter points and top 64 staying on tour” and “starter points, but enough players staying on tour to increase to 128 for next season”? In both cases every player who is on the 12/13 main tour has a two-year card, but the second leads to an awkward cutoff (like “top 75”?)

  • JIMO96

    Rankingcut-offs: will it not be the case that, with the first cut off being after PTC 2 (finishing Aug 12) that any tournaments over 2 years old by then, will then “drop off”?

    Therefore, PTC 1,2, & 3 will all drop off, PTC 3 in 2010 having finished on Aug 8?

    With that logic, I see it as:

    1st cut-off (after PTC 2)……PTC 1, 2 & 3 from 2010 drop off

    2nd cut-off (after International Championship)……PTC 4, 5 & 6 plus EPTC 1, 2,3 & 4 plus Shanghai & World Open from 2010 all drop off

    3rd cut-off (after the UK)……EPTC 5 & 6 plus the 2010 UK drop off

    4th cut off (after the China Open)……the German, Welsh, PTC Finals & China Opens from 2011 all drop off

    5th cut-off (after World Championship)……2011 WC drops off

    • matt2745

      You would expect so, but you never know with World Snooker. I don’t want to post one thing which later turns out to be wrong, without at least having some sort of official indication.

      • wild

        Theres 10 days until the start of the ranking season this is all very sloppy from a so call proffesional outfit having World Snooker on Twitter asking Questions with I DONT KNOW..

  • Kevin

    Oh dear another ill thought out idea from World Snooker.

    The top 64 are now virtually guaranteed byes past the first rounf of the 10 major points earning ranking events for 2 years. Where would Jamie Jones, Jack Lisowski and Yu DeLu be with that system?

    It would be fine if all 99 players entered at the first round of every competition but of course not. The crazy 16 enteries per round gives an enormous advantage to seeded players and apart from the PTC events it will be a massive struggle for the newcomers to earn any where near enough money over the 2 years they will need to enter at the first round.

    A level playing field is surely essential – this can’t happen at all with this system.

    • likahokeith

      Your hope will become useless.

  • snoopy2608

    think the seedings could be interesting for both Wuxi and Australia.

    apparently neither Ronnie or Higgins have entered (may be others too). Means some non top 64 players will have to be seeded into the 64 (presumably off last years rankings).

    May also mean some the best non Q school qualifiers getting places in these events too

    • Cab

      If world snooker sticks to their word, then the rankings for players with zero points will be determined alphabetically. This is what it says on the rankings points schedule: “Players 65 onwards starting on zero points will be ranked in alphabetical order until points are earned to determine a ranking. ”

      Obviously it doesn’t matter much whether somebody is ranked 65th or 96th in the first qualifiers, but I don’t think they realized it might also mean that somebody gets a first round bye just because their name starts with an A.
      And also, if there are more than 96 players, someone at the end of the alphabets might have to play a pre qualifying round.
      They should really just go with a random draw to determine who from players with zero points get to start inside the 64 in the first tournament.

      • BoroPhil

        This is brilliant if true. One of them should change their name to A. Aaron.

  • SJM

    One simple solution to create a more equitable ranking list would be for points earned in the preceding 12 months to be worth double the value of those earned in the 12 months before that. For example, the winner of the World Championship might earn 10,000 points which would be reduced to 5,000 after the first anniversary of the tournament and then to zero after the second anniversary. Golf operates a 2 year ranking system on a similar principle.

  • olding

    Why not give top 64 the same two-year-card? Obviously they deserve it. Now the newcomers still have chance to break into top 64 even if no starter point. And can’t say the possibility is slim only on paper. I think Barry Pinches is the most dangerous player to lose top 64 spot. He would drop out of top 64 after one year if he couldn’t improve his performance next season. If so, how will WSA deal with the situation? Anyway, for me, it is an extra focus of next season as 35 players battling for 1( maybe 2) top 64 spot is really a keen competition.

    • likahokeith

      Give top 64 the same two-year-card? I don’t know what you’re saying.
      Next season will not oust anyone.

  • http://www.snookercueist.com Habib

    A great blog.Please Upload videos on it.So that we can have some good matches to watch

  • Gary Bolton

    All,

    the bit that really grates with me is the fact that the “International Championship” scored the same ranking points as the UK Championship, which given the history of the latter event is crazy.

    For the past 3 years I have also been saying the World Championship should be worth twice the points of the regular events and one and a half times that of the UK Championship.

    The Worlds being worth 10k and the International being worth 8k (to the winners in points) is crazy imo.

    However, having a lot more snooker is a positive, and genuinely attempting to make it a World Tour is a big positive too. There are talented cueists all over the world here’s hoping that within 10 years the top Pinoy/USA players come to play snooker because they can earn a living playing this game rather than American pool

    Gary

  • Kevin

    Surely players who have played in the last 2 seasins and requalified outside of the top 64 must be amazed by this decision! Why are their points from the last 2 seasons considered worthless.

    I realise they did have to qualify again but surely they are entitled to keep their points as Drago say goes from 20 points behind 64th to 20495!! This has to be the worst decision ever by World Snooker in it’s current form/ Having made so many excellent ideas makes you wonder if the top 64 players have a hold over Hearn. Or maybe just Steve Davis protecting his own position?

    Shows why a dictatorship can never work.

  • Tore

    Still pissed off by this ludicrous decission to lock out 1/3 of the pro’s of the top 64 for almost 2 years. In fact it would be better for a lot of them if they only received 1 year cards seeing that the cutoff surely would be 80+ atleast for next season.

    Anyway. Anybody knows what happens with the startingpoints that Gilbert, Yu and Duffy still has? Will they be scratched aswell?

    • likahokeith

      Firstly Gilbert, Yu and Duffy are in Top 64, they can contain the starting points absolutely.

      Under the rolling system, the starting points will be deducted. But the new season’s point will replace it.

  • Tore

    From the PTC entrypack (same as last season): “The top 8 players (professional or amateur) taken from the PTC order of merit, who have not already qualifed will be awarded a place on the 2013/2014 Main tour.”

    Since all players on tour (unless someone outside the top 64 has one hell of a season) have qualifed for 2 years this basically means that the top 8 amateurs will qualify.