As regular readers will have gathered by now, I do like to keep a track of the rankings, indeed I find the battles for the various different brackets fascinating. In reality however, are the rankings really that important? More to the point are they even fair? Having spoken to fans and players alike during the past few months, here are some thoughts on the system…
The System
For those who are not so familiar with the long-established ranking system in professional snooker, the players are ranked according to their performances over the last two seasons, with the official rankings being updated annually following the World Championship.
Why so important?
The most obvious purpose of the rankings is that they determine at which round a player will enter a tournament. Players ranked below 64th spot will have to start right back at the first qualifying round while those inside the elusive top 16 automatically come in at the venue stage. The other important consequence of course is that for each ‘bracket’ up a player is in, it will guarantee a higher minimum financial income for that player. For example a top 32 player will head into the season knowing they will receive a higher minimum income than one ranked between 33-48.
Being ranked higher also means that in theory at least, a player will start their tournament with an easier match. For example those players who enter qualifying at the final round will be paired with a player ranked no higher than 33rd. Ken Doherty has been an obvious example of a player who has suffered this season as a result of being out of the top 32 as he has been drawn against the likes of Graeme Dott and Jamie Cope at Pontin’s this season. Had he been inside the top 32 then he would have avoided such players.
Conversely however, dropping down a bit can also help players such as Ken because their opening match should in theory see them come up against an easier opponent and if they win, they head into their next match with match practice and momentum, against an opponent coming in cold.
Still, I would say that the advantages of being ranked higher do outweigh this.
Stability
The most positive aspect to the current ranking system is that in a sense it does bring about stability for the upcoming season.
Players know when they will be entering events, have some sort of idea as to the minimum that they will earn during the campaign and know what their status is. Also with some qualification tournaments taking place before the venue stages of others, it also removes any doubt as far as at which stage players should be entering tournaments.
There are however aspects of the system that I do believe are questionable…
“The system protects the big names”
One criticism often levelled at the current ranking system is that it is engineered to protect the established players and make it difficult for players further down the rankings to progress.
Take Tony Drago for example, a player who this season has won 16 matches so far, qualifying for two venues and making at least the third qualifying round of every event. At present he lies 54th in the provisional rankings while Michael Judge (two places above him in 52nd), has won just eight matches during the course of the past two seasons!
When you also consider that there are players such as 31st placed Dave Harold and 15th ranked Marco Fu who have won just one match this season, somehow this does not seem quite fair, even taking into account the difference in quality of the players Tony has beaten and those players performances last season.
Some will point to the likes of Ken Doherty and Matthew Stevens, top quality players who have suffered a drop down the rankings over the past few seasons. The difference here however is that these are players who experienced poor results over a number of seasons, not just one. The nature of the system means that if a player is to have a nightmare season in which they lose every match, this will not affect their current ranking, and not necessarily even see them fall the next season, but it will cost them a year after that. This means that if a top player is to have a poor season, they are in a sense given a second chance to compensate for those results, just as Neil Robertson did after a poor 2007/8 and John Higgins did last season.
Even then when looking at Doherty, between the 2007 China Open and the 2009 Shanghai Masters he won just five matches on the ranking event circuit and only dropped as low as 44th, while during the past two seasons Li Hang won 15 matches, but never rose higher than 71st place and found himself relegated from the tour!
Which brings me on to my next, albeit related point…
“The system makes it too hard for tour newcomers, especially young players to progress”
One thing that I have never agreed with is that newcomers to the main tour are forced to begin their campaigns with “starter points” equivalent to the lowest player on the previous season’s one-year list. Next year therefore, new players will carry over 5,040 points from the previous season, the same as Ben Woollaston has finished up with this season.
This means that not only will top 64 players be guaranteed a higher minimum amount of ranking points from the following season by virtue of entering the events at a later stage, but they will already have the advantage of a head-start from the previous season.
For me this seems to be inherently unfair and an unnecessary handicap, demonstrated by the fact that so few players are able to come in and move straight into the top 64 each season. For example this year the three players to have done so are Tony Drago, Bjorn Haneveer and Jimmy Robertson, all experienced players with previous main tour experience. It was a similar situation last year with Jin Long and Peter Lines making the step up.
Looking at the top 64, how many young (say under 25), improving players are there? Six or seven at first glance. While it may be argued that the standard of the young players coming through at the moment is not as high as in the past, I believe that the problem is that they are graduating to the main tour, understandably finding it difficult against some of the vastly more experienced players already on the tour and before they know it finding themselves relegated and facing a tough challenge to get back onto the tour.
For example take Xiao Guodong, a talented young player who in my opinion is far too good for the PIOS. During the last four events of the current season he found himself up against Ken Doherty, Peter Lines, Mark Davis and Tony Drago, arguably the four most in-form players ranked outside of the top 32 this year. Defeats to these players have meant that he now finds himself relegated from the tour and facing at least a year before he can reclaim his place and gain further experience against professional players. As an aside I would love him to be given one of the invitational places next season.
Overall therefore I do believe that there are talented young players in the game and that they are inhibited to some extent by the tour structure currently in place. Rather than award them starter points based on the previous season’s one-year list, would it not be fairer to simply double the points that they earn during their maiden tour season?
“The ranking system is not sufficiently up to date”
Another problem that I see with the current system is that it’s two-year nature, with only one revision per season, this means that results from a relatively long time ago are currently dictating a player’s ranking. For example this April, results from the 2007 Shanghai Masters are still playing a part in a player’s ranking, something that I find a little bizarre.
On the one hand I can understand that due to the lack of ranking events on the circuit, it does make sense to take into account results covering the past two seasons but to only update the official list once a year seems to be inadequate.
Compare this with the situation in tennis for example where the rankings are updated once per week which ensures that results based over the past 52 weeks are taken into account but not those further back. A similar system in snooker, even over two years would ensure that the rankings would be a truer indication of a player’s current standing in the game. To illustrate, should the fact that Dominic Dale won the Shanghai Masters over two and a half years ago really dictate what stage he should enter the 2010 World Championship? Under a system of rolling rankings this would not happen.
The difference in standard
One question that I sometimes wonder is whether or not there is a noticeable difference in standard between those players ranked inside the top 16, top 32, top 48 and so on. On the one hand the higher ranked players are there for a reason, but when you see the way that some of the qualifiers play sometimes, it is clear that they can on their day produce a high-scoring, top level standard. Just look at Liang Wenbo’s performance against Martin Gould last season for example!
For me the difference between the top 16, maybe even the 32, and those lower down comes at the televised events because those ranked higher are so used to playing on the big stage. Players such as Mark Davis however who have shown themselves to be so strong at Pontin’s this season, are not so comfortable in front of the TV cameras and often fail to produce their best form as a result. In terms of pure ability however, I don’t necessarily see the difference as being too great, excluding the very best players anyway.
The Real Rankings
As a result of some of my concerns raised earlier in this article, I would say that the rankings are not particularly a true reflection of the current pecking order. For example is John Higgins really the fourth best player? Is Stephen Maguire the second best? Probably not, and the provisional rankings I would suggest are a more accurate barometer of where players stand at the moment.
Even then though, is Ali Carter really a better player than Shaun Murphy and Ding Junhui? Is Mark Selby only the 11th best player on the tour?
I would be interested to hear your views as to what your top 10 would be right now. To get the ball rolling mine would be something like this:
1)John Higgins
2)Ronnie O’Sullivan
3)Ding Junhui
4)Neil Robertson
5)Mark Selby
6)Mark Williams
7)Shaun Murphy
8)Ali Carter
9)Stephen Maguire
10)Stephen Hendry
What would yours be?
Loading tweets...
12 comments
1 ping
Monique
Twitter: rdy sometimes
March 20, 2010 at 4:00 pm (UTC 0)
Well the one year list reads as this…
1. John Higgins
2. Ronnie O’Sullivan
3. Ding Junhui
4. Liang Wenbo
5. Neil Robertson
6. Mark Williams
7. Stephen Maguire
8. Jamie Cope
9. Ali Carter
10 Ken Doherty
So quite a few discrepencies with your perception.
Why?
Well obviously the Masters… prestige tournament that Mark Selby won but no ranking points. Mark Selby is currently only 20 on the one year ranking list. Shaun Murphy? Why so high on your list? He didn’t do much this season except in PL play-offs. Why is Maguire not there? He hasn’t won anything but if you look at his performances he’s been rather consistent.
If you put PL and Masters in the mix ROS comes on top of Higgins despite having lost 3 times out of 4 ranking matches against him. He’s made the final in both.
It’s confusing? Yes. I’m confused myself. Perception is based on what we see, which includes narrow defeats at the end of tremendous matches and wins that really didn’t enthrall us…
I personally think the current system is not that bad except for the newcomers on the tour. They really should be give 2 seasons to assert themselves.
matt2745
March 20, 2010 at 4:12 pm (UTC 0)
It’s an interesting debate and ultimately is a subjective issue. My list (admittedly one where I think the players between 3-8 could be re-arranged in almost any order), is just how I view the players.
My top ten isn’t only based on results, far from it and although O’Sullivan outperformed Higgins in the invitational events, their head to head record is for me a very significant factor. I’ve felt that Higgins has been a stronger player for the last 18 months personally, although the margins are not all that great.
While Murphy has not performed particularly strongly this season, I would always back him to win in a match against Carter for example, I just see him as a stronger player. Maguire I have got in ninth, a very good player but he just seems to be lacking something at the moment when he comes up against the other top players, which put him down my list.
Problem with the one-year list of course is that three of the players there have played more tournaments and in truth you can read little into a season based on six events. That’s why I would maintain a two-year system so long as there are just 6/7 events, but I would update it more often.
matt2745
March 20, 2010 at 4:19 pm (UTC 0)
Ultimately everyone has their views and perceptions of players and ultimately the rankings play a very small part in what I think of players, they are just the end result of what they achieve in certain tournaments.
There are players who I could name who I think are ranked much higher than my perception of them is, and some who are far lower. That’s the good thing about sport I guess, always going to be debate as everyone has a different view.
Monique
Twitter: rdy sometimes
March 20, 2010 at 4:30 pm (UTC 0)
Matt, don’t get me wrong, my purpose was indeed to spurr debate. My own feeling is indeed Higgins has got the upper hand on ROS over the last 18 months and I’m certain ROS himself would agree. And you are absolutely right also about players having played in more tournaments at this stage of the season.
You would update it more often? After each tournament and taking into account only the completed tournaments? If so I reckon ROS would again come on top because he won the 2008 WC and that would still count. It would probably change after this WC… I don’t think a rolling system over 2 years would make such a difference.
Personally the fact that players are “protected” doesn’t annoy me. This is a job where an illness or a injury can cost you dear. The current system guaranteies a bit of “dumping” in such cases.
matt2745
March 20, 2010 at 4:38 pm (UTC 0)
Debate is good definitely
It may not make a huge difference, I just find it a bit silly that results from as far back as the middle of 2007 are still a factor in a player’s seeding for tournaments taking place now. Would like to see it more current, though with so few events a one-year list would be out of the question at the moment.
I guess what I would like to see is the rolling system currently adopted in darts, which also covers results dating back two years, but updates after each week/tournament.
In tennis they use a system where results stay on for 52 weeks, no more, no less. Each tournament has a cut-off date for entries and the seedings are based on the rankings on those particular dates. Ideally I would like that but it’s not practical at the moment.
It’s tougher in snooker due to the lack of events, but I think that it could learn from over sports…
Shawerr
March 20, 2010 at 5:32 pm (UTC 0)
I like the system the way it is. Hate the tennis system. Players go up and down so quickly, there is no stability. In snooker, however, if you are the number 1 for this season you are the number 1, even if you lose all your matches. This ensures that players are where they belong ever if they have a poor run of form for some time. Take tennis again for example. Klijsters won US open being unranked. The tennis system is wrong for me, not snooker’s. And the top 10:
1)Higgins – don’t like him but he is playing the best snooker at the moment
2)O’ Sullivan – Ronnie is Ronnie
3)Maguire – he just hasn’t had any luck this season
4)Murphy – don’t like him either but he rarely loses with no chance of winning
5)Robertson – didn’t win the Grand Prix for no reason
6)Ding – won the UK but hasn’t really done anything in the World Champ so far
7)Hendry – lacks the consistency he used to have but when it all comes together for him his game is flawless (Welsh Open vs Harold)
8)Mark Williams – he is back
9)Ali Carter – solid consistant player but I don’t really think he can ever win the Big One
10)Jamie Cope – yet to break in the top sixteen, still I rate him above Liang because cope just seems to be a nicer guy.
I would have loved to put Ken in this list but this time he just misses out.
ryan147
March 20, 2010 at 6:13 pm (UTC 0)
My top 10 would be
1-Higgins
2-Ronnie
3-Ding
4-Selby
5-Murphy
6-Williams
7-Robertson
8-Maguire
9-Carter
10-Wenbo
Steve
March 20, 2010 at 6:57 pm (UTC 0)
My top 10 at the moment would be
1-Higgins
2-Ronnie
3-Roberston
4-Ding
5-Williams
6-Carter
7-Maguire
8-Murphy
9-Hendry
10-Allen
dannyboy
March 21, 2010 at 12:42 pm (UTC 0)
I think Hendry being 10th in your original top 10 says it all. If he plays well he would be higher ranked and if he plays poorly he wouldnt be top 10 so it is a kind of averaged out position. The up and coming younger players like Cope, Walden, Wenbo probably suffer playing mostly best of 9s and having to qualify. However in terms of standard and consistency Hendry has dropped out side of the top 10 in my opinion and the reality is his protected top 16 ranking helps his incocnsistency as he performs well enough on occasion to stay top 16. Similar story for all aging players over 40. This WC could be an opportunity for Ding to finally go late into the event. Especially if he is in the top half of the draw! Higgins and Ronnie are the top 2 but for me the younger guard are about to break thru. Cope was a whisker away last year, Robbo is about there, so lets see. For me the system should reflect 52 weeks and also there should be more open draws with maybe top 16 getting just a single round bye. If there were 12 tournaments a one year ranking would be fine.
matt2745
March 21, 2010 at 1:27 pm (UTC 0)
Yeah Hendry just edges people like Day for me because of how he has played during the World Championship for the last couple of years. Allen/Cope/Liang I expect could have something to say about that this time around though…
anon
March 22, 2010 at 2:31 am (UTC 0)
IMHO the snooker tournament structure (seeding players 1-16 ,17-32 ,33-48 ,etc) has always protected the top 16 and made it extremely difficult for youngsters to come through. Had players like Judd trump and Jamie Cope been playing under an ‘open draw system’like the one used in tennis they would have been where they are now in there teens. Im sure if you suggested using snookers draw structure to the people who run tennis they would laugh at you. I believe it is also harming the growth of the game globally as new international players like Tian Penfei , Liau Chang , Aditya Mehta etc etc , who are very capable of beating anyone find it extremely difficult to win 4 qualifying matches just to get the chance to play a top 16 player at a venue where they would get good exposure for snooker in their respective nations.
JIMO96
March 22, 2010 at 12:27 pm (UTC 0)
Anon at 2:31 is spot on- it’s the tournament structure that needs to change, not the points system. By all means, keep the top 16 out until the venue, but is there really any need to have as many as 4 different seeding levels?!?
I would have every other player on the tour (outside of the elite, be it 16 or even 32) involved in round 1, and these players playing down to 16 (or 32) to meet the seeded players. That way,there’d be only 2 seeding levels and fewer discrepancies in the “points guarantees”, cos most of the players would be starting out at the same stage.
As it currenty stands, the top 16 have around a 5000 points start on the newcomers over the course of the season (based on points guarantees), and the 17-32 and 33-48 brackets have a significant advantage too. So it’s no wonder that newcomers struggle to make an impact in the rankings.
I’m not sure about updating it every week- maybe if there was a ranking event every week, that would make sense- but once every couple of months, and certainly before the Wold Championship draw would erase “old form” from the list.
I’d like to see an 80 player tour, with the top 16 seeded to the venue, and the other 64 playing 2 rounds to produce the 16 qualifiers to meet them.
The wait is over: The 96 Named « Pro Snooker Blog
June 16, 2010 at 6:03 pm (UTC 0)
[...] has been given another crack at the tour, a decison that I am supportive of and in fact advocated here at this blog during my article back in March. You owe me one [...]