New Qualifying Rules from 2014-15 season

syngindub

Seen the following story on BBC and also the coverage this generated at Intervals in the Masters.

New Qualifying Rules from 2014-15 season

Essentially 8 tournaments from the 2014/2015 will see all top 128 players competing from the 1st Round.
Also the article mentions that reaching the last 16 guarantees at least 90,000.

Are they potentially shooting themselves in the foot or could this work you think.

Some of the top players are obviously apposed but surprisingly some are for it.

I think the players essentially need to vote on the move.

Like to hear peoples viewes on the pros and cons and when decisions are going to be made.

zack01

This should have happened years ago, the top players have been protected for too long and have made a good living out of the fact that they qualify automatically to each ranking event.

If the top 16 are as good as their ranking suggests than they really should have no problem negotiating the early rounds of tournaments.

I can understand the frustration by some players of having to go back to the dreaded cubicles and start an event from round one but I've said this before its not fair on the lower ranked players, they need the opportunities to play the top players and more importantly they need to earn financial reward.

Currently a lower ranked player must win several rounds to at least have a chance to play a top player but with this new system they could meet one a lot sooner.

With the rankings from next season based on money won its the fairest way as basically everyone starts at the same round.

A lot of the top players are for it but what makes me laugh is listening to John Parrott and John Virgo moaning about it, it's not really their business, they are pundits and commentators, and it won't affect them at all.
I also find it amusing what that idiot Mark Allen and his negative comments about Barry Hearn and what he is doing to the game.
He should realise that pro snooker was on its knees until Hearn took over and reinvented it. The season has gone from five ranking events and the Masters to almost double the number of rankings tournaments and not to mention the vastly increased prize money and lucrative markets that have opened up in Asia.

Also in a time of global recession Hearn has secured sponsors for every single event.

How can any player have a problem with that??

I looked at the two year money list not so long ago and all the top 16 had earned almost £200K and beyond.

That would have been unheard of five years ago.

I think the new tournament set up for the eight ranking events next season may just throw up a few new snooker stars along the way.

The £90,000 would be the total earnings for the season should a player reach the last 16 of each event.

syngindub

Some important points made in the post above alright.

It's interesting that it's the younger players who've tasted success playing in the big arena's are moaning. These guys don't want to be battling it out, they feel they have earned the easy life.

Of the 11 Worlds Events, China, Australian & Worlds are the only events where Top 16 will qualify to Arena Stage. Is there any point having a ranking system at all now as all 128 players are on an equal playing field. The only benefit for Ranking System is these 3 tournament and what else?

This is a very odd comparison by Barry
"What I can compare it to is Usain Bolt, who is the number one sprinter in the world but does not start halfway down the track," said World Snooker chairman Barry Hearn.

Not sure it's the correct analogy in the context to what's going on !!
Anyone care to make a comparison for a different sport

I think the cream will still rise to the top for 70-80% of the Events anyway, but you're spot on, a few youngsters or some of the oldies may make a few headlines along the way. Should be exciting anyway.

ArmaniJeanss

zack01 wrote: »

Also in a time of global recession Hearn has secured sponsors for every single event.

Just to focus on this line.
If I'm a possible sponsor of a TV competition (say the UK Open with last 32 on TV) then I wouldn't be particularly happy that I'm potentially going to lose a load of the name players before the TV stage starts.
Every sponsor has a list of probably a dozen names (Higgins, Trump, Selby, Robertson etc) who are box-office for them and now with L128 and L64 rounds to overcome (Best of what, 9 games) you might lose three quarters of these players before the TV stage. Regardless of the merits of the players who've beaten them this is someting which is going to make sponsors very wary.

It's also fairly unprecedented in sport. Djoko and Nadal don't have to start Wimbledon at the same level as the 700ranked players. Woods and McIlroy don't have to do qualifying for the Open along with Joe Smith the weekend before the event, their ranking gets them into the competition proper.

Also an interesting comparision is the one sports organisation which Hearn has controlled from the start, namely PDC Darts. Here the Top 16/32 (dpending on the event) automatically qualify for the TV stages whilst everyone else has to fight for a dozen or so spots. So if Hearn is so enamoured by the concept of everyone starting in the same round why has he given the Taylors/RVBs/Lewis's safe passage to the TV stage for the last 20 years? Doesn't take a genius to work out imo.

To sum up, I reckon Hearn knows this is fundamentally a bad idea, and is using it as leverage to get something else from the players.

zack01

Some interesting points there alright. In two of the three sports you have mentioned there are many more players than there are on the pro tour. It's all about finding a happy medium where a player ranked 128 in the world and has a two year tour exception has the exact same earning power as the world ranked number one.

Sponsors are already seeing top names not enter tournaments, none more so than the shootout next weekend where Selby and Robertson hav'nt entered.

The tour as it continues to grow will see more players pick and choose the events they play in as is the case with the Austrailian Open where several big names declined to enter.
With the ranking list based on money from next season players will be trying to either climb the ranking or consolidate themselves in the top 16 which will get them automatically to the Cruicble and the lucrative Masters.

I think it's a case of watch this space and as I mentioned maybe a star or two may appear on our screens over the following season.

StephenHendry

it does seem a fairer route for tournaments except of course the major tournaments but i can't see too many of the top 16 players liking it , it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

oneillMan999

syngindub wrote: »

Seen the following story on BBC and also the coverage this generated at Intervals in the Masters.

New Qualifying Rules from 2014-15 season

Essentially 8 tournaments from the 2014/2015 will see all top 128 players competing from the 1st Round.
Also the article mentions that reaching the last 16 guarantees at least 90,000.

Are they potentially shooting themselves in the foot or could this work you think.

Some of the top players are obviously apposed but surprisingly some are for it.

I think the players essentially need to vote on the move.

Like to hear peoples viewes on the pros and cons and when decisions are going to be made.

I like the idea and u can't compare it with tennis. Snooker dosent have 700 pros playin the game nevermind the huge sponsorship to allow that many.
Obviously the higher ranked a player is, the easier 1st and 2nd round draw he will get so plenty of incentive to be as high up the ranking as possible.
I bet in say 3 or 4 years, we will look back and laugh at the way it use to be.
The only thing that can go wrong is the organisation of the events as in, I think all 128 players must play at each venue to keep it a level playing field, but this could possibly be a logistical nightmare. We ll just have to wait and see but I for one look forward to it.

melon_collie

My only fear with the whole thing is that the BBC may not want to get involved with the 128 player format when their contract with the WPBSA comes up for renewal. This could result in SKY Sports getting their hands on it!!! The thoughts of Sky getting any of the major tournaments would be such a turn off for me personally. Breaks in between each frame, bullsh1t hype the whole way...........Good god no.

zack01

I wouldn't worry about that the BBC only recently extended their deal to 2017 and as far as the 128 players, the first two rounds are currently not televised and won't be under the new deal, mainstream coverage will only begin once the 32 players reach the event venue.
Currently pre televised rounds can be viewed on most betting websites and surprisingly enough the coverage is decent.

oneillMan999

Yea zack, but all 128 players will be at the same venue right? Otherwise it won't work imo.

zack01

Yes all players will be at the venue but it won't necessary be the same venue where the tv cameras come into effect.

oneillMan999

zack01 wrote: »

Yes all players will be at the venue but it won't necessary be the same venue where the tv cameras come into effect.

Yea that's my point, if that's the case it won't work, lets hope its one venue for all the rounds, cameras or not.

zack01

Yes all players will be at the same venue, this new system is so everyone is starting at a level playing field.

The last 32 will move on to the main event venue where the tv cameras will then come into operation.

Hunter21

I don't post here much, but this is a topic I'm interested in.

As if the players schedule isn't hectic enough as it is.

Fair enough more PTC events have led to better quality snooker, but more loops to jump through to qualify and more frames could easily burn some players out.

If this goes ahead I could see more players taking the Ronnie O' Sullivan route.

Imagine making Manchester United or City play two or three more games in order to get to the top and win the FA cup. They could do it no doubt, but it could also affect their teams ability to win in other competitions as players will be worn out from travelling, playing and also being away from their family longer.

The management of snooker need to thread lightly I feel.

syngindub

2 Questions

Is it not beneficial for players further down the rankings to avoid the top seeds during qualification for tournaments?

Also, will it be a straight draw from 128 or is there a system for selecting who play who at each round?

zack01

syngindub wrote: »

2 Questions

Is it not beneficial for players further down the rankings to avoid the top seeds during qualification for tournaments?

Also, will it be a straight draw from 128 or is there a system for selecting who play who at each round?

I would think it better if the lower ranked players were to meet the top players earlier as in the current system lower ranked players must win at least three matches before they can dream of playing a big name, now with this system they can play a big name right from the first round.

The draw is made by the top 64 drawing out a player ranked 65 - 128. The same format continues for each round.

ArmaniJeanss

zack01 wrote: »

I would think it better if the lower ranked players were to meet the top players earlier as in the current system lower ranked players must win at least three matches before they can dream of playing a big name, now with this system they can play a big name right from the first round.

The draw is made by the top 64 drawing out a player ranked 65 - 128. The same format continues for each round.

I think Syngindubs point is as follows.

Under the current system the qualifying works as follows for something like the UK Open.

113-128 play 97-112 in the first round.
Winners of above play 81-96 in second round.
Continues through each round.
........
Eventually 17-32 play against an above winner, with the winners of this game qualifying to play the Top 16 in the TV stage.

So someone ranked a lowly 120 gets to play slightly higher ranked players in each round and can grab valuable ranking points and small prizemoney along the way, and get games under their belt whilst they are improving.


Whereas under the new system they could go through a season of drawing Higgins, Selby, Trump, Robertson in the first round of 10 ranking events, lose every game and despite being theoretically better than a 120 ranked player they pick up no ranking points.

The current system guarantees that you will move up if you are better than the players ranked around you. Some clearly believe this process to be too slow, fair enough.
But the new system brings a big luck of the draw element into it.

zack01

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I think Syngindubs point is as follows.

Under the current system the qualifying works as follows for something like the UK Open.

113-128 play 97-112 in the first round.
Winners of above play 81-96 in second round.
Continues through each round.
........
Eventually 17-32 play against an above winner, with the winners of this game qualifying to play the Top 16 in the TV stage.

So someone ranked a lowly 120 gets to play slightly higher ranked players in each round and can grab valuable ranking points and small prizemoney along the way, and get games under their belt whilst they are improving.


Whereas under the new system they could go through a season of drawing Higgins, Selby, Trump, Robertson in the first round of 10 ranking events, lose every game and despite being theoretically better than a 120 ranked player they pick up no ranking points.

The current system guarantees that you will move up if you are better than the players ranked around you. Some clearly believe this process to be too slow, fair enough.
But the new system brings a big luck of the draw element into it.

Agreed but these lower ranked players will very seldom get a chance to test themselves against the best there is. This format also favours the lower ranked players because two wins gets them to the last 32 and straight into the televised stages.
Also if the player ranked 120 who not many have heard of gets a result against a top player it could be a career changing win for him.