2019 World championship qualifiers and draw

[JimMalone]

Higher seeds now 37-4. I don't recall it being quite so lopsided in previous years, but I could be wrong.

2018 it was 57-7 in the first round.
2017 54-10.
2016 54-10.

[Stony152]

2018 it was 57-7 in the first round.
2017 54-10.
2016 54-10.

Seems like there's quite a drop off in talent level and results once you get past the top 50-60. The second round should be a lot more competitive.

It's interesting that the players that don't make the main tour are designated as "amateurs". In golf the player decides if he/she is a professional or an amateur. Anybody trying to make a living from a sport should be considered a "professional". Some golfers prefer to maintain their amateur status so they can compete in some elite events not open to professionals.

[JimMalone]

Seems like there's quite a drop off in talent level and results once you get past the top 50-60. The second round should be a lot more competitive.

It's interesting that the players that don't make the main tour are designated as "amateurs". In golf the player decides if he/she is a professional or an amateur. Anybody trying to make a living from a sport should be considered a "professional". Some golfers prefer to maintain their amateur status so they can compete in some elite events not open to professionals.

You can't make a living from Snooker if you are not on the Main Tour though, so that separation makes kind of sense in this sport.

[Stony152]

You can't make a living from Snooker if you are not on the Main Tour though, so that separation makes kind of sense in this sport.

There are many players on the main tour who aren't making a living at the game. In theory it's the top 64, but with Q-school graduates, one year lists, and exemptions it's more like 90-100 full time tour players. Those near the bottom of the list aren't making anywhere near enough to live on only from tournament winnings. To me if you accept any money to play a sport you should be considered a professional.

[JimMalone]

There are many players on the main tour who aren't making a living at the game. In theory it's the top 64, but with Q-school graduates, one year lists, and exemptions it's more like 90-100 full time tour players. Those near the bottom of the list aren't making anywhere near enough to live on only from tournament winnings. To me if you accept any money to play a sport you should be considered a professional.

Of course they are not making it, but all that are on the main tour have at least the chance.

[Stony152]

Of course they are not making it, but all that are on the main tour have at least the chance.

Even players not on the main tour "have the chance" Adam Stefanow isn't on the main tour, but he's played in numerous (19) qualifying rounds and first rounds. All he has to do is keep winning and he'll make more than enough money to live on. :-)

[JimMalone]

Even players not on the main tour "have the chance" Adam Stefanow isn't on the main tour, but he's played in numerous (19) qualifying rounds and first rounds. All he has to do is keep winning and he'll make more than enough money to live on. :-)

Fair enough. Didn't realise Stefanow (or anybody else not on the Tour) played that many qualifiers that season.

[JimMalone]

Donaldson - Steadman is another match I would expect to be pretty close in the end.
The veteran has a 4-3 lead right now.

[Stony152]

Donaldson - Steadman is another match I would expect to be pretty close in the end.
The veteran has a 4-3 lead right now.

Just about the worst possible draw for Donaldson. Steadman is ranked in the 80s, but on present form this is a 50/50 match.

[Stony152]

Fair enough. Didn't realise Stefanow (or anybody else not on the Tour) played that many qualifiers that season.

I was also surprised. He had a 2-17 record this season and one of his two wins was against Sean Murphy. As long as your ranking is in the top 120 or so, you have the opportunity to play in most of the tournaments. With quite a few 128 player draws and with players like O'Sullivan sometimes skipping lesser tournaments having an actual tour card isn't as important as it used to be.

[JimMalone]

I was also surprised. He had a 2-17 record this season and one of his two wins was against Sean Murphy. As long as your ranking is in the top 120 or so, you have the opportunity to play in most of the tournaments. With quite a few 128 player draws and with players like O'Sullivan sometimes skipping lesser tournaments having an actual tour card isn't as important as it used to be.

Not to be nitpicking, but a 2-17 record would still mean he played 17 tournaments ;-)

[cueman]

The problem for the amateur players is they don't know where their next tournament entry is going to be. its all well and good saying all they have to do is keep winning but in order to win you need to practice and get match sharp for the next tournament.

That doesn't come cheap. In fact you need to earn around £15000 just to cover costs of being on the main tour. At least players on the main tour can attract some sponsorship opportunities, you won't find any amateurs with that luxury so they have to find the money from somewhere to live and play.

[Stony152]

Not to be nitpicking, but a 2-17 record would still mean he played 17 tournaments ;-)

You are right. It's not nitpicking, but stating a fact.

[JimMalone]

You are right. It's not nitpicking, but stating a fact.

But for the topic it's pretty irrelevant whether he played 19 or 17 tournaments.

[wake_up_bomb]

This is an excellent post. I'm a stats nerd myself, but I've never really considered to what degree pure probability plays a role in the difference in ability level between the top men and women.

I'm Canadian and growing up many boys my age dreamt of being hockey players and playing in the NHL. It's similar to football in the UK and in many other parts of the world. So it's not surprising that 50% of NHL players were born in Canada. All of the best athletes try hockey and the cream of those players rises to the top. In other countries hockey may only be the 3rd, 4th, or 5th most popular sport, so the best athletes gravitate to the other sports.

People always look at the situation and ask...why can't Reanne and Ng On Yee compete with the top men? Maybe because there is only two of them!

That's like taking me and you from a young age, and saying ten years later...why can't wake_up_bomb and Stony compete with Ronnie O' Sullivan and John Higgins? We keep giving them wildcards and they keep losing!

By some incredible statistical anomaly it is not inconceivable that eventually you would get a top 32 female player. But it's highly, highly, highly unlikely.

Why can't Reanne compete? Because she's not quite good enough. Like 99.99% of people in the world. Unfortunately, she's 50% of the competitive female players, and will be there again next year.

I follow chess a bit because my friend is a chess grandmaster. There have been 3 women to make the top 100 in the world. Again, hardly any black players of any note. There may have been more women in the top 100 than black men, I'm not sure, but it won't be far off. Whereas China, India, Russia, Eastern Europe in general, the United States...they have tonnes of top players. So the top 20 in chess currently is...

Norway, US, China, Azerbaijan, France, Netherlands, India, Russia, Russia, Armenia, US, Azerbaijan, US, Russia, China, Russia, Russia, US, China, Bulgaria.

Imagine that in the knockout stages of the football World Cup! No Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, England, Spain, etc. Instead the World Cup semi-final is Azerbaijan versus Armenia!

It's just purely because there is a culture of playing chess in those countries, they invest resources in it, the top players get together and learn from one another, they have a competitive environment, and the cream rises to the top.

Contrary to snooker, there has been a top 10 female chess player (Hungarian), so that shows there's no genetic barrier to entry. But many, many more women play chess, and still there's only been 3 top 100 female players. So with basically two competitive female snooker players, you're never going to get anywhere, especially as they have no-one to play against of any standard except each other!