Announcement

**RocketRoy1983** · 3 May 2009, 01:18 PM

How many points behind Ronnie would Murphy be should he collect the full 10,000 here?

**Mart1n** · 3 May 2009, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by RocketRoy1983 View Post

How many points behind Ronnie would Murphy be should he collect the full 10,000 here?

4400 points behind ROS

**RocketRoy1983** · 3 May 2009, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Mart1n View Post

4400 points behind ROS

Thank you Martin.

**cajt** · 4 May 2009, 09:38 AM

Interstingly John Higgins looks like starting next season with a huge points margin over the rest.

On the one-year list he is 4900 points ahead of his nearest rival, Ali Carter which would increase to 6900 if he wins today.

If Murphy wins he will be second on that list 3525 behind John.

**Matt_2745** · 4 May 2009, 10:21 AM

That's what you get for a couple of titles and winning all of your first round matches I guess. Shame that he missed Bahrain, could have been second with a semi or something there.

**Monique** · 4 May 2009, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Matt_2745 View Post

That's what you get for a couple of titles and winning all of your first round matches I guess. Shame that he missed Bahrain, could have been second with a semi or something there.

It just shows how "heavy" the WC is in the rankings. Before it there was about a 1000 points between ROS and Higgins. Both having won all their first round matches, both having won a ranker and be runner-up in another. The difference came essentially from the combined facts that the GP awards 6500 points as opposed to 5000 for the NIT (why BTW? the format isn't any different from the NIT, or Welsh except the random draw that does not really add any difficulty to it) and that Higgins got no points for Bahrain while ROS got the first round loser's points. Now Higgins, if he wins, will find himself with a 7000 points lead over Ali Carter and 7200 points lead over ROS which is extremely difficult to overcome except if he in turn has a bad WC next season (not that I wish him that ...)

**Templeton Peck** · 4 May 2009, 10:51 AM

I think the discrepency in the Grand Prix points were a relic of the round-robin format where you had to play more frames. The first round was effectively a best of 25 in the first year it was played, as opposed to a best of 9 - 16 frames more in total - and roughly 30% more frames than the standard 5000 point tournament. They increased the point quotient by 25% to reflect that and it hasn't been restored. There is absolutely no case for it having more points now, but since Higgins got jipped out of his Bahrain points I don't begrudge him.

**Monique** · 4 May 2009, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Templeton Peck View Post

I think the discrepency in the Grand Prix points were a relic of the round-robin format where you had to play more frames. The first round was effectively a best of 25 in the first year it was played, as opposed to a best of 9 - 16 frames more in total - and roughly 30% more frames than the standard 5000 point tournament. They increased the point quotient by 25% to reflect that and it hasn't been restored. There is absolutely no case for it having more points now, but since Higgins got jipped out of his Bahrain points I don't begrudge him.

Neither do I TP...

and I agree the GP "value" a relic probably or maybe it's related to the fact it's a BBC tournament with higher price money (although I don't see the rationale behind that...)

But the fact is that next season with only 6 rankers probably Higgins will be almost uncatchable unless he falls flat on his face.

**Robert602** · 4 May 2009, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Templeton Peck View Post

I think the discrepency in the Grand Prix points were a relic of the round-robin format where you had to play more frames. The first round was effectively a best of 25 in the first year it was played, as opposed to a best of 9 - 16 frames more in total - and roughly 30% more frames than the standard 5000 point tournament. They increased the point quotient by 25% to reflect that and it hasn't been restored. There is absolutely no case for it having more points now, but since Higgins got jipped out of his Bahrain points I don't begrudge him.

It's true that the other events follow the more frames, more points idea but I don't see why that should be the only criterion. All tournaments in tennis bar the men's grand slams are played over the same three set format yet points available vary significantly. As long as the players know what they're playing for in advance, it works.

IMO the GP is worthy of more points based on its BBC exposure / audience recognition, its prize money, and most importantly its history as the second longest running ranking event. Regardless of the reason it was increased I'd be in favour of keeping the slightly elevated status.

**Monique** · 4 May 2009, 12:10 PM

Well I think it's hardly fair. The historical value and the prestige of the tournament is sufficiently marked by a higher price money. Rankings are about the performances of the players and their consistency over 2 years, not the prestige of any given tournament. Especially with only 6 rankers next season I cannot understand why one player winning the GP would get a 1500 points bonus in addition to increased price money for exactly the same effort as others who win the Welsh Open, Shanghai Masters or China Open. Less effort if speaking of the last 2 in fact as they involve traveling overseas and a longer final ...
If we had a lot more events, some freedom of choice and a different system (like in tennis for instance) I wouldn't care, but as things stand today, I don't think it's fair. It was however when the round-robin phase implied players had to play more matches and there was a need to reward performance "inside" the round robin phase in order to try to avoid dead matches.

And that's nothing to do with John Higgins or whoever winning it. Honest.

**Robert602** · 4 May 2009, 12:42 PM

The world matchplay championship had for three years almost the same match lengths and prize money as the world championship, with all of the top players invited. Jimmy White beat Hendry and Parrott heavily in best of 35 finals to win and defend it but that doesn't mean much to him or his fans because it wasn't the 'real' world championship, even though he had to beat the same players and, on paper, do almost the same work.

My point is that while I agree that rankings should be on players' merits, to win a tournament where there's more at stake, where it means more to everyone, does reflect ability and nerve. Those who are able to raise their game for the bigger events (as the likes of Ronnie and Higgins regularly do) ought to be rewarded in the rankings.

**Templeton Peck** · 4 May 2009, 12:53 PM

Following that logic you could argue that the World Championship should be worth 50,000 points because Jimmy would probably trade all his ranking titles in for one World title. I personally would like to see points reflect the earning potential of a tournament so in that respect the Grand Prix would indeed be worth more than the others. The point Monique is making however is that it's currently inconsistent - the ranking power of all the other tournaments seem to reflect length and at the moment the Grand Prix is the only exception to that.

**Monique** · 4 May 2009, 01:00 PM

Well I think it's perverse ... in more senses than one.

Take the Welsh Open for instance. It doesn't carry much ranking points, it doesn't carry high price money. Yet players are supposed to be motivated and give it their best. Well obviously some find it hard. Some are even open about it

and while others might not be that blunt, as you stated it, it's not exactly where they raise their game innit? As a result the tournament suffers, sponsors are even harder to attract, and the spiral goes further. Will it disappear soon like the NIT (and the others from the past Irish Masters, Scottish Masters, Malta Cup ...). Ranking points that are truly proportional to the effort and work put into the tournament by the players seem only fair in my view and they are free ...

**Robert602** · 4 May 2009, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Templeton Peck View Post

Following that logic you could argue that the World Championship should be worth 50,000 points because Jimmy would probably trade all his ranking titles in for one World title.

I never meant to imply that we should base rankings on what tournaments mean to Jimmy White. Rankings are there as indicators of performance so every win should count, but wins in bigger arenas with more at stake should count more, even over the same length of match, because they say more about a player's ability to do well in future.

The current system isn't even inconsistent if you add in prestige as a factor. The WC, UK, GP then everything else looks like a sensible order to me.

Originally Posted by Monique View Post

Take the Welsh Open for instance. It doesn't carry much ranking points, it doesn't carry high price money. Yet players are supposed to be motivated and give it their best. Well obviously some find it hard. Some are even open about it

and while others might not be that blunt, as you stated it, it's not exactly where they raise their game innit? As a result the tournament suffers, sponsors are even harder to attract, and the spiral goes further. Will it disappear soon like the NIT (and the others from the past Irish Masters, Scottish Masters, Malta Cup ...).

There's a lot of truth in that and it's unfortunate, but you said yourself that rankings should be about the players and their performances so that they can be seeded correctly in future, they're not a tool for rescuing stuggling tournaments. Besides which, even the smallest ranking tournaments carry 80% of the points of the GP so it's not as if they're ignored.

Originally Posted by Monique View Post

Ranking points that are truly proportional to the effort and work put into the tournament by the players seem only fair in my view and they are free ...

Agreed! But players put in more work and effort for the Grand Prix than, say, the WO, NIT, Malta etc. No?

Announcement

Rankings for 2009/10

Rankings for 2009/10

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment