Looks like it is time for a different snooker player to enter the frame to say something slightly controversial!
According to Hector Nunns, Neil Robertson, the Australian Triple Crown Champion, criticised how the rankings have been “skewed” in the past three years. Before that time, your performances in tournaments are determined by the number of points. Since the 2014/2015 season, rankings are determined by prize money instead. Neil had this to say:
“The snooker ranking system is wrong, there is no doubt about that. Being based on the prize-money list is stupid. Whoever has come up with it doesn’t know what they are doing, no other sport does it. On matches won last season I was one of the highest, but a title can see people move up miles. I would copy and paste the tennis ranking system.”
And here is the article in the form of the tweet from the Daily Mirror on 23/10/2017:
https://twitter.com/senornunes/status/922390450190848000
So why was it changed in the first place? Well, Barry Hearn made the changes along with the idea that all 128 players start in the 1st round to cut out the “protectionism” of the comfortable Top 16. In the past, the Top 16 automatically qualify for the main event rather than having to go through 1-4 qualifying matches. Barry Hearn said at the time:
“At the moment a top-16 player is guaranteed about £65,000 annually before he takes his cue out of his case. If you have a ranking system based on prize money, that’s a hell of a start. Under the new system, if a player makes the last 16 in each tournament, he will be guaranteed about £90,000.” [1]
Surprisingly, it has brought upon a lot of debate as to whether he was right. It seems split into three camps really. Those who believe that title winners get more points than deserved and points earned is completely disproportional to actual success, such as reaching the quarter-finals and semi-finals. This is especially the case when someone can win five ranking events but get fewer points than those the one who only wins the World Championship because of the huge amount of points. Other arguments include playing against ‘numpties’ when these players can thrash low-ranking players anyway:
Agree with Robertson to a certain extent,I do think the money on offer in WC compared to everything else skews things up a lot
— TheGreenBaize (@TheGreenBaize) October 23, 2017
The other side of the argument is that players deserve so many points because of the hardship of winning a title in the first place. This system gives players the chance to prove themselves that they deserve to be in the Top 16 since, if they got beaten by someone outside in the Top 64 in the on a regular basis, they don’t deserve to be there. In other words, arguably, the system gives the game a level playing field to give younger players a chance to make a fair crack at making the success of the beautiful game:
Robbo is wrong. Ranking system designed to ensure players turn up to tournaments. Ultimately they're rewarding for their success. What's wrong with that?
— Dave Toms (@orientdave) October 23, 2017
Then there is the third camp who think The Thunder From Down Under is throwing his toys out of the pram because the system isn’t working in his favour. This is especially convenient as Neil Robertson’s Masters place is under threat since he hasn’t reached a ranking semi-final since the 2016 European Masters all the back last October:
https://twitter.com/F4Whof/status/922423263279681537
What do I think? I’m definitely not in the final camp. Neil is more aware than anyone that last season was far from his best, because of his lack of form in the second half of the season and his gaming addiction, which is well documented. I’m actually more in the first camp. I do like the points system, despite my initial, childish cynicism that the system was built to keep Ronnie O’Sullivan in the game. But I often wonder why if you reached the final 8 players out of 128 in the English Open for example (4 matches), you only have £10,000, yet if you win three more matches you get £70,000.
I would prefer to see Last 32 and quarter-finals win more money to reach that stage since winners, I believe. This would mean they actually get valued. One major flaw that needs to be solved is that the prize money can actually increase every year. The prize pot for the winner of the World Championship increased from £300,000 to £375,000 between 2015-2017 and the last year’s World Open winner Ali Carter received £60,000 less money/ranking points than 2017 winner Ding Junhui. There needs to be a fixed prize pot otherwise winners receive fewer points than the next winner by no fault of their own.
What do you think, chaps? Without this system, Anthony Hamilton wouldn’t have rocketed to the Top 32 in his first year by winning the German Masters. On the other hand, Yan Bingtao reached the 4th Round five times last season and still managed to reach the Top 64 in his first attempt, so this system does reward consistency as well as winners! Though the points system was fairer because every year, the points in each tournament will be exactly the same? Or will Neil breathe a sigh of relief that his chances of getting to next year’s Masters have slightly increased because another particular player get banned for betting on his own as well as other snooker matches?????
Sorry, had to fit that in!
[1] Keogh, F., “Snooker split over Barry Hearn revamp plans for top 16 players.” BBC Sport. (22nd July 2013) Accessed on: 23rd October 2017. Accessed from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/snooker/21127300
