There I am relaxing after the China Open and I'm asked for help with an intriguing query regarding the world ranking list.

Or more specifically, whether it's been worked out incorrectly.

This all goes back to the Royal London Watches Grand Prix in Aberdeen last October.

According to the official World Snooker ranking points schedule, the 16 qualifiers from Prestatyn earned 1,438 points. The seeded players (ranked 1-32) who finished third or fourth earned 1,750 points. The seeded players who finished fifth or sixth earned 719 points.

The key word here is 'seeded'. Nowhere on the schedule does it say that a qualifier finishing third or fourth receives 1,750 points.

However, four players who did just this - Rory McLeod, Stuart Pettman, Tom Ford and Jimmy Michie - did receive this amount.

I suspect that the schedule is merely ambiguously written and that any player finishing third or fourth was entitled to 1,750. This would certainly make sense because it rewards those who win two or three matches.

But the use of the word 'seeded' suggests this may not be the case.

And if it isn't the case, the four aforementioned players have been given too many points.

This would obviously have major implications for the ranking list, not least because McLeod, Ford and Michie are all perilously close to the 48 mark. If they dropped lower than this they would have to play an extra qualifying round in ranking tournaments next season.

To cut a very long-winded story short, does anyone know whether the list is right or not?


Eric Eggert said...

I don’t think that those players get less points, the word seeded there is wrong, in my opinion. They should have a benefit for being better than a seeded player in that round robin stage.

That said, the document isn’t clear about this and states “16 qualifiers from Round Robin Stage 1: 1438” regardless of any rank in the second seed.

As far as I can remember the points for place 3 and 4 were awarded to qualified players last season as well.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for this interesting post Dave.
Clearly those finishing 5th or 6th would recieve 719 if seeded and twice that 1438 if a losing qualifier. finishing 5th or 6th is the equivalent of 'losing' in that round. Thus seeded loser points only apply to finishing 5th/6th Finishing 3rd or 4th awards a higher points tarry as the reward for doing well in that round.
The simplest solution to end all the confusion would be to scrap round robins and provide a proper matchplay tournament.

JW said...

there's been hot debat about this point on the GCS forum - I allocated those players the points specified, regardless of the word "seeded" - and actually if anything, it would be the "seeded" players who got fewer points if they didn't achieve their "seeded" position in the event... all in all I am rapidly giving up the will to live!!! JW - GCS

Dave H said...

I have the answer - it was worded wrongly on the points schedule

They should be careful about this because there could be an almighty ruck if players believe they - or other players - have been given the wrong points

Anonymous said...

Yes hadn't noticed it myeslf this year but last year the schedule was similarly ambiguously written. It suggested that a 'seed' coming 3rd or 4th got more points than a 'qualifier' coming 3rd or 4th which is obvioulsy spurious.

On emailing the WSA about it I received a telephone call, within about 20 minutes, from no less than Martin Clark, clarifying the position, which is as you have assumed to be correct.

Chris D

Dave H said...

Thanks Chris

Martin is extremely helpful with any queries, as indeed are all of World Snooker's tournament staff