4.11.09

THE MAGNIFICENT SEVENTH?

I’m told by a very good source that it is “99% certain” there will be a seventh ranking event this season.

If so, this is obviously good news, although it will raise the question of whether the ranking points tariffs should have been altered in the way they were as it will skew this season to be more important than last.

That’s a minor point for now. The more tournaments the better as far as I’m concerned.

Indeed, the number of tournaments being staged is increasing as private promoters stage more away from the ‘main tour’.

I’ve noticed a tendency for snooker fans to dismiss anything that isn’t a ranking event as a bit of nonsense that shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Well, Liang Wenbo won £50,000 for winning 110sport’s tournament in Beijing in the summer. I’d guess he took that pretty seriously.

Almost every ranking event started life as a smaller invitation tournament.

This was true of the UK Championship. Indeed, it was true of the World Championship.

But for Barry Hearn and his 80s vision, would there have been fully fledged ranking events in Dubai or Thailand or China?

So the next time you disregard a tournament just because it doesn’t carry ranking points, look back at snooker history and you may want to think again.

Whether an event carries ranking points or not, exposure for the game in terms of visibility cannot be overestimated.

88 comments:

JohnMcBrideIRE said...

I'm not sure I follow your point here Dave as it reads as a 'mixed-message'?

You've gone from saying you are 99% certain a 7th ranking event will be included, which could 'skew' the current ranking system, which may well be the case, to putting your support & explaining a little bit of history behind non-ranking invitational tournaments & knocking anyone who voices concern or belittles these tournaments. Firstly, if ranking events are to be introduced, then someone somewhere is actively trying to do so. If this does reflect the ranking points system, then by saying what you have said is a negative way of saying good, another ranking tournament is being introduced.

I for one want to see more Snooker played, to ensure the players can earn a living, at all levels I might add, & generate more interest in the game, (why we have too is another thing) & if they are invitational, so be it, if the tournaments introduced are ranking tournaments, then all the better. If they are introduced mid-season, accept this as a positive, as we already know & are well versed that the game of Snooker is not on solid foundations at the moment.

As for invitational tournaments, we only have to look at the Masters & see what a spectacular tournament that is.

In Sport,

John McBride

Anonymous said...

bahrain so robbo can defend his title

Dave H said...

John - there's a clue that I think this is good news when I say 'this is obviously good news'

I don't understand the rest of your post

Anonymous said...

Good to hear there will be another ranking event though announcing it after the season begins I assume will scupper any attempts to get it on television? Or are the schedules flexible enough to cope with a new live event? Or perhaps we might see 110 sport have exclusive rights to show it online? This seems to be the way things are going recently with the recent England match as an example.

JohnMcBrideIRE said...

Hmmm.....I could take the tone of your response as a sign of character....?

If this is you spreading good news Dave, I'd hate to hear any bad news.

I'm sorry, but going back to your 'tone', if you don't understand the rest of my post the clue here is...."I'm not sure I follow your point here Dave as it reads as a 'mixed-message'"

I hope your day improves,

John McBride

SnookerOracle said...

"I’ve noticed a tendency for snooker fans to dismiss anything that isn’t a ranking event as a bit of nonsense that shouldn’t be taken seriously."

I think people judge a competitions 'seriousness' on the television coverage. If it's on BBC or Sky then people take it seriously. If not, they don't.

Rightly or wrongly, it's that simple in my view.

Dave H said...

It's not a mixed message

I said it's good to have more ranking events but that doesn't mean other tournaments should be dismissed

I still don't understand what your problem is

Anonymous said...

I hear rumours Sky are looking to stage another full-blown ranking event.
Maybe this new event will fit the bill as the Premier League, while good, appears to have run its course as a spectacle.
Personally I enjoyed the Sky coverage of ranking events more than anything.
They actually made the viewer feel they really wanted you to enjoy it.

Anonymous said...

Dave - do you know if it will be in the UK, mainland europe or further afield?

Wolfgang said...

I think the "obsession" with ranking events comes from the fact that they have actual consequences as the ranking changes after each of them. You can see black on white how your favorite player improved. Invitationals are played an that's it. It's a bit like friendlies in football. They may be entertaining but people don't take them serious.

There are a lot of people out there who love sports statistics and rankings. And I have to admit I'm on of them. :)

Maybe it would be a good idea to introduce smaller ranking events like in tennis - with low price money and ranking points. The top players would attend only to the majors but lower ranked players would have the opportunity to get some points and money. So every player could build his own tour calendar.

Dave H said...

Wolfgang - you're right and that's what the Pro Challenge Series should have been

12.21 - I enjoyed the Sky events as well. There was always a good atmosphere at them and their coverage was innovative

12.34 - Not sure but I imagine outside the UK, certainly hope it is

Anonymous said...

Maybe I'm in the minority but I don't pay much attention at all to the player rankings. They are obviously invaluable in deciding at what stage players will enter tournaments but I don't think too many snooker fans pay much attention to them. Just as football fans don't give a monkeys where their international football team stands in the rankings. All they care about is how well their team does in tournaments.

I agree with Snooker Oracle's view that the seriousness of a tournament is judged by whether it's on TV and also by the amount of prize money on offer. I'd bet my house on the fact that if a new non-ranking tournament was introduced that offered £500k or £1 Million to the winner, it would be seen as the most important tournament on the circuit by both players and fans. I'd also bet that TV companies would be queueing up for the TV rights!

Anonymous said...

It has to be Germany, surely... I certainly hope it is.

Anonymous said...

I think the point I was making yesterday Dave is that the Hendry victory in what can only be described as an exhibition of oldies where he was cleary the best (and youngest) player and could probably have won the event giving away 40 points in every frame, is the sort of event I as an avid snooker fan have no interest in seeing (apart from maybe a morbid fascination with Alex Higgins) or would count as a real victory.

I mentioned that ranking events are the most important tournaments because they are. I didn't belittle invitational events, merely questioned the competitive nature of some of them which in other circles would be called exhibitions. Take the World Series for example - great idea, they have my full support but right now it's just an exhibition event with the same players featuring every time - hardly a bona fide invitational event where a victory should count towards your overall tournament victory tally.

I am all for invitational events where there is an element of competition and where the winner will feel rightly like he's achieved something. Liang Wenbo's victory in Beijing is one such event. But when does an exhibition become a counting invitational event?

At least we know where we are with ranking events and I'm very pleased to hear there will be a 7th this season, if only to break up all the 6 reds and oneforseven events which seem to be dominating the scene between tournaments at the moment.

Trevor said...

any chance it being the british open;)?. Dave is it also true i hear barry hearn is looking to bring back the world matchplay of the late 80s early 90s?.

Anonymous said...

One word......Malta.

jamie brannon said...

Team rankings are different though, to some degree but I would rather win World titles than be World number 1. The BBC coverage is still the best for snooker

Anonymous said...

The rankings are a farce anyway. What other sport only updates its rankings every year?

Anonymous said...

Ironically, I think people have got more obsessed with ranking events as a result of the decline in invitationals. So the fewer events, the fewer they concentrate on. At times, in some of the players' comments, it seems like all they care about is the World Championship. If an extra event is included, one would hope that it has proper backing and organisation. It has happened in the past that an extra event is added to the calendar without a sponsor, television coverage or ready group of spectators to draw on.

Anonymous said...

"It has to be Germany, surely... I certainly hope it is."

if it hadn't been for three Spitfires 66 years ago you would be right!

Dave H said...

1.46 - Hendry wasn't the youngest player in the Legends, Ken Doherty was

It was a bona fide tournament as the pockets were templated to the standards used on the tour and all the players were professionals, therefore it counts on his record

Matt said...

In the same vein, will the century break he made against Cliff Thorburn 'count' towards his total Dave?

Dave H said...

I don't see why it shouldn't but I shall consult with my fellow anoraks

Anonymous said...

No need to be pedantic!

But what is the difference between exhibitions and events such as these? Where is line drawn between what counts as an invitational tournament victory and what doesn't? At least one knock out round? What about pro-ams?

The recent de-ranked Malta Cup surely has more right to be classed as proper invitational event than the Hendry, Doherty + old timers event?

Whatever, I can't argue against more 15 red normal rules snooker events between professionals being a good thing no matter what the standard of field taking part. I just question what criteria there are for counting towards career stats. But if it's purely a KO format and an official table template then fair enough.

Good day to you sir and keep up the good work :)

Dave H said...

I guess the problem is that there isn't any criteria, it's left to the judgements of those of us who keep the records.

Anonymous said...

Hello everyone,
Here's what I think: ranking events are great
events without ranking points are great.
They're all snooker -so what's the problem! Bring em on!

Anonymous said...

dave, if you include prem league 100s you should include this too

Anonymous said...

Hi Dave,

The calendar really needs to be admistered properly by the organisation of world snooker.

When does the press office send the first 'draft' of the new calendar through, because they chop and change as they go? If Formula One/ATP can do it and tell the press well in advance, surely this organisation can.

I cannot believe that we are still going on about the ineptidude of this organisation.

World rankings, 6/15 red, world ranking tournaments need to be seriously re-organised, otherwise it may end up like Cricket, where nobody knows who's playing where?

One quick question. When the stats come up with regards career earnings - say for example you do a profile for Rory Mcleod for a first round tv match at the UK next month - do you take into account every small plate tournament he may well have won £300 on as well as the Masters qualifying win? And do you include prize money contributions for a player that won an exhibition tournament? I've always wondered how it is added up.

It is defo a third tournament in China!

Thanks, Joe

Anonymous said...

heres what i think to the guy a while ago

snooker is snooker
6 red snooker is a bastardised version of snooker and is not snooker, its six red snooker and not the same!

JAMIE O'REILLY said...

Hi again David. I can only, as one of snooker's biggest fans, agree 100% with you. More tournaments, More exposure of any kind for the game to keep it's continuity alive. This can only be a positive step in the right direction. If their is to be another event on the calendar for this season, when will we have more information regarding the name of the event and when and where it is to be held and so forth?

John H said...

Dear fellow anorak!
Keep up the good work and counting the titles from all pro tournaments!
If legend tournaments dont count dont tell Willie Thorne or he will be gutted!
Add the century to Hendry stats!
Surely 6 red snooker tournaments should be counted seperately- in the same way pool is counted seperately!
I look forward to hearing about the new ranking tournament!
John H

Anonymous said...

Under no circumstances should Premier League centuries be added to a players lifetime portfolio.
This due to the 25 seconds per shot rule taking it away from the authenticity and purity of snooker as we know it.
This would equate to adding Steve Backley's abilities to throw a 180 at darts to anything he achieves as an Olympic Javelin thrower.
Somewhat off topic but is it true that referee Alan Chamberlain is the grandson of Sir Neville Chamberlain, the man who invented snooker one steamy evening in Bombay after a few too many gins?

Anonymous said...

people tend to forget these days the majority of tournaments that made up the haul of wins Steve Davis had.

in the 80s invitationals and matchroom run events Steve won has given him the haul of tournaments he has won and not main tour or Ranking tournaments.

Anonymous said...

I seem to recall Bill Werbenuik being announced as the North American Champion before a match in the heady 80's.
It seemed a relevant title in those days, even though nobody had the foggiest if big Bill had simply beaten a red faced lumberjack, during an hour off from felling impressive Canadian Maples in the final.

Donal said...

I find it remarkable that there is no (televised) professional tournament in Ireland. It's probably the only country in the world where snooker is as popular as it is in Britain, any attendances were always excellent at tournaments held there - even when held in very unattractive locations like the Tallaght basketball arena.

Ruthie said...

I thought the criteria for counting centuries were for it to have been scored in a competitive professional event, and on championship table (ie with the official pocket template of the time). Although not part of their professional tally, I think it's nice to know about things like youngest 147 or youngest century, where the conditions are less regulated but in the case of Ronnie/Judd Trump still an outstanding achievement.

Anonymous said...

Hi Dave, do you know when and where this tournament's supposed to be taking place?

And also, there are several invitational events that take place throughout the season from the Wembley Masters to World Series to this onefourseven thing, however you only get into these tournaments through your ranking i.e your performance in ranking events. This obsession may not be right but that's the way it's been since the eighties

Alpha

jamie brannon said...

Im sorry but if that Hendry win counts that is a joke. You can get templated pockets in clubs. I mean Stuart Bingham wins a number of events that had better field than that senior event, but Bingham has won just two titles (Masters Qualifying counts doesn't it?)

Anonymous said...

May be pro=am tournaments should be on the list then?

Betty Logan said...

A tournament is a professional tournament if it is contested solely by professional players. I'd say it has to have more than one round too otherwise it's just a challenge match, so a professional tournament is any event contested by at least four pros and has a financial backer.

In that sense The Legends of Snooker was a pro event and counts on the record. The de-ranked Malta Cup is a pro event too. The World Series is a pro-am so technically shouldn't figure among a player's professional tally - the snooker project has it down as pro-am on Wikipedia.

The Legends event was a mickey mouse event to all intents and purposes, but then so were many of Steve Davis' 80s titles. If it's a pro title it goes on the record regardless, whether it has any significance when comparing records that's for you to draw your own personal conclusions I guess.

I would say snooker variants only count if their variations are catered for by the official rules. So in the case of the timed Premier League it would only count as a pro title alongside the others if the official rules allow for an alternative form with a clock. If not then those titles come with an asterisk I'm afraid because it is ultimately a different game.

Dave H said...

You're entitled to your opinion, but the day I go by what Wikipedia says is the day I hand my snooker anorak over to someone else

Anonymous said...

Spot on Dave and here's the proof wiki is unbelievable.....

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/1687685/Vernon-Kay-is-not-dead-despite-Wikipedia-saying-he-was.html

Betty Logan said...

Well you're entitled to your opinion too Dave, but a few people work hard on the snooker articles to at least make sure the articles are statistically accurate. Those standards may not hold on other areas of Wikipedia but the Snooker Project is quite diligant and I would be surprised if you could find any snooker 'records' on there that are inaccurate. If you come across any errors feel free to point them out because we'd love to correct them, but ultimately it is the most accessible and comprehensive pool of information there is out there.

Dave H said...

It says on Wikipedia that Ronnie O'Sullivan was forced to play Rex Williams left-handed after the Robidoux incident.

No he wasn't! This is an old myth that has no basis in fact. He was not disciplined - nor threatened with action - over that incident.

Yet I've read this in several articles about Ronnie and will doubtless read it in many more.

The same article claims Ken Doherty received £90,000 when Ronnie was stripped of the Irish Masters title. In fact, it was £61,000.

I could go on...

Betty Logan said...

Wikipedia publishes verifiable information. The Ronnie story is fully referenced, so if that's a myth then it's not Wikipedia in error it is the source article. After all, we only have your word for that. If a respected sports journalist says otherwise then who is to say that you're not wrong?

jamie brannon said...

Yes, but considering wikipedia is written by anyone it is not actually that bad. I have read that Ronnie played Rex somewhere else, wiki actually takes info from anorak's like yourself. So if is true than about four pros then Bingham is write up there on titles, but in reality Im sure Dave will say he has two or nought titles.

Anonymous said...

I thought he did have to play Rex Williams left-handed although maybe the word "forced" is what you have issue with?

Speaking of which, I would love to have been at the meeting where O'Sullivan took on sexy Rexy to demonstrate his left-handed play. I bet everyone watching was grinning to themselves in appreciation, and Ronnie was given a pat on the back with an "on your way son" send off.

But maybe it's all a figment of my imagination based on a lie someone wrote on wikipedia which has turned into a well known myth...

Dave H said...

It never happened but what do I know?

Dave H said...

And Jamie - when you're pushing your luck on here now

Anonymous said...

That's like finding out Father Christmas doesn't exist!

Dave H said...

All I can say is that when Rex was chairman I asked him about this and he said he'd never played him.

Of course, he may have said that because the report of the 'match' was that he didn't win a framee, but...

Dave H said...

Then again, he also told me there would be a ranking event in Egypt...

Betty Logan said...

The view that a pro tournament had to have a least four pros was my view not Wikipedias. It is a subjective view. I based that on my opinion that anything smaller would be a Challenge Match and we don't include all the challenge matches Steve davis used to play against Alex Higgins.

Journalists often refer to "tour titles" rather than professional titles. You will often see it written that Steve Davis has 73 titles and that refers to titles under the jurisdiction or sanctioning of the WSA I imagine. During the 2003 Welsh Open Clive Everton referred to it as Hendry's "62nd title" - since then he has won the 2003 British Open and the 2005 Malta Cup which would take his count to just 64 (or 65 if the 2004 Premier League is included). There are many different criteria, and probably why the consensus has settled on just using ranking titles and Masters events to assess a player.

As for Wikipeia, if the Ronnie story is wrong that doesn't make Wikipedia wrong, because its claim stands up against vetted and published information. That is what encyclopaedias do. As a point of note here is an article about the accuracy of Wikipedia:

http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Articles from both encyclopaedias were subjected to expert peer review and Britannica averaged at about 3 errors per article and 4 for Wikipedia. I don't think many people would dispute Britannica as a legitimate source of information and Wikipedia isn't far behind it on the basis of that study.

jamie brannon said...

Like I have said Dave it is nothing personal, I just dont agree with certain things, I mean that is just freedom of speech, not once I have insulted you, so pushing my luck seems a little harsh.

Betty Logan said...

"Then again, he also told me there would be a ranking event in Egypt..."

Can't think of a better place to stage a pyramids sport.

Dave H said...

'So if is true than about four pros then Bingham is write up there on titles, but in reality Im sure Dave will say he has two or nought titles.'

No need for snidey comments like that

Dave H said...

Your opinion that a professional tournament has to include four players means that Joe Davis has won something like three fewer world titles than the records show

I assume Wikipedia will be correcting that?

jamie brannon said...

To be fair I actually thought you wouldn't like the bit about me saying you supply wikipedia which was a joke. The Bingham question was actually genuine, but I can see why you saw it as a dig as I dismissed your view on Hendry's recent win count. It was actually a response to Betty saying that four pro's make it a title. I disagree with this, as Bingham has two wins in those masters events, but do they count? I am sorry, I hope you can grant forgiveness by anwsering my Bingham question. While we are at it people said Ali Carter won his first title in Wales, but had actually won a the half decent Huangshan Cup, I suppose the issue is hard to define.

Anonymous said...

Why would someone be 'discplined' for playing left-handed?

The story's quite obviously nonsense

jamie brannon said...

Not my opinion Dave, it was Betty's but I would argue that a lot of World titles pre 1970 don't count much as players sometimes only won 2 matches or 1.

Dave H said...

It's not hard to define at all. The BBC and others pay people with knowledge and expertise of the sport to decide the criteria for statistics.

Stuart Bingham has won two professional titles.

Dave H said...

John Spencer won more frames to win the 1969 world title than John Higgins did to win it this year

Anonymous said...

How many block's of chalk did he get through Dave it's just for wiki's referance...

jamie brannon said...

Okay fair enough, late sixties! Yes and I'm sure you do a sterling job, but we dont have to agree with that criteria. That is why it is hard to define as not everyone will agree on criteria evidenced by this debate which could reach 100 comments, which would be a first for this blog. You stat guru's must disagree as some count Horace Lindrum, but Clive doesn't

Dave H said...

Wrong (again)

The 'Scots Miffed' thread had over 100 comments

Betty Logan said...

In the case of where just two players contested the world championship I would say they were not tournaments, they were challenge matches. That's no different from when the world championship was decided on a challenge basis in the 1960s.

You can't honestly say these events were "tournaments" though can you? They were challenge matches, just like in boxing. You wouldn't call boxing contests tournaments when there are just two boxers competing for the world title belt.

Dave H said...

No but they ARE titles

I need a lie down

Anonymous said...

Hi Dave,

These comments are great. Because it goes back to an issue i raised with you about what tournaments are officially endorsed by world snooker and what isn't. All these tournaments that fly-by during the summer, yet we seem to be ignorant that that are a bona-fide competition.

It all needs over-hauling, me thinks. So we can have official criteria over how much a player earns, what is an official century at a tournament and what is an official title and not some exhibition win.

Jimmy White has won 2 titles this season but do people think he is back to form because of it or is it just a practice and for his opponent?

BTW, the O'Sullivan story of 1996 is compelling. I've been officially and unofficially told by my sources and i still sit on the fence. Actually the rocket made more headlines during the 2 weeks he was in Sheffield, than the whole tournament write ups put together. (Who remembers the alledged incident with the comedian's radio journalist girlfriend?)

Also, when he came to press conference on the monday night/tuesday morning, am sure Hearn said O'Sullivan was donating £10,000 to charity. Did he?

Thanks, Joe

Janie (anorak) Watkins said...

The only issue I would have with Wikipaedia is that they often use "source" material that is not verified.
It is second or third hand republished material and not contemporaneous form the time of incident or event.

I know everyone works extremely hard on the Wikis,for snooker and other subjects, so maybe it's worth them checking with the accredited snooker sources like David, or even myself if there is any doubt about a fact or stat.

I'd be only too pleased to verify (or otherwise) any doubtful or contradictory source material.

Trevor said...

dave in fairness wikipedia is the only site i know for fans to check the amount of titles players have won in their careers.if you know of another one please let me know.to all those people who say you cannot count the premier league as a pro title because of the shot clock ive never heard such nonsense.

Dave H said...

Maybe the best way to quantify titles won would be three categories:

1) Ranking titles
2) Televised invitation titles
3) Others

Of course 'others' could mean anything, but as long as they were listed people could see for themselves what they were

Trevor: Chris Downer produced some very good gazeteers listing all manner of records, although he had a computer problem and so couldn't update it for this season, but they list all manner of information you would find interesting

Dave H said...

Ronnie was fined £20,000 and donated a further £10,000 to charity I seem to recall.

I felt sorry for him with regard to all the stories he was involved in during that World Championship - apart from the assault on Mike Ganley.

It ended up being incredibly unfair on John Higgins, who that night before his quarter-final still didn't know if he would be playing a match or not.

Anonymous said...

Cheers for clearing that up, Dave.

I thought there was a donation of some sort he made.

Is no different now as it was then: Snooker general makes headlines over what happens outside the game, rather than on the green baize.

Yup, your right. Higgins had every right to be aggrieved. Especially when the press conference took place between 12-1am, and the match started at 10am the same morning.

If anybody wants to see controlling emotions, have a look on youtube at the interview not just with O'Sullivan but with Higgins sat beside him after the match on the Wednesday. Bearing in mind Higgins had missed the blue with the rest...for the match! Higgins was fuming.

No wonder the BBC don't have both players in now. Just the victors!

BTW, there is an excellent stat service called dartsdatabase. They have now set up a snooker one.

Thanks, Joe

Anonymous said...

Dave - a serious question. If you feel you're compromising your position in answering then don't show this comment but I am curious about something. I'm convinced the tables used in the Premier League are more forgiving than the tables you see in ranking events, yet they are both manufactured by Star of China.

Do you think or have you heard any mention of the tables in the Premier League having the cushions cut in a more forgiving fashion than in other events thereby ensuring criteria of pocket size are met at the same time as making pots easier?

In tonights play I have seen several shots which hit a cushion before going in the hole, and that doesn't happen on the excellent Star tables seen in the Shanghai and Grand Prix events this season.

Anonymous said...

Off topic Dave but is this a record for comment's on consecutive blog's? ;)

Dave H said...

Business is booming!

With regard to the tables, put it this way: I'm not aware that the pockets are any different

Anonymous said...

Marco last night taught me something his surname is the initial's of what he did.............

Anonymous said...

Snooker The Fine Art Method
A secret is wasted if not shared
Hello Dave
How are you. I think your posts are getting on top of you. You have lost your sence of humour lad.
There was nothing "Snidey" about the Pymadrids and Egypts crack Dave. It was in thread and above all Original.
Get a grip of your nickers Dave your performing like a young maiden. Young lovely things like Betty Logan keeps you blog alive Mr hey you

jamie brannon said...

Does anyone know the name of that snooker website that is a bible for snooker stats, I think someone called Chris does it?

Anonymous said...

Chris the Statman? Yes he has a wonderful array of statistics at his disposal. The downside is he has a section on TSF (the snooker forum) which is like a cyber rouge state with the upshot being the stats are unavailable to the general public.

Anonymous said...

no, its another chris that has a stats website

the tsf one isnt any use to the general public

Anonymous said...

All his stats are mostly the world snooker championship.

Matt said...

There is also Chris Turner's excellent site:

http://cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Home.html

jamie brannon said...

Thanks I have seen it before, but I had forgot the name.

Andrew said...

The Wikipedia claim that Ronnie played a left-handed match against Rex Williams cites an article by James Corrigan in the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/snooker-bad-breaks-mount-up-for-a-troubled-soul-428502.html

That article (of course) doesn't cite anything (and is written 10 years after the alleged event).

Anonymous said...

in daves links?

Anonymous said...

Surely another event with 5,000 ranking points for the winner will bring 2009-10 maximum points to within 50 or so of 2008-09, so it was obvious from day one of the season that another event was probable. Thus it will not 'skew' this seasons points, it will instead level them up. Unless I've got my maths wrong.

Prestatyn regular.

Trevor said...

dave when is this tournament going to be announced ?.