Re: Who is the Greatest Player of all Time?
Keep up the good work mate.
-
Andre147 - Posts: 41748
- Joined: 09 October 2011
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie and Luca
- Highest Break: 27
- Walk-On: Spies - Coldplay
webcat86 wrote:Going back to the rankings system for a minute, I was thinking this morning that I hope it brings a bigger sense of reality to Number 1. It bugged me no end when Trump was Number 1 when all he had to his name was the UK. I remember Ronnie playing Selby and I said to my wife, "it should be good, it's world champion vs world number one" and she went "What? How can you be number one if you're not world champion?" and i think it's true. In my opinion, the winner of the WC should automatically be ranked number 1 for that season, and given the hefty sum of money it carries I think a money-based system will help ensure the winner of the WC will be at least near the top.
Wildey wrote:webcat86 wrote:Going back to the rankings system for a minute, I was thinking this morning that I hope it brings a bigger sense of reality to Number 1. It bugged me no end when Trump was Number 1 when all he had to his name was the UK. I remember Ronnie playing Selby and I said to my wife, "it should be good, it's world champion vs world number one" and she went "What? How can you be number one if you're not world champion?" and i think it's true. In my opinion, the winner of the WC should automatically be ranked number 1 for that season, and given the hefty sum of money it carries I think a money-based system will help ensure the winner of the WC will be at least near the top.
Tell your wife Rankings is about Consistency.
A) Consistency of actually entering tournaments is a help
webcat86 wrote:Wildey wrote:webcat86 wrote:Going back to the rankings system for a minute, I was thinking this morning that I hope it brings a bigger sense of reality to Number 1. It bugged me no end when Trump was Number 1 when all he had to his name was the UK. I remember Ronnie playing Selby and I said to my wife, "it should be good, it's world champion vs world number one" and she went "What? How can you be number one if you're not world champion?" and i think it's true. In my opinion, the winner of the WC should automatically be ranked number 1 for that season, and given the hefty sum of money it carries I think a money-based system will help ensure the winner of the WC will be at least near the top.
Tell your wife Rankings is about Consistency.
A) Consistency of actually entering tournaments is a help
Wildey, there is no confusion over how those rankings are calculated, thank you very much. It was a comment about the ludicrous way in which they are calculated - a person with 1 major title does not deserve to be ranked as the best player in the world. If you have won the world title, you have proven yourself to be, for that year, the best player in the world.
As I said, it's not about not understanding how it's calculated, I just think it's ridiculous that there's a ranking system for a sport that doesn't really reflect the level of play. Which is why I'm in favour of the new system.
Trumpster wrote:Webcat:
I've learnt to ignore the rankings, because most players won't enter every tournament, there isn't enough time or energy. The thing is though, Ronnie isn't going to be no.1 if he only enters non-rankers, the occasional small ranker and the Worlds. But he doesn't care, so why should we? He will lose ground on the others by not entering the Haikou and China opens. We all know who the best player in the world is right now, and has been for the last two years.
The rankings are more of a reflection of how hungry and how much time players want to put into the pro game over the last two years, plus some reflection of winability. What we really have is this:
Division 1 Rankings:
1. Ronnie O'Sullivan - 5*.
Division 2 rankings:
1. Robbo
2. Selby
3. Ding (best player this season but only ranked 3 due to 2yr rolling system)
4. Hawkins (hasn't he done well!)
5. Trump
6. Bingo (super progress)
7. Fu
8. Mags
9. Murphy
10. Higgins (please retire).
When Ronnie retires, the Division 2 rankings will again be meaningful. Until then, they're an anomaly.
Interesting to hear that Ronnie is coaching a bit. He's probably doing it for free, because he's like that but how much could he charge? I wager he could make a pretty good living out of coaching; £500+ per hour?
Wildey wrote:webcat86 wrote:Wildey wrote:webcat86 wrote:Going back to the rankings system for a minute, I was thinking this morning that I hope it brings a bigger sense of reality to Number 1. It bugged me no end when Trump was Number 1 when all he had to his name was the UK. I remember Ronnie playing Selby and I said to my wife, "it should be good, it's world champion vs world number one" and she went "What? How can you be number one if you're not world champion?" and i think it's true. In my opinion, the winner of the WC should automatically be ranked number 1 for that season, and given the hefty sum of money it carries I think a money-based system will help ensure the winner of the WC will be at least near the top.
Tell your wife Rankings is about Consistency.
A) Consistency of actually entering tournaments is a help
Wildey, there is no confusion over how those rankings are calculated, thank you very much. It was a comment about the ludicrous way in which they are calculated - a person with 1 major title does not deserve to be ranked as the best player in the world. If you have won the world title, you have proven yourself to be, for that year, the best player in the world.
As I said, it's not about not understanding how it's calculated, I just think it's ridiculous that there's a ranking system for a sport that doesn't really reflect the level of play. Which is why I'm in favour of the new system.
But Money Rankings is not fair there's too much of a differential between being World Champion and being World Runner up this season its 175,000 points different. its against the concept of a Ranking system.
its too top heavy to be a genuine reflection of who the best and more importantly consistent player on the tour.
you could be Runner up in 5 Tournaments and win the UK Championship and still have less point than potentially someone Winning a World Championship its ridiculous.
its a 2 YEAR rolling ranking list not a 2 week list Yes the World Championship is the big one but its not everything and Rankings should be above who does well in 1 tournament.
Trumpster wrote:Webcat:
It's more about who books more flights at the moment, rather than who plays great snooker - i.e. Selby and Ronnie.
The idea that the Welsh Open should have the same ranking points as the Worlds is ridiculous. It takes much more to win the Worlds and the pts system should reflect the level of difficulty in doing well in the tournament.
Ronnie isn't bothered that Selby is no.1, because like us, he knows who the no.1 really is. However, I do like to look at the rankings to see how the not so talented are getting on, and what progress they're making with their games, reflected in the rankings to some extent.
Sonny wrote:I mean seriously Trumpster, you're having a massive Ronnie wankathon and then you say you hope Higgins and Williams retire? What sort of fan are you?
Trumpster wrote:The players may not have signed up to a flat 128 draw but that's tough. None of us sign up to the future, it just comes at us, regardless of our jobs. Jobs and Sport changes. I didn't sign up to Premiership ticket prices when I began supporting my team as a youngster, the EPL didn't exist. So I have a choice now, to go or not go. So do the older players. Apart from Ronnie, let's hope that the flat draw is a good reason for the likes of Williams/Higgins etc to retire as soon as.
NNear wrote:Ronnie is playing the 'Majors' game now, as he made clear in a recent Welsh Open interview.
He's at least the clear favourite for the World Championships and if he wins it (good chances of this happening) then he can try to win three in a row (Triple Crown events in sequence) for the first time in his career.
If Ronnie can achieve feats like this then there will be very little holes to get picky with regarding his snooker career, but if he doesn't then he'll never have produced a period of genuine dominance.
I won't be surprised if he wins 4 WC in a row or 4 in a period of 5 events and he'll be eager to finally successfully defend the Masters title. He's 'due' a good UKs showing.
NNear wrote:Ranking systems are for functionality and to encourage a thriving tour with apt rewards rather than to represent a legitimate listing of the best players. Snooker especially has historically had one of the least elite and top heavy and strangely balanced ranking systems I've ever seen, where winning the WC wasn't even worth twice as much as winning some standard ranker -- not a reflection of reality regarding the general consensus for title importance.
This money list ranking system will ensure that the rankings reward winning and consistency with a more sensible balance for deciding who the best players actually are, rather than using a system which rewarded consistency over all else. The system is highly elite but players still get the same money they used to for reaching the same round, therefore the rich get richer (rankings wise) but does it really matter that the poor get poorer given the the recent proliferation of flat 128 draws.
Wildey wrote:NNear wrote:Ranking systems are for functionality and to encourage a thriving tour with apt rewards rather than to represent a legitimate listing of the best players. Snooker especially has historically had one of the least elite and top heavy and strangely balanced ranking systems I've ever seen, where winning the WC wasn't even worth twice as much as winning some standard ranker -- not a reflection of reality regarding the general consensus for title importance.
This money list ranking system will ensure that the rankings reward winning and consistency with a more sensible balance for deciding who the best players actually are, rather than using a system which rewarded consistency over all else. The system is highly elite but players still get the same money they used to for reaching the same round, therefore the rich get richer (rankings wise) but does it really matter that the poor get poorer given the the recent proliferation of flat 128 draws.
In the 80s the likes of Joe Johnson or Dennis Taylor could have been No 1 Above Steve Davis with Money Rankings now would that have been a true reflection of who the Best player was?
NNear wrote:Ronnie is playing the 'Majors' game now, as he made clear in a recent Welsh Open interview.
He's at least the clear favourite for the World Championships and if he wins it (good chances of this happening) then he can try to win three in a row (Triple Crown events in sequence) for the first time in his career.
If Ronnie can achieve feats like this then there will be very little holes to get picky with regarding his snooker career, but if he doesn't then he'll never have produced a period of genuine dominance.
I won't be surprised if he wins 4 WC in a row or 4 in a period of 5 events and he'll be eager to finally successfully defend the Masters title. He's 'due' a good UKs showing.
mantorok wrote:Getting back on topic, I reckon if Ronnie takes world title no.6 this year then I would seriously bet money on him at least equalling Hendry's record of 7.
IMO getting to 6 is a massive feat as it's already an outstanding record to achieve, going to be a lot of pressure and a very satisfying achievment should he get it.
But saying that he's playing some amazing stuff this season, his long potting is back which I think will play a really big part this year, his long potting was pretty dire before this season, lets be honest, he's also cut out missing easy shots whilst break-building.
Wildey wrote:NNear wrote:Ranking systems are for functionality and to encourage a thriving tour with apt rewards rather than to represent a legitimate listing of the best players. Snooker especially has historically had one of the least elite and top heavy and strangely balanced ranking systems I've ever seen, where winning the WC wasn't even worth twice as much as winning some standard ranker -- not a reflection of reality regarding the general consensus for title importance.
This money list ranking system will ensure that the rankings reward winning and consistency with a more sensible balance for deciding who the best players actually are, rather than using a system which rewarded consistency over all else. The system is highly elite but players still get the same money they used to for reaching the same round, therefore the rich get richer (rankings wise) but does it really matter that the poor get poorer given the the recent proliferation of flat 128 draws.
In the 80s the likes of Joe Johnson or Dennis Taylor could have been No 1 Above Steve Davis with Money Rankings now would that have been a true reflection of who the Best player was?
NNear wrote:Wildey wrote:NNear wrote:Ranking systems are for functionality and to encourage a thriving tour with apt rewards rather than to represent a legitimate listing of the best players. Snooker especially has historically had one of the least elite and top heavy and strangely balanced ranking systems I've ever seen, where winning the WC wasn't even worth twice as much as winning some standard ranker -- not a reflection of reality regarding the general consensus for title importance.
This money list ranking system will ensure that the rankings reward winning and consistency with a more sensible balance for deciding who the best players actually are, rather than using a system which rewarded consistency over all else. The system is highly elite but players still get the same money they used to for reaching the same round, therefore the rich get richer (rankings wise) but does it really matter that the poor get poorer given the the recent proliferation of flat 128 draws.
In the 80s the likes of Joe Johnson or Dennis Taylor could have been No 1 Above Steve Davis with Money Rankings now would that have been a true reflection of who the Best player was?
Did they win more prize money than Davis in those years?
Let's do a quick search...
http://www.cuetracker.net/pages/prizeMo ... =1984/1985
Player Prize Money
1 Steve Davis 175.544
2 Dennis Taylor 139.061
3 Cliff Thorburn 119.625
4 Tony Knowles 96.094
5 Jimmy White 80.492
6 Alex Higgins 74.050
7 Kirk Stevens 71.827
8 Silvino Francisco 69.000
9 Willie Thorne 68.386
10 Ray Reardon 49.650
http://www.cuetracker.net/pages/prizeMo ... =1985/1986
1 Steve Davis 228.000
2 Cliff Thorburn 182.460
3 Jimmy White 167.992
4 Dennis Taylor 108.302
5 Willie Thorne 108.041
6 Joe Johnson 99.827
7 Tony Knowles 78.616
8 Terry Griffiths 70.601
9 Alex Higgins 67.442
10 Tony Meo 63.230
Well I think it's clear that based on a money list that Davis would have still been the number 1 but that the winners of the WC get some arguably deserved extra ranking perks.
Looks pretty good to me.