Post a reply

Re: Q School 2019

Postby SnookerFan

Wildey wrote:Callum Downing won the first 2 frames by default because Nezar Asseri arrived late to play.



I Can not believe how often that happens there is no excuse for it


Without knowing the circumstances, I'd agree. Massively unprofessional.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby SnookerFan

Are you allowed in to watch the Q School matches? Or is it behind closed doors?

Re: Q School 2019

Postby Lemnas

HappyCamper wrote:
Wildey wrote:
Badsnookerplayer wrote:How do you get the up to date table for this??

http://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?template=46

thats updated after every completed match


What the... Do players really get points from getting a first round bye!?

The no.1 on the list right now has won three frames and has received an additional twelve points due to byes.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby hendry_fan

Badsnookerplayer wrote:
hendry_fan wrote:I found this vid of Hendry v Surinder Gill.

Enjoy. :-)


https://youtu.be/OR_h2b_twk8

:goodpost:






Thanx BSP. :hatoff:


What a brilliant *147* it would of been.

Nice rare footage though. :-)




Well done to Ross Muir. :clap:

Wu Yize threw four 50+ breaks against him,but Ross still managed to win,only just though,on the final black.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby lhpirnie

SteveJJ wrote:
Badsnookerplayer wrote:
Alex0paul wrote:Apparently Pinches had an A Level exam

Bit of a buck up that then.

Good that he's doing A Levels though.


Probably thought it worth getting 4 frames on the board for order of merit purposes. He has the same opponent that he beat in the next event.


Don't they have to play in Q School in order to be eligible for the Challenge Tour next season?

Either way, I think it's very poor entering Q School in order to withdraw after one match - he must have known beforehand. Thank goodness he hasn't got a bye in QS2 or QS3, or else it might have given someone a free pass to the third round, making the tournament even more unfair than it already is.

Whole system is not thought-through. Once again, WS not having the courage to explore other formats.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby SteveJJ

lhpirnie wrote:
SteveJJ wrote:
Badsnookerplayer wrote:
Alex0paul wrote:Apparently Pinches had an A Level exam

Bit of a buck up that then.

Good that he's doing A Levels though.


Probably thought it worth getting 4 frames on the board for order of merit purposes. He has the same opponent that he beat in the next event.


Don't they have to play in Q School in order to be eligible for the Challenge Tour next season?

Either way, I think it's very poor entering Q School in order to withdraw after one match - he must have known beforehand. Thank goodness he hasn't got a bye in QS2 or QS3, or else it might have given someone a free pass to the third round, making the tournament even more unfair than it already is.

Whole system is not thought-through. Once again, WS not having the courage to explore other formats.


What format would you have instead?

Re: Q School 2019

Postby Lemnas

Q School has been surprisingly free of surprises this year (except Zhang Yong losing 4-0 in the first round maybe).

Re: Q School 2019

Postby HappyCamper

SteveJJ wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:
SteveJJ wrote:
Badsnookerplayer wrote:
Alex0paul wrote:Apparently Pinches had an A Level exam

Bit of a buck up that then.

Good that he's doing A Levels though.


Probably thought it worth getting 4 frames on the board for order of merit purposes. He has the same opponent that he beat in the next event.


Don't they have to play in Q School in order to be eligible for the Challenge Tour next season?

Either way, I think it's very poor entering Q School in order to withdraw after one match - he must have known beforehand. Thank goodness he hasn't got a bye in QS2 or QS3, or else it might have given someone a free pass to the third round, making the tournament even more unfair than it already is.

Whole system is not thought-through. Once again, WS not having the courage to explore other formats.


What format would you have instead?



Some sort of group stage so that everyone has a guaranteed min numbers of games perhaps.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby Lemnas

HappyCamper wrote:
SteveJJ wrote:
What format would you have instead?



Some sort of group stage so that everyone has a guaranteed min numbers of games perhaps.


Everybody has three guaranteed games now, which wouldn't be any more under a group system - unless you make the groups very large. But then it will take forever until the group stage is completed. I think the current system is fine, except this points for walkovers thing. That is awful!

Re: Q School 2019

Postby fridge46

Lemnas wrote:I think the current system is fine, except this points for walkovers thing. That is awful!


I think they should only give out points from the Last 32 stage. That will avoid inflating someones total if they had received several byes/walkovers later when qschool 1 and 2 winners are removed.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby roy142857

Lemnas wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:
SteveJJ wrote:
What format would you have instead?



Some sort of group stage so that everyone has a guaranteed min numbers of games perhaps.


Everybody has three guaranteed games now, which wouldn't be any more under a group system - unless you make the groups very large. But then it will take forever until the group stage is completed. I think the current system is fine, except this points for walkovers thing. That is awful!


The problem is the 'obvious' alternative is just as bad - if you DIDN'T give points for byes & walkovers, then players with less matches disadvantaged by having less opportunity to qualify on 'the list'

I've mentioned on previous occasions the whole business of qualifying through the list has the risk when you get to Q School 3 of a 'dead' match where both players have already qualified, or where one player has already qualified by winning enough frames and can safely let their opponent win to qualify - I'm not saying it would happen, but in the circumstances doubt might well surround the result.

Solutions?

Some kind of frames per game where the total frames won is divided by the number of matches played or where the frame difference is divided by the number of matches played.

And to avoid the 'already qualified' risks - no-one automatically qualifies from the Merit list, instead players 1-4 on the list play players 5-8 on the list to qualify.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby Lemnas

roy142857 wrote:
Lemnas wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:
SteveJJ wrote:
What format would you have instead?



Some sort of group stage so that everyone has a guaranteed min numbers of games perhaps.


Everybody has three guaranteed games now, which wouldn't be any more under a group system - unless you make the groups very large. But then it will take forever until the group stage is completed. I think the current system is fine, except this points for walkovers thing. That is awful!


The problem is the 'obvious' alternative is just as bad - if you DIDN'T give points for byes & walkovers, then players with less matches disadvantaged by having less opportunity to qualify on 'the list'

I've mentioned on previous occasions the whole business of qualifying through the list has the risk when you get to Q School 3 of a 'dead' match where both players have already qualified, or where one player has already qualified by winning enough frames and can safely let their opponent win to qualify - I'm not saying it would happen, but in the circumstances doubt might well surround the result.

Solutions?

Some kind of frames per game where the total frames won is divided by the number of matches played or where the frame difference is divided by the number of matches played.

And to avoid the 'already qualified' risks - no-one automatically qualifies from the Merit list, instead players 1-4 on the list play players 5-8 on the list to qualify.


I strongly disagree:
If a player wouldn't receive points for a bye, he would be disadvantaged in the Order of Merit, but he would still be advantaged to qualify, because he has to play fewer matches. That cancels each other out.
Under the current system such a player has an advantage on both ways of qualifying, which creates a big disparity.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby lhpirnie

Lemnas wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:
SteveJJ wrote:
What format would you have instead?



Some sort of group stage so that everyone has a guaranteed min numbers of games perhaps.


Everybody has three guaranteed games now, which wouldn't be any more under a group system - unless you make the groups very large. But then it will take forever until the group stage is completed. I think the current system is fine, except this points for walkovers thing. That is awful!


Some sort of group stage so that everyone has a guaranteed min numbers of games perhaps.


No, the solution is actually easy, and implemented extremely successfully in other games.

It's called 'Swiss' (after a chess tournament in Zurich). Basically, each round players get drawn against someone with the same number of wins as they have, and gradually players are eliminated after they have lost a certain number of matches.

I reckon with 12 tables (instead of the ridiculous 8) you could have a 12-round Swiss in 15 days. You would have a complete ranking from 1 to 218, which would be perfect for Q School.

The major objection is ignorance, and lack of courage.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby HappyCamper

Lemnas wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:
SteveJJ wrote:
What format would you have instead?



Some sort of group stage so that everyone has a guaranteed min numbers of games perhaps.


Everybody has three guaranteed games now, which wouldn't be any more under a group system - unless you make the groups very large. But then it will take forever until the group stage is completed. I think the current system is fine, except this points for walkovers thing. That is awful!


Point is three games isn't very many.
With two and half odd weeks as is, there should'nt be too much issue getting a reasonable no of games in.

E - ^ actually this guy's idea seems good

Re: Q School 2019

Postby lhpirnie

Possible Swiss schedule, say 224 players, playing best-of-7 matches:

After 5 rounds there would be: 7 players on 5 wins, 35 players on 4 wins, 70 on 3 wins. You eliminate the rest - they missed the cut by losing 3 out of 5 against the weaker half of the field.

Continue, eliminating players when they lose their 4th match.

At the end of 12 rounds there would be (approx) 1 player with 11 wins, 3 players with 10 wins, 10 players with 9 wins. The players with 8 wins can be ordered by frames won, etc. Rounds 6-12 would probably take 5 days, assuming around 10 tables.

You could even split the first 5 rounds across different venues, e.g. 124 in UK, 50 in Europe, 50 in China, and then bring the surviving players together for the remainder.

The guys who make it through this will have played 12 matches - really good preparation! Others will know where they stand, and what they need to do to improve. You don't suffer so much from unlucky draws - if you lose a match, you get a chance to catch up against weaker opposition.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby roy142857

Just a query re the 'Swiss' idea, I thought players drawn against players with the same number of losses rather than same number of wins (perhaps better handles the circumstances of an odd number of players so one player sitting out each round?) ... maybe my misunderstanding or maybe two variants?

Whilst I like the idea, having multiple rounds of (say) 109 matches is a lot easier space-wise for chess than for snooker ... can't be bothered to do the maths at the moment, but surely a lot more matches than current Q School? Or perhaps not depending on how many losses you need to be eliminated ...

Wonder if it would work as a Pro Tour ranking event ... presumably you could space 'rounds' out so doesn't need consecutive days or even same location round to round ...

Re: Q School 2019

Postby lhpirnie

Yes, 8 tables is not enough, but 10 might be. It's just the first 5 rounds where you have so many players.

You could either have them playing alternate days, or split the field into two, and have two blocks of 5 days, possibly at different venues, as I mentioned.

But in the current system we have players waiting 2-3 days between matches, spread over 18 days. A Swiss would be much more efficient in terms of hotel bookings and travelling. Overall, I think it would save money.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby Wildey

HappyCamper wrote:
Wildey wrote:
Badsnookerplayer wrote:How do you get the up to date table for this??

http://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?template=46

thats updated after every completed match


What the... Do players really get points from getting a first round bye!?

yup a bye equates to 4 frames

Re: Q School 2019

Postby Wildey

This is not in line with the main tour.


if you lose your opening match at the WC you get no points so why reward points for being in the tournament.



i would go away from frame loss system and reward points

Quarter Final 26
Last 16 19
Last 32 13
Last 64 8
Last 128 4 seeded loser 0
1st Round 0

the name of the game is to get on to the tour so it doesn't matter if 150 players might end up with 0 points in the end we find 16 players to play on tour this is only a means to an end not career defining so whatever system is used it will find 16 players what i don't like some players are actually on 12 frames without potting a ball.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby Badsnookerplayer

Yeah - twelve points without playing is stupid.

It's just not right.

I have no solution really but you would be better to give a random number between 1 and 4 rather than 4.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby Wildey

By the End of tomorrow 16 players left and 4 of thoes 16 will become pros or retain their pro status on Thursday

Re: Q School 2019

Postby Lemnas

Two surprises yesterday:
Lee Richardson defeats Steven Hallworth, who did well on the Challenge Tour.
Sanderson Lam loses to Quingtian Yang.
Quingtian's and Richardson's last entries on Cuetracker were in 2013.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby The_Abbott

Wang ZePeng V Andrew Pagett
Ian Preece v Andy Hicks
Qingtian Yang v Xu Si
Michael Wild v Daniel Womersley

One of these guaranteed a place on the tour. I think Xu Si is favourite although Ian Preece and Michael Wild have had some easy wins so far.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby lhpirnie

Lemnas wrote:Two surprises yesterday:
Lee Richardson defeats Steven Hallworth, who did well on the Challenge Tour.
Sanderson Lam loses to Quingtian Yang.
Quingtian's and Richardson's last entries on Cuetracker were in 2013.


Yang Qingtian is a very experienced player on the Chinese tour, a capable player and coach. Probably he is here primarilty to supervise the young kids, and so he has no expectations. The favoured players, like Sandy Lam, seem to be struggling under enormous pressure, which might explain the lack of scoring.

Re: Q School 2019

Postby lhpirnie

The_Abbott wrote:Wang ZePeng V Andrew Pagett
Ian Preece v Andy Hicks
Qingtian Yang v Xu Si
Michael Wild v Daniel Womersley

One of these guaranteed a place on the tour. I think Xu Si is favourite although Ian Preece and Michael Wild have had some easy wins so far.


Yes Xu Si dug deep yesterday. I watched his match against Sean O'Sullivan in Sheffield, and he was outstanding. Definitely has the ability to be a top-32 player. But of course anything can happen in these best-of-7's with so much at stake...

Re: Q School 2019

Postby aimlesswandeer

Barry Pinches and Matthew Glasby took nearly four hours to complete their first four frames. It looks like Barry’s not changed.