The CBSA match fixing verdict …
There is no doubt that the recent publication of the CBSA verdict on the most recent snooker match fixing scandal has sent shock waves through the snooker communities…
The way the BBC presented the news was confusing. The CBSA didn’t change anything to the WPBSA decision/statement. They issued their own verdict, as the Chinese National body in charge of the sport, on the conduct of their own nationals involved in the latest match fixing scandal.
Yes, they were harsher that WPBSA. Some of the players got longer bans, mainly because there was no shortening of the bans on the basis of early admission. On top of that, the CBSA bans them from ALL cue sports, or activities related to cue sports and any level in any form. This probably means no access to practice facilities, no side job as a coach or commentator. In my opinion CBSA is absolutely right in this. Yes, it’s harsh because it will make it extremely hard for them to come back and they will need to find other jobs, at least most of them will, in order to survive through the ban period.
Also, even, if CBSA has no power to change or extend WPBSA bans, their decisions will “de facto” extend those bans, because, to compete in WPBSA events, players must be “in good standing” with their national body as a prerequisite.
The Tour qualification processes …
Unfortunately the story repeats itself every year… Mostafa Dorgham’s win at the 2023 Africa Championship earned him a tour card and awoke the usual “moaning and complaining” social media fest. Every year, tour cards awarded to women, (some) juniors, regional winners … you name it … trigger complaints by (mainly UK) players who feel that they are better that those nominees and that the system needs changing (in their favour of course).
They usually “brandish” the Q-School as the only acceptable route for the main tour. Some of them may add the Q-Tour to that shortlist. They, very conveniently, refuse to see how those two (series of) events are heavily favouring the UK based players, as well as those who were recently relegated. Most of the Q-Tour is played in the UK. All of the “European” Q-School is played in the UK. I asked one of them how many of the UK players would go to the Q-School if it was held in Germany, needing to book hotels for about three weeks, to get a passport, to travel, to find “local practice”, etc… He admitted that indeed many would not be able or willing to afford it and he admitted that the system is biased, which surprised me in a good way . He then suggested that the Q-School should “travel”. There is no chance of that as it would be more costly for WPBSA/WST. At least he accepted my point of view that the UK players are the majority largely because everything is favouring them: all qualifiers are played in the UK, most of the Q-Tour is played in the UK, the Q-Schools are currently only available in the UK except for Asian residents. He was of the opinion that there should be no qualifiers, and Q-Tour should travel a lot more. He’s right but it’s not enough.
Then of course the “nominees debate” turned into a “tour cards for women” debate and it became nasty. So much so that Rebecca Kenna decided to take a break from social media.
It is true that women and players from some areas where snooker is less developed have consistently struggled to make an impact on tour. That, for me, is only a sign that proper development paths are missing for, or sometimes under-used by, certain “populations” of players. That won’t be solved by getting personal and nasty. The various bodies involved in the sport need to look at the root causes of the situation and possible remedies.
Anyway … all this just reinforced my conviction that a radical change is necessary. What I would like to see is a move towards an inclusive rating system that could be used at all levels of the sport. How a rating system works, and some benefits it could bring has already been explained here. Recording every result at every level might appear like a gigantic task, but I’m sure sophisticated IT systems already exists to assist in this task … because that’s actually how the bookies price the matches that are available for betting: they do use a rating system, and they do take into account the probabilities of every possible outcome. If they can do it, the governing body can do it too.
It would make the Q-Schools superfluous. I agree with Lewis when he says that a certain stability is needed when it comes to define who is a professional and who isn’t. People need a minimal financial stability to be able to “support” their family, invest in a house … or prepare for retirement.
So here id how I see the “tour” possibly working with a rating system … without too many radical changes at least for a start.
The tour would be made of 128 professionals. “New” or “Returning” professionals would be guaranteed two years on tour. How they would be selected is to be defined, but I make a suggestion further down in this post.
The money list ranking, or any other “ranking” list, would be replaced by the rating system that would be used across all levels of the sport, including the WWS, the WDBS, the Seniors Tour, as well as all sanctioned pro-am events and competitive amateur events that would meet the required criteria about conditions, fairness and proper, honest competition. The rating system would evolve continuously and would encompass amateurs and professionals alike. This, of course, may and probably will, require the collaboration with national federations like f.i. CBSA
At the end of each season, after the World Championship, the 32 lowest rated professionals who are in the second year (or more) of their tour card would be relegated. They would be replaced by 32 amateurs who would then become pros for at least two years. Those 32 amateurs would comprise at least the 24 highest rated amateurs in the global rating list, provided they accept the invitation. The other 8 places could be used by WPBSA/WST as they see fit for development or commercial purposes, as long as this is still needed. Some could simply be awarded to the next higher rated amateurs in the global rating list.
This way, no Q-School is needed at all. Of course, in such a system the 32 relegated pros would have no way to re-qualify immediately, something that, personally, I see as a positive. The Q-School in its present form brings very little “new blood”. Experience with the professional conditions, and experience full stop, is a massive advantage in the current system. Too much so for my liking.
Now, let’s look at some side-effects such a system could have, for instance for the female players. Imagine that we have an ambitious young woman playing in the women’s tour. She gets to the point where she is about the highest rated player on that tour, but still far from the threshold needed to get on the professional tour. Continuing to compete on that closed tour will not improve her rating because all/most her opponents are rated lower than her. What are her options if she wants to progress, to improve her rating, to, maybe, turn professional?
Personally I’m not particularly adept of the “positive discrimination”. I’m not sure that guaranteeing spots on the main tour to women who are clearly not ready is a good idea in the long term, it doesn’t improve their image, nor does it helps their development and confidence. We see the negative feedback coming already, from fans and from some players, and TBH, On Yee f.i. looked quite dispirited towards the end of the season. So what?
The best option for this young ambitious girl or woman would be to start competing with higher rated players, including men, in order to progress and, hopefully further improve her rating by getting results against them. WSF events, EBSA events, CBSA events … they are open to both genders. Some have special events for women, but the main events are available to both genders and that would be the route to go. Even IBSF events could be considered. Nobody needs IBSF consent to enter matches outcomes into a database I suppose.
The level in those events is probably higher than what the WWS tour currently offers, but not as high as what she would face if thrown on the professional circuit. Winning a few matches in those events would increase her rating and help her build confidence. She could continue to play on the WWS tour as well of course. Once her rating becomes high enough she might get invited to participate to specific “development path” – like the Q-Tour – or get the occasional inclusion to a main tour event as a top-up.
Bai Yulu’s run in the recent Q-School shows that she would be more than good enough to play in those events I mentioned above. There is no reason why other young women wouldn’t be as well but they need to get out of the WWS comfort zone … when they are ready, when they reach a high enough rating to be competitive and feel confident enough to face the inevitable prejudices and occasional hostility; the psychological impact of those negative factors should not be underestimated.
A rating system, correctly applied could provide a huge incentive for female players, but also for other “under-represented” populations in the sport.
Ronnie O'Sullivan 