The 2023 Asia-Oceania Q-School Event 2 concluded today, and with it the 2022/23 season comes to an end as well. Two more players earned their spot on the main tour for 2023/24 and 2024/25.
Here is the report shared by WST:
He And Singh Set For Pro Tour
China’s He Guoqiang and India’s Ishpreet Singh Chadha both booked a place on the World Snooker Tour for the first time by coming through the final round of Asia-Oceania Q School event two on Monday.
Both players will join the pro circuit for the 2023/24 and 2024/25 seasons.
On the final day in Bangkok, 22-year-old He came from 3-1 down to beat Wang Yuchen 4-3. In a high quality contest, Wang made breaks of 84, 124 and 82 to lead 3-1 only for He to take the last three frames with a top run of 77.
“From 3-1 down, I knew I had to play well to have a chance of coming back,” said He, who was awarded the trophy by Mr Suntorn Jarumon, President of Billiard Sports Association of Thailand and his board members. “I just concentrated and played without putting too much pressure on myself and it worked.”
Mumbai’s 27-year-old Singh will will join fellow Indian cueman Himanshu Jain on the pro circuit. Having won five matches to reach the final round in Bangkok, he beating Hon Man Chau 4-0 with top breaks of 68 and 106.
Life came in the way of snooker in this morning and I saw nothing from the first match. The second match, the one between He and Wang was indeed high quality. Other than the 77, He had two more breaks over 50. From 3-1 down, He was the better player and the one who looked the more confident of the two. Wang missed a couple of pots he was getting earlier in the match, and he was punished ruthlessly.
He is 22 and Singh is 27. Young men but not kids. I’m pleased with that.
How Singh will cope in the UK remains to be seen. the Indian players who I met on tour were all extremely home sick. They were missing their family, the social life and … the food. I suppose that it’s the same for the Chinese players, but at least there is a rather large group of them and they have their academies. Also many of them knew each other well before arriving in the UK, as they played each other in junior events in China since they were boys.
Good luck to Singh and He!
The end…
Ronnie O'Sullivan 
Thanks for the link, Monique. I also headed over to http://snookerlewis.com/elo_ratings
Much of what I see there is sound (in my opinion), though Higgins (currently ranked #1) probably isn’t the strongest player at the time, and hasn’t been in a while. Reanne Evans is ranked #304 as the strongest female player. It may well be realistic – but then it’s also bad news. I also think, with Hendry still at #100, for all purposes “inactive” players should drop more quickly in the ranking. But that’s just my preference, and it could be done with a bit of tweaking, I guess.
It should be noted, an Elo-based ranking system is “inclusive” only insofar as tournaments are ranked all over the world, which points to “implementation” in conjunction with the UK-centrism of the powers-that-be as a major threat to that aim. It goes without saying (leaves dreamy-eyed ideal world), it ain’t gonna happen. Not anytime soon, despite Lewis’s admirable efforts.
And a quick nod of appreciation to Csilla for sensitivity to abuse of language.
Thanks. Yes, I need to do a bit of profiling for my Elo formula. John Higgins’ position at the top is almost entirely due to his 13-2 win over Kyren Wilson, who at that time was himself highly rated after a couple of big wins. I just need to make it a bit less ‘swingy’. The No.1 position has changed so many times this season – it really has been very close. It’s been anomalous in the way that the top players from previous seasons have had such poor results in 2022-23. When I did my testing (during the 2021-22 season) the results looked very convincing indeed. However, we are used to seeing the same player at No.1 for years on the official rankings, even though the reality is often different (e.g. Mark Selby around 2018)
On the women’s side, Reanne Evans has been losing matches on the main tour, but so have the others. Our concerns for her have been mainly the way in which she has been playing, and her apparent disillusionment. Bai Yulu has played so few actual tournaments since she was 16, she is still underrated (she has only played 174 frames since 2019; Si Jiahui played in 145 in just one tournament!) . Of course in Elo, that means she will rise all the faster. She’s currently the 4th highest woman on my list, but 19th (!) on the WWS official list, which of course uses a point-based scheme.
The idea is that global rankings could be part of the entry criteria for major tournaments, but not the only factor. So ‘inactive’ players wouldn’t necessarily qualify. Most Elo systems have a ‘provisional’ tag for players who haven’t played the requisite number of matches. When I wrote the software, there were lots of players who had been missing due to covid lockdowns, so I was especially lenient.
My implementation was really intended to be a proof of concept, and I spent almost all of the time just gathering the match data, and drawing the graphics. I only spent a couple of days on the formula, until it looked about right.
In reply to your 6:10pm post Michael.
That’s exactly the kind of system that we must be very wary of.
Firstly, WST/WPBSA don’t have pathways through the amateur game – they deal with professional-level snooker only. But I understand you want to change that. That’s OK, but it would mean a lot of different organisations working very closely together, with sometimes conflicting interests.
Tournaments have to be financially viable, and with a complex structure, links in the chain can break. That’s why we have Q School: a single event, but not the only way to get on tour.
In terms of ‘identifying young players’. That is open to abuse. What invariably happens is that those responsible pick their favourite kids, and give them the opportunities. It helps, of course, if their parents denote a little gift to the administration. In fact, that is quite similar to what happens in China, where kids get fast-tracked into academies. I can think of at least 10 promising players who for some reason ‘didn’t fit the bill’.
I do agree that players can be graded, and this does provide a roadmap to improvement, but I’ve outlined my algorithm before.
But ultimately, nobody’s going to be satisfied with any qualification system that isn’t based on results of matches. My contribution was to come up with a fairer structure, which can be federated (across regions), and is cheaper for the entrants.
The two best players today were probably He Guoqiang and Wang Yuchen, but they were in the same half of the draw.
The World Snooker Federation (the set up of which is another political story) is a pathway to the WST and is run by WPBSA.
The English Partnership for Snooker and Billiards is run largely by WPBSA employees.
For me, I wouldn’t have the WPBSA anywhere near running the amateur game. The vast majority of snooker players are not looking to turn pro.
When I say ‘identifying’ players I mean by an open and transparent grading system which doesn’t allow for favourites.
There might well need to be results based systems but certainly not one off events. Leagues and tours over a full season must be more acceptable.
The way that players are accepted/nominated for inclusion in WST events does need a lot of discussion with open minds and hopefully leading to an easy to understand development pathway that players can embark on.
I absolutely agree that having more events at amateur and pro-am level is necessary for the development of players. The trouble is, the logistics and finances of staging a tournament is very fragile. It’s very precarious to build a ‘system’ or a ‘tour’ with any certainty the events will be viable in the future. We need flexibility to allow tournaments to come and go organically. It sounds like something that could happen in the UK, but not so much elsewhere, and how are players to be compared across different regions? I do have answers to that, but it requires a more fundamental change in mindset. Ultimately, the entire ‘tour card’ system could be challenged, but the problem with having all players operate as effectively freelancers is they have no stable income, whereas at least possession of a ‘tour card’ helps them to get loans, mortgages, VISAs and guaranteed entry into the professional events for a year or two.
The WPBSA involvement in the EPSB is particularly problematic and unacceptable as it means that they are clearly pushing/helping the English Amateur game above all other amateur federations. Being “WORLD” snooker they MUST stay neutral and treat all amateur bodies in equal fashion.
It will be interesting to hear some of the commentators try to pronounce He Guoqiang’s name! He played very well, as did Wang. That match would have been a fine match at professional level. The other match, as I feared, was one-sided.
It remains to be seen how quickly the 4 Asia-Oceania Q School winners can arrive in the UK (where all the tournaments are). There’s also the African Championship still to come.
I really do hope (but don’t for a minute expect) that’s the last we see of Q School(s). At least in this present format.
For a start, there needs to be some kind of qualification before being allowed to enter. But I would go away from the idea completely.
There needs to be a DEVELOPMENT pathway rather than these crazy events where anyone can enter.
It’s still important to be inclusive in terms of ‘qualifying’ for the main tour. Snooker has a long history excluding people, from Pat Houlihan to Luo Honghao. For that reason there has to be an ‘open’ system. If that means there are silly entrants, that’s OK so long as the structure of the event is thought-through. If players have to progress through a series of events (such as secondary tours), that just prices out people who don’t come from rich families, or are backed by a powerful federation.
Sorry but no. We don’t need these events in order to be inclusive.
And there are ways for those who can’t afford much to be able to work their way through development programs if they meet required standards.
It does need a lot more careful thought but the thinking needs to be outside the current very small boxes that are used.
OK Michael … here is a question for you. How do you include in those development programs a very talented kid, from a country where snooker is marginal, the kid being still under mandatory formal education (it’s until 18 in most EU countries… ) and whose parents have only modest incomes, hence they can’t afford private education nor multiple travels abroad, and can’t afford to move as expats into a country where snooker is well developed?
It is obviously extremely difficult to cater for every single person, and this kid is probably an extreme example.
But let’s say that they have been identified as very good at snooker. That would probably be from showing promise in a club and/or local tournaments.
If there was a development program in their country, which the WPBSA could (should?) be working on with the NGB, then they could be looking to be competing in the next level of either regional or national events – depending on the snooker in their locality.
They would progress from there being funded by their NGB etc rather than by parents.
Progress would be by proving ability in ways which could include, but not be restricted to, tournament play
Other sports, such as tennis as far as I am aware, have development programs rather than trying to get kids to compete against established stars of the game.
I don’t have the details, or even the motivation to work out the details, as I know such a plan would never be taken seriously by the current administration.
But the principle is, and I firmly believe in this, that players can be graded and only the best be considered for the main tour.
Everyone in the world can be included in this type of plan and main tour places should NOT be given out to the best of narrow categories.
I don’t think it’s an extreme example, I actually think this applies to 90% of the young talents in continental Europe. Look at Gradinari. His parents felt compelled to move to the UK to support their son, but how many families can afford that? And what about those who have several children with different strengths and needs?
Well that just strengthens the arguments against events like Q School etc.
The WPBSA should be looking to help ALL countries implement development programs to find players who can be supported to step up to a level where they are being compared to other countries etc. possibly on a secondary tour.
I realise that it’s a very different concept, but we shouldn’t be looking at ways to achieve the instant stardom of BGT and the like.
I agree with this Michael, I was not trying to defend the Q-School. My problem is that if you leave it to WPBSA/WST whatever “development path” they come up with, once again will be essentially UK centric. They may work with CBSA to have something in place in China but that’s as far as they will go.
I sort of like your advocacy, but…
“Other sports, such as tennis as far as I am aware, have development programs rather than trying to get kids to compete against established stars of the game.”
Yup. That’s mostly deep-pocketed sponsors or national tennis associations establishing such “schools”. But, guess what, these schools don’t get you anywhere, no matter your wizardry on the court. For that, you have to win matches at recognized tournaments, first at lower levels, then challenger tournaments until you, finally, get to the main stage.
The best way to get to an objective rating is something akin to an Elo-rating-system. See, for a sense how such a “points” system might work, initially developed to rank chess players: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
“In tennis, the Elo-based Universal Tennis Rating (UTR) rates players on a global scale, regardless of age, gender, or nationality.”
I didn’t know that women were also ranked the same way, but, now that I think of it it’s perfectly logical.
I’d actually like to see such a system. It rewards consistency over longer periods – not just a burst of brilliance over a week, followed by whatever detrimental activities fulfill the life of some laggardly lad with a talent, but without the professionalism required to stay on the tour. It reacts well to beating higher ranking players by awarding more points, accordingly, which results in a pretty objective grading of players. It also spares everyone the horrendous strains under which hardened, just-relegated professionals get close to the breaking point at Q-School. Oh, and the world ranking tables could be calculated the exact same way, to get away from these preposterous prize money lists. I find these patently embarrassing.
Anyway, I agree Q-School should go. For one, it isn’t a school at all, with no teachers, no instructions, in which the first failed test means “school’s end”, and in which “students” get ahead by throwing the other bum out. And second, if (assuming objective grading of players) #2, #3, #4 and #5 stand in the way of #1, the next best after #1 to get in would be #6, unless he has a bad day at the office. Choosing the best players with the skills and the maturity to stay viable on the main tour is something different from Q-School entirely.
Absolutely Grump. Have you seen this post https://ronnieo147.com/2023/01/31/snooker-food-for-thoughts-ranking-or-rating/ ? Lewis explains the ELO system and how it can be used in snooker with actual simulations of the ratings. Such a system is inclusive. It blurs the distinction between amateur and professional. It would not just add a lot of flexibility, it would actually render the whole idea of Q-Schools obsolete. But WST will oppose it with all they have as it would take away their monopoly over the “professional” game.
Just a quick nod of appreciation to Grump that you pointed out the absurdity, even insulting way of naming a brutal qualification system “school” as is any education took place there. It baffles me to no end.
Maybe the word is used here with the same meaning as in a “school of fish”? A large troop of fish moving all in the same direction?
I confess I was ignorant of this meaning. Possible, makes more sense than the traditional idea of school.