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 
Thanks for lots of food for thought.
I still have to quibble. For one, I find the ranking system you and Lewis promote is inconsistent with a “tour card”. The reason, I find, is not hard to see. After 9 months on the tour, a player may have dropped to #250 in the ranking, but is still playing on the “main tour” for 15 months, whereas the dozens who surged past him don’t. With that ranking system in place, this unfairness is plain for everyone to see, and it will lead to all kinds of nastiness, and for good reason in this case.
Of course, most won’t be able to make travel arrangements or resolve visa issues at a moment’s notice, so there needs to be some lag between a ranking update and the next tournament guided by it. That’s about the “planning” ahead that’s needed. I don’t believe someone can present a newly acquired tour card and get a mortgage based on that, and the card also isn’t a guarantee that someone is able to provide for a family. Moreover, most seriously underperforming on their job will be out of it on relatively short notice. So, why would snooker players be awarded more protections than that? I can’t quite see it.
As Monique details, the current system is grossly favorable to UK players. It would appear, the selection of “qualified” tournaments (fulfilling the criteria to award ranking points) would almost completely certainly be used to create a similarly tilted playing field if it were compiled by WPBSA / WST. If we end up with thousands of tournaments in the UK and China, but just a few dozen in Africa and almost none in the Americas, the same travel issues would hamper African (etc.) players as they do now.
Anyway, the genius (or part of it) of that ranking system is that it would allow players to self-select into tournaments with players of a similar strength. If they aim too low, there is very little for them to gain, and they might even lose ranking points by winning by a lower than expected margin. If they aim too high, and are getting serially clobbered, their ranking will quickly deteriorate. All that has been said before, of course. The consequence is that “getting access to …” should mostly be a thing of the past, and players wisely choosing the appropriate tournaments for their capabilities should be the future – provided there is a bustling snooker scene providing interesting and challenging tournaments for all levels. The privileges of the haves (tour card holders) should end in favor of rising have-nots who put in the time and effort to gain the experience and the ranking points, and who may be promising prospects at the highest levels because of that.
Thank you for your comments Grump. They are very much appreciated.
Your point about underperforming players keeping their job applies equally to the current system. A player can stay on tour for 2 years, and get 40000 pounds without winning a single frame. And it has attracted moaning and criticism indeed. The beauty of this system is that it offers a lot more flexibility for the players, and the governing body as well if they put their minds to it. They could run tournaments concurrently, giving players more choices. They could have one in the UK on the same week as one in mainland Europe or Asia. Up to the sponsors to adapt their price money offer in an attempt to attract the bigger names. Up to the players to choose what suits them best taking all factors into account: the type of venue, the location, the travel and available accommodations, the prize money…
Older players would be able to play less, pick and choose, without damaging their rating. The would earn less but their rating stay similar. Young players, eager to gain experience could play in as much as they can, but without being “punished” if they skip a tournament that would be too expensive for them because of travel and accommodation fees. If pushed further and “regional legs” develop, less players may feel “forced” to live as expats in the UK, a situation that has created mental health issues for quite a few.
“Your point about underperforming players keeping their job applies equally to the current system.”
Yes. The point I tried to make was that the ratings system would actually measure the drop and thus make obvious to all how unfair the “tour card” actually is. I would expect that to create far more anger than the current money list. Thinking some more about it, the tour card and its guarantee of two years on the tour may even be a disservice by keeping players not (yet) suited to the main tour on that tour, when they should rather play at lower ranked tournaments to improve their game along, hopefully, with their self-confidence. On Yee’s turn for the worse near the end of her two years, and her less than compelling performance at the Asia Q-School (along, I suspect, with many more, similar examples), should serve as a warning, or so it appears to me.
Yes, Monique is right – everyone knows that the players who have a ‘Tour Card’ aren’t necessarily the best 128 players. Some of them will be improving young players, some will be there for visibility/diversity. That’s perfectly fine, so long as there are opportunities for all. What would be deemed unfair is if a player nudged into the top-128, got entry to a tournament, lost the match, and never got another chance.
But there would also naturally be places available for players without a Tour Card. That spreads the opportunity wider, and for example would be a much better way to handle the likes of Stephen Hendry.
The idea of rating ‘bands’ is known as ‘stratification’. For example, you could have a tournament that was open to players rated between 4200 and 4500 (using my scale). The entry fee, conditions and prize-money could be set appropriately. It’s a big incentive for local players to enter a ranked tournament where they know they will be competitive. Anyway, that’s my plan for revitalising the Pro-Am and Am scene.
I’ve said this before, but any globally run ‘tour’ needs flexibility, not a top-down tournament structure. For that reason, it doesn’t mske sense to fix it to ‘128 players’ or indeed any exact number. We know that there are always players missing anyway. What a ‘tour card’ should provide is guaranteed entry to a set of tournaments, but not necessarily all tournaments (e.g. the Masters). That’s what gives the players the stability that they need to plan the next couple of years of their life and career. If there are around 10 top-level tournaments which can support 128 players, then yes it does make sense to select those players as ‘tour card holders’, but it also makes sense to have fewer, even as low as 100. The draws can be filled up by a combination of ranking and other criteria such as wildcards. There should be different players getting their chance in different tournaments. Anyone who devises an elaborate structure with 128’s and 32’s and 48’s, etc. is I’m afraid guilty of trying to impose too much order on a fluid tournament landscape.
In a more freelance model, players would gradually build up their rating and reputation, and gain access to stronger and stronger tournaments. There would be no clear point where they ‘turn professional’. OK, a ‘tour card’ system might be used in parallel with that, with an associated qualifying tournament (Q School or Q Tour).
The Ng On Yee situation you mentioned has happened to others. I first saw the 2017 African Champion Basem Eltahhan playing in the UK Championship, where he lost narrowly to World Champion Mark Selby, but played impressively. At the end of his 2 years he was completely demoralised – his sole win was in the Shoot-Out, and he finished by losing 10-0 in the World Championship. He hasn’t hit a ball since.
Indeed, we’ve seen a lot of overseas players ‘retire’ (basically quit), some in their mid-20’s. Meanwhile, British players keep coming back to Q School for years. That says a lot about ‘accessibility’.
This ‘all-or-nothing’ approach to professional entry is no good. Young players need to play in a few events to gain experience, as do older players transitioning to retirement. But they don’t need to play in all events, as they are forced to in order to chase ranking points or prize-money. I totally disagree with Shaun Murphy that it should be a closed shop, although I can see why someone in his position might want that.
With the women thing, what will happen now is that the 4 players may play in (almost) every event, but we won’t get to see them, because they will be excluded from the main venues in qualifier rounds. The ‘visibility’ argument falls down. Ultimately, we get to see them in the Mixed-Doubles event, but it’s now buried in amongst the bonus events near the end of the season.
Lewis, all this has been said when the original article was presented and I agree. However, if the WPBSA is to maintain the guaranteed income, which I believe they should because it’s a big element in the “financial security” that players need if they want a mortgage f.i, they have to limit the number of pros and they need to know who they are. They need to plan their budget taking that into account. This can’t be “fuzzy” or “flexible”. I chose 128 because it’s “known territory” to most fans. It was also stressed in the original article that WPBSA/WST would be able and should offer a richer palette of tournaments under a rating system, including pro-ams, targeting specific populations – f.i. under 25, “first time players”, “over 40”, or more imaginative categories – and they could even run them in parallel, without introducing a marked “distortion” of the rating system. It would though mean that there would be some earning opportunities that are offered to only a few, but that’s already the case with the Masters, the Hong Kong Masters or the Mixed Doubles.
I’m afraid this “tourcard for women” debate is plain nasty. I mean the same people who oppose the card for women very often support cards given to people like Stan Moody. Iulian Boiko did not get his tourcard in QSchool either, then did not win single match till sometime at the end of his two-year card and since then is trying to get back via Q-School in vain so far. Now I like him and rooted for him and hope he’ll succeed eventually, but his tour experience was not particularly different from that of the women. Which is simply to say that as long as people say that is OK and for example Moody has the perfect right to be on the tour, to say that the women should not get a card is simply nasty.
Having said that, I do believe that the women’s tour cannot really help the development of any ambitious woman, actually might hold them back and some of the tourcards granted to women based on their ranking to the women1s tour do no improve their image. Which means that I hope that truly ambitious women can and will play on the available tours where young aspiring professionals do, rather than the in women only stuff.
I don’t have enough knowledge to assess how the system outlined above would work, but I would feel happy about a system that gets rid of this “8 players can get professional from the QSchool plus a few from her and there”-thing.
Well Csilla, Moody won a tournament that was marked, from the start of the season, as one that will deliver a tour card, so yes, he is there by right. And so are the women, because it was decided, from the start of the season that the Women World Champion and the highest ranked not on tour should get one. The difference though, and that’s where people have a point, is that everyone meeting the age conditions could enter that tournament Moody won, and there was another one with no age limit. The women’s tour is much more of a closed shop and it’s not competitive enough and that’s a problem. It’s only very recently that Reanne has been challenged a bit.
Totally, but the Q-School or nothing people are pretty dishonest unleashing their fury at the women and not at the other ways of getting a card-. Having said that I truly wish ambitious women tried their luck in other venues as the women’s tour is sheer embarrassment. I cab see that Lewis does not think they will get further than the qualifying rounds, but on that case there is no need for “visibility” if they lose anyway. I still hope some of the new women (Baipat., Bai Yulu) can leave their mark. Otherwise it is just all sad.