Ronnie turns 48 today … where have all those years gone??? I’m older than his mother, he’s not much older than my son … What happened there??? For once he will not be in York, bringing cakes to the media gang. Hopefully he has the best of celebrations with his loved ones. 🥂🎂🫖💝
RONNIE O’SULLIVAN RAISED THE BAR AND SHOWED HE IS ‘SNOOKER’S GREATEST ASSET’ WITH TRIUMPH AT UK CHAMPIONSHIP
BY DAVE HENDON
Eurosport’s Dave Hendon breaks down how Ronnie O’Sullivan showed the world that he is “snooker’s greatest asset”. The world No. 1 made history by becoming the youngest and oldest winner of the UK Championship after he clinched a record-extending eighth title on Sunday. O’Sullivan’s classy performance was too much for Ding Junhui and he lifted the title 30 years after he first won it aged 17.
How many more times can the bar be raised?
Even by Ronnie O’Sullivan’s extraordinary standards, his dash for the winning line to land a record-extending eighth UK Championship title last night was something special.
The crowd inside the Barbican Centre were in awe as O’Sullivan crunched in long pots, exercised perfect positional control and sank ball after ball to move from 7-7 with Ding Junhui to run out a 10-7 winner. The final three frames lasted 32 minutes.
In the blink of an eye, 30 years fell away. We were back at Preston Guild Hall watching the 17 year-old O’Sullivan announce his arrival on the big stage by stunning Stephen Hendry to become the youngest UK champion in 1993.
Now, on the eve of his 48th birthday, he is the oldest. When the audience in York rose to acclaim him, they did so recognising they had witnessed something close to magic, a mercurial burst of inspiration only possible from sport’s true greats.
It means a 40th ranking title, four more than Hendry in second place. O’Sullivan’s eighth UK Championship triumph is one of 22 ‘Triple Crown’ titles to his name. He extends his lead at the head of the rankings. In every possible measure, he is the greatest.
Standing next to him at the trophy celebration was Steve Dawson, the chairman of World Snooker Tour, whose organisation can take credit for an excellent event, well promoted, with record ticket sales and an enjoyable vibe throughout.
But Dawson must surely also realise that WST need to mend relations with O’Sullivan, who is the subject of disciplinary action pertaining to comments he made about exhibition engagements in China and player freedom.
Whoever is right or wrong in that debate, the facts are plain: O’Sullivan is snooker’s greatest asset. We need him playing as much as possible. Off table rows are distractions that we could all do without and it’s doubtful most ordinary fans care about those issues.
What they want is to watch Ronnie play snooker. WST should do everything to ensure he feels able to continue doing that in established tournaments which have meaning, rather than in exhibitions which have little.
O’Sullivan is hardly a blameless character but has more than earned the right to have his say about the sport, how it is run and what he wants to prioritise going forward.
He has become a huge draw in Asia, where promoters are willing to pay for his presence in exhibitions and tournaments. Anyone watching last night’s final will consider this money well spent.
If the weekly grind of tournament life is less to his liking these days, then this is hardly surprising, but it’s clear he still gets himself up for the big occasions. More importantly, he is still capable of thriving in such occasions.
As for O’Sullivan’s week in York, he was not at his brilliant best all through the event, but does not need to be when opponents freeze at the prospect of beating him.
Robert Milkins had three chances to do so in their decider. Zhou Yuelong had him on the ropes at 5-4 but made little impact on the last two frames. Hossein Vafaei had played the snooker of the week going into the semi-finals but wilted in the presence of The Rocket.
This is the aura of greatness which surrounds O’Sullivan. It gives him almost superhuman strength while sending the legs of rivals to jelly. Even when things are going badly wrong, the very fact of who he is, what he has done and what he is capable of makes the difference.
To Ding’s credit, he fought hard and put pressure on. At 7-7, the final was firmly in the balance. He did not do much – if anything – wrong in the closing three frames, which went by in a blur of brilliance.
Ding had to qualify for York but is now back where he belongs, as a member of the top 16 and qualified for the key events coming up in early 2024.
So what is next in the compelling drama that is Ronnie O’Sullivan’s career?
He hasn’t entered this week’s Shoot Out and will possibly skip the Scottish Open to recharge the batteries. He has been invited to a lucrative exhibition event in Macau over Christmas, then it’ll be back for the Masters in January he will face Ding in the first round.
Soon, the drumbeat towards the Crucible, where he will be attempting to win a record eighth world title, will begin.
His great friend and fellow Eurosport pundit, Jimmy White, believes he can get to 10 victories in each triple crown event. Such numbers seem fanciful on paper, but performances like those against Ding make you think again.
It seems every apparent last hurrah is succeeded by another. This remarkable, unique sporting figure just keeps amazing us.
How many more times can the bar be raised? Over to you, Ronnie.
As ever, David tries to express a balanced opinion and present both sides of the story in a fair way. Thank you Dave for that.
The real question for me is this one: why is WST so reliant on the “older” “big names”? Why is there such a culture of nostalgia in snooker? Why do most of their reports or announcements focus on the older players? Why do we still hear about the 85 final all the time? Or about Alex Higgins? Celebrating history is fine, good even, but promotion has to be about the present, the current players, and about the future, the up and coming ones. You will tell me that WST are about “recognisable” names when doing promotion. I get that but those “recognisable” figures will not be around forever and they were unknown rookies when they started. WST need to create “new” recognisable figures and that work has to start when those players are young and not well known yet.
You will tell me “right but how?”. Here are some ideas:
Scrap the qualifiers in flat draw events. Bring everyone at the venue, yes, even in China or Germany.
Have a stream of all tables. The cameras are already there.
Have more events with a tiered format and the type of coverage we get for the World and the UK. Not focusing on one table but hoovering through interesting phases on all tables.
Interview more players “live” and allow them to be themselves. Don’t pander the politically correct brigade. Alex Higgins, Jimmy White, Ronnie … they don’t fit in that mould and that’s why they are talked about and remembered. Times have changed? Maybe, but fundamentally human nature hasn’t.
Adopt a rating system instead of the stupid money list. It will bring a much needed flexibility. For instance, it would allow to organise a “rookies” cup at the start of each season – as Lewis suggested – without distorting the “rankings”. Do it with maximum exposure, in a nice venue, and free admission. Make it something festive and fun. Build the rookies profiles up. Yes. it would cost; it’s called investing in the future.
Ok guys… please come up with your “innovative proposals” … what would YOU want to see?
I’m not a fan of the Shoot-out being ranking in the current system, I wouldn’t object to it if we had a rating system though.It is what it is and I will try to enjoy it.
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 was not too downbeat after his Crucible exit (Picture: Getty Images)
Ronnie O’Sullivan looked back on a ‘marvellous’ season despite his shock World Championship exit at the hands of Luca Brecel, saying he has largely been happy after something of a low last summer.
The Rocket lost the final seven frames of the match to Brecel as the Belgian Bullet prevailed 13-10 in an incredible contest at the Crucible.
It was an unlikely defeat for the world number one, but it has not ruined his season, which he has largely enjoyed, winning both the Champion of Champions and the Hong Kong Masters this campaign.
O’Sullivan admits that he was down for some time after winning his seventh world title last year, but once he had recovered from that low, he has had a good time.
‘I think it’s been marvellous. Lots of smiley faces,’ O’Sullivan said of his season. ‘It started off a bit miserable, I’ve got to be honest, I was on a bit of a comedown from the World Championships.
‘So I didn’t really feel like playing much. I knew why, so I just took some time off the practice table, played the tournaments, and I’ve enjoyed it. I’ve had a great season.
‘I judge my season on whether I was happy and I’ve been very happy.
‘May, June, July, August I just didn’t want to play, it was weird. I can only put that down to such a massive high. It might have been something else.
O’Sullivan was gracious in defeat to Brecel (Picture: Getty Images)
‘You go through periods like that, people fall in and out of love with what they’re doing. I just chose not to practice, took some time out and that was great.
‘I came back in January, put the time in and I’ve really enjoyed my practice and the tournaments I’ve played in.
‘Alright, I haven’t won as much but well-being, happiness, they’re the most important things. Snooker, that’s a bonus. If it goes great, I’ll take that. If it don’t go so great, alright. There’s always another tournament.’
Ronnie O’Sullivan suffered a shock quarter-final exit from the World Championship this year (Picture: Getty Images)
Ronnie O’Sullivan was left ‘gutted’ by his quarter-final exit from the World Snooker Championship this year, believes his manager Jason Francis.
The Rocket was beaten by eventual champion Luca Brecel in the last eight, after downing Pang Junxu and Hossein Vafaei in his opening two contests.
The defending champion was looking good after battering Vafaei 13-2 and then leading the Belgian 10-6, but seven frames on the spin from the Bullet saw him shoot into the semis and oust the world number one 13-10.
O’Sullivan took the loss very graciously, heaping praise on the performance of Brecel and saying he has enjoyed a ‘marvellous’ season, but his manager says there was certainly a lot of disappointment over the defeat.
‘I think he was gutted,’ Francis told the Talking Snooker podcast. ‘I think that one thing I don’t have to tell you is he knew he was in a winning position.
‘But that takes nothing away from the way Luca played, I’ve never see anyone play like that against Ronnie here.
‘This place, Sheffield, it either makes you or it breaks you and I think the people who come through and can handle it, they become real champions.
‘People say it defines their career, if they’re successful here, but it can also define the way they play in the future, because there’s no harder place to play.
‘So I think he came up against someone who played unbelievably well, but I also think that he’s incredibly disappointed, because if you look from the outside there was an opportunity there this year.’
Francis has been working with O’Sullivan for the last decade, and explained that a huge part of his job is trying to keep people from distracting the Rocket when he should be focussing on snooker.
‘My role with Ronnie is filtering chaos and trying to put out fires before they come,’ he explained. ‘One of Ronnie’s faults is his generosity, so you can turn up at a tournament, it will start off being me and him but very soon the circus is in town.
‘Someone who’s a friend of Ronnie or wants to come and see Ronnie…what Ronnie probably should say is: “Look, I’m here to win the World Championship, I’ll see you in a couple of weeks for a dinner.” But he’s so generous, they want to come and see him, and suddenly we end up with an entourage.
‘Part of my job over the last 10 years has been managing that, but also be respectful that ultimately he’s the player, he has to decide.
‘I don’t want anything I say to ever thought to have cost him a match. There’s nothing that I can do to make him win a tournament or lose a tournament. It’s the player and the table, but my job is to try and bring some stability, maintain relationships with people and be professional. I think that’s why it’s worked with Ronnie for as long as it has.’
The reasons Jasons put forward are quite interesting. Some players, like Luca f.i., seem to be able to switch in and out of their “zone” very easily and naturally, but I know that this is not the case for Ronnie.
That said … yes, this season has been poor but it’s been the case for many top players and it would be interesting to fully understand why. Ronnie ends the season still ranked number one and he’s 14th on the one year list as it stands today, despite missing some events because of the elbow injury. Judd Trump is 13th on it with only 7000 points more than Ronnie despite not missing any event. John Higgins (23d), Mark Williams (19th) and, very surprisingly, Neil Robertson (22d) are out of the top 16 on that list. It’s been a very bizarre season indeed and the only explanation I can think of is the shambolic structure of last season’s calendar with big gaps alternating with some very intense playing periods.
I really like the 6-reds format and if the shoot-out is ranking I can’t see why an event under this format can’t be. It presents the players with different challenges to what they face in 15 reds snooker. The frames are quick – most of them anyway – and that makes this format suitable for events with an initial round-robin phase. This could help new and young players as they would be guaranteed to play several matches against opponents of different strength and various “styles” and it wouldn’t drag as much as the ranking Championship League or the forgettable “Pro Series”.
In this particular event, most matches were streamed one way or another: on ES/Discover+, on YouTube and on Facebook. It can be done. It should be done for all events, on all tables.
A massive effort was made by the Thai organisers to ensure that all players felt welcome and valued. Although the main focus was on table one, all the tables were in the same arena, in the central space, with seats all around the “playing area”. Such setup contributes to a good atmosphere. It also ensures that no player feels “relegated” on that “last table”, far away from the limelights, where only a man and his dog sit watching … if you are lucky”.
About Ronnie’s performance
Ronnie came to play in the 2023 six-reds World Snooker Championship, having never played under that format before. He really wanted to do well but lost in the last 16 to Ding Junhui, the eventual Champion and a player who has lot of experience with the 6-reds format and had a lot of success in this event before as well. Ding has been in the final three times, winning it twice. Basically, up to and included the semi-final, he bossed everyone.
Hereafter are excerpts of an article by Eurosport. It contains quotes from Ronnie, about the event, about snooker in Asia, about his friend James Wattana, and about the way he currently sees his future. The latter of course may change over time, as, for him and all of us, life and new experiences constantly shape our dreams, expectations, hopes and capabilities.
RONNIE O’SULLIVAN REVEALS WHERE HE WANTS TO END CAREER AFTER REACHING LAST 16 AT SIX RED WORLD SNOOKER CHAMPIONSHIP
Ronnie O’Sullivan has revealed he would like to finish his playing career in Asia after reaching the last 16 of the Six Red World Championship in Bangkok with a 5-2 victory over Stan Moody on Wednesday. He also praised former world No. 3 James Wattana for his “massive” contribution to the growth of the sport in Thailand. Stream the Six Red World Championship.
….
“The six reds is scary, the frames are over so quick,” he told reporters. “One mistake and it is game over. You get someone in a snooker with the reds open and they are bang in trouble if they don’t get it right.
“I wanted to experience it and I am very glad I came. I plan my year well in advance, there can be priorities, and everyone has the chance to invite me to their tournaments.
“I can’t go to them all, but I am happy to be here this year. I’d like to finish my career off in Asia, snooker is more popular here than anywhere, Thailand and China, Hong Kong.
“In Covid it was impossible but my sponsors like to see me in Asia – they are the No. 1 events they want me to play in. So in the future I may skip events in the UK to play the majority here.”
O’Sullivan also praised three-time ranking event winner Wattana for raising the profile of snooker in his home country.
“I played James out here in his peak,” he said on WST. “I played him in a match and we had to stop for the adverts and he was on every advert, Nescafe, Thai Airways, and I was sitting there thinking this geezer is unbelievable.
“I’ve never ever hung out with anyone so famous. When he was in his prime, he couldn’t go anywhere and needed a security police escort to go everywhere.
“He’s been massive for Thai snooker. Thailand snooker is very strong. They’ve got some fantastic players and that is because of James and what he has done in the game.“
Not everything is great in Asia, far from it, but I can understand why Ronnie likes it so much over there. The life is very different from what it is in Britain. The smells, the colours, the food … everything stimulates the senses, for good and sometimes, truth to be said, for not so good. It’s much closer to the mediterranean way of life than to what people experience in the north of Europe. As Laila, gently teasing Ronnie, once put it: “He’s so Italian!”.
You only need to watch the first minutes of this video shared by Jason Ferguson to understand what I mean. I starts with a stroll through the local open market.
The first minutes of this video show the open market near the venue
The reception players get in Asia, the hospitality, the decorum around the events … all of it make the experience very special. The players are made to feel valued. I’m certain that Ronnie was extremely disappointed to lose early.
Here are some more snippets – quotes and images – shared by Jason Francis:
Jason is already thinking about a series of exhibitions with Ronnie around Asia…
The goal of this piece is to share some ideas about the current state of the sport we love, snooker, and how something most fans never question, the ranking system, shapes the sport. It also discusses a radical alternative to the ranking system, a rating system, that would bring benefits but also huge challenges.
As premises to this piece, I want to state a triplet of important things
This article wouldn’t exist without the major contribution of Lewis Pirnie. Lewis is passionate about snooker and its future, He has put a lot of work into this website where he explores the opportunities a snooker rating system would offer, explains the maths behind such a system, and provides tools and simulations to help us understand the benefits and challenges such a system would bring. Thank you Lewis.
In this piece, I DO challenge the current definition of “professional snooker player”. The current common understanding by fans is that a professional snooker player is someone who holds at WST Tour card. My definition of a professional – not just in snooker but in any endeavour – is someone who actually earns a living out of their occupation. In snooker, “occupation” would mean playing it for a living and or coaching for a living. In that light there is probably a significant number of snooker professionals in China, players who are not on the “Main Tour” but play in CBSA events, whilst, on the other hand, probably half of the WST card holders are only part-timers. The £20000 guaranteed income of course is a big step in the right direction, but for players with a family in particular and those residing in the UK as ex-pats, it isn’t enough to make a living.
One of my main motivations for this piece is the utter absurdity and unfairness of the “money list ranking system” if pushed to the extreme. The unfairness is obvious: depending on the sponsor(s), events requiring similar efforts, are possibly rewarded with very different retributions, money-wise and ranking-wise. As for the absurdity … just imagine that some oriental prince or princess would decide to offer crazy money to hold the Shoot Out in their country, as a one-off, and that they would offer ten times what’s on offer today for every round, bar the final that would be rewarded with £50 000 000 … just because they can. Would the players refuse to play in it? I doubt it. Would it completely send the ranking system into absurdity? Of course it would. The winner of that would be “World Number One”, with all the spin-offs that come with it, for two years and nobody would be able to catch them, even if they don’t win another match during those two years.
Ranking and Rating … what is it about?
A ranking system aims at presenting its population – in our case the WST tour card owners and some amateurs who have been offered the opportunity to play in WST “ranking” events – in an “order” that reflects their value in reference to certain criteria – in our case the money they earned in those events over the last two years.
A rating system aims at determining the strength of the members of its population in accomplishing certain activities or tasks. In sports a rating system aims at determining what the strength of its exponents are at their sport: the higher the rating, the better the sportsperson. One of the best-known types of rating systems, is the Elo type and the study Lewis presents on his site uses a rating system of that Elo type.
I suppose that the readers of this blog are familiar with the current ranking system used in snooker, but not necessarily familiar with the way an Elo type of rating system would work. It’s all explained in detail by Lewis, with examples and simulations.
I will however (try to) explain the fundamental principles of such a system as applied to snooker, without any mathematical formulas.
Every time a match of snooker is played between two players who own a rating, both players’ ratings are likely to change depending on the outcome of the match. These changes are the result of a transfer of points between the players. In most cases, the winner sees their rating increase, whilst the loser sees their’s rating decrease. Here are the statistical principles that will determine by how much:
The number of points transferred from one player to the other, and the “direction” of the transfer depends essentially on the likelihood of the actual outcome. The more likely the outcome, the smaller the number of points transferred, the lesser the impact on both players’ rating. It’s no rocket science. If players are close in rating, they are supposed to be of about the same strength and therefore, the match is expected to be close, especially in longer formats. If that is what happens indeed, the rating of both players will change, but not by much, the winner will gain a few points, the loser will lose a few points … that’s all. If one of those players whitewashes their opponent in a best-of-25 though, that’s a different story. It’s highly unexpected and the number of points transferred between players will be much higher, impacting their rating more significantly. Using Lewis (not zero-sum) model, in some extreme cases, when the ratings of the players are significantly different, the loser of the match may even see their rating improve, whilst the winner see theirs impacted negatively . This could happen for instance if a player with a very low rating were to lose in a decider to one of the “top” rated players in a long format match. In such a scenario, despite the defeat, the low-rated player will have done much better than expected, and been rewarded for it, whilst their top-rated player will be “punished” for underperforming badly.
The likelihood of each of the various outcomes in any specific match is obtained through a mathematical method taking both players’ rating into account. Each possible score has a probability of actually happening, The higher the probability, the likelier the outcome. Lewis explains this with graphics in the piece referenced above.
As you have understood by now, the rating of an active player evolves constantly. It’s susceptible to change after every match played. Of course a mechanism has to be put into place to prevent a player from “sitting” on their rating by simply not playing.
Some of you will tell me that this is far too complicated and cant be used in snooker, but actually it is used. Indeed this is the kind of mathematics that the bookies use to “price” the snooker matches they offer for betting. They, no doubt, have their own internal rating of the players and when huge amounts are placed on a very unlikely outcome, this triggers “alarm bells”.
Of course, it is well known that an Elo rating system is used in chess. You might be surprised however to learn that a “players rating system” and a “team rating system” are used in basketball, including in the US NBA. Table tennis federations use/used rating systems as well. Even the FIFA World Football rankings now use an Elo formula! It’s used outside sports as well.
What would be the benefits of a rating system in snooker?
Provided that the necessary guarantees about proper conditions, refereeing, and integrity can be met, there would be quite a few benefits but here are, in my perception, the main ones:
Inclusiveness. This is a system that could be used at all levels of the sport, anywhere in the world: debutants, club players, proficient amateurs and professionals (i.e players whose main source of income is snooker), women and men.
Fairness. It would be independent of the amount of money this or that promoter – or any country going after sportswashing – would be willing to put in any event. The available earnings would still be a major factor to attract the best players, but it would not impact the sport’s rating.
Flexibility. This is a particularly important one. A rating system would allow WST to offer tournaments for specific groups of players without impacting the rating of those not in those groups. It would also allow to organise or participate in concurrent events, including pro-ams, maybe in distant locations, offering more opportunities and giving players more choices. For the older players, it would mean that they can keep their rating without playing in everything. They just need to play enough whilst progressively building a “post-snooker” career.
No need for a Q-School … if WST wants to be, and sell itself as, the promoter of the best events for the 128 best snooker players in the World they can still do so … all year long. There is no need for a Q-School. The official rating could evolve all year long and be available at all times. Players could and would join and leave the “best 128” elite as their rating evolves.
What are the drawbacks then?
Because of course, it’s not just that simple. Here are a few pitfalls I can think of.
To bring the full benefits of a common rating system the various bodies involved in snooker at all levels need to agree and work together, including when it comes to safeguarding the integrity of the sport. We all know that this isn’t currently the case and that this is a major issue with no solution in sight! Currently the necessary constructive collaboration is probably a utopia.
It would deprive Matt Huart, and a good few others, of his/their favourite occupation: predicting what will happen in the rankings, what round should this or that player needs to reach to stay on tour, or qualify for this or that event. That would become a very arduous because the combinatorics would become far too complex.
Everything currently based on the “one year list” would need to be rethought. Maybe “biggest upward movers” in the last 12 months, or since the last World Championship, rated above a certain threshold or something like that would do …
WST would need to re-invent themselves as the notions of professional and amateur would be blurred. It would break their “monopoly’ to an extent, maybe making the negotiations of certain contracts, notably with broadcasters, more difficult.
Lewis was traveling yesterday. He’s attending the 2023 German Masters starting today. He had a difficult trip because of works on the tracks. Despite the tiredness of the long trip, he took the time to read this piece and send me his comments. Thank you Lewis and enjoy the snooker.
Hereafter you’ll find Lewis feedback that I have not otherwise already included in the text above:
I think Pankaj Advani said it costs around £25000 simply to play snooker professionally. Perhaps he means as an overseas player, whereas many young British players still live with their parents, or are dependent on wives’ income, etc. Others of course have to have jobs to supplement their income. Overseas players don’t get a British Working VISA, so cannot work and play. Soheil Vahedi wrote about that.
I would still have ‘tour cards’ and therefore some kind of Q School (although I’ve had words to say about its format). The fact is, players need to have some kind of guarantees – they need to get mortgages or bank loans. So to allow some of them (but maybe not 128) guaranteed entry into many of the tournaments is probably necessary. But there could also be some tournaments whose entry is solely determined by their Elo Rating. This gives the tour variety and flexibility. There could also be tournaments (mainly Pro-Am) where players needed to be BELOW a certain Elo Rating to enter. This is what is called ‘stratified’.
I’m not sure that snooker governing bodies need to work together, at least not very much. If WST are responsible for a global ranking system, that’s up to them. They don’t need to consult anyone. Of course, it then gives them new powers (over the amateur game) as assigning amateur events ‘ranking status’ would be much sought after. For example, if a club held a tournament which refused women entry, then WST could simply not count the event for ratings, which would likely lead to fewer players entering. Power!
One-year ‘money lists’ could still be used, for example as qualification routes for events like WGP, Players’ Championship and Tour Championship. If WST really are wedded to the idea of highlighting how much money the top players earn, they could still do that. But not for things like promotion and relegation, top-16 qualification (Masters and World Championship seedings), and any situation involving amateurs.
Don’t stop at the somewhat click-bait title. This piece actually does put the current issue into perspective and it also confirms some of the things Ronnie and Judd hinted at when they said that snooker will survive.
Match-fixing scandal threatens to turn snooker’s boom into bust
Concerns grow over the influence of organised crime in snooker, following charges against 10 Chinese players.
Andrew Wilks
The 2021 UK championship winner, Zhao Xintong, is among 10 Chinese players suspended over match-fixing allegations [File: Craig Brough/Reuters]
Match-fixing charges against 10 Chinese snooker players in the biggest corruption scandal to engulf one of the world’s fastest-growing sports has left fans and organisers fearful for the future of the game.
The players, including 2021 Masters champion Yan Bingtao and that year’s UK championship winner Zhao Xintong, have been suspended as part of an investigation into claims of “manipulating the outcome of matches for betting purposes” by the integrity unit at the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA).
The revelations have raised questions about the influence of betting syndicates often run by organised crime gangs on a sport with a growing global following.
The rise of snooker – a game invented by British army officers in India in the 1870s – has largely been fuelled by a growing interest in the sport in East Asia, particularly China.
Once largely confined to the United Kingdom and Ireland, where it came to attract large TV audiences in the 1980s and 1990s, snooker’s wider growth was driven by the emergence of Asian players, such as Thailand’s James Wattana and Ding Junhui of China, whose 2005 China Open victory at the age of 18 kick-started a Chinese snooker boom.
The sport is now played by more than 120 million people worldwide and attracts TV audiences of 500 million. It is striving to complete its image transformation from a game played in smoky back-street halls by vying for inclusion in the 2028 Olympic Games.
“Snooker underwent a transformation from about late 2009 when Barry Hearn took control of the professional game,” said Marcus Stead, editor of Snooker Scene magazine, referring to the businessman credited with popularising the sport in Britain in the 1980s who became the WPBSA chairman two decades later.
“The game was at a low ebb but there’s now a lot more snooker being played. If you go back to the so-called golden age of snooker in the 1980s, most of the players were from Britain or Canada or a few from South Africa.
“It’s now much, much more global. The sheer number of players in China is absolutely enormous. You’ve also had growth in continental Europe and Australia.”
While some have questioned whether this growth has left snooker open to match-fixing, experts in sport integrity say it is at no greater risk than many other sports.
“Snooker is not the most at-risk or most affected sport,” said Tom Mace, director of global operations for integrity services at Sportradar, the sports technology company that monitors betting and worked on the WPBSA investigation.
“Because of the scale of this current action and the WPBSA’s strict zero-tolerance approach, where you’ve got 10 players from China being suspended, it may appear that snooker is the most at-risk or affected sport compared to others but from our perspective that’s not the case.
“It currently sits seventh in our all-time list in terms of matches detected per sport. The likes of football, tennis, basketball, table tennis, ice hockey all have higher numbers of suspicious matches detected. Snooker is not exceptional in terms of match-fixing risk.”
Sportradar’s 2021 annual report on betting corruption and match-fixing recorded 903 suspicious matches in 10 sports, across 76 countries – a record over the 17 years it has monitored sports integrity.
The company, which has its headquarters in St Gallen, Switzerland, estimated these matches generated some 165 million euros ($180m) in match-fixing betting profit. As the world’s most popular sport, football accounts for 694 suspicious matches, or 77 percent of the total, followed by basketball with 62 and tennis with 53.
This means one in every 200 football matches monitored by Sportradar in 2021 was suspected of being influenced by match-fixing.
The propensity for betting-related corruption is closely tied to the level of gambling associated with a sport. So while snooker’s risk is not as high as some other sports, “it does have a very consistent and very strong global betting coverage”, according to Mace, largely due to the fact that it is popular in places where there is a well-developed betting culture.
As an individual sport, snooker is vulnerable to fixing as a single player has a greater influence on a match than in team sports. While match-fixing is a global phenomenon – Sportradar’s report found Europe accounted for more than half of fixed matches – there is a perception that Asian snooker players touring far from home are susceptible to approaches from criminals.
“The 10 players who’ve been suspended are all young Chinese players,” said Snooker Scene’s Stead.
“They’re thousands of miles away from home, a lot of the time their English isn’t particularly good, they’ve only got each other for company and they’re not being managed particularly well.
“That leaves them very vulnerable to being approached by well-connected people from the Chinese criminal fraternity,” added Stead.
“The implication has been that these young Chinese players had been told there would be unpleasant consequences for themselves and their families if they didn’t do as they were told.”
An independent hearing will evaluate the evidence against the 10 players, who face lengthy bans from the sport if they are found guilty.
There are also concerns about the effect the scandal could have on the sport’s following in its largest market.
“Yan Bingtao is spearheading a generation of Chinese players at the moment who are said to be the future of the sport, so this news comes as quite a disappointment, mainly to [fans in] China who follow these players and hold them in high regard,” said Shabnam Younus-Jewell, host of the BBC’s Framed podcast.
“Over in China, because snooker is such a massive sport out there – they absolutely love it, kids play it in schools – there will be a real feeling of dread there about what’s going on,” she added.
“This feels like a huge investigation, one of the biggest carried out by the WPBSA, and there’s a feeling – people have called it a dark day but it could be more than that … It’s a really difficult and quite a murky situation.”
Many acknowledge that the WPBSA has done much in recent years to tackle corruption, with clear rules and methods for informing the authorities about approaches to throw games.
“If you are approached you’re supposed to inform them using a confidential phone line or email address and the procedures make it very clear that if you are found guilty you will face a very long ban, which will ruin your career,” Stead said.
However, the disparity in earnings between those at the top of the sport and those who fail to progress in tournaments is thought to be an element driving corruption. Of the 130 players on snooker’s main tour, fewer than half earned more than 40,000 pounds ($49,600) prize money last season, from which travel and accommodation costs must be paid.
“For risk profile, we look at the betting coverage versus the wealth of the athletes, how much money players earn,” said Mace.
“In snooker, the top 16 are fairly comfortable but if you look at the prize money distribution and players’ earnings, once you’re outside of the top 16 or top 32, these players are not making huge money.”
“We live in a dreamworld, if we think we can eradicate [corruption] completely, there still needs to be a greater investment in this on a global scale. It’s now on the agenda and there are not many sports that don’t recognise it as something they need to tackle and invest in but still the money needs to improve,” Mace added.
Highlighting some parts in bold/underline is my doing.
Again a lot of the quotes above hint at a strong possibility that some, if not all, of the currently suspended players might have been forced into this, as Ronnie and Judd both suggested in their reactions immediately after the suspensions were announced.
They are easy preys for crooks when they arrive in the UK. Just imagine … you’re a teenager, you barely speak the language, your family is on the other side of the world. The money you earn, if any, may seem to be a lot at first, and there are many temptations around, nice clothes, restaurants, maybe the casino … But the cost of living is much higher than at home. Before you know it, you have debts. And there comes a fellow citizen, an adult, who lives in the country for while, offering to help you… It’s easy to fall in that trap.
Of course we have to wait for the full investigation results. Meanwhile, I think that we should keep an open mind. I have read things like ” But how??? Zhao Xintong and Yan Bingtao have been earning good money from the sport!”. That’s true, they have earned good money in the last couple of years, but maybe the facts that they are investigated for are older than that, dating back to a time when they weren’t earning much.
The 2023 Shoot Out gets underway this afternoon. The event is supposed to be fast, furious, crazy and fun. Many players though are not exactly feeling much optimism at this moment in time. The truth is that Snooker is in a crisis and the malaise many feel for a long time has been exposed when it was announced that the 2023 Turkish Masters is canceled.
Anthony Hamilton: ‘Snooker’s not flying, it’s a thin veneer between success and disaster’
Phil Haigh Tuesday 24 Jan 2023 9:59 pm
Anthony Hamilton has seen it all in snooker since turning pro in 1991 (Picture: Getty Images)
After this week’s news that the Turkish Masters will no longer be happening in March, many professionals face a quiet few weeks ahead and Anthony Hamilton feels it is symptomatic of ongoing problems on the World Snooker Tour.
The 51-year-old has been on tour since 1991, so has seen plenty of ups and downs in the sport and he reckons we are witnessing something of a decline right now.
The loss of the string of big tournaments in China due to the pandemic is an ongoing problem for the sport, and with events not cropping up to replace them, it is a tough time for those outside of the sport’s elite.
While those riding high in the rankings are more than busy enough with limited-field events, many on the tour are short of playing opportunities and the cancellation of the Turkish Masters is a real blow.
Hamilton, ranked #40 in the world, plays at the one-frame Snooker Shoot Out this week, but after that faces a break of over two months before playing in World Championship qualifying, as he has not qualified for the Welsh Open or German Masters.
World Snooker Tour are looking into a replacement event to take the Turkish Masters’ place in the calendar, but things look bleak for some professionals if they are unsuccessful.
‘We’re playing in a tournament so we’ve got to be happy haven’t we?’ Hamilton told Metro.co.uk of his trip to Leicester for the Shoot Out.
‘Unless they fill the gap with some poxy Championship League or whatever, as it stands, certain players like myself won’t be playing for 10 weeks now till the World Championships.
‘A lot of us will put the cue down for a month and pick it back up again for the Worlds. It’s not great is it? I’ve not won a match for quite a while now [UK Championship qualifying in November], when I play in the Worlds it might be close to six months since I’ve won a match.
‘That’s something that I don’t think I’ve experienced before. It is what it is, I guess, I’ll get enough practice in for the World Championships. The only good thing is that no one will be particularly sharp.
‘I’m getting my cue out for the Shoot Out, but I can’t really be bothered because it’s going to go away for a month. Unless they get something on, whatever it is, anything would be better than nothing. It’s hard to muster up any real enthusiasm unless you’re in other tournaments like the top players are. The rest of the tour are in a bit of a malaise.’
The calendar doesn’t appear empty between now and the World Championship starting in April, but the upcoming Players Championship just features the top 16 on the one-year ranking list, followed by the Tour Championship which is just for the top eight.
Hamilton started this season with some solid wins, but has struggled for results since November (Picture: Getty Images)
Players down the rankings are short of earning opportunities and Hamilton expects some will be turning to part-time jobs, which, in turn, will harm their snooker.
‘If this was like five years back and I had no money in the bank…that’s a position a lot of pros will be in now, you would seriously have to think about going to work behind a bar just to pay the bills,’ said Hamilton.
‘It’s hard to do both, when you’re young it’s possible because you’ve got the energy to practice and work, but when you’re getting on it’ll be detrimental to your snooker because who’s got the energy to do both?
‘It’s not going to kill you, don’t get me wrong, but it might be five per cent off your snooker and that’s enough to not earn anything from snooker.
‘I’m playing alright, but I haven’t been paid since the UK in November. That could be five months in between cheques. I’ve lost matches, of course, but you’ve got to make sure you’ve got enough money in the bank. You need a float, because this could happen every year. If you’ve not got a float you’re f***ed.
Hamilton has been to the World Championship quarter-finals four times (Picture: Getty Images)
‘My hat goes off to players, I know them personally, who’ve got young kids. When I was their age and I could play, I still didn’t have the balls to think that I could start a family off the back of this job.
‘It never materialised anyway, but I used to think to myself, “If I had two kids, I don’t think I could guarantee getting them through from snooker.” I probably could have done, but that’s the thought process you have, even as a good player. It’s an easy life in some ways, because you’re not told by The Man what to do but you’ve got no guarantees, that’s the tough part.
‘But that’s what sport is, really. Other than football and a few others, it’s working class and you’re basically gambling whether you get paid or not. That’s the decision you make when you get good, whether you want to deal with it or not. We might moan about it, but it’s our decisions ultimately.’
The Sheriff of Pottingham has no intention of turning his back on the sport he has dedicated his life to and he hopes there are brighter times ahead, but he certainly sees a dip at the moment, which he traces back to the retirement of Barry Hearn, who was the sport’s driving force until 2021.
‘The tour is going downhill a bit now,’ he said. ‘It was always going to when Barry retired, or semi-retired. He’s not pushing forward with the job of finding money, there’s no one better at it. As always, the most annoying people on the planet get s**t done. He’s certainly got his merits.
‘Snooker’s not flying. You listen to some people and it sounds like it is, but it’s all smoke and mirrors. It’s a thin veneer between success and disaster at the moment, if you ask me.
‘It’s not all bad. Snooker is in a better state than it was before Barry arrived because it was on its knees then. But it’s not all roses like some people would have you believe.
‘I understand where they’re coming from, because they have to get sponsors interested, but every now and then they need a dose of reality, and the reality is a lot of players are on their arse. That’s the reality.’
Anthony is not the only one feeling that way. As it happens, there was a discussion going on on twitter yesterday, after someone pointed out that currently only 54 players, out of 131, have earned over￡20000, the amount guaranteed by WPBSA/WST. It goes to show how very much needed that move by the governing body was and is. But ￡20000 is only ￡1666.67 per month and that’s not much at all especially if you have a family to support. Let’s not forget that from these ￡1666.67, we need to subtract their professional expenses (travels, hotels, practice fees).
There were calls to bring back the PTCs. Of course a return of the PTCs would get the players playing. The truth however about those events is that to break even the players had basically to reach the last day. The vast majority of players were out of pocket playing in them. Ronnie at the time spoke about “buying ranking points”, there was a lot of truth in that. Also those short events were not cheap to organise: they required a lot of tables and fitters to take care of them, a big venue, many referees. I know first hand that the events in Belgium, despite huge crowds, and massive support from amateur players, were a financial loss for the organisers. Bringing them back is not sustainable, at least not in their original form.
The return of the Chinese events would be a big help. For now, only the Shanghai Masters, with its 16 players field, is on the cards. It’s some light at the end of the tunnel but it isn’t enough. Also it remains to be seen how the current match fixing affair, involving ten Chinese players, will impact the collaboration between WPBSA and CBSA, if at all. For now it seems that CBSA is very keen to get the sport clean and to bring ranking events running again in China.
But WST needs to work hard on bringing more events to mainland Europe. It’s a matter of credibility if you call yourself “WORLD” tour but it’s not that easy. Brexit certainly doesn’t help and finding good sponsors – away from the betting/gambling business – isn’t either.
Our sport for sure has some serious challenges to face…
For some reason all those thoughts brought back this song by Bob Dylan into my head …
Yes, it’s old, it’s been first published in 1962 and, yes, I’m old enough to remember the first time I heard it on the radio back then. It’s still relevant… even in snooker.
