Hearn Rings Changes In Rankings and Hendry Disagrees
In any ranking system, in any sport there are likely to be anomalies. As a result of these quirks there will be winners and losers. The former are unlikely to air their views and opinions, whilst the latter are more likely to suddenly discover their vocal chords and speak out.
Evidence of this comes this week in the build up to Barry Hearn’s new World Open with seven-time world champion, Stephen Hendry, speaking out against recent changes to the ranking system.
Fair play to Hearn, he has introduced some changes, which by comparison with the staid approach adopted by the numerous administrations over the past couple of decades, will seem pretty radical.
He has brought in a twelve-tournament series with a £10,000 first prize and world ranking points on offer in each. These events are result factories, using a roll-on-roll-off format with matches sometimes being played until 3am to get through the hectic schedule. But they achieve Hearn’s first objective of “getting players busy again”. However, the Players Tour Championship has failed to ‘excite’ Hendry and he has played in only two of the first five events.
He has introduced three ranking ‘reviews’ per season. The first is due after the second European Players Tour Championship in Bruges later this month, when the top 16 seeds for the UK Championship and automatic entry into the Wembley Masters will be decided.
He has axed the Grand Prix after 25 years and replaced it with the World Open, which is more than just a title change. The best-of-five frames matches are the shortest ever played in a professional tournament carrying ranking points.
According to an interview on ESPN, Hendry said, "The best-of-five-frames format in Glasgow is a leveller and I don't think anybody could predict a winner. There is room for tournaments like this, but I don't agree with it being a ranking event”.
In his 25-year professional career, which began way back as a 16-year-old before the professional game ‘opened’ up in the early 90s, he has never publically criticised how points are awarded in the sports ranking system.
Hendry, like Tiger Woods and Roger Federer at their peak, was so dominant in the mid-90s that whatever system was in place, he would have been miles ahead of his closest rivals.
However, the protection that snooker has afforded its ’top players’ through its two-year system, the seeding structure and an annual review, meant for very little change. It created a big stagnant pond for snooker’s big fish to swim around in.
At the 2010 world championship, the top 16 players qualified automatically for the final stages. Those positions were based on the rankings at the end of the 2008/09 season. On the face of it, this may seem perfectly reasonable. However, the 2008/09 rankings were based on a player’s performance as far back as the 2007 Northern Ireland Trophy (a tournament that was stage around 32-months before the 2010 Crucible event broke off).
So, was it really the top 16 players that gained automatic qualification to Sheffield?
Well, it kind of depends on the definition of ‘top’.
Pete Sampras, a serious contender to the title as greatest ever in his chosen sport, doesn’t appear to blame the ranking the system for his non-appearance at tennis’ majors in 2010.
Mark Williams was asked recently what was behind his slump to a provisional number 47 in the world? His response! “I just kept losing”.
And that is how it should be. Win and move up, lose and move down, and make way for the players of the future, or as in Williams’ case, get back on the practice table and work back up again!
Hendry added "I am not moaning because I am down there just now," he said. "I just don't think it's right that it isn't based over a whole season. Another bad run and I could find myself missing out on the Masters.
On his day, he is still a ‘class act’, but one of the signs of ageing in professional sport, is that those days happen less and less frequently, a fact that only ‘true greats’ ever really have to face.
The debate over whether ranking systems should reward ‘consistent mediocrity’ over sporadic excellence will live on but at least Hearn’s changes are likely to mean that current mediocrity and excellence are being compared.
