Talk:2019 Players Championship (snooker)

Ranking event?
How on earth can this be a ranking event? It just increases the distance of the top 16 versus everybody else. Isn't that terribly unfair? KarlFrei (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The argument is that, because qualification is based on the one-year ranking list (which started with the first ranking event of the season), all the 128 (or so) players on the main tour have an equal chance to earn points and qualify. This doesn't apply to the Masters which covers a rolling two-year period; hence the Masters is not a ranking event. As you say, being in the top 16 (or top 8) becomes more important, since they get to play more ranking events. It may be unfair (in some senses) but all players have, in theory, an equal chance of being in this beneficial situation. Nigej (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well... in theory all 128 players at the start of the 2018/2019 season have equal chances to qualify for the Masters in 2021, so I don't think much of this argument (the Masters should then be a ranking tournament too). I understand of course that you are only explaining and that it was not your idea to set it up like this :-) I suppose it is a similar type of advantage to being allowed to start in the last 32 for the Worlds. KarlFrei (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While it is true that "all 128 players at the start of the 2018/2019 season have equal chances to qualify for the Masters in 2021", players joining the tour in 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 would be at a disadvantage, hence non-ranking. As you imply, it is inconsistent to give an advantage to the top-16 on the (rolling 2-year) world rankings in the World Championship. On their normal rules they should be using the one-year list. Nigej (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)