US Open Brackets are up.

[sjm]

Thanks Stu and oops apologies to Lukas. I have played him before and he is a respectful and talented player.

I have made his acquaintance on many occasions, too, and agree. Lukas is a fine young man with a bright future.

 

[sjm]

Mmmmmm.. I don't really see this as a "monster" draw. I think that even if Laaksonen is a little rusty, he still wins this fairly handily. Regardless of what his Matchroom ranking is, I have kind of kept an eye on De Ruyter over the past few years, as he is active on social media, and he seems a little over his head on the world stage, despite his Fargorate. Reviewing his Eurotour results over the past few years, he often goes out 65th place, etc. He does not appear to be an "improving" player, but maybe he has some recent good results that I am not aware of.

Thanks for the insights, Russ.

 

[Black-Balled]

BEF Junior National Champion gets Fedor first round.

Fedor doesn't win every time!

Get um, kid!!!

 

[fishless]

His name is Lukas Fracasso Verner

Matchroom has him listed as "Lukas Francasso Verner"

 

[CJBCoug]

Seeding is based on rankings, usually based on a one-year measure of performance. Fargo is a longer-term measure. For example, DeRuyter carries a Matchroom ranking of #95. Laaksonen checks in at #278 in the Matchroom rankings, meaning year to date performance lags behind his pedigree as suggested by Fargo. There are no seeding decisions and seeding at the majors has never been based on Fargo.

Of course, what you post is accurate, for accomplished players can draw each other in the first round of a tournament in both seeded and unseeded events.

...luck of the draw, there's no getting away from it.

This is a direct reflection of Emily's stubbornness and her not thinking Fargo is legitimate. She has been asked in an interview and quickly rejected it. They should be accounting for fargorate when trying to determine the lower seeded players. There is players that are seeded that have no business being seeded over others. The only reason some were seeded because they spent money and won a match or two in a previous Matchroom event. For goodness sake, Anton Raga wasn't seeded in his first tournament that he played in...

 

[spartan]

i think tim is improving. he almost beat shane in the european open QF (or L16?). a good result considering he's a part timer with comparatively low fargo. laaksonen is still the better player but i think tim is making an effort now that a pro tour is shaping up

Tim is not famous for his pool skills. He is more famous (or infamous) for 2 things :
(a) his crazy happy grin/laugh when his opponent makes errors
(b) as the smart aleck commentator on Predator 10 Ball events who is super "harsh" in his critique of shots by top players many ranked higher than him in his commentaries. Some top player will do critical commentary of his matches soon and he will get his dues.

 

[skogstokig]

This is a direct reflection of Emily's stubbornness and her not thinking Fargo is legitimate. She has been asked in an interview and quickly rejected it. They should be accounting for fargorate when trying to determine the lower seeded players. There is players that are seeded that have no business being seeded over others. The only reason some were seeded because they spent money and won a match or two in a previous Matchroom event. For goodness sake, Anton Raga wasn't seeded in his first tournament that he played in...

chang yu lung (fargo 800-ish) wasn't seeded when he spent money and entered the european open. he's still not seeded because he lost both his matches.. the WNT rankings works. there will always be good unseeded players, and you can't seed more than half the field

 

[CJBCoug]

The seeds should be a combination of their rankings and Fargo. Maybe seed 96 of the players by the rankings, then the last 32 seeded players by player review, ie. look at Fargo...

 

[sjm]

Matchroom has him listed as "Lukas Francasso Verner"

That's a shame. Thankfully, Digital Pool's site had it right in the recently completed Raxx Open, as shown below.

 

[sjm]

This is a direct reflection of Emily's stubbornness and her not thinking Fargo is legitimate. She has been asked in an interview and quickly rejected it. They should be accounting for fargorate when trying to determine the lower seeded players. There is players that are seeded that have no business being seeded over others. The only reason some were seeded because they spent money and won a match or two in a previous Matchroom event. For goodness sake, Anton Raga wasn't seeded in his first tournament that he played in...

Strongly disagree. Seedings based on ranking rewards regular participation. Nobody should earn a seed on Fargo alone. No doubt, Asian non-participation due to COVID caused some inequities in the rankings, but those inequities are gradually disappearing.

They've got it right at both Matchroom and in the WPA events. Seedings are based on ranking, and without regular participation, even the finest players will be hard pressed to keep their rankings high. That serves the game's best interests and ensures that rankings and seedings are objective rather than subjective.

Of course, I can appreciate why you feel as you do. Then again, remember that Fargo is a long-term measure of performance while rankings tell you who is performing this year. I'm as big a fan of Fargo as anybody, but I doubt we'll ever see seedings based on Fargo in either WPA or Matchroom events, and that's as it should be.

 

[jasonlaus]

Strongly disagree. Seedings based on ranking rewards regular participation. Nobody should earn a seed on Fargo alone. No doubt, Asian non-participation due to COVID caused some inequities in the rankings, but those inequities are gradually disappearing.

They've got it right at both Matchroom and in the WPA events. Seedings are based on ranking, and without regular participation, even the finest players will be hard pressed to keep their rankings high. That serves the game's best interests and ensures that rankings and seedings are objective rather than subjective.

Of course, I can appreciate why you feel as you do. Then again, remember that Fargo is a long-term measure of performance while rankings tell you who is performing this year. I'm as big a fan of Fargo as anybody, but I doubt we'll ever see seedings based on Fargo in either WPA or Matchroom events, and that's as it should be.

Dechaine is still 801 after not playing for years - perfect example why Fargo shouldn't be used

 

[Bob Jewett]

... . I'm as big a fan of Fargo as anybody, but I doubt we'll ever see seedings based on Fargo in either WPA or Matchroom events, and that's as it should be.

I vaguely remember a tournament where Fargo was used for some fraction of seeding but if it did happen it was years ago.

I think Matchroom's use of their own ranking list for their own events is entirely appropriate. I wish, though, that some kind of combining/merging with the WPA ranking could happen. One problem is that the MR ranking is strictly by prizes won and the WPA ranking is by points related to the kind of tournament and number of entries (I believe).

 

[Bob Jewett]

Dechaine is still 801 after not playing for years - perfect example why Fargo shouldn't be used

Kind of. It's possible that he still plays at that level. That would be a correct rating. He has almost a zero ranking, though, because he does not play in many Matchroom events. He played in Derby City this year and has a Matchroom ranking of 473 of 681 players.

Two different scales. Since Dechaine is still listed in the top 100 lists, I think he is still playing in some events.

If someone is planning bets, Fargo is likely the way to go.

 

[skogstokig]

Dechaine is still 801 after not playing for years - perfect example why Fargo shouldn't be used

same with mark gray who only plays the occasional senior event in the UK. he's hardly the player he was

anyway. i suspect the unseeded 128 in most of these events will become much more competitive as the tour goes on and prize money increases. they're gonna need qualifier events

 

[woodyosborne]

if you are looking for a particular player/match just do "control/f" and type in a name.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

same with mark gray who only plays the occasional senior event in the UK. he's hardly the player he was

anyway. i suspect the unseeded 128 in most of these events will become much more competitive as the tour goes on and prize money increases. they're gonna need qualifier events

So? Same thing applies to chess players who are no longer really active. Seeding does not really apply in chess though, but if the pool player who has not been playing jumps into an event and gets seeded, they still earned it based on their "most recent" performance, however long ago that might have been.

In the end, does it really matter? The brackets are generally going to be dominated by the most active top Fargorate players, so seeding of a few fairly inactive players will do little more than get them one or two rounds deeper, before they run in to an active monster. Not really gonna make any difference in final result. And if it DOES, then that means the player was more in stroke than their inactivity would indicate.

 

[skogstokig]

So? Same thing applies to chess players who are no longer really active. Seeding does not really apply in chess though, but if the pool player who has not been playing jumps into an event and gets seeded, they still earned it based on their "most recent" performance, however long ago that might have been.

In the end, does it really matter? The brackets are generally going to be dominated by the most active top Fargorate players, so seeding of a few fairly inactive players will do little more than get them one or two rounds deeper, before they run in to an active monster. Not really gonna make any difference in final result. And if it DOES, then that means the player was more in stroke than their inactivity would indicate.

they won't get seeded if they're inactive.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

they won't get seeded if they're inactive.

I figured, but I was not sure how Matchroom was handling that. So I guess I don't get what the big hullabaloo is about in regards to seeding. As long as SVB and FSR don't play first round, or a pair of Ko brothers, in the end, I don't see how it makes much of a difference, as long as those with a realistic chance of winning or going deep don't play each other early.

 

[The_JV]

I figured, but I was not sure how Matchroom was handling that. So I guess I don't get what the big hullabaloo is about in regards to seeding. As long as SVB and FSR don't play first round, or a pair of Ko brothers, in the end, I don't see how it makes much of a difference, as long as those with a realistic chance of winning or going deep don't play each other early.

Well then the seeding backfired this time around, as Big Ko is in trouble... I'll hopefully see him in the 3rd round

 

[ShortBusRuss]

Well then the seeding backfired this time around, as Big Ko is in trouble... I'll hopefully see him in the 3rd round

Can you clarify this? I assume you are talking about Ko Pin Yi? He looks like he has a fairly easy first/second round, which I thought that was how seeding worked, preventing top players from knocking each other out early?

I am confused as to what you are trying to say..