WORLD 10 BALL CHAMPIONSHIP (28March-1April2022), Las Vegas, Winner $60K

I know there's something weird about quoting my own post, but I'd like to revisit the comments I made earlier in the thread, in which I took strong exception to the way Stage 2 was to be seeded.

Seeding Stage 2
The only time I've ever seen WPA ranking used to seed Stage 2 of any event was at last year's World 10-ball. It was a disgrace back then, but this year it's worse. Seeding stage 2 by WPA ranking is ludicrous. To maintain fairness, Stage 2 needs to be seeded based on performance in Stage 1, which is how it was done at every multi-stage event I've ever attended. What we'll get, once again, is matches in Stage 2 Round 1 between two undefeated players, and that's patently unfair to both.

In Conclusion
Those running ten ball events of late have done everything imaginable to make sure that nearly all of the prize money ends up in the hands of just a few. I'm sure they have their reasons, but giving all players a fair chance to succeed doesn't seem to be one of them.
We now have our first victim of this outrageous seeding methodology in Shane Van Boening, who despite being undefeated, drew the undefeated Daniel Maciol, whose victims list included Skyler Woodward and Radoslaw Babica, two outstanding players.

Congrats to Daniel Maciol on a fine win and good luck to him for the remainder of this tourney, but this kind of situation is greatly at odds with the principles of fair play. This is not an excuse for Shane, who was outplayed and was deservedly beaten, but it serves as a reminder why Stage 2 seeding needs to be handled in the traditional way.

Later this evening, the undefeated Darren Appleton will play the undefeated Mika Immonen, which, to me, is just plain ridiculous.

Thankfully, Matchroom will not repeat this mistake at the World Pool Championships next week, where seeding will be based on performance.
 
Since Mark turned over the reins to Ozzy weird shit has been the order of the day. Shoot outs, fucked up seeding, and whatever else CSI can do to kill the good will that they built up over the years. Several years ago it was the Shane Resurrection now we have this travesty. I thought they were trying to build up the game not completely destroy it.
 
I know there's something weird about quoting my own post, but I'd like to revisit the comments I made earlier in the thread, in which I took strong exception to the way Stage 2 was to be seeded.


We now have our first victim of this outrageous seeding methodology in Shane Van Boening, who despite being undefeated, drew the undefeated Daniel Maciol, whose victims list included Skyler Woodward and Radoslaw Babica, two outstanding players.

Congrats to Daniel Maciol on a fine win and good luck to him for the remainder of this tourney, but this kind of situation is greatly at odds with the principles of fair play. This is not an excuse for Shane, who was outplayed and was deservedly beaten, but it serves as a reminder why Stage 2 seeding needs to be handled in the traditional way.

Later this evening, the undefeated Darren Appleton will play the undefeated Mika Immonen, which, to me, is just plain ridiculous.

Thankfully, Matchroom will not repeat this mistake at the World Pool Championships next week, where seeding will be based on performance.
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't t this the final stage where the pairings are done by the luck of the draw? Or are you saying that Shane would have been better off paired against Denis Grabe, FSR, David Alcaide, Alex P, or Jason Shaw who were on the loser side?
 
Last edited:
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't t this the final stage where the pairings are done by the luck of the draw? Or are you saying that Shane would have been better off paired against Denis Grabe, FSR, David Alcaide, Alex P, or Jason Shaw who were on the lower side?
No, the stage was not seeded at random. The top 16 based on WPA rank were given the top 16 seeds in stage 2 and the other 16 were drawn into those sixteen players at random.

As you properly point out, you can draw bad no matter what methodology is used, but seeding based on performance in Stage 1 is merit based, giving the seeds to those that are undefeated. This methodology is ridiculous, and is made even more ridiculous given how meaningless WPA rank has become due to the fact that COVID denied many top players an opportunity to maintain a high world ranking.
 
No, the stage was not seeded at random. The top 16 based on WPA rank were given the top 16 seeds in stage 2 and the other 16 were drawn into those sixteen players at random.

As you properly point out, you can draw bad no matter what methodology is used, but seeding based on performance in Stage 1 is merit based, giving the seeds to those that are undefeated. This methodology is ridiculous, and is made even more ridiculous given how meaningless WPA rank has become due to the fact that COVID denied many top players an opportunity to maintain a high world ranking.
Okay, I see what you are saying, but when I saw the pairings, which I mistakenly thought was random, I thought Shane had a good draw.

I agree the WPA ranking is meaningless at this point, but maybe they are trying to establish a long term methodology to use when the ranking becomes more meaningful. Frankly, the WPA needs to be more meaningful in the future. It seems like a disorganized body right now.
 
Okay, I see what you are saying, but when I saw the pairings, which I mistakenly thought was random, I thought Shane had a good draw.

I agree the WPA ranking is meaningless at this point, but maybe they are trying to establish a long term methodology to use when the ranking becomes more meaningful. Frankly, the WPA needs to be more meaningful in the future. It seems like a disorganized body right now.
No, that would remain unfair. In the long term, perhaps, using WPA ranking to seed Stage 1 may qualify as reasonable, but not Stage 2, which must be based on Stage 1 performance to be fair.
 
No, that would remain unfair. In the long term, perhaps, using WPA ranking to seed Stage 1 may qualify as reasonable, but not Stage 2, which must be based on Stage 1 performance to be fair.
Sjm I agree with almost everything you post but.....if the final 32 is a redraw and single elimination , everyone is treated equally. Random draw it. You can't extend your double elimination thinking to this final leg of the trnmnt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjm
No, that would remain unfair. In the long term, perhaps, using WPA ranking to seed Stage 1 may qualify as reasonable, but not Stage 2, which must be based on Stage 1 performance to be fair.
Seems reasonable to me. These are kinds of things an Association can argue for.
 
Seems reasonable to me. These are kinds of things an Association can argue for.
Multi-stage events have been handled the same way for decades, and never this way. That said, I agree that a player's association can bring everyone together on this sort of thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VVP
Sjm I agree with almost everything you post but.....if the final 32 is a redraw and single elimination , everyone is treated equally. Random draw it. You can't extend your double elimination thinking to this final leg of the trnmnt.
An interesting suggestion, Alphadog. It just hasn't been the standard in the WPA sanctioned majors over the years (World Championships, China Open, All Japan, and US Open).

I think I'd be perfectly OK with doing things this way if the players favor it. As you say, it's still fair to have an unseeded Stage 2,

In the end, I only object to giving out preferences in the Stage 2 draw to those who haven't earned it.

Nice post.
 
Sjm I agree with almost everything you post but.....if the final 32 is a redraw and single elimination , everyone is treated equally. Random draw it. You can't extend your double elimination thinking to this final leg of the trnmnt.
You miss the point of seedings/ seeded draw that most major sports have been using for decades. (a) Seeded draw reward performance giving slight advantage to the better performer. So everyone will not treated equal because it is performance based. If you perform you will be rewarded and "assigned" to play poor performer. (b) Seeded draw tries to enable better performers to go deeper into the tournament so that better performers play each other in late stages. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjm
Back
Top