PDC order of merit/rankings
I've been thinking about the order of merit lately and its flaws and have decided I think the prize money is a bit too generous for first up losers given that it counts towards rankings and was wondering if anyone agrees with me. 

I had a bit of a thought bubble that rather than prize money that counts towards the order of merit/rankings, it could instead be called an 'appearance fee', so every player is guaranteed the lowest level of prize money, as they certainly deserve to be compensated  for the travel, accommodation and paid for doing their job. The prize money that then improves your order of merit standing starts once you start winning games. So ultimately its the same amount of money, just that if you don't win a game, your ranking doesn't improve. 

Anyone think I'm on to something here or it makes sense the way it is?
Reply
I don't like the order of merit being done on earnings.you can win a big one and your near enough in the top 6 for 2 years regardless of form
Reply
You have to consider, that all players have to qualify for the ranking events first.

For example for the European Championship you have to play on the European Tour and have to be in the top 32 of the European Tour OoM.

So you have to make an effort and perform to qualify for the TV event and than I don't see why the players should be punished for loosing a match. They have qualified due to their performances for the tournament and therefore should be rewarded for qualifying.

Otherwise half the players in the tournament would not have gained any ranking money compared to the players, who did not manage to qualify.

So why should they be punished in the rankings for loosing after qualifying for a tournament?


(10-29-2018, 11:40 PM)Richa Wrote: I don't like the order of merit being done on earnings.you can win a big one and your near enough in the top 6 for 2 years regardless of form

Not really true with the exception of the worlds.

Second biggest prize money would be the World Matchplay, which pays out £115,000. Place 6 in the OoM currently stands at £378,500.
[Image: NSnrkBi.png]


Winmau - Andy Fordham SE
Reply
I agree with van Jupp.

Darts: Harrows Glen Durrant Duzza Series 2 24g, short Harrows Supergrip shafts, Harrows flights (Marathon/Retina/Optix/Rapide) 


Best 501: 13 darts (League), 14 darts (Pro Darter)

Best Checkout: 154 (League), 160 (Pro Darter)
Reply
it all confuses the hell out of me. If so and so get to this round, even though this guys already qualified he will miss out cos so and so beat so and so.
I think it should go back to the points system and the top 32 get to the majors. the only downside is that it will be the same old faces on tv again
Darts used-25g Bristow red ring argos specials
Shafts used- Unicorn maestro medium 
Flights used- slim flights
Reply
In the Pro Tour events first round losers don't get a penny, and any money credited to any seeded player that loses their first game in one of the Euro Tour events doesn't count towards the OOM either.

Any money for first round losers in any of the tv events such as the Players Championship finals all the way up to the Worlds does get credited in the OOM as the players have had to play in events to qualify for them, so they should not be penalised as vanJupp has said above.
Reply
But the players who qualify have already been rewarded with the prize money they've won previously.
Reply
(10-29-2018, 11:44 PM)vanJupp Wrote: You have to consider, that all players have to qualify for the ranking events first.

For example for the European Championship you have to play on the European Tour and have to be in the top 32 of the European Tour OoM.

So you have to make an effort and perform to qualify for the TV event and than I don't see why the players should be punished for loosing a match. They have qualified due to their performances for the tournament and therefore should be rewarded for qualifying.

Otherwise half the players in the tournament would not have gained any ranking money compared to the players, who did not manage to qualify.

So why should they be punished in the rankings for loosing after qualifying for a tournament?


(10-29-2018, 11:40 PM)Richa Wrote: I don't like the order of merit being done on earnings.you can win a big one and your near enough in the top 6 for 2 years regardless of form

Not really true with the exception of the worlds.

Second biggest prize money would be the World Matchplay, which pays out £115,000. Place 6 in the OoM currently stands at £378,500.

Spot on mint

I htink the OoM is just honest...its all about the money
[Image: aviary-image-1546527737695-02.jpg]
Reply
(10-30-2018, 09:48 AM)Sultan Pepper Wrote: But the players who qualify have already been rewarded with the prize money they've won previously.

And? That has absolutely nothing to do with how they should be rewarded for the TV tournament.
Reply
I think the ranking system is fair enough, at least that's not one of the the biggest problems I'd say. The World Championship prize money is clearly affecting the rankings too much, but it's not true for the other tournaments. Winning events is the most important thing so the players who win TV events or reach the later rounds should get a big boost on their rankings.

Imagine you qualified for your first TV tournament, you have to travel there and everything, you give all your best but you lose, and the money doesn't appear on your rankings. They already do this with the seeds on the European Tour because there are many events a year and more or less the same players qualify for them, while every other player has to play qualifiers. So the system on the Euro Tour is fair enough I think, but I wouldn't like it to be the same for TV events.
Reply
(10-29-2018, 11:44 PM)vanJupp Wrote: You have to consider, that all players have to qualify for the ranking events first.

For example for the European Championship you have to play on the European Tour and have to be in the top 32 of the European Tour OoM.

So you have to make an effort and perform to qualify for the TV event and than I don't see why the players should be punished for loosing a match. They have qualified due to their performances for the tournament and therefore should be rewarded for qualifying.

Otherwise half the players in the tournament would not have gained any ranking money compared to the players, who did not manage to qualify.

So why should they be punished in the rankings for loosing after qualifying for a tournament?


(10-29-2018, 11:40 PM)Richa Wrote: I don't like the order of merit being done on earnings.you can win a big one and your near enough in the top 6 for 2 years regardless of form

Not really true with the exception of the worlds.

Second biggest prize money would be the World Matchplay, which pays out £115,000. Place 6 in the OoM currently stands at £378,500.

that's true I was thinking of cross and gurney who both won big last year but not showed as much this year, maybe I'm being harsh I just enjoy watching darts anyway Smile
Reply
I agree that the first round prize money is too high for an effective ranking system, plus with the number of events I don't think there is the need to have a 2 year ranking.
Mack The Knife
Reply
2 years ranking is too long. I think points are more important. Prize money is too high.
Reply
(11-01-2018, 03:11 PM)Bloodycut Wrote: 2 years ranking is too long. I think points are more important. Prize money is too high.

If a 2 years ranking is too long, the only other possibility would be a one year ranking and that would be in my opinion the worst thing that could happen to PDC darts

As it now stands, players who win a tourcard and have not hold one before, need time to adjust to the PDC and all. So with a 2 year ranking system, they can take the time to adjust and than perform well.

With a 1 year system, there would be constant pressure on everyone except the top players. Because you are fighting for your tourcard every event. I doubt this would help to develop players and keep the standard of play up.

Also young players could not afford one bad year, which is something pretty normal for young players. Last year Max Hopp would have lost his tourcard if there was just a one year ranking system. This year Benito van de Pas probably would loose his tourcard under a 1 year OoM. And Dimitri van den Bergh would be in danger of loosing his.
Just some of the talented young players, who would suffer under such a chance.

So basically I don't see any advantage of a 1 year OoM.
[Image: NSnrkBi.png]


Winmau - Andy Fordham SE
Reply
So if you give out points and do the ranking by points it's gonna be the same thing, all events will have different point values, the money list works for the most part the better players are at the top and the others fightt for there spots and try to do better to climb the rankings, people can complain about the money or Cross but he won the World Championship so he should make a big amount and vault up the list, if he can't keep up or anyone else they fall down, MVG wins a ton thats why he's number 1 by a mile even another system that wont change
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  PDC Order of Merit tables mc1958 8 1,121 04-17-2019, 06:22 AM
Last Post: mc1958
  PDC Full Order of Merit - correct as at March 5 2017 hamo 68 22,156 03-28-2018, 09:00 AM
Last Post: JDUR25
  Mathers Tops Final DPA Rankings mc1958 3 617 06-21-2017, 03:09 PM
Last Post: weswrestle10
  Pro Tour Order Of Merit - correct as at Feb 26 2017 hamo 49 20,793 02-27-2017, 11:53 AM
Last Post: hamo
  2017 UK Open Order Of Merit - correct as at February 5 2017 hamo 7 2,255 02-12-2017, 07:50 PM
Last Post: mc1958



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)