The format of the Masters has primarily remained unchanged since its inception, yet there seems to be a dispute as to whether the qualifying structure of the event could be improved, particularly where it relates to the seeding cut-off. It’s something that has come into discussion recently for this year’s edition of the Masters where Luca Brecel was unable to qualify despite being one of the form players this season. So how does it all work?
In order to qualify for the Masters, a player must reside in the Top 16 of the World Ranking list (i.e. the two year money list). The defending champion is seeded at No. 1, the World Champion at No. 2 and the remainder seeded based on their ranking position. The top half of the rankings are then drawn against the bottom half and the tournaments progresses from there. Places are topped up based on ranking if players are unable to compete (case in point, Judd Trump and Jack Lisowski last year).
The cut-off point in order to determine the participants of the Masters lies at the end of the UK Championship. This gives players a clear visual point in the season calendar where they would need to string together a series of good performances to qualify for the upcoming Masters, especially if they’re already hovering around the Top 16 position. While this may seem like a reasonable checkpoint to set as the cut-off, is it really the optimal choice?
Central to the debate surrounding this matter is that there are a further two ranking tournaments (this season, that is – sometimes this can vary) which are considered irrelevant for the purpose of Masters qualification. So if a player has two strong performances which boost their world ranking it won’t impact their eligibility in competing at the Masters as the draw has been finalised.
This was the case with Luca Brecel who had a brilliant performance at the UK Championship, falling short to Zhao Xintong in the final. While his ranking did drastically improve (from 40th to 18th), he was unable to qualify for the Masters. The real talk followed the next week as Brecel claimed the Scottish Open trophy; a victory that pushed him to No. 15 in the world. Despite this win and the points he would have earned from the subsequent Grand Prix, Brecel was ineligible to compete in the Masters due to the cut-off technicality.
Given the current structure, does it make more sense for the cut-off to lie at the final event before the Masters takes place? Obviously, for WST the commercial reasons behind announcing the Masters draw during the UK final makes more sense but could this be at the expense of the players that should deservedly be involved? Having said that, I doubt that they would want to change the announcing of the Masters draw to an event on a competing broadcaster, during a tournament that potentially gets fewer views.
Ronnie O’Sullivan and John Higgins were vocal during/after the Scottish Open to state their positions on Brecel being unable to compete in the Masters. Similar to the viewpoints of others, they believed that it was a wasted opportunity that an in-form player such as Brecel wasn’t allowed to compete in the Masters given his recent performances.
O’Sullivan offered a potential solution involving the allowance of one wildcard to be considered if they had a strong end-of-year performance. He suggested the Top 15 players competing with a wildcard, if an argument could be made for said player. Is this a plausible solution? Wildcards were formerly used in the Masters from the 1990s to late 2000, where players would compete against No. 15/16 (or however many wildcards were given) which would provide them the opportunity to reach the main stage event.
This would seem like a reasonable alternative if the cut-off wasn’t changed., but what do you think? How would you change the format of the Masters, if at all? Let me know in the comments!
Like this Short? Click here to read: Should The World Snooker Championship Only Include Top 32?
Have an idea for a Short post? Feel free to get in touch using the social media links below! Thanks for reading!