Talk:2024 Championship League (invitational)

Tie-breaker rules

Can someone add the group tie-breaker rules somewhere suitable. Seems pretty fundamental to me, given that it comes into play in most of the groups. Nigej (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done that. Not 100% happy with the wording though. Alan (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Group tables

I've moved the players' names from the groups that haven't been played to a separate participant section, since it looks a bit confusing with them listed in order of "advancing to next group", "eliminated", etc. Once the group is finished we can remove that section and fill in the tables. AmethystZhou (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AmethystZhou: That's a fair point, but surely you mean "Once the group has started play..." because we update the table after each league match. Alan (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the confusion is even worse once the group has started. We tell readers that someone who happens to be in 5th place "Advances into Group N" when what we mean is that the person who finishes there "Advances into Group N". Nigej (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fairly easy to deal with. On the day the group starts, we just hide the text that says:

"Eliminated from the competition" etc. using

etc.

and then put the three texts back after the 21 league matches are completed. Alan (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a good (enough) solution.Nigej (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and I just tried that - and when you hide all three texts, the column disappears. Even better. Alan (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there's no reason why all those texts, from Group 3 on, shouldn't be hidden away now. I think I might just do that. Alan (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AmethystZhou: Now that those columns are hidden away from Group 3 onwards, your "participants" sections have become a bit redundant. Do you want to leave things as they are now, or to put the names etc. back into the tables? I think I prefer the latter option. Alan (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, although may I suggest temporarily removing the color-coding, and maybe the position column? Basically have plain tables with just the names and a bunch of zeros. AmethystZhou (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much of a problem with leaving the colour coding and position columns as they are. Let's keep things as simple as possible, since there's already plenty to do when play begins and when the 21 league matches are done. Alan (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big issue for me either way. Low-key event; we've been getting more hits for the Masters article, even on the days when there's play here. 12:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC) Nigej (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done that, and got rid of the colours. Easy enough. Alan (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the sums right

For information: I've added a footnote at the bottom of the "Winnings" table which says: "Source does not include high‍–‍break prize money in totals." This is because the CLS group 1 and CLS group 2 tables do not agree with our numbers since, for some reason, they do not include the £500 high‍–‍break prize in their tables. They never have. Our "Winnings" table will always be correct as I use an Excel workbook where I just enter the match results and high‍–‍breaks, and it works out the winnings and parses the data into WikiTable format, which I then just paste into the article. I do not believe that this can be classed as original research since this page lists the £ value of each element (frame, play‍–‍off frame, high‍–‍break etc.) and all the match results are known. It's just arithmetic. We've had this discussion before, a year ago. Look at this discussion. The three IP addresses were all me, before I signed up as an editor. I'm a bit obsessed with the weirdly structured invitational version of the Championship League and it was that discussion that made me sign up as an editor in the first place. Occasionally our sources get it wrong. In the case of the WST recently, more than occasionally. In this case, I think, a bit of spreadsheet arithmetic is OK. Alan (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Players moving from Group to Group

@Nigej and AmethystZhou: I've ended up with a lot of footnotes regarding players moving around the groups. There will probably be a lot more of this as the tournament progresses, so I'm thinking about deleting most of them, and only keeping the ones about: Matthew Selt replacing Zhang Anda replacing Mark Allen in Group 2; John Higgins replacing Ali Carter in Group 3; Fan Zhengyi replacing Matthew Selt in Group 5; and Ali Carter replacing John Higgins in Group 6. The others don't, in my opinion, add much value to the article but do add a lot of "clutter". What do you guys think? agree/disagree? Alan (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you. Honestly I'm not sure we need these, especially the reshuffles. I suppose there might be some interest if someone dropped out completely. Even then it could perhaps be handled in the text somewhere, rather than via footnotes. Nigej (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about moving the Selt/Zhang/Allen, Fan/Selt, Higgins/Carter, and Carter/Higgins texts into group prose and then deleting all of the footnotes, except the one about the high‍–‍break prize money, and the one that indicates when the winnings table was updated. Alan (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done that. Alan (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, an alternative is to have the footnotes in each section below the table, instead of all together at the end of the article. AmethystZhou (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it works OK the way it is now. There's no need to mention every player change, just the important ones, like the Higgins/Carter swap in order to explain why Carter is in an odd position in the winnings table. Alan (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej: Banned user User:DooksFoley147 seems to want to add notes about the non-appearance of Jack Lisowski and Hossein Vafaei. I've only put in withdrawal notes that I think are relevant. Since these two players didn't appear atall, I don't think it's worth mentioning them. Alan (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...but I've now added a "Withdrawals" section to list all those invited to participate, who didn't show up. So DooksFoley147 might go away now. Alan (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WST live scores has died

@AmethystZhou and Nigej: I haven't been able get any data today (9 February) on century breaks. There must have been some. I've got the match results only. SnookerInfo and CueTracker have nothing either, as I think they rely on the WST also. Any ideas? Alan (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. I only have access to Matchroom.live so no replays, but I started a recording so I can look back at the footage and figure out the breaks. No idea about the matches that are finished, though. Hopefully the other websites can somehow get this info. AmethystZhou (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I just tried to compare the WST live score "season" stats and SnookerInfo, it's quite problematic: WST stats show Hawkins with 31 centuries this season, Perry 9, Fan 7, K. Wilson 44, Walden 14, Gilbert 17, and Higgins 41. SnookerInfo has Hawkins 30, Perry 9, Fan ?? (not on their list), K. Wilson 45, Walden 14, Gilbert 17, and Higgins 38, as of Feb 8 after Group 4 is finished. The number somehow decreased for Kyren Wilson, and I doubt John Higgins made three centuries today in only 6 frames, so... AmethystZhou (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. I'll probably be able to get the data from today's matches tomorrow morning, and update the list then. Alan (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It just sprang into life! Don't know how long for. Data from this afternoon's matches still missing though. Alan (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still have the recording going so if it craps out again, let me know! Still have no idea how to get the results from the earlier matches, though. AmethystZhou (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Table 2 matches are on youtube. eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3St8ibzHtN4&t=9292s Nigej (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll have a look later. What about table 1? Alan (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to pay to watch that. Nigej (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've checked those three matches and there was one century, a 104 by Barry Hawkins against Ricky Walden, which I've already added to the list. So the only data we're short of are from the three matches on table one, which were Barry Hawkins 3‍–‍1 Joe Perry, John Higgins 3‍–‍0 Joe Perry, and John Higgins 3‍–‍0 Fan Zhengyi. That's just ten frames to check. Alan (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...apparently there were three: 130, 129, and 107 by John Higgins. Still not recorded by WST or CueTracker. Data from SnookerInfo. List already updated to suit. Alan (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. https://www.wst.tv/news/2024/february/09/hawk-swoops-to-lead-group/ implies there were none in the Hawkins/Perry match, so only leaves Higgins 6 frames. Nigej (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I saw that. I think we've got it right. I hope they don't screw up like that again, but they probably will.

Alan (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...also now confirmed by CueTracker. Alan (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AmethystZhou: Damned thing seems to have died again, so no centuries data today so far. Alan (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...it seems to be working now, but we have no data from the afternoon session, and neither do CueTracker or SnookerInfo Alan (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like cuetracker has now got the scores for the afternoon matches. As ever, youtube has the table 2 matches: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT3xAljUd2k&t=898s although there seems to be a problem with the TV scores too, at the start. Matchroom has also uploaded the O'Sullivan/Craigie match: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZURSYplHEs&t=591s Nigej (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I got them from CueTracker. WST is a real P.I.T.A. Alan (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie withdraws from group7

See: https://twitter.com/CLSnooker/status/1762945853780627476 and snooker.org Not 100% clear what's happening. Presumably Ronnie's matches yesterday won't count in the table. Nigej (talk) 08:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej: I don't see why they wouldn't. You can't change history and give a walkover to a player who lost a match which was played. Alan (talk) 14:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming from https://championshipleaguesnooker.co.uk/invitational/2024-championship-league-snooker-invitational/group-7/ that none of Ronnie's matches will count for the final table. After all the twitter announcement says "The group will now proceed as a 6-player group" Nigej (talk) 14:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That will make a huge difference to who qualifies for the play-offs, and who plays whom. Alan (talk) 14:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it happened - it didn't make any difference. Alan (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and presumably ROS will get £100 for each frame he won, and he'll probably share the group high-break prize as well. Alan (talk) 14:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...but not now that O'Connor scored a 147. Alan (talk) 15:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prize money

I've counted and counted, but I can't get the sums £205.000 or £152.800 for max or min prize sums. I land at 10.000 less, 195.000 and 142.800. Please explain how 205 and 152.8 are calculated, I don't get it. Inno (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7*(7+21*5*.1+3*5*.3+.5)+(21+21*5*.2+3*5*.3+1)=205 7*(7+21*3*.1+3*3*.3+.5)+(21+21*3*.2+3*3*.3+1)=152.8 Both semi-finalists get the 1k/3k. Nigej (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Missed the fact that there of course are two third-places in each group. There we have the 10.000 diff :). Thanks! Inno (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Inno: All you needed to do was view the source code for the "Prize fund" section, where I put the calculation in hidden text. Alan (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that neither of us knew about it, indicates that hidden text is perhaps not best place for this sort of stuff. See MOS:HIDDEN. Maybe more suitable for the talk page. Nigej (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I'll bear that in mind. Alan (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, as Alan points out, I would have understood what I missed if I read the source code. But as Nigej points out, that's perhaps not the first thing to do when looking for answers... Thanks guys for your efforts. And I really should have figured it all out by myself in the first time ;) Inno (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]