How the 2009 allocations were considered
Methodology
| 1 | Reference was made to the WCF Sports Regulations - Appendix B |
| 2 | Obtain the WCF AC World Ranking List for the top 100 players who have played a minimum of 10 games in the last 12 months @ 1st September 2008. |
| 3 | Calculate member association spreads for top 50 and top 100 players from 1 above. |
| 4 | Allow all member associations to have a minimum of one place |
| 5 | Allow for last 4 semi-finalists to be invited |
| 6 | Allow for 6 wild cards to be chosen in the future |
| 7 | Allow for 4 Qualifiers to be identified in the future |
| 8 | Allow for Hosts to get an overall minimum of 12 entrants |
| 9 | Calculate likely outcome of ensuring high profile members get minimum numbers |
| 10 | From 9 above, fix numerator at 30 and denominator at 50 |
| 11 | Multiply 10 above to the top 50 per member association distribution |
| 12 | To ensure "fair and reasonable" test, fine tune distribution |
| 13 | Total allocation for 80 entrants |
| 14 | Identify actual allocation for members choice by deducting the 4 semi-finalists from the last event. |
Factors relating to 12 above.
| Australia - rounded up - as they have 4 players in the top 50 and 18 others in the top 100 |
| Canada - rounded down - 2 players in the top 50 and no others in the top 100 |
| England - rounded up - 19 players in the top 50 and 15 others in the top 100 |
| Ireland - rounded up - one player in the top 50 and 2 others in the top 100 |
| Jersey - rounded down - one player in the top 50 and 1other in the top 100. |
| New Zealand - rounded up - 13 players in the top 50 and 5 others in the top 100 |
| Scotland - rounded down - 2 players in the top 50 and no others in the top 100 |
| South Africa - rounded down - one player in the top 50 and no others in the top 100 |
| USA - no rounding possible - 5 players in the top 50 and 6 others in the top 100 |
| Wales - rounded up - one player in the top 50 and 2 others in the top 100 |
| Non Members - There was 1 player in the top 50 and another player in the top 100. Both of these were disregarded for allocation purposes. |
| To ensure fairness and overall reasonable distribution, Australia were then allocated 2 more places due to the significant number of players in the top 100 although they were not regarded as on a parity with New Zealand. To accomodate this fine tuning, England had their overall numbers reduced by 2. |
| The process above took into account only the playing strength of the pools of players from the respective member associations |
Keith Aiton WCF Management Committee
Brian Storey WCF Secretary-General