Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

"The world ranking system does not reward guys who play a lot of tournaments. It's very hard to have a high point average if you play 30 events a year and that's where the problems start," said the man who sank the winning putt at the 2002 Ryder Cup.

The system is complex, but here's an attempt to explain how it all works (bear with me and remember this is coming from someone who once scored four per cent in a maths paper).

A player's ranking points are totalled over a two-year period. Those gained most recently are given a full weighting and as time passes they diminish on a sliding scale.

The total number of points a player has at any given time is then divided by the number of tournaments played in that period and the average figure arrived upon determines a golfer's world ranking.

Hang on, not quite finished - the minimum divisor is set at 40 tournaments even if a player has competed in fewer events.

Clearly the more tournaments you play increases the opportunity to gain points but the impact of a low finish is more detrimental to a player's ranking than were he not to have played at all.

"I don't care what anybody says; I know as a player, I know how it works," said McGinley. "If you play moderately, finish 20th, 30th or 40th in an event that can take away hugely from your world ranking points all because you have teed up."

McGinley firmly believes players are skipping tournaments, particularly those where they traditionally struggle, to avoid this scenario and protect their place in the standings.

"We all know the world rankings determine who gets in certain events and who doesn't. At present we have a system that rewards guys that basically play 20 events in a year and play decently in those events.

"I'd have a strong bet that the top players in the world would play an extra two or three events in their schedule if they were not penalised like they are now for playing events."

Those who run the rankings; the four majors, the and along with the Federation of PGA Tours are aware that the system may need tweaking.

One option would be to allow players to discard a certain number of their worst results rather than make them all count.

"That could work and it is the sort of thing that is under discussion at the moment because of this sort of thing," Ian Barker, administrator of the rankings told me.

"This topic has been under discussion for the last three years," Barker added.

It will be addressed again at a Technical Committee meeting at the in July. They will pour over the stats that actually make for fascinating reading because different players take different routes to the all important top fifty.

While the top dog plays his minimal schedule, someone else like has climbed to number 34 by playing on tours all over the world - his total is subject to a massive divisor of 71.

That flies in the face of McGinley's theory, but then again Singh has won four times worldwide in that two-year period.

Good golf takes care of itself and the Irishman would be the first to acknowledge that fact. His point is that change is needed to ensure players are encouraged to compete rather than sit at home to protect their ranking.

Follow my updates from the world of golf on Twitter. ()