Ssb - the grand prix: 25 years not out

[MySockPuppet]

The Grand Prix for many has always marked the true start of the season.

Even when ITV used to show a tournament in September, the first BBC event of the campaign was regarded as that extra bit more special.

It certainly used to be when Rothmans were the sponsors and it was held at the Hexagon in Reading.

When they pulled out, it did lose a bit of prestige and this was exacerbated by moving the event around the country. The Kelvin Hall in Glasgow is it's eighth venue since it left Reading (there will not be a prize for all those who can name the other seven).

For all this, the Grand Prix is the second longest running ranking event. (Before you call me every name under the sun, yes the UK Championship began in 1977 but it did not carry ranking points until 1984, a couple of months after Dennis Taylor won the first Grand Prix.)

The tournament has been responsible for a number of memorable moments - Stephen Hendry winning at 18, Rex Williams in the final at 53, Steve Davis whitewashing Dean Reynolds in the final, Chris Small capturing the title (when it was the LG Cup) against all odds and John Higgins making four successive centuries and amassing 494 points without reply against Ronnie O'Sullivan.

My personal highlight came at Preston Guild Hall six or seven years ago. As anyone who has been to the venue will know, you enter through a shopping centre and up some escalators where autograph hunters tend to hang out.

One day, I made my way towards the lift and realised that said autograph hunters were sizing me up, deciding if I was a player or not.

After a moment or two of deliberation one of them turned to his mate and said, 'nah, don't bother with him, he's a nobody.'

Written off in Preston. The poignancy of it all was almost too much to bear.

One year the Harold Shipman trial was taking place in the court over the road and we journalists, faced with some dirge dragging on into the early hours, speculated that the not so good doctor may be sentenced to spending a day at the snooker.

When the Grand Prix moved to Aberdeen, the crazy decision was taken to make it a round robin event. The format confused everyone, not least the players. Mark King booked a flight home believing he was out but discovered he was still in and went on to reach the semi-finals.

Thankfully, this was scrapped last year in favour of a random draw, which has added some spice to proceedings.

All the predictions of the big names crashing out early proved to be without substance: three of the four semi-finalists were ranked in the top eight.

Crowds were good at the SECC last year and will hopefully be strong again across the city for this season's staging.

Scotland has long been a snooker nation, even in the days when it didn't have any top players. Now, it has several and is hosting one of the green baize game's longest running events.

The Grand Prix has never been regarded in the same way as the big three - the world, UK and Masters - but has played its own part in the snooker story and, 25 years since it was first held, is still a much sought after prize.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/29605452-8508077630361712316?l=snookerscene.blogspot.com


More... (http://snookerscene.blogspot.com/2009/09/grand-prix-25-years-not-out.html)

[Migtsf]

I used to have the same opinion that the Grand Prix was the true start of that season.

Part of that feeling was because it used it have a round robin format in round 1, which was a good showcase of players.

I can understand why this format is no more, but saying it was a crazy idea and that it confused anyone is just laughable at minimum.

Round robins exist everywhere and are present in almost every major sports competition. It’s not a crazy idea and it’s not something to be scraped just because some player can’t do his math.

In fact, round robin is a fairer format and should be a regular thing, not an exception.

Regarding the new random draw thing, it doesn’t bother me they using it to pair the qualifiers with the top 16, but I don’t like the way it’s used freely from round 2. I don’t know what players ranked 9-16 have done to deserve a chance of avoiding a top 8 player and having a better chance to move forward.

To me, this is something that mocks the ranking system and adds more aberrations to a system that is already far from being perfect.

[wildJONESEYE]

Part of that feeling was because it used it have a round robin format in round 1, which was a good showcase of players.

part of that feeling started in 2006 ? and only ran for two seasons.

before then it was a knockout tournament.

[Monique]

I totally agree with Mig here. Round robin is the fairest of all formats and it's a shame it has been scrapped. Some players didn't like it ... especially those crashing out, but then, they had only themselves to blame.
The current random draw is an aberration in my eyes. It defeats the ranking logic and I'm not too keen of seen ia ROS vs Higgins clash in round 2, while we could have some very low profle matches also. (as an example). I think it's unfair on the players and I don't see where the "excitement" is.

[superaussie]

I totally agree with Mig here. Round robin is the fairest of all formats and it's a shame it has been scrapped. Some players didn't like it ... especially those crashing out, but then, they had only themselves to blame.
The current random draw is an aberration in my eyes. It defeats the ranking logic and I'm not too keen of seen ia ROS vs Higgins clash in round 2, while we could have some very low profle matches also. (as an example). I think it's unfair on the players and I don't see where the "excitement" is.

the excitement is that its random and anything can happen

[Monique]

the excitement is that its random and anything can happen

Well I'm not excited, sorry!

[Mal]

Yes, I agree with superaussie - A random draw is exciting and something to look forward to - I always look forward to the WC 1st rd draw and also the FA Cup, the draw is a showpiece. You could of course have two big names meeting early on, but in general the big names still get through (just look at virtually all FA Cup finals in last twenty years (bar Portsmouth Cardiff)

I agree, it shouldn't happen in all events, but over the years they have had a random draw here and there (the British Open I think had it in late 80s)

[wildJONESEYE]

both formats has a place in the game...

no need to choose 1 over the other.

i would defiantly bring back a round Robin format to a Ranking tournament but award for frames won to stop this dead frames scenario whitch was a pain.

[spike]

They had the random draw in the 1990 Pearl Assurance Open i believe and it gave the tournament a kind of edge to it. Though i agree i wouldn't it to become a regular fixture at all tournaments now or at anytime in the future..

[Monique]

both formats has a place in the game...

no need to choose 1 over the other.

i would defiantly bring back a round Robin format to a Ranking tournament but award for frames won to stop this dead frames scenario whitch was a pain.

There were different ranking points to be earned in the GP depending where in the round-robin table you ended. The lower in the table, the lower the points. So there were actually no dead matches or very few.

[Migtsf]

part of that feeling started in 2006 ? and only ran for two seasons.

before then it was a knockout tournament.

My point was you had 48 players competing in round 1 proper and each and everyone played at least 5 matches. That allowed the viewers a chance to see more faces they usually wouldn’t see in a standard knock-out format.

It was a way of WSA saying: “Here’s what we’ve got for you snooker fans this season”.

It was a big show and the name Grand Prix fitted perfectly. Now, perhaps a more suitable name would be Random Prix.

[superaussie]

My point was you had 48 players competing in round 1 proper and each and everyone played at least 5 matches. That allowed the viewers a chance to see more faces they usually wouldn’t see in a standard knock-out format.

It was a way of WSA saying: “Here’s what we’ve got for you snooker fans this season”.

It was a big show and the name Grand Prix fitted perfectly. Now, perhaps a more suitable name would be Random Prix.

have to disagree from what i remeber when it was a 48 man event alot of the early matches were in cubicles and were not shown so the unknown players were not likely to be on tv tables anyway.

Where as now players like selty and joyce are guaranteed to be on a tv table

[Migtsf]

All matches were staged at the final venue, not in Prestatyn. Lower ranked players had more visibility there, and also had more chances of appearing on television.

[wildJONESEYE]

There were different ranking points to be earned in the GP depending where in the round-robin table you ended. The lower in the table, the lower the points. So there were actually no dead matches or very few.

well if you went to the final match with no wins you was there to make up the numbers knowing im last ill get points so ill sit here for a while before going home. if there was something at stake in winning frames in the last game it would give a edge to it and stop players taking the atetute nothing to gain or lose.

[April madness]

All matches were staged at the final venue, not in Prestatyn. Lower ranked players had more visibility there, and also had more chances of appearing on television.

No, no, there was qualification round for the Grand prix at Prestatyn too... But I actually liked round robin at Grand prix, it was very very interesting for the spectators, maybe not for players. I saw a lot of matches, a lot of different players, what else a snooker fan could wish for? Although, when matches were played on 6 tables at the same time, it could be the more popular players getting all attention and the lower ranked players playing in front of one or two, or no spectators at all..

[Monique]

well if you went to the final match with no wins you was there to make up the numbers knowing im last ill get points so ill sit here for a while before going home. if there was something at stake in winning frames in the last game it would give a edge to it and stop players taking the atetute nothing to gain or lose.

Actually Wild I have percieved more of a problem when you had players who had already qualified and played their last match. I have 2 examples in mind and I will not name the names. One is when a player was playing a friend and fellow citizen who needed to win to qualify and duly lost. The other is about a player who by losing heavily to the third of the table sent another guy out against all odds.

[In-off]

The round robins were a disaster for snooker. That's where all the match fixing talk started.

It isn't remotely fair to have a match when one player doesn't care about the result and the other needs to win.

Good riddance to it. Even World Snooker realised it didn't work.

[Migtsf]

No, no, there was qualification round for the Grand prix at Prestatyn too... .

Yes, there were a couple of qualifying rounds at Prestatyn, but the rest was staged at the main venue.
What we have today is 4 qualifying matches in North Wales and only 16 qualifiers present at the main venue. In the old format, you had more qualifiers at the beginning of the event proper and each of them played against at least 2 top 16 players.

[wildJONESEYE]

Actually Wild I have percieved more of a problem when you had players who had already qualified and played their last match. I have 2 examples in mind and I will not name the names. One is when a player was playing a friend and fellow citizen who needed to win to qualify and duly lost. The other is about a player who by losing heavily to the third of the table sent another guy out against all odds.

Agreed thats another reason...

i think if players was playing for £1000 or £500 a frame like PL they would have cash incentive to play for every frame.

[bkpaul]

Whenever you have a round robin or league event it will be open to "unusual results"

Same can be said when the players involved in a sport can bet on that sport which is why most governing bodies have rules against it.

Its human nature whether we like it or not, but saying that when situations arise and are proved the punishments should be severe.

I dislike talking about this subject but we have to address it, nature of the beast and all that.

All I can say is I have never thrown a match and never will......

[Migtsf]

The round robins were a disaster for snooker. That's where all the match fixing talk started.

It isn't remotely fair to have a match when one player doesn't care about the result and the other needs to win.

Good riddance to it. Even World Snooker realised it didn't work.

In my opinion, the main reason why the format wasn’t so successful was because snooker is a sport with strong connections with gambling activities.
In other sports, they have round robins for decades and there hasn’t been a problem with it.

[Migtsf]

Agreed thats another reason...

i think if players was playing for £1000 or £500 a frame like PL they would have cash incentive to play for every frame.

That's a bad idea. It gives people the impression the game is about winning frames. It's not. It's about winning matches.

There are other ways to minimize match fixing.

[bkpaul]

There are other ways to minimize match fixing.

I would be interested to hear how?

[Capelito]

I didn't like the round robin much, but I think it's better then the random draw. I would hate to see matches like O'Sullivan/Higgins, in the second round while some, not so high ranked players might get a quite "easy" draw in round two and three with some luck.

[Migtsf]

I would be interested to hear how?

I posted this a while ago:

"Regarding round-robin, I’m also in favour of those, but perhaps what works best is a pseudo round-robin format, meaning, in a group of 4 players, in day 2, winners of day 1 play against each other, and winner moves to the next round; losers of day 1 play against each other and loser is out. In day 3, loser of day 2 winner’s match plays against winner of day 2 loser’s match. Winner of this match moves to the next round and loser is out. This way there are no dead matches, something that can lead to match fixing, and there is no need to reward single frames."

[wildJONESEYE]

That's a bad idea. It gives people the impression the game is about winning frames. It's not. It's about winning matches.

There are other ways to minimize match fixing.

yes and not caring if you win frames or not is a FANTASTIC idea for snooker ?

[Migtsf]

That isn’t good either, but the road to single frame rewarding is a dangerous one, and it’s something that can enhance the problem it is supposed to eradicate.

Example: A player proposing to lose if his opponent let’s him win a couple of frames.

Since there are other alternatives to minimize match fixing, single frame rewarding get’s a big NO from me.

[Matt_2745]

Never liked the round robins myself, not because I couldn't understand them but because of not liking the fact that you could end up with effectively dead matches, the short format employed and the amount of matches to be played. I don't like group stages in football particularly and they were rightfully abandoned in tennis too. Just always preferred a knock-out format.

Really quite like the random draw too, I understand the argument of the unfairness to the top seeds but I do think that it adds to the excitement and for just one event I think that the pros outweigh the cons.

[Templeton Peck]

The problem with round-robins aside from potential match-fixing is the number of dead matches. Also earlier on there's a general lack of excitement too because if either player loses they can still pick it up at a later point. The round-robin is a necessity in something like the Premier League where matches are spread out across different venues, but when the timeframe is compacted and at one venue there is absolutely no benefit to a round-robin. I love the random draw and while I agree it can potentially distort the rankings, I don't think that really applies when it's just the one tournament, especially considering the first round isn't random.

[Monique]

The problem with round-robins aside from potential match-fixing is the number of dead matches. Also earlier on there's a general lack of excitement too because if either player loses they can still pick it up at a later point. The round-robin is a necessity in something like the Premier League where matches are spread out across different venues, but when the timeframe is compacted and at one venue there is absolutely no benefit to a round-robin. I love the random draw and while I agree it can potentially distort the rankings, I don't think that really applies when it's just the one tournament, especially considering the first round isn't random.

It's just one tournament but we have only 6 rankers and it's worth 7000 points. So I think it does and quite heavily so if top seeds meet in round 2.

Re round-robin. The fact that players can still pick it up later can also be a positive factor: players less stressed are more susceptible to play an open game and go for their shots. I don't think there is more risk of match fixing in round robins neither, especially in conjunction with irregular bettings. Actually the cases that were investigated all concerned knock-out matches. Finally dead matches can be avoided by properly rewarding any win even when qualification isn't a possibility anymore.
Round robin is the fairest format because it rewards consistency and leaves less space for bad luck or indeed a bad day.

[Migtsf]

I’m all for different formats in snooker events, but I draw a line between the things that have room in ranking events and the things that don’t. Since snooker is supposed to be a professional sport it needs to be fair, therefore, random draws that disregard ranking have no place in rankings events, in my opinion. Look at what happens in tennis, round robins may not be popular there, but as far as I know random draws have no place in there either.

However, if people enjoy this element of randomness, then by all means add it to the snooker calendar, but not in ranking tournaments.

Funny, I always thought British people valued fair play more than anyone. I’m finding out that it’s not fair play they like the most. Apparently and judging by the opinions expressed about this subject, they prefer it to be … random. ;)

[Odrl]

Round robin is the fairest format because it rewards consistency and leaves less space for bad luck or indeed a bad day.

It would if it was a series of best of 9 matches. But a first to 3 or first to 4 is much more open to bad luck. These matches end where proper matches just get going.

That was always my problem with this format. I don't care about round robin one way or the other, but I don't remember ever being excited about a best of 7 match.

[Migtsf]

I agree with that. The shortening of matches devalued the round robin stage.

[Looki]

It would if it was a series of best of 9 matches. But a first to 3 or first to 4 is much more open to bad luck. These matches end where proper matches just get going.

That was always my problem with this format. I don't care about round robin one way or the other, but I don't remember ever being excited about a best of 7 match.

Best of 7 matches are ridiculous, I can't blame players disliking them. It's a toss of a coin who will win... But if I remember correctly it was changed in 2007 such that round robin matches were best of 9 (which is a bit too short match format if you ask me). Wasn't a fan of the format.

[Monique]

It would if it was a series of best of 9 matches. But a first to 3 or first to 4 is much more open to bad luck. These matches end where proper matches just get going.

That was always my problem with this format. I don't care about round robin one way or the other, but I don't remember ever being excited about a best of 7 match.

I agree with this. Best of 9 is a bare minimum. I think that would be fair. You won't get bad luck over 5 or 6 best of 9 matches.
IMO best of 9 is too short for knock-outs actually. Best of 11 should be a minimum, with the MSI after 5 frames.

[Odrl]

Best of 7 matches are ridiculous, I can't blame players disliking them. It's a toss of a coin who will win... But if I remember correctly it was changed in 2007 such that round robin matches were best of 9 (which is a bit too short match format if you ask me). Wasn't a fan of the format.

It was actually best of 5 in 2006, and best of 7 in 2007. :)

[Mal]

I’m all for different formats in snooker events, but I draw a line between the things that have room in ranking events and the things that don’t. Since snooker is supposed to be a professional sport it needs to be fair, therefore, random draws that disregard ranking have no place in rankings events, in my opinion. Look at what happens in tennis, round robins may not be popular there, but as far as I know random draws have no place in there either.

However, if people enjoy this element of randomness, then by all means add it to the snooker calendar, but not in ranking tournaments.

Funny, I always thought British people valued fair play more than anyone. I’m finding out that it’s not fair play they like the most. Apparently and judging by the opinions expressed about this subject, they prefer it to be … random. ;)

It could be argued that having a random draw is the fairest of all as those that are ranked 1st/2nd don't get the perceived easier draws. Also, the players 15/16 rarely progress in other events as they have the nightmare draw. There is no bias in a random draw. I'm a traditionalist, and like the seeding format, but think the random draw does have a place once a year in a ranking event.

The point you make on tennis is a little bit out - It is seeded but also fairly random - They keep seeds apart in round 1 and 2 (depending on tournament size) but snooker does this as well and with the grandprix. However, seeds 1 and 2 are kept in different halves and 3 and 4 in different quarters, but it is random which quarter they fall in unlike snooker where each tournament is set the same way - For example in tennis in the semis it could be 1 vs 3 or 1 vs 4 and the quarters it could be 1 vs 5, 6, 7 or 8 depending on draw.
So although they do have seeding it is not not 1 vs 16 and 2 vs 15.

Also, all players go into the draw from the first round, not elitist like snooker and therefore, this gives more freedom in the rankings - If all players in snooker entered in round 1 I'd say that in short first to 5 matches that 3 or 4 at least of the top 16 would lose.

Of course, other sports like football is randomised for the FA Cup (i.e. not done by league positions). Darts has a couple of random events per year and this adds to the excitement - first with the draw and then the potential of having a big match earlier. (the later stages of random draw events still have the big players - and if not it is not because of the draw - it's just like other events when a lower ranked player gets through)

[Monique]

Someone corrects me if I'm wrong but I think it's only in the WC that the full seeding system is implemented and so that seed 1 meets seed 16 and seed 2 meets seed 15 in round 2. For other events there is a draw for seeds below 8.

[Templeton Peck]

I think in the Masters too Monique, where 1 meets 8, 2 meets 7 etc with the lower half of the top 16 randomly drawn. Of course semi-final draws can have different permutations throughout the season too depending on whether the defending champion is the world champion or world number 1, or someone else. The random draw is hardly a new concept in snooker, I think the British Open did it for a few years. The reason I like it is not because you sometimes get top players facing off - you often get that later in the tournament anyway - but because lower ranked players who don't really progress so far anymore can draw each other and you can get old rivalries renewed. One of the best draws in recent years was when Davis drew Parrott at the WC and Davis playing Hendry in the 2005 UK - those weren't random draws but that sort of thing has a greater chance of happening here.

[Mal]

Yes, that's right - in fact the top 8 were all in the seeded positions in Shanghai, but rest was randomised (but of course still seeded in last 32).

I think this event is still seeded in last 32, but then randomised, to the only difference is that the top 8 could play against each other in the last 16 which is a late stage of the tournament anyway - look at FA Cup where there are regularly all premiership ties in 3rd rd and Man Utd have played Chelsea and Liverpool twice in the 3rd round relatively recently.

[Looki]

It was actually best of 5 in 2006, and best of 7 in 2007. :)

Ok. That's pretty bad. :) Best of 5... That's madness.

[Migtsf]

It could be argued that having a random draw is the fairest of all as those that are ranked 1st/2nd don't get the perceived easier draws.

Well, those players ranked 1st and 2nd didn’t just landed in those spots. They have conquered them, so it’s only fair that they get a theoretical easy draw as part of the reward of reaching a higher place in the rankings.

I don’t understand this alleged excitement of a random draw. Why do people want to watch big clashes in early rounds? Those matches belong in finals. If those players meet early, one of them will be out early as well.

If they are the best players, why throw one of them out in the first rounds? The event loses something when one of the best players is knocked out early, and a random draw makes it possible for that to happen more often than with a regular draw.

[Mal]

Personally I don't think the event loses something -It is good to have a few shock results and players coming through (in a random draw or standard). I think it provides (the potential )big games in the early rounds, but there will still be big games in the later rounds.
Remember, it is only being implemented in the last 16, so lets say 5 seeds get beat, you will still have 11 top 16 players and 5 unseeded in the draw. It is still very unlikely that all the top names play each other - but chances are 2 unseeded player may meet, 3 seeds will meet 3 unseeded and there could be one match between two of top 4. The following round there might be 6 seeds (top 16) and two unseeded which would be similar to the non-randomised draw. Chances are the two unseeded players won't meet, but of course they may do (as sometimes happens in standard draws when there are a few shocks)
What I'm saying is that by the time you get to the semis chances are that all 4 player will be top 16 or certainly 3 of the 4 and this is what generally happens anyway! (It's exceedingly rare in standard draws for the top 2 to meet in the final.) A random draw increases the possibility that the top 2 will meet at some stage.

[Migtsf]

To me, a shock result is when a hot favourite is knocked-out by a qualifier or a much inferior player. If two of the best players meet early, well, it’s shocking, in a way, but one of them going home early is not something I see as a shock result, under those circumstances.

I like to see young players coming of age as much as anyone, but not by being fast-tracked or having difficult obstacles (seeded players) removed from their path to glory.

I think I understand what you’re saying though. It’s not uncommon for seeded players to be eliminated along the way and when we get to the final they aren’t there anymore. That is true, but a random draw is not the answer. If we want to make sure those and other interesting clashes happen then a league format is the way.

The other point you make about the event not losing interest because there would still be good players left, well I disagree, and I feel the event will suffer at the box office as well in case many seeded players meet each other early.

Anyway, I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of a top player who went out early because his ranking was completely disregarded.

[Mal]

Well if the likes of Ronnie O'Sullivan goes out early, I agree for the general public there is something that is lost in terms of appealing to the wider public, but I meant for me personally and I think most snooker lovers will still be watching as long as there are still a few big names.

[wildJONESEYE]

i like Ronnie in a event but for me excitement value goes up a good 50% if he and Higgins loses early.