I think the "best-of-21 frame" final is a poisoned gift for the fans

[Cyril]

I would lose Riga and rename the Players Championship in honour of Paul Hunter, thereby removing 2 from the list and having a best of 9 minimum for all tournaments. The Shootout is fine for a daft weekend and lower ranked players get their 10 (or more) minutes of fame. Tournaments in Canada and Australia are important as snooker has a long and distinguished history there, back to the days of Chenier/Stanbury and the Lindrums. The game needs a boost there. Good things are happening Down Under, promoted by a fellow whose name escapes me but I recall he was investing heavily.

Good post.

The Masters trophy is named after Paul Hunter, isn't it?

It would be great to see a revival in Canada and Australia, even New Zealand (McConachy back in the day, O'Kane more recently). Strange how nobody's come through from Canada since Alain Robidoux really. They were such a force back in the 80's with not just the big three of Thorburn, Stevens and Werbeniuk but a host of others: Jim Wych, Bob Chaperon, Jim and John Bear, Frank Jonik, Brady Gollan, Mario Morra, Marcel Gauvreau, Paul Thornley. You mentioned Con Stanbury and the great Georges Chenier - there was another who made just one entry to the Championship, in 1936 - Clare O'Donnell. He eccentrically kept his chalk under his bridge hand. Trailing Horace Lindrum 6-19 in their quarter final match, he failed to show up for the final session and was never seen on the snooker scene again.

[cesard]

Now I´m thinking that if they had created best-of-21; why didnt they use in the WC 1st round? 1st round is too short right now

[bagpiper13579]

Now I´m thinking that if they had created best-of-21; why didnt they use in the WC 1st round? 1st round is too short right now

I strongly disagree. I think best of 19 is good and fair on everyone for the first matches at the Crucible. It's a long enough format that players seeded in will be tested by it, but not long enough that qualifiers on 2-3 days rest can't recover enough stamina for it.

What I think is that the first two rounds of qualifying for the Crucible should be best-of-17

[cesard]

I thought before that it would have been a good idea to have all matches in the World Championship best of 19 but i think the 2 day format/best of 35 frames for the final works and it wouldn't be the same if this was changed.

The old UK had this philosophy you said: all matches 2 session long (best-of-17) and the final in 2 day (best-of-31)

The World Championship is perfect in every sense. Leave it alone.

The UK Championship was once a great event. They tinkered with it, firstly by reducing the final from 31 frames (2 days) to 19 frames (1 day). They then went further by reducing all rounds leading up to the final best of 11 instead of best of 17. This has devalued it's status from being undoubtedly 2nd in importance after the World's to being "just another event". You can argue all you like that the UK is still regarded highly be the reality is, the title of UK Champion is worth no more now than a Grand Prix, German Open or indeed one of the Home Nations events.

Fully agree

I would agree with that. I don't know why the Semi has to be best of 33

Let it. It is good that not just the final would be a marathon, also the semis. When only 4 players remain, that the champion be a very tested and skilled player

To long and drawn out they could put the semis at 25 and the final 29 take a bit off but not too much. I to used to like watching the uk reducing it down the way they have done as taken all the prestige off it. Reduce it a little bit but not like they have done. But I personally don’t see the need for a match to be longer than best of 29 1st to 15.

Problem is that the final must be 1 day - 2 session (maximum best-of-21) or 2 day - 4 session (minimum best-of-33)

I have to object to your second paragraph in the strongest terms. I can assure you having been a member of many snooker forums over the years (TSF, Facebook, BBC etc) the majority of snooker fans most DEFINITELY prefer the longer matches. I really do not know where you can possibly have got the impression otherwise. Pretty much all the events now are of a shorter format but without doubt the BIG ONE that everyone looks forward to is the World Championship at the Crucible and that is due to it's format. You get to see stories unfold over a number of sessions. Watching the top players in the world trying to break one another is what sets it apart and makes the title "World Champion" the ultimate prize and the ambition of every player who's ever picked up a cue. You simply can't replicate that in a best of 7 or 9. match.

Fully agree

I strongly disagree. I think best of 19 is good and fair on everyone for the first matches at the Crucible. It's a long enough format that players seeded in will be tested by it, but not long enough that qualifiers on 2-3 days rest can't recover enough stamina for it.

What I think is that the first two rounds of qualifying for the Crucible should be best-of-17

In fact I think matches in WC qualifying and 1st round are best-of-19 instead best-of-17 due to before, UK was played at that distance, and then WC needed to be longer, and then now it remains unchanged