English Open 2016

[cattermole]

And his bird is smokin' hot.

Trumpy pumpy

[Boongogg]

John Higgins

Never seen John Higgins miss so many shots including safety duffs as well. Seemed really out of sorts against Judd this afternoon.

[Boongogg]

Andy Goldstein is doing a great job as presenter

Agree, quite like Mr Goldstein, he's a bit more down to earth than some guys they use. He is a pretty handy player too, see him beat Jimmy White at pool on YouTube a while back.

[nicky1982]

Andy Goldstein is doing a great job as presenter

[Erwan_BZH]

Yeah, Trump is the man to beat right now. He's really hot....and so is Khadija his girlfriend :P A beautiful woman.

[jonny66]

I'm going out on a limb here, and I don't really want to jinx him, but I think this English Open is Judd Trump's to lose. And his bird is smokin' hot.

[Erwan_BZH]

Quite true mate. I am not against the short format but it should be at least a best-of-9 format, not 7. 128 is a logistical mess for the players.

[itsnoteasy]

Just make 64 qualify for the main event, then you can easily have best of nines, then more games each round, I don't get the need for this 128 stuff, it's not like they are making enough to survive going out in that round anyway.

[streamer45]

Possible 147 on for Trump...

[jonny66]

That's one I haven't heard before. :smile: Usually the argument is that best-of-7 makes little difference compared to best-of-9, because the better player will win in any format. But what you're saying is that shorter matches are good because they give the lesser players a better chance to win. It's debatable whether the consequences of that are actually good for the game, but levelling the playing field with shorter matches certainly goes against the concept of competitive sport. The format should enable the better players to win more consistently, not the other way around. :wink:

I actually don't think longer matches would necessarily mean fewer tournaments. Ok, you couldn't have 3-day events such as the Riga Masters that are trying to accommodate 64 players. An event like that basically has to be played like a PTC, and that was absolutely fine in previous seasons. The problem is that World Snooker have now erased the distinction between the PTCs and the major ranking events, and putting Robertson's win in Riga on par with Ding's in Shanghai is ridiculous and should never happen.

Then there are events such as the European Masters, played over 7 days with 32 players at the venue. Before Hearn this was the standard format for all ranking events, so we know there is no good logistical reason for having best-of-7 matches instead of best-of-9. I suspect it's got more to do with Hearn's personal preference than any necessity. I remember when short matches were first introduced into a proper ranking event, it was in the 2011 Welsh Open. The argument was that this allowed the entire event to be played on two tables with every match televised. Of course snooker fans accepted this travesty, as they always do, and look at what we have now. The Welsh Open is played on a million tables with 128 players at the venue, and only a small percentage of it televised. So why did we need the short matches in the first place? :frown:



Yeah, I actually live quite near to Sentvid, but I've never gone to play snooker there. I imagine it would be a pathetic spectacle if I tried. :smile: We don't really have a strong cue sports culture here, I think most people only play 8-ball pool. People do watch snooker on TV though, so I expect some may try the occasional game or two, but the standard must be shocking. :smile:

Yeah I played some guy who was all bow tied up for a league match, he wasn't very good, as he said himself the standard is pretty low.

[trains]

I'm all for fairness for younger and newer players but having everyone start in the same round is only part of the solution.

It hasn't seemed to be thought out properly that a young player starting off his career as a pro with 0 ranking points is expected to make £ 50 k in ranking prize money in two years,quite ridiculous,just open the tour to everyone and cut the bs imo.

[gavpowell]

So long as the UK, WC and one or two other events remain the normal length of matches I don't see what else they can do?

The UK has been absolutely butchered to the point where it's become the third UK event after the Worlds and Masters. I've no objection to some shor maches, but like Odrl, I'm sick of being told this is what everyone wants.

[Neil Taperell]

The only match i want to watch today and it's not on tv

[the lone wolf]

Easier than having to go to work again tomorrow for minimum wage to do the same thing you've been doing for the last ten years.
To be honest Wakelin threw it away and Ronnie threw it right back at him, eye on the cue ball on that last missed red.

I agree!
Hearn is using the same model for snooker as was used for PDA darts. Players now have to work for it. The hungry for success player will win tournaments.
Whatever the opinions of tournaments size, formats etc, there is only one winner and that is Snooker... :snooker:

[cueman]

Well my final point on the short format is this. Look at how many of the players are complaining of tiredness. Now I know that's going into a different debate and questioning their stamina and lifestyle, but if the matches were longer I think it would actually be to the detriment of every player. We all want more snooker and the players want more tournaments to earn more money but I just cannot accept that the events are too short. By the time we reach the big majors like the UK and WC these players are going to be suffering from burnout and we really don't want to see a worse standard in those events just to please some who think that best of 7's are too short. Its about striking a balance and I think WS have got it right.

Nearly all these players started off playing in amateur or junior events where best of 3's and best of 5's are common. It really doesn't matter the length of match in reality because all players play that much now they should all be match sharp. You only have to see how many matches have been to a deciding frame this week to understand the standard is very close now. Whether it was best of 7, 9 or 11, these matches would still have gone down to a decider more often than not.

I'd agree that if we only had half a dozen tournaments and 3 of those were short matches, then of course its not fair, but I think people are unaccepting that the the gap between the top 16 and everyone else is closer than its ever been.
I don't want to get back to a protected top 16 where every tournament sees the same quarter final and semi final line ups all the time. If the game is to appeal and to move forward world snooker are doing the right thing by giving the lower ranked players a chance. Afterall, a lot of these players eventually are going to be the future of the game, otherwise we'll go back to the 70's and 80's where young players never got a chance and snooker will be seen as a game played by old men in their 40's and 50's.