English Open 2016

[JimMalone]

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.

Well, at least Ding got more than double as much ranking points and pounds for winning the Shanghai Masters as Robertson for winning in Riga. So you could say that there still is a distinction between those tournaments.
For me I'm a bit torn between the positive and negative sides of the new format of the season.
I also like watching longer matches which usually have more drama and give the better player the chance to prevail. On the other hand it's nice to get some surprises and see some new players. And for tournaments of lesser worth it's fine that in relation to the bigger events you also have to do less work to earn your points, money and title. And most important it's surely a good thing for the players to have a chance to earn a bit more for all they have invested into their sport, especially for lesser ranked players, the so-called journeymen.
I think they could make it Best-of-9-matches partially though. For all I care they could have Best-of-7-Matches in the first or also second round it if's a tournament with 128 entries. But I find it pretty horrible having a quarterfinal a Best-of-7-match.

What's definitely important for me though is that there should be a separation between the smaller ranking events and the bigger ones. And they should never, never, never shorten the format of the World Championship.
I personally think that the UK Championship in it's later stages is definitely much to short. Quarterfinals should be Best-of-15 and semifinals Best-of-17 or something like that. It's the second biggest tournament and the format of the event should reflect this.

Also I think having 19 ranking events all of a sudden feels a bit inflationary. Having one or more ranking titles to his name won't be representing as much worth than it had before.

[tomwalker147]

I like the shorter format, you get to watch more matches/players each day.
I actually disagree about the shorter format favouring the lesser players, most events are won by big names regardless of the format.

My local league last night was buzzing following Chris Wakelin's win against Ronnie, everybody locally is talking about it I hope he enjoys his moment and pushes on because he deserves it.

[vmax4steve]

They are tired men.
The travelling is starting to catch up with some of these guys.
It ain't easy to get over travelling, hotel rooms, crap food and short formats... :snooker:

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.

[Odrl]

You simply couldn't hold as many events as they have now if the format was longer, especially given Hearn wanted a level playing field with these 128 events. It also gives everyone a chance as a best of 7 is going to see some shocks and that is good for the game instead of seeing protection for the top players all the time.
It also helps the lower ranked players get more exposure and with it confidence to prove themselves, something else which I think benefits the game.

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:

Do you live in Ljubljana? I played a bit in a club in Sentvid there, only table with a heater I've ever played on, slow as anything, lol.

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:

[Neil Taperell]

Agree with Cueman , great post . Really good having so many events .

[cueman]

Re the short format, this is the trade off of providing more tournaments and more prize money on offer for a tour of 128 players. 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?

You simply couldn't hold as many events as they have now if the format was longer, especially given Hearn wanted a level playing field with these 128 events. It also gives everyone a chance as a best of 7 is going to see some shocks and that is good for the game instead of seeing protection for the top players all the time.
It also helps the lower ranked players get more exposure and with it confidence to prove themselves, something else which I think benefits the game.

So for me the best of 7's bring more positives than they do negatives. Its the only way we are going to see new faces and putting an end to the dominance of the older players who need to adapt to what snooker is trying to appeal to now which is a younger audience and a more attacking game.

[trains]

Mark Williams seems to be like Martin Gould in the sense that he seems to have a hard time beating players ranked above him.
He must have lost inside an hour to Trump just now,reminds me of his loss to the same player in the World Grand Prix last March,must rankle with him a bit.

[jdub]

Personally, I think it's very sad that most of the season is now short-format crap. Best-of-7 matches have no place in tournaments that are being marketed as major ranking events. They are too short from a competitive point of view, and it must be awful for players having to travel to the other side of the world just to play a few frames. No wonder experiments such as the Brazil Masters failed so miserably...

Also, they are simply not as entertaining as the longer matches. I've never seen a single best-of-7 or shot-clock match mentioned in any of those "greatest matches" threads. Snooker fans have expressed their preference for longer matches every time the question has been asked, so it's difficult to understand why short matches are World Snooker's preferred format. Hopefully this trend is eventually reversed, but I'm not holding by breath...

Exactly how pool fans feel.

[jonny66]

Personally, I think it's very sad that most of the season is now short-format crap. Best-of-7 matches have no place in tournaments that are being marketed as major ranking events. They are too short from a competitive point of view, and it must be awful for players having to travel to the other side of the world just to play a few frames. No wonder experiments such as the Brazil Masters failed so miserably...

Also, they are simply not as entertaining as the longer matches. I've never seen a single best-of-7 or shot-clock match mentioned in any of those "greatest matches" threads. Snooker fans have expressed their preference for longer matches every time the question has been asked, so it's difficult to understand why short matches are World Snooker's preferred format. Hopefully this trend is eventually reversed, but I'm not holding by breath...

Do you live in Ljubljana? I played a bit in a club in Sentvid there, only table with a heater I've ever played on, slow as anything, lol.

Shotclocks are not for snooker IMO, a well thought out safety can be as mesmerising as a brilliant break for any true snooker fan, can't put a timer on that.

[jamesg19851]

Is the final best of 7? That's ridiculous.

I'm OK with most of the calendar being short, but not best of 7 finals. Is there no break in the calendar between the big 4? Is there even a big 4 anymore? WC, UK, Masters and ????? I'm sure I read an article a while ago about shipping a big, long format competition overseas, good idea IMO.

I guess the fourth biggest tournament would be the international championship in China, going by prize money. I wish the crowds were bigger in China though. Apparently the tickets are expensive.

[Odrl]

Personally, I think it's very sad that most of the season is now short-format crap. Best-of-7 matches have no place in tournaments that are being marketed as major ranking events. They are too short from a competitive point of view, and it must be awful for players having to travel to the other side of the world just to play a few frames. No wonder experiments such as the Brazil Masters failed so miserably...

Also, they are simply not as entertaining as the longer matches. I've never seen a single best-of-7 or shot-clock match mentioned in any of those "greatest matches" threads. Snooker fans have expressed their preference for longer matches every time the question has been asked, so it's difficult to understand why short matches are World Snooker's preferred format. Hopefully this trend is eventually reversed, but I'm not holding by breath...

[jamesg19851]

Is the final best of 7? That's ridiculous.

I'm OK with most of the calendar being short, but not best of 7 finals. Is there no break in the calendar between the big 4? Is there even a big 4 anymore? WC, UK, Masters and ????? I'm sure I read an article a while ago about shipping a big, long format competition overseas, good idea IMO.

My mistake, QFs best of 9 frames, SFs best of 11 frames and Final best of 17 frames. I thought I'd heard that on TV. I'm looking forward now to the later stages.

[jonny66]

Is the final best of 7? That's ridiculous.

I'm OK with most of the calendar being short, but not best of 7 finals. Is there no break in the calendar between the big 4? Is there even a big 4 anymore? WC, UK, Masters and ????? I'm sure I read an article a while ago about shipping a big, long format competition overseas, good idea IMO.

[trains]

The tournament before this the European Championship was best of 7's up to and including the quarter finals and the last 4 were O'Sullivan Robertson Trump and Selby,and their records are all pretty good in best of 7's.
Imo longer matches are a bit overrated.
Bit odd that each of these 'home nations events' are carrying more ranking prize money than the European Championship though.

[jamesg19851]

I'm still undecided on the shorter format, I think I like it, but it should draw out a bit more at the business end.

I did like Trump's comment about some of the tournaments having the dresscode and general atmosphere relaxed a bit. Somewhere between what is the norm and the shootout, which is a bit crap if you ask me. Just get people a little more relaxed, the shootout is forced and fake rowdiness.

Yes I'm not sure either really, I don't think it's right that the quarters, semis and final are best of 7, why not say make the quarters best of 9, then the semis and final best of 11. Surely the final of a tournament called the English open should be over more frames. The calendar is very packed though and perhaps they just couldn't fit in more frames due to time constraints.