Why World Championship FInal uses 8/9/8/10 format insead of classic 8/8/8/11?

[cesard]

It seems a weird format, with second session being artificially larger than first of third. It seems strange comparing to all rounds, where only the final session is longer to the remaining of the same round

[Odrl]

It actually used to be 8/8/8/11 until a few years ago, but we had a couple of occasions where the third session was extremely slow and only six frames were played, and that left a possible 13 frames for the final evening. Also, the final session used to start at 8pm local time, so there were a couple of years where the final finished extremely late, such as 2007 and 2010.

I think the current system is slightly better, because it leaves less chance of the match overrunning, but at the same time a close final could still mean a midnight finish (or 11pm local time) for those of us who like that. :smile:

[Londonlad147]

I also like it that one player has an overnight lead guaranteed.

[DeanH]

As has been said above, the second session was extended to allow for long frames and not to push the third and fourth sessions too much; and to also ensure that a match could not be won in the first two sessions (WSC Final). I think that World Snooker probably did not mind but TV schedulers did

Some people in the past have asked why there is an interval after 4 frames?
From what I have read, historically I have seen that billiards matches would be played for 2 hours before an interval and I suppose this "time" was carried over to snooker matches and that 2hr usually equalled 4 frames; so a mini session became 4 frames then an interval; two mini-sessions for a session became 8 frames, before a long interval.

[cesard]

It actually used to be 8/8/8/11 until a few years ago, but we had a couple of occasions where the third session was extremely slow and only six frames were played, and that left a possible 13 frames for the final evening.

I observed this, but I didn´t see logical. In the first round , sessions are 9-10 frames in 4:30 and usually end in time; in the final afternoon sessions are 8 frames long in 5:00 and they didn´t end in time

I also like it that one player has an overnight lead guaranteed.

I like too, but sessions distriubution don´t take care of it; in 1st round there is an odd number of frames in 1st session; and 2nd round to semi is an even and they can tie in every session ending

As has been said above, the second session was extended to allow for long frames and not to push the third and fourth sessions too much; and to also ensure that a match could not be won in the first two sessions (WSC Final). I think that World Snooker probably did not mind but TV schedulers did

Some people in the past have asked why there is an interval after 4 frames?
From what I have read, historically I have seen that billiards matches would be played for 2 hours before an interval and I suppose this "time" was carried over to snooker matches and that 2hr usually equalled 4 frames; so a mini session became 4 frames then an interval; two mini-sessions for a session became 8 frames, before a long interval.

Wow! Thanks

This is another one, if one final ends in 3 sessions, I guess some TV producers will not be much happy..

[DeanH]

This is another one, if one final ends in 3 sessions, I guess some TV producers will not be much happy..

I don't know why but when I hear the continuity announcer on the BBC say those unwanted words (to us) "due to the early finish of the snooker we now will go to an episode of Flog It" they do sound quite happy about it

[Londonlad147]

Some people in the past have asked why there is an interval after 4 frames?

Don't forget that it is quite common for players to leave the arena between frames. Referees never have that opportunity, and a short break after four frames at least gives them an opportunity to visit the loo. Otherwise a session could go on for maybe four hours or so, and that's a very long time without a break. Viewers and spectators often forget just how tiring a job it is refereeing!

[DeanH]

Don't forget that it is quite common for players to leave the arena between frames. Referees never have that opportunity, and a short break after four frames at least gives them an opportunity to visit the loo. Otherwise a session could go on for maybe four hours or so, and that's a very long time without a break. Viewers and spectators often forget just how tiring a job it is refereeing!

Also Referees are not guzzling water so much, might just get a swig between frames - as long as ROS is not standing there tapping his foot waiting for the referee! :wink:
Do you think that players nowadays take more during-session-breaks than in the 70s/80s/90s?

[cesard]

This break after 4th frame since when is? And when is applied? (Because I think in best-of-7 matches there are no break; but in best-of-17 frames final that used 7/10 format there is break in both sessions)

And when for example, finals were best-of-73 or best-of-145 with 6 frame sessions, when was the interval? After the 3rd because is the half?

[Londonlad147]

This break after 4th frame since when is? And when is applied? (Because I think in best-of-7 matches there are no break; but in best-of-17 frames final that used 7/10 format there is break in both sessions)

And when for example, finals were best-of-73 or best-of-145 with 6 frame sessions, when was the interval? After the 3rd because is the half?

The break after fourth frame has always been there since I started watching snooker in 1980.

One of the main arguments for shortening a lot of pro event matches to Bo7s was that they could be played straight through without any breaks, thus speeding up the events. Breaks are only taken in matches of Bo9 or longer.

As for the MUCH longer matches, I have no idea: obviously they were played over several days, and whether there was any formal structure to breaks, I don't know.

[Londonlad147]

Do you think that players nowadays take more during-session-breaks than in the 70s/80s/90s?

Most definitely more now than back in the 80s.

[jonny66]

It's odd that, you'd think they would need more toilet breaks back then, considering the different choice of beverages most of the players had.

[Londonlad147]

It's odd that, you'd think they would need more toilet breaks back then, considering the different choice of beverages most of the players had.

I really don't think that most toilet breaks today are anything other than gamesmanship antics!