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

[ste bed]

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

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.

[bagpiper13579]

I think we also have to think of the history here. World Championships in the days of Joe Davis were always longer format, sometimes more than double the length. We've had world championships determined by the number of individual matches won.

The reason I think "everyone" (and it isn't really everyone) wants to shorten formats is so that it can be more easily translated to TV. What made Pot Black work was it was a single frame (and IN COLOR!) that could be enjoyed in a more limited amount of time. Three frames for a final was just a good finale. Anything could happen. You knew all the players. Compared to that, the World Championships can be incredibly tedious. Only the top 16 are guaranteed a spot, and that changes year-on-year; the struggles are fairly titanic from the get-go; the pay-off is much slower (generally) compared to, say, golf or darts, which are possibly the closest to snooker in terms of event structure and player recognition; and the overall time commitment is more than any other sport, save chess.

I think the real problem World Snooker needs to solve is the schedule of events. There are so many with diverse formats and lengths, and only the World Championships and the Masters get the ultimate recognition generally because it isn't a free-for-all from the beginning, there's an amount of money more proportionate to the effort put in (traveling included), and the top players are guaranteed a place, and people know them. If it was possible to maintain top 16 status at only the major events of the year (And I will suggest Australian Open, Uk Champs, China Open, World Championship, and maybe 2 more events) then those events would get more public draw, and the other events would be used to either cement or help build up a case for entering the top 16.

[Cyril]

I think we also have to think of the history here. World Championships in the days of Joe Davis were always longer format, sometimes more than double the length. We've had world championships determined by the number of individual matches won.

The reason I think "everyone" (and it isn't really everyone) wants to shorten formats is so that it can be more easily translated to TV. What made Pot Black work was it was a single frame (and IN COLOR!) that could be enjoyed in a more limited amount of time. Three frames for a final was just a good finale. Anything could happen. You knew all the players. Compared to that, the World Championships can be incredibly tedious. Only the top 16 are guaranteed a spot, and that changes year-on-year; the struggles are fairly titanic from the get-go; the pay-off is much slower (generally) compared to, say, golf or darts, which are possibly the closest to snooker in terms of event structure and player recognition; and the overall time commitment is more than any other sport, save chess.

I think the real problem World Snooker needs to solve is the schedule of events. There are so many with diverse formats and lengths, and only the World Championships and the Masters get the ultimate recognition generally because it isn't a free-for-all from the beginning, there's an amount of money more proportionate to the effort put in (traveling included), and the top players are guaranteed a place, and people know them. If it was possible to maintain top 16 status at only the major events of the year (And I will suggest Australian Open, Uk Champs, China Open, World Championship, and maybe 2 more events) then those events would get more public draw, and the other events would be used to either cement or help build up a case for entering the top 16.

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.

[bagpiper13579]

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.

That was the point. It's not everyone. That's what I said in the parentheses. We're on the same side here.

Nevertheless, snooker is a game with some limitations concerning the longer formats. And yes, while great battles can't be waged in a best of 7 or 9, it's the majority of what we are getting. And it's not without reason. Some frames of snooker last an hour by themselves. And then there are 7 more to play in a session. The length of some snooker matches will go far longer than a non-snooker fanbase audience would be willing to watch, even if exciting.

Snooker should model itself a bit more on Golf; golf has individual players, ranked by prize money, and events very very frequently. The difference is that top events with the greatest prize money are the main basis for ranking, whereas smaller events are there to help keep lower ranked players financially secure and on the tour. Nobody will watch the majority of golfing events, but everybody watches the Masters because everybody who's really good turns out. You have titanic battles.

Right now, the tour is such that the top players can't maintain their rankings unless they play in the majority of events. And that's the big problem. I want more longer format tournaments, but they'd also need to be enough for the Top 16 to maintain their place by consistently challenging for those large tournaments and only needing to go to maybe 70% of the other events at most.

[blahblah01]

Apologies in advance as drinkled, and typing this from a fair way down, lol.

Even at the time Pot black was a bit of fun, and yes colour tv....

A final frame decider after sessions of the swings and roundabouts of momentum etc is the point, as it has that precious tension...

The golf comparison is interesting as Hearn trotted this out as a riposte to ROS and qualifying rounds. Bazza riposted with top golfers playing first two rounds kinda thing, but missed the point about top golfers not qualifying for any Comp, let alone the Masters, which has NO qualifying, un,like the Open etc. Would anyone watch a few top golfers playing the last 7 or 8 holes at Augusta without the the however many holes before? What about them just playing11, 12, 13, 15 and maybe 18?

Is Snooker that different re not playing all Tournaments\Comps? I have BTSport, hence Eurosport, so no Sky and I'm not streaming golf.. but Faldo, lyle et al won Majors as they didn't lose in the US as they didn't play except for Majors and a bit of lead up stuff. How much do top golfers play? Tbh snooker is more mentally draining than golf and I doubt it can be played for that many weeks a year- but Hearn gets little apart from the trill of the cash till and yes men like Murphy. He killed Alex, just like the US Govt killed Lenny Bruce, then he moaned that about snookers loss of appeal, yet had ROS, Williams, (John) Higgins and Hendry... I would argue that he should be doing more in UK re youth and amateur snooker, and the Chinese kids and stuff there. So many "kids" coming through are just potters rather than match players like Higgins and Selby, let alone Dott et al. this is (imho) pretty much what ROS is going on about re numpties. So few stand up against the top players, and I don't just mean lesser lights, I mean the 2nd tier.


Back to first line, typed it and decided to stop lol

[Sitting Room Snooker]

This discussion highlights the need for, and now the promise of, a semi-professional secondary tour for players ranked 65 and below. The main tour should consist of the top 64 playing a dozen or so top quality tournaments lasting 7-14 days. Those ranked 65-188, say, can hone their skills in, say, 22 5-day best of 9 tournaments, pick up a few quid and work their way on to the main tour. I would have some fluidity to this by having regular cut-off points where players have to 'switch' tours depending on their ranking. I raised this point earlier - it might give players from outside of the UK a chance to have a serious go at becoming a top player and not have to live here for most of the year.

[gavpowell]

Hearn gets little apart from the trill of the cash till and yes men like Murphy. He killed Alex, just like the US Govt killed Lenny Bruce

The only one who killed Alex was Alex.

[Cyril]

That was the point. It's not everyone. That's what I said in the parentheses. We're on the same side here.

Nevertheless, snooker is a game with some limitations concerning the longer formats. And yes, while great battles can't be waged in a best of 7 or 9, it's the majority of what we are getting. And it's not without reason. Some frames of snooker last an hour by themselves. And then there are 7 more to play in a session. The length of some snooker matches will go far longer than a non-snooker fanbase audience would be willing to watch, even if exciting.

Snooker should model itself a bit more on Golf; golf has individual players, ranked by prize money, and events very very frequently. The difference is that top events with the greatest prize money are the main basis for ranking, whereas smaller events are there to help keep lower ranked players financially secure and on the tour. Nobody will watch the majority of golfing events, but everybody watches the Masters because everybody who's really good turns out. You have titanic battles.

Right now, the tour is such that the top players can't maintain their rankings unless they play in the majority of events. And that's the big problem. I want more longer format tournaments, but they'd also need to be enough for the Top 16 to maintain their place by consistently challenging for those large tournaments and only needing to go to maybe 70% of the other events at most.

Apologies if I misinterpreted your words. I don't think there is that much wrong at present except the UK should be bigger and better, like it used to be. I'd also make the Masters ranking but still restrict it to the Top 16 on the 2 year list. The China Open needs extending to a 2 week event.

I'd like to see 4 categories of events...
1. The World Championship
2. Majors (UK Championship, The Masters, China Open)
3. Full World Ranking Events (Guangzhou Masters, World Open, English Open, Shanghai Masters, Northern Ireland Open, Scottish Open, German Masters, Grand Prix, Welsh Open, Players Championship)
4. Minor Ranking Events (Riga Masters, Paul Hunter Classic, Indian Open, Belgium Masters, Canadian Masters, Australian Masters)

Formats:
World Championship - exactly as it is now. No changes.

The Masters - exactly as it is now. No changes.

UK Championship
Round 1 (players ranked 65 to 128) - best of 11
Round 2 (players ranked 33 to 64 v Round 1 winners) - best of 11
Round 3 (players ranked 1 to 32 v Round 2 winners) - best of 17
Round 4 through to Semi-finals - best of 17
Final - best of 31

China Open
Qualifying - best of 11
Competition proper (from last 32)
Round 1 through to Quarter finals - best of 11
Semi-final - best of 19
Final - best of 21

Full World Ranking Events
Rounds up to including quarter final - best of 9
Semi-finals - best of 11
Final - best of 19

Minor Ranking Events
Rounds up to including quarter final - best of 7
Semi-finals - best of 9
Final - best of 17

[DeanH]

Cyril - you forgot Snooker Shoot-Out :wink:


but as to the above, I like your figures

[ste bed]

The masters is to short should be best of 17 all matches but no ranking as with the one that’s in Llandudno that shouldn’t be a ranking event either you can’t open it up like Hearn as then have special events for the top sixteen that’s not preference that fairness. Some of the events need to be re thought. The masters, the U.K. are to short I don’t like best of 7/9 matches there to short ( in golf they don’t say let’s just do 9 holes for this one) I would like to see minimum best of 11 for 1st round to q finals in all events except the top events that pay the most ie worlds,U.K.,masters,China open but as I said in earlier posts I don’t think any match needs to be longer than best of 29 even the world final.

[Sitting Room Snooker]

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.

[Sitting Room Snooker]

As a further suggestion, maybe have double headers of tournaments in a particular region to minimise travel. i.e. 2 weeks in the UK e.g Scottish/Welsh Opens and after a 2 week break, 2 weeks in the Far East/Aus. I often feel a bit sorry for snooker players travelling constantly, it can't be good for them or the game.

[gavpowell]

I would lose Riga and rename the Players Championship in honour of Paul Hunter,

The Masters is named after Hunter, in a far more fitting tribute than the tournament he lost the final of!

[gavpowell]

Cyril - you forgot Snooker Shoot-Out :wink:

I think the Shoot Out could be tweaked a little - not much, just remove one frame per match...

[Csmith]

I think the Shoot Out could be tweaked a little - not much, just remove one frame per match...

Agreed, I find the matches drag on a bit