Should the Masters be a Ranking Event?

[Alex0paul]

In my opinion it is now time to make the Masters a ranking event. I feel it has lost most of its aura due to losing the huge sponsor of Benson & Hedges and having to leave a fantastic venue in the Wembley Conference Centre to a hangar-like arena in the Wembley Arena. Also with the lack of Ranking events in a season surely it would be better to have a ranking event than an invitational event.

http://www.worldsnooker.com/tourname...awsheet-91.htm

Above is the drawsheet for the Masters Qualifying event. A huge number of professionals havent even bothered to enter it. Players at the lower end of the rankings can't afford to enter it as the prize money is poor and no points are on offer. Also a player down the bottom of the rankings may have a great run in the qualifiers but it wouldn't move them up, surely that isn't good for a players confidence etc. The small numbers with such big named players as McManus and Parrott not entering is clearly undermining the event as a whole.

However I can see the reasons for keeping the event as a non-ranking event because its huge history and prestige where only the top players plus a couple of invites are allowed to play in.

What are people's thoughts?

[Semih_Sayginer]

stay as non ranked

[drlog147]

could they make all touraments ranked ?

[PaulTheSoave]

It should stay as an invite. Its the only event where the top 16 meet. The tournament has a well built image and is producing the best finals. There are more close Masters Finals than for instance the UK or The WC. or you get extraordinary play (ROS 10-3, Higgins and recently against Ding). I agree it has lost his appeal in a way moving to the Arena.

[Ellena]

stay as non ranked

i second this.

[Alex0paul]

It should stay as an invite. Its the only event where the top 16 meet. The tournament has a well built image and is producing the best finals. There are more close Masters Finals than for instance the UK or The WC. or you get extraordinary play (ROS 10-3, Higgins and recently against Ding). I agree it has lost his appeal in a way moving to the Arena.

What if it stayed in the same format with the top 16 plus 3 wildcards but the wildcards were all qualifiers. It could still be a ranking event as all players would have a chance to qualify. I just feel nowdays that was is the point in this tournament as there is nothing on it.

[Robert602]

I wouldn't say there's no point to it. The thing about an invitational is that the only result that means anything is the title. There are no ranking points that can make a semi seem like a good week's work, it's all about the win and the prestige.

The fact that there's only one qualifying place probably makes the title (and any meaningful cash) seem like a long, long way away for the likes of Parrott, and I think that's why there's less interest exhibited by most of the pros. For anyone fancying their chances though the Masters title is still a huge one; I don't see any signs that the top players are anything less than totally committed when it comes to the final stages. Indeed there seems to be more enthusiasm for the Masters than most ranking events.

Unfortunately I never watched a match live at the conference centre, but as a TV viewer the arena looks pretty good to me and still retains that gladiatorial atmosphere that the Masters has always been famous for. As for the sponsorship, I can't say I felt any great attachment to B&H and I don't feel that the loss of them has dampened the spirit of the event.

I wouldn't be averse to seeing the qualifying event abolished and a return to the purer original format, perhaps with occasional wildcards for exceptional cases (Ding last year for example). It's probably costly to stage and apparently uninteresting for so many pros, and to be frank I don't think the qualifier would be missed.

[Semih_Sayginer]

i see this tournament as one of the best, high amount of frames per match, almost always the top standard, and possibly a "reward" of being ranked so high.

its different to "run of the mill" tourneys, and such, i think it should remain as is, or perhaps be tweaked, but only a small amount.

not ranked still

[Caroline]

Simply meaningless.

if they need more ranking events, go to creat new ones.

[MrRottweiler]

I always thought this tournament was ranked but that shows how little I know.

[PaulTheSoave]

I can see your point but is it not unfair for the other players, like 16-32? As the top 16 will enter they automatically gain ranking points, where the others dont have a chance to get any.

What if it stayed in the same format with the top 16 plus 3 wildcards but the wildcards were all qualifiers. It could still be a ranking event as all players would have a chance to qualify. I just feel nowdays that was is the point in this tournament as there is nothing on it.

[ADR147]

hardly fair to make it a ranking event under the present system it would just strengthen the position of the top 16

[david16]

Keep it invitation.

But why not have 8 or 10 events they play to get into the Masters and if you are in the top 8 on the list come the final tournament before Christmas, you automatically qualify.

Outside the top 8 you have to play the Masters qualifying.

i hate it when at the Masters there are too many ranked 10 to 16 who are dead wood simply there making up the numbers and, are there just because they made a quarter final very early, season before last and further back (with the richest of their excellent form at the time being more than 3 seasons ago (which includes the previous calandar year so their best might have been November and December 2003, but they've qualified for the 2007 Masters e.g. as with them winning enough 1st round matches in 2005/6 to still be in the top 16 after having go there in 2004/5 but what got them there was more their 2003/4 form) proving enough to make the current top qualify for an invite to the Masters. Too often when they make it, they look like idiots barely stringing together 3 successive successful pots for the most part v the World No. 1 e.g. The crowd goes like wild because that losing player sudenly pulls out a 30 break out of the blue, you'd have though they had won the whole thing, not just saved face for a split second in otherwise dismally looking out of their depths being totally outclassed like complete and utter no hopers.

Why should a Hendry e.g. at such a massive tournament look totally embarassed because a world no. 14 somehow strings 10 straight pots together against him.

[Semih_Sayginer]

those ranked 17-32 play off for a place to play against the player ranked 16th in the only prelim.....

?

[Black_cat]

Keep it invitational, I say! It has glamour and brilliance and makes the matches this bit more interesting.