Topic locked

Do you think the absence of Wildcards is a good idea?

Poll ended at 09 Jan 2011

Yes
6
50%
No
3
25%
Don't Care
3
25%
 
Total votes : 12

Wildcard Absence

Postby SnookerFan

This year they don't have Wildcards or Qualifiers at The Masters, which means the 15th and 16th place go straight through into playing round 1.

Do people see this as a good change or not? They had to add two extra matches to fit the Wildcards in anyway. Though, having two extra snooker matches can't be complained about really. And the matches now start at 1:30pm, not 11:30am.

Do people see this as a good move by Hearn, adding to the prestige of The Masters as an elite top-16 event? Is it a poor move making the tournament two matches shorter as a whole? Or a bit irrelevant, really?

Discuss.

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby SnookerFan

HugoDrax wrote:
SnookerFan wrote: a bit irrelevant, really?


:wave: :idea: :wave: :idea:


You're probably right. They'd only have let some idiot like Zhanger in.

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby Smart

<laugh>

I think in one way its extra games, but on the other hand this glorified invitational is about the elite being there on merit, so the wildcard does seem a bit of a contradiction to this in my view. The jimmycard was also a standing joke and in my opinion devalued the tourny.

The 16 there are there by right.

If there is to be 1 wildcard then so be it, but the other place should be fought for as it used to be in the Masters qualifying comp.

Then just 1 wildcard match on the Sunday morning. :wave:

Still not keen on just giving someone a leg up for no reason (unless its Zhanger obviously). :idea:

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby Roland

Gotta feel sorry for Liang Wenbo. Robbed of a rightful card last year in favour of the jimmycard, this time he qualifies as of right and then the ranking system changes later and he slips down the list and misses his chance yet again through no fault of his own.

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby Bourne

Never liked the wildcards in the first place, seems a bit silly when you've got the 16 best players and it's marketed as such, whereas in fact a player ranked 40 odd could conceivably qualify and upstage them all :|

Now get rid of the wildcard rounds in the overseas events <ok>

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby SnookerFan

Sonny wrote:Gotta feel sorry for Liang Wenbo. Robbed of a rightful card last year in favour of the jimmycard, this time he qualifies as of right and then the ranking system changes later and he slips down the list and misses his chance yet again through no fault of his own.


The Jimmycard was a scandal. I know he gets in lots of viewers, due to being an all round legend, but he wasn't there at all on merit. He hadn't even tried for the previous tournament, due to wanting to eat kangeroo's testicles on an island. <doh>

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby SnookerFan

I don't mind either way, to be honest. I just wish somebody had told Wembley. When I purchased my tickets for the Mark Selby game, they were advertising the fact that you got two tickets for one game. They rang me and apologised last week, due to the fact that matches started at 1:30pm, and not 11am. <doh>

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby SnookerFan

HugoDrax wrote:It was an embarassment to snooker and to Jimmy. Commercialisation at its worst. :| :|

(is that a real word :huh: )


I think so.

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby wheelsofsteel

In the end wild cards were counter-productive because the winners of the qualifying tournament or Championship on occasions were not up to scratch and other wildcards were awarded for political reasons or used as bargaining chips. Did a wild-card ever win the Masters? Top 16 only, fine. Wild cards, fine. Not bothered either way.

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby SnookerFan

wheelsofsteel wrote:In the end wild cards were counter-productive because the winners of the qualifying tournament or Championship on occasions were not up to scratch and other wildcards were awarded for political reasons or used as bargaining chips. Did a wild-card ever win the Masters? Top 16 only, fine. Wild cards, fine. Not bothered either way.


In one respect, when Ding got to the final of The Masters as a Wildcard, it set his career back a year or so.

I don't mind Wildcards. They get a bit excessive in the China ones though. rofl

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby wheelsofsteel

SnookerFan wrote:
wheelsofsteel wrote:In the end wild cards were counter-productive because the winners of the qualifying tournament or Championship on occasions were not up to scratch and other wildcards were awarded for political reasons or used as bargaining chips. Did a wild-card ever win the Masters? Top 16 only, fine. Wild cards, fine. Not bothered either way.


In one respect, when Ding got to the final of The Masters as a Wildcard, it set his career back a year or so.

I don't mind Wildcards. They get a bit excessive in the China ones though. rofl


Maybe Barry will bring out a Wildcard Open for next season where only wildcards are invited ;)

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby Wildey

ive never been a fan of wild cards in the masters and they was introduced because Alex Higgins fell out of the top 16 now that the great man has past on so should the Wild Card also be burried

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby Tubberlad

It should be a tournament with quality as it's main aim. With more regular ranking updates, we should get even better snooker, and I'm entirely in favour of ditching the Wild Card. The Wild card in principle wasn't a bad idea, but it was abused... see Jimmy White's farcical invite last year.

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby SnookerFan

thetubberlad wrote:It should be a tournament with quality as it's main aim. With more regular ranking updates, we should get even better snooker, and I'm entirely in favour of ditching the Wild Card. The Wild card in principle wasn't a bad idea, but it was abused... see Jimmy White's farcical invite last year.


That was only one year. One of the very few things they did right pre-Hearn was introduce sensible Wildcards. The exception was the year they brought Jimmy in as well, but they at least had the sense to introduce a second Wildcard and introduce Ding.

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby Witz78

Sonny wrote:Gotta feel sorry for Liang Wenbo. Robbed of a rightful card last year in favour of the jimmycard, this time he qualifies as of right and then the ranking system changes later and he slips down the list and misses his chance yet again through no fault of his own.


It is his fault hes slipped down the rankings though :john:

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby Tubberlad

By the way, the first part of my Masters preview will be up this evening, whenever Sonny gets the chance <ok>

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby Witz78

thetubberlad wrote:It should be a tournament with quality as it's main aim. With more regular ranking updates, we should get even better snooker, and I'm entirely in favour of ditching the Wild Card. The Wild card in principle wasn't a bad idea, but it was abused... see Jimmy White's farcical invite last year.


ok, Jimmy froze on the night but for me he was the logical wildcard choice.

Fresh from the Jungle he was hot property at the time and his appearance generated extra publicity and interest in the event, not to mention the great atmosphere that Sunday night that only Jimmy could bring.

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby Bourne

Why didn't they get Gino D'Campo to do it instead considering he was even hotter property :|

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby Tubberlad

Witz78 wrote:
thetubberlad wrote:It should be a tournament with quality as it's main aim. With more regular ranking updates, we should get even better snooker, and I'm entirely in favour of ditching the Wild Card. The Wild card in principle wasn't a bad idea, but it was abused... see Jimmy White's farcical invite last year.


ok, Jimmy froze on the night but for me he was the logical wildcard choice.

Fresh from the Jungle he was hot property at the time and his appearance generated extra publicity and interest in the event, not to mention the great atmosphere that Sunday night that only Jimmy could bring.

I see your point, but at the end of the day, he had failed to show at the UK and chose to test out different varieties of tesicle instead.

Jimmy played absolutely rubbish against the weak link of the top sixteen, and riveting viewing it certainly was not. Not a good advertisement for the game. I like Jimmy, but his pick was farcical.

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby Bourne

He'd have cooked up a real treat

:farmer:

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby SnookerFan

HugoDrax wrote:
LeBourne wrote:Why didn't they get Gino D'Campo to do it instead considering he was even hotter property :|


Gino would of played better <laugh>


He probably could've beaten Mark King. <laugh>

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:
thetubberlad wrote:It should be a tournament with quality as it's main aim. With more regular ranking updates, we should get even better snooker, and I'm entirely in favour of ditching the Wild Card. The Wild card in principle wasn't a bad idea, but it was abused... see Jimmy White's farcical invite last year.


ok, Jimmy froze on the night but for me he was the logical wildcard choice.

Fresh from the Jungle he was hot property at the time and his appearance generated extra publicity and interest in the event, not to mention the great atmosphere that Sunday night that only Jimmy could bring.


buck off he favors the bucking jungle rather than play in the UK and he gets rewarded for it while other players goes to qualify and gets buck all back <doh>

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby SnookerFan

wildJONESEYE wrote:
Witz78 wrote:
thetubberlad wrote:It should be a tournament with quality as it's main aim. With more regular ranking updates, we should get even better snooker, and I'm entirely in favour of ditching the Wild Card. The Wild card in principle wasn't a bad idea, but it was abused... see Jimmy White's farcical invite last year.


ok, Jimmy froze on the night but for me he was the logical wildcard choice.

Fresh from the Jungle he was hot property at the time and his appearance generated extra publicity and interest in the event, not to mention the great atmosphere that Sunday night that only Jimmy could bring.


buck off he favors the bucking jungle rather than play in the UK and he gets rewarded for it while other players goes to qualify and gets buck all back <doh>


Tell it like it is, Mr. Wild. :D

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby Witz78

wildJONESEYE wrote:
Witz78 wrote:
thetubberlad wrote:It should be a tournament with quality as it's main aim. With more regular ranking updates, we should get even better snooker, and I'm entirely in favour of ditching the Wild Card. The Wild card in principle wasn't a bad idea, but it was abused... see Jimmy White's farcical invite last year.


ok, Jimmy froze on the night but for me he was the logical wildcard choice.

Fresh from the Jungle he was hot property at the time and his appearance generated extra publicity and interest in the event, not to mention the great atmosphere that Sunday night that only Jimmy could bring.


buck off he favors the bucking jungle rather than play in the UK and he gets rewarded for it while other players goes to qualify and gets buck all back <doh>


Sour grapes cos you know Hendry could only dream of receiving a reception like Jimmy did at last years Masters :chin: and sour grapes cos you know Hendry would never be offered a reality tv deal as hes boring :D

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby Tubberlad

I'll be brutally honest: I don't think Wild could give a fiddler's buck about either <laugh>

Re: Wildcard Absence

Postby SnookerFan

Witz78 wrote:Sour grapes cos you know Hendry could only dream of receiving a reception like Jimmy did at last years Masters :chin: and sour grapes cos you know Hendry would never be offered a reality tv deal as hes boring :D


We get it, you think Jimmy being popular makes him worthy of a Wildcard place. You think the fact that he was offered a reality TV series amongst such A-List celebrities as Justin Ryan and Kim Woodburn makes him worthy of a Wildcard place. (I had to google it.) Others of us disagree. But skill-wise, you can't dispute it wasn't deserved. He got torn apart by Mark King, for bucks sake. It didn't just lose. Mark King tore him a new one. A few months later, King lost in the first round of The Crucible to young up-and-coming rankings climber, Steve Davis. A tournament Jimmy couldn't even qualify for.

Says all you need to know, really.