Wild Cards for Legends !!!!

Bourne wrote:The qualifying system needs a serious looking at for starters.

What would you do that's different?

SnookerFan wrote:

Bourne wrote:The qualifying system needs a serious looking at for starters.

What would you do that's different?

I don't like how a player ranked 32 automatically gets the same rights as someone ranked 17. Instead of the 1 round thing for the final qualies round, have every qualifier in the same draw and it's seeded, so the 64 players in the draw are each playing for 16 spots therefore have to win a couple of matches each to get through.

Bourne wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Bourne wrote:The qualifying system needs a serious looking at for starters.

What would you do that's different?

I don't like how a player ranked 32 automatically gets the same rights as someone ranked 17. Instead of the 1 round thing for the final qualies round, have every qualifier in the same draw and it's seeded, so the 64 players in the draw are each playing for 16 spots therefore have to win a couple of matches each to get through.

It's an interesting idea. Not fussed either way what they do, but I can see your point. I wouldn't be against them doing this.

SnookerFan wrote:

Bourne wrote:The qualifying system needs a serious looking at for starters.

What would you do that's different?

Its simple.

ditch the current teired set up and throw all the qualifiers in at the start in the first qualifying round but seeded obviously so 17th seed plays lowest ranked seed in qualifying and so on. In effect it would be a similar scenario to the PTCs where the big names dont enter at a later stage, albeit of course the top 16 would always qualify for the venue.

this way wed see the young players rise up the rankings quicker as it would be more of a level playing field with all qualifiers having to play the same number of games to get to the venue, instead of those ranker higher getting more minimum starter ranking points and having to play less qualifying games.

Witz78 wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Bourne wrote:The qualifying system needs a serious looking at for starters.

What would you do that's different?

Its simple.

ditch the current teired set up and throw all the qualifiers in at the start in the first qualifying round but seeded obviously so 17th seed plays lowest ranked seed in qualifying and so on. In effect it would be a similar scenario to the PTCs where the big names dont enter at a later stage, albeit of course the top 16 would always qualify for the venue.

this way wed see the young players rise up the rankings quicker as it would be more of a level playing field with all qualifiers having to play the same number of games to get to the venue, instead of those ranker higher getting more minimum starter ranking points and having to play less qualifying games.

Yep exactly my point, the way it is it's too stale, and in some ways the 17-32 players are at a disadvantage because they're coming into their one qualifier a bit cold having not had any match-time whereas they could be facing someone on a roll having won a couple of matches.

But if you did that you wouldn't have the top 16 guaranteed at te Crucible. the only way wildcards is possible is if you have the last 64 at the venue and you know what that means don't you? Different venue, different format.

Sonny wrote:But if you did that you wouldn't have the top 16 guaranteed at te Crucible. the only way wildcards is possible is if you have the last 64 at the venue and you know what that means don't you? Different venue, different format.

Yeh well that's another problem but whichever way you look at it there's always going to be someone who's missed out in some way and has a right to be a bit peeved off. As it stands I don't think a wildcard system will happen even in our wildest dreams.

Wild cards are given in Tennis and Golf, but are both played with fields of well over 100 players. With the exception of a freak event in 2001, they seem to have very little impact in tennis, and go largely unnoticed.

In Golf, we're talking about a few hundred players, so the odds of a legend like Palmer, Nicklaus, Player or Watson appearing at the top over the last ten years was hugely unlikely, again, with one notable exception when Watson wasn't too far off winning the Open.

In Sheffield, you have a field of 32, and to extend it would be massively damaging in my opinion. It's wrong to give players like Davis, White or Hendry a free pass into a tournament, and make players better than them have to earn a place. A non runner.

Witz78 wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Bourne wrote:The qualifying system needs a serious looking at for starters.

What would you do that's different?

Its simple.

ditch the current teired set up and throw all the qualifiers in at the start in the first qualifying round but seeded obviously so 17th seed plays lowest ranked seed in qualifying and so on. In effect it would be a similar scenario to the PTCs where the big names dont enter at a later stage, albeit of course the top 16 would always qualify for the venue.

this way wed see the young players rise up the rankings quicker as it would be more of a level playing field with all qualifiers having to play the same number of games to get to the venue, instead of those ranker higher getting more minimum starter ranking points and having to play less qualifying games.

are you completely bucking thick or what...

the tiered system makes the rankings how they are at the moment even more exciting ......

and gives lower ranked players like Lisowski Targets to reach a level Top 64,48,32

if there's a chance of a lower ranked player facing someone like Ricky Walden or Marco Fu in the first Round how the hell are they going to climbe if they cant beat someone like James Mcbain or Patrick Wallace.

Tubberlad wrote:Wild cards are given in Tennis and Golf, but are both played with fields of well over 100 players. With the exception of a freak event in 2001, they seem to have very little impact in tennis, and go largely unnoticed.

In Golf, we're talking about a few hundred players, so the odds of a legend like Palmer, Nicklaus, Player or Watson appearing at the top over the last ten years was hugely unlikely, again, with one notable exception when Watson wasn't too far off winning the Open.

In Sheffield, you have a field of 32, and to extend it would be massively damaging in my opinion. It's wrong to give players like Davis, White or Hendry a free pass into a tournament, and make players better than them have to earn a place. A non runner.

Watson came down the last at Turnberry needing a par to win it

Nicklaus finished tied for 3rd in the 1998 Open only 3 shots off O'Meara who won it

Bourne wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Bourne wrote:The qualifying system needs a serious looking at for starters.

What would you do that's different?

Its simple.

ditch the current teired set up and throw all the qualifiers in at the start in the first qualifying round but seeded obviously so 17th seed plays lowest ranked seed in qualifying and so on. In effect it would be a similar scenario to the PTCs where the big names dont enter at a later stage, albeit of course the top 16 would always qualify for the venue.

this way wed see the young players rise up the rankings quicker as it would be more of a level playing field with all qualifiers having to play the same number of games to get to the venue, instead of those ranker higher getting more minimum starter ranking points and having to play less qualifying games.

Yep exactly my point, the way it is it's too stale, and in some ways the 17-32 players are at a disadvantage because they're coming into their one qualifier a bit cold having not had any match-time whereas they could be facing someone on a roll having won a couple of matches.

another thicko.

yes i bet steve davis absolutely over the moon having to win 2 matches instead of 1.

Is Davis still in the 32 these days ?

Mark is

Steve's not

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Bourne wrote:The qualifying system needs a serious looking at for starters.

What would you do that's different?

Its simple.

ditch the current teired set up and throw all the qualifiers in at the start in the first qualifying round but seeded obviously so 17th seed plays lowest ranked seed in qualifying and so on. In effect it would be a similar scenario to the PTCs where the big names dont enter at a later stage, albeit of course the top 16 would always qualify for the venue.

this way wed see the young players rise up the rankings quicker as it would be more of a level playing field with all qualifiers having to play the same number of games to get to the venue, instead of those ranker higher getting more minimum starter ranking points and having to play less qualifying games.

are you completely bucking thick or what...

the tiered system makes the rankings how they are at the moment even more exciting ......

and gives lower ranked players like Lisowski Targets to reach a level Top 64,48,32

if there's a chance of a lower ranked player facing someone like Ricky Walden or Marco Fu in the first Round how the hell are they going to climbe if they cant beat someone like James Mcbain or Patrick Wallace.

your the thicko pal, anyway i know im right and ive wrote on this topis in great length in the past and i really cant be fussed wasting my time trying to convince you of the pros of what i propose again so over to you Bourne if you can be hassled banging your head against a brick wall.

Bourne wrote:Is Davis still in the 32 these days ?

no someone else has replaced him hence the ladder to the top like in every other buisness you start at the bottom and you get promotion that what the tier does...

before with only 6 rankers and static rankings i see that it did not work but now as has been the case with Lisowski and others with the PTC and Rolling Rankings it works brilliantly.

PLtheRef wrote:Mark is

Steve's not

Cheers sothat just proves wild hasn't understood a thing we've said

Witz78 wrote:

Tubberlad wrote:Wild cards are given in Tennis and Golf, but are both played with fields of well over 100 players. With the exception of a freak event in 2001, they seem to have very little impact in tennis, and go largely unnoticed.

In Golf, we're talking about a few hundred players, so the odds of a legend like Palmer, Nicklaus, Player or Watson appearing at the top over the last ten years was hugely unlikely, again, with one notable exception when Watson wasn't too far off winning the Open.

In Sheffield, you have a field of 32, and to extend it would be massively damaging in my opinion. It's wrong to give players like Davis, White or Hendry a free pass into a tournament, and make players better than them have to earn a place. A non runner.

Watson came down the last at Turnberry needing a par to win it

Nicklaus finished tied for 3rd in the 1998 Open only 3 shots off O'Meara who won it

and Justin Rose (AM) 4th

Wildcards are in regular tennis tournaments too not just slams, and they do win every now and then.

Bourne wrote:Wildcards are in regular tennis tournaments too not just slams, and they do win every now and then.

The problem is that in golf and tennis there are hundreds entered from the start, where in snooker certain players are seeded (top 16).

If you had 128 players trying to qualify for the Crucible and Hendry, Doherty and Co were in from the off, no-one would really have a problem with that - except those who had retired rather than play in qualifying events!

A nice notion - but little more than that in reality

If anything I'd like to go back to the days where anyone could turn up and try to qualify for the Crucible.

Nah only 28 in this week's tour events and three wildcards included. Add qualifying draw and it's about 70 in total.

That's this week. We are talking snooker world championship here, which would rank alongside majors or grand slams in golf and tennis

Fair enough.

Witz78 wrote:

Tubberlad wrote:Wild cards are given in Tennis and Golf, but are both played with fields of well over 100 players. With the exception of a freak event in 2001, they seem to have very little impact in tennis, and go largely unnoticed.

In Golf, we're talking about a few hundred players, so the odds of a legend like Palmer, Nicklaus, Player or Watson appearing at the top over the last ten years was hugely unlikely, again, with one notable exception when Watson wasn't too far off winning the Open.

In Sheffield, you have a field of 32, and to extend it would be massively damaging in my opinion. It's wrong to give players like Davis, White or Hendry a free pass into a tournament, and make players better than them have to earn a place. A non runner.

Watson came down the last at Turnberry needing a par to win it

Nicklaus finished tied for 3rd in the 1998 Open only 3 shots off O'Meara who won it

Yes, I mentioned Watson

Tubberlad wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Tubberlad wrote:Wild cards are given in Tennis and Golf, but are both played with fields of well over 100 players. With the exception of a freak event in 2001, they seem to have very little impact in tennis, and go largely unnoticed.

In Golf, we're talking about a few hundred players, so the odds of a legend like Palmer, Nicklaus, Player or Watson appearing at the top over the last ten years was hugely unlikely, again, with one notable exception when Watson wasn't too far off winning the Open.

In Sheffield, you have a field of 32, and to extend it would be massively damaging in my opinion. It's wrong to give players like Davis, White or Hendry a free pass into a tournament, and make players better than them have to earn a place. A non runner.

Watson came down the last at Turnberry needing a par to win it

Nicklaus finished tied for 3rd in the 1998 Open only 3 shots off O'Meara who won it

Yes, I mentioned Watson

yeh was just putting the details on it since you said he came close to winning it, incase anyone didnt realise HOW close he came to winning it. Was heartbreaking yet predictable to see him balls it up on the 18th then capitulate in the play-offs.

Adding Wildcards to the World Championship is a stupid idea. End of.

SnookerFan wrote:Adding Wildcards to the World Championship is a stupid idea. End of.

BS idea