Saudi Tournament Announced

Holden Chinaski wrote:Johnny Bravo thinks this is a great idea.

Cause it is.
It gives snooker exposure and players huge sums of money.
Plus it's an invitayional event, so we won't have that garbage flat 128 draw filled with numpties nobody gives a buck about.

So why wouldn't it be a good idea ?

SnookerFan wrote:Won't the fact that there's a gold ball at the end worth 20 points make a lot of the frames really rubbish? If you're contesting a close frame, it'll lose any excitement knowing all that really matters is who pots the last ball. Also, if you've scored a century, you've won anyway, so the gold ball becomes irrelevant.

The golden ball would only be used after a maximum break, apparently. So won't affect the majority of frames.

HappyCamper wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Won't the fact that there's a gold ball at the end worth 20 points make a lot of the frames really rubbish? If you're contesting a close frame, it'll lose any excitement knowing all that really matters is who pots the last ball. Also, if you've scored a century, you've won anyway, so the gold ball becomes irrelevant.

The golden ball would only be used after a maximum break, apparently. So won't affect the majority of frames.

Is that it? lol

Holden Chinaski wrote:Johnny Bravo thinks this is a great idea.

Must be a briliant idea then.

buck me that sounds stupid. I hope the golden ball doesn't get spotted until the final black goes down. Then we can all just forget about it.

HappyCamper wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Won't the fact that there's a gold ball at the end worth 20 points make a lot of the frames really rubbish? If you're contesting a close frame, it'll lose any excitement knowing all that really matters is who pots the last ball. Also, if you've scored a century, you've won anyway, so the gold ball becomes irrelevant.

The golden ball would only be used after a maximum break, apparently. So won't affect the majority of frames.

What? Really? Is that true?

What in the name of buck is the point in that?

I mean, I guess it's an improvement to adding it to every frame. But bucking hell, having a gold ball there just in case somebody makes 147, just on the off chance of somebody getting more points of the traditional maximum sounds like somebody who has had a blow to the head would make a good idea.

A while ago when we discussed new ideas for snooker I joked about adding a new purple ball. I never in my wildest dreams did I think they would do it.

The_Abbott wrote:A while ago when we discussed new ideas for snooker I joked about adding a new purple ball. I never in my wildest dreams did I think they would do it.

I have a feeling that I once joked about once a match, at a random point, a klaxon goes off and an orange ball worth 50 points gets put onto the tanle.

I feel so responsible.

I won't be wataching this invitational. They can stick it up their bums. The players won't care as they get loadsa money.

they did add a ornage and purple ball for a tournament called snooker plus, worth eight and ten points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_News ... Tournament

but they were always on the table and actually would have an impact on the tactics of the game.

SnookerFan wrote:

The_Abbott wrote:A while ago when we discussed new ideas for snooker I joked about adding a new purple ball. I never in my wildest dreams did I think they would do it.

I have a feeling that I once joked about once a match, at a random point, a klaxon goes off and an orange ball worth 50 points gets put onto the tanle.

I feel so responsible.

tanle

Bungke

HappyCamper wrote:they did add a ornage and purple ball for a tournament called snooker plus, worth eight and ten points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_News ... Tournament

but they were always on the table and actually would have an impact on the tactics of the game.

See?

That's better.

I'm obsessed with how bad this golden ball rule is, and how stupid it makes everybody involved look.

They should do it in all sports. In football, if you successfully score a penalty, they should bring a gold football out, and let you try for an extra goal. In boxing, if you knock your opponent down, you should get a silver glove, and be told to punch him again.

In Darts, whenever you hit a bullseye, you should get a Golden Dart which you’re allowed to throw at the numptie promoter of your choice.

Guys, the golden ball is blatant Dead Cat strategy. It shouldn’t be anywhere near our biggest gripe with the whole thing.

Prop wrote:Guys, the golden ball is blatant Dead Cat strategy. It shouldn’t be anywhere near our biggest gripe with the whole thing.

Oh, now I get you.

You think it's there to distract from people complaining about the human rights problems.

Disappointing. Now there's a point to it, it stops being interesting.

Snooker Fan, can you stop making reference to blows to the head? I think it's culturally insensitive to our new partners.

Pink Ball wrote:Snooker Fan, can you stop making reference to blows to the head? I think it's culturally insensitive to our new partners.

My bad.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:Johnny Bravo thinks this is a great idea.

Cause it is.
It gives snooker exposure and players huge sums of money.
Plus it's an invitayional event, so we won't have that garbage flat 128 draw filled with numpties nobody gives a buck about.

So why wouldn't it be a good idea ?

Because making the richest 8 players even more rich might not be the best look for the vast amount of the tour who, if unsuccessful in the next two qualifying events, will not have earning opportunities on the tour from between the end of January (or at most 4th feb, if qualified for Germany) to 8th April.

You can talk about rewarding success but when there are already so many elite invitational events throughout the season, you can't say that the WST are looking after the interests of the whole tour.

This leads to the ludicrous situation of a lot of the tour not playing a competitive match for 2 months before the most important tournament of the year.

What other serious sport would have no competitive opportunities for its members for such a large part of the season?

Plus no culture/mass support for snooker in that area. Will it be any different to the poorly attended Bahrain tournament?

Plus, obviously, human rights and sports washing

Jimmy will one of the wildcards won't he.

The_Abbott wrote:Jimmy will one of the wildcards won't he.

Jimbo and Dennis Taylor, yes

The_Abbott wrote:Jimmy will one of the wildcards won't he.

Give it to Ding and Jack.

It’ll be a couple of princes who fancy themselves snooker players.

SteveJJ wrote:
Because making the richest 8 players even more rich might not be the best look for the vast amount of the tour who, if unsuccessful in the next two qualifying events, will not have earning opportunities on the tour from between the end of January (or at most 4th feb, if qualified for Germany) to 8th April.

You can talk about rewarding success but when there are already so many elite invitational events throughout the season, you can't say that the WST are looking after the interests of the whole tour.

This leads to the ludicrous situation of a lot of the tour not playing a competitive match for 2 months before the most important tournament of the year.

What other serious sport would have no competitive opportunities for its members for such a large part of the season?

Plus no culture/mass support for snooker in that area. Will it be any different to the poorly attended Bahrain tournament?

Plus, obviously, human rights and sports washing

SteveJJ wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:Johnny Bravo thinks this is a great idea.

Cause it is.
It gives snooker exposure and players huge sums of money.
Plus it's an invitayional event, so we won't have that garbage flat 128 draw filled with numpties nobody gives a buck about.

So why wouldn't it be a good idea ?

Because making the richest 8 players even more rich might not be the best look for the vast amount of the tour who, if unsuccessful in the next two qualifying events, will not have earning opportunities on the tour from between the end of January (or at most 4th feb, if qualified for Germany) to 8th April.
You can talk about rewarding success but when there are already so many elite invitational events throughout the season, you can't say that the WST are looking after the interests of the whole tour.

If some arab sheiks like it, perhaps they will sponsor other snooker events that take part in the UK.

SteveJJ wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:Johnny Bravo thinks this is a great idea.

Cause it is.
It gives snooker exposure and players huge sums of money.
Plus it's an invitayional event, so we won't have that garbage flat 128 draw filled with numpties nobody gives a buck about.

So why wouldn't it be a good idea ?

Plus, obviously, human rights and sports washing

Human rights aren't exactly respected in the West anymore will all the censorship and fake news going on.
Also, what's sports washing ?

I’ve got to be honest, I think it’s pretty rich for snooker fans to baulk at Saudi involvement given how we’ve embraced Chinese interest in the game.

Iranu wrote:I’ve got to be honest, I think it’s pretty rich for snooker fans to baulk at Saudi involvement given how we’ve embraced Chinese interest in the game.

This is a fair point.

I am not saying don't challenge human rights violations, but you can't be alright because snooker is more common in one country than another.

Graeme Dott calls the WPBSA a bunch of tories

Sports washing?

Money talks, look at Nadal from tennis, he's been a multi-multi-millionaire for literally decades and yet has just decided to become Saudi Arabia's tennis ambassador lol does he really need the few million more?

In the case of snooker players I understand. It's not a lucrative sport and you don't get brands sponsoring players. $1 million prize haul is like a lottery for them.

Although the golden ball is pointless unless there's extra cash involved.