John Higgins interview...

Doesn't matter Monique. The World Final is sacred and the semis are only one frame shorter and how many comebacks have we seen in those? Many more than 3 for certain.

Sonny wrote:Doesn't matter Monique. The World Final is sacred and the semis are only one frame shorter and how many comebacks have we seen in those? Many more than 3 for certain.

lol Sonny ... as I said I'm not a fan of short format myself... but I must admit I was surprised by the stat. I was expecting more comebacks indeed. And if you exclude Maff there was only one, since 1990, Hendry coming back on Jimmy in 1994.

Yeah. I won't say anything about bottling but the stats are there. If you had the final over one day and best of 19 it would make a joke of the whole tournament. You can't have a final shorter than other rounds which means you'd have to shorten everything and the whole thing would then be crammed into 10 days or something ridiculous.

I promise I'll watch the interview later, I'm obviously reacting to the concept but surely part of being World Champion is the staying power over the 17 days? Everyone knows you're more likely to play your best if you can have a decent breather between matches, but to be World Champion you have to endure a snooker marathon and that's only right. It's a battle of wills, a battle of minds. Unless you're prodigiously talented you can't breeze to a world title, it's got to be blood and guts and the eventual winner has to be completely exhausted at the end like every other sporting event.

If you want to be World Snooker Champion you must have what it takes to be just that. Pampering to players demands shouldn't be an issue. If I was in charge they would have to play best of 99 frames to win the final! Has anyone seen The Hustler? They played until a player dropped! I just played nearly 6 hours myself this afternoon and I could've gone on all night. Endurance as well as craft and talent must be tested otherwise the event will be significantly undervalued.

Sonny wrote:Yeah. I won't say anything about bottling but the stats are there. If you had the final over one day and best of 19 it would make a joke of the whole tournament. You can't have a final shorter than other rounds which means you'd have to shorten everything and the whole thing would then be crammed into 10 days or something ridiculous.

I promise I'll watch the interview later, I'm obviously reacting to the concept but surely part of being World Champion is the staying power over the 17 days? Everyone knows you're more likely to play your best if you can have a decent breather between matches, but to be World Champion you have to endure a snooker marathon and that's only right. It's a battle of wills, a battle of minds. Unless you're prodigiously talented you can't breeze to a world title, it's got to be blood and guts and the eventual winner has to be completely exhausted at the end like every other sporting event.

If you want to be World Snooker Champion you must have what it takes to be just that. Pampering to players demands shouldn't be an issue. If I was in charge they would have to play best of 99 frames to win the final! Has anyone seen The Hustler? They played until a player dropped! I just played nearly 6 hours myself this afternoon and I could've gone on all night. Endurance as well as craft and talent must be tested otherwise the event will be significantly undervalued.

perfect analysis of what the World Championship should be all about not flamboyance and quickness but Blood and Guts.

if you don't mind id like to e mail that to World Snooker.

The World Championship is perfect as it is. If it ain't broke....
It's the tournament that attracts the most attention, not only amongst the die hard fans but those with a passive interest too. People in my class who rarely watch snooker might come up to me the day after a late night thriller and say 'wow, what a game'. You don't get that with any other tournament.

A shorter final seems ridiculous to me. The UK, most agree, was much better with a best-of-31 final. Don't make the same mistake twice.

thetubberlad wrote:The World Championship is perfect as it is. If it ain't broke....
It's the tournament that attracts the most attention, not only amongst the die hard fans but those with a passive interest too. People in my class who rarely watch snooker might come up to me the day after a late night thriller and say 'wow, what a game'. You don't get that with any other tournament.

A shorter final seems ridiculous to me. The UK, most agree, was much better with a best-of-31 final. Don't make the same mistake twice.

i dont get why John saying such stupid things i always knew hes lazy he himself has admitted to it and suggestions like these proves what a lazy sod he is.

thetubberlad wrote:The World Championship is perfect as it is. If it ain't broke....
It's the tournament that attracts the most attention, not only amongst the die hard fans but those with a passive interest too. People in my class who rarely watch snooker might come up to me the day after a late night thriller and say 'wow, what a game'. You don't get that with any other tournament.

A shorter final seems ridiculous to me. The UK, most agree, was much better with a best-of-31 final. Don't make the same mistake twice.

yes the world championships and uk championships are the flagship therefore they nned to differentiate from other tournements, bringing in down to one day final will not make it stand out from any other mediocre tourney. if anything i feel they need to extend the uk to best of 25 and world final to best of 39

The last five days of the World Championship are the best part of the whole year. Theres just one table, you can watch nearly all of it and theres just four players taking part. I can't see it being changed.

Monique wrote:Personally I also prefer the longer formats however I had the curiosity to look at the results of the Crucible Finals over the last 20 years, results after 2 sessions and final result.
In 17 cases out of 20, the guy who was ahead after 2 sessions won it.
The three exceptions are 1994, 2000 and 2005. One Hendry vs White final and BOTH finals involving Matthew Stevens... bet he backs Higgins ideas? :rolleyes:
Now seriously that does say something about Matthew ...

That's not a surprise. In most first round matches the leader of nine frames goes on to win it. Theres no lamer excuse for losing than saying "ah sure it's only best of nine". If you look at the likes of Davis, Hendry, Ronnie & Higgins they have just as much sucess in normal formats as the long ones. Theres no better prepatation for the World Championship than winning tournaments.