Iranu wrote:Wildey wrote:Snooker is a Sport you want to see players come through and winning 20 matches against players ranked 65 or under in a season would mean very little and pointless in the development of players. however if you play Ronnie, Trump or Selby in a last 128 that would mean more to a player and gain experiance of playing the best and if you won well the publicity and help to get sponsors that would include would be imense than winning 20 against others.
I strongly disagree with this.
I don’t think getting thrashed by top players week-in week-out is as helpful as winning 20 matches in a season against players of a similar skill level. At least you’d feel like you’re actually part of the tour and deserving of a spot. It would build confidence which is what new players need.
I wonder how Jamie Clarke for example is enjoying having got past the first round three times in 6 years (excluding the Shoot Out), all at the Gibraltar Open with a reduced field. I’m sure he really values the experience of beating Sam Baird, Jamie Curtis-Barrett, Luo Honghao and Chen Feilong.
What your talking about is maintaining the players thats known as Journeymen
im not interested in that i want them gone and if you cant get a decent season playing 20 + ranking events and maybe beating a top player along the way then you dont deserve to play snooker proffesionally.
History is full of players that won one or 2 matches and the only time they would meet a top player was to get their autograff.
- Posts: 60566
- Joined: 02 October 2009
- Location: North Wales
- Snooker Idol: Mark Selby
- Highest Break: 25
- Walk-On: the one and only