Watching the World Open, I just couldn't fathom what was supposed to be entertaining about it. Hazel and Co. tried to pretend that coming back from 2-0 was the height of excitement, but even when that happened I didn't feel I'd watched a full match. At worst, you got somebody come out and make 3 centuries, and leave in like 40 minutes.
And the whole way it was marketed was baffling. There were two basic premises. The first being that you'd need to be able to hold your nerve, in the most tense tournament ever. Here you were, in the deciding frames of a one-table tournament, with all eyes on you. It was the ultimate test of your bottle. The second being; "With the matches so short, anybody can win it."
For me, other then whether you enjoyed the format or not, only two real talking points came from the tournament.
1) Ronnie snake hissing about in the 147 to 'make a point'. Firstly, the only point he made was that he was a hammer. And secondly, that talking point could've come from a best of 1 or a best of 99. It had nothing to do with the tournament or it's format.
2) Neil Robertson's win. It came pretty early in the season, over Ronnie O'Sullivan, and the first BBC tournament after he won the World Championship. The match itself was enjoyable, which says it all. It was a best of nine. Even though Robertson stomped him, he played beautifully and I would've wanted to see more of him play, not less.
And lastly, I didn't like the semi-finals being on the same day as the final. Snooker Final Sunday is a special event, in every snooker tournament. It should be the last two surviving having their moment. Not four people playing in the morning, and then two of them coming back later. Destroys any tension for me.