The World Open

Witz78 wrote:i strongly disagree

whilst im all for the globalisation of the sport i think it should still be in Scotland and thats not just bias from a selfish point of view.

fact is Germany already has a full ranker and some PTC events yet they have NO professionals on the tour so there doing well as things are

as for Scotland, well apart from the World Champion theres 3 others Scots in the top 16 then the likes of Burnett, Campbell, McGill, Angles and a few others ive forgot who are on tour so Scotland should def have a ranker IMO

I meant I'd rather see it in Germany then have another event in China. I didn't mean this event has to be in Germany at all costs. I'd be happy to have it in the UK too.

Though, I do think Germany deserves another ranker other then what they've got and a couple of PTCS.

SnookerFan wrote:

Witz78 wrote:i strongly disagree

whilst im all for the globalisation of the sport i think it should still be in Scotland and thats not just bias from a selfish point of view.

fact is Germany already has a full ranker and some PTC events yet they have NO professionals on the tour so there doing well as things are

as for Scotland, well apart from the World Champion theres 3 others Scots in the top 16 then the likes of Burnett, Campbell, McGill, Angles and a few others ive forgot who are on tour so Scotland should def have a ranker IMO

I meant I'd rather see it in Germany then have another event in China. I didn't mean this event has to be in Germany at all costs. I'd be happy to have it in the UK too.

Though, I do think Germany deserves another ranker other then what they've got and a couple of PTCS.

Germany with 1 Ranker and 2 PTCs already has more than Wales, Scotland, N.Ireland and Eire put together

these 4 countries provide 25 players to the tour compared to Germanys 0 so id say the UK deserves another tournament ahead of Germany.

I also would prefer to see a return of the Scottish and Irish Masters - and they don't need to be ranking if they have good prize money and are played in good venues, the important thing is that there are tournaments organised in those places - rather than more tournaments in Asia.
One of the good sides of the World Open last season was the opportunity to involve amateurs. The qualifs are held in Sheffield. Will the UK/european amateurs travel to China, or the Chines ones to UK for the qualifs? It's nonsense.
If Dave Hendon is correct during March 2012, some players will travel to India for a ranker there, then to China for the World Open, then to Europe for the PTC Grand Final and back to China for the China Open. All in 5 weeks. Well I tell you they will be completely burnt-out if they do, not so much because of the amount of snooker, but because of the traveling, the time differences and the repeated broken sleep patterns.

Why could they not have moved the PTC Final back a week and had the World Open and China Open as back to back events.? One fligo China instead of two.
Some common sense is needed.

Monique wrote:I also would prefer to see a return of the Scottish and Irish Masters - and they don't need to be ranking if they have good prize money and are played in good venues, the important thing is that there are tournaments organised in those places - rather than more tournaments in Asia.
One of the good sides of the World Open last season was the opportunity to involve amateurs. The qualifs are held in Sheffield. Will the UK/european amateurs travel to China, or the Chines ones to UK for the qualifs? It's nonsense.
If Dave Hendon is correct during March 2012, some players will travel to India for a ranker there, then to China for the World Open, then to Europe for the PTC Grand Final and back to China for the China Open. All in 5 weeks. Well I tell you they will be completely burnt-out if they do, not so much because of the amount of snooker, but because of the traveling, the time differences and the repeated broken sleep patterns.

was gonna reply, but decided it merited a topic of its own...................

Monique wrote:I also would prefer to see a return of the Scottish and Irish Masters - and they don't need to be ranking if they have good prize money and are played in good venues, the important thing is that there are tournaments organised in those places - rather than more tournaments in Asia.
One of the good sides of the World Open last season was the opportunity to involve amateurs. The qualifs are held in Sheffield. Will the UK/european amateurs travel to China, or the Chines ones to UK for the qualifs? It's nonsense.
If Dave Hendon is correct during March 2012, some players will travel to India for a ranker there, then to China for the World Open, then to Europe for the PTC Grand Final and back to China for the China Open. All in 5 weeks. Well I tell you they will be completely burnt-out if they do, not so much because of the amount of snooker, but because of the traveling, the time differences and the repeated broken sleep patterns.

I TOTALLY AGREE.

but its better having tournaments up and running then get them better organised.

snooker structure over the years has made it difficult because the sport dont own venues so they have to get them when they can and when people want them if we would wait for venues to come available when snooker needs them and can fit them nicely in the callender nothing at all would happen and players doing nothing at all like Rod Walker did.

Barry Hearn has changed that thrown up tournaments then trying over years to get room for them in a sensible way.

monique you want things to quick or things are moving to quick......it will take time to get things properly organized but unless things are done then opportunities would have past and nothing happening.

snooky147 wrote:Why could they not have moved the PTC Final back a week and had the World Open and China Open as back to back events.? One flight to China instead of two.
Some common sense is needed.

Sorry, Dont Know how that happened.

snooky147 wrote:

snooky147 wrote:Why could they not have moved the PTC Final back a week and had the World Open and China Open as back to back events.? One flight to China instead of two.
Some common sense is needed.

i explained that in my post

snooker cant move things around at will we dont own venues other things are happening at the venue booked in advanced.

Wild wrote:

Monique wrote:I also would prefer to see a return of the Scottish and Irish Masters - and they don't need to be ranking if they have good prize money and are played in good venues, the important thing is that there are tournaments organised in those places - rather than more tournaments in Asia.
One of the good sides of the World Open last season was the opportunity to involve amateurs. The qualifs are held in Sheffield. Will the UK/european amateurs travel to China, or the Chines ones to UK for the qualifs? It's nonsense.
If Dave Hendon is correct during March 2012, some players will travel to India for a ranker there, then to China for the World Open, then to Europe for the PTC Grand Final and back to China for the China Open. All in 5 weeks. Well I tell you they will be completely burnt-out if they do, not so much because of the amount of snooker, but because of the traveling, the time differences and the repeated broken sleep patterns.

I TOTALLY AGREE.

but its better having tournaments up and running then get them better organised.

snooker structure over the years has made it difficult because the sport dont own venues so they have to get them when they can and when people want them if we would wait for venues to come available when snooker needs them and can fit them nicely in the callender nothing at all would happen and players doing nothing at all like Rod Walker did.

Barry Hearn has changed that thrown up tournaments then trying over years to get room for them in a sensible way.

monique you want things to quick or things are moving to quick......it will take time to get things properly organized but unless things are done then opportunities would have past and nothing happening.

Just the opposite Wild. I don't want them too quick. I'd rather favour quality over quantity. That's the guarantee of a healthy foundation for further developments. And as snooky said, they should use some common sense in organising things.

monique

with respect your way nothing will get done and snooker in limbo.

i much prefer tournaments more the merrier then try and fit them in to the callender in a workable way or chances will have been lost by waiting around twiddling our thumbs.

Wild wrote:monique

with respect your way nothing will get done and snooker in limbo.

i much prefer tournaments more the merrier then try and fit them in to the callender in a workable way or chances will have been lost by waiting around twiddling our thumbs.

I see what you did there ...

Bourne wrote:

Wild wrote:monique

with respect your way nothing will get done and snooker in limbo.

i much prefer tournaments more the merrier then try and fit them in to the callender in a workable way or chances will have been lost by waiting around twiddling our thumbs.

I see what you did there ...

did not do it intentionally

but we really got to move with this not hang about waiting for things to happen Rod Walker did things slowly i thought we needed things quicken up a bit ...

Wild wrote:monique

with respect your way nothing will get done and snooker in limbo.

i much prefer tournaments more the merrier then try and fit them in to the callender in a workable way or chances will have been lost by waiting around twiddling our thumbs.

Wild we have gone fro 6 tournaments in a season to some 25. I honestly think that there could and should be a more balanced "in-between" approach ... I would be perfectly happy with 15 tournaments, with better attention to venues and organisation and better prize money for each of them.

Monique wrote:

Wild wrote:monique

with respect your way nothing will get done and snooker in limbo.

i much prefer tournaments more the merrier then try and fit them in to the callender in a workable way or chances will have been lost by waiting around twiddling our thumbs.

Wild we have gone fro 6 tournaments in a season to some 25. I honestly think that there could and should be a more balanced "in-between" approach ... I would be perfectly happy with 15 tournaments, with better attention to venues and organisation and better prize money for each of them.

I agree Monique, a few less would mean better orginisation and more prize fund, possibly even ensuring the lower ranked actually get paid at all.

snooky147 wrote:

Monique wrote:

Wild wrote:monique

with respect your way nothing will get done and snooker in limbo.

i much prefer tournaments more the merrier then try and fit them in to the callender in a workable way or chances will have been lost by waiting around twiddling our thumbs.

Wild we have gone fro 6 tournaments in a season to some 25. I honestly think that there could and should be a more balanced "in-between" approach ... I would be perfectly happy with 15 tournaments, with better attention to venues and organisation and better prize money for each of them.

I agree Monique, a few less would mean better orginisation and more prize fund, possibly even ensuring the lower ranked actually get paid at all.

a few less tournaments wouldnt mean there'd still be the same pot to go around though

if thats the case then why not just have a £6 million pound World Championship and nothing else the other 50 weeks of the year

its harsh but if players cant make money out of the increased playing opportunities they have then they arent going to make it.

for too long there's players that knows they aren't going to make it hanging around the lower ranks going to only 6 qualifiers a season......now they have to reach a standard or get out of it.

in the end we will get real strength in depth with some players reaching semis and quarters from the early qualifiers and next tournament losing at the early qualifying rounds.

Witz, You cant honestly not know what we mean. There are 96 Pro's usually on the circuit right?. These players have played all their lives to get/stay on and improve their ranking. As a seed you are entitled to be paid. The players ranked at 65-96 should at the very least be guaranteed prize money that covers their travel and hotels. But you have instances where they are not paid at all. This is wrong.

snooky147 wrote:Witz, You cant honestly not know what we mean. There are 96 Pro's usually on the circuit right?. These players have played all their lives to get/stay on and improve their ranking. As a seed you are entitled to be paid. The players ranked at 65-96 should at the very least be guaranteed prize money that covers their travel and hotels. But you have instances where they are not paid at all. This is wrong.

in an ideal world yeh theyd all make good money but at the moment its sink or swim.

thats why i campaign for all those in qualifying to enter at the first round, albeit in a seeded draw so its truly a level playing field with the same opportunities for all

Witz78 wrote:

snooky147 wrote:Witz, You cant honestly not know what we mean. There are 96 Pro's usually on the circuit right?. These players have played all their lives to get/stay on and improve their ranking. As a seed you are entitled to be paid. The players ranked at 65-96 should at the very least be guaranteed prize money that covers their travel and hotels. But you have instances where they are not paid at all. This is wrong.

in an ideal world yeh theyd all make good money but at the moment its sink or swim.

thats why i campaign for all those in qualifying to enter at the first round, albeit in a seeded draw so its truly a level playing field with the same opportunities for all

That's what they have in tennis, 2,3 or 4 qualifying rounds, sometimes the top seeds will get byes into R2 but at least everyone who makes it has actually had to work for it rather than a 17-32 player sometimes only having to play 5 frames or even none against a walkover

By the way, has anyone confirmed the format of this yet?. Is it still best of Five? I bloody hope not.

I hope it is, was a massive success last year and snooker needs all these different formats

i prefer it like this now get working get promotion like every other businesses.

snooky147 wrote:By the way, has anyone confirmed the format of this yet?. Is it still best of Five? I bloody hope not.

You're joking aren't you? Wild and Monique are still arguing with Hainan is a sponsor or a geographical location.

Wild wrote:i prefer it like this now get working get promotion like every other businesses.

Most businesses will crash when they take the reckless approach and no company can afford not to pay it's employees or people under contract or they will be in trouble soon.

What you all seem to forget is that the PLAYERS are the sport/game biggest asset and that they have to be treated correctly in order to give it their best. Without them there is NO sport. There are plenty of business minded persons who can organise a tournament if they put their mind to it. Becoming a top player asks for loads of talent and many, many years of hard work.

Currently a youngster in their first year as a pro will sometimes have to win 3 matches before getting anything, and it's a pittance. That's not correct. That means that making it as a pro might in fact depend whether your family is well-off rather than on your talent and hard work. Especially with the ridiculous starting points it's extremely hard to climb, even for the gifted.

Monique wrote:

Wild wrote:i prefer it like this now get working get promotion like every other businesses.

Most businesses will crash when they take the reckless approach and no company can afford not to pay it's employees or people under contract or they will be in trouble soon.

What you all seem to forget is that the PLAYERS are the sport/game biggest asset and that they have to be treated correctly in order to give it their best. Without them there is NO sport. There are plenty of business minded persons who can organise a tournament if they put their mind to it. Becoming a top player asks for loads of talent and many, many years of hard work.

Currently a youngster in their first year as a pro will sometimes have to win 3 matches before getting anything, and it's a pittance. That's not correct. That means that making it as a pro might in fact depend whether your family is well-off rather than on your talent and hard work. Especially with the ridiculous starting points it's extremely hard to climb, even for the gifted.

There'll always be enough players, if these can't hack it then stuff them, eventually people will be prepared to do it for free.

Monique wrote:

Wild wrote:i prefer it like this now get working get promotion like every other businesses.

Most businesses will crash when they take the reckless approach and no company can afford not to pay it's employees or people under contract or they will be in trouble soon.

What you all seem to forget is that the PLAYERS are the sport/game biggest asset and that they have to be treated correctly in order to give it their best. Without them there is NO sport. There are plenty of business minded persons who can organise a tournament if they put their mind to it. Becoming a top player asks for loads of talent and many, many years of hard work.

Currently a youngster in their first year as a pro will sometimes have to win 3 matches before getting anything, and it's a pittance. That's not correct. That means that making it as a pro might in fact depend whether your family is well-off rather than on your talent and hard work. Especially with the ridiculous starting points it's extremely hard to climb, even for the gifted.

i totally agree with you regarding the ridiculous starting points handed out, at the end of the day if the newcomers do well in the first rankings period then they should expect to climb into the top 64 on merit, not be victimised and still be fighting an almost losing battle to scramble into the top 64.

in an ideal world the players would all make good money and the guys low down would at least break even

the only way to correct this, given the current prize funds is to alter the qualifying similar to tennis as someone above said after i suggested it, put all the qualifiers in the first pot and seeded, that way all the newcomers arent wiping each other out in round 1, then still having 2 rounds to come through to earn anything.

Bourne wrote:I hope it is, was a massive success last year and snooker needs all these different formats

So you want them to travel all the way out there for a best of five?. Crazy.
I could be persuaded to agree to that if it were back to back events, they would not have to go to China and come back and then travel again. It would make sense then. Plus they have to raise the prize money so that players can pay their air fares so doing that so they can play a best of five?. I think/hope/pray not.

Bourne wrote:

Monique wrote:

Wild wrote:i prefer it like this now get working get promotion like every other businesses.

Most businesses will crash when they take the reckless approach and no company can afford not to pay it's employees or people under contract or they will be in trouble soon.

What you all seem to forget is that the PLAYERS are the sport/game biggest asset and that they have to be treated correctly in order to give it their best. Without them there is NO sport. There are plenty of business minded persons who can organise a tournament if they put their mind to it. Becoming a top player asks for loads of talent and many, many years of hard work.

Currently a youngster in their first year as a pro will sometimes have to win 3 matches before getting anything, and it's a pittance. That's not correct. That means that making it as a pro might in fact depend whether your family is well-off rather than on your talent and hard work. Especially with the ridiculous starting points it's extremely hard to climb, even for the gifted.

There'll always be enough players, if these can't hack it then stuff them, eventually people will be prepared to do it for free.

That's ridiculous, sorry! They can't do it for free, with a full calendar, unless they are millionaires who don't need to work for a living. And in addition in our society, like it or not - and I don't like it - the value and prestige of things is more often than not measured by the money attached to it. "Cheap" tournaments devaluate the sport in the eyes of the public, of the sponsors and of the broadcasters and eventually harm it.
Some here need a serious reality check!

Monique wrote:

Bourne wrote:

Monique wrote:

Wild wrote:i prefer it like this now get working get promotion like every other businesses.

Most businesses will crash when they take the reckless approach and no company can afford not to pay it's employees or people under contract or they will be in trouble soon.

What you all seem to forget is that the PLAYERS are the sport/game biggest asset and that they have to be treated correctly in order to give it their best. Without them there is NO sport. There are plenty of business minded persons who can organise a tournament if they put their mind to it. Becoming a top player asks for loads of talent and many, many years of hard work.

Currently a youngster in their first year as a pro will sometimes have to win 3 matches before getting anything, and it's a pittance. That's not correct. That means that making it as a pro might in fact depend whether your family is well-off rather than on your talent and hard work. Especially with the ridiculous starting points it's extremely hard to climb, even for the gifted.

There'll always be enough players, if these can't hack it then stuff them, eventually people will be prepared to do it for free.

That's ridiculous, sorry! They can't do it for free, with a full calendar, unless they are millionaires who don't need to work for a living. And in addition in our society, like it or not - and I don't like it - the value and prestige of things is more often than not measured by the money attached to it. "Cheap" tournaments devaluate the sport in the eyes of the public, of the sponsors and of the broadcasters and eventually harm it.
Some here need a serious reality check!

yeh thats a bit daft Bourne to just say, ah well sod this batch of talented youngsters, if they havent got enough money to remain a pro then sod them, another 32 young mugs will happily come along for the same punishment.

the fact remains that 6million prize money on this tour is a joke even if its heading in the right direction.

its still only 6 million quid between 100 players = 60k average or 1000 quid a week, this being before tax and expenses so not a great deal.

its a bad comparison but look at the likes of football with 1,000s and 1,000s of players who make a living and there will be lots of players who earn more in a year than the whole 100 snooker pros do combined, so you can see that the snooker pros are the poor relations in sport.

Snookerfan, Wild and others dont seem to care how low prize money is and how that affects how prestigious a tournament is etc. For me the events funds are way too low in many cases, especially the Asian rankers where WSA havent really tapped into the supposed massive interest and growth there yet, with paltry prize funds still in existence with only really the semi finalists, runner up and winner earning anything remotely decent from there.

with all the expansion and increased tour, id really think we should have a tour worth 10million this year to be honest.

it is a work in progress though and i expect Hearn to deliver

snooky147 wrote:

Bourne wrote:I hope it is, was a massive success last year and snooker needs all these different formats

So you want them to travel all the way out there for a best of five?. Crazy.
I could be persuaded to agree to that if it were back to back events, they would not have to go to China and come back and then travel again. It would make sense then. Plus they have to raise the prize money so that players can pay their air fares so doing that so they can play a best of five?. I think/hope/pray not.

They go out to China for two events to play BO9, which can potentially end in 5 frames too, so what's the difference ? What I still don't understand is why the China Open is still being so undervalued by World Snooker, they treat it like a regulation minor ranker when it has the potential to be the 3rd major.