Post a reply

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

ideally the best scenario is 12 main Rankers with 6 PTC then for Ranking purposes take the World and UK and 6 other best results making it 8 counting events and the same with PTC 6 Events only counting 3 now that would be the ideal scenario but that sort of thing takes time its getting there but we cant expect it NOW.

monique

snooker players needs to play and not just top players invitationals are great but they are elitist for top players only.

it sounds to me TBH you was happy with Rodney Walker.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Roland

SnookerFan wrote:
The PTCs have been successful in some ways, but as Sonny says we need to see them televised soon.


I never said that :chin:

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Witz78

Monique wrote:
Witz78 wrote:the EPTCs are a snooker equivalent of the darts European Tour events. This is where Hearns inspiration has came from basically.

Sure there could do with being a bit more money on offer at them but as many have already said, we have to start somewhere.

The PTCs are an issue being played behind closed doors, albeit 2 of them are going to SWSA now.

The way i see it the EPTCs should be looking to go the groundwork in new snooker markets that ultimatelt become full ranking events or 4/5 day events on a par with the German Masters.

When this happens, then that particular EPTC has served its purpose so we no longer need 12 PTCs to fill up the calendar.

As more full rankers emerge, id reduce the number of PTC events accordingly, starting with those behind closed doors which serve little real purpose other than justifying the use of the Academy not being Rodney Walkers white elephant.


There is no need for more ranking events. There were never more than 10 rankers even in the early 90th when the calendar was full-full. What we need is to resurrect the invitational events that existed at the time a bit everywhere, and allowed for the player to fulfill to the best what is an important a part of their duties: entertain. Entertainment is essential to build and keep an audience and the audience is what sponsors look at.


110% disagree

Just cos there was never more than 10 rankers in the early 90s what does that matter. This is now !

We have 9 rankers this coming season + 12 PTCs and a PTC final so your argument about having no more than 10 rankers is out of the water.

These PTC events take up a lot of time on the calendar and carry ranking points, but ultimately the aim of these should be to become proper rankers rather than the stop gap events they are at the moment, basically plugging gaps in the calendar between the "proper" events.

Easily scope to fit in 15 or so rankers in the season if the PTC is phased out over coming seasons for new full rankers.

Surely 15 full proper rankers are better than 9 full rankers + the PTC series anyway?

Im not anti-PTC, far from it infact but i see them as not being here long term, simply a platform to progress snooker and more proper rankers off the back of the PTC is the natural progression.

Hearns damned if he does, damned if he doesnt with regards to invitationals. Hell be seen as being too elitist if he has a lot of tournaments purely for the top 16 whilst the others are left kicking their heels.

As it is, for the elite there already is the following invitationals - The Masters, Premier League, Championship League, Brazilian Invitational, Hainin Classic, Jingsui Classic, Power Snooker ?, etc so theres plenty of exclusive events already.

then theres the likes of the Sky Shootout for the top 64 to take part in.

So the split between rankers and invitationals is not as extreme as you would first think.

Yet when you look at other sports like tennis, golf etc, then pretty much every week its serious stuff and routine tournaments for them, so snooker has to aim that way too with as many ranking events as possible as these are where the heart of the sport is.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Witz78

Sonny wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
The PTCs have been successful in some ways, but as Sonny says we need to see them televised soon.


I never said that :chin:


televising PTCs isnt top of the priority list at the moment

take these events for what they are, minor ranking events that only the diehards like us follow cos thats what they are.

If the likes of the BBC is dropping events like the World Open, then weve gotta be realistic and accept that ensuring the main events are covered first is the priority.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Monique

Wild wrote:ideally the best scenario is 12 main Rankers with 6 PTC then for Ranking purposes take the World and UK and 6 other best results making it 8 counting events and the same with PTC 6 Events only counting 3 now that would be the ideal scenario but that sort of thing takes time its getting there but we cant expect it NOW.

monique

snooker players needs to play and not just top players invitationals are great but they are elitist for top players only.

it sounds to me TBH you was happy with Rodney Walker.



Well PTC's as they are are even more "elitist" ... just do the basic maths.
To earn 1000 euros, not pounds, minus the entry fees a player has to reach the last 16 in an EPTC, so only 16 players out of possible 128 will get that far, OK?. Now, taking Hamm as an example, to get there and play up to the quarters, they have to pay for their travel, which includes at least plane tickets (except for the local amateurs), train from Dusseldorf to Hamm and back and 2 or 3 nights hotel accommodations, plus their food. How much is left? Not much at all. All others will lose money, or finish more or less even... Certainly those not reaching the last 32 will.
Most UK sponsors will not be interested in those events, that aren't held on their "market" and not shown on television, don't even hit the media. The local sponsors won't neither (I'll come to that later). So no sponsoring money except maybe for the top boys... So there isn't sponsoring money for most players to help them face the bill. Net loss.
So why do they play: because of the ranking points. Those ranking points are needed to keep their ranking high enough so that what they earn from the major event doesn't go down. But there is a limit to what the players will be able to spend on those events; if they aren't wealthy enough, or have a family able to support them, I expect that many will just have to give up on the whole thing and it will cost them in ranking and start a spiraling down...
Is that survival of the fittest? Or is it survival of the wealthiest? Is that how youngsters should be encouraged to try themselves against the big boys?

Regarding sponsoring ... I tried to get logos sponsored for Mark Selby, Shaun Murphy and Ricky Walden in Berlin (German Masters). This event was on Eurosport, it was in the packed Tempodrom in Berlin ... and I drew a complete blank despite sending loads of emails to nearly every major German company I could think of. Only one could be bothered to answer me - Adidas - only to tell me they had already their fill of athletes they sponsor and weren't interested. Snooker is booming in Germany but, don't be kidding yourself, it remains a minority sport. So sponsors interest isn't huge.

So IMO either the PTCs need to become more "flexible" ranking wise so that they can manage their career within reasonable financial limits, or those events must pay more prize money and that is only possible if they get more media exposure, the sine qua non condition to attract sponsoring.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Witz78

Also its up to the players regarding the PTCs, the opportunitys there to make money and as Hearn said " i dont reward mediocrity" so the players should all strive to improve their game and start winning.

If all the players on tour are getting easy money and not having to scrap for prize money, then theres almost less of an incentive for them to give a toss about winning.

And Monique, on the one hand your going on about the lower ranker players struggling to have opportunities to make money, but then you want their opportunities to make money (number of ranking events) capped at 10, with the rest of the tour consisting of invitational events which only make the rich richer.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

i honestly understand the money issue but that has to be a concern for each player individually if they win a PTC they get 10,000 pounds or euro that is what Marcus Campbell and Barry Pinches did and that is probably up there with their best ever Check.

in the early days of PDC Darts which had been in a building state for years and years players used to go to Las Vegas for peanuts but if they want something to improve they have to put something in.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby John From London Town

Buddy of mine played in one last year. Travelled over together with another player from Ireland. Got to the venue (Sheffield), checked the draw, drew his mate who he travelled with, was put in a room by themselves, no ref, played, gave the result & that was it.
When I heard that it's hardly inviting is it eh?

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Monique

Wild wrote:i honestly understand the money issue but that has to be a concern for each player individually if they win a PTC they get 10,000 pounds or euro that is what Marcus Campbell and Barry Pinches did and that is probably up there with their best ever Check.

in the early days of PDC Darts which had been in a building state for years and years players used to go to Las Vegas for peanuts but if they want something to improve they have to put something in.


Yes Wild but they can't put something in if they haven't got anything to put in to start with.
There is only 12 winners over the season and most of them were top players this season. Next season if more top players take it more seriously it will leave pretty nothing for the lower ranked ones. There is no miracle. As they are PTCs are not sustainable.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Witz78

Monique wrote:
Wild wrote:i honestly understand the money issue but that has to be a concern for each player individually if they win a PTC they get 10,000 pounds or euro that is what Marcus Campbell and Barry Pinches did and that is probably up there with their best ever Check.

in the early days of PDC Darts which had been in a building state for years and years players used to go to Las Vegas for peanuts but if they want something to improve they have to put something in.


Yes Wild but they can't put something in if they haven't got anything to put in to start with.
There is only 12 winners over the season and most of them were top players this season. Next season if more top players take it more seriously it will leave pretty nothing for the lower ranked ones. There is no miracle. As they are PTCs are not sustainable.


thats my point tho, i want the PTCs phased out for proper rankers over the course of time.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

Things will get better im sure nobody says it was perfect but it was a start and unless you start somewhere nothing gets done.

im thinking of making food now unless i start i wont eat lol

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Casey

Bourne, correct me if I am wrong but tennis players trying to make it in the game travel all around the World pretty much 40+ weeks of the year?
They have a ranking system that supports 1000+ players, how many of them make a living? 200/300?

Do what it takes, if you are good enough you will make a living.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

Casey wrote:Bourne, correct me if I am wrong but tennis players trying to make it in the game travel all around the World pretty much 40+ weeks of the year?
They have a ranking system that supports 1000+ players, how many of them make a living? 200/300?

Do what it takes, if you are good enough you will make a living.

Good Question we are looking at Tennis as some multi million pound sport BUT thats the top end and lets face it there's tennis players thats strugling financially as well ..

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Monique

Well there isn't money for that ... don't forget that a full ranker costs not only because it needs decent prize money, it also costs to organise and pay for a full blown qualification process - nearly a week - in a proper venue, with qualified refs. And it takes time to run those qualifications as well.
As John above hints at, some PTCs weren't run in the best way... quality costs.
That's why I say that 10 rankers is more than enough. When there were 10 rankers the players nearly never stopped. Elite invitationals can be held in parallel with qualifs, raise the profile of the game and bring money into it.
And you can think of various kind of invitationals... why not one specifically reserved to the under-25 pros, to promote the young for instance?

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby John From London Town

Wild wrote:Good Question we are looking at Tennis as some multi million pound sport BUT thats the top end and lets face it there's tennis players thats strugling financially as well ..

Sorry wild, but how's that a good question? There's over £14 mill prize money in this year’s Wimbledon alone compared to £6 mill in our whole season. That's a bit like likening apples to oranges. Both a fruit, but totally different all together!

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

John From London Town wrote:
Wild wrote:Good Question we are looking at Tennis as some multi million pound sport BUT thats the top end and lets face it there's tennis players thats strugling financially as well ..

Sorry wild, but how's that a good question? There's over £14 mill prize money in this year’s Wimbledon alone compared to £6 mill in our whole season. That's a bit like likening apples to oranges. Both a fruit, but totally different all together!

with only 128 players playing for it.

theres another 800 + players somewhere.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Witz78

Monique wrote:Well there isn't money for that ... don't forget that a full ranker costs not only because it needs decent prize money, it also costs to organise and pay for a full blown qualification process - nearly a week - in a proper venue, with qualified refs. And it takes time to run those qualifications as well.
As John above hints at, some PTCs weren't run in the best way... quality costs.
That's why I say that 10 rankers is more than enough. When there were 10 rankers the players nearly never stopped. Elite invitationals can be held in parallel with qualifs, raise the profile of the game and bring money into it.
And you can think of various kind of invitationals... why not one specifically reserved to the under-25 pros, to promote the young for instance?


well weve got 9 full rankers the now

the PTC tour had 720,000 of prize money last year so thats enough to fund 2 more full rankers.

plus if there full rankers, theyd be televised, sponsored, have crowds etc so they would be bringing in money.

Hearns Championship League, whilst elitist pumps a lot of money into the game and takes up a lot of time in the calendar. I know its a Matchroom Sport event but theres gotta be scope for them to turn it into a full blown ranker, shown online as ultimately thats the sole aim of the CL to provide games for the betting companies to screen, so a full ranker would be far more attractive to all parties.

i envisage a reform of the qualifying process in the future so half the season isnt taken up with qualifying for the events.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Monique

Casey wrote:Bourne, correct me if I am wrong but tennis players trying to make it in the game travel all around the World pretty much 40+ weeks of the year?
They have a ranking system that supports 1000+ players, how many of them make a living? 200/300?

Do what it takes, if you are good enough you will make a living.


They have a ranking system where only a pre-determined number of "best results" comes into account when it's about minor events (as opposed to majors), so that they can manage their season, chose which ones they want to do and where.

To put things in perspective the 2011 snooker WC had a total £1,111,000 prize money. This is by far the biggest event in snooker.
The Rome WTA last week , which is not a major event and is ladies tennis had a total prize money of $2,050,000 which is £1,262,750.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Bourne

Casey wrote:Bourne, correct me if I am wrong but tennis players trying to make it in the game travel all around the World pretty much 40+ weeks of the year?
They have a ranking system that supports 1000+ players, how many of them make a living? 200/300?

Do what it takes, if you are good enough you will make a living.

Yah spot on, if you think about how many set out on the road to the top, not that many make it. There's approx 1,500 players on tour now, only the top 80 or so are regularly playing the main tour level, then the next 200/300 every week and the rest futures and satellites. When you take into account how much travelling, kit they need, accomodation, coaching staff to employ etc, the prize money for players ranked outside the top 200 often doesn't cover it so they have to make some sacrifices. Take James Ward for instance, British number two, most people probably think he does nothing throughout the year but turns up at Wimbledon to get his wildcard, loses, and does the same again next year ... but he's been to Qatar, Australia, Singapore, back to Australia, Croatia, England, Bosnia, Colombia, USA and now France this year and for what ... £13k. Halfway through the year so basically double that, £30k for a player ranked 200+ minus the expenses, it's not a great living.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

Bourne wrote:
Casey wrote:Bourne, correct me if I am wrong but tennis players trying to make it in the game travel all around the World pretty much 40+ weeks of the year?
They have a ranking system that supports 1000+ players, how many of them make a living? 200/300?

Do what it takes, if you are good enough you will make a living.

Yah spot on, if you think about how many set out on the road to the top, not that many make it. There's approx 1,500 players on tour now, only the top 80 or so are regularly playing the main tour level, then the next 200/300 every week and the rest futures and satellites. When you take into account how much travelling, kit they need, accomodation, coaching staff to employ etc, the prize money for players ranked outside the top 200 often doesn't cover it so they have to make some sacrifices. Take James Ward for instance, British number two, most people probably think he does nothing throughout the year but turns up at Wimbledon to get his wildcard, loses, and does the same again next year ... but he's been to Qatar, Australia, Singapore, back to Australia, Croatia, England, Bosnia, Colombia, USA and now France this year and for what ... £13k. Halfway through the year so basically double that, £30k for a player ranked 200+ minus the expenses, it's not a great living.

not to mention injury costs of traveling to events and getting injured before you actually hit a ball.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

You sometimes see articles in the Irish media about Conor Niland and Louk Sorenson and you can tell from reading them how tough tennis is. Niland last year won a tournament in Israel and was travelling all over the world playing yet still finished up just outside the Top 100. He's friends with the rugby player Eoin Reddan who won a Heineken Cup with some English club a few years ago and Reddan said that if Niland was as talented at Rugby as he is at Tennis he'd have several major trophies and would be massively famous.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Bourne

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:You sometimes see articles in the Irish media about Conor Niland and Louk Sorenson and you can tell from reading them how tough tennis is. Niland last year won a tournament in Israel and was travelling all over the world playing yet still finished up just outside the Top 100. He's friends with the rugby player Eoin Reddan who won a Heineken Cup with some English club a few years ago and Reddan said that if Niland was as talented at Rugby as he is at Tennis he'd have several major trophies and would be massively famous.

You mention Louk Sorenson there, sadly had to retire from the sport last week at only 26.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Casey

Bourne wrote:
Casey wrote:Bourne, correct me if I am wrong but tennis players trying to make it in the game travel all around the World pretty much 40+ weeks of the year?
They have a ranking system that supports 1000+ players, how many of them make a living? 200/300?

Do what it takes, if you are good enough you will make a living.

Yah spot on, if you think about how many set out on the road to the top, not that many make it. There's approx 1,500 players on tour now, only the top 80 or so are regularly playing the main tour level, then the next 200/300 every week and the rest futures and satellites. When you take into account how much travelling, kit they need, accomodation, coaching staff to employ etc, the prize money for players ranked outside the top 200 often doesn't cover it so they have to make some sacrifices. Take James Ward for instance, British number two, most people probably think he does nothing throughout the year but turns up at Wimbledon to get his wildcard, loses, and does the same again next year ... but he's been to Qatar, Australia, Singapore, back to Australia, Croatia, England, Bosnia, Colombia, USA and now France this year and for what ... £13k. Halfway through the year so basically double that, £30k for a player ranked 200+ minus the expenses, it's not a great living.


Thats a lot of traveling - for peanuts. Dedication for you.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Bourne

Casey wrote:
Bourne wrote:
Casey wrote:Bourne, correct me if I am wrong but tennis players trying to make it in the game travel all around the World pretty much 40+ weeks of the year?
They have a ranking system that supports 1000+ players, how many of them make a living? 200/300?

Do what it takes, if you are good enough you will make a living.

Yah spot on, if you think about how many set out on the road to the top, not that many make it. There's approx 1,500 players on tour now, only the top 80 or so are regularly playing the main tour level, then the next 200/300 every week and the rest futures and satellites. When you take into account how much travelling, kit they need, accomodation, coaching staff to employ etc, the prize money for players ranked outside the top 200 often doesn't cover it so they have to make some sacrifices. Take James Ward for instance, British number two, most people probably think he does nothing throughout the year but turns up at Wimbledon to get his wildcard, loses, and does the same again next year ... but he's been to Qatar, Australia, Singapore, back to Australia, Croatia, England, Bosnia, Colombia, USA and now France this year and for what ... £13k. Halfway through the year so basically double that, £30k for a player ranked 200+ minus the expenses, it's not a great living.


Thats a lot of traveling - for peanuts. Dedication for you.

I'd say top 120 ish is generally considered 'comfortable', that way you're entered automatically for slams (top 104) and more often than not you'll get in any 250 event you like and that's thousands of dollars for merely R1 exits.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

Bourne wrote:
Casey wrote:
Bourne wrote:
Casey wrote:Bourne, correct me if I am wrong but tennis players trying to make it in the game travel all around the World pretty much 40+ weeks of the year?
They have a ranking system that supports 1000+ players, how many of them make a living? 200/300?

Do what it takes, if you are good enough you will make a living.

Yah spot on, if you think about how many set out on the road to the top, not that many make it. There's approx 1,500 players on tour now, only the top 80 or so are regularly playing the main tour level, then the next 200/300 every week and the rest futures and satellites. When you take into account how much travelling, kit they need, accomodation, coaching staff to employ etc, the prize money for players ranked outside the top 200 often doesn't cover it so they have to make some sacrifices. Take James Ward for instance, British number two, most people probably think he does nothing throughout the year but turns up at Wimbledon to get his wildcard, loses, and does the same again next year ... but he's been to Qatar, Australia, Singapore, back to Australia, Croatia, England, Bosnia, Colombia, USA and now France this year and for what ... £13k. Halfway through the year so basically double that, £30k for a player ranked 200+ minus the expenses, it's not a great living.


Thats a lot of traveling - for peanuts. Dedication for you.

I'd say top 120 ish is generally considered 'comfortable', that way you're entered automatically for slams (top 104) and more often than not you'll get in any 250 event you like and that's thousands of dollars for merely R1 exits.


relatively speaking what would you consider the top 120 in comparison with the volume of dedicated snooker players. top 8 or top 16 cant be much more than that

124 entered Q School and 72 safe on tour =196 pros.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

1500 tennis players and 196 snooker players so that means 120 tennis players is the equivalent to top 16 snooker players relatively speaking.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Bourne

Wild wrote:1500 tennis players and 196 snooker players so that means 120 tennis players is the equivalent to top 16 snooker players relatively speaking.

Yeh, I don't think anyone in their right mind expects snooker to equal or overtake tennis in terms of financial stability in the next few years but it's still good to put these things into perspective <ok>

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Casey

Ask Judd Trump about the value of the PTC's. They got him playing against the best and winning; this was a massive stepping stone for him and his career.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

Casey wrote:Ask Judd Trump about the value of the PTC's. They got him playing against the best and winning; this was a massive stepping stone for him and his career.

yes without PTC Last season Judd Trump was heading down by the end of the season he won about £200,000 in 2 tournaments...that should do nicely for hotel bills for the season ahead.