What do people want from Snooker ?

GJ wrote:

Wild wrote:

Casey wrote:Wow - Golf prize money really rocketed after 95 - anybody know what lead to such an increase? Tiger Woods?

well if thats the case just look how much money snooker is missing out on by having our very own tiger missing from a lot of events.

what an insult to the cheata

he is seen as one of not the best sportsman in the world

ronald will never be in that category

LOL

GJ wrote:

Wild wrote:

Casey wrote:Wow - Golf prize money really rocketed after 95 - anybody know what lead to such an increase? Tiger Woods?

well if thats the case just look how much money snooker is missing out on by having our very own tiger missing from a lot of events.

what an insult to the cheata

he is seen as one of not the best sportsman in the world

ronald will never be in that category

thats basically an admission that snookers nowhere near the category of the top sports like golf then

which kinda links in with my prize money comparison thingy.

basically snookers screwed itself up for the last 20 years with mismanagement.

think how big it could have been if Hearn had ruled the roost during the 90s and 00s.

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:
Basically we could have done with Hearn in 1990, not 2011. Snookers stalled for 20 years and not capitalised on the momentum it had in the 80s and it remains to be seen whether it can pick up and make an attempt to grow properly to a level where it belongs.

spot on it snake hissed me off that hearn more or less turned his back on snooker to persue other intrests like Boxing in early 1990s because he felt he wasent getting the suport he craved from players..

i wanted him to stick around then and fight but he did not and virtually walked away.

who wasnt he getting support from back then?

in them days i was more interested in the snooker and didnt really bother about the politics.

was it cos of Rex Williams on the board or Ian Doyles players in a war against his Matchroom boys?

surely it was the old guard hindering him was it?

i cant imagine the hungry young players of that times, the Jimmys, Hendrys, Angles, Wattana, Doherty, Ebdon etc being against his plans?

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:
Basically we could have done with Hearn in 1990, not 2011. Snookers stalled for 20 years and not capitalised on the momentum it had in the 80s and it remains to be seen whether it can pick up and make an attempt to grow properly to a level where it belongs.

spot on it snake hissed me off that hearn more or less turned his back on snooker to persue other intrests like Boxing in early 1990s because he felt he wasent getting the suport he craved from players..

i wanted him to stick around then and fight but he did not and virtually walked away.

who wasnt he getting support from back then?

in them days i was more interested in the snooker and didnt really bother about the politics.

was it cos of Rex Williams on the board or Ian Doyles players in a war against his Matchroom boys?

surely it was the old guard hindering him was it?

i cant imagine the hungry young players of that times, the Jimmys, Hendrys, Angles, Wattana, Doherty, Ebdon etc being against his plans?

well the other players did not like the fact he was so close to Steve Davis whitch put a spanner in to the works straight off.

had he tried to do in 1990 as the manager of the then WC what he did last year he wouldnt have had the support.

Although Tennis has tournaments every week only a small number of them have many top players in them. There's only nine Masters events which is the equivalent of snooker ranking events like the Welsh Open or German Masters. Even some Masters events don't have all the top players. There's probably less than 20 tournaments a year which would have a decent representation of Top 10/20 players.

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:Although Tennis has tournaments every week only a small number of them have many top players in them. There's only nine Masters events which is the equivalent of snooker ranking events like the Welsh Open or German Masters. Even some Masters events don't have all the top players. There's probably less than 20 tournaments a year which would have a decent representation of Top 10/20 players.

true but even these 250s and 500s sustain themselves with a few of the top stars there.

snooker has to aim towards going to towards the tennis model i feel with tournaments every week and choice for players to enter what they want when they want.

Witz78 wrote:

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:Although Tennis has tournaments every week only a small number of them have many top players in them. There's only nine Masters events which is the equivalent of snooker ranking events like the Welsh Open or German Masters. Even some Masters events don't have all the top players. There's probably less than 20 tournaments a year which would have a decent representation of Top 10/20 players.

true but even these 250s and 500s sustain themselves with a few of the top stars there.

snooker has to aim towards going to towards the tennis model i feel with tournaments every week and choice for players to enter what they want when they want.

yup that has to be the ultimate goal but its some way off at the moment.....

GJ wrote:

Wild wrote:

Casey wrote:Wow - Golf prize money really rocketed after 95 - anybody know what lead to such an increase? Tiger Woods?

well if thats the case just look how much money snooker is missing out on by having our very own tiger missing from a lot of events.

what an insult to the cheata

he is seen as one of not the best sportsman in the world

ronald will never be in that category

That's only because of snooker's lack of global appeal. If Snooker had the appeal of Golf, then Sullivan would DEFINITELY be considered as a sporting great, he'd be comparable maybe to a Ballesteros from a playing perspective. I personally have no problem putting the likes of Sullivan, both Higgins, Reardon, Williams, Davis & Hendry up there as sporting greats in the same way as Ballesteros, Nicklaus, Woods, Hogan, Player, Watson & Palmer are.

I think location is probably more important for a tournaments success than having every top player. Even if the PL players had been in Bahrain it would have been a failure. Had the German Masters been an invitational with the same players as Brazil it would have still been a success. In the case of Brazil there should have been more big names going as it's such a large country but the event being moved to a resort far away from the Snooker fanbase there would be more to blame for any failure of the event.

If you were to halve the number of PTC's and double the prize money than the money wouldn't be far of some of the ranking events of recent years. Plus they would all be shown on TV and have very strong fields so you would have an entire second tier of ranking events. The main problem is that there would be only six of them with nine main ranking events which would be like Tennis having more Grand Slams than Masters events.

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:I think location is probably more important for a tournaments success than having every top player. Even if the PL players had been in Bahrain it would have been a failure. Had the German Masters been an invitational with the same players as Brazil it would have still been a success. In the case of Brazil there should have been more big names going as it's such a large country but the event being moved to a resort far away from the Snooker fanbase there would be more to blame for any failure of the event.

If you were to halve the number of PTC's and double the prize money than the money wouldn't be far of some of the ranking events of recent years. Plus they would all be shown on TV and have very strong fields so you would have an entire second tier of ranking events. The main problem is that there would be only six of them with nine main ranking events which would be like Tennis having more Grand Slams than Masters events.

nah the PTCs would still be like Challenger events, id double the points tariffs for them if there was only 6 events

so 4,000 for winners.

Id make main ranker like Wales, Germany, Shanghai, World Open 8,000 points to the winner, these rankers would become like Masters events equivalent

And id then have the UK, China Open and World Champs as the ranking event Grand Slams in effect with China being elevated in status similar to the UK in terms of prize money and status with 10,000 points to the winner.

As for the Worlds well id like to see prize money rise, but regardless to reflect the importance id be looking for the winner of this to get 15,000 points and the points downwards increased 50% also, to reflect the significance of this event.

If I had my way I would implement the following.
I would leave the number of PTC's as is but I would implement a system where the best NINE results from 12 would be counted in the rankings. In order though to keep the players promoting the game they would only be allowed to miss ONE European event and TWO UK Events.
The Calendar is pretty much okay APART from the fact that the invitationals like Brazil were hurried and it pretty much clashes with Shanghai so for next season the Tour has to be restructured to make sure that the travelling involved is less of a scrambled affair. It has to be organised better especially now that players are responsible for their own travel arrangements in the Major Ranking events. The WSA should attempt to get deals on behalf of the players on travelling.
Now that we have a rolling Ranking I believe that the Masters should be treated like the Tennis World Tour and be awarded ranking points for the 16 players at the event. Now that the rankings are more fluid I believe this can be justified. (Ducks for cover)
I do not believe however that the rankings be changed after every event because this would be a logistical nightmare and there's simply no point in over complicating things.
I believe Barry Hearn is doing a good job but I also think that especially in the invationals that he is underselling the Sport. Now I know times are hard etc but the simple fact is that players will not turn up to these if they do not get a guarantee of a half decent return. It's just the way it is. You can shout, swear and do whatever you like, say that they need to promote the game, and they absolutely do but they won't do it for free whether anyone thinks they should or not.
There is a chance here for Snooker to regain much of the ground it lost in the last decade and the players have their part to play but so do the Association. I am pleased to hear that the World Open is not not a best of Five. I will concede that there may be a part for shorter formats to play in the Sport But the Association and Mr Hearn has to realise that short formats for everything is simply not the answer and in that respect I am utterly dismayed that the UK has been shortened. The true snooker fans of this world should say now that enough is enough and ensure that no more get shortened, especially the World Championship.

ok ill try and pick the bones out of this

If I had my way I would implement the following.
I would leave the number of PTC's as is but I would implement a system where the best NINE results from 12 would be counted in the rankings. In order though to keep the players promoting the game they would only be allowed to miss ONE European event and TWO UK Events.

yeh id pretty much go with that to be honest
The Calendar is pretty much okay APART from the fact that the invitationals like Brazil were hurried and it pretty much clashes with Shanghai so for next season the Tour has to be restructured to make sure that the travelling involved is less of a scrambled affair.

yeh not much that could be done this year really but im sure next season the calendar will be more structured

It has to be organised better especially now that players are responsible for their own travel arrangements in the Major Ranking events. The WSA should attempt to get deals on behalf of the players on travelling.

yeh i agree with that

Now that we have a rolling Ranking I believe that the Masters should be treated like the Tennis World Tour and be awarded ranking points for the 16 players at the event. Now that the rankings are more fluid I believe this can be justified. (Ducks for cover)

thats a form of protecting the elite further though awarding them points at the Masters, plus part of the lure of the Masters is that its non ranking

I do not believe however that the rankings be changed after every event because this would be a logistical nightmare and there's simply no point in over complicating things.

logistical nightmare rubbish, i keep hearing this but if it can be updated every week in Tennis and Golf where they have hundreds of tournaments and thousands of players, then i dont see why its so impossible to do in snooker. Its more over-complicated the way the rankings are the now with provisional rankings, official rankings WSPBA updating rankings after every event even though this counts for nothing

I believe Barry Hearn is doing a good job but I also think that especially in the invationals that he is underselling the Sport. Now I know times are hard etc but the simple fact is that players will not turn up to these if they do not get a guarantee of a half decent return. It's just the way it is. You can shout, swear and do whatever you like, say that they need to promote the game, and they absolutely do but they won't do it for free whether anyone thinks they should or not.

i agree the money in some of these events aint great, but you gotta start somewhere and its certainly far better than the tour was 2 years ago. maybe if the players had faith in Hearn and backed his plans by taking part in these events like Brazil they would grow in stature and money over time.

There is a chance here for Snooker to regain much of the ground it lost in the last decade and the players have their part to play but so do the Association. I am pleased to hear that the World Open is not not a best of Five.

its only not a best of 5 cos its in China and its too far to go for that. Bo5 was a success in Glasgow last year and if it had been held in the UK again then the World Open would def be best of 5

I will concede that there may be a part for shorter formats to play in the Sport But the Association and Mr Hearn has to realise that short formats for everything is simply not the answer and in that respect I am utterly dismayed that the UK has been shortened. The true snooker fans of this world should say now that enough is enough and ensure that no more get shortened, especially the World Championship.[/quote]

theres no chance of the worlds getting chopped, viewing figures are up as are attendances and its a proven winning formula. to be honest with the UK it has been in decline for a while so Hearn prob felt he could tamper with it a bit

Nobody wants a better Structure more than Barry Hearn believe me.

Snooker just does not play in Custom made Venues they are theatres and halls and these places are booked up so changing things around is a nightmare hence the callender this year got to be changed to acomadate venues or a country wanting to stage a event when they can fit us in.

thats the fault of previous regime not having a structure in place and just staging tournaments on a whim..

Players wanting tournament to play in meant Barry had to do something he could have waited 5 years to get a better structure but players wanted him so that they got a tour to play in.

haha been on the funniest thread on Facebook in a while there for the last hour or so.

Few I am some twats out in force slating him and im defending him, then the man himself appears to ask why there slating him. Cue them all thinking hes a fake Ronnie haha then having to eat humble pie and try and sook up to him.

Witz78 wrote:haha been on the funniest thread on Facebook in a while there for the last hour or so.

Few I am some twats out in force slating him and im defending him, then the man himself appears to ask why there slating him. Cue them all thinking hes a fake Ronnie haha then having to eat humble pie and try and sook up to him.

no get away

why was they slating him now ?

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:haha been on the funniest thread on Facebook in a while there for the last hour or so.

Few I am some twats out in force slating him and im defending him, then the man himself appears to ask why there slating him. Cue them all thinking hes a fake Ronnie haha then having to eat humble pie and try and sook up to him.

no get away

why was they slating him now ?

someone said he brings the game into disrepute and another just said he didnt like him full stop so Ronnie said they were all jealous of him which kicked them off again haha

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:haha been on the funniest thread on Facebook in a while there for the last hour or so.

Few I am some twats out in force slating him and im defending him, then the man himself appears to ask why there slating him. Cue them all thinking hes a fake Ronnie haha then having to eat humble pie and try and sook up to him.

no get away

why was they slating him now ?

someone said he brings the game into disrepute and another just said he didnt like him full stop so Ronnie said they were all jealous of him which kicked them off again haha

seifer should have been there like his knight in shining armour.

Wild wrote:Nobody wants a better Structure more than Barry Hearn believe me.

Snooker just does not play in Custom made Venues they are theatres and halls and these places are booked up so changing things around is a nightmare hence the callender this year got to be changed to acomadate venues or a country wanting to stage a event when they can fit us in.

thats the fault of previous regime not having a structure in place and just staging tournaments on a whim..

Players wanting tournament to play in meant Barry had to do something he could have waited 5 years to get a better structure but players wanted him so that they got a tour to play in.

I don't doubt that Hearn wants a better structure. I just believe it could have been done less messily is all. Monique is absolutely correct on the point that this season we could maybe have done with less PTC'S just in order to stabilise and tidy up the calendar. I have faith that it will be corrected for next season though.

snooky147 wrote:

Wild wrote:Nobody wants a better Structure more than Barry Hearn believe me.

Snooker just does not play in Custom made Venues they are theatres and halls and these places are booked up so changing things around is a nightmare hence the callender this year got to be changed to acomadate venues or a country wanting to stage a event when they can fit us in.

thats the fault of previous regime not having a structure in place and just staging tournaments on a whim..

Players wanting tournament to play in meant Barry had to do something he could have waited 5 years to get a better structure but players wanted him so that they got a tour to play in.

I don't doubt that Hearn wants a better structure. I just believe it could have been done less messily is all. Monique is absolutely correct on the point that this season we could maybe have done with less PTC'S just in order to stabilise and tidy up the calendar. I have faith that it will be corrected for next season though.

you could be right then there would be more room for jugling about a bit

from what i can gather from a calender Matt from pro snooker blog has put together there will be 9 ranking events this season 10 by counting the PTC Finals with 1 already been played and there will be 5 played between end of February and beginning of May...

now that might sound a lot but there was something similar also during the 90s however the problam here regarding structure is having to go to china twice im sure Barry would have prefered not to do that and play them back to back but as i said its out of his hands regarding when they want to stage the events ...

as i said he could have sat back put his feet up and let the players play the 6 events they had under walker but you got to start somewhere and if im honest its a fantastic problem to have.

yeh shows how much Hearn has done in a short time to think people are moaning already that theres too many tournaments haha

Wild wrote:What do people want from Snooker ?

More Michaela Tabb.

Less referees that are not Michaela Tabb.

SnookerFan wrote:

Wild wrote:What do people want from Snooker ?

More Michaela Tabb.

Less referees that are not Michaela Tabb.

Life bans for players stung by the News of the World. Thats all I want from snooker, till then I comment on non-snooker threads.

Smart wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Wild wrote:What do people want from Snooker ?

More Michaela Tabb.

Less referees that are not Michaela Tabb.

Life bans for players stung by the News of the World. Thats all I want from snooker, till then I comment on non-snooker threads.

How about you just leave the forum altogether?