Barry Hearn open to shortening the Worlds

Witz78 wrote:I dont buy this 'players express themselves at non-rankers' waffle. Ultimately the guys are there to play snooker, win matches and earn money.
I doubt a player turns up to an event then goes 'oh yeh, just remembered this isnt a ranker, i must crack some jokes with the crowd and pull some silly faces too'
By your logic u must love the PTCs then cos with there being little prize money at stake, the players have no excuse for not showing their characters there.
At the end of the day, if a players a 'character' then hes like that at all times, take Judd and Allen in the 2nd biggest game of the season, who were having banter, joking about and playing exhibition style snooker.

Yeah in front of no man and no dog ... as John Higgins put it. That's for the 4 PTCs in Sheffield and all I've ever asked for is those 4 to be scrapped and the money reinvested in the others. That would probably allow to double the price money because the savings is not just about the price money, it's also officials and referees wages and travel costs, venues, fitters etc... Another thing I'm asking for is them to be better scattered all over the season and not all cluttered within 3-4 months.
Once again I've never asked for PTCs to disappear. I ask for them to be given decent resources so that they are sustainable for the players, especially the young low ranked ones and can be better quality events so than they can be a better platform to expand the game in Europe.

That a crass remark. Its totally different for the likes of Ben at the bottom of the ladder, who if he has any chance of fulfilling his prospects and making it big, has to make this sacrifice, an apprenticeship almost.
The established guys on tour will do far less cos they are ultimately at a higher level, have far more competitive action plus have other commitments too, rather than just practice practice practice which whippersnappers like Ben are willing to do and infact dont see as a chore but a neccessity.

Anyway talking of work, time i logged off and did some.
The joys of getting paid an hourly rate!
This debate / argument TBC

Witz78 wrote:That a crass remark. Its totally different for the likes of Ben at the bottom of the ladder, who if he has any chance of fulfilling his prospects and making it big, has to make this sacrifice, an apprenticeship almost.
The established guys on tour will do far less cos they are ultimately at a higher level, have far more competitive action plus have other commitments too, rather than just practice practice practice which whippersnappers like Ben are willing to do and infact dont see as a chore but a neccessity.

I think that you are seriously deluded about the fact that those guys on the MT don't practice much. They don't do far less. Maybe ask Ben Woolaston then? Even the ones being pros for 20 years usually practice about 4 hours/day at least and it's essential to do it very regularly even in the "idle" times because it's all about automatisms in the eye and the brain.
It's not a crass remark at all. It's one aspect of their job that you seriously underestimate.

Witz78 wrote:Tell u what am gonna do, after these last 2 ptcs im gonna take a varied demograph of players across the tour and calculate how many days they have actually 'worked' during 2011. I will take it a step further by working out their earnings for 2011 to then work out what there 'daily wage' has been.
As for practice, the bulk of players would sooner have proper match practice with a chance to earn than weeks on end down the club between events. Put it this way, if i have to work id rather get paid than not get paid, so i defy you to name me any player who would rather practice for zilch than play with the chance to earn some dosh.

you should work for sportstat lol

SportStat_Live SportStat
@
@SportStat_Live @Thorpy_Snooker Dale was the foulest person with a foul every 1.25 frames, Gunnell had 1 fould over his 9 frames with Allen

Well a busier calendar and more events and they wont have to practice as much.
Im adopting the hardline Hearn stance, time to stop pandering to the players every wish.
You almost seem to want the tour structured into some kinda Mon-Fri 9-5 job.

Gunnel having one Fould over 9 frames spurred some horrible visions ...

Witz78 wrote:Well a busier calendar and more events and they wont have to practice as much.
Im adopting the hardline Hearn stance, time to stop pandering to the players every wish.
You almost seem to want the tour structured into some kinda Mon-Fri 9-5 job.

Match play isn't the same as practice and neither can replace the other. Practice is about drill and it is needed. Matchplay is about sharpness and pressure handling and it is needed also.
Nobody is pandering to the players wishes. There is a massive difference between wanting a 9-5 job and wanting a manageable calendar. By manageable I mean either less but better events OR a structure that allows for actually being able to opt out of a (reasonable) number of events without being penalized, like in tennis or other sports. When the flat structure will be in place, that will solve the problem to a large extend. Until then however something must be done to make it sustainable, financially, physically and mentally.
BTW the flat structure and/or the "n best results out of x non major rankings" (majors being ACTUAL majors: World, UK, probably one Asian and one European long format event) both will force organisers and sponsors to offer decent reward or the players will not attend...

During the Walker years people used to go on about the lack of tournaments but while that was a problem the poor standard of the events being run was even bigger. The Grand Prix & Masters having no sponsor with the World & UK coming dangerously close as well. The Welsh Open was on it's last legs and the likes of the Northern Ireland Trophy despite a promising start was never built on. There was also the farce in Bahrain. Improving the standard and quality of tournaments was just as important as increasing the numbers. The PHC and the Antwerp PTC events looked great this year. I didn't see the other Belgian event or the one in Poland and only saw the Final of Killarney so I don't know how sucessful they were but it makes sense to put the effort and money into good tournaments instead of trying to pad out the calender with tournaments played with no-one watching.

Monique you are incredibly impatient for things to be perfect.
Of course Sheffield is far from a perfect venue for the PTCs but what do you expect Hearn to do with Sheffield? He's been handed a white elephant and is trying to get something at least out of it. Long term the events won't be held there. But we are still 2 years from snooker having been on its knees so patience please.
You want decent money for lower ranked pros. Why? Anyone in any sport has to take risks. At least in snooker the costs aren't as great. If they have no-one to back them and have to drop out tough. That is life in pro sport. You cannot support a bunch of guys that cannot win. All Hearn has promised them is opportunities. He's giving them opportunities.
You want events to be perfect in Europe. These are tester markets, some will stay , some will go, be patient.
BH has brought excitement back to the game. Let him wield his magic.

gallantrabbit wrote:Monique you are incredibly impatient for things to be perfect.
Of course Sheffield is far from a perfect venue for the PTCs but what do you expect Hearn to do with Sheffield? He's been handed a white elephant and is trying to get something at least out of it. Long term the events won't be held there. But we are still 2 years from snooker having been on its knees so patience please.
You want decent money for lower ranked pros. Why? Anyone in any sport has to take risks. At least in snooker the costs aren't as great. If they have no-one to back them and have to drop out tough. That is life in pro sport. You cannot support a bunch of guys that cannot win. All Hearn has promised them is opportunities. He's giving them opportunities.
You want events to be perfect in Europe. These are tester markets, some will stay , some will go, be patient.
BH has brought excitement back to the game. Let him wield his magic.

i agree with everything you said but lets not forget what this thread is about "Barry Hearn open to shortening the Worlds" now that needs stamping on and stamp on HARD.

its a myth about shortening= more intrest.

its a myth people want a quick conclusion to matches look at the John Isner/Nicolas Mahut at Wimbledon that would have been a nothing Match had it been a 5 Setter with a 6-4 final set....people Get Hooked on the Story of a Match in any sport and Longer the Match the Better the Story..

The first thing I saw when I scrolled down this thread was the word 'Hard'.

SnookerFan wrote:rofl

The first thing I saw when I scrolled down this thread was the word 'Hard'.

its Hard not to

gallantrabbit wrote:Monique you are incredibly impatient for things to be perfect.
Of course Sheffield is far from a perfect venue for the PTCs but what do you expect Hearn to do with Sheffield? He's been handed a white elephant and is trying to get something at least out of it. Long term the events won't be held there. But we are still 2 years from snooker having been on its knees so patience please.
You want decent money for lower ranked pros. Why? Anyone in any sport has to take risks. At least in snooker the costs aren't as great. If they have no-one to back them and have to drop out tough. That is life in pro sport. You cannot support a bunch of guys that cannot win. All Hearn has promised them is opportunities. He's giving them opportunities.
You want events to be perfect in Europe. These are tester markets, some will stay , some will go, be patient.
BH has brought excitement back to the game. Let him wield his magic.

This is hilarious. I am impatient? While it's me actually pleading for the game to grow a bit slower but with a better focus on quality? I think it's you lot who is impatient wanting to go from 6 to 30+ events in less than 2 years.
And I'm not asking for anything for those who can't win. The lowest ranked players earn nothing at all in some events unless they reach the last 48. Any player not winning at least 3 matches will be out of their pocket in the European PTCs. That's what I object to: that some of those guy do win, several matches sometimes, and still don't earn a penny while it costs them to travel and they are compelled to do it by the current ranking system.
Antwerp was a great event, played every day in front of about 1500 persons, twice as much as the audience for the UK Final in York, it was on television (Eurosport) and yet the winner got 10000 Euros, not £, Euros, before taxes and expenses were taken from it. The 16 guys who won 3 matches probably just covered their expenses, just, all the others were "in the red". Is that right? Knowing that in addition the event was broadcasted by 5 Chines TV channels and that surely someone must have got money for this? I don't think so.
I'm not asking for anything unreasonable: I'm just asking for the players who put the effort in to be rewarded properly.
Ronnie has played 39 matches in PTCs this season, and about 200 frames, with hectic schedules, traveled to Belgium, Germany and Ireland, currently tops the table and got less than 30000£ for that. Judd and Neil must have similar figures. You compare that to the Welsh Open winners over the last years who got £35000 for playing 5 matches and about 50 frames, if that, at home and in front of poor audiences most of the time and you ask yourself if that is right. I certainly question it.

Robbo got 100k for winning 20 frames last season at the World Open

BUT the point is you cant try and compare the PTC with proper rankers, the PTCs are the backbone of the tour not the meat

monique

lets not forget one small detail the Players was the ones that was impatient Like it or not he gave them what he was begged to give them.

My perspective though is that efforts should be rewarded properly. Playing 200 frames is playing 200 frames, whether you play them in PTCs or in any other event. It's work and it should be rewarded accordingly. I do of course understand that playing in major events like the WC, the Masters or the UK bring its own brand of pressure and therefore should be rewarded more.
But playing in the Welsh Open hasn't exactly got the players thrilled over the last years and for all the tournament history, it's hardly a major event (sorry Wild but that's the truth) and Newport is hardly prestigious.

@Wild, the players were not impatient. Yes they wanted more events, I'm not sure though that they wanted them multiplied by 5 with poor rewards and a lot more expenses to sustain. Unless my maths has gone to pot 15 is still a lot more than 6 and I'm pretty sure most of them would be happy with that number. Even Ben Harisson on twitter was saying the other day that there are too many PTCs, and he isn't competing in the regular main tour events.

Monique a PTC Consisting of £250,000 a event and the Grand Final say £350,000 on a par with say Welsh Open would be worth over £3,350,000 event......if you know of someone to put money in let Barry know.

PTC type events are in all sports for far less money.

Wild wrote:Monique a PTC Consisting of £250,000 a event and the Grand Final say £350,000 on a par with say Welsh Open would be worth over £3,350,000 event......if you know of someone to put money in let Barry know.

PTC type events are in all sports for far less money.

she knows Ronnie

Wild wrote:Monique a PTC Consisting of £250,000 a event and the Grand Final say £350,000 on a par with say Welsh Open would be worth over £3,350,000 event......if you know of someone to put money in let Barry know.

PTC type events are in all sports for far less money.

OK. I'll stop this discussion for now and until you and witz come to a PTC and actually see by yourself what it does ask from the players. THEN you will be able to voice some sensical opinion. Maybe.
As for other sports, yes, they have the PTC like type of events, but they don't all come into account for ranking. Only the n best out of the lot. If that was the case in snooker as well, I would agree. But as it is most of the players have to play in them all because of the rankings blackmail and therefore can't manage their season, their traveling and their wallets - according to their resources, like tennismen do for instance. They don't compete in everything.

Im with monique. Ive been to three PTCS one of which for all 3 days, and the amount of work they do at these for what its worth is bad. They require a lot more matches put into a shorter amount of time with less money. If anyone says theyre easier theyre wrong!

I can imagine its even worst in european ones or at sheffield with no crowd at all.

randam05 wrote:Im with monique. Ive been to three PTCS one of which for all 3 days, and the amount of work they do at these for what its worth is bad. They require a lot more matches put into a shorter amount of time with less money. If anyone says theyre easier theyre wrong!

I can imagine its even worst in european ones or at sheffield with no crowd at all.

nobody saying their easy and to be honest i dont give a dam how hard they are at the end of the day its the equivelant of a school cleaner but unlike a school cleaner snooker players can look forward to a higher wage at different events.

im not being funny here but in all honesty there are some stupid people posting on here jesus buck

Wild wrote:im not being funny here but in all honesty there are some stupid people posting on here jesus little kitten

indeed there are some stupid people around...

personally i see the PTCs for the pro players, as the equivalent of me having to do filing. Its mundane and boring and i dont do it by choice, but most of them time i do the proper stuff that im qualified for and want to do.

Witz78 wrote:personally i see the PTCs for the pro players, as the equivalent of me having to do filing. Its mundane and boring and i dont do it by choice, but most of them time i do the proper stuff that im qualified for and want to do.

exactly the point i was getting at ...

yes there needs to be more money in them but regarding as much work as it takes in 3 days i dont see any problem yes get rid of sheffield for 2 reasons theres more atmasphere in a morgue and secondly 8 tables is not enough im sure Mike Ganley and the team already put these points to Barry if he needed telling at all.

Baz is a man of his word of course the worlds wont be changed

GJ wrote:Baz is a man of his word of course the worlds wont be changed

I was about to ask you what this had to do with the subject, then realised what thread this was in. It's got so off-topic.

SnookerFan wrote:

GJ wrote:Baz is a man of his word of course the worlds wont be changed

I was about to ask you what this had to do with the subject, then realised what thread this was in. It's got so off-topic.

its still a damn sight more on topic than the ones where you try to get a food debate on the go

In all seriousness though, snooker won't stay at the Crucible forever, even if it's 200 years time, there will be a last staging of the World Championships at the Crucible. Of course it won't be 200 years time, it's more like 3 or 4 years time and for me, that is the time to tinker with the format, not before.