Post a reply

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby GJ

Barry is normally very open to the press

So it sppears its accurate

The worlds are perfect as they are and i hope the players will stand up for the worlds if baz trys to do this.

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby SnookerFan

GJ wrote:Barry is normally very open to the press

So it sppears its accurate

The worlds are perfect as they are and i hope the players will stand up for the worlds if baz trys to do this.


I'm glad you said this. Not that I am against the players getting a millin pound first prize, but surely The World Championship format is the one thing that needs no improvement in snooker.

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby Monique

Did you read it properly?

I think that a flat draw with best of 19 from the start would make sure the best players come on top. It would help the talented young to climb faster and would be much fairer to them. It would make rankings rather irrelevant which I'm all in favour of because it would effectively defeat the current ranking blackmail scheme and allow the players to manage their season taking their private life and personal needs into account. It would also mean that pointless events with little prize money will soon disappear because no one of interest to the general audience will compete in them.
I don't think that MJW would be ready to travel 2x over 24h in a plane to play in Australia in the dead of the winter again for the prospect of earning less than 10000 £ IF he manages to reach the final if such a system was in place. And he would be absolutely right not to.

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby Casey

“Players will have to win another two rounds, but if they can’t beat someone outside the top 64 in round one over best of 19 frames, they don’t deserve to be there.



That fair enoungh. he said he won't shorten the matches so I would be happy with that change. Also with £1 mill for the winner...Boom!

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby GJ

He compares it to tennis the only simiarity is the draw size 128.

You dont see nadal and federer playing their first 2 matches at a small venue then playing the rest of their matches at wimbledon.

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby Skullman

<doh> The Crucible is too small to have multi tables, and you need multiple tables for the last 128 and 64, other wise the tournament will end up being two months. (not that I'd mind, but you have to be reasonable).

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby SnookerFan

Skullman wrote:<doh> The Crucible is too small to have multi tables, and you need multiple tables for the last 128 and 64, other wise the tournament will end up being two months. (not that I'd mind, but you have to be reasonable).


Hence the other venue discussed.

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby SnookerFan

"However Hearn admits the “uniqueness and English eccentricity” of the blue –riband tournament will see him keep the longer matches."

rofl rofl

Hearn really doesn't like the multi-session matches, does he?

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby GJ

Skullman wrote:<doh> The Crucible is too small to have multi tables, and you need multiple tables for the last 128 and 64, other wise the tournament will end up being two months. (not that I'd mind, but you have to be reasonable).


If it aint broke dont fix it

the worlds are perfect :hatoff: <cool>
Last edited by GJ on 15 Feb 2012, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby gallantrabbit

Monique wrote:Did you read it properly?

I think that a flat draw with best of 19 from the start would make sure the best players come on top. It would help the talented young to climb faster and would be much fairer to them. It would make rankings rather irrelevant which I'm all in favour of because it would effectively defeat the current ranking blackmail scheme and allow the players to manage their season taking their private life and personal needs into account. It would also mean that pointless events with little prize money will soon disappear because no one of interest to the general audience will compete in them.
I don't think that MJW would be ready to travel 2x over 24h in a plane to play in Australia in the dead of the winter again for the prospect of earning less than 10000 £ IF he manages to reach the final if such a system was in place. And he would be absolutely right not to.



MOnique - pointless events with little prize money will disappear anyway. We're in the test phase. And if Hearn has to blackmail top players into testing the far flung markets for little prize money for a couple of years they've only got themselves to blame for sitting on their behinds for ten years waiting for Sir Rodders to put up more than 6 events per year. Snooker is still a baby compared to other sports and Hearn has to use the big boys to help him. He cannot revoutionise alone.

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby GJ

Gallant

If say a few of the big boys lose before the tv stages then the event will be devalued anyway with less big stars

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby GJ

Is the Beeb contract for worlds till 2013 or 2014

because knowing that will tell us how long we can have the worlds as they currently are <cool> :hatoff:

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby gallantrabbit

GJ - to be honest I was replying to Monique's general post rather than concentrating on the WC.
I don't see any real need to change to such a format. I'm not sure I agree with the word protection either, especially now the cut offs are so on top of each other. Guys in the top 16/32 are there because they've earned it, period. If that happens to qualify them for the WC so be it. Everyone's playing the same rules. It happens in football, the FA and League cups, so it's not like snooker alone has this big protectionist umbrella. Max pressure is the Crucible under tv lights, not in some backroom, multi-table venue a la PTC. There we should see the best players. Two weeks is long enough for an event too. We don't want to see it like the world darts where the event is dragged over 2 years...(albeit the end of one and beginning of another <cool> )

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby JIMO96

The more I hear Hearn speak of 128-man draws for tournaments, the more my excitement for snookers future grows. Players all start on equal footing, and potential arises for new names to come through.....absolutely brilliant, I hope he can pull it off.

It's time snooker stopped bowing to the demands of broadcasters; they talk of a tournament being "devalued" if the top 16 aren't there....I think thats disrespectful to the viewers, and to the other 83 professionals. Did the drama created by Sam Baird & Mark Selby last nigh devalue the tournament? NO!! And there are plenty of players like Baird out there who would look good on TV, given the chance.....their only chance just now is strangled by the need to play up to 5 qualifiers against successively better opponents just to reach the main venue.

If Wimbledon can run a 128-man tennis event, at the same time as a 128-woman tennis event, and 3*64-pair doubles events, juniors (boys & girls), over 35's, over 45's etc....all at the same venue, on TV, in under a fortnight(!), then snooker can do the same! If the 2 Crucible tables were treated as "Centre Court & Court 1", they could host many last-128 and last-64 matches, and yes, use your Trumps or O'Sullivans for these "show" matches.....and play the rest at various venues around Sheffield (or Yorkshire).

You could fit 20-odd snooker tables onto a tennis court......there must be multiple venues in the Sheffield area that could cope with the logistics of this. To the doubters: IT CAN BE DONE! Broadcasters need to be made aware of the following:

- there are more than 32 players in the pro game!
- the average age of a snooker viewer is not 80-odd
- players be there on merit, not by protective measures

Having said all that, I wouldn't change the best of 19 format, increasing from the last 16 onwards, but I WOULD change the venue if the tournament outgrew it. At the end of the day, Hearn is a businessman and there is no room for tradition or emotion in business. I wouldn't lose any sleep if a bigger WC venue was found, even overseas.

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby gallantrabbit

Just forgetting one thing sir. Snooker is nothing without TV. TV rules. What snooker has to do is give maximum value to TV again to start pinching back some of those lost broadcasting minutes. Then it may be able to have a little more of a say. Till then we're hanging on my the coat tails and behaving in a very orderly fashion. I'm afraid that's the crack.

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby JIMO96

gallantrabbit wrote:Just forgetting one thing sir. Snooker is nothing without TV. TV rules. What snooker has to do is give maximum value to TV again to start pinching back some of those lost broadcasting minutes. Then it may be able to have a little more of a say. Till then we're hanging on my the coat tails and behaving in a very orderly fashion. I'm afraid that's the crack.


I think snooker has always given "maximum" value to TV; TV (the BBC in particular) repay that by chopping the UK championship matches by a third so as all matches could be televised......then show nothing more than a few minutes highlights of some of them(!) Add to that their reduced red button coverage, truly crap commentators and nauseating fawning over Ronnie O'Sullivan, and the BBC is doing more to ruin the game than promote it.

If I was Hearn I'd almost be tempted to give Sky a ranking event, even with their shot clock gimmickry.....at least thats all Sky would ask for, they wouldn't dictate the line-up or the schedule to WSA like the BBC do.

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby gallantrabbit

I'm sure BH is trying to get a ranker on with Sky. But the BBC is where the cash and exposure are. ITV should be tapped up again, I'm pretty sure BH is trying all channels. Of course we all could list a book full of programmes that could be shelved in favour of snooker, but people unfortunately also seem to tune into crap...

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby Skullman

GJ wrote:Gallant

If say a few of the big boys lose before the tv stages then the event will be devalued anyway with less big stars


GJ, like Hearn said, if the top boys can't beat someone outside the top64 over 19 frames, they don't deserve to be at the Crucible.

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby Witz78

typical blinkered responses on here from the uneducated masses.

the current protection for the self proclaimed "elite" has been stifling snooker for years and has to end ASAP.

a flat qualifying set up of 128 players entering in round 1 makes it a level playing field for all, and also means a money based order of merit works fairly.

as Hearn says the best players should come through the early 2 rounds to make the last 32 stage at the venue. If they dont, then tough luck i say, what right should they have to be in the last 32.

As it is half of the venue (16/32) are automatically qualifying whilst once the tour goes up to 128 players, then the other 112 players would be scrapping it out for only 16 places which is totally unfair and just doesnt promote growth and change in the sport, it simply panders to the elite few.

So in effect under a 128 system, then the last 32 stage is round 3 so itd be the equivalent of the top 16 entering at round 3 which is ludicrous. Infact where do you stop, why not say there should be an elite TOP FOUR, who enter events at the quarter final stage OR the top seed doesnt enter the event until the FINAL. Farcial that may sound, but its no more farcial IMO than the current set up. Players should have to earn their place and prize money, rather than be handed it on a plate.

Why should someone start in the 1st qualifying round and win 2 or 3 games and earn no money, when Carter for example can lose in round 1 proper and earn money.

The new system will reward people for achieving, not simply existing. Win a game and you get paid, lose and you dont, simple and fair for all.


And as for the tosh about there being too many games to play under a 128 qualifying system then take a look at this.

currently there are 4x16 plus potentially 3 prelim games if all 99 are on tour, so there are 67 qualifying games played. Under the new system there would be 64+32 = 96 played so its not a great deal more.

Take the World Champs qualifiers for example. Once the last 128 draw had been made there would in effect be 32 sections of the draw with 1 winner from each segment making it to the Crucible.

The 16 most attractive segments (probably featuring the top 16 players) would be played at the South West Snooker Academy so specatators could view them. The other half (16 less attractive segments) would be played at Sheffield.

The following schedule would happen at both venues with numerous selected games also being streamed.

Day 1 -
10am - 8 last 128 games 1st session A
2.30pm - 8 last 128 games 1st session B
7pm - 8 last 128 games 2nd session A

Day 2 -
10am - 8 last 128 games 1st session C
2.30pm - 8 last 128 games 2nd session B
7pm - 8 last 128 games 1st session D

Day 3 -
10am - 8 last 128 games 2nd session C
2.30pm - 8 last 128 games 2nd session D
7pm - 8 last 64 games 1st session E

Day 4 -
10am - 8 last 64 games 1st session F
2.30pm - 8 last 64 games 2nd session E
7pm - 8 last 64 games 2nd session F



So there you have it, by playing on 8 tables over the 2 venues listed World Champs qualifiers could be done and dusted in ONLY 4 DAYS.

Normal qualifiers for shorter format events (best of 9) could just be solely played at the SWSA and would only take 4 days, plus the public would be able to attend.

Im sorry but the argument of a tournament being devalued if certain players arent in the last 32 is nonsense. They still ARE in the tournament, except they start in the last 128 like the rest. Tough luck if they lose early on, the 32 who win 2 games deserve to make the venue.

And seeding would be in place anyway, so its not like Ronnie, Trump, Higgins and Robbo would end up in the same mini section and only 1 could make it through to the venue.

The current top 32 for example if it was in place now would face a scenario like this.

Round1 - play a random player seeded between 97 and 128
Round 2 - play the winner of the round 1 match between 33-64 seed and 65-96 seed.

So worst case scenario they would have to face world number 33 in the 2nd round.


Surely it all makes sense now why this is a logical route to go down ...............?

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby JIMO96

It does to me Witz! Couldn't have put that better, I sincerely hope the model above is the one Hearn has in mind, as it represents fairness, eliminates imbalance and protectionism, and opens the door for a cash ranking list that practically writes itself.

I'd take it a step further and actually use the Crucible for some last 128/last 64 games, at the expense of a few less attractive last 32 ties. The order of play could be picked round by round, just as it is at Wimbledon......so there's no need to cry if any of the so-called "elite" go out early (if I hear the expression "devalued" with reference to missing top 16 players at a tournament again, I think I could actually commit mass murder).

Barry Hearn, please make this happen...!

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby SnookerAnalyst

I'm no fan of the current system but I'm not completely convinced by the flat 128 idea either - certainly not when it is applied to all ranking events.

For the top players it means extra matches which they have to prepare for and compete in. I know there's not much sympathy for the pros here, but when you take into account all the Mickey Mouse events that Barry Hearn expects them to compete in then they will inevitably starting picking and choosing which events they play. This doesn't have to be a problem, but I'd prefer World Snooker to have a clear strategy from the outset over which events players should prioritise, rather than just letting economic forces and player behaviour dictate this over time.

It may seem strange to say this because a flatter structure automatically seems fairer, but I'm not convinced about this structure for the lower ranked players either. Would it really help Kacper Filipiak's career if he was drawn against one of the top seeds in every tournament? Certainly not financially - half the players in the draw wouldn't win anything, which effectively means making a loss given the expenses they have to incur. Having a staggered system - as long as the inherent biases are well managed - may actually make more sense for these players. I don't think Hearn's hard-line stance on this is actually that beneficial for the game in the long-run.

We hear a lot of sound-bites from World Snooker, but I'm still waiting for a clear strategy setting out where the game is going. Change is certainly needed, but I'm not convinced that this is the only, or even the best option.

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby PLtheRef

Witz, for your idea to work it would take eight days, unless you mean just having 32 first qualifying round matches or heaven forbid making matches best of 11 frames.

That said an eight table venue would take eight days which is less than what the qualifiers are for Sheffield at the minute.

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby Skullman

SnookerAnalyst wrote:I'm no fan of the current system but I'm not completely convinced by the flat 128 idea either - certainly not when it is applied to all ranking events.

For the top players it means extra matches which they have to prepare for and compete in. I know there's not much sympathy for the pros here, but when you take into account all the Mickey Mouse events that Barry Hearn expects them to compete in then they will inevitably starting picking and choosing which events they play. This doesn't have to be a problem, but I'd prefer World Snooker to have a clear strategy from the outset over which events players should prioritise, rather than just letting economic forces and player behaviour dictate this over time.

It may seem strange to say this because a flatter structure automatically seems fairer, but I'm not convinced about this structure for the lower ranked players either. Would it really help Kacper Filipiak's career if he was drawn against one of the top seeds in every tournament? Certainly not financially - half the players in the draw wouldn't win anything, which effectively means making a loss given the expenses they have to incur. Having a staggered system - as long as the inherent biases are well managed - may actually make more sense for these players. I don't think Hearn's hard-line stance on this is actually that beneficial for the game in the long-run.

We hear a lot of sound-bites from World Snooker, but I'm still waiting for a clear strategy setting out where the game is going. Change is certainly needed, but I'm not convinced that this is the only, or even the best option.


The only that's going to change with the system is how the people at the bottom are going to lose. Instead of losing to someone in the 64-80 bracket, the lower down players might get knocked by a Robertson or a Higgins instead. I disagree withthe idea of half the tour not making any money for losing their first match. I suppose players at the bottom will have work harder to obtain sponsors somehow.

There needs to be some change, as 112 players figthing for 16 spots at the venue is stupid. But I'm not seeing how this is much better.

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby Monique

Dannyboy wrote:People are saying about people turning up and half not winning any money - err... that's the same now isn't it? Prize money is only rewarded down to the L64.


Sometimes it's even L48. Which means that today some players get nothing even if they win matches.

Re: Hearn wants to revolutionise World Championship

Postby Skullman

Dannyboy wrote:People are saying about people turning up and half not winning any money - err... that's the same now isn't it? Prize money is only rewarded down to the L64.


Is it? I thought that was only for the PTCs? Still disagree with it though.