Snooker Seniors Tour Revamped

https://snookerhq.com/2017/01/18/revamp ... en-hendry/

What do people make of this?

SnookerFan wrote:https://snookerhq.com/2017/01/18/revamped-world-seniors-championship-to-feature-stephen-hendry/

What do people make of this?

I'm surprised Hendry is involved in this, although he probably fancies his chances at the £10k for a few days work. He's gotta be the clear favourite.

Could be a dark horse like Darren Morgan though. He's still a keen player.

The problem with the seniors tour is that watching snooker being played averagely is hardly an exciting spectacle.

AN extra little incentive for a place in WSC qualifiers. Imagine Willie or Dennis taking part in World Champion again!

Dan-cat wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:https://snookerhq.com/2017/01/18/revamped-world-seniors-championship-to-feature-stephen-hendry/

What do people make of this?

I'm surprised Hendry is involved in this, although he probably fancies his chances at the £10k for a few days work. He's gotta be the clear favourite.

Could be a dark horse like Darren Morgan though. He's still a keen player.

The problem with the seniors tour is that watching snooker being played averagely is hardly an exciting spectacle.

Well,thats cheered me up!.


Wonderful news!.



I can see where your comin from DC,but on the other hand,i,m not that surprised that he,s decided to take part.


Even though Hendry retired a few years ago,he,s still got snooker in his blood,of course not as much as he used to have,but he still has it and probably always will have it.


It broke me heart when i saw the interview in which he revealed that he decided to jack it all in,it took me a good while to get over it,i,d watched him right from the start,watched every match i could,thats a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng time and then suddenly,he quits.

I fully understood him though.


I,m sure deeeep down that he misses playin,deep down he might even have regretted quittin.


Since he quit,i was still hopin that he was gonna take part in the odd tourney here n there,but it did,nt happen,so him decidin to take part in this is a real treat.





Even if he gets sent packin in the very first round,of course i,ll care and it would,i fully admit cheese me off,but not that much,i,m just pleased that he,s takin part in a tourney again,even though it,s not a proper one.



AAAAAAHHHHHH,this news has made my day,i,m really lookin forward to seein him playin on the telly again.

Dan-cat wrote:
The problem with the seniors tour is that watching snooker being played averagely is hardly an exciting spectacle.

I disagree, as long as the players are well matched ability-wise, it can be just as absorbing. What is not good, in any sport, is overmatched opposition resulting in one-sided & predictable victories.

SnookerEd25 wrote:

Dan-cat wrote:
The problem with the seniors tour is that watching snooker being played averagely is hardly an exciting spectacle.

I disagree, as long as the players are well matched ability-wise, it can be just as absorbing. What is not good, in any sport, is overmatched opposition resulting in one-sided & predictable victories.

Fair point.

It would be ace if it got down to the Nugget and the Bairn in the final scrapping for £10k. They'd be trying their hearts out! I'll be watching for sure.

Definite improvement to the competition, by not allowing current Tour professionals to enter.
It also means, there will be no problem with scheduling dates for it, as the competitors will obviously not be involved in the Tour events.
I still think 45 should be the qualifying age - 40 just doesn't seem 'old enough'!

Used to be a good day out in Portsmouth.

Don't former World Champions get invites to Crucible qualifiers anyway?

Surprised they haven't worded it a bit different to bring Jimmy into the fold. That will cost them a lot of money.

Jimmy can't play as he is a main tour player

I hope Dennis isn't distracted by wondering when Cliff's plane will be landing.

SteveJJ wrote:I hope Dennis isn't distracted by wondering when Cliff's plane will be landing.

SnookerFan wrote:Don't former World Champions get invites to Crucible qualifiers anyway?

Yes, but if a player who wins this isn't a former world champ then it's a carrot

Dan-cat wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:Don't former World Champions get invites to Crucible qualifiers anyway?

Yes, but if a player who wins this isn't a former world champ then it's a carrot

I guess.

My worry is that they are taking this event a bit too seriously.

Like I said, I enjoyed a day out watching it in Portsmouth a few times back in the day. There was a nice pub local to the venue, you could get food (and more pints) in the leisure center it was in. I treated it as a fun thing to watch with a few beers. Like a slightly different version of Snooker Legends.

If you're treating it as a proper tournament with relevance, than well, you're just wrong. It's not that. If you're treating it as an exhbition event, bit of a laugh with the oldies, it's alright.

It's a best of three for £10k!

Dan-cat wrote:It's a best of three for £10k!

Though that does seem a bit excessive, that isn't really what bothers me. Mainly, because I don't care that much what the players get paid.

It's any attempt at treating this tournament as something that has relevance to the main tour that annoys me. It'd be like giving the person who had won the most Snooker Legends events a wild card.

Dan-cat wrote:It's a best of three for £10k!

i think its a best of 5 in all matches up to the final and a best of 7 frame final but with a difference

All matches in qualifiers and up to the final in Scunthorpe will be best of 5 but if the match is 2 -2 then the final frame is decided by a single black ball respot.

The World Seniors Final will be best of 7 with a black ball to decide it if the match goes 3 - 3.

All matches in qualifiers and up to the final in Scunthorpe will be best of 5 but if the match is 2 -2 then the final frame is decided by a single black ball respot.

The World Seniors Final will be best of 7 with a black ball to decide it if the match goes 3 - 3.

Phew. At least they're not relying on gimmicks

What's wrong with a deciding frame?!

Personally, I have never been a fan of a "decider" of any kind. Yes, the '85 WC Final was a thrill, but following through with that example, what if the whole thing had in the end been decided on a fluke? Taylor even admitted that he was just going for any possible pot, safety be damned (which one just needed to watch the snooker, didn't actually need his admission to it). He didn't end up with a fluked pot but certainly had many fluky safe rolls which pretty much handed him the match in the decider.

I would like to see Snooker go the way of Tennis and win the match by two, at the very least in the semi-finals and finals. Understandably, to win every match of a tournament by two would make the timing of the format far too unpredictable to be viable. But semi-'s and finals could certainly squeeze a couple more frames in if necessary to determine an undisputed winner. So if the WC Final goes to 17-17, the ultimate winner should need 19-17, or 20-18, or whatever in my opinion.

As far as the Seniors go, I can understand that maybe the old guys (like me!) maybe don't have the stamina anymore. (Myself, I just had an 11-1/2 hour session last weekend with a break for pizza!). More likely, they just don't want to put in any "extra" work for the smallish size of the reward.

Acesinc posting on a non-rules thread <falls off chair>

Dan-cat wrote:Acesinc posting on a non-rules thread <falls off chair>

Aaahhhh! But it is "rules" in a roundabout way! (BTW, did you know that we don't call them "roundabouts" here in the USA? They are becoming more popular, especially in more rural areas, but when I say the word "roundabout", no one knows what I am talking about...they like "rotary" over here. Yankees! (smh... ))

It's "rules" because it is a rule that I would like to see changed. This one and the Foul and a Miss variation that I have spouted off about so much in the past.

What are you talking about winning a snooker match by two frames what planet are you living on ?. Big difference between winning a final set in tennis by 2 and trying to win in snooker by 2. Finals would last till 3 or 4 in the morning. What nonsence

Ronnie79 wrote:What are you talking about winning a snooker match by two frames what planet are you living on ?. Big difference between winning a final set in tennis by 2 and trying to win in snooker by 2. Finals would last till 3 or 4 in the morning. What nonsence

Is that you, wifey? Last I checked, other than with her, I am entitled to an opinion. I imagine you would neither have enjoyed the marathon "nonsence" of the Best of 75 (or more!) World Championship back in the day.

Enjoy your Snooker Shootout, sonny.

I ain't your sonny. You have an opinion it's just the wrong one