Post a reply

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby PLtheRef

lhpirnie wrote:
HustleKing wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:Do we think there should be less flat-128, best of seven tournaments in a season?

:chin:


No. Less opportunities for young or struggling players to push on or revive their careers and less opportunities to see veteran players who are still good enough not to retire.

I think there should and could be more tournaments, but they can't all have 128 players. The Home Nations events are fine, and enjoyable. It's these overseas events with qualifying rounds in Barnsely or Preston that are ill-conceived.

There could be a whole variety of tournaments, with different numbers of participants, different locations around the world, different formats (e.g. tiered knockouts, leagues, challenge matches). But not with the current ranking system.


If any tournament is to have ranking status then it needs to be one which is accessible to by the whole tour whether that is in the shape of a 128 flat draw, or a tiered system. I reserve judgement on the Grand Prix, Players Championship and Tour Championships somewhat because even with their formats, they can be accessed by all 128.

Originally, I was unconvinced by the flat draw system, but have warmed to it over time and think its good for the majority of events - and that it does allow the Crucible to stand alone. That isn't to say it doesn't have its faults, fixing the top 64 seeds for an event into the bracket doesn't necessary work, nor does just pulling out an opponent for the top 64, I'd rather them be pulled out of two pots.

The main challenge to the old system was that it was very protective - now that the seeded players in a tiered event only receive 'ranking' money if they win their first match it might actually remove this.

Also, the original ranking list was very simple, 5 for a win, 4 for a runner up and so on - if they did something similar, (with tariffs based on the status of an event - it would address the issues of ranking money not necessarily being weighted appropriately or being top heavy towards different events)

You could probably put them into 4 or 5 tiers or bands - multiplying them by 1 to 5 or 6 based on the tier/band of an event.

Last 64 1, Last 32 2, Last 16 3, QF 4, SF, 5, Runner Up 6, Winner 10

The Elo suggestion is interesting because in theory you could make every single match ranking as protected and invitationals wouldn't be as detrimental for players lower down the rankings.

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby lhpirnie

PLtheRef wrote:If any tournament is to have ranking status then it needs to be one which is accessible to by the whole tour whether that is in the shape of a 128 flat draw, or a tiered system. I reserve judgement on the Grand Prix, Players Championship and Tour Championships somewhat because even with their formats, they can be accessed by all 128.
...
The Elo suggestion is interesting because in theory you could make every single match ranking as protected and invitationals wouldn't be as detrimental for players lower down the rankings.

It's only true they need to include 128 players when ranking points are used. That's my principal reason why I think they need to go. With an incremental system (like Elo's) you could have every match of any level ranked - it could go down to amateur club matches. This would improve the standard massively at all levels of the game. You'd then get many more invitational tournaments, allowing top players to plan their schedule and avoid these qualifiers. Lower down, you'd get more provincial tournaments (Vienna Open is a good example) where middle-ranked players can gradually rise.

For example, in amateur chess or bridge, you play a match in the evening, and the following morning your ranking is updated on the website. Easy in the internet age. Online gaming uses the same idea.

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby SnookerFan

Iranu wrote:Points to be carried over when a frame is re-racked.


Interesting idea.

Though, maybe people would be less eager to re-rack if that was the case?

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby HappyCamper

SnookerFan wrote:
Iranu wrote:Points to be carried over when a frame is re-racked.


Interesting idea.

Though, maybe people would be less eager to re-rack if that was the case?


I think as it is now there is a strong disincentive for the leading player to agree to a rerack as they loose the points.

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby SnookerFan

HappyCamper wrote:I think as it is now there is a strong disincentive for the leading player to agree to a rerack as they loose the points.


Actually true.

Yeah, you're right. I don't know what I was talking about. rofl

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby Iranu

SnookerFan wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:I think as it is now there is a strong disincentive for the leading player to agree to a rerack as they loose the points.


Actually true.

Yeah, you're right. I don't know what I was talking about. rofl

Even so it just needs the refs to be firm in enforcing one during a stalemate.

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby donthittheblue

Redo the format. Standardised for all tournaments.

128 players.

R1 = 128 = Qualifying Venue = Best of 11
R2 = 64 = Qualifying Venue = Best of 11
R3 = 32 = Venue = Best of 13
R4 = 16 = Venue = Best of 13
R5 = 8 = Venue = Best of 17
R6 = 4 = Venue = Best of 17
R7 = 2 = Venue = Best of 19

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby chengdufan

Dan-cat wrote:
Ck147 wrote:How about having 2 cue balls on the table, one for each player, and both players at the table at the same time, none of this taking it in turns rubbish. Would be awesome and less ridiculous than some of the other crap in this thread.


Now this is an idea I can get behind. The ref takes every third shot. Andre, down the practice hall.

We're definitely getting somewhere here.
If the yellow ball moves when it isn't the ball on, it's an 8-point foul.

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby HustleKing

cupotee wrote:open the game up to all like in 1991/92 , have a £5 grand entry fee to all newcomers giving them a two year card .


Hell no. People already complain enough about the standard these days, without people lining up hoping to lose 4-0 to Ronnie

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby cupotee

HustleKing wrote:
cupotee wrote:open the game up to all like in 1991/92 , have a £5 grand entry fee to all newcomers giving them a two year card .


Hell no. People already complain enough about the standard these days, without people lining up hoping to lose 4-0 to Ronnie


but it wouldn't be any worse than in 1992/93 when ronnie started his career , why should a talented young lad be blocked from getting on tour at the q school by the likes of rory mcleod and andy hicks when anthony hamilton didn't have to qualify to get on tour in 91 when it was open to all ?

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby HustleKing

cupotee wrote:
HustleKing wrote:
cupotee wrote:open the game up to all like in 1991/92 , have a £5 grand entry fee to all newcomers giving them a two year card .


Hell no. People already complain enough about the standard these days, without people lining up hoping to lose 4-0 to Ronnie


but it wouldn't be any worse than in 1992/93 when ronnie started his career , why should a talented young lad be blocked from getting on tour at the q school by the likes of rory mcleod and andy hicks when anthony hamilton didn't have to qualify to get on tour in 91 when it was open to all ?


When you talk about talented players losing out, you have a point. However you just know there will be dozens of peetakers just doing this to say I played "a random pro", when some of them (like me!) would do well to make 2 consecutive pots, so those people should not be given any attention

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby cupotee

HustleKing wrote:
cupotee wrote:
HustleKing wrote:
cupotee wrote:open the game up to all like in 1991/92 , have a £5 grand entry fee to all newcomers giving them a two year card .


Hell no. People already complain enough about the standard these days, without people lining up hoping to lose 4-0 to Ronnie


but it wouldn't be any worse than in 1992/93 when ronnie started his career , why should a talented young lad be blocked from getting on tour at the q school by the likes of rory mcleod and andy hicks when anthony hamilton didn't have to qualify to get on tour in 91 when it was open to all ?


When you talk about talented players losing out, you have a point. However you just know there will be dozens of peetakers just doing this to say I played "a random pro", when some of them (like me!) would do well to make 2 consecutive pots, so those people should not be given any attention


not really , the peetaking is in the current situation where you don't have nearly enough young lads getting any experience , plenty of good players at the q school would get better on tour just like o'sullivan and higgins did but there's a bottleneck created by the likes of the mcleods lee walker's and paul s davison's with all their experience ending up back on tour again which does the game nothing , i wouldn't see many peetakers at all when they can potentially get stardom and a regular six figure income .

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby Andre147

Iranu wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:I think as it is now there is a strong disincentive for the leading player to agree to a rerack as they loose the points.


Actually true.

Yeah, you're right. I don't know what I was talking about. rofl

Even so it just needs the refs to be firm in enforcing one during a stalemate.


Usually that isn't necessary as the players themselves either agree on the rerack or they break the stalemate and the frame continues.