China Open Qualifying Discussion !!!!

Skullman wrote:Live scores are back. Cope won 5-4 in the end, meaning Robbo has an easy first round in China, while Fergal has pulled back and now only trails 4-3 and is ahead in the eight frame, although isn't in the balls at the moment.

Witz78 wrote:

Skullman wrote:Live scores are back. Cope won 5-4 in the end, meaning Robbo has an easy first round in China, while Fergal has pulled back and now only trails 4-3 and is ahead in the eight frame, although isn't in the balls at the moment.

i sense another young blob coming up

Skullman wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Skullman wrote:Live scores are back. Cope won 5-4 in the end, meaning Robbo has an easy first round in China, while Fergal has pulled back and now only trails 4-3 and is ahead in the eight frame, although isn't in the balls at the moment.

i sense another young blob coming up

Yan's got past Dunn and McCulloch in deciding frames, why can't he do it again here?

Witz78 wrote:

Skullman wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Skullman wrote:Live scores are back. Cope won 5-4 in the end, meaning Robbo has an easy first round in China, while Fergal has pulled back and now only trails 4-3 and is ahead in the eight frame, although isn't in the balls at the moment.

i sense another young blob coming up

Yan's got past Dunn and McCulloch in deciding frames, why can't he do it again here?

3rd time lucky for the deadwood

JIMO96 wrote:The "young bottlers" may still lose to the "journeymen deadwoods" in a flat 128 system, but the whole point of the un-tiering is to give everyone the same pressures and the same route to qualifying....the current system is manifestly unfair......and it definitely contributes to the glut of "journeymen deadwoods" beating young bottlers" , but it's not the biggest factor.

For me, the McCullochs, Harolds, Dunns, McLeods....etc etc (there are so many of them) tend to win these matches because they know how "not to lose". A grinding mentality, if you like. Hamilton bored Brecel to submission yesterday at 0-3, then once he'd broken him, turned on the positive play with some heavy scoring.

Until snooker acts to encourage positive shot selection from its players, this frustrating trend will continue evermore. And people like me, Witz etc will get more and more frustrated by it. Whats more, the Brecels, Bairds, Craigies etc will in 20 years time be just as negative, and constantly outwit the newcomers in a similar manner.

It's no wonder the sponsors and broadcasters demand that the top 16 be present at their events....it's cos they think that from 17 downwards it's all deadwood and bottlers, cos their knowledge begins and ends with the top 16, plus Davis White & Hendry. The young talent in this game is being stifled by the fact that negativity is rewarded (unique for snooker, as someone pointed out).

The game needs a rule change. Something to end the slow play, the negative shots, the tedious repositioning of balls after a miss. Shot clock snooker isn't the answer, and I'm not sure I know what is. The fact is that snooker is unique for something else.....young talent is rarely seen, nor is it given a fair chance. It gets strangled because the game is bursting at the seams with DEADWOOD JOURNEYMEN.

Wild wrote:point is what are these players ambition ?

reaching last 32s or become great players

sorry but you not going to be great by losing to journeymen you got to get past them then past Ronnie and co.

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:point is what are these players ambition ?

reaching last 32s or become great players

sorry but you not going to be great by losing to journeymen you got to get past them then past Ronnie and co.

ITS THE CURRENT SYSTEM WHICH IS REDUCING PLAYERS AMBITIONS

all the emphasis is on WINNING YOUR FIRST GAME to PRESERVE YOUR POSITION. Im not saying anyone is losing on purpose but once the weight of picking up a good haul of ranking points in your first game is over, players seem to be less focused in the next game, almost feeling like theyve done the hard work and anything else is just a bonus.

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:point is what are these players ambition ?

reaching last 32s or become great players

sorry but you not going to be great by losing to journeymen you got to get past them then past Ronnie and co.

ITS THE CURRENT SYSTEM WHICH IS REDUCING PLAYERS AMBITIONS

all the emphasis is on WINNING YOUR FIRST GAME to PRESERVE YOUR POSITION. Im not saying anyone is losing on purpose but once the weight of picking up a good haul of ranking points in your first game is over, players seem to be less focused in the next game, almost feeling like theyve done the hard work and anything else is just a bonus.

thats a good point infact however it wont change Should they beat Ronnie in Last 128 they will think their job is done.

you got to push on if you got real ambition.

Wild wrote: Should they beat Ronnie in Last 128 they will think their job is done.

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:

Wild wrote: Should they beat Ronnie in Last 128 they will think their job is done.

If a player beat Ronald in the Last 128 it would have a huge effect on their confidence. Look what happened to Trump after a couple of big wins at the China Open. With the current system if a young wins a match all the get is another jouryman the next day. If they got to play the top players occasionally they would learn a lot, more than they are getting from the qualifiers. And even if you ignore all that the tiered system doesn't make any sense. If you have 96 players in a tournament then you put the top 32 into the second round and have everyone else start in the first. Theres no other sport that has so many pointless tiers. You're either on the tour or you're not. Theres no neeed to have so many places if you only want 32 of them in the actual tournaments.

ITS THE CURRENT SYSTEM WHICH IS REDUCING PLAYERS AMBITIONS

all the emphasis is on WINNING YOUR FIRST GAME to PRESERVE YOUR POSITION. Im not saying anyone is losing on purpose but once the weight of picking up a good haul of ranking points in your first game is over, players seem to be less focused in the next game, almost feeling like theyve done the hard work and anything else is just a bonus.

Witz78 wrote:regardless the key factor and justification for it is that they would only have to win 2 games to make it to the venue instead of 4.

Its going to happen anyway so all those against it are arguing hypothetically.

unless they seriously think the qualifying set up will then become........

qualifying
round 1 - 97-112 v 113-128
round 2 - round 1 winners v 81-96
round 3 - round 2 winners v 65-80
round 4 - round 3 winners v 49-64
round 5 - round 4 winners v 33-48
round 6 - round 5 winners v 17-32

Wild wrote:witz said

ITS THE CURRENT SYSTEM WHICH IS REDUCING PLAYERS AMBITIONS

all the emphasis is on WINNING YOUR FIRST GAME to PRESERVE YOUR POSITION. Im not saying anyone is losing on purpose but once the weight of picking up a good haul of ranking points in your first game is over, players seem to be less focused in the next game, almost feeling like theyve done the hard work and anything else is just a bonus.

i think thats Rubbish.

Wild wrote:thats a good point infact

Wild wrote:im surounded by bucking idiots on here.