Women's Snooker; a level playing field?

Hi everyone.

I would love to hear you thoughts about the Ladies game and how it could be improved? Last week's Paul Hunter Ladies Classic was impressive and arguably could be the highlight of the season.

I did a piece on my blog if you want to hear my ideas...
http://www.thecueview.com/md-s-blog---w ... ield-.html

This is brilliant. Thank you.

I think that snooker has an opportunity here.

Women are starting to make inroads into qualifying, Q school etc and surely it is a matter of time before Reanne, Ng or another makes it far in a tournament. In the future, snooker could be the first sport (I think) in which there is no need for gender separation.

On ye go Ng on Yee..

That Ng needs a new glasses while / to play against Reanne.

Much depends of which country has the best juniors. If it is just a one nation.. You know what I mean.

Nevertheless, what I really do like about that Ng is that she is going to the details really well. That´s something basically all the top male players should learn from. They have the structures right but they are not necessarily going to the details. Obviously amongs the balls, but the safety and the tactics-wise also.

And Reanne´s cueing looks really great. And the way the cue ball follows and travels without any difficulties.

I have never seen any strange banters while following any women snooker.

Mr View I love your point about the most exciting games of snooker are the dramatic ones. You don't need huge breaks all the time to make a good match. I mean I love a good Ronnie railroading rocketupyerbum one-visit-oops-Rickety-Walden-why-did-you-bother-you-shoulda-stayed-at-home 6-0 drubbing as much as the next man (probably more than the next man, let's face it #UpRonniesTree) but you don't want to watch that all the time.

Scrap the ladies only events and make the top female players play on the main tour, if they are good enough. You either sink or you swim, imo.

The idea that ladies events should be given a more "level-playing field" by giving it similar TV coverage as the main events and holding finals in the same venues is pure idiocy.

Who is going to sponsor that? Who will turn up to watch it?

Fact is women's tournaments aren't more high profile because only a really small minority want to watch 3rd or 4th rate snooker.

You can dress up a turd however you want, at the end of the day it is still a turd.

Cloud Strife wrote:Scrap the ladies only events and make the top female players play on the main tour, if they are good enough. You either sink or you swim, imo.

The idea that ladies events should be given a more "level-playing field" by giving it similar TV coverage as the main events and holding finals in the same venues is pure idiocy.

Who is going to sponsor that? Who will turn up to watch it?

Fact is women's tournaments aren't more high profile because only a really small minority want to watch 3rd or 4th rate snooker.

You can dress up a turd however you want, at the end of the day it is still a turd.

That's bullocks Cloud. Using your logic, there would be no female tennis, no championship or lower leagues and no paralympics.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Cloud Strife wrote:Scrap the ladies only events and make the top female players play on the main tour, if they are good enough. You either sink or you swim, imo.

The idea that ladies events should be given a more "level-playing field" by giving it similar TV coverage as the main events and holding finals in the same venues is pure idiocy.

Who is going to sponsor that? Who will turn up to watch it?

Fact is women's tournaments aren't more high profile because only a really small minority want to watch 3rd or 4th rate snooker.

You can dress up a turd however you want, at the end of the day it is still a turd.

That's bullocks Cloud. Using your logic, there would be no female tennis, no championship or lower leagues and no paralympics.

So why is women's snooker in the state that it's in then? Why does it not garner the same attention that the main tour events do?

I'd say let the women's game grow organically and if the interest is there then naturally it will get bigger. What I wouldn't like to see is it being put on a pedestal and given a stage that it has neither earned nor deserves, which is what the OP is suggesting in his article.

Fair point - it's like women's football was 20 years ago. It has not been a popular sport with women historically but I think there is no reason that they cannot establish a foothold on the main tour in the next five years. In the meantime, it will need support and publicity to grow.

A lot resting on Reanne Evans and Ng on Yee

Cloud Strife wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Cloud Strife wrote:Scrap the ladies only events and make the top female players play on the main tour, if they are good enough. You either sink or you swim, imo.

The idea that ladies events should be given a more "level-playing field" by giving it similar TV coverage as the main events and holding finals in the same venues is pure idiocy.

Who is going to sponsor that? Who will turn up to watch it?

Fact is women's tournaments aren't more high profile because only a really small minority want to watch 3rd or 4th rate snooker.

You can dress up a turd however you want, at the end of the day it is still a turd.

That's bullocks Cloud. Using your logic, there would be no female tennis, no championship or lower leagues and no paralympics.

So why is women's snooker in the state that it's in then? Why does it not garner the same attention that the main tour events do?

I'd say let the women's game grow organically and if the interest is there then naturally it will get bigger. What I wouldn't like to see is it being put on a pedestal and given a stage that it has neither earned nor deserves, which is what the OP is suggesting in his article.

How can it do that without TV exposure?

Would men's snooker have 'grown organically' if someone hadn't decided it would be good for testing out colour TV?

Dan-cat wrote:

Cloud Strife wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Cloud Strife wrote:Scrap the ladies only events and make the top female players play on the main tour, if they are good enough. You either sink or you swim, imo.

The idea that ladies events should be given a more "level-playing field" by giving it similar TV coverage as the main events and holding finals in the same venues is pure idiocy.

Who is going to sponsor that? Who will turn up to watch it?

Fact is women's tournaments aren't more high profile because only a really small minority want to watch 3rd or 4th rate snooker.

You can dress up a turd however you want, at the end of the day it is still a turd.

That's bullocks Cloud. Using your logic, there would be no female tennis, no championship or lower leagues and no paralympics.

So why is women's snooker in the state that it's in then? Why does it not garner the same attention that the main tour events do?

I'd say let the women's game grow organically and if the interest is there then naturally it will get bigger. What I wouldn't like to see is it being put on a pedestal and given a stage that it has neither earned nor deserves, which is what the OP is suggesting in his article.

How can it do that without TV exposure?

Would men's snooker have 'grown organically' if someone hadn't decided it would be good for testing out colour TV?

Fair enough, but as I said in an earlier post there is already a perfectly good tour set-up and ready for the women to conquer, provided they are good enough obviously. So why the need for separation?

Is the standard in women's snooker continuously improving? I genuinely do not know this but assume it to be the case as there are some results where female players beat male pros.

,

Good post