Snooker Overdrive wrote:I guess we all are wondering how this event will rank.
Is it a just a pretty useless Masters "Light" or will it establish itself as another big tournament everyone desperately wants to win?
1) Price Money:
100.000 pound is a lot of money. Only 4 events offer more for the winner. So from that standpoint it has to be one of the biggest tournaments of the year.
2) Competing players:
Looks very much like the top 16. That's a bit disappointing because in that way it very much feels like a Master Light. I think only 8 elite players would have been better.
3) Prestige/ History:
Like the International Championship last year it's completely new. So it doesn't have a rich history, at least not yet. But if this event remains in the calendar for the next years, that will obviously improve.
4) Format:
At least no shot clock that's good news. Otherwise it's just like the Masters except the first round is only best of 7. I would have preferred a longer format, best of 17 in every match. With only 8 players that would have been possible.
5) Venue:
Haven't seen it yet.
Conclusion:
I very much welcome this event but I think Barry Hearn missed a trick here. Another idea to make this event more unique would be a "The Winner Takes It All" twist, meaning whoever wins the event gets all the price money. All other players, including the runner up get nothing.
What do you guys think about my assessment and my improvement proposals?
I also share your opinion on this matter SO, and yeah it's definately a tournament which offers a lot of prize money, so all players should give 100% to win it, much like the Masters but the main problem for me I tought initially it would be a longer format, Best of 17s as you say would have been really nice.
I which they could make a final over 2 days, Best of 31 Final like the UK Champs prior to 1993 would be the icing on the cake, but I guess the organization and TV broadcasters don't want to make this sort of commitment these days, apart from the Worlds obviously.
And many of you may not know this, but in fact there has been a tournament in snooker with that ideia of "The Winner Takes It All", it was the 1999 Champions Cup, after the Charity Challenge event was dropped after 1998 and in 1999 the new tournament was contested by the players who won major tournaments in the previous season, a bit like this one. It had a prize money of £175,000, with the losers gaining nothing, and Hendry was the first winner, 7-5 over Mark Williams.
But as SnookerFan said earlier, most obviously the other players found it unfair that they received nothing and the "Wiiner Takes All" format was dropped. The event only ran for 2 more seasons, with normal prize money format, 2000 Ronnie won it after his rehab, then the last winner was John Higgins, all 3 finals Williams was the loser.
But for me this format would also seem very unfair to the players, particularly if one were to lose the Final 10-9. As for the rest of your assessment, it is like Wild said spot on.