Should the World Championship Format be Reduced?

case_master wrote:How about moving the China Open so the players are not travelling to the other side of the world 3 week before the tournament. They first played there in 05 and we have seen 3 late finals since then...........

yes that's a great call

before that the British open and international open was played prior to the World at Easter.

NedB-H wrote:

PLtheRef wrote:Hmmm, I dont think any extension of the tournament is going to work. 17 days is as long as the Olympic Games and tbh I think its long enough. We're all fans of the tournament and we all enjoy it very much but its very tiring for the people involved, the officials and the referees, media etc are working all throughout the tournament and I think some folk are actually exhausted. We as fans are able to pick and choose what games we watch and whether we follow each match - for those who work at the event, they dont have any choice. I do enjoy the current format as even when you get to the nitty gritty there is still a huge amount of work to be done, 8 sessions in five days.


If we were to try and reduce the format but keep the spirit which has made the tournament as strong as it has been over the past 30 years then this is a format which could work. It means a reduction to winning 64 frames compared to 71, not an overly dramatic format reduction. Having the shorter sessions wouldnt be so bad, there used to be 7 frame sessions before for the Semi-finals and the Final. - The first round used to have some 6/6/7 matches - and the final 9/9/8/9.

First Round - 7/10 - best of 17 frames

Second Round - 7/8/8 - best of 23 frames

Quarter-Finals - 7/8/8 - best of 23 frames

Semi-Finals - 7/7/7/8 - best of 29 frames

Final - 7/7/7/10 - best of 31 frames

It keeps the uniqueness of the World Championships in the terms of the long matches and also means that we have less overruns and players are less wrecked as some seem to suggest.

I think the key word there is "working", the media, refs etc are the employees, the fans are the customers and the product has to be what the customers want, not what the employees want. It's a bit different with the players because how keen they are to perform affects the product too, but it shouldn't be impossible to get a format where the players are able to keep playing well, but the fans still get the full long matches.

Which is why the format I suggested would mean 17 days - and its only really 1 frame less per session.

PLtheRef wrote:Which is why the format I suggested would mean 17 days - and its only really 1 frame less per session.

Yeah true, and that means it's not as bad as some suggestions... but it also means it's not as big a change as some suggestions. Would dropping one frame a round really make that much difference? Or is the problem less the frames themselves, but the late finishes, in which case the best solution would just be to shunt starting times forward.

Well from my POV the final is the only night where we get the massive overrun and thus the late finish. The late finishes seemed to be less of the focus its the matches.

The way that a tournament works in reduction is if there is a gradual reduction, such as best of 33 frames or best of 31 frames for four or five seasons. One of the real problems in the UK was reducing it to best of 19 from 31, if they reduce it to 27 frames or 25 frames frames initially. - With the UK there's never been sfs more than best of 17 so I think only the final in that situation should have been increased, to 23 frames possibly.

randam05 wrote:

case_master wrote:How about moving the China Open so the players are not travelling to the other side of the world 3 week before the tournament. They first played there in 05 and we have seen 3 late finals since then...........

good thinking case..never thought of that

Well I did, and said it before. This is part of the problem. Either they don't give it their best there or they start at a disadvantage in Sheff. Jet lag is a reality and you need about two weeks to get over it. Not to mention the top players are expected to do a LOT of promo work there. And those who can't chose get the worse of both worlds. Ronnie has won in China, and given it his best, but when it was held in the fall, not just before the WC. Selby and Allen both complained about the amount of promo they had to do and how it affected them. The China Open should be moved back in the winter. It would be better for the tournament itself and it would be better for the players ahead of the WC.

It would make more sense to pick a season with the best playing conditions and have a month or 6 weeks where you cram all the Chinese events in with others in Australia and Japan or wherever. Then pick another month and go to Canada and Brazil or something like that and spend the rest of the time in Europe.

But that is straying from the issue here. I agree about the China Open being too close to the Worlds but that really only will affect those who reach the latter stages.

Hand on heart, I've still not seen one good reason for tampering with the World Championships. Every argument for change can be easily countered with a stronger argument against.

Sonny wrote:It would make more sense to pick a season with the best playing conditions and have a month or 6 weeks where you cram all the Chinese events in with others in Australia and Japan or wherever. Then pick another month and go to Canada and Brazil or something like that and spend the rest of the time in Europe.

But that is straying from the issue here. I agree about the China Open being too close to the Worlds but that really only will affect those who reach the latter stages.

Hand on heart, I've still not seen one good reason for tampering with the World Championships. Every argument for change can be easily countered with a stronger argument against.

There are no good reasons at all sonny, youre right. Maybe swap the china open with welsh open.

You don't WANT to see any good reason Sonny. So you obviously won't.
For me players feeling exhausted and four world champs asking for it is more than enough reasons.
Best of 25 is more than enough to judge who is the best. Snooker is a game of skills and wits, not an endurance test.

I do want to see them Monique, really!

With respect, you don't like seeing mind games in snooker or a battle of blood and guts to get over the line. You want to see good clean snooker of a high quality. That is fair enough, but I've played enough snooker in my lifetime to know that the endurance and fight to the death aspect is the one which shows the most character to come out the other side alive as a player, and as a spectator it is the most enthralling to watch. You don't get that in best of 9s or best of 19s. If it was all about century century century back to hotel for a pamper session and 2 days off then make sure both players are wide awake and feeling good then another burst of 5 frames - that's not real snooker!

Let's analyse the 4 World Champions who are calling for the shorter format:

1) Steve Davis - he got the mandate along with Hearn on the basis that the crown jewels would remain untouched. He is going against his word. His enthusiasm for snooker remains inspirational, but his reasoning that the World Open success demonstrates the other events can be reduced is delusional at best. At worst, it's propaganda.

2) Ronnie O'Sullivan - "You only tune in to the last session of 4 in the final" - enough said. He's a snooker player, not a snooker fan. Also, everything he says needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Power Snooker is the future.

3) John Higgins - he was the first to suggest a one day final. His reasons are blatantly selfish because he wants more titles and knows a reduced format would give him a better chance because he looks more shattered than most players due to fitness levels. I understand where he's coming from, but I'm afraid there is no sympathy from me or I bet fitter people like Peter Ebdon. The number one criticism of snooker from outsiders is that it isn't a sport. The World Championships is. Enough said.

4) Neil Robertson - his main reason for saying the event should be shorter seems to be that he doesn't like spending time between sessions in a hotel room. That is the most pathetic excuse of the lot! Buy a dvd player, get a laptop, bring your family along for the ride, go out and see the Peak District, go shopping, have a round of golf, watch snooker on television, have a nice meal at a restaurant.

Sonny ... let's agree to disagree ok? I find absolutely nothing enthralling in seeing two men struggling, exhausted and unable to live up to their talent and skills because they are dead on their feet, 100% honestly. It's not all centuries for me and I'm sure you know that. I appreciate a real clever safety battle above anything else. I've seen 40-ish breaks that were gems and centuries that were average. But you can have that in any format and for me that is real snooker: the imagination, the creativity, the ability ... and the geometrical beauty.
The World Open has proven short formats are not a lottery: the tension is there from the start and the best players came on top. If there were any "undeserved" early exit is was related to the random draw, not the format (I'm mainly thinking Dott and Carter). A longer match minimises the "luck" factor but surely best of 25 is long enough. The best players will emerge the winners.

What about Selby? Hawkins in that form over a best of 5! Why didn't he get Pettman or a rookie?

Yes we'll agree to disagree Monique. I understand the point of view that the poetry of good snooker is what the majority want to see. If you look at it as a mans sport and what men want to see though it's blood, guts and glory. onlyevertonjohn made some very good points earlier in the topic

I hate how T20 has started to affect test match cricket already but people are just pointing to the success of T20 cricket rather than its hindering test cricket! I have been travelling round Europe this summer and met a number of Aussies, Kiwis, Indians who despise T20 and they are all in their early 20s, some in their teens, who talk about the 5 days of cricket with such feeling. I cant stand this patronising attitude towards youth now that they want everything quickly. If thats the case why does X Factor take 20 weeks, Big Brother 14 weeks. I hate these shows and dont watch them but it shows if marketed right youngsters can still be in to something for the long haul. I have been watching snooker since I was 5 and my memories are of the Worlds.

The World Open is quite rightly being compared to T20 cricket. But the real fans know the real stuff is the test matches or multi-session snooker matches.

My conclusion is that the exact format can remain the same, but the schedule can be altered. And that means as well as starting the final 1 or 2 hours earlier and spreading the load by having 7,10,7,11 instead of 8,8,8,11 you change when matches are played throughout the event so the players have similar schedules and breaks and are compensated by the dates they start their first match, by their subsequent schedule. It can be changed so the chances of players being able to play their best in the final is optimised without changing the daily format.

The way the current schedule is worked out is to reduce the chances of certain sessions both ending early with big scorelines and not to accomodate the players. Take Selby this year as an example - had he gone all the way he would have had 2 sessions in the first week and then sessions every day for the remaining 8 days or something stupid like that.

This is the sort of thing which can be avoided with better scheduling.

Well its the players themselves that describe them as lotteries - its the players themselves who were initially opposed to the format, and also were opposed when the GP had the best of 5 frame format and were actually appeased in bringing in the best of 7 format. If they altered the tournament slightly to have 4 best of 7 matches each day for the WO then I think it'll be better.

I can understand some of Moniques suggestion in that a best of 25 frame world final would still be the longest match in snooker, but it would also mean a scaling down of all events. and rounds - As I said playing the final on Sat-Sun may be an idea as it would mean the early hours of the BHM rather than tuesday.

As much as I love the best of 35 frame final its never going to be that forever - e when there's a lot of suggestion and grounding behind the reduction, its five years since we had a final go beyond 32 frames - two of them have been resolved before the final interval. Players have described their performances as jaded. The WC if reduced shouldnt have a drastic reduction, hence why I suggested best of 31 frame final if it were reduced.

Monique, out of interest how would you shape the tournament with a best of 25 frame final.

Sonny not bad having 7,10,7,11. It used to be 7,9,8,11 and also 9,9,8,9.

When I went to the final Monday we had a 2pm and a 7pm final session - which meant 11 frames done in the last session by 11:30pm.

I like blood and guts and I like watching the players suffer to get the glory and the top prize. There's nothing wrong in that surely?

I wasn't meaning to offend the female fanbase with my previous comment. We all like the poetry of perfect snooker and lots of century breaks, but with the longer format marathon that is the World Championships that is the biggest event in the sport by a huge margin, all aspects of a players game need to be tested to the full in order that the highest honour be bestowed on the winner - World Snooker Champion.

And with that I bid you all

The World Open was a success because it was something different. It was never going to produce shocks in the sense of people who looked rubbish beating people who looked good, that idea was daft. But that doesn't mean it didn't produce different results to what would have happened in equivalent matches, over a longer format. Like T20: T20 isn't a lottery - the best T20 teams usually win, just as much as the best Test teams usually wins in Tests. But the best T20 isn't the best Test team, and vice versa. The World Open had matches where the best short-form players won, and the WC produces matches where the best long-form players won. Some guys are good at both, Robbo, Ronnie etc, but often some people will be better over the long matches, and others over the short matches. The Selby example is a good one, he and Hawkins were both clearly in good form, but if that'd been at the Crucible you'd have backed Selby to win: Hawkins has had trouble finishing the deal in longer matches before now, whereas Selby seems to excel in them. So it's good to have a variety of tournament types, some short like the World Open, some long like the WC. Since the WC is now the only truly long-format tournament, now the UKs are shortened, it'd be damaging to that variety to change it, just as it would be damaging to cricket if Test cricket died and they only played shorter formats.

Its very simple - get fit. This is a new thing that the players have complained about, their peers have been doing it for 30 years without complaint.

Well players, reduce the World Championship and reduce revenue - take that out of the prize fund and how would you feel? I am 100% certain they would change their tune then.

I said that yesterday Case, I'm sure the players wouldnt mind losing 40% of the frames in the world final if the match was reduced to best of 21 frames (as it would be as thats as long as a 1 day final could realistically run for a 10,11 session matches (its how the WU21 and World Amateur ran when best of 21 for their final.) - But ask if they wouldnt mind losing 40% of the Prize Money £100,000 from the winners pot) and see whether they agree to it.

in answer to Paddy...
Here is how I would see it:

Rounds 1 and 2 best of 19 over 2 sessions (9/10) played from Saturday -> Saturday. 3 sessions/day - 2 tables. schedule as we have it now.
Quarters and Semis: best of 21 over 2 sessions (10/11) completed in one day each from Sunday->Friday. Sessions starting at 10:30 and at 17:30 MSI after 5 frames - 1 table - 1 complete match/day
Final: best of 29, three sessions (8/8/13) over 2 days (Saturday, Sunday) Saturday sessions at 11:30 and 17:30 MSI after 4 frames, Sunday session (possible 13 frames) starting at 3 pm, MSI after 6 frames - 1 table

Single table set-up from quarters on should be good for viewers. Getting to see a complete match should be good also.
No late finishes from quarters on. Final on Sunday allowing for non UK viewers to follow it.

Here's what I would do:

Round 1 - best of 19
Round 2 - best of 25
Quarter-final - best of 25
Semi-final - best of 33
Final - best of 35

Sonny wrote:Here's what I would do:

Round 1 - best of 19
Round 2 - best of 25
Quarter-final - best of 25
Semi-final - best of 33
Final - best of 35

sonny! youve got it perfect I feel, what does everyone else think of sonnys? i think it would work great.

i dont think lol

i know it will

Monique wrote:in answer to Paddy...
Here is how I would see it:

Rounds 1 and 2 best of 19 over 2 sessions (9/10) played from Saturday -> Saturday. 3 sessions/day - 2 tables. schedule as we have it now.
Quarters and Semis: best of 21 over 2 sessions (10/11) completed in one day each from Sunday->Friday. Sessions starting at 10:30 and at 17:30 MSI after 5 frames - 1 table - 1 complete match/day
Final: best of 29, three sessions (8/8/13) over 2 days (Saturday, Sunday) Saturday sessions at 11:30 and 17:30 MSI after 4 frames, Sunday session (possible 13 frames) starting at 3 pm, MSI after 6 frames - 1 table

Single table set-up from quarters on should be good for viewers. Getting to see a complete match should be good also.
No late finishes from quarters on. Final on Sunday allowing for non UK viewers to follow it.

Hmmm, interesting, as I've said as much as I want and hope that the Worlds remain the same we need to bear in mind what alternatives there could be and the consequences of any major changes. What I suggested is as slight a change as I possibly think could happen. There's no doubt I like and prefer the current format, with the exception that I'd make the L16 23 and the SF the best of 31 frames. s as I think the tournament jumps in length by a huge margin from 25 to 33, I dont think that there has been many people who has gone straight from the semi-finals for the first time into a final. Let me be clear, if the format wasnt changed and we had a 19,25,25,33 and 35 remained then I would be more than happy but I think that there may be room for some slight changes. Reducing just 1 or 2 frames per match I think means that we are going to have a tournament that still is a huge challenge to win, and means the world to each of the 32 players who compete. If we reduce the tournament in length by a massive amount then we get rid of some of the history,I mean if we had a best of 25 final then the fightbacks of Taylor in 1985, Hendry in 1992, and Williams in 2000 to name but a few would never have happened. I said last night that the reason why the UK Championship suffered was because the tournament final was reduced from 31 to 19 frames, if the match initially had been reduced to best of 25 frames for four or five years then 19 frames then it could be more gradual. Not that I'm advocating any major reduction but the way the tournament is going to be reduced then it has to be gradual such as a best of 31 final to avoid the loss of the tournaments general history.

Monique in relation to your idea, not bad but I think a 13 frame final session would be too much, I think if you are going to make the final 29 frames then its probably going to be 9/9/11 - or make the match best of 27 frames 8/8/11. - 1 table quarter-finals may drag the tournament out.

No, they shouldn't be. End of.

http://www.sportinglife.com/snooker/wor ... Power.html

Crucible king Neil Robertson backed calls for the World Championship final to be shortened and hailed the arrival of Power Snooker - but warned the sport must not be turned "into a circus".

World champion Robertson sealed his triumph in Sheffield just before 1am in the morning on May 4, by which time millions of viewers had tuned out in favour of sleep.

Now he has followed Ronnie O'Sullivan by appealing to the game's authorities to consider cutting down the length of the tournament.

The 28-year-old Australian believes the semi-finals and final should be looked at.

"The World Championship goes on for just a little too long," Robertson said.

"The format of the event is fantastic but the semi-finals and final should be first-to-13 as well, not first-to-17 and first-to-18.

"That would be good enough."

However the popular 'Thunder from Down Under', who lives in Cambridge, insists snooker only needs a touch of fine-tuning, and its heart must not be ripped out in the current wave of changes, which have followed promoter Barry Hearn's arrival as chairman of World Snooker.

Hearn himself, while advocating change elsewhere in the calendar, has said the World Championship format in untouchable.

"I think you've got to be very careful not to reduce the format too much," Robertson said.

"Snooker is a gentlemen's sport, we can't just turn it into boxing and turn it into a circus, just to get more people watching it.

"You have to stick with the guidelines of what the sport actually means. If we don't get the viewing figures or the money that football does, then so be it, we can't force the issue and turn the sport into a bit of a mockery."

Robertson is relishing his first tilt at Power Snooker, an event featuring a nine-red diamond including a 'power ball' which when potted starts two minutes of double points scoring - a PowerPlay.

Players are also only allowed 20 seconds per shot, and a 20-point penalty will be applied if they over-run, while shots from behind the baulk line - the 'PowerZone' - are also worth double.

The first Power Snooker tournament takes place on Saturday, October 30, at the Indigo2 venue inside London's o2 arena.

Robertson trialled the format today, in a practice session with world number nine Mark Selby, and reported favourable results - not least a record-breaking shot.

He explained: "It was good fun. I had a white in baulk and I was in the PowerPlay and potted the black and it was worth 28 points!"

as Dave Hendon has Pointed out Players should stick to playing and not get involved with Politics and ill add things they are clueless about.

wildJONESEYE wrote:as Dave Hendon has Pointed out Players should stick to playing and not get involved with Politics and ill add things they are clueless about.

Sorry Wild but they are the ones playing and they certainly have more right than any fan sitting on their ass to voice their opinion. It might not please you but there you have it.

Monique wrote:

wildJONESEYE wrote:as Dave Hendon has Pointed out Players should stick to playing and not get involved with Politics and ill add things they are clueless about.

Sorry Wild but they are the ones playing and they certainly have more right than any fan sitting on their ass to voice their opinion. It might not please you but there you have it.

Sorry Monique but the Fans pay their Wages They should Play the required amount of frames to be called a World Champion.

if they are Lasy sods who wants things easy being world Champ is not meant to be easy so ill repeat Robbo shut your face and Play

wildJONESEYE wrote:

Monique wrote:

wildJONESEYE wrote:as Dave Hendon has Pointed out Players should stick to playing and not get involved with Politics and ill add things they are clueless about.

Sorry Wild but they are the ones playing and they certainly have more right than any fan sitting on their ass to voice their opinion. It might not please you but there you have it.

Sorry Monique but the Fans pay their Wages They should Play the required amount of frames to be called a World Champion.

if they are Lasy sods who wants things easy being world Champ is not meant to be easy so ill repeat Robbo shut your face and Play

yeh the Worlds cannot be tinkered with.

Im open to change and expirments with formats, shot clocks, lengths of matches etc almost eveyrwhere else but the Worlds is what is is..........because of what it it. To tamper with it would be foolish

im opened to any change if the World Stays the same.

its Perfect and it will without a single Doubt Get More People And higher TV audience than any other Tournament bar none because its steep in history at the crucible as it is

it had to be curtailed for TV Scheduling originally but its worked how its been for 30 years with some breathtaking moments over 35 frame final that History would have been so Different and not as Memorable had it been 25 frame finals.

Yup couldnt agree with you two more, im open to change, but just not in the worlds please. When I read things like what neil robertson said there, I get a sick feeling in my tummy, its such a bad idea. For christs sake its only the one tournament like it!! thats why its so prestigious, if it were like the uk or masters, it wouldnt be the world championship, they would have to call it something else cause it just WOULDNT BE THE WORLD CHAMPIPONSHIP ANYMORE. There would never be another WC like you say because, the WC is what sorts the players out, just cause ronnie hasnt got his head screwed on right and cant cope with doing something for to many days, doesnt mean it should be changed. How many of you work from 9 till 5 everyday at a tough job 5 days a week? ..exactly and you cope with it. This is there job remember and theres a big prize at the end for becoming WC.

Its prestigious, different, engrossing, enjoyable, exciting, produces top top snooker, sorts the men from the boys and everything good really, tis my fav tournie as im sure it is yours too. Im also sure a lot of players like the WC as it is. Each tournament with its own identity? well if you change the WC it will be similar to the rest.

I could keep going on with more and more reasons, but im sure you lot know the call.