Changes to the Changes?

And nor do I whatever tag you put on my back! At least I put efforts to explain my views and don't resort to insults when I have no rational argument to defend my point of view.
Actually you change your mind so often when it comes to what suits Robbo that the above comment is really hard to believe. Short formats were poo until Robbo won the World Open and Higgins was all OK until he overcame him in the rankings then suddenly he should never been allowed to play again ...

Monique wrote:And nor do I whatever tag you put on my back! At least I put efforts to explain my views and don't resort to insults when I have no rational argument to defend my point of view.
Actually you change your mind so often when it comes to what suits Robbo that the above comment is really hard to believe. Short formats were poo until Robbo won the World Open and Higgins was all OK until he overcame him in the rankings then suddenly he should never been allowed to play again ...

yes but most know i can be tongue in cheek at times where as your serious about what is best for ronnie being best for snooker

And on higgins i never gave my views on him after his tribuneral so i dont get where you said i suddenly changed my mind when i never gave any views on it previously.

MITCH JOHNSON THE POM SLAYER wrote:

Monique wrote:And nor do I whatever tag you put on my back! At least I put efforts to explain my views and don't resort to insults when I have no rational argument to defend my point of view.
Actually you change your mind so often when it comes to what suits Robbo that the above comment is really hard to believe. Short formats were poo until Robbo won the World Open and Higgins was all OK until he overcame him in the rankings then suddenly he should never been allowed to play again ...

yes but most know i can be tongue in cheek at times where as your serious about what is best for ronnie being best for snooker

No I'm not. Short formats are not particularly favouring Ronnie (even if he likes them) as his tally proves. He has a very good record on long formats and often needs a couple of frames to settle down. And once again I'm NOT asking for short formats everywhere if you cared to read what I write, which you don't going by your comments. What I say is that exposure of all players, especially the younger ones is important for the game and that IF IF a choice has to be made between longer format and less matches on telly vs slightly shoter formats and all matches on telly I favour the latter. So now you will explain to me how this "favours" Ronnie as he is on telly more often than not anyway.
As for the shot-clock, not a 25 sec shot-clock but 35 or 40 sec shot-clock and ample provision of time-outs it will hinder nobody except the ones who abuse the rules and take advantage of the inability of the refs to enforce them when it comes to slow play. And Robbo is not one of the offenders be reassured.

Who are the offenders then? Because I'd like to know. It's not how long they take over the shot, it's the shot they play that determines whether they are good to watch or holding up play or not.

No I'm not. Short formats are not particularly favouring Ronnie (even if he likes them) as his tally proves. He has a very good record on long formats and often needs a couple of frames to settle down. And once again I'm NOT asking for short formats everywhere if you cared to read what I write, which you don't going by your comments. What I say is that exposure of all players, especially the younger ones is important for the game and that IF IF a choice has to be made between longer format and less matches on telly vs slightly shoter formats and all matches on telly I favour the latter. So now you will explain to me how this "favours" Ronnie as he is on telly more often than not anyway.
As for the shot-clock, not a 25 sec shot-clock but 35 or 40 sec shot-clock and ample provision of time-outs it will hinder nobody except the ones who abuse the rules and take advantage of the inability of the refs to enforce them when it comes to slow play. And Robbo is not one of the offenders be reassured.

The thing is, and this is as a referee, the rule is already difficult to actually enforce as said yesterday, when I as referee warn a player for slow play I am telling them that they are cheating - no one wants to be called a parakeet, especially when its opinionated - Monique's suggestion of a set shot clock is an idea but its also leading to the poolification of the sport, and its not what the sport needs when its under attack from the gimmicks. I cant stand the shot clock - I think the PL can be improved by making the matches best of 6 frames (as in if someone wins 4-0 or 4-1 then its game over) rather than over six frames

Sonny wrote:Who are the offenders then? Because I'd like to know. It's not how long they take over the shot, it's the shot they play that determines whether they are good to watch or holding up play or not.

Indeed, its not each match is having 40+ average shot times

And once again I go back to the piece I wrote on Power Snooker. I really enjoyed it and it has everything all those who want to wreck the proper game are asking for from shot clocks to boisterous crowds to ball in hand and no miss rule to speed play and time limits per match to fit in with tv schedules. It has the lot.

Snooker is snooker and it is fine how it is. There is enough variety with the range for formats. The true sport lies in the longer matches. Every public poll I've seen has voted in favour of longer over shorter matches. If you are an incidental viewer you are more likely to get involved in a longer match because you could be at home channel hopping, in a pub, in a shopping centre, wherever and you will catch the earlier part of a match and then later that evening or the next day you will turn on the tv and see the same two players you saw before - instant recognition - and you'll see the score closer to the winning line so you'll stop and watch it.

If it's different players every time and they are racing to a small target of frames you channel hop, and by the time you switch back it's someone else so you channel hop again and there's nothing to keep you there.

Longer formats are for the special players, those who are the cream of the crop. Those who will be remembered for years to come and they will play some classic matches along the way. You don't get classic matches in a best of 7 or 9, or very rarely especially when compared to a longer format match. If you go down the years and see which matches people remember - how many of them will be shorter than best of 17?

There is a place for shorter format events. But given the choice I'd rather have a season of less events of higher length format than a best of 5 event but 50 times a year.

Remember this comes down to Barry Hearn and Steve Davis' promise not to touch the "crown jewels" and by not touching that means leaving them the buck alone and doing what they have to do elsewhere.

PLtheRef wrote:

Sonny wrote:Who are the offenders then? Because I'd like to know. It's not how long they take over the shot, it's the shot they play that determines whether they are good to watch or holding up play or not.

Indeed, its not each match is having 40+ average shot times

Exactly. When a player goes to such average shot times , like Ebdon did at some point of the World Open semi final (*) I really struggle to see any possible justification for that. It's not as he pulled extraordinary shots. It was just mind games and fortunately it didn't work to his advantage this time. Now if that is legit, the section about slow play should be scrapped from the rules. But having it there and not enforcing it doesn't make sense.
BTW the 6 frames, 25 seconds shot clock format in PL was set into place as an attempt to control the match length for broadcasting. Nothing else and certainly not as a remedy for abusing the rules about slow play or to favour a particular player. As it happens even like that the matches vary significantly in duration.

(*) 47 seconds shot average time at one point.

@Sonny ... if you are the incidental viewer and you happen to tune in in say the second session of a best of 35 played over 4 sessions you'll see neither how it started nor how it ends and it's unlikely you will watch it.

There is a place for shorter format events. But given the choice I'd rather have a season of less events of higher length format than a best of 5 event but 50 times a year.

Me too. But the need to "find the best player" is no justification for it. It's just a different type of spectacle that will suit more the die hard fans of the sport. But before you become a die hard fan, you are a beginner and shorter formats are easier to grab for the new viewers, especially outside UK where there is no "history" and established snooker culture. Don't underestimate that factor. For you in UK snooker has always been around, not for others. Just think about some reactions (some not all) we have seen on 606 about 3-cushions and how so many snooker fans failed to appreciate the skills involved and got bored after a while. So as a conclusion we need variety.

And yes, you get more "classics" over longer formats, but you get also a lot of one sided totally uninteresting long drawn affairs when one player runs away with it. Longer formats are more enthralling when good, and more boring when not good.

If one player runs away with it they tend not to be long drawn out affairs though Monique. Besides, if one player runs away with it they will have deserved the victory. 9-3 is far more convincing than 4-1 or 4-2.

You like your shorter formats. I'm not dissing that, nor do I have problem with them. I loved the World Open. But there is a huge difference between promoting more shorter format events and shortening the only established longer format events. Surely you can see that?

Sonny wrote:Members have the right to give their opinions without feeling threatened by other members who disagree with them. This a debating forum and if we all agreed then there would be no point in it all. Once it starts to get personal, that's when the line is crossed.

Let them say WHY they enjoy snooker if they counting the minutes until it ends.

simple enough question

as i said above i cant understand why Established Snooker suporters in favour of it ?

that was my point.

regarding short matches or gimmicks there is absalutly no proof what so ever they can get new fans interested in the sport however there is more proof to say best of 19,25,33 and 35 at the WC does infact get people watching the sport.

so having shorting matches on any agenda totally goes against what the majority of people actually want from snooker.

and its really confusing this short match mentality.

For me if a young lad watches rubbish clock snooker or power snooker he wont have an interest in proper snooker as both are on a different planet to real snooker.

chances are they will only watch gimmick snooker

If you want youngsters to really get in to snooker its the long dramatic matches which will hook them

An example

Look at Cricket alot of kids have got in to watching 20/20 cricket but sadly have no interest in the proper form of the game test cricket which i fidn very sad.

So i dont wnat snooker going the same away and believe me it could

GIMMICKS =

Sonny wrote:If one player runs away with it they tend not to be long drawn out affairs though Monique. Besides, if one player runs away with it they will have deserved the victory. 9-3 is far more convincing than 4-1 or 4-2.

You like your shorter formats. I'm not dissing that, nor do I have problem with them. I loved the World Open. But there is a huge difference between promoting more shorter format events and shortening the only established longer format events. Surely you can see that?

19 frames of running away with it is still very long and totally uninteresting.

And having said that, once again, I'm not asking for shortening the established long format events unless and only IF there is a clear requirement dictated by external factors like sponsoring or broadcasting. I prefer to have them shorter than gone.
Once again also the only change I suggested for the WC was to revert to what it was in Hendry's glory days, best of 31 in the semis, and to reschedule the semis in order to allow both finalists a reasonable rest before the final, which could only bring more quality to it and would be fairer. Is that the end of the world?
Regarding the UK we were discussing an hypothetic proposal that has been dismissed anyway. Again I don't understand the agressive reactions to the debate. And again what I said is that IF that would allow to show all matches on telly rather than have half of rounds 1 and 2 in cubicles, I can see the value of it in terms of the sports promotion and sponsoring, both essential for its survival.
I didn't suggest any change to the Masters unless I'm going mad and I do things without knowing.

Yes A 10-1 is uninteresting your right however that's the fault or brilliance of the players and does not even start to justify short matches.

when a best of 19 gets close its a better match than best of 9.

if there would only be 1 close exciting best of 19 in a tournament that more than makes up for 4 or 5 10-1 or 10-2 scorelines.

regarding best of 31 .

the only reason they changed to best of 33 was us the supporters.

Best of 31 meant 2 7 frame session so they made it 8,8,8,9 =33

One of my favourite matches of all time was an incredibly one-sided best-of-33 match. I wasn't a Ronnie O'Sullivan fan until his jaw dropping performance against Hendry in 2008. Do you think I didn't want to keep watching just because it was sewn up with a 12-4 lead? I was dying to see the final session!

Your Mother Loves Tubber wrote:One of my favourite matches of all time was an incredibly one-sided best-of-33 match. I wasn't a Ronnie O'Sullivan fan until his jaw dropping performance against Hendry in 2008. Do you think I didn't want to keep watching just because it was sewn up with a 12-4 lead? I was dying to see the final session!

Well me too actually but it was quite exceptional standard from Ronnie.
But matches like the 2008 final frankly lack appeal. This was the story of 2 players dead tired, one more than the other and not finding his game at all, the other not feeling any pressure and unable to sustain any kind of high standard by lack of adrenaline.

but its the same each year, each player in the finals of recent times have had to win as many matches, as many frames as all of the previous finalists - and we havent had bad finals low quality finals every single year have we?

Also, John Higgins' performance in taking a 13-3 lead against Allen in 2009! It was stunning, the best I've seen from Higgins, 2005 Grand Prix final aside. And then to see Allen come back and really push him!

Your Mother Loves Tubber wrote:Also, John Higgins' performance in taking a 13-3 lead against Allen in 2009! It was stunning, the best I've seen from Higgins, 2005 Grand Prix final aside. And then to see Allen come back and really push him!

Indeed, its one of the main reasons why I love the longer match format. However Moniques suggestion of moving semi-finals back one would be good, the only issue being is to ensure that the set can be rerigged in time. - It would also mean that halves of the draw are played together as in the two players in Semi-One would need to finish on the Wednesday aftetrnoon, to give both the same advantage of not going back to back sessions.

Also, how could we fill the evening session? A best of 11 frame third place match?

That is one possibility. Or playing the Ladies or Senior WC final on that evening at the Crucible.

And as it is the last quarter has back to back sessions. BTW Selby of all players hinted at it after losing to Dott, saying that tiredness had played it's role for him while Dott had got more rest. And that was certainly true because not only had he played back to back sessions but it was a demanding match vs ROS and a rather late finish as well.

Here we go again - suggestions on how to kill off the best day on the entire snooker calendar - semi-final Saturday at the Crucible.

Sonny wrote:Here we go again - suggestions on how to kill off the best day on the entire snooker calendar - semi-final Saturday at the Crucible.

And to kill it further off make that Friday, so that the Final ends on Sunday and people outside UK can watch it entirely instead of missing the third sesh because they have to work and crumble with tiredness after a working day with a late start/finish of the fourth made worse by time difference (*)...

(*) yes I know they made an effort for this season's one.

TBH I think the tournament should be Fri-Sun rather than a Sat-Mon - have it on the BH weekend, and it will mean more people will be engrossed in the final, two of the best finals, 1980 and 85 both finished on Sundays.

Best match of all-time?

One that was totally one-sided that ended up in an absolute classic comeback. Doherty v Hunter, 2003. Had it been a best of 19 or 25 farce, would have been nothing like it.

thetubberlad wrote:Best match of all-time?

One that was totally one-sided that ended up in an absolute classic comeback. Doherty v Hunter, 2003. Had it been a best of 19 or 25 farce, would have been nothing like it.

I've seen good matches in all formats. And you don't know how it would have panned out had it been shorter. Pressure when the finish line is in sight plays a huge role irrespective of the length of the match.

thetubberlad wrote:Best match of all-time?

One that was totally one-sided that ended up in an absolute classic comeback. Doherty v Hunter, 2003. Had it been a best of 19 or 25 farce, would have been nothing like it.

Indeed,

Many WC Classics may never have happened under a short system. - Imagine the Bo25 final in 85, Davis wins 13-11, over 17 frames, 9-1.

2003, Hunter wins 13-6 or 9-5?

Onesided matches. - All we have to go on are the results over best of 17