Changes to the Changes?

Sonny wrote:To be honest I find the whole idea of snooker fans arguing over how best to shorten one of the two longer events very depressing. The debate should be going the other way and how to increase it.

its appalling from fans absalutly disgusting im sorry

wildJONESEYE wrote:

Sonny wrote:To be honest I find the whole idea of snooker fans arguing over how best to shorten one of the two longer events very depressing. The debate should be going the other way and how to increase it.

its appalling from fans absalutly disgusting im sorry

1-1

apalling really? Get real Wild and others: TV time will not increase in the UK for snooker and Eurosport devotes a lot to it but usually at week-ends other more popular sports get the live spots. Snooker relies heavily on TV coverage, because that's where the most people watch it, not at venues, and sponsors know that. Increasing the lenghts of the final stages only means less coverage for other matches and less players on telly. In particular the up and coming ones who usually don't reach the latter stages at their debut will not be shown and they are the future.
As a fan and as a person who wants snooker to survive first, develop and expand next, I think it's important to adapt the the economics reality and not to be stuck in fairy tales.
IF (and again I write IF) by shortening slightly the first rounds the whole UK could be on telly it would be a big bonus for the sport. Don't dream, snooker will not get more coverage than it has, it's already remarkable if it does not get less as it is and always will be a rather minority sport.

shorter formats suit 1 man and 1 man only

RA OSULLIVAN

robbo may have words put in his mouth at times but deep down he knows the longer formats rule

dont give a rubbish monique id rather not seeing it than decreasing sod all.

im appalled and that's all there is to it

wildJONESEYE wrote:dont give a rubbish monique id rather not seeing it than decreasing sod all.

im appalled and that's all there is to it

wild

that welsh bird singing was nice AT SPOTY

im livid that the only think being discussed is decrees this decrees that

im so angry at this if barry hearn would be near me this minute he or any other toss pot would spend christmas in A & E.

MITCH JOHNSON THE POM SLAYER wrote:shorter formats suit 1 man and 1 man only

RA OSULLIVAN

robbo may have words put in his mouth at times but deep down he knows the longer formats rule

That's pretty idiotic GJ. ROS has won the longest event, the WC three times and has reached at least the semis 8 times out of 18 appearances . That's better than anyone else but Hendry. His record in the UK, the other long format event isn't bad neither: 4 wins and 3 semis.
And YOU are putting words in Robbo's mouth and thoughts in his head that are only yours. He meant it, I can assure you.

and Wild what you write is pretty idiotic also. What's the point to have a sport you can't watch? Not to mention that it would be very soon doomed to disappear because who is going to sponsor it if nobody can watch it?

Monique wrote:and Wild what you write is pretty idiotic also. What's the point to have a sport you can't watch? Not to mention that it would be very soon doomed to disappear because who is going to sponsor it if nobody can watch it?

Let it go then id rather remember the sport as it was not what some want it to be .

snooker will die if they decrees main events why drag it out to a painful death let the players find other employment now while they young enough.

all very sad

wildJONESEYE wrote:

Monique wrote:and Wild what you write is pretty idiotic also. What's the point to have a sport you can't watch? Not to mention that it would be very soon doomed to disappear because who is going to sponsor it if nobody can watch it?

Let it go then id rather remember the sport as it was not what some want it to be .

snooker will die if they decrees main events why drag it out to a painful death let the players find other employment now while they young enough.

all very sad

Snooker will not die because fortunately the people who are running it now are not stuck in passeists fairytales. What I would want, really WANT, it for it to be healthy enough and popular enough so that it can afford the very long formats. If it gets there it will be great. But it has to survive and develop first and for that it must evolve and adapt. Like the WC format did evolve and was adapted for television in its time and "reduced" from a season long event to the more compact 3 weeks we have now (and best of 31, not 33 semis ). Are you complaining about that?

monique

the UK Been on the down for 20 years its lost it magic as a kid that tournament meant so much because of the long formats and great matches that brings.

the start of the decline was the final being reduced i can actually pinpoint it to that.

just because a idea is old there's no need to think new is best ....

old cars ran and ran and ran new cars broke down far more frequent....

when something works it works and during the 80s and early 90s the UK Worked then they started to mess about with it and its been down hill slowly but surely ever since.

I suggest to drive an old Anglia if you have the opportunity... just to measure how much cars have improved

I also suggest you go back to the time where there were no computers, of course no Internet, no mobile phones, laundry was done by hand and kids died from routine respiratory infections because antibiotics didn't exist. Yet people lived ... so it "worked".
ffs Wild the world has changed. In the snooker boom days snooker had a lot less competition fro other sports and all sorts of entertainment shows and the beep was probably the only broadcaster most people could watch in UK. It's not the case anymore, you know!

and BTW I wouldn't be here and annoying you in those days because we in Europe didn't get to see any of it ...

thats my point some new ideas work but just because its a new idea doesn't mean its a good idea.

for all the brilliant inventions over the last 20 years there's 100 that's flopped. unless we fight and fight hard this will be a flop that will finish off the UK.

wildJONESEYE wrote:thats my point some new ideas work but just because its a new idea doesn't mean its a good idea.

for all the brilliant inventions over the last 20 years there's 100 that's flopped. unless we fight and fight hard this will be a flop that will finish off the UK.

First it's just hearsay so there is no reason to get excited. Next it would not be a flop, quite the contrary. IF there were no more matches in cubicles it would be better not worse.

The main argument is that the optimum length for a snooker match to keep the viewers enthralled and to get all the drama necessary is over 3 sessions. 2 sessions is just under, 4 sessions should be left for the latter stages of the bigger events. But getting results out of the way in a single session as a general rule does not do anything for the good of the game, nor does it guarantee the best man wins.

Sonny wrote:The main argument is that the optimum length for a snooker match to keep the viewers enthralled and to get all the drama necessary is over 3 sessions. 2 sessions is just under, 4 sessions should be left for the latter stages of the bigger events. But getting results out of the way in a single session as a general rule does not do anything for the good of the game, nor does it guarantee the best man wins.

Single sessions don't necessarily guarantee that the best man wins although the World Open showed that very short formats are not the lottery some suggested.
Two sessions are more than enought to get the best player as the winner as Crucible Finals result over the last 21 years prove. Look at who was in front after 17 frames, who won ... forget about Stevens who is a specialist in losing important matches when ahead whatever the format... it's pretty conclusive.

That doesn't prove anything because if you reduce it to best of 17 based on that stat then look at how many UK matches ran out of frames and didn't reach their natural conclusion.

It is VITAL that the best player wins the World Final and if that means having enough frames to build up a gap then so be it.

By the way, I knew the World Open arguement when I wrote that above, I was just testing. Yes you can make sure the best player wins in a short match based on prize money, ranking points and pressure but then you don't get the spectacle of runs of big breaks and instead concentrate up the nervy nail biting endings.

Sonny wrote:That doesn't prove anything because if you reduce it to best of 17 based on that stat then look at how many UK matches ran out of frames and didn't reach their natural conclusion.

It is VITAL that the best player wins the World Final and if that means having enough frames to build up a gap then so be it.

By the way, I knew the World Open arguement when I wrote that above, I was just testing. Yes you can make sure the best player wins in a short match based on prize money, ranking points and pressure but then you don't get the spectacle of runs of big breaks and instead concentrate up the nervy nail biting endings.

That you don't get the same type of spectacle, I agree. But this is something different. It's a valuable reason for having longer formats, for having varieties of formats actually, but finding out who is the best player can be achieved in many ways and formats as long as best of 35 are not necessary for that purpose.
And sorry but it DOES prove a lot. If in 18 cases out of 21, or in 18 cases out of 19 if you forget Stevens, the same player was ahead after 17 frames and won it then it shows it isn't necessary to go to 35 to find out the best player. May I add that the last "exception" was Hendry vs Jimmy ... And you can safely forget Stevens who doesn't cope with the finish pressure more oftyen than not whatever the format.

As for matches that ran out of frames in the UK? what match for instance?

Sonny wrote:I told Suzy to pass on the message to Davis at Telford that his comments about reducing the world final went down very badly with the fans.

Did Suzy pass on that message from Soony

To throw an interesting fact in - the last changes made to the UK Championships were to extend matches.

PLtheRef wrote:To throw an interesting fact in - the last changes made to the UK Championships were to extend matches.

explain

1993 was the year Ronnie v Hendry was the match and it was very much reduction from the Parrott v White match of 1992.

I know that, but the first round was made best of 13 frames - and that was increased back to 17

UK Championship
32 players
Two tables until the quarter-finals
Best of 17 for the first two rounds
Best of 19 for the quarter-finals
Best of 25 for the semi-finals
Best of 31 final

Now that's a bucking snooker tournament. None of that pussy best-of-13 match...

Best of 17 final Now we're putting it behind Shanghai & China, and on a par with the wonderful Welsh Open

TPtheirishstud wrote:UK Championship
32 players
Two tables until the quarter-finals
Best of 17 for the first two rounds
Best of 19 for the quarter-finals
Best of 25 for the semi-finals
Best of 31 final

Now that's a intercoursing snooker tournament. None of that pussy best-of-13 match...

Best of 17 final Now we're putting it behind Shanghai & China, and on a par with the wonderful Welsh Open

That was my thought, but I'd assume they'd be reduced as well

PLtheRef wrote:

TPtheirishstud wrote:UK Championship
32 players
Two tables until the quarter-finals
Best of 17 for the first two rounds
Best of 19 for the quarter-finals
Best of 25 for the semi-finals
Best of 31 final

Now that's a intercoursing snooker tournament. None of that pussy best-of-13 match...

Best of 17 final Now we're putting it behind Shanghai & China, and on a par with the wonderful Welsh Open

That was my thought, but I'd assume they'd be reduced as well

Fantastic

Another couple of mini-disasters...

The UK this year proved that in order to get those matches of true drama you need the opportunity for an overnight or between sessions lead which can then be overhauled as the winning line approaches.

My point in the Power Snooker write up was that snooker doesn't need gimmicks and Power Snooker should soak up all the shot clock, ball in hand, gimmicky things and snooker should remain as snooker but with varying formats from the fantastic best of 5 World Open which is a test of bottle through to the UK and Worlds which gives the players an opportunity to show what they can do (with a load of balls and a snooker cue).

TPtheirishstud wrote:

PLtheRef wrote:

TPtheirishstud wrote:UK Championship
32 players
Two tables until the quarter-finals
Best of 17 for the first two rounds
Best of 19 for the quarter-finals
Best of 25 for the semi-finals
Best of 31 final

Now that's a intercoursing snooker tournament. None of that pussy best-of-13 match...

Best of 17 final Now we're putting it behind Shanghai & China, and on a par with the wonderful Welsh Open

That was my thought, but I'd assume they'd be reduced as well

Fantastic

Another couple of mini-disasters...

What I meant is that I think reductions would be as a whole as people have expected, and feared.

But also against the mandate on which they were voted in and on which people like me felt so strongly they should get in. They promised not to touch the majors and to me that means the Worlds, UK and Masters. What they should be looking towards is getting another UK format event in China or some other country to give us a Grand Slam of big events, not shortening them to tailor to attention defecit clowns.

Paddy, I hope you didn't take offence, because my comment was not directed at you. It was at the possibility of all the other finals being shortened too. Absolutely senseless if that happened.

I hope Hearn and co. are prepared for a serious backlash if the UK is reduced...