Changes to the Changes?

I don't think there's any point in listing the plus points of big matches, they speak for themselves. What is worth reiterating though is that:

Best of 5 World Open with big money and big ranking points = edge of the seat drama based on bottle, nerve, tension and it comes thick and fast as matches go one after the other in quick succession.

Best of 35 World Final = long enough to allow tension to build up, allow the player behind time to stage a recovery, allow a player with a gap to be rightfully crowned champion with no arguements and allow a close match to remain gripping and the story to unfold with enough time to take it all in, and with enough frames to give both players ample chance to shine and show us they are capable of a run of century breaks, a run of unanswered points and frames and domination of a session.

Monique wrote:

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.

Indeed your right, but what we have to go on is the scores from the first 17 frames, I mean the classic example was that if the 1992 final had been best of 27 frames - Jimmy would have won handsomely, Matthew would have won in 2000, the examples are endless. - Yes, classic matches can happen over any format, but the longer formats are the ones that are the ultimate, five day test matches if you like - you can have some good run of the ball in a best of 5, or best of 9 match, but you cant be lucky for 35 frames.

The team that leads a football match after sixty minutes will more often than not go on to win... shall we reduce Football to half an hour a side?

thetubberlad wrote:The team that leads a football match after sixty minutes will more often than not go on to win... shall we reduce Football to half an hour a side?

I would be very pleased with that! LOL. Reduce it to six minutes, even better! Replace it all by snooker ...

thetubberlad wrote:The team that leads a football match after sixty minutes will more often than not go on to win... shall we reduce Football to half an hour a side?

Thats one of the ideas proposed by FIFA - Stop the clock at each stoppage and have 30 minutes each way.

Monique wrote:

thetubberlad wrote:The team that leads a football match after sixty minutes will more often than not go on to win... shall we reduce Football to half an hour a side?

I would be very pleased with that! LOL. Reduce it to six minutes, even better! Replace it all by snooker ...

I hate football too...

You play 60 minutes of a football game, whoever leads normally wins
You play 60 minutes of a rugby game, whoever leads normally wins
You race 35 laps of a Formula One track, whoever leads normally wins
Whoever leads after 80 meters more often than not wins
Whoever gets to two sets first normally wins
Whoever leads after 63 holes usually wins

Do you hear for a reduction in these sports?

Spot on tubberlad.

thetubberlad wrote:

Monique wrote:

thetubberlad wrote:The team that leads a football match after sixty minutes will more often than not go on to win... shall we reduce Football to half an hour a side?

I would be very pleased with that! LOL. Reduce it to six minutes, even better! Replace it all by snooker ...

Whoever gets to two sets first normally wins

Even moreso in best of three

Yes, I find that too

You know what I mean

IFYOU HATE WHAT I POST BAN ME wrote: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 =

bump

If the majority of snooker fans really want it to turn in to 20/20 style cricket then fair enough but iwill have nothing to do with the farce if that ever happens

best of 5's will be as good as it gets as its basically catered for people with short attention spans.

Hopefully it doesnt materialise but the way things are going in other sports i wont be surprised as it seems in todays times people with short attention spans are put first and its all about a quick fix and quick results ala 20/20 cricket

And others may be fooled but small reductions are just the beginning and it would continue and continue

So im proud of wild as he is sticking to his guns on this as he knows the score

How can I write this to be finally understood?

I'm NOT asking for systematic shortening of formats. I'm asking for the right to discuss it without being insulted. Because considerations and constraints linked to the economic situation might come into play and there is POSSIBLY a case for shortening the format or rescheduling it in some events if as a counterpart it gets better exposure and is made more attractive to sponsors.

What I do challenge though is the argument that a format as long as best of 35 is NECESSARY to find out who is the best player. Sonny above made a case for the longer matches and I agree with his statement there. Long formats bring all that, short formats as he also stated bring other things. But you don't need 35 frames to find out the best player or for luck to even itself.

I agree. I think they had it right in the 70's when it was best of 61

Sonny wrote:I agree. I think they had it right in the 70's when it was best of 61

Probably, played over the whole season ... and why was it changed? Because of television needs mainly.
There is nothing new in the current situation. Format changes and shortening have happened in the past and nobody today is asking to go back to what it was back then ... well until a few minutes ago that is

I'd start the tournament on a Friday and play the final best of 51 over three days...

I prefer the current format of the worlds

IFYOU HATE WHAT I POST BAN ME wrote:I prefer the current format of the worlds

It's pretty perfect... I actually feel the semi-final should be 31 as they were, but other than that, I'd leave it.

My dream UK:
R1-17, R2-17, QF-19, SF-25, F-31

17 is a strange number but as wild pointed out earlier, the reason is so the sessions can follow the 8,8,8,9 pattern. But I don't mind that. Murphy would've won the 2007 semi if it was first to 16 that year.

Anyway, I think most of us are agreed the format for the World Championships is fine as it is. The Crucible always pretty much sells out, it stays in the media throughout and the only possible reason to change would be to start on the Friday so it finished on the Sunday so continental people who don't have the bank holiday can enjoy it fully. It would also mean a late finish for us Brits wouldn't matter because you wouldn't have to work the next day.

We as snooker people really need to get over this paranoia about our sport though. It's successions of poor administrations that have got us into the mess that bottomed out last season with only 6 ranking events. Hearn is pulling us back from the mire and hopefully into the big time again. We need to stand firm and make sure he and his crew honour their promise not to touch the majors. The Masters, UK and Worlds should remain untouched. Everything else is open season however the game should remain as it is with no shot clocks and no new rules to "spice it up" because it doesn't need it. Snooker is the best game in the world.

I'd personally love to see it start on a Friday and finish on a Sunday for the above reason.

The World Championship is something I look forward to more than Christmas, and if it were reduced in any way would diminish the whole spectacle for me...

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with snooker, and never has been. As Sonny has quite correctly pointed out, it's decline was brought about by poor administration which saw a tiny number of events. We were promised the majors would not be messed with, and once this promise is kept, I'll be happy. If not, I'll be bitterly disappointed.

FAT SPANISH WAITER SACKED wrote:

IFYOU HATE WHAT I POST BAN ME wrote: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 =

bump

If the majority of snooker fans really want it to turn in to 20/20 style cricket then fair enough but iwill have nothing to do with the farce if that ever happens

best of 5's will be as good as it gets as its basically catered for people with short attention spans.

Hopefully it doesnt materialise but the way things are going in other sports i wont be surprised as it seems in todays times people with short attention spans are put first and its all about a quick fix and quick results ala 20/20 cricket

And others may be fooled but small reductions are just the beginning and it would continue and continue

So im proud of wild as he is sticking to his guns on this as he knows the score

im not sticking by my guns im recycling myself if people actually think short = better for fans then they barking up the wrong tree and im scared what could happen to it.

of course we need diversity of length and formats but that adds to making the big tournaments where its at. if the gap shortens between events even little then some of the magic is lost.

personally i think the magic of the UK has been diminishing yearly since they reduced the final.

some of my most memerable matches was a best of 31 UK Finals

1982 Alex Higgins v Terry Griffiths (first UK Final i saw)
1983 Alex Higgins v Steve Davis
1985 Steve Davis v Willie Thorne (Willie cant stop talking about that blue)
1987 Steve Davis v Jimmy White
1988 Doug Mountjoy v Stephen Hendry
1989 Stephen Hendry v Steve Davis
1990 Stephen Hendry v Steve Davis
1991 John Parrott v Jimmy White (another one bites the dust)
1992 John Parrott v Jimmy White (At Last Jimmy wins a Biggie and still his greatest triumph)

all thoes matches were memerable for different reasons and WS Decided to reduce the Final

Monique wrote:How can I write this to be finally understood?

I'm NOT asking for systematic shortening of formats. I'm asking for the right to discuss it without being insulted. Because considerations and constraints linked to the economic situation might come into play and there is POSSIBLY a case for shortening the format or rescheduling it in some events if as a counterpart it gets better exposure and is made more attractive to sponsors.

What I do challenge though is the argument that a format as long as best of 35 is NECESSARY to find out who is the best player. Sonny above made a case for the longer matches and I agree with his statement there. Long formats bring all that, short formats as he also stated bring other things. But you don't need 35 frames to find out the best player or for luck to even itself.

Hear hear, whats the point in allowing fans to discuss things if people will only hear or view one opinion - their own.

Sonny has made his case for the longer formats and why they should be retained, now its time for Monique to be given chance to air her opinions without being insulted

PLtheRef wrote:

Monique wrote:How can I write this to be finally understood?

I'm NOT asking for systematic shortening of formats. I'm asking for the right to discuss it without being insulted. Because considerations and constraints linked to the economic situation might come into play and there is POSSIBLY a case for shortening the format or rescheduling it in some events if as a counterpart it gets better exposure and is made more attractive to sponsors.

What I do challenge though is the argument that a format as long as best of 35 is NECESSARY to find out who is the best player. Sonny above made a case for the longer matches and I agree with his statement there. Long formats bring all that, short formats as he also stated bring other things. But you don't need 35 frames to find out the best player or for luck to even itself.

Hear hear, whats the point in allowing fans to discuss things if people will only hear or view one opinion - their own.

Sonny has made his case for the longer formats and why they should be retained, now its time for Monique to be given chance to air her opinions without being insulted

monique has posted her views numerous times pad no need to make out as if she has been silenced all along mate


free speech is welcomed its a forum

GJ POSTS HARD HITTING FACTS wrote:

PLtheRef wrote:

Monique wrote:How can I write this to be finally understood?

I'm NOT asking for systematic shortening of formats. I'm asking for the right to discuss it without being insulted. Because considerations and constraints linked to the economic situation might come into play and there is POSSIBLY a case for shortening the format or rescheduling it in some events if as a counterpart it gets better exposure and is made more attractive to sponsors.

What I do challenge though is the argument that a format as long as best of 35 is NECESSARY to find out who is the best player. Sonny above made a case for the longer matches and I agree with his statement there. Long formats bring all that, short formats as he also stated bring other things. But you don't need 35 frames to find out the best player or for luck to even itself.

Hear hear, whats the point in allowing fans to discuss things if people will only hear or view one opinion - their own.

Sonny has made his case for the longer formats and why they should be retained, now its time for Monique to be given chance to air her opinions without being insulted

monique has posted her views numerous times pad no need to make out as if she has been silenced all along mate


free speech is welcomed its a forum

Free speech is welcomed

fair treatment that it appears you make out =

She's never said she's been gagged?

Monique

I apologise to you if my last post was offensive as it wasnt intended

monique

whats to discuss ? lol

what do you feel about shortening the UK ?

Load of rubbish

discussion ends

wildJONESEYE wrote:monique

whats to discuss ? lol

what do you feel about shortening the UK ?

Load of poo

discussion ends

That's exactly the type of post that makes me want to quit this forum. You don't even THINK about the possible implications of some factors that are external to the sport but still might influence it and how to tackle them for the best. You have no argument whatsoever except stating it's "poo" without even looking at what is discussed.
You don't seem to understand that players are professionals and don't live on thin air and clear water and nor do their families. And without players there is no sport. They have to make a living out of it, they and snooker need exposure and they need sponsoring and that means adapting to today's economical context. And don't come and tell me that in the past they played for sheer passion. Even they had to eat!
Look at this: a player going to and EPTC event has to pay for their hotel, their travel costs, their meals... possibly 3 or 4 days. How much do you reckon it costs? Now look at how far they need to go in the event to just cover that. Not even earning anything, just cover the expenses. Now do the maths and see how many of them actually lose money on this if they have no sponsors. And for once use your loaf. So that's not what will save them, not in the immediate future. It's good because it builds interest in Europe and it's an investement but players won't live on this.
Adaptation does not NECESSARY mean shortening events and nobody is asking for that. BUT when it's clear that snooker's main broadcaster is looking to cut it's TV time (and sponsoring largely depends on TV exposure) possible solutions are discussed to see how to limit the damage and make snooker more attractive to a world that isn't populated by just "wild" clones. That includes - perhaps - showing more matches and giving more players television time while shortening some rounds slightly (best of 15 isn't that different from best of 17).

I have NEVER asked to shorten the UK for the sake of shortening it. But I have stated that I can see value in shortening the first rounds IF the counterpart is to have all matches on television and hence it's worth discussing.
For your information players "earn" more from their sponsors when playing in the arena rather than playing in cubicles, and more when on telly than not on telly. They put exactly the same effort in, but the sponsors aren't interested in that; they are just interested in the marketing impact.

Wild is being abit abrupt there but he has made his feelings clear he doesnt want the uk or worlds format's to be tampered with.

Now you have stated your case on it and that is absolutely fine but by now everyone knows wild says it how he sees it.

So to say his slightly abrupt post is a reason to leave this forum is how can i put it a convenient reason


I hope this post didnt offend anyone

monique

chill

and btw ive read up it all and it is poo no getting away from that fact.

what exactly is the argument for shortening tournaments ...there is no argument for that that ive read about there is no evidence to suggest at all thats for the good of the sport and im 100% certain that would harm snooker on a comercial footing.

any sport that feels it has to change will not interest potential sponsors.

im not saying you or paddy in favour of that but put forward a reasonable argument for it and we can take it from there discussion wise As of yet ive seen nothing at all.

GJ I come to forums to be able to discuss my sport of choice. If there is no way things can be discussed serenely and people resort to insults when others disagree on their views or, without even disagreing, they "dare" to discuss things they disagree about, a forum has no value in my eyes and I migth as well quit it. Not because I'm angry ot hurt, just because it's useless.

@wild I have put forward enough reasonable arguments, but you just fail to see the point it seems. And you are wrong about the fact that a sport that feels it has to change will not interest sponsors. Quite the contrary, a sport that has an image as being stuck in the past will fail to attract sponsors.. Table tennis has changed for exactly the same reasons. Matches are now made of more but shorter sets. The rationale behind it was the perception that the audience wanted a more dynamic tempo (especially in Asia where the sport is huge) and it proved to be a good move.

ok lets cool down

list the arguments for then against in case ive missed something along the way.

Monique wrote:GJ I come to forums to be able to discuss my sport of choice. If there is no way things can be discussed serenely and people resort to insults when others disagree on their views or, without even disagreing, they "dare" to discuss things they disagree about, a forum has no value in my eyes and I migth as well quit it. Not because I'm angry ot hurt, just because it's useless.

@wild I have put forward enough reasonable arguments, but you just fail to see the point it seems. And you are wrong about the fact that a sport that feels it has to change will not interest sponsors. Quite the contrary, a sport that has an image as being stuck in the past will fail to attract sponsors.. Table tennis has changed for exactly the same reasons. Matches are now made of more but shorter sets. The rationale behind it was the perception that the audience wanted a more dynamic tempo (especially in Asia where the sport is huge) and it proved to be a good move.

Fair enough monique

I have no issue with you its your so called body guard who is starting to annoy my head