Post a reply

Re: Changes to the Changes?

Postby Wildey

i have no problem with anyone on a personal standing both mon and paddy are cool people but im confused how can it be good for the SPORT

Re: Changes to the Changes?

Postby GJ

Monique

Could you list the plus points as you see it for a small shortening of the uk format

cheers

Re: Changes to the Changes?

Postby Monique

Ok I'll make a last attempt
the proposal that has been only discussed and it seem dismissed was
to shorten round 1 to best of 13
to shorten round 2 to best of 15
to leave everything else untouched.
OK it's shorter but it's still significantly longer than the standard best of 9. I might in some cases bring less drama and tension than the best of 17, but only if the match is really close. that's for the cons.

IF and again I insist only IF in counterpart we can have all matches on television I see value in it because:
- it means more sponsoring money for all players and that's particularly important for the less known ones, the youngsters, the qualifiers who are all likely to be put in cubicles as it is now. It also means that sponsors being certain that all players will be on telly will be more willing to invest.
- it means more opportunities for the audience to discover players, and styles, that they don't usually see on telly or even in the arena and again it's particularly beneficial for the youngsters, and they are the future of the game. As it is now it's the broadcasters mainly who decide who will be on telly and they usually always go for the usual suspect because they are percieved as "solid values".
- As a fan I appreciate to be able to follow an entire tournament and I'm certain I'm not the only one. This would allow it.
That's for the pros.

For me - and this is an opinion, I don't claim it's "FACT" - the pros largely outweights the cons. And again it's only valuable IF the possible shortening was compensated by the fact that all matches would be on telly. Otherwise it has no value at all.

Re: Changes to the Changes?

Postby GJ

Monique wrote:Ok I'll make a last attempt
the proposal that has been only discussed and it seem dismissed was
to shorten round 1 to best of 13
to shorten round 2 to best of 15
to leave everything else untouched.
OK it's shorter but it's still significantly longer than the standard best of 9. I might in some cases bring less drama and tension than the best of 17, but only if the match is really close. that's for the cons.

IF and again I insist only IF in counterpart we can have all matches on television I see value in it because:
- it means more sponsoring money for all players and that's particularly important for the less known ones, the youngsters, the qualifiers who are all likely to be put in cubicles as it is now. It also means that sponsors being certain that all players will be on telly will be more willing to invest.
- it means more opportunities for the audience to discover players, and styles, that they don't usually see on telly or even in the arena and again it's particularly beneficial for the youngsters, and they are the future of the game. As it is now it's the broadcasters mainly who decide who will be on telly and they usually always go for the usual suspect because they are percieved as "solid values".
- As a fan I appreciate to be able to follow an entire tournament and I'm certain I'm not the only one. This would allow it.
That's for the pros.

For me - and this is an opinion, I don't claim it's "FACT" - the pros largely outweights the cons. And again it's only valuable IF the possible shortening was compensated by the fact that all matches would be on telly. Otherwise it has no value at all.



fair points monique and seeing as alot of people were moaning about certain matches not being on tv then your points seems well thought through and if all matches were televised then itsnotabad ideain principle.

As the worlds matches are all televised do you see it staying as its is ?

Re: Changes to the Changes?

Postby PLtheRef

ok then, on the other side - can we see the arguments for retention of the current format?

Re: Changes to the Changes?

Postby Monique

Yes, in essence

I would like to see 2 changes:

1. Revert the semis to best of 31 and play them 8,8,8,7 AND start them in the morning so that the last session of the second semi is played in the afternoon, not in the evening. Best of 31 was the original length and the one that was used when Hendry won most of his WC titles. The rationale behind this proposal is to allow both players a bit more rest before the final. It's fairer and it's likely to increase the quality of the final. Over the last years we have had enthralling semi finals very often, then rather anti-climactic finals because the players (or one of them) had nothing left in the tank.
2. Start the WC on Friday and have the Final over the last week-end (Saturday and Sunday) with evening sessions starting no later than 7 pm. The rationale here is that with snooker on the raise in Europe, it's a shame that continental fans can't follow the third session because, contrary to UK residents, they don't have "bank holidays", so the Monday is a normal working day. Then there is the time difference. The final session starting at 8 pm, means 9 pm in Belgium, and 10 pm in eastern Europe. That's very late especially after a full day at work. And it's defo too late for kids who are supposed to be at school the next day.

ONLY if the beep decided to cut on broadcasting time would I examine other changes. IF that was the case I would rather shorten slightly the latter stages than touch the first rounds. You can't decently have the WC first round shorter than best of 19.

Regarding the evening of the last day of the semis, it could be used to play the Ladies WC Final and/or the Senior WC Final

Re: Changes to the Changes?

Postby GJ

PLtheRef wrote:ok then, on the other side - can we see the arguments for retention of the current format?


1. Its the 2nd biggest ranking event on the calendar and the current format sets it aside from the other ranking events excluding the worlds

2. Sponsors may turn away if the format is shortened as the uks prestige maybe lost as a result of the format being shortened

3. The added drama you get in longer matches may be reduced if the format is changed

Re: Changes to the Changes?

Postby GJ

Monique wrote:Yes, in essence

I would like to see 2 changes:

1. Revert the semis to best of 31 and play them 8,8,8,7 AND start them in the morning so that the last session of the second semi is played in the afternoon, not in the evening. Best of 31 was the original length and the one that was used when Hendry won most of his WC titles. The rationale behind this proposal is to allow both players a bit more rest before the final. It's fairer and it's likely to increase the quality of the final. Over the last years we have had enthralling semi finals very often, then rather anti-climactic finals because the players (or one of them) had nothing left in the tank.
2. Start the WC on Friday and have the Final over the last week-end (Saturday and Sunday) with evening sessions starting no later than 7 pm. The rationale here is that with snooker on the raise in Europe, it's a shame that continental fans can't follow the third session because, contrary to UK residents, they don't have "bank holidays", so the Monday is a normal working day. Then there is the time difference. The final session starting at 8 pm, means 9 pm in Belgium, and 10 pm in eastern Europe. That's very late especially after a full day at work. And it's defo too late for kids who are supposed to be at school the next day.

ONLY if the beep decided to cut on broadcasting time would I examine other changes. IF that was the case I would rather shorten slightly the latter stages than touch the first rounds. You can't decently have the WC first round shorter than best of 19.

Regarding the evening of the last day of the semis, it could be used to play the Ladies WC Final and/or the Senior WC Final



fair points :)

Re: Changes to the Changes?

Postby PLtheRef

GJ POSTS HARD HITTING FACTS wrote:
PLtheRef wrote:ok then, on the other side - can we see the arguments for retention of the current format?


1. Its the 2nd biggest ranking event on the calendar and the current format sets it aside from the other ranking events excluding the worlds

2. Sponsors may turn away if the format is shortened as the uks prestige maybe lost as a result of the format being shortened

3. The added drama you get in longer matches may be reduced if the format is changed


Fair enough.

The only reason why I looked with interest at slightly shorter first rounds is because there's been a fair old grumble amongst players who have gone out in the cubicles at the venue. The qualifiers especially as they've earned their place to be at the Televised stages - which is a fair old point. - That can be simply sorted by having a four TV table situation, like was done at the British Open a while back - Wimbledon has 6 TV courts.

Drama comes in most games that go the distance, interest is heightened when its over a two session match, especially when a fightback happens, so no arguments there.

I'll be surprised to see a growing sponsor ignore media coverage.

And if the WC remains 17 days it cant see much reason to change it, its the ultimate test after all, - Moniques idea of moving the semis back to 31 frames is a good suggestion though, it gives the final its presitge - and I can see the reasons why having the semis finish the afternoon session. - The only thing I have an issue with is how much change it would mean to schedules. No doubt the session can be filled - exhibition night or something similar but I think that a lot of changes would need to be made

The final played Sat-Sun I would back however

Re: Changes to the Changes?

Postby Wildey

now then common ground and something i can agree with Best of 31 8,8,8,7 is a good idea <ok>

Re: Changes to the Changes?

Postby PLtheRef

wildJONESEYE wrote:now then common ground and something i can agree with Best of 31 8,8,8,7 is a good idea <ok>


:)

Re: Changes to the Changes?

Postby Monique

PLtheRef wrote:
wildJONESEYE wrote:now then common ground and something i can agree with Best of 31 8,8,8,7 is a good idea <ok>


:)

and :) even

Re: Changes to the Changes?

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:
PLtheRef wrote:
wildJONESEYE wrote:now then common ground and something i can agree with Best of 31 8,8,8,7 is a good idea <ok>


:)

and :) even

<ok> :love: <ok>

;)