How a set format could work

Tubberlad wrote:

Witz78 wrote:Best of 3 sets, 3 frames per set is fine.

Big deal if someone only wins 4 out of 8 frames but has won 2 sets.

thats the nature of set play, the tension and drama builds up to a climax at the end of each set and its effectively like 3 mini matches so whoever wins 2 out of the 3 matches deserves to go through.

If a player wins less games but more sets in a tennis match, nobody bats an eyelid. It happens quite often.

This would be a test of bottle. How do you recover from losing a potential match winning frame and face playing another two or maybe three frames? It's a different challenge.

yes in tennis for example you could lose 6-0, 6-0, 6-7, 6-7, 6-7 so youd have won 30 games to your opponents 21. Yet no-one would make an issue that the guy who won far more games should go through.

Its no different to snooker the now really in terms of points and frames.

If someone lost a best of 9 and the frames scores were for example

107-0, 87-1, 55-59, 112-20, 61-72, 56-70, 79-12, 54-63,66-67 no-one would say that the player who lost but scored far more points should go through.

Witz78 wrote:

Tubberlad wrote:

Witz78 wrote:Best of 3 sets, 3 frames per set is fine.

Big deal if someone only wins 4 out of 8 frames but has won 2 sets.

thats the nature of set play, the tension and drama builds up to a climax at the end of each set and its effectively like 3 mini matches so whoever wins 2 out of the 3 matches deserves to go through.

If a player wins less games but more sets in a tennis match, nobody bats an eyelid. It happens quite often.

This would be a test of bottle. How do you recover from losing a potential match winning frame and face playing another two or maybe three frames? It's a different challenge.

yes in tennis for example you could lose 6-0, 6-0, 6-7, 6-7, 6-7 so youd have won 30 games to your opponents 21. Yet no-one would make an issue that the guy who won far more games should go through.

Its no different to snooker the now really in terms of points and frames.

If someone lost a best of 9 and the frames scores were for example

107-0, 87-1, 55-59, 112-20, 61-72, 56-70, 79-12, 54-63,66-67 no-one would say that the player who lost but scored far more points should go through.

You've completely converted me, not considered it from that perspective

what scares me more about this subject than anything else is im compleatly on the Side of Witz

and PS i have been watching Dancing on Ice This week

Wild wrote:what scares me more about this subject than anything else is im compleatly on the Side of Witz

and PS i have been watching Dancing on Ice This week

you always do whats new

GJ wrote:

Wild wrote:what scares me more about this subject than anything else is im compleatly on the Side of Witz

you always do whats new

yeh he always sees sense in the end

Long Format sets matches wouldn't because frames are to long. Tennis & Darts have very short games/legs, there were grand slam finals with up to 70/80 games and a World Darts final with 57 legs in 2007. Both these matches were still completed in the same time as a best of nine or eleven in snooker that goes to a deciding frame. A sets match split into sessions would be too messy.

The shorter one wouldn't be bad though. If the Grand Prix was still around it would the perfect tournament to try it.

This format means that players will be having to play more IMPORTANT frames, so it should be sorting the wheat from the chaff. More important frames = more tension = more drama

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:Long Format sets matches wouldn't because frames are to long. Tennis & Darts have very short games/legs, there were grand slam finals with up to 70/80 games and a World Darts final with 57 legs in 2007. Both these matches were still completed in the same time as a best of nine or eleven in snooker that goes to a deciding frame. A sets match split into sessions would be too messy.

The shorter one wouldn't be bad though. If the Grand Prix was still around it would the perfect tournament to try it.

I think for longer formats of set play, adopting 6 or 10 red snooker would allow for this to happen.

Could do best of 7 sets, sets being best of 3 frames but frames being 6 reds format ?

Or best of 5s with sets being best of 3 frames and frames being 10 reds format?

6 reds could certainly allow a long set match for a final take place

Witz78 wrote:

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:Long Format sets matches wouldn't because frames are to long. Tennis & Darts have very short games/legs, there were grand slam finals with up to 70/80 games and a World Darts final with 57 legs in 2007. Both these matches were still completed in the same time as a best of nine or eleven in snooker that goes to a deciding frame. A sets match split into sessions would be too messy.

The shorter one wouldn't be bad though. If the Grand Prix was still around it would the perfect tournament to try it.

I think for longer formats of set play, adopting 6 or 10 red snooker would allow for this to happen.

Could do best of 7 sets, sets being best of 3 frames but frames being 6 reds format ?

Or best of 5s with sets being best of 3 frames and frames being 10 reds format?

6 reds could certainly allow a long set match for a final take place

ohhhhhh ffs

that didnt last long did it

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:Long Format sets matches wouldn't because frames are to long. Tennis & Darts have very short games/legs, there were grand slam finals with up to 70/80 games and a World Darts final with 57 legs in 2007. Both these matches were still completed in the same time as a best of nine or eleven in snooker that goes to a deciding frame. A sets match split into sessions would be too messy.

The shorter one wouldn't be bad though. If the Grand Prix was still around it would the perfect tournament to try it.

I think for longer formats of set play, adopting 6 or 10 red snooker would allow for this to happen.

Could do best of 7 sets, sets being best of 3 frames but frames being 6 reds format ?

Or best of 5s with sets being best of 3 frames and frames being 10 reds format?

6 reds could certainly allow a long set match for a final take place

ohhhhhh ffs

that didnt last long did it

10 reds mixed with set play would give a tournament a unique personality.

i feel we will see something like this within a season or 2

I'm not rubbishing the idea or anything but just one point from me. If its 3 sets and player A wins the first set 2-0 and then player B wins the next two sets 2-1, 2-1, player B has won the match 2 sets to 1 but they have both won 4 frames each which seems unfair to me, to win the same amount of frames, only to be beaten by when your opponent won his frames.

I apologise in advance if this has been covered and I'm being stupid or missed this point altogether.

Players win more points than their opponent but lose matches so why should this be any different This sets format means players have to up their game for the important frames

Bourne wrote:Players win more points than their opponent but lose matches so why should this be any different This sets format means players have to up their game for the important frames

That means to me they had chances to clinch frames, if they had more points, which they didnt take so kind of their own doing.

I'm not a fan of the idea if both players have won the same amount of frames. One reason I dont like Tennis so much is that you could win the same amount of games in a match, (indeed even break serve a lot more times) and lose through the scoring system.


If they were to bring it in I wouldn't be opposed to the idea though.

Tennis places importance on the big points which is what it should be about

Bourne wrote:Tennis places importance on the big points which is what it should be about

Like I say Im no huge fan, but I always think breaking a player's serve is a lot better then winning a tie break, which could be determined by a double fault.

Fair enough though, I see your point of view.