Tour Qualification !!!!

Wild wrote:

randam05 wrote:Africa? Canada?

how is that a surprise

Canada has a World Champion and a Masters Champion

South Africa has a Ranking Event Winner and Masters Champion as well as a World Championship Runner Up.

its about time Snooker was Braught Back to thoes Countries.

Yes but who currently from those places is any good?

It will be a waste of a tour place.

Jake my dear boy, don't be so naive.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... 0l0l0ll0l0.

Having "The Lion" on the MT should be good and interesting … he's a cracking player and his shot selection will surprise many because his background is not (mainly) snooker.

As for scraping the "UK+IR" nominations, I think it's a good move. Already as it is getting to the Q-school is easier for those guys than for the ones who live further away and they often dominate the EBSA comps anyway. But as David Caufield (snookerHQ) was saying on twitter yesterday that not many Irish enter the Q-school because of what it costs to be on the MT. Steve Kent and I had similar echoes from Polish guys when we were in Berlin. All the swearing in the world from some posters will not change the fact that by going more global BH has made the MT unaffordable for many. And it's not about not wanting "to make sacrifices". They just can't spend the money they don't have and finding sponsoring as an amateur snooker player is almost impossible outside the countries where the game is part of the traditions.

Monique wrote:Having "The Lion" on the MT should be good and interesting … he's a cracking player and his shot selection will surprise many because his background is not (mainly) snooker.

As for scraping the "UK+IR" nominations, I think it's a good move. Already as it is getting to the Q-school is easier for those guys than for the ones who live further away and they often dominate the EBSA comps anyway. But as David Caufield (snookerHQ) was saying on twitter yesterday that not many Irish enter the Q-school because of what it costs to be on the MT. Steve Kent and I had similar echoes from Polish guys when we were in Berlin. All the swearing in the world from some posters will not change the fact that by going more global BH has made the MT unaffordable for many. And it's not about not wanting "to make sacrifices". They just can't spend the money they don't have and finding sponsoring as an amateur snooker player is almost impossible outside the countries where the game is part of the traditions.

What's the alternative Monique? The game stagnated under Walker because he was unwilling to take risks and he basically left the game too UK dominated and slave to the BBC. Hearn is trying to make the game available to all who want to take part. Is it fair that the kids and the foreign players have to pay so much to enter tournaments in which they will probably leave them out of pocket? No. But why is it fair that the game has to be based in the UK, for the benefit of UK players? Unfortunately there will be casualties {and Hearn could at least cover expenses and such for the young kids}, but at least he realises that it is supposed to be a WORLD snooker association.

Maybe you have noticed that I'm not UK based myself? If not, you should have, I'm very glad that the game is going global but I'm rather peeved with people who are in denial that this actually is a real problem for many players as the costs of being on the tour have grown much more than the earning opportunities whatever some claim. You can't have a global tour without the players can you?
So in my opinion (operative word opinion)
- Barry Hearn should indeed expand the game but not at this pace. Not going from 6/7 to 30 tournaments over only two seasons which is what he did. And concentrate of proven prospect markets that are not over-expensive for the players, for a start. Mainland Europe should have at least 2 rankers. Fans turn out there is clearly huge. To me Australia was a nonsense: far away, tiring, expensive for the players and low paying.
- Spread the prize money better so that players who win matches should never be out of their pockets. Nowadays some qualifiers don't earn anything unless they win 3 matches, in the EPTCs you have to reach quarters to make a profit and the same for Australia. That's not right.
- Get rid of the current blackmail based ranking system by going to a system like in other sports where besides a few selected majors only a pre-determined number of best results would count. Plus go for a flat structure or hold the qualifiers just before every tournament at the same location as the main event. That would allow players to better manage their career, their private life and their budget. It would for instance allow Asian players to limit their traveling and would spare them the obligation to be UK based as it is today because all the qualifs are held there and so is the Q-school.
- Having "competition" between tournament organisers and sponsors - because they would not be "mandatory" - could result in better sponsoring incomes IF people are interested in snooker. Why? Because to ensure that the big boys come to their event they would be forced to make it attractive, including financially. If they aren't … well BH should draw the conclusions.
- Get rid of the limit regarding the sponsoring logos so that players could get additional income from those.
- Invest some money into supporting the young ones better. Including guidance on how to manage their career and earnings.
- (more) Actively search for alternative broadcasters. I love the BBC tournaments but the way they do the schedules is nonsense. They only put live snooker on afternoon programs for most of the event, then claim that only 60+ watch it. Who do they expect to be home at those hours? Then they use those stats to further reduce coverage. And don't come about red button and stuff. Despite paying to get BBC in our choice of channels, in Europe we don't have access to it, like we don't have access to the videos or streaming they put on their site. So yes put them under pressure.

Yes I have noticed you are not UK based. And I'm also aware that you are a genuine snooker fan through and through and I agree with a lot of your points. However:
Hearn said he intended to make the players full time pros again(which is what they wanted btw) and so he expanded to 30 tournaments a season. Probably a bit much but he did what he said he'd do. And I can understand why there aren't more full rankers in Europe, he's afraid of over saturating the market. And Hearn at least as to try other markets, the game is dying in the UK, his hand as been forced.
I agree with you on Australia, especially with WSA no longer subsidising flights or accomodation, and also on the prize money structure of rankers however with the Tour becoming 128 players (presumably with a flat structure) this should no longer be an issue.
Blackmail is not an appropriate word when it comes to snooker. No one is being blackmailed to go round the world playing the sport they supposedly "love". If you're not turning up to tournaments or doing well in the ones you play in, your ranking suffers. That is the player's fault, not Hearn's.
I don't really know what you mean by having competition between tournament organisers and sponsors. Snooker has not yet gotten to a stage where it can play sponsors off against each other. As it is, despite Hearn bringing in sponsors, they only stick around for a year. And if the top players weren't forced to play in an event, they would just sit at home just look at Brazil.
I too, am surprised that with Hearn's contacts, Sky won't commit beyond shot clock invitationals and ITV hasn't picked up a WSA event yet.
Hearn should bring back Young Players of Distinction, that was a good scheme that brought us Murphy, Carter, Maguire and I think Selby as well.
If only Hearn would stop shortening formats and messing around with shot clocks, I'd be a lot happier.

I do think that blackmail is the perfectly appropriate word. Hearn himself used it BTW. He's forcing players to play in tournaments knowing they will lose money even if they win a significant number of matches just to maintain their ranking. I don't agree with that and never will. The guys do it for a living and as much as they might love the game they have bills to pay and families to sustain. If they don't win, fair enough, but if, like it was the case in EPTCs, out of the 96, only 16 are able to cover their expenses, that's not right. Especially when you learn that some of those EPTCs - and I will cite Antwerp because about this one I know for sure - no less than 5 Chinese TV channels were broadcasting it, in addition to Eurosport. Don't tell me they didn't pay for those rights. You wonder where the money went. Not in the players pockets that's for sure.
I do agree with the objective of getting the players playing full time, what I question is the timing. Last season 2 EPTCs had to be played in UK and this season again because not enough care had been put in the preparation. The Indian Master was scrapped and players and referees had absolutely valid complaints about the way some tournaments were organised and run. Going from 6 to 30 over 5 seasons instead of just 2 would probably have allowed for a smoother transition and better conditions. It would also have given the players more time to adapt to the changes. Many of the older ones had/have other activities that helped them to make ends meet when the tournaments were few and far apart. Those activities might imply commitments and involve other persons and can't always be dropped just like that.
As for the shot-clock, the only events played under it are the Shoot-out and the PL. In the PL it never was Hearn who introduced it, neither was it done to "mess" with the game. It was introduced - at sky request - for the sole purpose to try and control the length of the matches and hence the broadcasting schedule. The shoot-out is just supposed to be fun and nothing more.
About shortening the formats, in all three notable cases: the World Open last year, the UK and the Welsh it has been done in an attempt to satisfy the broadcasters, and mainly BBC. BTW it's not all bad. You have to know that when players play on the television table they get more sponsoring money than when they don't. Therefore having all matches on television is a lot fairer to them. Before that there always were a lot of hard feelings when some were put in cubicles when other were on telly tables, especially from the qualifiers, and very understandably so.

I will never agree that blackmail is an appropriate term {whether used by Hearn or anybody else} for something that no-one is being forced to do and something the players are supposed to have devoted their lives to. I don't understand how some of the players who whinged about not having enough tournaments can now start moaning about their being too many tournaments.
The PTC's were never a long term solution: they were there merely to get players playing snooker, which the players repeatedly told us they wanted to do. And the EPTC's have done an excellent job of bringing the game to new fans. And the most successful PTC's will turn into full grown rankers I'm sure. The players don't need time to adapt to the changes, they knew what was coming when they voted Hearn in.
Yes, there are some legitimate concerns about how the PTC's have been run, and the whole mess over PTC's 1o-12 was embarrassing but blame has to be shared between Hearn and Brandon Parker, the man appointed to the WSA board specifically on his knowledge of snooker on the continent. And I too am annoyed and the lop-sided prize money structure of the PTC's and I'm not all that impressed by next season's calendar either. But this is year 3 of a 5 year plan which has seen 2 PTC's dropped and the other UK ones moved to Gloucester, where the players will be in front of a crowd which will be better for sponsors.
I still think the shot clock is pointless and I will never be convinced that shortening formats is a good idea. BBC Wales could have easily shown the Welsh Open under the old best of 9 and put all players on tv. The World Open as fun as it was, {and I enjoyed the event} lost viewers compared to the 2oo9 Grand Prix. And I still have mixed feelings on shortening the UK, the BBC forced Hearn to shorten the event promising to put all players on tv, only to come off air at 3.45pm in the UK to show crappy antiques programmes!!

Look if you had only one meal per day, you would complain that you're hungry OK? But would that mean that you want to be forced to eat 8 meals per day? I think not. It's gone from too little to too much and neither is good. And don't be naïve, they are forced into it if they want to retain their pro status, even if it means losing money while actually winning. That's blackmail. As for "devoting" their life to it. Have you "devoted" your life to your job? Will you do it even if it costs you rather than earn you a living? They chose a certain profession and most of them, if not all of them, want to do it and do it properly. They still have to put bread on the table. They don't live out of thin air.
As for EPTCs bringing new fans in Europe … again that's not true or at least it's certainly not the main factor. It's Eurosport that brought the fans and it's because of years of ES that the EPTC have been a success despite poor conditions. European fans have always traveled to watch snooker.
And, yes, it's the broadcasters, the UK broadcasters, that dictated the shortenings and Hearn agreed. There is no way BBC (1,2, Wales… ) want to give snooker more time and they won't.

Alpha wrote:I will never agree that blackmail is an appropriate term {whether used by Hearn or anybody else} for something that no-one is being forced to do and something the players are supposed to have devoted their lives to. I don't understand how some of the players who whinged about not having enough tournaments can now start moaning about their being too many tournaments.
The PTC's were never a long term solution: they were there merely to get players playing snooker, which the players repeatedly told us they wanted to do. And the EPTC's have done an excellent job of bringing the game to new fans. And the most successful PTC's will turn into full grown rankers I'm sure. The players don't need time to adapt to the changes, they knew what was coming when they voted Hearn in.
Yes, there are some legitimate concerns about how the PTC's have been run, and the whole mess over PTC's 1o-12 was embarrassing but blame has to be shared between Hearn and Brandon Parker, the man appointed to the WSA board specifically on his knowledge of snooker on the continent. And I too am annoyed and the lop-sided prize money structure of the PTC's and I'm not all that impressed by next season's calendar either. But this is year 3 of a 5 year plan which has seen 2 PTC's dropped and the other UK ones moved to Gloucester, where the players will be in front of a crowd which will be better for sponsors.
I still think the shot clock is pointless and I will never be convinced that shortening formats is a good idea. BBC Wales could have easily shown the Welsh Open under the old best of 9 and put all players on tv. The World Open as fun as it was, {and I enjoyed the event} lost viewers compared to the 2oo9 Grand Prix. And I still have mixed feelings on shortening the UK, the BBC forced Hearn to shorten the event promising to put all players on tv, only to come off air at 3.45pm in the UK to show crappy antiques programmes!!

Top post,Very thorough.

PTC's will be improved ,Great new's,And more localised for the home ones,Great new's again for players and fans alike.

Shot clock=Gash

As for shortening of events i agree to an extent,These days customer is king,And Hearn knows how far he can push tv execs better than most.

I think the uk and worlds should have been sacred,Alas the uk is now compromised,Hey!Time's change
With you on the antiques prog's=They are gash too.

Snooker is more exciting nowadays and hectic to say the least as Monique has pointed out,Hopefully with the improvements next season,The pro's can work to live and not have to live to work and get a better balance for their domestic lives.

BBC Wales,Have to follow what the top beeb bosses decide they are broadcasting.
I know what you mean ,Another diluted event in comparisin to what they all used to be.

Statement from the English Association of Snooker & Billiards:

"We have been advised by World Snooker that they have withdrawn the direct nomination to their Main Tour which has previously been available to EASB as National Governing Body for England. This announcement comes very late in the season and is contrary to verbal assurances previously given that the established arrangements would be honoured. The decision, particularly the manner in which it was taken, is a extremely disappointing action on the part of a professional organisation, and affects not only England, but a number of other NGBs.

The decision will have a direct impact on the players currently competing for the English Main Tour place. We are currently looking at whether alternative arrangements can be made to provide the original prize, and in this respect have approached the European Association who have been given an additional two places. As these have not been allocated yet, it is hoped that they may be able to help us for this current season.

Should this approach not be successful, we will endeavour to look at whatever alternative arrangements can be made to assist the English players achieve professional status. Further announcements will be made as this progresses."

This really highlights the concerns I have, which are not about the argument as to whether or not there should be an EASB nominated place, but that World Snooker should announce such decisions at the start of the season so everyone knows where they stand, not towards the end of the season.

Although I know there is dislike on here for nominated places, I like that the NGBs run competitions to find the most competitive player to put forward. I'd like to see nominations continue and be taken from all IBSF registered national governing bodies, but with those players who are nominated having to take part in a competition for a limited number of places rather than being guaranteed a place.

roy142857 wrote: We are currently looking at whether alternative arrangements can be made to provide the original prize, and in this respect have approached the European Association who have been given an additional two places. As these have not been allocated yet, it is hoped that they may be able to help us for this current season.

Is it just me, or does this come across as a bit arrogant from the EASB? No wonder the rest of the world hates us Brits, what right does the EASB have to lean on the EBSA and "pinch" one or more of their tour places? There's a lot of unfairness in the WSA, the Chinese have to travel 10000 miles to qualify for their own ranking events FFS!

However, that doesn't make the WSA decision correct. I agree there should be much more clarity and much earlier in the season too.

Good idea about a play-off event though Roy, I think there should be a place in the calendar for that.

JIMO96 wrote:

roy142857 wrote: We are currently looking at whether alternative arrangements can be made to provide the original prize, and in this respect have approached the European Association who have been given an additional two places. As these have not been allocated yet, it is hoped that they may be able to help us for this current season.

Is it just me, or does this come across as a bit arrogant from the EASB? No wonder the rest of the world hates us Brits, what right does the EASB have to lean on the EBSA and "pinch" one or more of their tour places? There's a lot of unfairness in the WSA, the Chinese have to travel 10000 miles to qualify for their own ranking events FFS!

However, that doesn't make the WSA decision correct. I agree there should be much more clarity and much earlier in the season too.

Good idea about a play-off event though Roy, I think there should be a place in the calendar for that.

Where else will the Chinese qualify? If the qualifiers are in China, then the British players would be inconvienced.

It's hard to tell whether you're serious or not, Skully.....

Skullman wrote:

JIMO96 wrote:

roy142857 wrote: We are currently looking at whether alternative arrangements can be made to provide the original prize, and in this respect have approached the European Association who have been given an additional two places. As these have not been allocated yet, it is hoped that they may be able to help us for this current season.

Is it just me, or does this come across as a bit arrogant from the EASB? No wonder the rest of the world hates us Brits, what right does the EASB have to lean on the EBSA and "pinch" one or more of their tour places? There's a lot of unfairness in the WSA, the Chinese have to travel 10000 miles to qualify for their own ranking events FFS!

However, that doesn't make the WSA decision correct. I agree there should be much more clarity and much earlier in the season too.

Good idea about a play-off event though Roy, I think there should be a place in the calendar for that.

Where else will the Chinese qualify? If the qualifiers are in China, then the British players would be inconvienced.

yes but its a bit stupid having chinese players play the china open in sheffield and have to aply for work permits to play in their own country event.

JIMO96 wrote:

roy142857 wrote: We are currently looking at whether alternative arrangements can be made to provide the original prize, and in this respect have approached the European Association who have been given an additional two places. As these have not been allocated yet, it is hoped that they may be able to help us for this current season.

Is it just me, or does this come across as a bit arrogant from the EASB? No wonder the rest of the world hates us Brits, what right does the EASB have to lean on the EBSA and "pinch" one or more of their tour places? There's a lot of unfairness in the WSA, the Chinese have to travel 10000 miles to qualify for their own ranking events FFS!

However, that doesn't make the WSA decision correct. I agree there should be much more clarity and much earlier in the season too.

Good idea about a play-off event though Roy, I think there should be a place in the calendar for that.

I can see how it might come across as arrogant, just hoping it doesn't to the people they've approached - the impression I've had is that relations between the EASB and EBSA are quite strong, so I'm hoping that EBSA won't take the approach the wrong way.

A further thought re play-offs, for this year maybe EBSA could arrange a play-off for the two places between nominated players from any NGBs that are EBSA members - might that be the fairest solution?

Point is Places has always been to the discretion of the WPBSA they are only nominated if WPBSA says NO Then its NO.

Q School is the way to Go

There should be More Q Schools opening all over the World and if you want to be a Pro you Enter Q School.

I hope the EBSA tell them where to get off, what a seriously rude and unwelcome approach.

I like the Q school and it's the fairest, most consistent qualifying system we've had in a while. The more global the game becomes, the less right the NGB's have to a guaranteed place.

Anyone know if Q-school is to be shown on live streaming this year?

i think the Home Countries Prize for Winners should be the £1000 needed to enter Q School.

The set up is too favourable to British players at present. It must be very hard for a young lad leaving his homeland to come and play in Britain for months. Snooker still has a long, long way to go before it becomes a global sport.

I think Q school is a nonsense concept. Snooker should just go totally open , and should have a 3 tier system like they have in tennis(Main tour, Challenger, Satellite).

vodkadiet wrote:The set up is too favourable to British players at present. It must be very hard for a young lad leaving his homeland to come and play in Britain for months. Snooker still has a long, long way to go before it becomes a global sport.

I think Q school is a nonsense concept. Snooker should just go totally open , and should have a 3 tier system like they have in tennis(Main tour, Challenger, Satellite).

"Snooker still has a long, long way to go before it becomes a global sport. "

thats why your second point about opening up the tour compleatly isnt a option at the moment but that what they should strive for.

Wild wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:The set up is too favourable to British players at present. It must be very hard for a young lad leaving his homeland to come and play in Britain for months. Snooker still has a long, long way to go before it becomes a global sport.

I think Q school is a nonsense concept. Snooker should just go totally open , and should have a 3 tier system like they have in tennis(Main tour, Challenger, Satellite).

"Snooker still has a long, long way to go before it becomes a global sport. "

thats why your second point about opening up the tour compleatly isnt a option at the moment but that what they should strive for.

Yes, fair point.

Wild wrote:

roy142857 wrote:Snooker HQ has an interesting commentary on this from the Irish perspective:

http://snookerhq.com/2012/03/21/ireland ... omination/


.... and just a quick correction and extra comment re the Oceania Championship, it starts on the 25th, I've just checked the entry list and no Vinnie Calabrese but LOTS of other Australians - of 50 entries only 5 from New Zealand, 4 from PNG and 2 from Fiji are not Aussies.

Mate its up to British Players to Make the Best of Q School its not as simple for Canadians,Australians,Indians at the Moment so i Back this Move however in Future id Like all these Nominations Scraped and get Q Schools on Globally...

Just a further thought on this Wild ... what I like about Q School is that it gives players from around the world the opportunity to get on the Tour without a long commitment ... but what I have some doubts about with Q School is that it can give a place to a player who just has a lucky draw and a short run of form over 4 or 5 matches. Contrast this with the (now mis-named!) English Pro Ticket Tour where players compete season long, with the top player emerging having played 30 plus matches and surely more ready for a situation on the Pro Tour of having to keep up their form over a long season. So once we're in a situation where we could have Q Schools round the World, I'd like to see them being over a greater length of time. And I still like the idea of a play off for places between NGB champions too.

And of course, there's this crazy situation of the late announcement ... confirmed by Oceania today that their place will go to the winner of the Oceania Championship (which started today with Under 21's, main Championship from Tuesday) ... great for the winner, but if he'd known this, surely Vinnie Calabrese would have entered for instance, really unfair on players not knowing where they stand.

Irish Snooker's statement:

"As you may be aware World Snooker have just announce the qualifying criteria for the 2012-2013 Professional tour. THE NGB’s in the UK and Ireland will no longer be able to nominate players direct to the tour. Instead they have been allocated 2 places each within the Q school. RIBSA will nominate the top two players available on the Senior Rankings after the next ranking tournament in Navan 14th-15th April".

So final Q School fields won't be known until the NGB qualifying tournaments have ended, I presume players who have already paid a direct entry fee will get their money back?

Wild wrote:i think the Home Countries Prize for Winners should be the £1000 needed to enter Q School.

Guess Wild was right in a way.

roy142857 wrote:

Wild wrote:

roy142857 wrote:Snooker HQ has an interesting commentary on this from the Irish perspective:

http://snookerhq.com/2012/03/21/ireland ... omination/


.... and just a quick correction and extra comment re the Oceania Championship, it starts on the 25th, I've just checked the entry list and no Vinnie Calabrese but LOTS of other Australians - of 50 entries only 5 from New Zealand, 4 from PNG and 2 from Fiji are not Aussies.

Mate its up to British Players to Make the Best of Q School its not as simple for Canadians,Australians,Indians at the Moment so i Back this Move however in Future id Like all these Nominations Scraped and get Q Schools on Globally...

Just a further thought on this Wild ... what I like about Q School is that it gives players from around the world the opportunity to get on the Tour without a long commitment ... but what I have some doubts about with Q School is that it can give a place to a player who just has a lucky draw and a short run of form over 4 or 5 matches. Contrast this with the (now mis-named!) English Pro Ticket Tour where players compete season long, with the top player emerging having played 30 plus matches and surely more ready for a situation on the Pro Tour of having to keep up their form over a long season. So once we're in a situation where we could have Q Schools round the World, I'd like to see them being over a greater length of time. And I still like the idea of a play off for places between NGB champions too.

And of course, there's this crazy situation of the late announcement ... confirmed by Oceania today that their place will go to the winner of the Oceania Championship (which started today with Under 21's, main Championship from Tuesday) ... great for the winner, but if he'd known this, surely Vinnie Calabrese would have entered for instance, really unfair on players not knowing where they stand.

thing is with Q School players has to compete with tour players that drop off tour to get their pro ticket as apose to loads of inexperiance players and if they Make it on Tour they would have earned it over a 3 week period of intensed presurised envioronement.

getting on tour via National Tour was never qualification it was Nomination and as in the case of Vincent Muldoon Last year World Snooker can say NO...

Thats why getting a qualification structure there is better.

Scottish Snooker met with Jason Ferguson on 5th December in York to discuss many things including the NGB Main Tour places.

We were informed at that time that the places would be removed to be replaced with a UK play-off place for the NGB nominated players from Scotland, England,Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland.

In compensation we were told that the NGBs would receive two free Q School places.

They kept half the bargain.

In addition, from the info I have, the European federation knew nothing about the additional two places they received, and there is nothing in place to deliver them.

The whole thing is a bit slap dash and not very professional from the governing body. I guess that's the nature of the beast when you're uprooting tradition and trying to change in every direction and grow as quickly as possible.

whats this bullocks about

Anthony McGill ‏ @antsmcgill

@Craigie147 It's a bloody expensive sport!!! I'm good, World qualifiers next week so a good run in that would be nice! What you been upto?

Stephen Craigie ‏ @Craigie147

@antsmcgill yea lost sponsor so didnt really have a choice. Yea good luck, hope you do well! I aint bin up to much, jus lookin for work tbh!

how is snooker a bloody expensive sport compared to other individual sports.

GOLF EQUIPMENT

TENNIS RACKETS

SKIING EQUIPMENTS

Come on guys compared to other sports snooker is cheap when you start off all you need is a cue and chalk and you away.

yes Tennis and Golf players that make it big are on to more money but everyone starts in the same place as a baby that grows up to persue a chosen sport and persuing Tennis and Golf costs more as young players than Snooker does.