Monique wrote:I don't want to reduce the number of PTCs. I wish that only the best 3 results out of possibly 12 would be taken into account for rankings. That would probably result in the top pros playing in less of them because once they are satisfied with their best 3 they would probably not enter. While younger or lower ranked played would in the hope top better their best 3, hence their rankings. That would mean that those players, young and lower ranked would get more opportunities, not less to make more money. As it is I expect most top boys to take them seriously because of the rankings blackmail. This will basically mean that the others have less chances to get to the latter stages and ultimately to earn decent money out of them.
You will tell me that it will mean that the events will be less appealing to the audience. I'm not sure about that. The top players who will enter those events will do so because they want to, not because they feel forced to and therefore will try morevseriously when they chose to enter. Something that wasn't always the case this season.
On the flipside then the effect of that would be if the lower ranked players have more opportunities to get 3 good positions from the PTCs as the top guys wouldnt enter all of them once they had their 3 "good" results...................
then it would eventually dawn on the top players to play in all of these events as if they could get more top results then whilst only 3 would count, they would at least be stopping those guys lower than them getting good results.
I just see your proposal as some sort of cop out in between the PTCs being proper ranking events and exhibitions. They should all be taken seriously and players encouraged to take part, especially the EPTCs which are meant to be spreading the gospel of snooker to the new countries and expanding the game. These fans would want to see the stars. You only need to look at Hearns comments on the likes of Ding, Robbo, Ronnies attitudes towards the PTCs last season to see that he wants them to pull their weight.
Well I think Mr Hearn should have been there at some of them and see with his own eyes some of the things that happened there and the attitude of some top players, and not so top players, who entered and were there only because they felt they had no choice. As those incidents have neither been reported, nor punished (except the Ding one) I won't enter into details or name the names. But from the audience point of view, I'm not sure it did snooker any good. I'd rather have players being honest and not entering if they are not determined to give it their best rather than some of what I've witnessed. I that respect, I have to command Murphy, Selby and Higgins for their attitude. Although the latter had obviously a stronger motivation to behave perfectly than just the promotion of those events.
If he wants the big boys to want to play in them he has to think about providing better playing conditions in the first place. I've heard (and seen written) complaints from top players about them because they didn't allow them to play the game to their abilities and treat the audience with what they consider to be "good snooker". He also has to make sure the match schedule is reasonable and more or less predictable and respected. The audience will turn up more willingly if they know who they will see when and where...
All this has contributed to form my opinion that maybe here less who have been better if less also meant more effort and care put in each event. And don't get me wrong: the organisers of the events worked very, very hard, before and during them. They can't be blamed. But there is only so much you can do in a short time frame with limited resources.