UK short matches vs television coverage

We've all seen the rumours now. Let's assume for a minute it's true, and they have shortened a lot of the matches at the UK Championship to get all matches on TV.

How do people feel about this? I feel it's a crying shame the second most prestigious tournament gets shortened. But also, if you checked my old posts I bet I've complained at some point about some decent matches at the UKs not being televised. Which part of the reason I like going to the UK first rounds.

So let's assume, shall we that there is no solution to keeping the matches long and getting them all on television. Which would you rather sacrifice? The long matches, or 50% of the televised first round?

SnookerFan wrote:We've all seen the rumours now. Let's assume for a minute it's true, and they have shortened a lot of the matches at the UK Championship to get all matches on TV.

How do people feel about this? I feel it's a crying shame the second most prestigious tournament gets shortened. But also, if you checked my old posts I bet I've complained at some point about some decent matches at the UKs not being televised. Which part of the reason I like going to the UK first rounds.

So let's assume, shall we that there is no solution to keeping the matches long and getting them all on television. Which would you rather sacrifice? The long matches, or 50% of the televised first round?

lets put it like this in the 80s you had the British Open with best of 11 Qualifiers then for TV they shortened them to Best of 9 then Best of 17 semi finals and Best of 25 Final.

so looking at that format thats how low down in prestige they are now Going to make the UK Championship.

The reality of of economics is that a sport like snooker, and the players themselves - it's a minority sport and its exponents don't earn anything even close to what footballers, tennis-men or golfers do- can't survive without sponsoring, and sponsors are only interested in one thing: exposure and that comes primarily through television nowadays.
Another economical reality is that for the sport to get good venues at an affordable price, the venues management must make money on paying audience, which means that people need to be motivated to get there. Most people will prefer to see a match go to conclusion, rather than a session in the "middle" of one. Maybe not the really die hard fans, but most people, and it's "most people" that make big audiences.
BTW best of 11 isn't really a "short" match.
The main reasons for people to advocate long matches are
- "you need them to find out the best player". The way the World Open went last season has definitely proved that wrong. The best players will come out on top whatever the format because they are the ones with the game and being able to handle pressure. In short formats they will just make sure to come out of the blocks right from frame 1.
- "you have more tension and drama". Again that's not true. In a long match if one player runs away with it, there is no tension at all and the last session is usually quite boring when not painful. More often than not the player who is behind is resigned and the one who is in front can't get adrenaline flowing. When the match is close, then tension only builds really when they have the winning line in sight, so when basically it becomes best of 7 or best of 5... Yes we do have the occasional big come back. Once in a blue moon. I'm not speaking here about a players coming back to win having been 3 or 4 frames behind with 4 or 5 to play. We have that in best of 9 or best of 11 also. I'm speaking about being like 6-7 frames behind.... how many did we have over the last 3 seasons? (I can remember only 2 on television. One the coming back player won, one the coming back player lost in the decider).

monique

believe me no sponsor wants to be associated with a sport that hasent the balls to say what were about and buckle to TV Pressure....

They want a sport that has guts and principles to promote the product they are advertising.

and your argument just does not hold any water or factually correct its just going with what you think people want which there's no proof at all to back that up.

The funny thing is, world open went down on viewing figures by a fair significance from the grand prix. And had a lot less viewers than the other BBC events.

with the current farcial situation of 50% of the Round 1 and Round 2 games in the UK not being shown at all, something had to give inevitably.

Witz78 wrote:with the current farcial situation of 50% of the Round 1 and Round 2 games in the UK not being shown at all, something had to give inevitably.

and in the meantime Barry Hearn comes across as a lying little runt which i will be telling him all about it

Monique wrote:The reality of of economics is that a sport like snooker, and the players themselves - it's a minority sport and its exponents don't earn anything even close to what footballers, tennis-men or golfers do- can't survive without sponsoring, and sponsors are only interested in one thing: exposure and that comes primarily through television nowadays.
Another economical reality is that for the sport to get good venues at an affordable price, the venues management must make money on paying audience, which means that people need to be motivated to get there. Most people will prefer to see a match go to conclusion, rather than a session in the "middle" of one. Maybe not the really die hard fans, but most people, and it's "most people" that make big audiences.
BTW best of 11 isn't really a "short" match.
The main reasons for people to advocate long matches are
- "you need them to find out the best player". The way the World Open went last season has definitely proved that wrong. The best players will come out on top whatever the format because they are the ones with the game and being able to handle pressure. In short formats they will just make sure to come out of the blocks right from frame 1.
- "you have more tension and drama". Again that's not true. In a long match if one player runs away with it, there is no tension at all and the last session is usually quite boring when not painful. More often than not the player who is behind is resigned and the one who is in front can't get adrenaline flowing. When the match is close, then tension only builds really when they have the winning line in sight, so when basically it becomes best of 7 or best of 5... Yes we do have the occasional big come back. Once in a blue moon. I'm not speaking here about a players coming back to win having been 3 or 4 frames behind with 4 or 5 to play. We have that in best of 9 or best of 11 also. I'm speaking about being like 6-7 frames behind.... how many did we have over the last 3 seasons? (I can remember only 2 on television. One the coming back player won, one the coming back player lost in the decider).

I take your point on some things. Yes, a more casual fan may want to see matches to a conclusion. Doesn't seem very relevant though. We're being told that matches are being shortened for television, not for paying punters. And should we jump through hoops for people with the opinion that they don't want to pay for two sessions to watch one match? It might be reasonable enough a request, but if we follow that through where does it end? Shall we just make all tournaments best of five like the World Open? That would help.

Also there are other ways of dealing with that then just shortening matches. Surely it would be preferable to try and keep them being them as best of 17, but maybe look into rejigging it so that as many matches as possible start and finish in the same day.

For me, it's the secondary tournament in the sport. Some matches not being televised isn't ideal, obviously, especially when you see one match that looks good and can't watch it. But, I'm also against turning the UK into something a bit similar to lots of other tournaments. Your points of 'these matches may be shorter, not short' and that shorter matches can also have merit would be okay if this wasn't the UK Championships. There's nothing wrong with the format in itself, and it could be used for a different tournament. But matches this long are rare enough as it is. And they really help add a sense of prestige. It's a shame if that's taken away. A real shame. And leads me to wonder, if they'd shorten a tournament of this prestige, then where does the shortening of matches end?

It would be a shame if they moved the tournament to a grander venue, only to make the tournament worse.

Wild wrote:and in the meantime Barry Hearn comes across as a lying little runt which i will be telling him all about it

He'll certainly go down in a lot of fans estimation if he does that. Though, you'd think he'd be expecting that.

The Casual fan becomes Snooker Experts in April what does that Tell us ?

Wild wrote:monique

believe me no sponsor wants to be associated with a sport that hasent the balls to say what were about and buckle to TV Pressure....

They want a sport that has guts and principles to promote the product they are advertising.

and your argument just does not hold any water or factually correct its just going with what you think people want which there's no proof at all to back that up.

Just as there is no proof at all that what YOU want is what most want. And I don't think you can voice any opinion about what sponsors want. Sponsors want exposure, full stop. They don't care in the least how it's done, provided it's done and their name is seen by as many people as possible. They aren't sports persons, they are in business and that's pretty much it.
Actually I do think it's a shame that the distinctive format of the UK is going, if it is indeed going. But I can see the rationale behind the move and that's what my post is about.

Depends what you mean by casual fans. They can't be that casual if they are paying to watch snooker.

We don't want to turn this website into something snobby. I've posted on other forums where people use the term 'casual fans' as an insult. As if somebody is inferior to you for having nominally different interests or different passions.

Though I understand the point we need to make snooker as attractive to the paying public as possible, I think we also need to consider the marketing of the sport too. Is shortening the matches to make them look better really a good marketing strategy? Or will it give out the message that snooker is dull when it takes too long? What kind of marketing is that? I think we should do our best to emphasise the strength of all lengths of matches. Shorter ones = More pressure involved, getting off to a good start is important. Longer ones= The ultimate test, where a match can't be half won by a couple of century breaks. The big ones have to be earned, through grit and stamina as well as skill, for example. Whereas ones like the Masters, and the less about that but stamina but more about strong starts.

Shortening the UK Championships for me, is like shortening the London marathon, because 100mtr sprints suddenly became popular.

Monique wrote:
Just as there is no proof at all that what YOU want is what most want. And I don't think you can voice any opinion about what sponsors want. Sponsors want exposure, full stop. They don't care in the least how it's done, provided it's done and their name is seen by as many people as possible. They aren't sports persons, they are in business and that's pretty much it.
Actually I do think it's a shame that the distinctive format of the UK is going, if it is indeed going. But I can see the rationale behind the move and that's what my post is about.

We can all see why it's being done. This thread for me was about whether we personally want that. Would we rather sacrifice some of the television coverage, or would we rather have the matches shortened? Or to put it in a different way; "What's better? Shortened matches, or some matches not being televised."

Forget the logistics of what sponsors want, what do you want as a fan?

I agree with you that nobody should be branded "casual fan", or worse "not real fan" because of their preferences. People who travel and pay to see matches are fans and you have to expect to see them in various shapes and sizes.
I also agree that we should try to keep as much variety as possible and that indeed means keeping tournaments that are based on long format. Bu then we have to think about the way to "sell" those to the various actors, not just the expert fans, but the sponsors, the broadcasters, the venues managers etc... and for me the usual reasons about "best player, tension, drama" don't hold and don't interest them anyway. It's about a different pace, a different way to get into the match, a different atmosphere. One problem the sport has IMO, is that this particular atmosphere of longer matches, of sessions that are important but not conclusive, does not pass well on television, and I don't know how it can be improved. And it has side effects because nowadays most people who come to see snooker "live" take that step because they have been seduced into it by what the saw on telly.

One way of keeping the 4 table set up and best of 17s would be if there was a bit of common sense used in what sessions / games were shown on tv.

How many times in recent seasons have we seen the wrong game selected for a TV table just cos its the World Champion even though hes playing a nobody in a clearly gonna be one sided game, when a real 50-50 clash is then totally overlooked.

Also how often do we see a one sided game thats sitting at 6-2 or 7-1 after the 1st session, because it started on a tv table, get brought back out on the tv table when theres a far better poised game at 4-4 or 5-3 left alone.

You can end up with the snooker coverage being over by 8pm when theres 2 cracking games going on to 11pm that we cant see cos of the farcial policy of the WPSBA.

Who gets the TV tables isn't a WPBSA policy, at least they don't decide alone, or more specifically the tournament director does not decide alone. The broadcaster has a huge say in that and the fact that the broadcasters do favour "names" over "spectacle" supports my point about sponsors being only remotely interested in the sport itself. It's exposure they want.

Monique wrote:

Wild wrote:monique

believe me no sponsor wants to be associated with a sport that hasent the balls to say what were about and buckle to TV Pressure....

They want a sport that has guts and principles to promote the product they are advertising.

and your argument just does not hold any water or factually correct its just going with what you think people want which there's no proof at all to back that up.

Just as there is no proof at all that what YOU want is what most want. And I don't think you can voice any opinion about what sponsors want. Sponsors want exposure, full stop. They don't care in the least how it's done, provided it's done and their name is seen by as many people as possible. They aren't sports persons, they are in business and that's pretty much it.
Actually I do think it's a shame that the distinctive format of the UK is going, if it is indeed going. But I can see the rationale behind the move and that's what my post is about.

my proof is more accurate because casual fans become snooker experts in April...

i just think Barry Hearn has Cocked up here too soon in his Reign ......The Re Building is Starting and lets face it Going well.

he should have hold firm regarding the UK Format if Snooker Becomes Cool again building on the Success of the WC he could be in a position of Bargaining with the BBC For more Days for the UK or Moving it to another Channel that will never happen now.

Wild wrote:my proof is more accurate because casual fans become snooker experts in April...

Doesn't really prove anything Wild. Nobody is denying some people turn for The Crucible, and The Crucible only. But all sports have that, people will be tuning into Wimbledon next week, who never watch any of the other tennis events.

But what point is it your trying to make? Doesn't mean those are the only form of casual fan. Some fans in that live in York might think snooker is okay, and turn up for an afternoon to watch it that won't watch for the rest of the year. (Which is why I tell that story of me meeting the guy in Telford who liked snooker, but didn't know it was happening so often.) Casual fans doesn't necessarily mean 'they only watch when The Crucible is on'. There are fans like that, obviously, but the point I was trying to make was snooker isn't made up of 100% hardcore fans who watch every second of every tournament, and people that only watch in Sheffield. There are people that may watch occasionally, if they are channel surfing and find it. There are others who might be persuaded to go if a big group of friends go, but aren't too fussed.

I agree that we could bend over too much just to attract these fans, when what we should be doing is looking to publicise snooker more and converting casual fans into long-term fans. So blindly changing things based on trends may not be the only way of marketing towards new fans.

But neither is assuming the only people who aren't hardcore fans won't watch it unless it's Sheffield.

Wild wrote:

Monique wrote:

Wild wrote:monique

believe me no sponsor wants to be associated with a sport that hasent the balls to say what were about and buckle to TV Pressure....

They want a sport that has guts and principles to promote the product they are advertising.

and your argument just does not hold any water or factually correct its just going with what you think people want which there's no proof at all to back that up.

Just as there is no proof at all that what YOU want is what most want. And I don't think you can voice any opinion about what sponsors want. Sponsors want exposure, full stop. They don't care in the least how it's done, provided it's done and their name is seen by as many people as possible. They aren't sports persons, they are in business and that's pretty much it.
Actually I do think it's a shame that the distinctive format of the UK is going, if it is indeed going. But I can see the rationale behind the move and that's what my post is about.

my proof is more accurate because casual fans become snooker experts in April...

in all honesty, thats mainly because its the flagship event of the year with wall to wall coverage, plus its a Great British tradition that people watch the main event of each sports, then dont even think twice about that sport again for another year.

The Open in golf
Wimbledon
The Grand National
The boat race
The London Marathon
The Six Nations
The Ashes
Superbowl
Darts World Championship/s
FA Cup Final

etc
etc

I can't see what allows you to state that and what evidence you have to support your opinion. I don't think they do. To start with to get a seat at the Crucible you already have to apply for it months before and accept that you can't chose the sessions you will see (to an extend). To do that and accept that you have to be much more than a "casual" fan.

to answer snookerfan, as a fan I want the sport to succeed and prosper and I'm ready to let go of some of my personal preferences to get there, because I know that's it's not just about me and what I want. I know that we live in a world driven by money and mediatic perception. If snooker became really big then it would become a non problem and anything could be done because exposure and sponsoring would take care of themselves.

it proves Shorter Matches is not the answer to attract casual fans or casual fans would be boycotting the Worlds because some matches takes 3 DAYS to be completed

Wild wrote:it proves Shorter Matches is not the answer to attract casual fans or casual fans would be boycotting the Worlds because some matches takes 3 DAYS to be completed

Wild wrote:i just think Barry Hearn has Cocked up here too soon in his Reign ......The Re Building is Starting and lets face it Going well.

he should have hold firm regarding the UK Format if Snooker Becomes Cool again building on the Success of the WC he could be in a position of Bargaining with the BBC For more Days for the UK or Moving it to another Channel that will never happen now.

I have always had a suspicion that Barry Hearn thinks shorter matches are more entertaining. Which, I don't necessarily ascribe to. I think we need a balance of both.

But, I do think this has more to do with him trying to make all matches televised. Started from a good idea, but I don't agree with shortening it I'm afraid.

Some might argue that Barry Hearn wanted to shorten it for a while, but is clever enough to only do it when it's justified. (Trying to get the BBC to keep the Grand Prix/World Open, making the Welsh Open a two table situation etc.) But that's just me playing devil's advocate.

My belief if that he wanted to get every match on TV, but I personally feel I'd rather the odd match not televised then this. Which is why I wanted to see if that was everybody's view also.

if every tournament was WC Format or UK Format that would not work because it detracts from the importance of those events same principle by shorting the UK to a similar format than the GP in the 80s and early 90s.

i understand the TV Principle of having it played on 2 tables but its going about it wrong.

Wild wrote:if every tournament was WC Format or UK Format that would not work because it detracts from the importance of those events same principle by shorting the UK to a similar format than the GP in the 80s and early 90s.

i understand the TV Principle of having it played on 2 tables but its going about it wrong.

Agreed. The UK and Worlds should be the longest, as the two most prestigious rankers of the year. Or else, what is particularly prestigious about them? Yes, they both have the history, but if you shortened them then that begins to detract from them. It gives the fans something to discuss this year, but will it still be viewed with the same level of prestige in ten, fifteen or twenty years?

That's why I'd prefer the picking the best matches to televise in the first rounds, however truly flawed that is.

And just to add, I don't believe the format they've showed is a bad one. Having best of 11s up to quarters, then longer in semi-finals and final is fine. It would make a good addition to the calendar, to be fair.

But, not sure it's right for the UK.

SnookerFan wrote:

Wild wrote:if every tournament was WC Format or UK Format that would not work because it detracts from the importance of those events same principle by shorting the UK to a similar format than the GP in the 80s and early 90s.

i understand the TV Principle of having it played on 2 tables but its going about it wrong.

Agreed. The UK and Worlds should be the longest, as the two most prestigious rankers of the year. Or else, what is particularly prestigious about them? Yes, they both have the history, but if you shortened them then that begins to detract from them. It gives the fans something to discuss this year, but will it still be viewed with the same level of prestige in ten, fifteen or twenty years?

That's why I'd prefer the picking the best matches to televise in the first rounds, however truly flawed that is.

These was last years Last 32 Matches

Ding Junhui v Matthew Stevens
Mark Allen v Tom Ford
Marco Fu v Barry Hawkins
Ronnie O'Sullivan v Stuart Bingham
Stephen Maguire v Ken Doherty
Mark Selby v Ricky Walden
Graeme Dott v Martin Gould
John Higgins v Stephen Lee
Allister Carter v Mark Joyce
Jamie Cope v Judd Trump
Stephen Hendry v Jimmy White
Mark Williams v Mark Davis
Shaun Murphy v Patrick Wallace
Mark King v Ryan Day
Peter Ebdon v Andrew Higginson
Neil Robertson v Rory McLeod

BBC tells you only 4 of thoes matches can be played on TV which matches you going to choose.

the way they used to do it in york before the Top 4 Seeded matches held over to the venue

Ding Junhui v Matthew Stevens
John Higgins v Stephen Lee
Allister Carter v Mark Joyce
Neil Robertson v Rory McLeod

Thoes are the Matches featuring top 4 seeds Last year.

Wild wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Wild wrote:if every tournament was WC Format or UK Format that would not work because it detracts from the importance of those events same principle by shorting the UK to a similar format than the GP in the 80s and early 90s.

i understand the TV Principle of having it played on 2 tables but its going about it wrong.

Agreed. The UK and Worlds should be the longest, as the two most prestigious rankers of the year. Or else, what is particularly prestigious about them? Yes, they both have the history, but if you shortened them then that begins to detract from them. It gives the fans something to discuss this year, but will it still be viewed with the same level of prestige in ten, fifteen or twenty years?

That's why I'd prefer the picking the best matches to televise in the first rounds, however truly flawed that is.

These was last years Last 32 Matches

Ding Junhui v Matthew Stevens
Mark Allen v Tom Ford
Marco Fu v Barry Hawkins
Ronnie O'Sullivan v Stuart Bingham
Stephen Maguire v Ken Doherty
Mark Selby v Ricky Walden
Graeme Dott v Martin Gould
John Higgins v Stephen Lee
Allister Carter v Mark Joyce
Jamie Cope v Judd Trump
Stephen Hendry v Jimmy White
Mark Williams v Mark Davis
Shaun Murphy v Patrick Wallace
Mark King v Ryan Day
Peter Ebdon v Andrew Higginson
Neil Robertson v Rory McLeod

BBC tells you only 4 of thoes matches can be played on TV which matches you going to choose.

i think youll find last 32 = 16 games

50% of 16 games = 8 games