Post a reply

Which situation is preferable?

Not all matches are televised
11
85%
All matches shorten to besst of 11
2
15%
 
Total votes : 13

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby SnookerFan

Witz78 wrote:when its for the supposedly 2nd biggest tournament of the year then TV access to all matches is a must.

For other smaller tournaments im not overly fussed, however some on here are almost in tears that PTCs arent screened live on TV, yet are happy to sacrifice 40% of the UK Champs..........


No, this is the point, we're kind of stuck in between a rock and a hard place, we have to sacrifice something.

No one is saying with a tournament this important, some matches shouldn't be televised. They should. But it's one of the few longer frame tournaments left, so it also seems a shame to take them down to best of 11. Or at least, that's what I feel.

I do wonder if there's a way of getting the four matches televised. Assumedly, if there was a way, they'd have done it a long time ago. But, there must be a way round it. It's hard to believe that in this day and age where a person can film on their mobile phone, you can't at least set up a small camera in each cubicle and stream it on the internet, if nothing else.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby SnookerFan

Witz78 wrote:
on one hand your a snooker addict / freak, then on the other hand you find lots of games between the top players boring <doh>


rofl Just winding you up. I'd watch any of those games, don't get me wrong. It's just Ken-Do was always one of my favourite players, so that's why I mentioned him over your ones.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby SnookerFan

snooky147 wrote:I saw this coming(if it does happen) a while back and was shot down on here with replies such as...Hearn's an honourable man, He said he wont touch the Majors.
Well, it seems anyway, so much for that. Next step will be to shorten the World qualifiers to best of 9 up until the last qualifying round and eventually he will shorten the World Championship. We should get a net wide protest out now to stop this intereference in our game just for the sake of flashy quickfire snooker. I am all for punishing time wasters in the game who do it deliberately but it's no reason to shorten everything to accomodate TV and SOME players. I say NO.


That line made me laugh. You saw it coming, IF it happens. rofl

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Witz78

SnookerFan wrote:
Witz78 wrote:when its for the supposedly 2nd biggest tournament of the year then TV access to all matches is a must.

For other smaller tournaments im not overly fussed, however some on here are almost in tears that PTCs arent screened live on TV, yet are happy to sacrifice 40% of the UK Champs..........


No, this is the point, we're kind of stuck in between a rock and a hard place, we have to sacrifice something.

No one is saying with a tournament this important, some matches shouldn't be televised. They should. But it's one of the few longer frame tournaments left, so it also seems a shame to take them down to best of 11. Or at least, that's what I feel.

I do wonder if there's a way of getting the four matches televised. Assumedly, if there was a way, they'd have done it a long time ago. But, there must be a way round it. It's hard to believe that in this day and age where a person can film on their mobile phone, you can't at least set up a small camera in each cubicle and stream it on the internet, if nothing else.



as i said earlier in this thread or on another UK thread topic, the solution would be to start on a Thursday instead of a Saturday. That way all matches as best of 17s can be played only on 2 tables and the tournament still finishes on the following Sunday night <doh>

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby SnookerFan

Witz78 wrote:as i said earlier in this thread or on another UK thread topic, the solution would be to start on a Thursday instead of a Saturday. That way all matches as best of 17s can be played only on 2 tables and the tournament still finishes on the following Sunday night <doh>


Yeah, except the BBC refuses to do that. For whatever reason.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Monique

Not for whatever reason, for economic reasons. Snooker is a minority sport and won't get a bigger share of broadcasting. It will only get less until it manages to appear as being attractive, not specifically to the die hard fans but the the blokes who take the decisions. That's the crux of many things and something many on here seem to refuse to accept.
Whether it's good or bad is something we can debate at nauseam, but it won't change anything. Broadcasting time is a limited resource and the snooker authorities have to try and use it to the best. In the past some players, and some fans, have been moaning about who got on telly and who didn't, and often rightly so. It seems they now try to have everyone on telly, which in principle is good and certainly fairer. But somehow you can't have the cake and eat it.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Roland

If that is true Monique then they would be extending every event to at least best of 17 because every single poll there has ever been asking tv viewers or whoever if they prefer longer or shorter format snooker matches comes out overwhelmingly in favour of longer matches. The absolute minimum length match with any sort of drama is best of 11 but you need 2 session matches to produce the memorable comebacks and get fully involved in.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Monique

Sonny wrote:If that is true Monique then they would be extending every event to at least best of 17 because every single poll there has ever been asking tv viewers or whoever if they prefer longer or shorter format snooker matches comes out overwhelmingly in favour of longer matches. The absolute minimum length match with any sort of drama is best of 11 but you need 2 session matches to produce the memorable comebacks and get fully involved in.


I have 2 observations to that
1. Most polls if not every poll I've seen were conducted in UK. In Asia for instance, which is a huge market for snooker and vital for it's global development, shorter matches are preferred and 6-reds is a format that is well appreciated. I've never conducted a poll in Europe, but my feeling for speaking with European fans is that they aren't too bothered about really long matches. They like to see "self-contained" action with a start and a conclusion.
2. Ask yourself who answers the polls. Who goes to the snooker websites regularly and sees there is a poll on and is bothered to answer? I'd say only the very serious fans. So this doesn't reflect the opinion of a more cross-section audience IMO, and that cross-section audience is essential for the sport to grow. Not to mention that many polls I've seen on WSA didn't prevent people from voting multiple times... so they are hardly significant because it's easy for a "lobby" to bias them.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Roland

I'm sure if they had the opposite result you would be using them to back up your arguement. Just saying. People who think the answer to snooker is to shorten every format are seriously barking up the wrong tree. I loved the World Open for what it was, but to read into that "Aha, that means everything else is too long" is complete rubbish. I don't see the need for shortening the UK format at all but I can understand the qualification stages. Let's see what has been proposed. The only thing which really needs sorting is having the two semi-finals on different days.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Wildey

Dannyboy wrote:
Wild wrote:
Dannyboy 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.

What a load of rubbish that is - shall I point you in the direction of Olly Croft at the British Darts Organisation?

what the little kitten has that to do with anything ??????????

you really havent got a little kittens playing with each other having fun clue have you PDC has infact increased matches not reduced them <doh>

I mean is that the BDO thought it would be clever to completely snub TV and marketing. They don't owe the players a living apparently. What TV says, goes these days unfortunately.

i know what you mean but any organization has to show they are in charge of their sport any TV Company can own the rights to show a tournament but if they decide to show it in half past midnight time slot and the association does nothing to try and change that then sponsors wont stay around.....

that is what happened to Darts on the BBC Gutless morons being dictated to by TV and staying around for the hell of it.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Monique

Sonny wrote:I'm sure if they had the opposite result you would be using them to back up your arguement. Just saying. People who think the answer to snooker is to shorten every format are seriously barking up the wrong tree. I loved the World Open for what it was, but to read into that "Aha, that means everything else is too long" is complete rubbish. I don't see the need for shortening the UK format at all but I can understand the qualification stages. Let's see what has been proposed. The only thing which really needs sorting is having the two semi-finals on different days.


You are probably right on the first statement but it doesn't change anything.
I 'm not in favour of shortening every format but IF the choice is between keeping the long format and not showing some matches - actually most matches in round 1 - and going for best of 11, which is still a very decent format and show every match, then my choice goes for the latter any time.
Just think about this: in the Pink Ribbon we have got to see some awesome young players in action, Ben, Syd ... They are not on the MT (yet) but supposing they were and would qualify for the television stages, what chances do they have to actually be on television unless they are drawn against Higgins, ROS or another big boy the broadcasters fancy? The answer is none. And it's a shame because the audience doesn't get to see them, they remain "unknown" and next time it will be the same scenario unless they really manage to get deep into a tournament and impress. When a player qualifies for the telly stages, they should actually get on telly. It's important they get known to the public and show their skills and character. It's important they gain that experience for their own development. It's important for their future sponsoring. And it's important for the sport that it shouldn't rely on only a handful of well know names.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Roland

The way the UK was last time in York they played the last 64 matches at the venue I think and had 5 tables and then on the Saturday when it started on tv you had two tv tables in action and that was it. It was perfect. OK so a couple of top 16ers had already played their first match but some were held back and the tv viewers could follow every ball of the action live. You had 3 sessions roll on roll off as well. If they have best of 11's I bet they don't have 3 sessions in a day do they? So you will probably be getting less snooker to watch.

Let's see what is actually happening, and then go ape!

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Wildey

im against it but there is a valid point for it as well and i for one can see sense in reducing the UK Table wise BUT i just hoped they would hold firm and not reduce it on a whim like this and try and explore other avenues first see how it goes.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby SnookerFan

Sonny wrote:I'm sure if they had the opposite result you would be using them to back up your arguement. Just saying. People who think the answer to snooker is to shorten every format are seriously barking up the wrong tree. I loved the World Open for what it was, but to read into that "Aha, that means everything else is too long" is complete rubbish. I don't see the need for shortening the UK format at all but I can understand the qualification stages. Let's see what has been proposed. The only thing which really needs sorting is having the two semi-finals on different days.


Why does that bother you that much Sonny? Is it because one player gets a days rest, whereby the other has to play a whole match? I ask only out of interest, as I've seen you mention it a few times, and it's never really bothered me.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby SnookerFan

Wild wrote:im against it but there is a valid point for it as well and i for one can see sense in reducing the UK Table wise BUT i just hoped they would hold firm and not reduce it on a whim like this and try and explore other avenues first see how it goes.


As Sonny says though, they haven't done it yet. I was premature, as this is still rumours. I was interested though if you had to choose between shorter matches or less TV matches, what people would pick.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Roland

SnookerFan wrote:
Sonny wrote:I'm sure if they had the opposite result you would be using them to back up your arguement. Just saying. People who think the answer to snooker is to shorten every format are seriously barking up the wrong tree. I loved the World Open for what it was, but to read into that "Aha, that means everything else is too long" is complete rubbish. I don't see the need for shortening the UK format at all but I can understand the qualification stages. Let's see what has been proposed. The only thing which really needs sorting is having the two semi-finals on different days.


Why does that bother you that much Sonny? Is it because one player gets a days rest, whereby the other has to play a whole match? I ask only out of interest, as I've seen you mention it a few times, and it's never really bothered me.


It's disjointed and one of them being on a Friday means the public at work will probably miss it and the other gets all the weekend coverage. Plus if they are one sided you get two days in a row of short evening sessions and nothing else to watch.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:
Let's see what is actually happening, and then go ape!

IM ALL APED OUT rofl

im less angry than i thought id be for simple reason the table situation using best of 11 but id like them to look at other possibilities first it seem to me reducing is being done without thinking.

They Reduced the Welsh so that all matches will be played on 2 Tables however they playing best of 9 Australian Open on 2 TABLES...does time go slower in Australia :chin:

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Monique

also regarding the semis, I absolutely disagree with you. Yes It would make the Saturday appealing, but it would also make the Friday totally unappealing. Who will take a day off work, travel and pay to see 2 "half-matches" and no conclusion? As I wrote before the venues managers must find something for themselves in this. They could end up with one day sold-out and some people unsatisfied because they couldn't get tickets, and one almost "dead" day.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Roland

It's never crossed my mind when going to the Crucible if I'm getting to watch an opening session or a conclusion to a match. In fact given the choice I'd probably rather see a guaranteed full session of frames. I don't recall seeing too many empty seats at the Crucible in non-final sessions!

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Witz78

Sonny wrote:It's never crossed my mind when going to the Crucible if I'm getting to watch an opening session or a conclusion to a match. In fact given the choice I'd probably rather see a guaranteed full session of frames. I don't recall seeing too many empty seats at the Crucible in non-final sessions!


Come on man, thats rubbish :chuckle:

You saw a lot of the opening session that Sunday afternoon rofl

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:It's never crossed my mind when going to the Crucible if I'm getting to watch an opening session or a conclusion to a match. In fact given the choice I'd probably rather see a guaranteed full session of frames. I don't recall seeing too many empty seats at the Crucible in non-final sessions!


personally when you go to a match you going to see the session and get entertained in that session ive been to a second session of a best of 25 final and thats all i went to i couldn't in the afternoon and had to be home the sunday morning so missed the 3rd session.

you just go to the session you can go to and watch rest on TV

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Monique

Sonny wrote:It's never crossed my mind when going to the Crucible if I'm getting to watch an opening session or a conclusion to a match. In fact given the choice I'd probably rather see a guaranteed full session of frames. I don't recall seeing too many empty seats at the Crucible in non-final sessions!


No but then it's the Crucible and in addition you know yourself that you don't always get to see the session you want. We have seen enough empty seats in other tournaments over the last years, don't we? So why create a situation that would increase the risk of a "flop" day?
I think that many viewers actually like to see a match from start to finish if possible.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Roland

Well actually, in several one sided semi-finals at the UK in York, I stayed in the pub watching it on tv and playing pool or darts rather than going back for the evening session which wouldn't have happened had there been another first session going on, or a second of three.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Witz78

Monique wrote:
Sonny wrote:It's never crossed my mind when going to the Crucible if I'm getting to watch an opening session or a conclusion to a match. In fact given the choice I'd probably rather see a guaranteed full session of frames. I don't recall seeing too many empty seats at the Crucible in non-final sessions!


No but then it's the Crucible and in addition you know yourself that you don't always get to see the session you want. We have seen enough empty seats in other tournaments over the last years, don't we? So why create a situation that would increase the risk of a "flop" day?
I think that many viewers actually like to see a match from start to finish if possible.


personally i always aim to get on the side of the table where the action is in the last session of the match.

even if its not the most attractive match would sooner watch a dramatic end to a match than the start of a more attractive one.

and worst case scenario that the final session is one sided and over quickly, then you snake hiss off to the bar and watch both matches on the tv, then head back in once the curtain comes up and catch the last few frames of the 1st session on the other table.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Witz78

Sonny wrote:Well actually, in several one sided semi-finals at the UK in York, I stayed in the pub watching it on tv and playing pool or darts rather than going back for the evening session which wouldn't have happened had there been another first session going on, or a second of three.


so your differing from Wilds views that even one sided runaway long format matches are more exciting than closer shorter format matches??

Think Wild would find an 18-0 match more exciting than a 5-4 :john:

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:
Sonny wrote:Well actually, in several one sided semi-finals at the UK in York, I stayed in the pub watching it on tv and playing pool or darts rather than going back for the evening session which wouldn't have happened had there been another first session going on, or a second of three.


so your differing from Wilds views that even one sided runaway long format matches are more exciting than closer shorter format matches??

Think Wild would find an 18-0 match more exciting than a 5-4 :john:

NO its not exciting but we all know that guy was by far and away deserving of a world title.

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby SnookerFan

Wild wrote:im against it but there is a valid point for it as well and i for one can see sense in reducing the UK Table wise BUT i just hoped they would hold firm and not reduce it on a whim like this and try and explore other avenues first see how it goes.


That seems to be most peoples view. We are against it, but....

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Roland

Witz78 wrote:
Sonny wrote:It's never crossed my mind when going to the Crucible if I'm getting to watch an opening session or a conclusion to a match. In fact given the choice I'd probably rather see a guaranteed full session of frames. I don't recall seeing too many empty seats at the Crucible in non-final sessions!


Come on man, thats rubbish :chuckle:

You saw a lot of the opening session that Sunday afternoon rofl


Yeah but I wasn't really bothered about that particular match and would rather hang out with you guys :love:

Re: UK short matches vs television coverage

Postby Witz78

Sonny wrote:
Witz78 wrote:
Sonny wrote:It's never crossed my mind when going to the Crucible if I'm getting to watch an opening session or a conclusion to a match. In fact given the choice I'd probably rather see a guaranteed full session of frames. I don't recall seeing too many empty seats at the Crucible in non-final sessions!


Come on man, thats rubbish :chuckle:

You saw a lot of the opening session that Sunday afternoon rofl


Yeah but I wasn't really bothered about that particular match and would rather hang out with you guys :love:


like im in a position to tourist anyone else off about not going into the snooker rofl