UK short matches vs television coverage

Last 32=32 sessions.

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.

SnookerFan wrote:If memory serves well, last year had a lot of strong matches not televised. In my opinion, it was shocking to me that Stephen Maguire vs Ken Doherty wasn't televised.

But, it seems that technology/expense/the BBC's decision doesn't allow for all matches to make it onto TV. Which is why Barry Hearn has chosen to do it this way.

I kind of see the guys point. But I'm not paying to travel to York, and stay in a hotel for BO11 first rounds, when I can commute to London and watch this sort of match in Ally Pally the following month. I'll save the expense and wait. You wonder if any of the other travelling fans will be affected. I get the impression nobody much travelled farther then the Midlands to Telford to watch snooker. York may get some more, but if this goes through, I feel I may not be one of them. I'll save my money for takeaways and the like when it's on telly.

earlier on i think you made some sort of comment to Monique about not wanting to come across as a snooker snob or for elitism to come through on this forum to alienate the "casual" fans but this post here comes across as snooker snobbery in that best of 11s arent good enough for you.

if thats the case why dont you just head over later in the week for the longer format rounds?

Maguire - Doherty wasnt the most attractive R1 game not to be shown, infact it would have been quite low down my list given Dohertys decline in form and no real hope against top 16 players these days, plus the fact Maguires past his peak too now and not really a big draw.

Games like Fu-Hawkins, Cope-Trump, Selby-Walden, Gould-Dott and even Day-King which all werent shown, were far more appealing IMO.

I think the thought of someone going out in a really close match where neither player has yet established themselves is the frustrating part - although I do see that the 'run of the balls' can create a gap that is later closed in a longer match. I also understand why Barry Hearn and/or the broadcasters may be unhappy with continuing coverage of a longer game that's one-sided - major sports can wear this, but a bit of a blow for a minority sport - it doesn't help in building an audience.

What I'd really like is a tennis-like situation, where the winner has to be in the lead by a clear two frames, but I imagine this wouldn't be easy to organise ...

roy142857 wrote:broadcasters may be unhappy with continuing coverage of a longer game that's one-sided - major sports can wear this, but a bit of a blow for a minority sport - it doesn't help in building an audience.

in 1985 that is exactly how the BBC Felt while Steve Davis was building up 6,7 and 8 frame lead in the final what happened next has gone in to snooker History.

Wild wrote:

roy142857 wrote:broadcasters may be unhappy with continuing coverage of a longer game that's one-sided - major sports can wear this, but a bit of a blow for a minority sport - it doesn't help in building an audience.

in 1985 that is exactly how the BBC Felt while Steve Davis was building up 6,7 and 8 frame lead in the final what happened next has gone in to snooker History.

the thing with '85 though is that very few people remember the comeback, infact its almost been erased from history, its ALL about THAT deciding frame and primarily the last 4 balls, especially the black.

And its worth noting that for every '85 comeback there are lots of borefest runaway conclusion anticlimaxes.

Without even thinking properly about this the following jump into my head

Davis'89 v Parrott
Parrott '91 v White
Hendry '93v White
Hendry '95 v Bond
Ronnie '08 v Carter
Higgins '09 v Murphy

1985 World Championship was the Worst Crucible Championship by miles Matches one sided all over the shop and yet 1 Match trandformed the Event that is a blue print for snooker and why long matches are special.

1 match even 1 frame transformed that whole tournament forget if matches are one sided eventually you will get a classic.

You said it ONE FRAME. It had nothing to do with the long format, it would have been equally dramatic had it been best of 25. It was a lot about who was involved, an when. Had it not been for Steve Davis, nobody would remember it that much. It was a bad World Championship and for most of those who paid and were not at the final, in the final session, what will remain is that they paid for something poor. Not good.
BTW nobody is suggesting to change the Final's format, or the semis. If there is a change it's about the rounds 1 to 3. Round 1 in particular could be shortened to best of 11 without much loss IMO. I take no pleasure in watching a slaughter like the Selby-J.Robertson match this year at the Crucible, or a hard slog like the McLeod-Walden one. None at all. And don't tell me real fans would, because the exodus from the arena at MSI was massive for the Walden-McLeod thing.

Monique wrote:You said it ONE FRAME. It had nothing to do with the long format, it would have been equally dramatic had it been best of 25. It was a lot about who was involved, an when. Had it not been for Steve Davis, nobody would remember it that much. It was a bad World Championship and for most of those who paid and were not at the final, in the final session, what will remain is that they paid for something poor. Not good.
BTW nobody is suggesting to change the Final's format, or the semis. If there is a change it's about the rounds 1 to 3. Round 1 in particular could be shortened to best of 11 without much loss IMO. I take no pleasure in watching a slaughter like the Selby-J.Robertson match this year at the Crucible, or a hard slog like the McLeod-Walden one. None at all. And don't tell me real fans would, because the exodus from the arena at MSI was massive for the Walden-McLeod thing.

yes without long format they wouldnt have got anywhere near the importance of that 1 frame.

2 days 34 frames meant that 1 frame meant more.

At least with one sided contests there's no debate about the better player winning through.

My only issue with the UK is the fact the semi-finals are played one at a time. I think they should keep the same format as previously, but have both semis best of 25 played over 2 days so both matches are in play on both days, and then you can squeeze a best of 25 final out over one day as well with a 10am start for session 1.

By the way, I take great pleasure in watching a one sided contest with a top player dominating a lower ranked player because it demonstrates why they are the top player and how good they are. If every match went 9-8 then it would be boring and predictable.

Sonny wrote:At least with one sided contests there's no debate about the better player winning through.

My only issue with the UK is the fact the semi-finals are played one at a time. I think they should keep the same format as previously, but have both semis best of 25 played over 2 days so both matches are in play on both days, and then you can squeeze a best of 25 final out over one day as well with a 10am start for session 1.

By the way, I take great pleasure in watching a one sided contest with a top player dominating a lower ranked player because it demonstrates why they are the top player and how good they are. If every match went 9-8 then it would be boring and predictable.

id have no problem with reducing early rounds to best of 11 BUT increase semis and final.

you cant turn the UK to a standard normal World Ranker if he needs to reduce to get them on 2 tables then give us something back.

Long formats are only worth it when both players are good and on reasonable form. Otherwise they usually produce one sided, boring slaughters or hard slogs where both players struggle. Good long format matches are more likely to happen in final stages of tournaments.
That's why I'm not overly bothered about the rounds 1-3 in the UK being reduced if we get more exposure as a compensation for it. I would prefer it if they kept it to round 1 only though.

Wild wrote:

Monique wrote:You said it ONE FRAME. It had nothing to do with the long format, it would have been equally dramatic had it been best of 25. It was a lot about who was involved, an when. Had it not been for Steve Davis, nobody would remember it that much. It was a bad World Championship and for most of those who paid and were not at the final, in the final session, what will remain is that they paid for something poor. Not good.
BTW nobody is suggesting to change the Final's format, or the semis. If there is a change it's about the rounds 1 to 3. Round 1 in particular could be shortened to best of 11 without much loss IMO. I take no pleasure in watching a slaughter like the Selby-J.Robertson match this year at the Crucible, or a hard slog like the McLeod-Walden one. None at all. And don't tell me real fans would, because the exodus from the arena at MSI was massive for the Walden-McLeod thing.

yes without long format they wouldnt have got anywhere near the importance of that 1 frame.

2 days 34 frames meant that 1 frame meant more.

it was one frame to decide who was World Champion

it would have been important no matter how many or few frames had preceded it

exactly.

holy rubbish

But not 1-1 in a best of 3. That's where it's really at.

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:

Monique wrote:You said it ONE FRAME. It had nothing to do with the long format, it would have been equally dramatic had it been best of 25. It was a lot about who was involved, an when. Had it not been for Steve Davis, nobody would remember it that much. It was a bad World Championship and for most of those who paid and were not at the final, in the final session, what will remain is that they paid for something poor. Not good.
BTW nobody is suggesting to change the Final's format, or the semis. If there is a change it's about the rounds 1 to 3. Round 1 in particular could be shortened to best of 11 without much loss IMO. I take no pleasure in watching a slaughter like the Selby-J.Robertson match this year at the Crucible, or a hard slog like the McLeod-Walden one. None at all. And don't tell me real fans would, because the exodus from the arena at MSI was massive for the Walden-McLeod thing.

yes without long format they wouldnt have got anywhere near the importance of that 1 frame.

2 days 34 frames meant that 1 frame meant more.

it was one frame to decide who was World Champion

it would have been important no matter how many or few frames had preceded it

not even bloody close

the effort to get to 17-17 and have the WC Decided on 1 frame is bigger much bigger than 8-8 in a best of 17 or 4-4 in a best of 9.

Well, not in my eyes. Once those 34 frames are over it all comes down to one... exactly as it would on 4-4, 8-8, 12-12 . It's what is at stake and the tension it produces that makes it special, not how many frames have been played before.

Monique wrote:Well, not in my eyes. Once those 34 frames are over it all comes down to one... exactly as it would on 4-4, 8-8, 12-12 . It's what is at stake and the tension it produces that makes it special, not how many frames have been played before.

monique after playing 34 frames you would think differently and i bet every player thinks rubbish after playing so long i just cant lose this now and the longer the match the more intense that feeling gets.

For a tournament as big as the UK Championship to have 12 matches played in cubicles is unacceptable and diminishes the tournament far more than best of 11's in the first two rounds. Last year we got stuck with two sessions of some fairly dull matches while Allen-Ding & Maguire-Selby weren't shown. Ideally the event would be two weeks long but that isn't possible. If the change did happen then I'd like to see them bring back the best of 31 final. That would go a long way towards making up for the early rounds being cut.

UK with present set up - Potentially maximum of 529 frames of which there will be 325 (61%) available to watch on TV

UK with proposed new set up - Potentially maximum of 385 frames of which there will be 385 (100%) available to watch on TV

Talk about Turkeys voting for Xmas, look at the argument from this perspective then dont yous all realise that were actually going to gain.

Less is more.............

Witz78 wrote:UK with present set up - Potentially maximum of 529 frames of which there will be 325 (61%) available to watch on TV

UK with proposed new set up - Potentially maximum of 385 frames of which there will be 385 (100%) available to watch on TV

Talk about Turkeys voting for Xmas, look at the argument from this perspective then dont yous all realise that were actually going to gain.

Less is more.............

why does everything have to be about TV lets throw some frames on Television X..

for years Football was limited to watching Match of The Day on TV with one Live Match every fortnight if you was Lucky.

yes id like it all shown but if that means prostitute yourself for TV i say buck OFF

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..........

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?

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 buck has that to do with anything ??????????

you really havent got a bucking clue have you PDC has infact increased matches not reduced them

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 buck has that to do with anything ??????????

you really havent got a bucking clue have you PDC has infact increased matches not reduced them

SnookerFan wrote:

Witz78 wrote:
earlier on i think you made some sort of comment to Monique about not wanting to come across as a snooker snob or for elitism to come through on this forum to alienate the "casual" fans but this post here comes across as snooker snobbery in that best of 11s arent good enough for you.

if thats the case why dont you just head over later in the week for the longer format rounds?

Maguire - Doherty wasnt the most attractive R1 game not to be shown, infact it would have been quite low down my list given Dohertys decline in form and no real hope against top 16 players these days, plus the fact Maguires past his peak too now and not really a big draw.

Games like Fu-Hawkins, Cope-Trump, Selby-Walden, Gould-Dott and even Day-King which all werent shown, were far more appealing IMO.

on one hand your a snooker addict / freak, then on the other hand you find lots of games between the top players boring

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

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.