About wildcard rounds...

The Haikou World Open once again fired some discussions about the wildcard rounds, a lot of bloggers/fans being of the opinion that they are unfair and unnecessary. As we are in a "calm" week snooker wise, let's go for a bit of controversial discussion.
First I would like to understand exactly how they are unfair. The qualifiers who compete in them lose no money or ranking points should they lose. they get exactly the same amount of both as they would get should they lose to the seed, and if they can't beat an amateur, I don't expect them to beat the seeds. In fact as sponsoring money is paid by the match, they have the opportunity to win some more should they win their wilcard match.
Next, the argument that this round is unnecessary in China is often supported by "the game is big enough there", it doesn't need the promotion. Well, sorry, but the game does need all the promotion it can get. If it had been better promoted to sponsors, broadcasters and venues manager when it was at his peak in UK we may never have known as big a slump as it went through in the first decade of the 2000. Opportunities must be seized when they are available. I thought that seeing the young Lu Haotian (14), Zhou Yuelong (14) and Lu Ning (18) giving a very good account of themselves against seasoned pros was the best possible add to encourage kids to take on the game. Probably players like Jin Long - 30 and a former pro - shouldn't be there (*) but the young lads were great to watch.
Actually I think that the wildcard rounds in countries where there aren't players able to compete decently with the pros are worse than this one. It's not nice to see the local lads getting a complete hiding. Local players and local support are important even in UK and Ireland btw. When in Killarney earlier this season, the best attended day was the amateur round with friends and families flocking to watch "their" player and the only well really attended matches were those involving David Hogan or Ken Doherty. And why do you think qualifs match involving Welsh players are taken to the venue in the Welsh Open? (**) It's human nature and why not take it into account?


(*) Nothing at all against Jin Long. He tried his hardest and, having been invited, did a great job of it.
(**) now that might be seen as unfair as well by the other qualifiers. Again sponsoring money will be much higher for a match on telly at the venue, than for a match in a cubicle in front of the ref and at most 4 people.

I think its morally wrong that them two 14 year old Chinese lads were playing in the wildcard round. Id far rather they were playing on a rope swing or swapping Panini stickers at their tender age......

Witz78 wrote:I think its morally wrong that them two 14 year old Chinese lads were playing in the wildcard round. Id far rather they were playing on a rope swing or swapping Panini stickers at their tender age......

I would be morally wrong to have them playing as pros, when it comes to Lu Haotian and Zhou Yueling, because they are far too young for the pressure it puts on them and because of the risk of them being exploited by surrounding adults. But this is rather exhibition stuff. No money at stake. Just the opportunity to show their skills. Jamie Jones played, and won, a frame against Ronnie when he was 14 and a PL leg was staged in Wales. It was good add for snooker and the local lads.

Should i get involved in this or should i not ? that is the million dollar question.

WHAT THE HELL.

wild cards Rounds in China in my opinion is pointless ....i don't think Chinese Wants it for starters they more interested to see star names playing from the off.

but my biggest problem with Chinese events is EVERY one looks identical.

8 wild cards
4 tables
2 sessions
Best of 9s,11s,19s

same event played in different areas.

if they want Wild Cards play them in one event don't over sell it....bit Boring and unimaginative.

I pretty much agree with everything you say Monique. I've defended the wildcard rounds many times in the past, but always found myself in a very small minority on this issue...

I don't think these rounds have much to do with the snooker fans in China, to be honest. When Tian Pengfei won the BTV Cup in 2010, I was looking forward to his wildcard match in Shanghai, expecting to see a decent atmosphere. Unfortunately not many people came to watch him, and he is as big a name as you can get in a wildcard round. So what chance do other players have? We've seen a couple of good runs from players here and there, Li Hang last season for example, and some very respectable performances from players like Yu Delu in quite a few events. But none of these players seemed to have established much of a following in China. So I think it's fair to say the fans do mostly want to see the top players, and the wildcard round isn't going to be much of a boost.

Much of a boost to fans that is... I think the wildcard round, at this point in time, is more about the local amateur players. Whatever amateur scene there is in Asia, it's pretty isolated. I'm sure the Chinese players would very rarely get the opportunity to play a professional snooker player, especially one that is not Chinese. With the PTC series held exclusively in Europe, it's much easier for amateurs here, not just to improve their game, but also to get a reference of how good they are, and whether a snooker career is something they should pursue. It's a pretty easy travel to one of these events from most of Europe now. On the other hand, you can't realistically make a trip from China. And holding a PTC in China wouldn't help much either, because then the players outside of Asia wouldn't make the trip...

So for a couple of the most successful amateur players, this one wildcard match is the reward. And it's not always the same eight players. I thought the World Open lineup looked like a pretty weak one, with not many players who have appeared before, but they still held their own. I think it was a nice idea to invite the top4 players in the youth rankings as well. Lu Ning tops the youth rankings, and he played very well to beat Nigel Bond and push Selby quite close. And he is only 41st in the overall rankings. So perhaps there is more strength in depth than it seems. That's another reason the the wildcard rounds are important, if nothing else... ok, a couple of events a year don't provide much of a pattern, but it's still a reference of how strong the scene is at any particular point. With the main qualifying channels for the Main Tour favouring the British and European players, it's important to know whether some additional doors should be opened in Asia, or not.

I think all of this is not that important for Germany at this point, because there are more opportunities as it is, and there seems to be less interest among young players to pursue snooker. I don't mind it, to be honest. I've always enjoyed watching these matches in China anyway, and they're not even televised in Germany. I suppose a long-term solution would be to hold the qualifiers for the Chinese events in China, with a massive pre-round involving as many amateurs as possible, and no wildcards entering the event in the later stages. But we all know that's not happening any time soon, because it's just too inconvenient. The resources are not there, and the Main Tour is too "British" to justify it. So at the moment, it has to be the wildcard rounds. At the end of the day, it could decide whether a promising young player has a professional career or not.

Here's how I see the wild-card round:

(i) Is it unfair to expect a qualifier (in some cases, one who has fought through 3 rounds) to play an extra match against a tough opponent, for no extra reward, cash or ranking points? On the surface, yes!
(ii) Should the Chinese be able to continue nominating wild-cards to play in, what are essentially "their" events? Yes, I think they should!

I think maybe it's the way they're shoe-horned into the draw that makes the whole round look out of balance with the rest of the event. Perhaps if the wild-cards were placed straight into the last 32, the imbalance would be alleviated, plus the qualifiers would actually be playing a match with meaning.

I know what you'll all say, you can't put 8 players straight into the last 32, cos that would leave room for only 8 qualifiers; but wait....why not, as a compromise, reduce the wild-card allocation to 4, with the understanding they'd be straight into the last 32? Furthermore, I'd invite the top 4 ranked Chinese players first (i.e Wenbo, Guodong, Chuang, Song) to fill the places, and maybe this WOULD create a bit of home interest.

Obviously, the 4 players above are all outside the top 32, so they'd be cheating the qualifying system if this were implemented. However, it could be agreed that should the wild-card lose in the last 32, they would get minimum prize money (£0) and minimum ranking points (280) BUT, be on normal cash and points should they advance (they'd have to beat a top 16 player after all!).

Should the wild-card turn down the invite, then the 5th ranked player (Delu) could be invited, and so on.

I know this seems a bit unfair on the players ranked 29-32 (who would then face an extra qualifier), but....TOUGH! It's already hugely, and laughably unfair that the Chinese have to travel 10,000 miles to qualify for their own event!

Anyway, it could be tweaked further, and have the worlds top 14, plus 14 qualifiers, and the 4 wild-cards making up the field (lets face it, only 14 of the top 16 turned up to Haikou, AND to Bendigo). That way, 14 qualifying places instead of 12 would be available.

As for giving the Chinese events some identity, all it needs is for one of them to raise its quarters and semis to best of 15......there'd be an extra day without the current wild-card round system. That's really all it would take, plus it would add prestige.

On another note, the performances in the wild-card rounds in Haikou threw up a couple of points:

(i) there is obviously a huge depth of untapped talent in China; whether it's 14-year olds that the world no.1 needs all his concentration to beat, or ex-pros getting through a couple of rounds, can this talent be ignored? A lot of ignorant people referred to Jin Long as a "failed ex-pro".......the truth is, he's a player who would rather accept wild-cards to demonstrate his skill on TV than the awful alternative......travel 10,000 miles to play turgid qualifiers against the likes of McCulloch, Harold & O'Brien in a bloody cubicle. I know what I'd rather do.

(ii) there is an argument that the wild-cards "sharpen up" the qualifiers....just ask Michael Holt, who needed 3 tons to see off his wild-card in a decider, and then blitzed his top 16 opponent (can't remember who) 5-0! Plus, Perry, King and of course, Milkins all went deep into the draw after beating a wild-card, so perhaps they were aware of the need to hit the ground running?

Perhaps if the wild-cards were placed straight into the last 32, the imbalance would be alleviated, plus the qualifiers would actually be playing a match with meaning.

how are you going to place wild cards in to a last 32 draw that leaves only 24 pros in china and only 8 qualifiers from sheffield.

Read it again Wild, slowly. Perhaps get someone to help you.......

ok i jumped the gun but reason for that is quite simple sod all you say is worth listening or wasting time reading

I think everyone else had all the points I wanted to about the Chinese wildcards, so I won't talk about those.

However for places like Australia, Brazil (if there is ever another tournament there) and India (if it happens next year) it is important I think to give the local players an oppurtunity to play against the top players in match conditions and also to draw more people in. In China, I think the game has developed enough for the fans to know the top players and enjoy watching them play, but for other countries, I think you need some local players to draw some crowds in, and then wow them with the top players if they choose to stay.

My solution was to have exhibition matches against the top 8 seeds instead, which means that qualifiers go straight into the last 32, seeds gets a warm up match and the local players get better experience in playing a Trump or a Selby, instead of a McLeod or Harold. Of course it doesn't replicate the atmosphere of an actual ranking match, but I think the benefits outweigh the downsides.

Also Jim, I agree with the idea that using your system, players 29-32 will have to qualify extra. When Murphy won the Worlds, he was still out of the top16, but they still had him as no1 seed and no16 (can't remember who?) had to qualify. People have been shifted up and down before, why not now?

Skullman wrote:Also Jim, I agree with the idea that using your system, players 29-32 will have to qualify extra. When Murphy won the Worlds, he was still out of the top16, but they still had him as no1 seed and no16 (can't remember who?) had to qualify. People have been shifted up and down before, why not now?

McCulloch. Couldn't have happened to a nicer, more average journeyman.

JIMO96 wrote:

Skullman wrote:Also Jim, I agree with the idea that using your system, players 29-32 will have to qualify extra. When Murphy won the Worlds, he was still out of the top16, but they still had him as no1 seed and no16 (can't remember who?) had to qualify. People have been shifted up and down before, why not now?

McCulloch. Couldn't have happened to a nicer, more average journeyman.

He can't have been average if he was in the top16 at one point.

Wildcards were okay in China before their standard rose to what it is now. Now to play one is very possibly a penalty.

snooky147 wrote:Wildcards were okay in China before their standard rose to what it is now. Now to play one is very possibly a penalty.

They should be able to beat the wildcards though. It only gets harder from there, as the qualifiers have to play the seeds next.

Skullman wrote:

snooky147 wrote:Wildcards were okay in China before their standard rose to what it is now. Now to play one is very possibly a penalty.

They should be able to beat the wildcards though. It only gets harder from there, as the qualifiers have to play the seeds next.

they shouldnt have to play them though

its an uneccesary banana skin

theyve earned thir place in the last 32 and should get a crack at the big boys

the wildcards have nothing to lose plus the pressure is all on the qualifiers to win that game

Witz78 wrote:

Skullman wrote:

snooky147 wrote:Wildcards were okay in China before their standard rose to what it is now. Now to play one is very possibly a penalty.

They should be able to beat the wildcards though. It only gets harder from there, as the qualifiers have to play the seeds next.

they shouldnt have to play them though

its an uneccesary banana skin

theyve earned thir place in the last 32 and should get a crack at the big boys

the wildcards have nothing to lose plus the pressure is all on the qualifiers to win that game

Still I think that's worst reason you can give for not to having wildcards: the wildcards are too good.

Skullman wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Skullman wrote:

snooky147 wrote:Wildcards were okay in China before their standard rose to what it is now. Now to play one is very possibly a penalty.

They should be able to beat the wildcards though. It only gets harder from there, as the qualifiers have to play the seeds next.

they shouldnt have to play them though

its an uneccesary banana skin

theyve earned thir place in the last 32 and should get a crack at the big boys

the wildcards have nothing to lose plus the pressure is all on the qualifiers to win that game

Still I think that's worst reason you can give for not to having wildcards: the wildcards are too good.

Take a Sam Baird hes earned the right by qualifying to play a idol Ronnie for instance infront of a million TV Audience on a main arena table then hes drawn against Jin Long a pro player whos been on the Main Tour longer than baird with more experiance on TV Tables because of these Wild Cards he gets and Long beats Baird denying him a chance of playing a Idol.

in my book thats unfair.