128 Flat Draws

Jewell wrote:This is something that seems inevitable if, as expected, the rankings change over to a money based system. Most people seem to be to quite happy with this and are welcoming it with open arms. However, I'm yet to be convinced.

How exactly do World Snooker plan on having all 128 players at EVERY VENUE? It just doesn't seem very feasible both logistically and timewise unless they hold the opening few rounds at Sheffield or the SWSA, which is what I suspect they will be doing. Leading to the farcical situation whereby a lot of the top players could be out of the tournament before it has even started properly.

There'll probably still be seeded so they'll face lower ranked players. And if a 'top' player can't beat someone ranked 65-128 they really don't deserve to seeded through to the venue.

There will be some venues that can accommodate 128 players.....the Scottish Open in Aberdeen had 128 at the venue on at least one occasion. I think it'll be a case of qualifying at Sheffield down to 32, then these 32 players at the main venue.

If a top 16 player can't win 2 matches to reach the venue in such circumstances, yes it's farcical, but not in the way you mean. It means he should question his top 16 place, and it also means that the guy who beats him will have earned his place deservedly. I've no time for people who say a tournament is devalued when the top 16 aren't there.

Jewell wrote:I disagree. The top 16 have earnt their right to be at every tournament/venue. And whether you and I like it or not it DOES devalue the tournament, if the top players aren't there, in the eyes of the people who matter the most - sponsors, broadcasters etc.

YES that is the million pound question how do they react to the 128 flat draw idea ?

Wild WC wrote:

Jewell wrote:I disagree. The top 16 have earnt their right to be at every tournament/venue. And whether you and I like it or not it DOES devalue the tournament, if the top players aren't there, in the eyes of the people who matter the most - sponsors, broadcasters etc.

YES that is the million pound question how do they react to the 128 flat draw idea ?

Well the sponsors and broadcasters obviously don't like it, otherwise Hearn would have implemented the flat 128 draws already.

Jewell wrote:

Skullman wrote:

Jewell wrote:This is something that seems inevitable if, as expected, the rankings change over to a money based system. Most people seem to be to quite happy with this and are welcoming it with open arms. However, I'm yet to be convinced.

How exactly do World Snooker plan on having all 128 players at EVERY VENUE? It just doesn't seem very feasible both logistically and timewise unless they hold the opening few rounds at Sheffield or the SWSA, which is what I suspect they will be doing. Leading to the farcical situation whereby a lot of the top players could be out of the tournament before it has even started properly.

There'll probably still be seeded so they'll face lower ranked players. And if a 'top' player can't beat someone ranked 65-128 they really don't deserve to seeded through to the venue.

But isn't that what they've already done throughout their careers? To earn their spot in the elite to beginwith?

Nobody was born into top16/8. They worked their way up by beating the players in the 64-128 in the first place.

And they'll have to keep beating them to keep their place. If they worked to get there, they need to work to stay there.

Jewell wrote:This is something that seems inevitable if, as expected, the rankings change over to a money based system. Most people seem to be to quite happy with this and are welcoming it with open arms. However, I'm yet to be convinced.

How exactly do World Snooker plan on having all 128 players at EVERY VENUE? It just doesn't seem very feasible both logistically and timewise unless they hold the opening few rounds at Sheffield or the SWSA, which is what I suspect they will be doing. Leading to the farcical situation whereby a lot of the top players could be out of the tournament before it has even started properly.

For the bulk of tournaments, the 1st 2 rounds would be played before the venue so in effect would be qualifiers with the last 32 making it through to the venues.

Hows it farcial that some of the top players might not be in the last 32 of the tournament? If there TOP players they should be able to win 2 games against players ranked far lower than them to make it through to the venue.

Take last seasons PTCs as an example. A similar flat 128 set up BUT not even a proper full ranking event yet the winners from the 12 events included Ronnie (x2), Selby, Trump (x2) , Robertson (x2) and Maguire, so the top players will surely do the business if they want to.

But the deadwood among the top 32 will be exposed under a flat 128 system as they will lose their protection they currently have and will have to get on with it under a level playing field.

And by your thinking, does it mean the last 16 at the World Championships was devalued because only 8 of the top 16 were at it?

The days of the game being all about the "elite" is over and players will have to earn their position at the top, not be gifted it.

Rolling rankings, a flat 128 set up and an Order of Merit will all help to contribute to this.

Skullman wrote:

Jewell wrote:

Skullman wrote:

Jewell wrote:This is something that seems inevitable if, as expected, the rankings change over to a money based system. Most people seem to be to quite happy with this and are welcoming it with open arms. However, I'm yet to be convinced.

How exactly do World Snooker plan on having all 128 players at EVERY VENUE? It just doesn't seem very feasible both logistically and timewise unless they hold the opening few rounds at Sheffield or the SWSA, which is what I suspect they will be doing. Leading to the farcical situation whereby a lot of the top players could be out of the tournament before it has even started properly.

There'll probably still be seeded so they'll face lower ranked players. And if a 'top' player can't beat someone ranked 65-128 they really don't deserve to seeded through to the venue.

But isn't that what they've already done throughout their careers? To earn their spot in the elite to beginwith?

Nobody was born into top16/8. They worked their way up by beating the players in the 64-128 in the first place.

And they'll have to keep beating them to keep their place. If they worked to get there, they need to work to stay there.

yes, the old / current system is wrong so it has to be fully changed ASAP, hard lines to the guys who happen to be at the "top" at the moment, prove your worth and win some games.

Skullman wrote:

Wild WC wrote:

Jewell wrote:I disagree. The top 16 have earnt their right to be at every tournament/venue. And whether you and I like it or not it DOES devalue the tournament, if the top players aren't there, in the eyes of the people who matter the most - sponsors, broadcasters etc.

YES that is the million pound question how do they react to the 128 flat draw idea ?

Well the sponsors and broadcasters obviously don't like it, otherwise Hearn would have implemented the flat 128 draws already.

There will have to be a lot of talk and persuading to get it implemented and the fact 8 seeds lost to qualifiers at the world championship wouldnt have helped hearns caurse in persuading brodcasters that seeds will get through more often than not..

Wild WC wrote:

Skullman wrote:

Wild WC wrote:

Jewell wrote:I disagree. The top 16 have earnt their right to be at every tournament/venue. And whether you and I like it or not it DOES devalue the tournament, if the top players aren't there, in the eyes of the people who matter the most - sponsors, broadcasters etc.

YES that is the million pound question how do they react to the 128 flat draw idea ?

Well the sponsors and broadcasters obviously don't like it, otherwise Hearn would have implemented the flat 128 draws already.

There will have to be a lot of talk and persuading to get it implemented and the fact 8 seeds lost to qualifiers at the world championship wouldnt have helped hearns caurse in persuading brodcasters that seeds will get through more often than not..

NO

the fact 8 seeds out of 16 went out in round 1 at the Worlds WILL HELP Hearns argument as it makes it obvious that the so called "elite" arent as good as they think and arent worthy of automatic entry into events anymore.

Anyway with the game becoming more focused towards China, and with an ever growing list of Asians on the tour next season and going forward, China are likely to put pressure too for a more level playing field to boost the prospects of their young talents.

And the first steps towards this 128 set up will happen this coming season at the German Masters and A.N.Other event (cant remember !?!)

The PTC was a pre-curser towards this and can anyone hear honestly say theve not enjoyed the PTCs if a few top 16 players have crashed out in the first 2 rounds?

And look at PTC 12 where the first 3 rounds were played at Sheffield then the 16 players went over to Germany for the venue stages (due to some balls up over the stage floor). The almost unanimous opinion at the time was that it was a great set up and format.

I actually think the 128 flat draws are a good idea. The current tour apprentices aren't making any money even if they win matches (up until last season in the German Masters you had to reach the last 48 to get paid). At least with 128 coming in at the first round, the equation is much simpler, win your first round match you get paid. Lose and you get absolutely nothing. If the top 16 (who will probably play those ranked 65-128 in every event) can't win two matches then they don't deserve their places.

Witz78 wrote:

Wild WC wrote:

Skullman wrote:

Wild WC wrote:

Jewell wrote:I disagree. The top 16 have earnt their right to be at every tournament/venue. And whether you and I like it or not it DOES devalue the tournament, if the top players aren't there, in the eyes of the people who matter the most - sponsors, broadcasters etc.

YES that is the million pound question how do they react to the 128 flat draw idea ?

Well the sponsors and broadcasters obviously don't like it, otherwise Hearn would have implemented the flat 128 draws already.

There will have to be a lot of talk and persuading to get it implemented and the fact 8 seeds lost to qualifiers at the world championship wouldnt have helped hearns caurse in persuading brodcasters that seeds will get through more often than not..

NO

the fact 8 seeds out of 16 went out in round 1 at the Worlds WILL HELP Hearns argument as it makes it obvious that the so called "elite" arent as good as they think and arent worthy of automatic entry into events anymore.

Anyway with the game becoming more focused towards China, and with an ever growing list of Asians on the tour next season and going forward, China are likely to put pressure too for a more level playing field to boost the prospects of their young talents.

And the first steps towards this 128 set up will happen this coming season at the German Masters and A.N.Other event (cant remember !?!)

The PTC was a pre-curser towards this and can anyone hear honestly say theve not enjoyed the PTCs if a few top 16 players have crashed out in the first 2 rounds?

And look at PTC 12 where the first 3 rounds were played at Sheffield then the 16 players went over to Germany for the venue stages (due to some balls up over the stage floor). The almost unanimous opinion at the time was that it was a great set up and format.

I think the other event you're thinking of is the Welsh Open.

I think all snooker fans were delighted at the emergence of Jones & Cao at Sheffield. But if tiered seedings and the current points allocation system were to continue, then all the points gained by Cao in the Worlds will be supplemented by all the first/second round points he'll pick up next season (he won't reach the last 16 of everything, much as I hope he does); meanwhile, all the seeded players above him in the rankings will collect their minimum "guaranteed" points and make it harder to break through.

With a flat 128 system, there'll be NO guarantees, but there's no reason why the cream shouldn't still rise to the top. But also, the route will be more open than ever for new players to rise quickly, and that has to be a good thing.

Witz78 wrote:

Wild WC wrote:

Skullman wrote:

Wild WC wrote:

Jewell wrote:I disagree. The top 16 have earnt their right to be at every tournament/venue. And whether you and I like it or not it DOES devalue the tournament, if the top players aren't there, in the eyes of the people who matter the most - sponsors, broadcasters etc.

YES that is the million pound question how do they react to the 128 flat draw idea ?

Well the sponsors and broadcasters obviously don't like it, otherwise Hearn would have implemented the flat 128 draws already.

There will have to be a lot of talk and persuading to get it implemented and the fact 8 seeds lost to qualifiers at the world championship wouldnt have helped hearns caurse in persuading brodcasters that seeds will get through more often than not..

NO

the fact 8 seeds out of 16 went out in round 1 at the Worlds WILL HELP Hearns argument as it makes it obvious that the so called "elite" arent as good as they think and arent worthy of automatic entry into events anymore.

Anyway with the game becoming more focused towards China, and with an ever growing list of Asians on the tour next season and going forward, China are likely to put pressure too for a more level playing field to boost the prospects of their young talents.

And the first steps towards this 128 set up will happen this coming season at the German Masters and A.N.Other event (cant remember !?!)

The PTC was a pre-curser towards this and can anyone hear honestly say theve not enjoyed the PTCs if a few top 16 players have crashed out in the first 2 rounds?

And look at PTC 12 where the first 3 rounds were played at Sheffield then the 16 players went over to Germany for the venue stages (due to some balls up over the stage floor). The almost unanimous opinion at the time was that it was a great set up and format.

To brodcasters how good they are arent really important its how markatable they are they changed the masters format for one reason and one reason only Alex Higgins droped out of the top 16.

for me persanally i like to see new faces playing at latter stages it keeps it fresh and exciting but for Brodcasters they want 2 named players vs each other if possible new faces dont sell or thats the unfortunate way they look at it.

I don't know what can be done to convince broadcasters that, for example, Xiao Guodong v Jack Lisowski in the last 16 of the UK Championship, is an exciting match up......anyone on this forum would see it as such between 2 up and coming players, but the BBC wouldn't.

Yet they'll happily devote live network coverage to Czech Republic v Greece at this summers Euros, or to 2 <20 ranked tennis players at this summers Wimbledon.

If the entire top 16 went out in the first round of the Crucible every year, would they stop broadcasting it?

JIMO96 wrote:I don't know what can be done to convince broadcasters that, for example, Xiao Guodong v Jack Lisowski in the last 16 of the UK Championship, is an exciting match up......anyone on this forum would see it as such between 2 up and coming players, but the BBC wouldn't.

Yet they'll happily devote live network coverage to Czech Republic v Greece at this summers Euros, or to 2 <20 ranked tennis players at this summers Wimbledon.

If the entire top 16 went out in the first round of the Crucible every year, would they stop broadcasting it?

The problem is snooker just hasn't done enough in recent years to market itself to the casual fan. People who don't normally follow football will watch the World Cup and Euros, and the Wimbledon tennis probably outrates snooker. Ask the man on the street to name a footballer or a tennis player and they could rattle of a list of names. Ask them to name one snooker player and the majority will say only one name: Ronnie O'Sullivan. Says it all really.

Jewell wrote:Witz, you're missing the point I'm trying to make.
I couldn't have given a rubbish if the entire seeded line-up got knocked out at the first round of the World Championship leaving only qualifiers for the second round. Because at least they EARNT their shot at the top 16 players. And therein lies the point I am trying to make. I don't want to see some tennis rookie turning up in his first pro tournament and playing Federer in the first round. I don't want to see some amateur level chump boxer fighting Pacquiao/Mayweather in their very first pro fight. And in the same vein, I don't want to see somebody from the Q School turning up and playing Ronnie in his very first match on the circuit.

In any sport you have to work your way up gradually and EARN your shot at the top stars. With the 128 setup you'll have the entire tour slumming it together in the first round of every tournament in some cubicle somewhere. That surely can't be right.

The thing is, Hearn is trying to make the 128 the new "elite" and confine the days of only 16 "elite" players to history. Making it onto the tour is as good as serving your apprenticeship, and if you're ambitious enough, you'll relish playing O'Sullivan in round 1.

Jewell wrote:Witz, you're missing the point I'm trying to make.
I couldn't have given a rubbish if the entire seeded line-up got knocked out at the first round of the World Championship leaving only qualifiers for the second round. Because at least they EARNT their shot at the top 16 players. And therein lies the point I am trying to make. I don't want to see some tennis rookie turning up in his first pro tournament and playing Federer in the first round. I don't want to see some amateur level chump boxer fighting Pacquiao/Mayweather in their very first pro fight. And in the same vein, I don't want to see somebody from the Q School turning up and playing Ronnie in his very first match on the circuit.

In any sport you have to work your way up gradually and EARN your shot at the top stars. With the 128 setup you'll have the entire tour slumming it together in the first round of every tournament in some cubicle somewhere. That surely can't be right.

regarding the World Championship i think even if the rest of the tournament are 128 flat system cant for the life of me see the BBC Moving on the fact they want top players seeded at the crucible.

persanally id like veriaty of events some 128 flat others following different set ups like they done with welsh open lets mix it up but with prize money rankings to work all has to be flat 128 so i say throw out that rubbish idea and be imaginative.

Alpha wrote:

JIMO96 wrote:I don't know what can be done to convince broadcasters that, for example, Xiao Guodong v Jack Lisowski in the last 16 of the UK Championship, is an exciting match up......anyone on this forum would see it as such between 2 up and coming players, but the BBC wouldn't.

Yet they'll happily devote live network coverage to Czech Republic v Greece at this summers Euros, or to 2 <20 ranked tennis players at this summers Wimbledon.

If the entire top 16 went out in the first round of the Crucible every year, would they stop broadcasting it?

The problem is snooker just hasn't done enough in recent years to market itself to the casual fan. People who don't normally follow football will watch the World Cup and Euros, and the Wimbledon tennis probably outrates snooker. Ask the man on the street to name a footballer or a tennis player and they could rattle of a list of names. Ask them to name one snooker player and the majority will say only one name: Ronnie O'Sullivan. Says it all really.

the man on the street wont have a clue about footballers or tennis names unless they follow the sport and will proberbly name David Beckham and John Mcenroe.

Alpha wrote:

JIMO96 wrote:I don't know what can be done to convince broadcasters that, for example, Xiao Guodong v Jack Lisowski in the last 16 of the UK Championship, is an exciting match up......anyone on this forum would see it as such between 2 up and coming players, but the BBC wouldn't.

Yet they'll happily devote live network coverage to Czech Republic v Greece at this summers Euros, or to 2 <20 ranked tennis players at this summers Wimbledon.

If the entire top 16 went out in the first round of the Crucible every year, would they stop broadcasting it?

The problem is snooker just hasn't done enough in recent years to market itself to the casual fan. People who don't normally follow football will watch the World Cup and Euros, and the Wimbledon tennis probably outrates snooker. Ask the man on the street to name a footballer or a tennis player and they could rattle of a list of names. Ask them to name one snooker player and the majority will say only one name: Ronnie O'Sullivan. Says it all really.

That's exactly right Alpha, and the BBC are squarely to blame. The way they consider only their own tournaments as "the circuit" without so much as a mention for any overseas events; the way their knowlegde of the players begins and ends with the top 20; people constantly yearn for Davis and White to qualify because they don't know anyone else that plays in the qualifiers(!)

I think the BBC would be happy with the same 32 players at every single event for evermore, as long as 2 of them are Davis and White!

Alpha wrote:

JIMO96 wrote:I don't know what can be done to convince broadcasters that, for example, Xiao Guodong v Jack Lisowski in the last 16 of the UK Championship, is an exciting match up......anyone on this forum would see it as such between 2 up and coming players, but the BBC wouldn't.

Yet they'll happily devote live network coverage to Czech Republic v Greece at this summers Euros, or to 2 <20 ranked tennis players at this summers Wimbledon.

If the entire top 16 went out in the first round of the Crucible every year, would they stop broadcasting it?

The problem is snooker just hasn't done enough in recent years to market itself to the casual fan. People who don't normally follow football will watch the World Cup and Euros, and the Wimbledon tennis probably outrates snooker. Ask the man on the street to name a footballer or a tennis player and they could rattle of a list of names. Ask them to name one snooker player and the majority will say only one name: Ronnie O'Sullivan. Says it all really.

your defeating your own argument

If the public are continously subjected to the same old players at the events year after year then of course theyll never learn of the new players.

Your average man in the street must wonder why snookers so stale anyway with the same old elite players year in year out pretty much.

Take golf as a comparison, its a single player sport and also one that doesnt require any physical levels, so you can also play on at it for ages.

However year in, year out, new big names and stars emerge. Snooker should be aiming to be like this, instead of stuck in the dark ages with a shut shop mentality that some here, still seem unable to move away from.

I don't mind the 128 flat draw - however I think the top 16 players should make it through to the the last 32 of the World Championships automatically.

it will work very different from a sport like Tennis, whereby the top players play at the venue. This is were it will be tough for Hearn - if the likes of Ronnie, Higgins, Trump lose in the first two rounds before the venue the Sponsors will find it hard to take.

I like the concept of flat 128 draws, but I'm not convinced it should be done that way for everything ... and I have other worries too. Certainly don't like the idea of 1-64 playing 65 -128 all the time. Firstly, protects players ranked 33-64 overmuch, and secondly, whether players in the 65-128 rankings progress would be down to who they draw too much / too often. The current system at least allows players to be going up against players ranked close to them on a frequent basis.

So, ways round this? Have some tournaments where the top 16 are seeded, and some the top 32 seeded. And make sure non-seeded players don't get drawn against seeded players too often by having a rule that a non-seed can't be drawn against a seed for their first match in two successive tournaments - with only 16 or 32 to 'protect' in that way, not too difficult to organise that - just keep their names out of the 'hat' whilst whoever is going to play the seeds is drawn, then add them back in for the rest of the draw.