2013/14 - Is the flat structure upon us?

What you put up there shows that the last 128 will not be played at the venue but from the last 64 round all matches will be played at the Tempodrom on 8 tables.

Wild WC wrote:What you put up there shows that the last 128 will not be played at the venue but from the last 64 round all matches will be played at the Tempodrom on 8 tables.

You're right. I read it too quick. But it also shows that if they started on the Sunday afternoon, making it a week + 1/2 day they very well could play it all at the venue.

Monique wrote:

Wild WC wrote:What you put up there shows that the last 128 will not be played at the venue but from the last 64 round all matches will be played at the Tempodrom on 8 tables.

You're right. I read it too quick. But it also shows that if they started on the Sunday afternoon, making it a week + 1/2 day they very well could play it all at the venue.

Yea they could but they have to sort out cash for Last 128 losers first i guess, im just not sure if Barry Hearn will ever be prepared to do that.

this German Masters set up sounds farcial

its already got a PTC feel to it, but this just makes it seem ever more like it.

Id far rather see proper rankers played from Saturday to the following Sunday. That was the tournament lasts 9 days (bear in mind we no longer have 4 days of qualifiers) and covers 2 weekends so more chances for fans to attend and tv viewing too. Also more of a boost to start a tournament at a weekend than on a weekday as it builds momentum from the off, plus theres more of a normal tournament feel to it, instead of the rushed PTC feel a 5 day, 7 matches event will have.

What do you guys think the likelihood is that later in the season tournaments will struggle to get 128 players? If this does happen what is the procedure? Will players get a W/O? That could be a lot of W/O’s during the season.

Could do what they're doing now and fill empty spaces with amateurs high up on the Q-School order of merit.

Skullman wrote:Could do what they're doing now and fill empty spaces with amateurs high up on the Q-School order of merit.

that's exactly whats going to happen

Will expenses increase for players on this season? I think the difference is negligable versus a 25% increase in prize money.

Its just Mark Allen trying to make headlines again. Attention seeking.

Dannyboy wrote:Will expenses increase for players on this season? I think the difference is negligable versus a 25% increase in prize money.

Its just Mark Allen trying to make headlines again. Attention seeking.

They will increase significantly from this season as they only travelled to main ranking events (with the exception of one) at the last 32 stage when the prize money was at least a few thousand. Now they will have to go at the last 64 stage were the prize money for some of the events would be less than the price of the flights.
I think he was pointing out that some of the lower ranked players will drop off the tour because of coast half way through, it’s happened this season with less expense than what it to come and I am certain it will happen again.

The money for winning and doing well however is much greater.

Example, if you got to the last 16 of the Shanghai this year you got £1,500 - next year it will be the same but now you will have to travel to the venue.

International Championship - This year the last 16 was £1,500 - next year it's £3,000. So that's an increase of £1,500 but what is the cost of a trip to China?

Is Mark Allen the spokesman for everyone though. I take his comments as serious but why is no-one else making the same noises. He is always trying to make some sort of press. Is he being pushed into this role ??? I think I read that he had made 278K in 2 seasons and still said that he wanted more for being number 6 in the world. Simple answer is win more events if you want more. The other thing is to realise that snooker is still well paid in comparison to most jobs out there (despite the travel costs involved).

Smart wrote:Is Mark Allen the spokesman for everyone though. I take his comments as serious but why is no-one else making the same noises. He is always trying to make some sort of press. Is he being pushed into this role ??? I think I read that he had made 278K in 2 seasons and still said that he wanted more for being number 6 in the world. Simple answer is win more events if you want more. The other thing is to realise that snooker is still well paid in comparison to most jobs out there (despite the travel costs involved).

Agreed, once he started talking about his own earnings then he lost some credibility IMO.

Why is it always him? I can imagine he is an easy target for the press, he probably feels he has this ‘spokesperson’ role to fill which of course hasn’t worked out great for him.

I would also imagine in the background he probably gets a pat on the back from certain players who feel he is championing their cause. I think he is easy led and he doesn’t speak for everyone and I’m sure whilst on one had some players want him to come out with these things – there are more who don’t.

Casey wrote:

Smart wrote:Is Mark Allen the spokesman for everyone though. I take his comments as serious but why is no-one else making the same noises. He is always trying to make some sort of press. Is he being pushed into this role ??? I think I read that he had made 278K in 2 seasons and still said that he wanted more for being number 6 in the world. Simple answer is win more events if you want more. The other thing is to realise that snooker is still well paid in comparison to most jobs out there (despite the travel costs involved).

Agreed, once he started talking about his own earnings then he lost some credibility IMO.

Why is it always him? I can imagine he is an easy target for the press, he probably feels he has this ‘spokesperson’ role to fill which of course hasn’t worked out great for him.

I would also imagine in the background he probably gets a pat on the back from certain players who feel he is championing their cause. I think he is easy led and he doesn’t speak for everyone and I’m sure whilst on one had some players want him to come out with these things – there are more who don’t.

I just wish a few others would have more of a say in the matter, cos it would have more merit if it was not seen as always one guy moaning - and a view held by many.

Fair play to him for having his say though.

Smart wrote:

Casey wrote:

Smart wrote:Is Mark Allen the spokesman for everyone though. I take his comments as serious but why is no-one else making the same noises. He is always trying to make some sort of press. Is he being pushed into this role ??? I think I read that he had made 278K in 2 seasons and still said that he wanted more for being number 6 in the world. Simple answer is win more events if you want more. The other thing is to realise that snooker is still well paid in comparison to most jobs out there (despite the travel costs involved).

Agreed, once he started talking about his own earnings then he lost some credibility IMO.

Why is it always him? I can imagine he is an easy target for the press, he probably feels he has this ‘spokesperson’ role to fill which of course hasn’t worked out great for him.

I would also imagine in the background he probably gets a pat on the back from certain players who feel he is championing their cause. I think he is easy led and he doesn’t speak for everyone and I’m sure whilst on one had some players want him to come out with these things – there are more who don’t.

I just wish a few others would have more of a say in the matter, cos it would have more merit if it was not seen as always one guy moaning - and a view held by many.

Fair play to him for having his say though.

Yeah definately agree, more players should say what they think about these issues so that yeah it isn't just 1 or 2 guys talking about it. Allen was right in most things he said there, but when he started he should earn more... game over my friend top players are indeed well paid and the prize money has massively increased since hearn took over. Back in 2010 the total amount of prize money was something around 3 million, now next season it's up to 8 million, and the players who actually should eran more by winning matches are those in the qualifiers, especially those in the earlier rounds who as we know often don't receive anything for winning 1 or 2 matches, which is unfair really.

One thing's for certain, since Hearn took over, we are witnessing a snooker revolution and most things he has done have been a blessing for the game, so for me long may he continue to take this sport truly into a worldwide sport.

Casey wrote:Example, if you got to the last 16 of the Shanghai this year you got £1,500 - next year it will be the same but now you will have to travel to the venue.

International Championship - This year the last 16 was £1,500 - next year it's £3,000. So that's an increase of £1,500 but what is the cost of a trip to China?

The qualifers for all events apart from the UK, Welsh and German will still take place in UK qualifying venues.

And the L16 of the Shanghai Masters takes home £7,500.

I'd say a flight to China costs on average £750 return, possibly more if you need to book the flights last minute. Plus average another £100 per day in expenses and hotels at a decent hotel possibly?

Dannyboy wrote:

Casey wrote:Example, if you got to the last 16 of the Shanghai this year you got £1,500 - next year it will be the same but now you will have to travel to the venue.

International Championship - This year the last 16 was £1,500 - next year it's £3,000. So that's an increase of £1,500 but what is the cost of a trip to China?

The qualifers for all events apart from the UK, Welsh and German will still take place in UK qualifying venues.

And the L16 of the Shanghai Masters takes home £7,500.

I'd say a flight to China costs on average £750 return, possibly more if you need to book the flights last minute. Plus average another £100 per day in expenses and hotels at a decent hotel possibly?

ive done quite a bit of flying in the last year to Denmark and Back the cheapest one way ticket ive managed to get is about £205 so if its a £750 Return from China then that's dirt cheap.

British Airways (this price won't change until about a month before the event anyway, if at all), charge just under £800 return for a return flight to Shanghai Pudong in October (about the time of the Shanghai Masters). Air Passenger Duty has recently gone up (£371 of that is tax and fees).

I think some deal needs to be done with a Chinese carrier such as Air China, China Eastern etc to pay for the players.

Surely Allens plan of a six week 'asian' leg of the season is the way to go.

Lucky wrote:Surely Allens plan of a six week 'asian' leg of the season is the way to go.

It really would be a good solution, but what do you do with the rest of the year, the odd PTC here and there and that's about it.This season there was almost one Chinese event per month, so if all the asian events are played in 2 months, the rest of the season would feel a bit dull, with only one PTC or something.They should introduce some big ranking events in Germany,Belgium, Poland or add some new tournaments in the UK.I think ITV would be interested, considering their coverage of this years WO.Also Sky could be interested, especially because they dropped the Premier League.

snookerfan97 wrote:

Lucky wrote:Surely Allens plan of a six week 'asian' leg of the season is the way to go.

It really would be a good solution, but what do you do with the rest of the year, the odd PTC here and there and that's about it.This season there was almost one Chinese event per month, so if all the asian events are played in 2 months, the rest of the season would feel a bit dull, with only one PTC or something.They should introduce some big ranking events in Germany,Belgium, Poland or add some new tournaments in the UK.I think ITV would be interested, considering their coverage of this years WO.Also Sky could be interested, especially because they dropped the Premier League.

dont you just love the fact Sky Dropped a tournament they screwed about with.

Wild WC wrote:

snookerfan97 wrote:

Lucky wrote:Surely Allens plan of a six week 'asian' leg of the season is the way to go.

It really would be a good solution, but what do you do with the rest of the year, the odd PTC here and there and that's about it.This season there was almost one Chinese event per month, so if all the asian events are played in 2 months, the rest of the season would feel a bit dull, with only one PTC or something.They should introduce some big ranking events in Germany,Belgium, Poland or add some new tournaments in the UK.I think ITV would be interested, considering their coverage of this years WO.Also Sky could be interested, especially because they dropped the Premier League.

dont you just love the fact Sky Dropped a tournament they cute little kittened about with.

Doubt Sky would be interested in a ranking tournament unless somehow it had a shot clock, other than that can't see it personally. ITV's coverage of this season's WO was allright, they kept it simple by showing the matches and then the studio analysis by expert Foulds, and maybe that's a good thing to keep things simple, more old school type if you want, rather than showing feature after feature like BBC does. Mind you, I do like some of the BBC features, especially when they show features of past macthes and great champions and tourneys.And like I said, don't think Sky would show any interest in it, a thing they haven't done since the British Open ended I reckon. That was one tourney I loved to watch cause it had it's own identity in it's last year's with for instance players wearing blue and red shirts and the venue where the table is situated being also divided in red and blue. And I agree that Belgium or Poland should have a big ranker by now, like in Germany where the crowds are very enthusiastic and you can clearly see how much they love snooker.

Andre147 wrote: And I agree that Belgium or Poland should have a big ranker by now, like in Germany where the crowds are very enthusiastic and you can clearly see how much they love snooker.

The crowds would surely be there, in big numbers, not like in the chinese events.But the question is, is it really so hard to find a sponsor, who is willing to put big money in it, like in China ? The German Masters is great, but it had a bit of a PTC feeling this season, what about next year, when the event will be played with 7 tables in the main venue !!! Not to mention that the prize money isn't big enough.

Problem is not the enthusiastic crowds in Europe but Sponsors not forthcoming with big bucks.

The German Masters had Betfair as a sponsor who at the moment sponsors just about everything that's not played in China.

In an ideal world, you'd want a range of partners to fall back on, but money talks - Betfair obviously put up the most dosh. There are no guarantees of anything in business. Loyalty doesn't exist.

Monique wrote:

Casey wrote:The flat draw is good but I would prefer the top 16 seeded through to the last 32 for the UK and Worlds.

Players of that ranking deserve their place and should be seeded through imo. It's important that the best players are seeded through to the final stages on TV. I know some will say matches can be held over, but how can that be done at the UK with the current number of days broadcasting? Without changing the format to best of 7's or 5's.

Probably the early rounds will not been broadcasted, just some matches streamed. Where's the problem? It's what we have today.
I, for one, hope that the World will get a flat structure ASAP. Players whatever their ranking don't "deserve" to be there unless they earn it by winning their matches. For years there has been protection that has brought out of form players automatically in the draw.
My guess is that Australia still "needs" the tiered structure for sponsoring reasons. I would prefer this event to disappear altogether. One top player doesn't make snooker big in Australia and it isn't. Lots of top players have made it clear they are not bothered. It's a long tiring trip for poor money. Get rid of it and invest the money elsewhere.
I'm not sure about Shanghai but it might be time constraints or venue constraints that should be solved in the future.

just saw this ignorant comment

DISGRACE

barry has great respect for aussie open so thankfully hes in charge

I think the format of the top 16 being seeded through to the Last 32 of Worlds should stay especially if we end up having a ranking list based on 1 year.

Alex0paul wrote:I think the format of the top 16 being seeded through to the Last 32 of Worlds should stay especially if we end up having a ranking list based on 1 year.

Good point and i agree lower ranked players will have all the other event priors to worlds to climb rankings to get in top 16.

Then by the final cut off point before worlds best 16 players are there

Witz78 wrote:about time

the PTC has proven that the cream will still rise to the top if they want to, but it offers a far more level playing field for all the guys down the bottom of the rankings who dont beat each other up before having a chance to face off against the mid ranked journeymen.

LET THE REVOLUTION FULLY START NOW !!!

I was sceptical mate but i now think its great for snooker

Alex0paul wrote:I think the format of the top 16 being seeded through to the Last 32 of Worlds should stay especially if we end up having a ranking list based on 1 year.

yeh although being a big campaigner for the flat 128 set up for years, meantime at least, i think the current set up for the Worlds should stay.

Also the incentive to be inside the top 16 for sake of automatic entry to the Worlds would be incentive alone for bigger names to still enter a decent amount of tournies to be sure of a decent ranking as opposed to not giving a toss where thered ranked if there gonna be in round 1 anyway whatever.

The only flaw i can see is that then if your in the top 16 and are automatically seeded further into an event than others then under a money ranking list, doesnt this just boost you without you even having to do anything as youll be adding a wad of cash from reaching the last 32 in Sheffield to your total. That would have to be addressed as its effectively the same scenario as players at the Masters getting that money added to their money earnings total. A bonus top up in effect.

Witz78 wrote:

Alex0paul wrote:I think the format of the top 16 being seeded through to the Last 32 of Worlds should stay especially if we end up having a ranking list based on 1 year.

yeh although being a big campaigner for the flat 128 set up for years, meantime at least, i think the current set up for the Worlds should stay.

Also the incentive to be inside the top 16 for sake of automatic entry to the Worlds would be incentive alone for bigger names to still enter a decent amount of tournies to be sure of a decent ranking as opposed to not giving a toss where thered ranked if there gonna be in round 1 anyway whatever.

The only flaw i can see is that then if your in the top 16 and are automatically seeded further into an event than others then under a money ranking list, doesnt this just boost you without you even having to do anything as youll be adding a wad of cash from reaching the last 32 in Sheffield to your total. That would have to be addressed as its effectively the same scenario as players at the Masters getting that money added to their money earnings total. A bonus top up in effect.

The way to solve this in my view would be simply not to count any money in the rankings unless someone actually did win a match ( like the LG Order of Merit was, you got nothing in your tally unless you won one match, no matter how many points the match was worth (in addition on a 128 member tour)

Awarding half money for seeded losers doesn't really solves anything in tournaments retaining the Blocks of 64 and 32 to find essentially 16 finalists to join the top 16, as that means those tournaments are going to be run the same as they are now, with essentially a few noughts on the end of the ranking tariffs - and as such, even a seed losing in the Last 32 would get more than someone losing in the Last 96