Post a reply

Why I don't 'get' The Masters

Postby Pink Ball

I know snooker posters are under the impression I dislike The Masters - but I don't. I live for snooker, and if two club players with high breaks of over 30 were locked in a rubbish safety exchange, I'd find it entertaining.

I don't blame anyone for getting the impression I hate this tournament. I constantly moan about how everyone else seems to adore it, so it's my fault and my fault only.

I like The Masters, because I like snooker. But if there's one thing I dislike, it's unjustified hype. And I think there's a lot of unjustified hype about The Masters. Allow me to explain.

"Only the best of the best play at The Masters":
bull. I remember tuning in to watch a game at this supposedly elite competition a few years ago, and what I got was a Sunday night exhibition in falling over the line from Mark King against an almost geriatric Jimmy White.

And throughout the history of this competition you'll find pairings like that all over the place. I actually LOVE the idea of holding a top class invitational for only the very best. But if you're inviting sixteen (SIXTEEN!) players, you're not just inviting the elite. For years, the lineup at the 12-man Irish Masters was actually more elite than The Masters.

I think qualifying a Masters invite should be a great achievement in itself. I've always said only eight - or at the very most 10 - players should be invited. Give an invite to three of the major champions, the top three ranked players otherwise, and two wildcards.

Imagine if that system was in operation this year? You'd have the following line-up:

Ronnie O'Sullivan (1) v Neil Robertson (Wildcard Two)
John Higgins (4) v Judd Trump (5)
Stuart Bingham (3) v Ding Junhui (6)
Mark Selby (2) v Shaun Murphy (Wildcard One)

Now THAT's elite.

I actually think The Masters is currently more elite than its ever been. They've done away with silly wildcards for non-top 16 players, and now a 16-man tournament does stand out as more elite against a backdrop of 128-man tournaments. Prior to that change, the Masters was like a condensed ranking event.

Short matches
If the UK Championship hasn't been the same tournament since it became best-of-11s (and it hasn't), why is The Masters so great in people's eyes? Why did people think this tournament was better than the UK even when it had a much shorter format than the UK? What exactly am I missing that everyone else sees?

I grew up at a time when many finals were best of 35, best of 31, best of 25, and best of 23... but The Masters' final was only best of 17 at that time. And the earlier stages had a lot of best of 9 matches, which made it no longer than a ranking event - The Masters did not stand out.

Imagine those matches I've mentioned above being best-of-17s from the get-go? Mouthwatering. Or even if the semi-finals onwards were multi-session matches?

Again, I'll admit The Masters is better than its ever been in this regard. There are no best of 9s anymore and I've no problem with a best of 19 final nowadays. And I know the Masters format will never be extended.

---

The Venue:
I've been to the Wembley Conference Centre, The Crucible, The Barbican, Goffs, and The Guild Hall - Wembley was definitely the least special of these venues, and Wembley Arena was supposedly much worse than the centre.

I understand Alexandra Palace isn't a bad venue, but I don't hear anyone comparing it to The Guild Hall, The Barbican, and definitely not The Crucible. Again, the venue has not made the Masters seem special - to me at least..

In conclusion: I love the idea of having a lucrative, grandiose invitational for only the very best. I just don't think The Masters delivers any of those things other than being lucrative.

Re: Why I don't 'get' The Masters

Postby PLtheRef

Pink Ball wrote:I know snooker posters are under the impression I dislike The Masters - but I don't. I live for snooker, and if two club players with high breaks of over 30 were locked in a rubbish safety exchange, I'd find it entertaining.

I don't blame anyone for getting the impression I hate this tournament. I constantly moan about how everyone else seems to adore it, so it's my fault and my fault only.

I like The Masters, because I like snooker. But if there's one thing I dislike, it's unjustified hype. And I think there's a lot of unjustified hype about The Masters. Allow me to explain.

"Only the best of the best play at The Masters":
bull. I remember tuning in to watch a game at this supposedly elite competition a few years ago, and what I got was a Sunday night exhibition in falling over the line from Mark King against an almost geriatric Jimmy White.

And throughout the history of this competition you'll find pairings like that all over the place. I actually LOVE the idea of holding a top class invitational for only the very best. But if you're inviting sixteen (SIXTEEN!) players, you're not just inviting the elite. For years, the lineup at the 12-man Irish Masters was actually more elite than The Masters.

I think qualifying a Masters invite should be a great achievement in itself. I've always said only eight - or at the very most 10 - players should be invited. Give an invite to three of the major champions, the top three ranked players otherwise, and two wildcards.

Imagine if that system was in operation this year? You'd have the following line-up:

Ronnie O'Sullivan (1) v Neil Robertson (Wildcard Two)
John Higgins (4) v Judd Trump (5)
Stuart Bingham (3) v Ding Junhui (6)
Mark Selby (2) v Shaun Murphy (Wildcard One)

Now THAT's elite.

I actually think The Masters is currently more elite than its ever been. They've done away with silly wildcards for non-top 16 players, and now a 16-man tournament does stand out as more elite against a backdrop of 128-man tournaments. Prior to that change, the Masters was like a condensed ranking event.

Short matches
If the UK Championship hasn't been the same tournament since it became best-of-11s (and it hasn't), why is The Masters so great in people's eyes? Why did people think this tournament was better than the UK even when it had a much shorter format than the UK? What exactly am I missing that everyone else sees?

I grew up at a time when many finals were best of 35, best of 31, best of 25, and best of 23... but The Masters' final was only best of 17 at that time. And the earlier stages had a lot of best of 9 matches, which made it no longer than a ranking event - The Masters did not stand out.

Imagine those matches I've mentioned above being best-of-17s from the get-go? Mouthwatering. Or even if the semi-finals onwards were multi-session matches?

Again, I'll admit The Masters is better than its ever been in this regard. There are no best of 9s anymore and I've no problem with a best of 19 final nowadays. And I know the Masters format will never be extended.

---

The Venue:
I've been to the Wembley Conference Centre, The Crucible, The Barbican, Goffs, and The Guild Hall - Wembley was definitely the least special of these venues, and Wembley Arena was supposedly much worse than the centre.

I understand Alexandra Palace isn't a bad venue, but I don't hear anyone comparing it to The Guild Hall, The Barbican, and definitely not The Crucible. Again, the venue has not made the Masters seem special - to me at least..

In conclusion: I love the idea of having a lucrative, grandiose invitational for only the very best. I just don't think The Masters delivers any of those things other than being lucrative.


Looking at that reasoning (with the King V White example aside) your reasons why you're not keen on the Masters makes quite a bit of sense.

Picking a poor standard match as a reason why not all the best players don't play at the Masters doesn't make sense - the World Championship and UK Championship both have had poor standard matches in the past and no doubt will do so again at some point. It doesn't take away from the events that they are the biggest two events away from the Masters tournament.

I agree that the event isn't really a true invitational event because participation is defined by one set criteria. Though it would be good to see the event possibly become more invitational like similar to how the Irish event ran before it became a ranking tournament but on the other side of the coin. Issuing invites leads to players being selected on the basis of drawing the crowds. In all likelihood, White would probably get another wildcard. Remembering they were only brought in because Alex Higgins dropped out of the 16.

The distance isn't as long as other events (or at least it wasn't) but it's not and never been the selling point of an event which has built a reputation on having high prize money and the games highest ranked players.

Re: Why I don't 'get' The Masters

Postby mick745

You cannot deny that the Masers has had some cracking finals in the past that rank with some of the best professional matches ever. Taylor's comeback against Higgins, Hendry v Hallett, McManus v Hendry, Williams v Hendry, J Higgins v O'S in 2005, Selby v O'S, Hunter's 3 finals, especially his comeback against O'S and Davis winning his last major event in 1997.

That is not including classic matches from other rounds, including the 1984 SF White v Kirk Stevens among them.

Is there a case for the Masters to be made a ranking event? Before people start saying but 'it is not open to everybody' there is no set criteria for what should or shouldn't be a ranking event, it is not defined anywhere it is up to the governing body - the World Grand Prix and Players Tour Championship are not open events either and are ranking - the Shoot Out is now a ranking event also.

Re: Why I don't 'get' The Masters

Postby snookerguy

You don't get into the top 16 by being a rubbish player, you get in by being a consistently high-performing player. For me the one-table set up is one of the biggest selling points. It's a reason for people to chase the top 16 in the first half of the season (and thus up their game in other competitions). For me the ranking of Top 5 tournaments currently goes Worlds, Masters, CoC, UK Championship, International Championship.