Cloud Strife wrote:SteveJJ wrote:Iranu wrote:Hearn's a great talker. He's an bottom but a great talker.
But I wish when he did these interviews pundits would actually question what he says rather than just lapping at his toes.
He says he wants a tour that benefits the young players and allows for fairytale media stories as those youngsters achieve their dreams. Great, I think we all agree on that. But when half of last season's tournaments were won by over-40s I think it's clear that's not what's happening. If he wants a varied tour as he says, surely having more tiered events fits into that?
We know Hendry disagrees with the flat 128 so the fact he didn't question it is quite annoying considering how outspoken he generally is.
Hearn's also a master at dodging issues with his slick non-response to the venue "controversy".
Are tiered events more of a guarantee of success for younger players than the flat draws or would the cream rise to the top anyway?
Are there the players around now of the calibre of the class of 92 that are being stymied by the flat draws or is the quality not there in depth?
I'd only make the change back to tiers if there was evidence over a period that flat draws were demonstrably unfair on a large portion of the pros on tour. Not sure we are at that point.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Make it an even mix of both. Job done.
Point accepted that there could be a mix between the two but I'm not sure either way would have the result Iranu hoped for of an increased number of young(er) players breaking through - and when I say break through, I mean genuine top 8 class players. It may very well give more people the opportunity the chance to become mid ranking (32-64) than now but I don't see an increase in tiered events leading to players jumping to the top of the tree faster than now.
Looking at the (mostly) flat tiered era, in terms of younger players, I suppose the only runaway success would be Kyren Wilson. With arguments that could be made for Brecel, Bingtao, Yuelong, Saengkham and Lisowski to a lesser extent giving them the opportunity to fairly quickly climb up the rankings. If there were more tiered events than there are now, are people saying there would be more of these successes (or qualified successes) or some of the above would have risen faster/higher than they have done?
I get the point about lower ranked players facing top 5 players in the last 128 and getting tonked on a regular basis. You could say that that doesn't help their progress or you could say on the other hand that its a tough education and those that battle through it and start picking up results may be in better positions to climb higher/faster due to that experience.
Casting my mind back to the time in the 90's where mostly everything was tiered, I remember the likes of Hamilton regularly winning a few games and looking great and then coming up against a top player in the last 16/quarter final and regularly getting beaten. Despite the confidence of regular wins in earlier rounds it didn't regularly lead him to be able to compete against the best. It wasn't until the tour went mainly flat that the likes of him and King have won tournaments.
Sorry for rambling - my last point would be that even if there was a failsafe way to promote younger players progress, should we? Surely its all about the quality of the play whether that comes from a 20 year old or a 45 year old?
by SnookerFan » 08 Nov 2018 Read
