No mid-sessions at the European Masters

No mid-sessions in the best of nines at the European Masters?

Yay or nay?

Dan-cat wrote:Can't get my head around this, don't they want to sell drinks at the venue? Must be a timing thing

That's what gets me. Also, it provides an opportunity for punters to go to the lavatory when there isn't any play.

Maybe they think they'll sell more drinks with no MSI. Instead of people waiting for the designated break, they are more likely to nip out between frames. Maybe go more often.

I wouldn't personally, because I like to sit in the arena for the whole match. But I can't really see any other advantage.

Saying that. I didn't mind it as a televisual thing yesterday. The match just continued instead of having a 15 minute break in between. But that's when watching it at home.

I have no opinion. Makes no difference to me.

It would make more sense to me if intervals were determined by no minutes of playing time rather than no of frames.

HappyCamper wrote:It would make more sense to me if intervals were determined by no minutes of playing time rather than no of frames.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Firstly, how could they define the mid-point of the match in minutes if they don't know how long the match is going to last?

Secondly, if the mid-session of the match is in minutes, that means most of the times they'd be take the break in the middle of a frame.

I'm hoping you're just trolling.

SnookerFan wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:It would make more sense to me if intervals were determined by no minutes of playing time rather than no of frames.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Firstly, how could they define the mid-point of the match in minutes if they don't know how long the match is going to last?

Secondly, if the mid-session of the match is in minutes, that means most of the times they'd be take the break in the middle of a frame.

I'm hoping you're just trolling.

Don't be silly.

Can't say the x number of frames is the midpoint of the match either, as frame lengths vary too much.

Obviously the current frame would be finished once the time limit is breached. The next frame would start after the interval.

SnookerFan wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:It would make more sense to me if intervals were determined by no minutes of playing time rather than no of frames.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Firstly, how could they define the mid-point of the match in minutes if they don't know how long the match is going to last?

Secondly, if the mid-session of the match is in minutes, that means most of the times they'd be take the break in the middle of a frame.

I'm hoping you're just trolling.

The suggestion makes perfect sense to me?

In the current format you could have 4 frames over in 1 hour and play the other 5 over 3 hours without an interval.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to have the interval after 2 hours? (Well after the frame’d finished obviously).

There’s at least an argument to be made for it.

HappyCamper wrote:Don't be silly.

Can't say the x number of frames is the midpoint of the match either, as frame lengths vary too much.

Obviously the current frame would be finished once the time limit is breached. The next frame would start after the interval.

So, how would we decide in a mid-session time then? I mean, in the case of Ronnie at The Masters one year, when he won in about an hour a match could be over conceivably before the mid-session interval.

There's also a case to made for having no intervals whatsoever in the Crucible final.

Cloud Strife wrote:There's also a case to made for having no intervals whatsoever in the Crucible final.

I agree.

Even the overnight break is too much. They need to find a way to fit 35 frames into one day.

Then the fact that they've moved the Bank Holiday this year wouldn't be an issue.

SnookerFan wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:Don't be silly.

Can't say the x number of frames is the midpoint of the match either, as frame lengths vary too much.

Obviously the current frame would be finished once the time limit is breached. The next frame would start after the interval.

So, how would we decide in a mid-session time then? I mean, in the case of Ronnie at The Masters one year, when he won in about an hour a match could be over conceivably before the mid-session interval.

Just whatever length of time makes sense to have a break. Two hours seems fine. If they rattle all the frames off quicker than that then no need for an interval, so don't have one.

So you have consistent scheduling. Up to two hours snooker. Twenty minutes break. Up to two hours snooker. Another break if needed, or pull players off if table needed. Up to two hours snooker. Etc.

How many mid sessions are there in tennis? Snooker should copy that.

HappyCamper wrote:So, how would we decide in a mid-session time then? I mean, in the case of Ronnie at The Masters one year, when he won in about an hour a match could be over conceivably before the mid-session interval.

Just whatever length of time makes sense to have a break. Two hours seems fine. If they rattle all the frames off quicker than that then no need for an interval, so don't have one.

So you have consistent scheduling. Up to two hours snooker. Twenty minutes break. Up to two hours snooker. Another break if needed, or pull players off if table needed. Up to two hours snooker. Etc.

Seems pointless.

You're going to have to approximate in snooker either way, and having a break after four frames seems as good an approximation as any. Yes, in a best of eleven say, you could have anywhere between two frames and seven after the break. But there isn't anything about this that's problematic enough to change to a system where World Snooker* are effectively trying to guess how long matches are going to take in minutes.



* Or whatever they're called now.

Holden Chinaski wrote:How many mid sessions are there in tennis? Snooker should copy that.

rubbish. There's tennis on?

Why the hell are we discussing snooker?

HappyCamper wrote:Just whatever length of time makes sense to have a break. Two hours seems fine. If they rattle all the frames off quicker than that then no need for an interval, so don't have one.

So you have consistent scheduling. Up to two hours snooker. Twenty minutes break. Up to two hours snooker. Another break if needed, or pull players off if table needed. Up to two hours snooker. Etc.

So you're saying that if there's four hours of playing time, the match would have two mid-session intervals?

Nah, don't ever see that happening. That could be half an hour of breaks per match. That could be a pain for something like The Masters if a match is going long, and they have to fit the next one on at 7pm.

SnookerFan wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:So, how would we decide in a mid-session time then? I mean, in the case of Ronnie at The Masters one year, when he won in about an hour a match could be over conceivably before the mid-session interval.

Just whatever length of time makes sense to have a break. Two hours seems fine. If they rattle all the frames off quicker than that then no need for an interval, so don't have one.

So you have consistent scheduling. Up to two hours snooker. Twenty minutes break. Up to two hours snooker. Another break if needed, or pull players off if table needed. Up to two hours snooker. Etc.

Seems pointless.

You're going to have to approximate in snooker either way, and having a break after four frames seems as good an approximation as any. Yes, in a best of eleven say, you could have anywhere between two frames and seven after the break. But there isn't anything about this that's problematic enough to change to a system where World Snooker* are effectively trying to guess how long matches are going to take in minutes.



* Or whatever they're called now.

Who cares is the number of frames varies between time periods? That doesn't matter. Length of time is what matters for the reasons of having a break. I don't need a new coffee or pint because x frames have passed, I need one cause I've finished my last; I need to stretch my legs because I've been sitting still for y time; etc.

There is a time limit on many matches any way, as the table will often be required for the next session.

If a match goes on super long why not have a further break? Seems consistent with the logic of having a break in the first place.

The two hours I pulled out my bottom. Whatever the most sensible number could be determined for the actual logistics of the events if the system were ever used. Which it probably won't.

I don't ever see a way where they'll implement a plan that has the possibility of two mid-sessions intervals in one match.

When I was at the English Open for example, I watched the Mark Selby vs Mark Allen. It started at 1pm. I didn't miss a frame, but it finished at 6:30pm, half an hour before I was due back in for the 7pm match.

With your plan, it'd be 6:45pm before it was finished. Cutting it a bit fine for getting everyone out of the arena and back in again and all the other admin that goes with getting the table ready for the next match.

Your suggestion might have meant there was more of a break during play. But could prove costly for people who had all day tickets. Better a half hour break between matches to get a burger or a hot dog, several shorter ones that wouldn't necessarily give me the time.

Also, with your suggestion, the match would've only needed to be about ten minutes longer to delay the start. Which would've annoyed the people with evening only tickets, the TV companies etc.

I wouldn’t necessarily have an extra break after the second 2 hours, but having the interval after a period of time does make more sense than after a number of frames.

I think there should be ring girls like they have in boxing.

Fair enough, maybe having a second break would be a bit much.

Holden Chinaski wrote:I think there should be ring girls like they have in boxing.

In China they had some girls holding signs telling people not to use their phones, no flash photography etc during the breaks. But they were just in trousers and polo shirt, not hot pants or anything.

Iranu wrote:I wouldn’t necessarily have an extra break after the second 2 hours, but having the interval after a period of time does make more sense than after a number of frames.

In theory, but not sure it works in practice.

Say it's a best of 11, Ronnie could be 5-0 up in two hours then he comes back after the break and you have one frame left. Selby could be part way through the third frame in the same time. How is that really any different to now? You still have the risk that the pre-break and post-break sections of the match are uneven in length. You could still have a break after the two hours and come back and there's half an hour of play left or four hours left. So, in reality, it doesn't change anything.

Also, what if after 1 hour and 50 minutes of play, you start a frame and then it takes an hour to play? If you're not going to stop mid-frame, it would render the; "There's a break after two hours" thing fictitious and somewhat pointless.

It just seems too random a thing to implement. Having an amount of frames designated just makes it simpler.

SnookerFan wrote:

Iranu wrote:I wouldn’t necessarily have an extra break after the second 2 hours, but having the interval after a period of time does make more sense than after a number of frames.

In theory, but not sure it works in practice.

Say it's a best of 11, Ronnie could be 5-0 up in two hours then he comes back after the break and you have one frame left. Selby could be part way through the third frame in the same time. How is that really any different to now? You still have the risk that the pre-break and post-break sections of the match are uneven in length. You could still have a break after the two hours and come back and there's half an hour of play left or four hours left. So, in reality, it doesn't change anything.

Also, what if after 1 hour and 50 minutes of play, you start a frame and then it takes an hour to play? If you're not going to stop mid-frame, it would render the; "There's a break after two hours" thing fictitious and somewhat pointless.

It just seems too random a thing to implement. Having an amount of frames designated just makes it simpler.

You do make valid points. Perhaps there could be a grace period where if a frame finishes at say 1:45 or 1:50, that’s taken as the interval point. But I do agree that’s a bit messy.

I also think the interval should be after 5 or 6 frames in best of 11s. A 4/7 split seems a bit weird.

Iranu wrote:You do make valid points. Perhaps there could be a grace period where if a frame finishes at say 1:45 or 1:50, that’s taken as the interval point. But I do agree that’s a bit messy.

I also think the interval should be after 5 or 6 frames in best of 11s. A 4/7 split seems a bit weird.

You can't take a break after 6 if a person has won 6-0 though.

Wondering what are the average match times of best of nines and best of elevens actually are. And how much variance there is.