change from 17 vs 144 back to tiered qualifiers structure

was their reason for switching from 17 - 144 best of 19's over three rounds from 2015 - 2019 to tiered first three rounds best of 11's and best of 19's for the final qualifying fourth round in 2020 and this year because of time limitation concerns brought about by covid , or are they just sticking to this from now on ?

i preferred the 2015 - 19 best of 19's over three rounds to keep the world's less diluted , cheers .

I believe it is COVID related, though we'll have to see next year. Mr. Hearn doesn't seem to be a fan of longer matches.

They had planned to change to tiered but still best of 19s for last season.

The change to best of 11s was to do with the pandemic.

So should be back to all best of 19s next year but with the tiered structure.

The best-of-11 idea was just for covid, because they had to reduce capacity at EIS.


The tiered structure of L144, L112, L80 and L48 rounds was decided earlier, and will probably stay. This does create some problems on the edges.

For example No.80 has to win his L112 match against No.81 to get any prizemoney. But No.81 only needs to beat an amateur in the L144 to get his £5000. There are two players who are likely to be relegated this year because of that.

Also, the stronger players (e.g. ranked 17-48) play their first match against someone who has already won one (or more) matches, and is likely warmed-up and used to the conditions. Several players were 'ambushed' this way last year.

HappyCamper wrote:They had planned to change to tiered but still best of 19s for last season.

The change to best of 11s was to do with the pandemic.

So should be back to all best of 19s next year but with the tiered structure.

what was their reasoning to go back to tiered , i preferred the 17 - 144 , if the likes of ebdon and dott were whining about the lack of a tiered structure i don't get their complaining , they're only much more experienced and favourites against most of their opponents in this situation anyway , they just seemed to be trying to embellish themselves complaining really .

cupotee wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:They had planned to change to tiered but still best of 19s for last season.

The change to best of 11s was to do with the pandemic.

So should be back to all best of 19s next year but with the tiered structure.

what was their reasoning to go back to tiered , i preferred the 17 - 144 , if the likes of ebdon and dott were whining about the lack of a tiered structure i don't get their complaining , they're only much more experienced and favourites against most of their opponents in this situation anyway , they just seemed to be trying to embellish themselves complaining really .

Why should someone ranked 17 have to play three qualifying matches when the number 16 has to play none, I suppose is the thinking. I guess particularly for the Worlds, your ranking should play a part in what you need to do to reach the finals.

cupotee wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:They had planned to change to tiered but still best of 19s for last season.

The change to best of 11s was to do with the pandemic.

So should be back to all best of 19s next year but with the tiered structure.

what was their reasoning to go back to tiered , i preferred the 17 - 144 , if the likes of ebdon and dott were whining about the lack of a tiered structure i don't get their complaining , they're only much more experienced and favourites against most of their opponents in this situation anyway , they just seemed to be trying to embellish themselves complaining really .

Mainly I think since the tournament is already tiered for the top 16. It was considered unfair that (eg) the no 16 goes straight to the venue, but no 17 has to play three more two session matches.

So by extending the tiering back down the draw rewards better those intermediate if you like tiers.

There being no appetite to go to a total flat draw for the world's, like most of the rest of the calendar.

fair enough .

HappyCamper wrote:

cupotee wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:They had planned to change to tiered but still best of 19s for last season.

The change to best of 11s was to do with the pandemic.

So should be back to all best of 19s next year but with the tiered structure.

what was their reasoning to go back to tiered , i preferred the 17 - 144 , if the likes of ebdon and dott were whining about the lack of a tiered structure i don't get their complaining , they're only much more experienced and favourites against most of their opponents in this situation anyway , they just seemed to be trying to embellish themselves complaining really .

Mainly I think since the tournament is already tiered for the top 16. It was considered unfair that (eg) the no 16 goes straight to the venue, but no 17 has to play three more two session matches.

So by extending the tiering back down the draw rewards better those intermediate if you like tiers.

There being no appetite to go to a total flat draw for the world's, like most of the rest of the calendar.

Yes, the players ranked 17-48 played 3 matches, so just got too tired. If they reached the second round at the Crucible, there were some who just ran out of energy which ruined a few matches.

Iranu wrote:

cupotee wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:They had planned to change to tiered but still best of 19s for last season.

The change to best of 11s was to do with the pandemic.

So should be back to all best of 19s next year but with the tiered structure.

what was their reasoning to go back to tiered , i preferred the 17 - 144 , if the likes of ebdon and dott were whining about the lack of a tiered structure i don't get their complaining , they're only much more experienced and favourites against most of their opponents in this situation anyway , they just seemed to be trying to embellish themselves complaining really .

Why should someone ranked 17 have to play three qualifying matches when the number 16 has to play none, I suppose is the thinking. I guess particularly for the Worlds, your ranking should play a part in what you need to do to reach the finals.

Personally i think they should do the same with the UK Championship to attempt to make it stand out from the rest

Wildey wrote:

Iranu wrote:

cupotee wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:They had planned to change to tiered but still best of 19s for last season.

The change to best of 11s was to do with the pandemic.

So should be back to all best of 19s next year but with the tiered structure.

what was their reasoning to go back to tiered , i preferred the 17 - 144 , if the likes of ebdon and dott were whining about the lack of a tiered structure i don't get their complaining , they're only much more experienced and favourites against most of their opponents in this situation anyway , they just seemed to be trying to embellish themselves complaining really .

Why should someone ranked 17 have to play three qualifying matches when the number 16 has to play none, I suppose is the thinking. I guess particularly for the Worlds, your ranking should play a part in what you need to do to reach the finals.

Personally i think they should do the same with the UK Championship to attempt to make it stand out from the rest

World Snooker don't give flying bottom about making the UK special any more.

5-3.

False lead.

Wildey wrote:Personally i think they should do the same with the UK Championship to attempt to make it stand out from the rest

Yep. Then they could just show the last 32 and extend the matches again, too.

Wildey wrote:Personally i think they should do the same with the UK Championship to attempt to make it stand out from the rest

In a sense it does stand out from the rest: World Championship is tiered, Masters is top-16 only, UK Championship is flat 128. They are distinctive. But I know what you mean...


But let's face it, we live in times where people have short attention spans, so longer matches don't sell. If it wasn't for covid, I'd be heading to Sheffield to watch Cahill-Maddocks or Lei-Mertens battle it out over 19 frames. But that's not for everyone.

lhpirnie wrote:

Wildey wrote:Personally i think they should do the same with the UK Championship to attempt to make it stand out from the rest

In a sense it does stand out from the rest: World Championship is tiered, Masters is top-16 only, UK Championship is flat 128. They are distinctive. But I know what you mean...


But let's face it, we live in times where people have short attention spans, so longer matches don't sell. If it wasn't for covid, I'd be heading to Sheffield to watch Cahill-Maddocks or Lei-Mertens battle it out over 19 frames. But that's not for everyone.

It doesn’t stand out so much from other tournaments, though (although obviously slightly longer format). I’d rather it was closer to the Worlds in terms of tiers than closer to the Home Nations.

Regarding attention spans, I honestly am not sure if this is true, not with snooker fans anyway (as much as other sports). I think it’s something that WST assume and TV companies prey on in order to get matches that complete in one session. Although I do agree that for early rounds amongst lesser-known players it may be more the case.

Iranu wrote:

cupotee wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:They had planned to change to tiered but still best of 19s for last season.

The change to best of 11s was to do with the pandemic.

So should be back to all best of 19s next year but with the tiered structure.

what was their reasoning to go back to tiered , i preferred the 17 - 144 , if the likes of ebdon and dott were whining about the lack of a tiered structure i don't get their complaining , they're only much more experienced and favourites against most of their opponents in this situation anyway , they just seemed to be trying to embellish themselves complaining really .

Why should someone ranked 17 have to play three qualifying matches when the number 16 has to play none, I suppose is the thinking. I guess particularly for the Worlds, your ranking should play a part in what you need to do to reach the finals.

Being a pedantic so and so I know, but by that logic, why should the tournament be open to anyone not in the top 32?

PLtheRef wrote:

Iranu wrote:Why should someone ranked 17 have to play three qualifying matches when the number 16 has to play none, I suppose is the thinking. I guess particularly for the Worlds, your ranking should play a part in what you need to do to reach the finals.

Being a pedantic so and so I know, but by that logic, why should the tournament be open to anyone not in the top 32?

That seems like a bit of a strange thing to compare. There’s a difference between earning late entry into a tournament and excluding other players from it completely.

to be a truly world championship all 7.9 billion humans should be included.

Iranu wrote:

PLtheRef wrote:

Iranu wrote:Why should someone ranked 17 have to play three qualifying matches when the number 16 has to play none, I suppose is the thinking. I guess particularly for the Worlds, your ranking should play a part in what you need to do to reach the finals.

Being a pedantic so and so I know, but by that logic, why should the tournament be open to anyone not in the top 32?

That seems like a bit of a strange thing to compare. There’s a difference between earning late entry into a tournament and excluding other players from it completely.

Like I said before, I was being deliberately pedantic about it.

To be fair, as the biggest event on the calendar, why shouldn't the event have the biggest incentive to avoid having to qualify - if the prospect of having three rounds of qualifying wasn't incentive enough for the World Number 17 to try and climb into the top 16, then what would be?

Not that the tiered draw is that much of an issue - as strictly speaking, the World Championship is already the standalone event in the fact that the top 16 qualify automatically anyway. - All that said though, IMO if we'd had 17-144 for 2020 then I think we might have seen fewer surprises (even with Best of 11's rather than 19's)

lhpirnie wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:

cupotee wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:They had planned to change to tiered but still best of 19s for last season.

The change to best of 11s was to do with the pandemic.

So should be back to all best of 19s next year but with the tiered structure.

what was their reasoning to go back to tiered , i preferred the 17 - 144 , if the likes of ebdon and dott were whining about the lack of a tiered structure i don't get their complaining , they're only much more experienced and favourites against most of their opponents in this situation anyway , they just seemed to be trying to embellish themselves complaining really .

Mainly I think since the tournament is already tiered for the top 16. It was considered unfair that (eg) the no 16 goes straight to the venue, but no 17 has to play three more two session matches.

So by extending the tiering back down the draw rewards better those intermediate if you like tiers.

There being no appetite to go to a total flat draw for the world's, like most of the rest of the calendar.

Yes, the players ranked 17-48 played 3 matches, so just got too tired. If they reached the second round at the Crucible, there were some who just ran out of energy which ruined a few matches.

Not sure I necessarily agree with that.

During the flat-draw years at the Crucible, there were six players (other than the respective World Champions) win at least five matches in that event. 3 of those six, went onto reach the one-table set up and indeed in 2016 provided one of the Finalists.