Betfred World Championship (Wed April 21st) Last 32 !!!

What if more players started using it,say 6 in the top 16 would action be taken to ban it.

Steve Davis used that break sometimes in 2010

SnookerEd25 wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:Foulds says they might ban that MJW break. It should be legal in my opinion.

It’s a bit naff, but part of the game. Foulds talking nonsense for once.

He didn’t say they should, he said they might. He said they shouldn’t.

Read article on line with Williams not happy about emails being sent out to various people within snooker and asking them there opinion regarding his break off.In his defence he says negative roll ups into the pack would have to be banned as well. I would guess if more players adopted the tactic a ruling would come in.

Dan-cat wrote:

Iranu wrote:

SnookerEd25 wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:Foulds says they might ban that MJW break. It should be legal in my opinion.

It’s a bit naff, but part of the game. Foulds talking nonsense for once.

He didn’t say they should, he said they might. He said they shouldn’t.

Exactly this. Fouldsy was saying it might be banned, not that it should.

Correct.

Hard to call Williams’ shot a “break off”... it’s just an opening stroke.

Iranu wrote:

SnookerEd25 wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:Foulds says they might ban that MJW break. It should be legal in my opinion.

It’s a bit naff, but part of the game. Foulds talking nonsense for once.

He didn’t say they should, he said they might. He said they shouldn’t.

I issue an unreserved apology to Mr. Foulds, and more importantly his legal team; it was my fault for not reading the original post correctly

SnookerEd25 wrote:

Iranu wrote:

SnookerEd25 wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:Foulds says they might ban that MJW break. It should be legal in my opinion.

It’s a bit naff, but part of the game. Foulds talking nonsense for once.

He didn’t say they should, he said they might. He said they shouldn’t.

I issue an unreserved apology to Mr. Foulds, and more importantly his legal team; it was my fault for not reading the original post correctly

Mr. Ed talking nonsense for once?

LDS wrote:

SnookerEd25 wrote:

Iranu wrote:

SnookerEd25 wrote:

Holden Chinaski wrote:Foulds says they might ban that MJW break. It should be legal in my opinion.

It’s a bit naff, but part of the game. Foulds talking nonsense for once.

He didn’t say they should, he said they might. He said they shouldn’t.

I issue an unreserved apology to Mr. Foulds, and more importantly his legal team; it was my fault for not reading the original post correctly

Mr. Ed talking nonsense for once?

Careful, sir - my lawyers are all over this

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:

LDS wrote:

Vallomas wrote:So, the only qualifiers who have won so far, are Jamie Jones and Stuart Bingham (who is a top 10 player in reality).

There's a case starting to emerge for going back to a 24 player format for the World Championship IMO.

Top 8 start automatically in the last 16 stage and only those ranked 9-16 play a qualifier each in the first round.

There's a few Top 32 players who lost in qualifying who would probably have done better than the players who beat them.

It's just something I've always wondered about really.

Just having 16 players for the WSC never seemed like enough, that's for sure, but I've always felt 36 was just too many, in that there has never been 32 strong competitors for the title. Or even 32 people who can put on a good show at the top event.

There was this brief moment when it expanded from 16 to 24 and that seemed about right, but it quickly then shot up to 32, not because of any gameplay reason, but just because that is the correct number to have a neat knock-out table.

However, the 32 simply lets in too many qualifiers. And the 16 qualifiers are never going to be even close to being those ranked 17-32, it's always going to be a mix of all and sundry of 17-100 odd.

It's nice for those who do make an unusual qualification, of course, and there is some entertainment value in potentially losing a top seed to joe nobody in the first round, but I don't think that outweighs the fact that, most years, there's always at least 6 or 7 first round matches that are practically unwatchable and mostly pointless. And, if anything, have the potential to ruin the spectator aspect precisely by upsetting the popular players too soon into the competition.

You could pick any random year and look down the list of 1st round matches and find six or seven match-ups where you just think "I don't even know who that was" or "I wouldn't even watch that on youtube during maximum lockdown with no current snooker for a month".

And it's not like a magical one-off qualification is some kind of magical kick-starter to a player's otherwise dumpster-fire career, as you can still find first-rounders from the crucible era who don't even have wikipedia pages, let alone a history of events.

However, there's always six or seven 1st round matches that turn into crackers, and they usually involve someone on the way up against someone on the way down, which is still equally possible with the 24 system.


I have no real impetus to make a campaign out of it, it's just one of those things I've always thought of as being a shame, in that the possibly best method was the one skipped over so quickly.

LDS has an opinion which he is entitled too. I disagree with him, and I suspect most do; it will be interesting to see if there is any agreement on his idea.

they've just had the embarrassment of the Higgins and Bingham v ding matches having to walk off because of scheduling , a solution around this is starting the crucible stage at the last 16 , less matches and less overruns and less rob walker on comms , I'm guessing he doesn't do comms at the masters so why do it here .

Under the 24 man event system, we'd have missed out on that nervy epic between Higgins and Tian. I think doing anything to reduce the number of matches would be a move in the wrong direction - the less matches there are, the less good matches there are.

Over-runs and having to come back later that evening are one of the best features of this tournament. I hope we don’t ever lose that drama

SnookerFan wrote:

cupotee wrote:they've just had the embarrassment of the Higgins and Bingham v ding matches having to walk off because of scheduling , a solution around this is starting the crucible stage at the last 16 , less matches and less overruns and less rob walker on comms , I'm guessing he doesn't do comms at the masters so why do it here .

Because more commentators are required at The Crucible.

once a comms duo start a match that's their match from start to finish , and it would be the same number of matches , and there'd be plenty of time for o Sullivan to get into the top 8 if it was just top 8 seeds awaiting their opponents in the draw

and less nonsense re McGill v walden having to skip 4 sessions or a mere best of 25 being spread over 3 days for two successive rounds , 2nd round and qf's

buck it, just have don king organise a one off title match between O'Sullivan and trump.

Yeah, like I said, it's not something I think is worth campaigning over, it's just one of those little things that's always interested me.

Overrunning sessions isn't an issue for me personally and something I'd never thought about re this topic.

Maflin and undramatic scorelines isn't really what I meant either. Maflin did well last year, so it makes sense to see him have another shot, regardless of how well he does.

Maflin would only come into the point if he qualified every other year and always lost in either the first or second round. Sort of like the Mark Davis', Andy Hicks & Mark Kings of the competition. You know, the guys who you already know from the outset are just making up the numbers rather than potential matches of interest.

It's mainly about the total randos, the Waklins and Pengfeis who sort of scrape in at the bottom of the 16 qualifiers, predictably do nothing of great interest & then we never see them again, or, if we do, it'll be for another non-event R1 match.

But, no, it's a really minor thing and more of a "what if?" type exercise, and I've really enjoyed the responses. It's nice to see people showing love for the dump games as well as the hot tickets.

Andy Hicks is a poor example. He is a former World semi-finalist - as he also was at the UK (when it was still meaningful) & Masters.

Also involved in one of the greatest (and most forgotten) Crucible matches of all time - his 11-13 loss to Ron in 2004.

Hicks is a great example precisely because he was once a semi-finalist. And yet he has had 8 appearances, six of which were R1 and only one R2 since the semi.

Sure, it was interesting to see him a couple of times after the first, but by the 5th, you know he's just cannon fodder.