Post a reply

Does the Masters need restructuring?

Postby Tubberlad

Since Benson & Hedges sponsorship of the Masters ended in 2003, this event, in my opinion, just hasn't been the same. The Masters is definitely one of the top three snooker tournaments, but in recent years, it's gotten a little boring, and has fallen well behind the World Championship and UK Championship in importance.

My main problem is that the event only gives invitations to the official top 16, a qualifier, and one wild card. More often than not, the official rankings are not the best guide to form by mid-season, so why so much emphasis is placed on them for an 'elite' tournament mystifies me.

So here's how I think the Masters invitations should be handed out:
1. The defending Masters Champion
2. World Champion
3. UK Champion
4. World Number One
5. World Number Two
6. World Number Three
7. World number Four
8. World Number Five
9. Provisional World Number One
10. Provisional World Number Two
11. Provisional World Number Three
12. Provisional World Number Four
13. Highest Points earner in current season
14. Wildcard
15. Wildcard
16. Winner of qualifying tournament

Obviously, some players will hold more than one postition. The space they vacate should be given to the highest provisionally ranked player.

How about a random draw system too? Draw randomly for the first round and then Winner of game 1 v Winner game 2 etc.... I think random draw for every round would be too like the Grand Prix.

Keep the best of 11 for the opening rounds and a best of 19 final, but I'd like best of 17 semi-finals.

The Masters should be based on quality and entertainment. In many ways it's supposed to be a players and fans favourite, and a little bit less serious than the 'big two'. But with a quality system in place, it will be a very unique major, which is no more than this fine tournament deserves.

Re: Does the Masters need restructuring?

Postby Roland

Nice idea but I don't see it changing and to be honest, I don't want to see it change. I don't know where you've got the idea it's not as good as it used to be tubberlad I've got to be honest. From my experience I can't remember a Masters tournament that didn't stand out as being outstanding in quality.

Last year we had the Selby v O'Sullivan final which was one of the most gripping finals I've ever witnessed, the year before we had Selby winning several matches from behind and a match from in front where Doherty drew level forcing Selby to up a gear. Yes he won the final easily but it's no surprise as he was playing Stephen Lee. Even so, he made a very good break in the last frame.... and the year before we had Ding riding the crest of a wave, set to become the next World Champion and dominant force in snooker making a 147 en route to the final, only to bump into a very in form O'Sullivan who crushed him almost to death. And the year before that John Higgins beat Ronnie O'Sullivan in a classic final in which Higgins produced one of the breaks of his life to win...


Need I say more? The Masters is fine as it is. I would like to see another tournament on the calendar with your idea though for sure.

Re: Does the Masters need restructuring?

Postby Wildey

Seifer island hatah wrote:All that needs doing is using a rolling ranking system, thereby cutting out dead wood like King.


the reason King is in the top 16 he is more succesfull than Jamie cope so it doesent matter if its a rolling ranking system or not at some point if King gets in to the top 16 of the current Ranking system he will get in the top 16 of the Rolling ranking system.

but a rolling ranking system would be better and to keep it current but dont kid yourself it will keep out king,Harold and Hawkins the only way you can keep out thoes types of players is to beat them no matter whats the ranking system.

Re: Does the Masters need restructuring?

Postby Seifer Almasy

Wild, King would be long gone with a rolling system, not permanently guarenteed a place at all events. That is NOT how it should work.

Re: Does the Masters need restructuring?

Postby Wildey

Seifer island hatah wrote:Wild, King would be long gone with a rolling system, not permanently guarenteed a place at all events. That is NOT how it should work.


ARE YOU THIS STUPID OR DO YOU WORK AT IT

the rankings is worked over two seasons so after a total of 10 ranking tournaments Mark King is no 16 so how do you work out he would be long gone ?????? sorry but youre a idiot.

Re: Does the Masters need restructuring?

Postby Seifer Almasy

Mark King is no 16 so how do you work out he would be long gone ??????
-------

You call me stupid, yet you clearly have NO idea what a rolling system is and what it ends up doing.

Re: Does the Masters need restructuring?

Postby Wildey

if you have a season of rolling rankings existing of 10 tournaments right then the previous tournament is dropped off. so in a rolling ranking system than consist of 10 tournaments Mark King is 16th.

Re: Does the Masters need restructuring?

Postby Seifer Almasy

wildJONESEYE wrote:if you have a season of rolling rankings existing of 10 tournaments right then the previous tournament is dropped off. so in a rolling ranking system than consist of 10 tournaments Mark King is 16th.


No he isn't. In a rolling system, the positions of players go up and down after EVERY tournament. Or at least aftera few. On this, King would have needed to qualify for a few by now, as it is, he is left top 16 [until the new season] NO MATTER HOW POORLY HE PLAYS.

Wenbo, on other hand would be in the top 16.

Re: Does the Masters need restructuring?

Postby Wildey

mark king is officially rank 16 and provisional rank 16............christ you give new meaning to stupidity you know that....

what part of rolling ranking you dont understand ?

theres 640 points between king and wenbo and mr havent a clue in hell sais
King would have needed to qualify for a few by now, as it is, he is left top 16 [until the new season] NO MATTER HOW POORLY HE PLAYS.

Wenbo, on other hand would be in the top 16.


Wenbo is 14th with king 16th 640 points between them woopeeedoooooooo http://www.worldsnooker.com/provisional.htm

Re: Does the Masters need restructuring?

Postby Seifer Almasy

provisional is NOT a rolling system wild. It isn't how it works. Each tournament would have a NEW TOP 16 depending on who dropped out and who didn't. King would have dropped after the dismal start he had, and then would have need to qualify/. That is the purpose of a rolling system, it makes sure that every tournament counts for the top 16. Not just "play how you want, and if you manage to do great at the UK or worlds, you are sorted for next season"

This rank system is a JOKE mate.

Re: Does the Masters need restructuring?

Postby Wildey

Seifer island hatah wrote:provisional is NOT a rolling system wild. It isn't how it works.


of course it how it works

you must be the most stupid person on this planet ?

a rolling ranking system works exactly the same with the previous tournament dropping off if theres a season of 10 tournament King is 16th its that simple.....you beggers belief how anyone can be this stupid.

Re: Does the Masters need restructuring?

Postby Seifer Almasy

Wild. IT DOESNT.

It isn't the same because when a player goes outside the top 16 they then would need to QUALIFY which ALTERS the points. IT ALTERS THE LINEUP. IT ALTERS THE MATHEMATICS INVOLVED.

Before you call someone stupid, why don't you, for once in your life, THINK about these things?

Re: Does the Masters need restructuring?

Postby Wildey

idiot

theres nothing between wenbo and king and you think wenbo is a top 16 player and king isnt.....

same rules for all no matter at the bloody system.....i thought you had brains but christ youre thick as two short planks.

Re: Does the Masters need restructuring?

Postby NedB-H

Seifer island hatah wrote:Wild. IT DOESNT.

It isn't the same because when a player goes outside the top 16 they then would need to QUALIFY which ALTERS the points. IT ALTERS THE LINEUP. IT ALTERS THE MATHEMATICS INVOLVED.

Before you call someone stupid, why don't you, for once in your life, THINK about these things?

Have you actually worked this out? There's only been two tournaments this season, so he would have been top-16 and qualified for the first one. And if the tenth tournament, the one that dropped off the rolling system after the Shanghai Masters, was one that King picked up only a few points in, then he could well still have qualified for the second one too.

The general point still stands though - King is top-16 and Wenbo, Cope etc aren't, because King had better results over the relevant time period. Changing the system to one which had Cope or Wenbo in the top-16 instead wouldn't mean they'd performed any better compared to King, it would just mean that the time periods fell kindly for them, and less so for King. The most sensible thing said on this thread was:
king,Harold and Hawkins the only way you can keep out thoes types of players is to beat them no matter whats the ranking system.

If "boring" players beat the fastpaced young breakbuilders, then they have every right to be ranked above them, in any system.



Anyway this was originally about the Masters. Personally it's never been my favourite tournament, it usually has a good final but the rest of the rounds always have a bit of an "exhibition" feel for me. But I don't think it's got any worse in recent years.