Post a reply

The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby SnookerFan

I remember earlier in the season, we had a discussion about whether the PTCs were a masterstroke by Hearn? We came to the conclusion that after two or three PTC events, it was too early to tell. How do people see the PTCs now?

Here's my verdict.

Pros to the PTCs.

It gets the players chance to play every weekend. This is good for the players, who used to kick their heels during tournaments and good for the fans, as it keeps all players match sharp in every tournament. This improved the match quality in most of the tournaments.

Players are now earning more money then before.

We got a weekend of televised snooker when the finals were on.

Things not so good.

Though the European ones tended to allow people in to watch, it was next to impossible to see the ones in Sheffield. Tickets weren't available, and it wasn't on television. If you weren't sleeping with the players, you didn't see it. Though a lot of the internet snooker community watched the scores on live update, the more casual fans didn't. Some people I know like snooker, but aren't that hardcore with it. So weren't quite aware of who would've won events, or how people would've qualified for the finals. We should get them televised, or at least highlights televised. Meaning more opportunities for us fans to watch snooker, and more chances for everybody across the spectrum of fandom to know what's going on in the finals.

Bloody Eurosport putting tennis on instead. rofl



Personally, I see it this way. The long-term objective of Barry Hearn is to bring in fans, and fill out arenas for snooker events. Early rounds play out in front of five or six fans on occasion. This needs to stop. However, as stated, that's a long-term objective. Short-term objectives include bringing in more sponsorship (which Hearn has) and getting the players more playing time (which the PTCs have done.)

But, as far as I see it, the PTCs should be televised. Highlights at the least. But another question strikes me. How long will the PTCs remain neccessary? They are necessary now, no doubt. But we are also adding proper ranking events in other countries such as Germany, India, Brazil and Australia. With the German ones in particular, some complained that the tournament was too short, and should've been at least a week long. What I wanted to see, and always did before the PTCs came along were a load more week-long ranking events. As many as possible in a season. At least two a month, with time for the qualifiers to, errrr...., qualify. That's very much a pipe dream at the moment, but for how much longer? The sport isn't going to get popular enough or affluent enough to have that quantity of tournament overnight, of course. So the PTCs, for me are the way forward for the next few seasons. But how would people feel if they were eventually eradicated to add for gallons more ranking events?

Or do people feel the PTCs are the way forward, and we want that and traditional ranking events to fill the season? I'm not offering an opinion, I just find it food for thought. How do people see the PTCs changing, and evolving over the next few seasons?

One thing I am sure of is we need to televise as many of them as possible. :-)

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

in Tennis for instance there are different level events and now in snooker there's different level of tournaments.

the PTC will always be flexible if it means cutting it to 8 to make room for more main rankers im sure that what will happen but for now they are a really good thing and a essential stop gap and to keep players playing.

i believe there will be TV or Streaming of PTC Events this season watch this space as they say.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Monique

Most players playing in PTC didn't earn money ... on the contrary it costed them. That's not sustainable.
It's a joke that EPTCs prize money was lower than PTCs while for most players it costs them more with hotel and travel. Especially considering that those had an audience.
I've seen many things in EPTCs that were unprofessional ... this should be addressed.
And finally - this may change next season when top players see how important the PTCs are - but as they were they didn't reward form or skills, they rewarded dedication. Is this what we want? I'm not sure. Well I'm sure it's not what I want. They are supposedly optional but in truth players are blackmailed to play in them.
I would suggest that PTCs/EPTCS, like in tennis, become truly optional, with only - say 3 best results (or 4,5,6 ... to be discussed) - being taken into account in rankings and no restriction regarding where the players chose to play. Also the Grand Final - like the Masters - should have attractive prize money but no ranking points.

Bring on the rotten tomatoes and eggs ...

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby GJ

challenger level tennis is worth little money to tennis players and they have stayed for years

ptcs are the same for snooker

that is FACT

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

GJ is right thats the reality of sport snooker is scraping the barrel at the moment beggars cant be choosers if they cant afford it sorry but find another job.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby GJ

Just to explain further

If a tennis player falls down the rankings they are more likely to enter a challenger to boost their confidence not for good prize money as challengers and ptcs are not expected to give out good prize money as they are well below main ranking events in snooker and say masters series events in tennis.

All sports have a similiar formula as wild says thats life deal with it or find another job

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Monique

Wild wrote:GJ is right thats the reality of sport snooker is scraping the barrel at the moment beggars cant be choosers if they cant afford it sorry but find another job.


No it isn't. The n°100 in tennis earns more than Hendry ever has (in one season).
Do you need to be wealthy from the start to aspire to a snooker career? Is it that we want? May I remind you how important snooker was in the men's social clubs? for the miners in Wales?

Many sports have been made only "commercial". Snooker has managed - until now - to stay "human". I want it to stay that way.
@GJ if Robbo had had to pay for PTCS fees when he started he would never have managed it.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Bourne

Monique wrote:
Wild wrote:GJ is right thats the reality of sport snooker is scraping the barrel at the moment beggars cant be choosers if they cant afford it sorry but find another job.


No it isn't. The n°100 in tennis earns more than Hendry ever has (in one season).
Do you need to be wealthy from the start to aspire to a snooker career? Is it that we want? May I remind you how important snooker was in the men's social clubs? for the miners in Wales?

Many sports have been made only "commercial". Snooker has managed - until now - to stay "human". I want it to stay that way.
@GJ if Robbo had had to pay for PTCS fees when he started he would never have managed it.

Eh, the current #100 in tennis has earnt less than a million bucks in his career let alone a season.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:
Wild wrote:GJ is right thats the reality of sport snooker is scraping the barrel at the moment beggars cant be choosers if they cant afford it sorry but find another job.


No it isn't. The n°100 in tennis earns more than Hendry ever has (in one season).
Do you need to be wealthy from the start to aspire to a snooker career? Is it that we want? May I remind you how important snooker was in the men's social clubs? for the miners in Wales?

Many sports have been made only "commercial". Snooker has managed - until now - to stay "human". I want it to stay that way.
@GJ if Robbo had had to pay for PTCS fees when he started he would never have managed it.

exactly so the sport is stronger you can not expect the PTC To sustain itself if top players only play in 3 events we know what happened last season when one EPTC had to be canceled and move to Gloucester when players was playing in rubbish at the O2

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Monique

Bourne wrote:
Monique wrote:
Wild wrote:GJ is right thats the reality of sport snooker is scraping the barrel at the moment beggars cant be choosers if they cant afford it sorry but find another job.


No it isn't. The n°100 in tennis earns more than Hendry ever has (in one season).
Do you need to be wealthy from the start to aspire to a snooker career? Is it that we want? May I remind you how important snooker was in the men's social clubs? for the miners in Wales?

Many sports have been made only "commercial". Snooker has managed - until now - to stay "human". I want it to stay that way.
@GJ if Robbo had had to pay for PTCS fees when he started he would never have managed it.

Eh, the current #100 in tennis has earnt less than a million bucks in his career let alone a season.


I said "in one season". ROS biggest earnings in one season was around 625 000 pounds. It was less than N° 110 in tennis at the time.
I wasn't comparing Hendry's whole career earnings with one season of n° 100 in tennis. That would be daft.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

monique

i understand what you say but at the moment in this transitional period and trying to put snooker up there again dedication is far more important we want to show the world players are willing to go to their countries and build up the tour to the ideal way where they can pick and choose and only % of events go towards their rankings.

thats way off at the moment.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Bourne

GJ wrote:Just to explain further

If a tennis player falls down the rankings they are more likely to enter a challenger to boost their confidence not for good prize money as challengers and ptcs are not expected to give out good prize money as they are well below main ranking events in snooker and say masters series events in tennis.

All sports have a similiar formula as wild says thats life deal with it or find another job

Or speaking more logistically there's only so many players that can physically fit into a tournament so with a tour of over 1,500 players it's more out of necessity that they enter challengers not because they want to boost confidence, they're the ones that work hard to earn a living and put food on the table and I have more respect for those that fight tooth and nail every week than any of the top players.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby GJ

fair analysis mate

mon

you cant expect miracles tennis has worked for many years to improve itself and snooker is only starting out this process and there will be players who are casualties in this process thats life and sport

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Monique

Wild wrote:
Monique wrote:
Wild wrote:GJ is right thats the reality of sport snooker is scraping the barrel at the moment beggars cant be choosers if they cant afford it sorry but find another job.


No it isn't. The n°100 in tennis earns more than Hendry ever has (in one season).
Do you need to be wealthy from the start to aspire to a snooker career? Is it that we want? May I remind you how important snooker was in the men's social clubs? for the miners in Wales?

Many sports have been made only "commercial". Snooker has managed - until now - to stay "human". I want it to stay that way.
@GJ if Robbo had had to pay for PTCS fees when he started he would never have managed it.

exactly so the sport is stronger you can not expect the PTC To sustain itself if top players only play in 3 events we know what happened last season when one EPTC had to be canceled and move to Gloucester when players was playing in donkey doo at the O2


That was unrelated. There were only 8 players in the Power Snooker. They were not responsible for the failure: there simply wasn't enough of an interested audience and the place was too remote as well. And you can tell what you want about Power Snooker, both Selby and Murphy who did ALL the PTCs/EPTCs did choose to play in it. That in itself is telling something.

Tournaments should be funded by sponsoring and audience, not by the players who are supposed to be able to make a decent living out of the sport. To achieve that the PTCs must be open to audience and at least streamed so that sponsors get interested. EPTCs conditions of play and prize money should be up to professional standards also. If that happens more top players WILL be interested and motivated to play properly.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Monique

And they won't need to "blackmail" them to play in them ... which is what happens now.
I'm not a fan of rewarding dedication over skills and talent. At the end of the day if an engineer builds a bridge, or if a doctor is to look after my health, I want them to be competent and I don't give a rubbish if they work hard or not ...

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby GJ

:roll:

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Roland

I think the PTCs have been great for snooker. They got the match practice levels up so by the end of the season the quality of snooker on display in ranking events was mind blowing. Had there still be 6 events per season who knows, maybe Judd would be languishing just inside the top 32 with people still calling him false hype.

The fact the UK ones were held behind closed doors should not detract for a second. The whole idea was to get the players playing again on a weekly basis and to start off with you have to think small. A lot of people seem to forget the state snooker was in just over a year ago. It would've been preposterous to hold UK PTCs in a venue which was hired for audience attendance when you consider the turnout for events like the Welsh. The fact they weren't televised is completely irrelevent. The fact they offered good prize money considering they weren't at a venue or televised is remarkable.

When you completely change snooker like this, you need to start small and grow. Therefore I expect the PTCs to be streamed in the near future - I haven't heard anything to suggest this will happen but it's the logical next step. If Hearn manages to reignite snooker in the UK (and the reception the players got in the final session of the world final speaks volumes for that) then PTCs will be in demand and the likes of Sky may be interested in televising them.

As far as structure goes, that obviously needs rejigging. Even if they use the same system this coming season as last then it doesn't mean things won't take an upturn for the 2012/13 season in terms of venue and television. But the players who take part in these events and have first hand experience will have opinions for improvement. They know more than anyone what the PTCs are like to play in, and early signs are they would prefer to play a few in the week rather than over a weekend because of family commitments like most people with regular jobs have. They are regular people at the end of the day.

I would like to see a time where people who create lists of ranking event winners count PTC events as half a ranking event in their stats. I think status as PTC event winners should be acknowledged. Ignore the clowns who point to the odd lower ranked player such as Marcus Campbell as proof that they are not worthy of such status. Whoever plays the best snooker over those few days wins and they deserve more respect. In the interview I conducted with Dominic Dale he certainly counted a PTC win as a ranking event win and he's a ranking event winner so he knows more than any armchair critic.

The other factor people had a problem with was ranking point allocation and qualification to the final stages. Once again, it's a case of room for improvement but you've got to start somewhere.

In summary, marks out of 10 for initiative and impact, season 1 gets a firm 10 from me. And I'm kissing noone's bottom in saying that, it's what I think.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Monique

IMO Barry H should have sticked with his initial idea to scrap the constraints about how many PTCs and where the players choose to play. You will tell me players have to play their part and promote the game. True. But you can force people to play maybe, but you can't force them to feel motivated and play properly. If they don't play they deprive themselves of the opportunity to earn more ranking points, that's more than enough. I've seen to much unprofessional behaviours in the two EPTCs I've attended to think otherwise. Actually it was more honest for players not to attend, than to be there and play they way some did...
Don't get me wrong. PTCs are a great initiative but if it costs the majority of players it's not sustainable and that's the case nowadays, especially in Europe. So that needs to be addressed. One way, the usual way, to address it is to get sponsoring and to get that you need exposure, hence audience and media. You will tell me that to achieve this you need the big names in them. Yes. But forcing them in it will never work, you have to make then want to play in those events. Now how? That of course depends on the player. But one thing that does work for quite a few is the opportunity to actually put a show for the fans. That's why it's such a shame that most invitational events have disappeared from the calendar. Such opportunities are rare - there is always the pressure of ranking points. No sport, especially no minority sport, can survive if it doesn't provide entertainment. If only the "n" best results out of 12 PTCs/EPTCs were taken into account they could provide the opportunity for this kind of snooker "show" and I can assure you that this is what the European audience wants to see. And it would allow for those players involved in the PL for instance to manage their schedule more reasonably.
BTW for all the stick the PL gets, it's quality snooker, every week, for half of the season, with a quality field, all over UK and without the pressure of rankings so that players will go for it more freely...

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

Barry Hearn realized he needs commitment from players id go as far as to say at the moment for qualification id want players to play in every PTC Where there's people there watching and as for Sheffield doesn't matter.

players has a responsibility to help the sport get on it feet and they better understand that and fast.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Roland

No one is forcing anyone into playing in the PTCs. Picking the best x out of x is the logical next step though.

And for the Premier League, if you were guaranteed your pick of players to travel around playing one off exhibitions with good prize money then any one of us would be onto a winner. It's not serious though. How can it be? If they want to shed the image of being an exhibition event then they've not done themselves any favours.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:No one is forcing anyone into playing in the PTCs. Picking the best x out of x is the logical next step though.

And for the Premier League, if you were guaranteed your pick of players to travel around playing one off exhibitions with good prize money then any one of us would be onto a winner. It's not serious though. How can it be? If they want to shed the image of being an exhibition event then they've not done themselves any favours.

in a way they are being forced by putting ranking points in the mix but thats a good thing we need top players playing in them otherwise we could get nobody inside the top 32 playing.

how are we going to promote snooker if Dave Harold is no 1 seed ?

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Monique

Wild wrote:
Sonny wrote:No one is forcing anyone into playing in the PTCs. Picking the best x out of x is the logical next step though.

And for the Premier League, if you were guaranteed your pick of players to travel around playing one off exhibitions with good prize money then any one of us would be onto a winner. It's not serious though. How can it be? If they want to shed the image of being an exhibition event then they've not done themselves any favours.

in a way they are being forced by putting ranking points in the mix but thats a good thing we need top players playing in them otherwise we could get nobody inside the top 32 playing.

how are we going to promote snooker if Dave Harold is no 1 seed ?


Well that's exactly where we disagree. They shouldn't "force" the top players to play in it. They should try to make them attractive to them instead. They certainly don't promote the sport by having the top players showing they can't give a rubbish about it, which is what happened in some cases. And I'm not talking about ROS. At least when he turned up he tried properly. I'm talking about the ones - plural - who couldn't be bothered to try beyond the first round match ... and all of it in front of an audience. I'm talking about early concessions, about no shows (despite having turned up in the tournament), about being late, about blatantly not trying, about rude behaviours towards local refs ... You can't force motivation.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:
Wild wrote:
Sonny wrote:No one is forcing anyone into playing in the PTCs. Picking the best x out of x is the logical next step though.

And for the Premier League, if you were guaranteed your pick of players to travel around playing one off exhibitions with good prize money then any one of us would be onto a winner. It's not serious though. How can it be? If they want to shed the image of being an exhibition event then they've not done themselves any favours.

in a way they are being forced by putting ranking points in the mix but thats a good thing we need top players playing in them otherwise we could get nobody inside the top 32 playing.

how are we going to promote snooker if Dave Harold is no 1 seed ?


Well that's exactly where we disagree. They shouldn't "force" the top players to play in it. They should try to make them attractive to them instead. They certainly don't promote the sport by having the top players showing they can't give a rubbish about it, which is what happened in some cases. And I'm not talking about ROS. At least when he turned up he tried properly. I'm talking about the ones - plural - who couldn't be bothered to try beyond the first round match ... and all of it in front of an audience. I'm talking about early concessions, about no shows (despite having turned up in the tournament), about being late, about blatantly not trying, about rude behaviours towards local refs ... You can't force motivation.

monique

snooker players and the sport was on their knees it takes time to build a wall you have to start with a solid foundation before the wall looks attractive.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Roland

Sorry to cut you down because you do make a point but saying at least Ronnie tried properly. Wasn't there a story about him blitzing the field then realising he'd miss an England world cup match if he won his next match? Pure speculation of course :-)


"It was funny how...."

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

It seemed very ambitious to have six EPTC events come along in just one season. I would have thought there would be five or six in the whole tour to start off with and for it to expand from there. There's no point in having events if they are run poorly with players acting a bollix and disrespecting the local refreees. I like the idea of smaller ranking events with an even playing field and think it's a better way for talented young players to emerge than the grind of qualifiers. And related to this last weekend PDC Darts managed to draw 3,000 people to an untelevised tour event in Austria so it's possible for the PTC's to grow.

Image

Image

Image

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Witz78

the EPTCs are a snooker equivalent of the darts European Tour events. This is where Hearns inspiration has came from basically.

Sure there could do with being a bit more money on offer at them but as many have already said, we have to start somewhere.

The PTCs are an issue being played behind closed doors, albeit 2 of them are going to SWSA now.

The way i see it the EPTCs should be looking to go the groundwork in new snooker markets that ultimatelt become full ranking events or 4/5 day events on a par with the German Masters.

When this happens, then that particular EPTC has served its purpose so we no longer need 12 PTCs to fill up the calendar.

As more full rankers emerge, id reduce the number of PTC events accordingly, starting with those behind closed doors which serve little real purpose other than justifying the use of the Academy not being Rodney Walkers white elephant.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Monique

Sonny wrote:Sorry to cut you down because you do make a point but saying at least Ronnie tried properly. Wasn't there a story about him blitzing the field then realising he'd miss an England world cup match if he won his next match? Pure speculation of course :-)


"It was funny how...."


No it wasn't. And you know that ...

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby Monique

Witz78 wrote:the EPTCs are a snooker equivalent of the darts European Tour events. This is where Hearns inspiration has came from basically.

Sure there could do with being a bit more money on offer at them but as many have already said, we have to start somewhere.

The PTCs are an issue being played behind closed doors, albeit 2 of them are going to SWSA now.

The way i see it the EPTCs should be looking to go the groundwork in new snooker markets that ultimatelt become full ranking events or 4/5 day events on a par with the German Masters.

When this happens, then that particular EPTC has served its purpose so we no longer need 12 PTCs to fill up the calendar.

As more full rankers emerge, id reduce the number of PTC events accordingly, starting with those behind closed doors which serve little real purpose other than justifying the use of the Academy not being Rodney Walkers white elephant.


There is no need for more ranking events. There were never more than 10 rankers even in the early 90th when the calendar was full-full. What we need is to resurrect the invitational events that existed at the time a bit everywhere, and allowed for the player to fulfill to the best what is an important a part of their duties: entertain. Entertainment is essential to build and keep an audience and the audience is what sponsors look at.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby SnookerFan

Monique wrote:
There is no need for more ranking events. There were never more than 10 rankers even in the early 90th when the calendar was full-full. What we need is to resurrect the invitational events that existed at the time a bit everywhere, and allowed for the player to fulfill to the best what is an important a part of their duties: entertain. Entertainment is essential to build and keep an audience and the audience is what sponsors look at.


I can't agree with that. Starting with saying "There is no need for more ranking events." Then in the next sentence, saying there were never more then ten seems odd. If the season is full with ten rankers, fine. But season before the recent one there were six. So that's at least four more needed. I would rather see more rankers then invitationals personally. Invitationals are good, The Masters being a prime example of how one can be a respected part of the season. But have too many of them, and people could risk playing well, but not getting the ranking points they deserve.

Re: The Evolution of the PTCs?

Postby SnookerFan

I must say there is some interesting discussion here, I was expecting to be called a PTC hatah because of this discussion. rofl

The PTCs have been successful in some ways, but as Sonny says we need to see them televised soon. Though, it's small steps with snooker at the moment. It's not going to go from being a sport where you get less then a dozen people watch certain matches, to being a massive multi-million pound sport overnight.

The PTCs are what we need at the moment to get players playing. The next step is televising them. The ultimate aim is to lessen the amount of PTCs in favour of more ranking events, but that's far off.

Monique raised some interesting points though, about the EPTCs not paying people enough money. That's not on. Though, I think dedication should be rewarded. As well as skill. They should both be rewarded, in my opinion.

Still, I think this has been quite an interesting topic.