About the PTCs...

In the past few weeks, we had a debate about the PTCs, and their importance in rankings.
My opinion was, and still is, that only a pre-determined number of them should count in rankings - n best results - and that there should be no constraints regarding which ones the players decide to attend.
The rationale behind my opinion is that it's too costly for many low ranked players to attend them all, especially those in Europe and also that it's far too much events over the year. No need to remind me ... I got enough stick about this.

Now here you go

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/S ... story.html?
Selby

"Depending on how I do in the main ranking events, I may miss the odd PTC event just to make sure I am not burned out for the big events."

http://www.flintshirechronicle.co.uk/fl ... -28884252/?
Walden

“The past season has been a bit of a disaster for me and I think that I just tried to do too much and ended up paying for it.
“It was a long, hard season and I think my dip in form and dropping out of the top 16 was down to me playing too many tournaments and not really giving myself a break.

Both players, young, fit and have played in every PTC last season.

It's easy for armchair fans to rant about "mediocrity", "laziness" and whatever. It's another thing to actually do it, as anyone seeing the players close-up at some events will know.

no monique its not armchair fans profession if they don't want to do it find another job or get on with it.

they wanted to be professional snooker players not armchair fans......now they for the first time can do what they wanted to do.

idealy percentage of PTC Should go towards the Rankings and im certain in time that will happen but for now its their job to work their baboons shiny behinds off because they been moaning for years that they are part time.

I've always said, the first season with PTCs, the transition period, was always going to be the toughest. Fast forward 12 months and the players will be much more comfortable and used to it

Wild wrote:no monique its not armchair fans profession if they don't want to do it find another job or get on with it.

they wanted to be professional snooker players not armchair fans......now they for the first time can do what they wanted to do.

idealy percentage of PTC Should go towards the Rankings and im certain in time that will happen but for now its their job to work their baboons shiny behinds off because they been moaning for years that they are part time.

You're not the one doing it he?
They have gone from not enough to too much. They want to perform and play well when in front of the audience. It's their pride and it's what the game needs and they can't do it when run down. Those two have been in every PTC last season, they can't be accused of laziness or lack of support to BH endeavour. They are both relatively free, no kids, not much family constraints. And yet they acknowledge it has been too much. The minimum is that the fans uses their loaf a bit and accept the assessment.

Regarding the money aspect i put forward a idea if someone makes a 147 the price money go to a fund that helps players with travel etc i was shot down with that by everyone so what are WS going to do not run tournaments and the tournaments they run only a hand full of players turn up unless they on their doorstep of their houses because they don't need it towards their rankings.

Monique wrote:
You're not the one doing it he?
They have gone from not enough to too much. They want to perform and play well when in front of the audience. It's their pride and it's what the game needs and they can't do it when run down. Those two have been in every PTC last season, they can't be accused of laziness or lack of support to BH endeavour. They are both relatively free, no kids, not much family constraints. And yet they acknowledge it has been too much. The minimum is that the fans uses their loaf a bit and accept the assessment.

I can't see that they can really complain that there are now too many competitions to be fair.

not such thing as too much at the moment its only 12 months of their career so far let them work on oil rigs in the north sea for 6 months or in afganistan or irak fighting for country.

Wild is spot on, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Compare it to other sports and this is nothing, they should man up and accept the challenge

Wild wrote:Regarding the money aspect i put forward a idea if someone makes a 147 the price money go to a fund that helps players with travel etc i was shot down with that by everyone so what are WS going to do not run tournaments and the tournaments they run only a hand full of players turn up unless they on their doorstep of their houses because they don't need it towards their rankings.

And it's a ridiculous idea because the prize money they are asking for is not the 147000 it was, it's a rather more symbolic amount, 20K at most for the biggest event. With that how many young players do you think you can support for how long? According to Luca Brecel's father estimation that's just 1/5 of what it costs for a season for a UK based player.
And by cutting down prize money they devaluate the sport in the eyes of the public and the sponsors.

Bourne wrote:Wild is spot on, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Compare it to other sports and this is nothing, they should man up and accept the challenge

ignorance is bliss.

Monique wrote:

Bourne wrote:Wild is spot on, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Compare it to other sports and this is nothing, they should man up and accept the challenge

ignorance is bliss.

Spot on, the ignorance of some snooker fans when it comes to genuinelly physically demanding sport is quite sad. Time some of these players toughened up mentally

Bourne wrote:

Monique wrote:

Bourne wrote:Wild is spot on, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Compare it to other sports and this is nothing, they should man up and accept the challenge

ignorance is bliss.

Spot on, the ignorance of some snooker fans when it comes to genuinelly physically demanding sport is quite sad. Time some of these players toughened up mentally

Time some of you get real, yes. Or come just once to a tournament and see for themselves what mental and nervous energy it takes out of them. Physical sports at least offer a a release to the competition stress though action.

Monique wrote:

Bourne wrote:

Monique wrote:

Bourne wrote:Wild is spot on, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Compare it to other sports and this is nothing, they should man up and accept the challenge

ignorance is bliss.

Spot on, the ignorance of some snooker fans when it comes to genuinelly physically demanding sport is quite sad. Time some of these players toughened up mentally

Time some of you get real, yes. Or come just once to a tournament and see for themselves what mental and nervous energy it takes out of them. Physical sports at least offer a a release to the competition stress though action.

If you want to follow a sport for pansies, try American Football Any sport which doesn't test every area of a participant's being, be it physical, mental, psychological or whatever, is not worth the time of day. I want the players to be tested to the absolute max and then see who can handle the pace and who can't
BTW fair props to Selby for admitting he will try and peak for the bigger events, admire his honesty, wish more players would admit to that

Well Selby can't be accused of laziness does he? He's been in every of the PTCs. He feels it was too much, undermined his performances when it really mattered, and considers giving some of them a miss to be able to perform better in the big ones. Yes, he's RIGHT. It's too much if you do them all and the quality of your performance goes down. He should not be penalised for that.
In tennis the ranking does not take into account EVERY secondary event, just a pre-defined number of them. Up to the players to pick and choose and manage their season. What's wrong with having the same in snooker then?

Monique wrote:Well Selby can't be accused of laziness does he? He's been in every of the PTCs. He feels it was too much, undermined his performances when it really mattered, and considers giving some of them a miss to be able to perform better in the big ones. Yes, he's RIGHT. It's too much if you do them all and the quality of your performance goes down. He should not be penalised for that.
In tennis the ranking does not take into account EVERY secondary event, just a pre-defined number of them. Up to the players to pick and choose and manage their season. What's wrong with having the same in snooker then?

No he shouldn't be penalised for it, he should practice harder to make sure that his performances levels don't dip in the competitive arena. And I agree on your point about the ranking system, it's still flawed even post-overhaul but the way it is now the season is not even close to being 'packed', 20 events in an 11 month calendar is pretty much the bare minimum to call the sport professional. Double that and we can start talking about players picking and choosing, which I think would be great.

Monique wrote:And it's a ridiculous idea because the prize money they are asking for is not the 147000 it was, it's a rather more symbolic amount, 20K at most for the biggest event. With that how many young players do you think you can support for how long? According to Luca Brecel's father estimation that's just 1/5 of what it costs for a season for a UK based player.
And by cutting down prize money they devaluate the sport in the eyes of the public and the sponsors.

So, what's your alternative then? They play less?

The amount of prize money, compared to the cost involved is one issue. But this is a different issue to how much they play.

to be fair regarding selby he will do what he has to do he hasn't complained about doing it even once....if he can afford not to go to some events that what he will do this season what monique is talking about is the lower rankers that cant afford it or find it difficult to go selby doeskin really come in to that category surely.

we all know its expensive but whats the alternative what if a lower rank player goes to first 3 EPTC gets 3 last 64 = and pockets 1,080 points because all he needs is 3 events towards his ranking is he going to be happy with that or push on to see if he can get 3 last 16 in the next events and get 2,280 points even if only 3 events is counted if they played all 6 the expensed will be the same.and take 3 best results.

if there's take best 3 results out of 6 that will benefit more at the top end of the scale with players that actually wins events rather than players who make the odd last 16 and they feel i got to push more to get semis and quarters.

Bourne

Correct me if im wrong but in Tennis the lower rank players play more events than the Top Players therefore more traveling because thats the only hope they got of being in a position like Federer of picking and choosing events to suit them.

Selby says he'll maybe miss a few depending on how he does elsewhere. Fair enough. I don't see the problem, fair play to him for learning that missing the odd PTC isn't going to do that much damage to your ranking.

Rather than get bogged down in any arguement I'm of the opinion that it's the same for everyone. If you are tired and miss a PTC and someone else leapfrogs you in the mean time, welcome to the real world. There's always someone hungrier than you are waiting to take your job if you don't perform. You've got to strike a balance and take the hit if you choose to rest. It's the same for all sports with rolling rankings.

Wild wrote:Bourne

Correct me if im wrong but in Tennis the lower rank players play more events than the Top Players therefore more traveling because thats the only hope they got of being in a position like Federer of picking and choosing events to suit them.

Absolutely spot on, take Pere Riba for instance, he played in 33 tournaments last season (in a 48 week season), 1 tournament per week ... rose a mere 40 places up the rankings, had to travel all over the world from Bosnia to Uruguay, San Marino to Chile ... top guys have 16 mandatory events a season, most play a couple more but it's nothing compared to the grind of a player around or outside the top 100.

Sonny wrote:Selby says he'll maybe miss a few depending on how he does elsewhere. Fair enough. I don't see the problem, fair play to him for learning that missing the odd PTC isn't going to do that much damage to your ranking.

Rather than get bogged down in any arguement I'm of the opinion that it's the same for everyone. If you are tired and miss a PTC and someone else leapfrogs you in the mean time, welcome to the real world. There's always someone hungrier than you are waiting to take your job if you don't perform. You've got to strike a balance and take the hit if you choose to rest. It's the same for all sports with rolling rankings.

this is a response i got from a young player not even on tour regarding PTC.

BenHarrison147 Ben Harrison
@
@wildey_1 yeah they certainly are expensive but everything is these days, its great experience and you ve just got to get on with it!!

EXACTLY

thats someone that wont get ranking points and wont affect his standing in the game but hotels and airplanes cost exactly the same.

It all depends how much you want it, the hungry players will knuckle down and get on with it, I respect Murphy a lot though I don't like him but he didn't whine or complain, and look at his reward at the end of it.

Bourne wrote:It all depends how much you want it, the hungry players will knuckle down and get on with it, I respect Murphy a lot though I don't like him but he didn't whine or complain, and look at his reward at the end of it.

Well, not about the PTCs anyway. He whined and complained about Ronnie a few times.

SnookerFan wrote:

Bourne wrote:It all depends how much you want it, the hungry players will knuckle down and get on with it, I respect Murphy a lot though I don't like him but he didn't whine or complain, and look at his reward at the end of it.

Well, not about the PTCs anyway. He whined and complained about Ronnie a few times.

SnookerFan wrote:

Bourne wrote:It all depends how much you want it, the hungry players will knuckle down and get on with it, I respect Murphy a lot though I don't like him but he didn't whine or complain, and look at his reward at the end of it.

Well, not about the PTCs anyway. He whined and complained about Ronnie a few times.

Wild wrote:

Sonny wrote:Selby says he'll maybe miss a few depending on how he does elsewhere. Fair enough. I don't see the problem, fair play to him for learning that missing the odd PTC isn't going to do that much damage to your ranking.

Rather than get bogged down in any arguement I'm of the opinion that it's the same for everyone. If you are tired and miss a PTC and someone else leapfrogs you in the mean time, welcome to the real world. There's always someone hungrier than you are waiting to take your job if you don't perform. You've got to strike a balance and take the hit if you choose to rest. It's the same for all sports with rolling rankings.

this is a response i got from a young player not even on tour regarding PTC.

BenHarrison147 Ben Harrison
@
@wildey_1 yeah they certainly are expensive but everything is these days, its great experience and you ve just got to get on with it!!

EXACTLY

thats someone that wont get ranking points and wont affect his standing in the game but hotels and airplanes cost exactly the same.

Ben is 19, and probably still supported by his family. Yes it's a great experience and he might consider this as part of his education as a player, like others are ready to pay for Uni. And because he is not a pro yet, he will play ONLY in these, not in the main events, and he won't play in qualifiers neither. So his calendar will not be even half as busy as the pros...
You can't compare the situations.

monique

try and be consistent here this is about the PTC now its every other tournament under the sun

your hedding About the PTCs...and every other tournament

And what I said is that there are too much tournaments that are mandatory for the pro players to play into. Of course it's about the PTCS. If they consider to miss some because it's too much they won't choose to miss the majors is it?
Ben's situation is not comparable to the pros. He will probably benefit to play in every of them if he can afford it. For him and the other top amateurs it's wonderful. But he has no ranking to worry about yet. He isn't blackmailed to play in every of them because of it.
My point is that PTCS should stay, but only a pre determined of best results should be taken into account for the rankings, with NO constraints about where and when the players chose to play in them. They will still have to play at least in the pre determined number of events if they don't want their ranking to suffer. And I'm also not saying that they should be allowed to pull-out last minute without serious reasons. But they shouldn't be blackmailed to play in every of them because of the ranking system. It will not be sustainable in the long term, neither financially for many, nor mentally/physically.

im sorry for that other post

i just dont know what can be done about the cost of traveling ?

Part of the reason Mark Selby & Shaun Murphy played in all the PTC's was down to having to promote the game as per BH's directive. Which they both did, well, let me say.
The game it's self was in a position that needed all the help it could get.
Has the game come so far that the Top Pro's can pull out & choose which tournaments they wish to enter in & which one's they don't? I'm not so sure it has. Once BH gets word that the PTC's won't be fully supported by the players he won't be a happy bunny because if the top boys don't turn up, the crowds won't either & that hit's your bottom line.
Should the players have a choice? Course they should. Are they in a position to choose? I'm not so sure. I don't think the building blocks are fully built yet.