Post a reply

The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby Tubberlad

Before I write this, I must admit that I am not an expert in promoting, which I don't doubt Barry Hearn is. I was in favour of him taking control of the snooker world, and in my opinion, has done a very good job thus far. I began following snooker just twelve and a half years ago, as Stephen Hendry was winning the last of his remarkable seven world titles, and for every year there on until 2009, snooker appeared to decline further and further, to the extent where I honestly believe it would have not drawn any media attention at all outside of the World Championship had it not been for Ronnie O'Sullivan. Love him or loathe him, snooker would have really struggled in it's battle against obscurity had it not been for O'Sullivan, and I think he deserves credit for that, even if some of the headlines he attracted were... bizarre and sometimes distasteful in the eyes of some.

Since late in the year of 2009 however, when Hearn took charge, I think it is very fair to say that snooker has seen a revival. There are now 30-odd tournaments throughout the season, with around 20 of them having ranking points attached to them. Some of these events have been controversial, but at least this is now a profession rather than something of a hobby.

However, although Hearn deserves a lot of credit, and I make that very clear, one change has really grated on me. Hearn promised not to touch the blue riband events, by which I, and most others, understood to be the 'triple crown' events: The Masters, The UK Championship and The World Championship. The Masters has been moved from Wembley to Alexandra Palace, however this is seen by most as a positive move so that is obviously not a problem. The problem lies with what has happened to the second most important ranking event, the UK Championship.

The UK Championship began in 1977, and was held in Blackpool. The following year, it moved to the Guild Hall in Preston, where it would remain until 1997, when it was moved to Bournemouth as part of Liverpool Victoria's sponsorship of the tournament. Many felt the Guild Hall to be the finest snooker venue outside of the Crucible, so this was amongst the changes that has led to this tournament's decline.

In 2007, the tournament was moved to Telford, a venue almost universally loathed by fans, and the opening two televised rounds were held in cublicles. For a tournament with such a high reputation, this was a worrying development.

In 1992, Jimmy White won his second major title when he defeated John Parrott by 16 frames to 9. This would be the last year to feature a best-of-31 frames final, from 1993 the final has been held in one day over a maximum of 19 frames. Again, this has seen the prestige of the tournament decline. Although 19 frames is a considerable tally, it now means the the Shanghai Masters and China Open finals are equally as long as the UK Final, which, in my opinion, is a bit silly considering that the UK has always been held in higher regard than either of those events.

Despite this, the earlier rounds have always been held over best-of-17 frame contests. This had always been the case anyway, so at least the UK could boast earlier round matches of far greater length than the rest of the season's ranking events, and was the closest to the World Championship as far as format was concerned. This is no longer the case.

From the first round until the quarter-finals, the UK Championship will now have best-of-11 matches. This, for me, is another nail in the tournament's coffin. The tournament has at least reverted to a more popular venue at the Barbican Centre in York, but to be quite honest: this is a bastardised version of what was my second favourite tournament.

I don't see why the tournament has to be just nine days long, I would love to see it held over two weeks again, though admittedly I'm no expert on tv schedules or whether or not Hearn has options outside of the BBC. I'd love nothing more to see more than one two-day final during the snooker calender. I also think that best-of-11 matches are nothing special, while best-of-17's are.

I've never been a massive fan of the Masters, it has it's considerable charms but I still feel it is thoroughly overrated. I now see the UK as little more than a Masters with ranking points on offer.

Whether the changes are considered necessary or not, one thing is clear in my mind: we once had two truly great ranking events during the season and unless this change turns out to be a disaster, and we see Hearn revert to the original format, it pains me to say that we now have just one.

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby Monique

Why not see how the tournament pans out before dooming it? Last year most fans were slagging off the World Open before it started and then most actually loved it (bar the fact that it was carrying too much ranking points for such a format).
York is a lot better than Telford, the Barbican is a cracking venue and all matches on television can only help find new sponsoring/funding for the sport. You won't have BBC broadcasting it over 2 weeks, you can forget that unless snooker becomes really massive again.
I do regret that the UK has lost it's distinctive best of 17 format but I certainly won't waste a tear on Telford or mourn the cubicles.
Let's give it a chance.

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby Casey

The UK is no real different to how the Irish Masters was -

best of 9 round 1 & 2 -
best of 11 QF
best of 17 SF
best of 19 final

hardly any difference really and that was a standard ranking event.

Lets see how it goes but Tubber has a point.

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby Wildey

Casey wrote:The UK is no real different to how the Irish Masters was -

best of 9 round 1 & 2 -
best of 11 QF
best of 17 SF
best of 19 final

hardly any difference really and that was a standard ranking event.

Lets see how it goes but Tubber has a point.

good point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Irish_Masters

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby N_Castle07

This is a bit of a shame, however I'm with Mon lets wait and see and put a little faith in BH and I'm sure a top player will win regarless of the shorter format.

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby Tubberlad

Comparing this to the World Open is irrelevant Mon. I looked forward to the World Open, and was proven right, but a best-of-5 format was something new. However, we've all watched best-of-11 matches, and the fact of the matter is that best-of-17's are far more entertaining. I'm not dooming it, I'll still watch but as Case said, this is no different to the 2005 Irish Masters, and the UK has hardly crossed my mind with only a month to go.

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby Monique

Tubberlad wrote:Comparing this to the World Open is irrelevant Mon. I looked forward to the World Open, and was proven right, but a best-of-5 format was something new. However, we've all watched best-of-11 matches, and the fact of the matter is that best-of-17's are far more entertaining. I'm not dooming it, I'll still watch but as Case said, this is no different to the 2005 Irish Masters, and the UK has hardly crossed my mind with only a month to go.


I was not comparing them, I was saying that before the World Open a lot of people were slagging the event off but eventually loved it. So give this a chance as it might prove good.
And it IS different from the Irish Masters. Best of 11 is not best of 9, no more than best of 7 is best of 9.
As for being more entertaining, well that's a matter of taste but one thing is certain I get no entertainment from matches I can't watch and there were too many of those with the old format.

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby Wildey

Tubberlad wrote:Comparing this to the World Open is irrelevant Mon. I looked forward to the World Open, and was proven right, but a best-of-5 format was something new. However, we've all watched best-of-11 matches, and the fact of the matter is that best-of-17's are far more entertaining. I'm not dooming it, I'll still watch but as Case said, this is no different to the 2005 Irish Masters, and the UK has hardly crossed my mind with only a month to go.

perception of a event is everything it just feels like a new event history has been eroded away....

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby Tubberlad

Monique wrote:
Tubberlad wrote:Comparing this to the World Open is irrelevant Mon. I looked forward to the World Open, and was proven right, but a best-of-5 format was something new. However, we've all watched best-of-11 matches, and the fact of the matter is that best-of-17's are far more entertaining. I'm not dooming it, I'll still watch but as Case said, this is no different to the 2005 Irish Masters, and the UK has hardly crossed my mind with only a month to go.


I was not comparing them, I was saying that before the World Open a lot of people were slagging the event off but eventually loved it. So give this a chance as it might prove good.
And it IS different from the Irish Masters. Best of 11 is not best of 9, no more than best of 7 is best of 9.
As for being more entertaining, well that's a matter of taste but one thing is certain I get no entertainment from matches I can't watch and there were too many of those with the old format.


The first two rounds are different. But from the quarter-final onwards, it's the EXACT SAME FORMAT as the 2005 Irish Masters. We need at least two marathon events, especially with the amount of short course events currently on tour, and instead we have just one having been told that the majors wouldn't be touched. And yes, I MUCH prefer best-of-17's to best-of-11's. Any day of the week.

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby Monique

Well the two first rounds are different so obviously it's not the same format ;) the two first rounds count for 24 out of a total of 31 matches that the tournament features ...
And I'm not challenging your preferences, but at the end of the day it's only your preferences, not a fact or a rule for the rest of the world. I prefer to be able to actually watch every match. In an ideal world I'd have liked to keep the best of 17 AND to watch it all, but if I have to chose, well, my preference - if I'm entitled one ;) - is to watch it all.

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby Tubberlad

Monique wrote:Well the two first rounds are different so obviously it's not the same format ;) the two first rounds count for 24 out of a total of 31 matches that the tournament features ...
And I'm not challenging your preferences, but at the end of the day it's only your preferences, not a fact or a rule for the rest of the world. I prefer to be able to actually watch every match. In an ideal world I'd have liked to keep the best of 17 AND to watch it all, but if I have to chose, well, my preference - if I'm entitled one ;) - is to watch it all.

Of course you're entitled to a preference haha... but I still can't understand why the UK can't have best-of-17 matches and not have each game televised...

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby Monique

Tubberlad wrote:
Monique wrote:Well the two first rounds are different so obviously it's not the same format ;) the two first rounds count for 24 out of a total of 31 matches that the tournament features ...
And I'm not challenging your preferences, but at the end of the day it's only your preferences, not a fact or a rule for the rest of the world. I prefer to be able to actually watch every match. In an ideal world I'd have liked to keep the best of 17 AND to watch it all, but if I have to chose, well, my preference - if I'm entitled one ;) - is to watch it all.

Of course you're entitled to a preference haha... but I still can't understand why the UK can't have best-of-17 matches and not have each game televised...


Because we live in a world where economics rules. Because snooker as much as we love it isn't a major sport and as such the BBC is only too keen to reduce its broadcasting time if given the chance and they will certainly not extend it. Their sponsoring and money is badly needed so WSA is not in a position to tell them to buck off. You could squeeze everything in a week with 3 sessions per day in rounds 1 and 2 and 2 tables up to the quarters included, but then again I guess it would be too much broadcasting time over single days and human resources as compared to what BBC is ready to give it.
Similarly I guess the morning sessions would not be the biggest hit with the audience at the venue itself, already the afternoon and evening sessions in early rounds are rarely packed. The venue managers have to make money also. It costs them the same wether the venue is full or empty.

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby Wildey

but monique every buisness has to look at a way to maximise it potential and buisness i honestly hand on heart dont believe this is the way to do it long term.....its a short sighted aim and also as a bbc license payer it is slightly concerning the way they go about using my money.

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby PLtheRef

Personally, anyone using the Irish Masters as a way of showing how "different" the UK Championship is being imo pedantic and is clutching at straws over two frames.

Granted the last change in the playing format was to extend the 48 man first round from best of 13 in 2001 to best of 17 in 2002.

The clearest example in 2011 to highlight a decline in prestige is that this years champion will need 9 fewer frames and subsequently is playing effectively a match less than all UK champions since 1982.

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby Bourne

Wild wrote:but monique every buisness has to look at a way to maximise it potential and buisness i honestly hand on heart dont believe this is the way to do it long term.....its a short sighted aim and also as a bbc license payer it is slightly concerning the way they go about using my money.

Concerning that they're giving you more snooker to watch on the BBC :chuckle:

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby Wildey

Bourne wrote:
Wild wrote:but monique every buisness has to look at a way to maximise it potential and buisness i honestly hand on heart dont believe this is the way to do it long term.....its a short sighted aim and also as a bbc license payer it is slightly concerning the way they go about using my money.

Concerning that they're giving you more snooker to watch on the BBC :chuckle:

what more snooker to watch ???

9 day 2 seshion per day

i had that last year and year before and year before that.

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby Bourne

Wild wrote:
Bourne wrote:
Wild wrote:but monique every buisness has to look at a way to maximise it potential and buisness i honestly hand on heart dont believe this is the way to do it long term.....its a short sighted aim and also as a bbc license payer it is slightly concerning the way they go about using my money.

Concerning that they're giving you more snooker to watch on the BBC :chuckle:

what more snooker to watch ???

9 day 2 seshion per day

i had that last year and year before and year before that.

More matches on TV, ie all matches on TV
or
Some gems hidden away in the coobikuls

And you want to complain about it <laugh>

Re: The UK Championship: a slow painful decline

Postby SnookerAnalyst

I've added some thoughts on my website - http://www.snookeranalyst.com/match-length/. I'm still feeling a bit mixed about the change. I'm sure that many snooker fans would prefer the longer formats, and I hope that there is still room for these types of tournament in the future. Ultimately though, if TV companies and audiences want shorter matches then that's what we're likely to get.

Increasing the number of matches played on TV is definitely a positive step though. One of the big divides in the game is the difference in TV exposure between the top players and the rest. It can take years for players to gain that experience under the current system, so anything which helps this along is good for the game.

The analysis I've posted on my website also suggests that (mathematically) there isn't actually that much difference between a best of 17 and a best of 11. The top players are still likely to dominate the latter stages, and if one of the lower-ranked players makes it then they will have had to raise their game to do so. Whoever wins will have earned their success.


   

cron