Topic locked

Should The Masters be top-8 only ?

Postby Bourne

Anyone really got a convincing argument for this tournament still being top-16 ? It just ain't that much different to any other normal ranking event, just one round shorter and mosta the top players make the last-16 in ya normal rankers anyway. Top-8 only would give the chance for possible round-robin short/mid format, or possibly a straight QF line-up with a long format. The current top-16 just feels too bland right now considering World Snooker still persist in putting the top-16 automatically through to all tournaments.

Re: Should The Masters be top-8 only ?

Postby Witz78

the top 16 elite Masters will soon be brilliant again though because once the new ranking system and flatter qualifying set up similar to tennis when everyone enters at the last 128 stage kicks in, the boring old staleness of the same top 16 at every event wont happen again.

So many clowns on Hendons blog cant grasp that seedings will still be in place with the round 1 of 128, they seem to think Ronnie will draw Trump etc and the last 32 and venue stage will be missing loads of big names whove already drawn each other just cos it can happen in the PTCs due to the ranking method used there.

Re: Should The Masters be top-8 only ?

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:the top 16 elite Masters will soon be brilliant again though because once the new ranking system and flatter qualifying set up similar to tennis when everyone enters at the last 128 stage kicks in, the boring old staleness of the same top 16 at every event wont happen again.

So many clowns on Hendons blog cant grasp that seedings will still be in place with the round 1 of 128, they seem to think Ronnie will draw Trump etc and the last 32 and venue stage will be missing loads of big names whove already drawn each other just cos it can happen in the PTCs due to the ranking method used there.

YES seeding will be implimated for example a Higgins v Ronnie last 128,Last 64 or Last 32 is not going to happen any time soon unlike PTC. but everyone will have to win same number of matches so trying for a higher ranking position for less matches will be irelivent.

Re: Should The Masters be top-8 only ?

Postby Casey

Kind of how they do it in tennis?

I think we get a lot of good matches though the whole tournament, if they do round robin you will lose that knockout intensity.

Re: Should The Masters be top-8 only ?

Postby SnookerFan

Casey wrote:Kind of how they do it in tennis?

I think we get a lot of good matches though the whole tournament, if they do round robin you will lose that knockout intensity.


Round Robin hatah! :grrr:

Re: Should The Masters be top-8 only ?

Postby kostasmad

Hmmmm...let me think....NO....

I am amazed you propose that Bourne...More snooker the better...These days anyone from the top-16 can win it!

Re: Should The Masters be top-8 only ?

Postby Bourne

kostasmad wrote:Hmmmm...let me think....NO....

I am amazed you propose that Bourne...More snooker the better...These days anyone from the top-16 can win it!

You get the same number of matches if you implement round-robin though :D And it gives the tournament it's own unique seal :spot on:

Re: Should The Masters be top-8 only ?

Postby Witz78

Yes i agree Bourne. Id go down that route similar to the tennis. My criteria for the 8 players would be current Masters, UK and World Champions and then the top 5 ranking points earners for the 12 months period since the last Masters, who dont already meet the criteria above. Would ensure an elite field of the true present Masters of the game and also would effectively mean a seperate one year ranking list as the Race To The Ally Pally was in operation. The current set up is stale and predictable zzz

Re: Should The Masters be top-8 only ?

Postby Bourne

Yeh I like that a lot. If we get another tournament like last year where the quality was utter dross and attendances were down, then they really have no choice but to give the tournament a kick up the backside. I'm hoping the move to Ally Pally will revive it a bit but that remains to be seen.

Re: Should The Masters be top-8 only ?

Postby PLtheRef

I certainly think that the Masters could be changed. It's a rare tournament but it doesnt seem to have any kind of 'invitational' feel with the top 16 just getting direct invites to London. Back in the early 80s it was a true invitational until the PPT became the second ranking tournament. I certainly feel that invites could be invited in a different way - for example

Defending Masters Champion
Reigning World Champion
top 8 in the rankings (not already qualified)
top 3 in PTC Order of Merit (not already qualified)
Winner and Runner up of a Masters Qualifier
Wildcard.

Personally I'd like to see the Semi-Finals extended to best of 15 or 17 frames but I dont think that's likely to happen. A Nine day event would give The Masters a really good feel too.

An ATP tour finals style event would be good to see purely because the novelty of a round robin tournament. It works in Tennis with it being a one off. As I've said in the past- making it double elimination as the World Pool Championships are done would also help and ensure that we dont have any dodgy results from players already certain of elimination.

Re: Should The Masters be top-8 only ?

Postby Bourne

And they format the groups the sensible way in the WTF, with having day 1 winner vs winner in the second match, which means the groups always go down to the last matches with something riding on them. Of course you'll get the muppets who'll complain about them not knowing who they're buying tickets to watch, but stuff 'em :limp:

Re: Should The Masters be top-8 only ?

Postby Wildey

well if it was to be Top 8 and top 8 alone in London a certain Ronnie O'Sullivan will have to get his skates on if he wants to be in a TOP 8 Draw.

Re: Should The Masters be top-8 only ?

Postby Bourne

Wild wrote:well if it was to be Top 8 and top 8 alone in London a certain Ronnie O'Sullivan will have to get his skates on if he wants to be in a TOP 8 Draw.

Would motivate Ronnie to do better and a motivated O'Sullivan is good for the game. :hatoff: