Post a reply

Just a rant.....

Postby JIMO96

I'm only posting this to see if it will calm me down because I feel a Wild-esque explosion of wrath coming on, and it's better to let it all out. In simple terms, snooker is annoying me at the moment, and all the reasons why are outlined below:

- The players attitudes
The constant moaning about travelling and expenditure is becoming one of the main features of the sport; first it was the "blackmail" and "rape" of being "forced" to play in PTC's, then it was the increasing China trips, and now we have the sports biggest attention seeker demanding appearance money. As far as I can see, the top players want it all their own way......tournaments in their own back yard, which of course they don't have to qualify for, and prize money guarantees as well as many "family" breaks between tournaments. Have I missed something? Is Ronnie O'Sullivan the only dad in the world who wants to spend time with his kids? And after yesterdays "give me more cash" expose, he can't hide behind the "family" excuse much longer anyway! Now we know the REAL reasons for all the last minute withdrawals. Complete hammer who will NEVER grow up.
Can't believe either that so many are missing Australia......Mark Williams complaints about the tax situation show just how dim witted he is: it's a retention tax that applies in Australia, which means he can claim it back(!) I really hope the other no-shows haven't based their decisions on Williams' brainless outbursts, especially Trump....it beggars belief why a player his age doesn't want to play. I sincerely hope there are no more withdrawals, but I'm guessing one or 2 of the qualifiers will pull out as well.
And as for travelling generally, the Robertsons and Dings have to do it, as the Thorburns and Charltons did before that, and we NEVER hear them moan! Get a grip FFS!

- The secrecy surrounding the game

A week before the Australian qualifiers, and we still don't know who the 3 "TBD" players are. They'll come from the Q School ranking list, which has STILL not been published! The uncertainty over which ranking events will drop out of the cycle at the August cut off (all it says is that the "equivalent" event will drop off on the WS website......but how do you equate 6 UKPTC's from 2 seasons ago, to 4 this season? An October World Open 2 seasons ago, to a March one this season?)
Also, the regular "updates" to clarify an earlier misleading WSA announcement says it all! None of the buckers can communicate properly!
Also.....a new paralell ranking system starts this week, and there's not been a single detail about how it works! Will seeded losers keep their cash as ranking points? If so, that makes it a more restrictive system than the current one FFS!

- The qualifying system

New season, same old "staircase" qualifying events. All the new pros get lumped together in the first round, meaning half go out to each other and the rest are carefully picked off by journeymen. Just look at some of the last 48 matches today: King v Harold; Davis v McLeod; Day v Milkins and my personal favourite: O'Brien v Greene(!) Surely Hearn must look at line ups like this and shake his head in disbelief? It sickens me that it's the same bunch of has-beens or never-gonna-be's that consistently get through to tournaments.....no wonder the sport is perceived to be "boring".
And before the "if they can't beat the journeymen, then they're not good enough" brigade dive in here, ask yourselves how many of the journeymen would get to the last 32 if they all got drawn against each other in the last 128, or had to face a top seed without the cushion of guaranteed prize money? bucking winds me up no end, this.
And before the final qualifying round of the Wuxi is underway, not one single Chinese player remains. Yet some UK players have rolled along to Sheffield, played 1 match, and picked up £1500 minimum prize money WITHOUT SETTING FOOT IN BLOODY CHINA! I cannot be the only one who gets wound up by this??!!?? Snooker must be the bucking laughing stock of sports when it plays it's qualifiers for Chinese and Australian events over here(!) No wonder the Chinese organisers demand wildcards with this ridiculous system in place, but I'd rather the wildcards were given to all the Chinese pros rather than the usual line up of ex-pros or schoolboy talents.

I think a good solution to a lot of the games problems would be to throw the doors open to any player with a highest break of 1. Let anyone turn pro. Play all the tournaments on the PTC model and let everyone earn cash and points. Seed the top 100 into the draw, let the organisers nominate wildcards, then throw the rest in a qualifying event......held in the same country btw......the players who want to play can travel, and those who don't, won't. Dead simple.
I can't help thinking that the allocation of tour places to Canada, Egypt and Australia stinks of tokenism, when they clearly aren't good enough to play on a tour restricted to 99 players. They'll all be non existent by January is my guess. If you're gonna cap the tour, it should be the BEST 99.

If I think of more, I'll add it later. Sorry about the length, and don't feel the need to reply. Just had to unburden myself lol.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Witz78

agree with everything you say Jim

the "they still have to beat the journeymen" argument bugs me, yes to an extent its true but the odds are stacked against young players big time in the current teired set up. Them games you list today, i had a similar rant yday about them zzzzzz

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby SnookerFan

Witz78 wrote:agree with everything you say Jim

the "they still have to beat the journeymen" argument bugs me, yes to an extent its true but the odds are stacked against young players big time in the current teired set up. Them games you list today, i had a similar rant yday about them zzzzzz


I hate it when people post yesterday's news. <laugh>

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Skullman

With flat 128, the new players will still have to play one of the top64 seeds, and they're more likely to get a journeyman than not. There might actually be less younger players coming through. If all the young players are pitted against each other, half still get through. If all the young players are pitted against journeymen or top players, maybe one in five get through.

Have to agree about the top players being moaners, although not all are and I don't mind players like Dott, for example, just not entering a tournament as he doesn't moan or accuse Hearn of blackmail. The 'secrecy' of WSA seems more like incompetence or ignorance rather than intentionally hiding information.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Wildey

Skullman wrote:With flat 128, the new players will still have to play one of the top64 seeds, and they're more likely to get a journeyman than not. There might actually be less younger players coming through. If all the young players are pitted against each other, half still get through. If all the young players are pitted against journeymen or top players, maybe one in five get through.

Have to agree about the top players being moaners, although not all are and I don't mind players like Dott, for example, just not entering a tournament as he doesn't moan or accuse Hearn of blackmail. The 'secrecy' of WSA seems more like incompetence or ignorance rather than intentionally hiding information.

Persanally i think the best Module to get Younger players through is the one used Last 2 seasons in German Masters where they Protected Against Playing Top Players first off but its not the usual tier system.

2011 Thanawat Thirapongpaiboon ,jack Lisowski,Daniel Wells and Anthony McGill reached the Last 32

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Casey

Jim, you are 100% correct - open the gates and let anybody that wants to; enter tournaments.

Ronnie, Williams, Lee, Higgins etc all benefited from this system and as a result were able to shoot up the rankings much quicker.

Some of the old heads hanging around at the expense of younger players is a bit sickening.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Witz78

Skullman wrote:With flat 128, the new players will still have to play one of the top64 seeds, and they're more likely to get a journeyman than not. There might actually be less younger players coming through. If all the young players are pitted against each other, half still get through. If all the young players are pitted against journeymen or top players, maybe one in five get through.

Have to agree about the top players being moaners, although not all are and I don't mind players like Dott, for example, just not entering a tournament as he doesn't moan or accuse Hearn of blackmail. The 'secrecy' of WSA seems more like incompetence or ignorance rather than intentionally hiding information.


yeh at the moment half of the youngsters get through to round 2 and STILL have to win THREE more games to get to a venue

under the flat 128 system maybe only a 1/4 instead of 1/2 of the youngsters would win their 1st game but by getting to round 2, they would only have to win ONE more game to get to the venue.

the odds are firmly stacked against the youngsters before they even get their cue out of their case with this protective, biased system at present.

level playing field for all then watch the youngsters go.

just look at the PTCs for example

and dont argue that the journeymen im talking about, dont try in them events cos they 100% do

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Witz78

Wild WC wrote:
Skullman wrote:With flat 128, the new players will still have to play one of the top64 seeds, and they're more likely to get a journeyman than not. There might actually be less younger players coming through. If all the young players are pitted against each other, half still get through. If all the young players are pitted against journeymen or top players, maybe one in five get through.

Have to agree about the top players being moaners, although not all are and I don't mind players like Dott, for example, just not entering a tournament as he doesn't moan or accuse Hearn of blackmail. The 'secrecy' of WSA seems more like incompetence or ignorance rather than intentionally hiding information.

Persanally i think the best Module to get Younger players through is the one used Last 2 seasons in German Masters where they Protected Against Playing Top Players first off but its not the usual tier system.

2011 Thanawat Thirapongpaiboon ,jack Lisowski,Daniel Wells and Anthony McGill reached the Last 32


yeh as a compromise to a flat 128 id go with that

it also gives some importance to being in the top 32

though to be honest i think heading towards a tour of 128 players, theres no way 16 can automatically be seeded through to venues with the other 112 fighting it out for 16 places. If the teired system stayed thatd mean SIX qualifying games just to get to the venue for the guys ranked 97-128 which is well unrealistic and unfair.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby JIMO96

Witz78 wrote:
Skullman wrote:With flat 128, the new players will still have to play one of the top64 seeds, and they're more likely to get a journeyman than not. There might actually be less younger players coming through. If all the young players are pitted against each other, half still get through. If all the young players are pitted against journeymen or top players, maybe one in five get through.

Have to agree about the top players being moaners, although not all are and I don't mind players like Dott, for example, just not entering a tournament as he doesn't moan or accuse Hearn of blackmail. The 'secrecy' of WSA seems more like incompetence or ignorance rather than intentionally hiding information.


yeh at the moment half of the youngsters get through to round 2 and STILL have to win THREE more games to get to a venue

under the flat 128 system maybe only a 1/4 instead of 1/2 of the youngsters would win their 1st game but by getting to round 2, they would only have to win ONE more game to get to the venue.

the odds are firmly stacked against the youngsters before they even get their cue out of their case with this protective, biased system at present.

level playing field for all then watch the youngsters go.

just look at the PTCs for example

and dont argue that the journeymen im talking about, dont try in them events cos they 100% do



PLUS.....any youngster winning their first round match in a 128 draw will earn cash and therefore (vitally) RANKING POINTS IN PROPORTION TO THE WIN. Currently, a newcomer to the tour, if he wins his first round match (using Wuxi as an example) gets 630 points (i.e the difference between 280 and 910). However, every round after that the're only on 350 per round (it goes up to 1260, then 1610 in successive rounds) despite playing a HIGHER SEED!

Compare that to the players in the 17-32 bracket. If Dark Mavis and co trot along and win their first match (against a player they're expected to beat) they earn a whopping 1155 points(!!) This represents the difference between 1960 for winning, and 805 for losing. That's right, 805(!) What did first round losers get again? 280 for effectively doing the same thing, losing their first match!

The lower reaches don't stand a chance. What exactly has anyone from 17th to 64th done in the sport to deserve such over protection?

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby JIMO96

Also, on the subject of new talent coming through a flatter draw......

Take Li Yan as an example, a new talent from China, with a reputation already of claiming the scalps of a few journeymen.

In the Wuxi, he got drawn against Adrian Gunnell (tough as they come) and beat him. He then lost to Gerard Greene (1 season in the 32 in 20 years as a pro, currently clogging up the top 48). And if he'd beaten him, he'd have got Fergal "no description needed" O'Brien(!) Travelling all that way to play 3 complete chuggers of the sport!

Now in a flat 128 draw, Li Yan might have got a toughened journeyman first round, but then in the last 64 (remember this time playing for a huge jump in ranking points instead of a mere 350), there's every chance he could play a newcomer who'd done the same as him....with the winner being in the last 32 after just 2 matches!

Even if he got, say Selby or Trump in the 64, at least it would be invaluable experience....whereas currently he has to beat 3 chuggers to have a sniff of the big guns.

Witz, are we saying it wrong or something?

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Witz78

i think the problem Jim is that a lot of people are either too thick to work it out, or there just stuck in there own little bubbles and afraid of any sort of change.

i mean its not complicated, surely anyone can understand that.............

everyone starting in the same round is fairer

everyone getting the same points / money for a win is fairer

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby snooky147

The players attitudes
I agree with some of your points but there's a few need clarifying.
The travel situation......For the foreign tournaments they now have to pay their own flights etc. AND before anyone jumps it that's not a moan BUT if the WSA make the schedule more travel friendly it would help. Also if you use a Travel Agent you can get caught up in some hefty fares as well having to book in country flights and hotels with all the problems that entails like language etc. The WSA, who did block bookings for all this before would do well to offer players how to get the best deals.
Australian witholding tax is as you say a retention tax but you are 100 percent wrong in saying you can claim it back. You can claim it in full if your under the highest tax bracket but otherwise a percentage is all you can hope for.
Not going to Australia was a prerogative of any player. Those who did not go to this poorly paid tournament have in MY OPINION shown some sense. They should have made it an Invitational with that level of Prize fund. And before anyone says that the Welsh or the German tourneys are equally low in funds, it doesn't cost £1,000's to go to Wales or Germany.
99 percent of the players embraced the new rankings system which for most of them is disadvantageous so how are they getting it all their own way. You either tick the entry box for a tournament or you don't. You don't and you lose the ranking points and the prize money. Nobody's business but the players so why vilify them for it. Tick the box and then withdraw with some stupid reason, that's a different story, vilify away to your little hearts content.
Why people in this forum can't see that the travel is a huge part of a players life and to get the right balance between travel, tournament AND family life is a tough one and now that the calendar is so big, well, there will be choices made. Not many will play in everything.
Also can we please stop putting halo's over your Thorburn's ,Charlton and Higgin's etc. Be under no illusions, the players from those era's raked in as much as they possibly could. They did not do it "for the good of the game" (hides) :emb:

The secrecy surrounding the game
I agree with you on most points, especially on the rankings and the lack of general communication. But what do you expect. I am not the first one on here to email them calling them useless hammers (or similar) but although the staff has been thinned the remaining staff are still the same as they were when I was traveling on a regular basis to the tournaments and that's coming on 10 years now and their still making the same old mistakes. New blood needed.
Wherever you are ranked in the present system you absolutely deserve your place. You have worked over the years to get there or higher or you may on your way up or down so it's true that if the up and comers cannot beat what you called journeymen they dont deserve their place.
Your solution to the games problem is nonsensical at best so I'll ignore it.
I do agree on the allocation to Countries that do not have the quality of player needed to be on tour.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Skullman

Again I'm not against the flat 128 and I agree with it. I just don't think it's going to help the young players/get rid of the journeymen anymore than the old system did, as the journeymen are still there and still have to be beaten.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Witz78

agree with most of what you say snooky apart from about the players deserving their places in rankings

its been a shut shop effectively for so many years and despite improvements under Hearn its still not good enough

its no coincidence the bulk of the so called journeymen are from the period where the sport was opened up in the early 90s and since the floodgates were shut many years ago and theyve kept their heads above water simply by winning a few opening round games each season without ever threatening to rise up the rankings or make an impact on a tournament. To quote someone "DEADWOOD"

obviously your focus is on Dott though so the self preservation society mentality exudes from your comments.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Skullman

If the 'deadwood' have stayed stable in the rankings, then maybe that's because they belong in that band in the rankings. Players below lose, players above them win.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Witz78

Skullman wrote:Again I'm not against the flat 128 and I agree with it. I just don't think it's going to help the young players/get rid of the journeymen anymore than the old system did, as the journeymen are still there and still have to be beaten.


if it was a flat 128 theyd only have to beat 2 deadwood max to get to a venue as opposed to beating 1 youngster plus 3 deadwoods

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Skullman

Witz78 wrote:
Skullman wrote:Again I'm not against the flat 128 and I agree with it. I just don't think it's going to help the young players/get rid of the journeymen anymore than the old system did, as the journeymen are still there and still have to be beaten.


if it was a flat 128 theyd only have to beat 2 deadwood max to get to a venue as opposed to beating 1 youngster plus 3 deadwoods


True but the deadwood aren't interchangable. Some of them are better than the others. They may have to face a top32 player right off the bat when both are coming in cold, instead of getting the players that are struggling in the low 60s who they might beat and only facing the stronger deadwood in their third match.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Witz78

Skullman wrote:If the 'deadwood' have stayed stable in the rankings, then maybe that's because they belong in that band in the rankings. Players below lose, players above them win.


no if you read Jim or my posts you might get it into your head.

an example.........

take a guy ranked 17-32

of this seasons 10 main ranking tournaments

he wins ONE game all season in the world championship qualifier and loses the 9 other last 48 games, then he gets 9,585 points

someone who wins 1st qualifying round matches in ALL 10 events gets 8,970 points which is 615 less despite winning 9 more games.

this is just one example

but the crux of the argument is that players further up the rankings shouldnt get more starter points, its just an unfair advantage and helps to PROTECT them.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Sickpotter

I always wonder about people who spout off about "journeyman".

If these "journeyman" are so bad and don't deserve their ranking then the new crop of players will beat them.

BUT....the new crop has to beat them. If they can't beat a so called "journeyman" they don't deserve to move up the rankings.

Edited to add... fully agree that ranking point distribution should not offer any players advantage over others,

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Alpha

No point complaining about the "deadwood". They're where they are in the game because the current crop of youngsters (apart from Trump and maybe JJ) aren't good enough yet. That would be true of any ranking system.
What bothers me more than the ranking system or the journeymen clogging up the rankings (an irrelevant point when the flat 128 structure is introduced in 2013/14 is the fact that in trying to build a global sport, Chinese players are having to qualify for their own tournaments in the UK.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby JIMO96

Snooky147, I appreciate the lengthy insight, and I understand your close involvement with the game through Graeme Dott (one of my favourite all time players BTW).

I am not 100% wrong on the Australian tax system.....but I'll own up to being partially wrong. The players can claim SOME of their tax back on repeat visits to Australia, obviously not all of it. But there's no way the players earnings are restricted to just 54% of the prize fund, with the other 46% being tax(!) And my point was that players not committing to Australia for tax reasons, need to do their homework properly instead of listening to Mark Williams; plus I highlighted Trump and no-one else as a curious no-entry. (Admittedly there are other issues with Australia, like the timing and location)

It would be great if WS had enough funds to buy a private jet to haul all 128 members around the world....maybe one day. But I agree, they should seek out financially beneficial packages for the players regarding hotels and transfers.

I'm not going to give up championing the overseas players because they "raked it in". There are far more examples than Thorburn & Charlton who have to go a lot further than a few hundred miles down the motorway to qualify for tournaments, and not a complaining word is heard from them. There are arguably more world class players emerging from China now than there are from Britain. How many 1st year UK pros got as close to the top 64 last season as Yu Delu, Li Yan & Cao Yupeng got? How many would make it if the tour qualifying was all held 10,000 miles from the UK?

Wherever you are ranked at present you "absolutely deserve your place".....really? This MIGHT be the case, we'll never know...it's just that all the deadwood clogging up the middle sections of the rankings have got there SLOWLY. They were all once attacking, positive players (see Hamilton, Harold) but are now dull, negative "don't lose the first match" players, because that's what this drip-drip ranking system rewards. The new one will be more fluid and I'll own up to being totally wrong if in 2 years time we still have Mike Dunn & Fergal O'Brien in the top 50.

I'm dying to hear what is so "nonsensical" about my opening up of the pro ranks idea......

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Sickpotter

Spot on Jim.

Thorburn, Wych, Stevens, etc. all managed to travel large distances with arguably less money to win but still did it.

Maybe "for the good of the game" isn't the exact reason but at the very least it was because they made sacrifices to pursue a career in the game they love.

Players today seem to want it handed to them.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Alpha

Sickpotter wrote:Spot on Jim.

Thorburn, Wych, Stevens, etc. all managed to travel large distances with arguably less money to win but still did it.

Maybe "for the good of the game" isn't the exact reason but at the very least it was because they made sacrifices to pursue a career in the game they love.

Players today seem to want it handed to them.


Not quite players. Only one player.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:
Skullman wrote:Again I'm not against the flat 128 and I agree with it. I just don't think it's going to help the young players/get rid of the journeymen anymore than the old system did, as the journeymen are still there and still have to be beaten.


if it was a flat 128 theyd only have to beat 2 deadwood max to get to a venue as opposed to beating 1 youngster plus 3 deadwoods

Today a deadwood Q School Qualifier made it to Wuxi from the first Qualifying Round winning 4 Matches

Zhang Anda
Yu Delu
Liang Wenbo
Jamie Jones

Lost to Lawler with a Avarage age of about 23 with Wenbo at 25 being the Oldest.

Players has to win matches no ifs buts or maybee Lawler did from the first Round against 4 Players atleast 15 years his Junior.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Witz78

Alpha wrote:
Sickpotter wrote:Spot on Jim.

Thorburn, Wych, Stevens, etc. all managed to travel large distances with arguably less money to win but still did it.

Maybe "for the good of the game" isn't the exact reason but at the very least it was because they made sacrifices to pursue a career in the game they love.

Players today seem to want it handed to them.


Not quite players. Only one player.


thats why theres 7 of the elite missing Australia then and only 3 of them i think went to Brazil last year then :gag:

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby JIMO96

Wild WC wrote:
Witz78 wrote:
Skullman wrote:Again I'm not against the flat 128 and I agree with it. I just don't think it's going to help the young players/get rid of the journeymen anymore than the old system did, as the journeymen are still there and still have to be beaten.


if it was a flat 128 theyd only have to beat 2 deadwood max to get to a venue as opposed to beating 1 youngster plus 3 deadwoods

Today a deadwood Q School Qualifier made it to Wuxi from the first Qualifying Round winning 4 Matches

Zhang Anda
Yu Delu
Liang Wenbo
Jamie Jones

Lost to Lawler with a Avarage age of about 23 with Wenbo at 25 being the Oldest.

Players has to win matches no ifs buts or maybee Lawler did from the first Round against 4 Players atleast 15 years his Junior.


Some points, Wild:

(i) No-one was more impressed than me with Lawlers achievement.....he's come from round 1, and I've always said that ANYONE who qualifies for a ranking event from that position deserves praise and recognition, as they've beaten the staggered and biased qualifying system. The fact that he's done it from the last chance saloon of Q School 3 defies belief.....dropping off the tour has obviously given Rod a wake up call, good luck to him.

(ii) Lawler beat 3 successive Chinese players, qualifying for their home event, in bloody Yorkshire. There's no glory for any fair minded snooker fan in that, so enough of your gloating tone like you've got one over on Witz and me.

(iii) Are you not even slightly disappointed that no new faces are emerging in snooker? You seem very chuffed that Rod Lawler has made it to a TV stage (for probably the last time in his career.....age is not on his side). Look at the draw for the last 32 of Wuxi FFS. People are moaning on another forum that they're fed up of all the "repeat" matches. THATS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ONLY 16 GET TO QUALIFY! Once all 32 venue players have to emerge out of the qualifiers, we'll see all the new blood coming through.

(iv) I'm not saying the deadwood aren't good players (as Lawler proved yesterday). I'm saying that making newcomers play 3 of them in a row of energy sapping borefests is going to crush the will to live out of the most enthusiastic of new talents. At least with an untiered qualifying system, players will take their chances with the draw, which has a better chance of opening up if it's flat. You never know, some journeymen might even benefit from this system and temporarliy escape from the deadwood hell of mid40th in the rankings......as long as new faces come through to TV, that's the important thing.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Wildey

BTW Jim i agree with most you ranted about even the tier system but i just think winning matches is what its all about no matter what system.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby JIMO96

Wild WC wrote:BTW Jim i agree with most you ranted about even the tier system but i just think winning matches is what its all about no matter what system.


Of course it is, and that's the way it should be and always should be. But do you not think that the unfair qualifying and ranking system contributes to a new players mentality, and possibly even adds extra pressure, therefore giving their opponent an advantage?

I think it does, and I strongly believe this advantage will be partially removed if the draws are flattened, and fully removed if the qualifying takes place in the same locality as the main event.

Re: Just a rant.....

Postby Alpha

Witz78 wrote:
Alpha wrote:
Sickpotter wrote:Spot on Jim.

Thorburn, Wych, Stevens, etc. all managed to travel large distances with arguably less money to win but still did it.

Maybe "for the good of the game" isn't the exact reason but at the very least it was because they made sacrifices to pursue a career in the game they love.

Players today seem to want it handed to them.


Not quite players. Only one player.


thats why theres 7 of the elite missing Australia then and only 3 of them i think went to Brazil last year then :gag:


Six of that elite 7 signed the players contract. If you had to sit on a plane for 24 hours, having had to pay for flights and accommodation and have 46% of your low prize money deducted by tax (even if you could claim it back later in the year), you'd miss Australia too :shrug: