Post a reply

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Wildey

Andy Spark wrote:
Sonny wrote:We all want longer formats but as far as new events go, this is the closest we've had to a proper big tournament and the points are the same as the UK. I don't know if it's best of 9 or best of 11 like the UK in the earlier rounds but whatever it is, it's one of the big ones to win this season.

I disagree.

tough <ok>

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

In conclusion all I will say is that if the World Championship continues to be contested over the same number of frames as it is currently contested over then my argument about best of 9's in "majors" will be one that increasing numbers of fans will share with me.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Wildey

Andy Spark wrote:In conclusion all I will say is that if the World Championship continues to be contested over the same number of frames as it is currently contested over then my argument about best of 9's in "majors" will be one that increasing numbers of fans will share with me.

Major doesn't need to be contested over same number of Frames as the World Championship.

in 1977 the UK was 21 Frames Final, Best of 17 Semi and Quarters Best of 9s

1977 Masters was 13 frame final Best of 9 Semi and Best of 7s Quarters (yes thats right Barry Hearn didnt invent Best of 7s)

1977 World was 46 frame final best of 18 semi and best of 25 quarters.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

Wild WC wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:In conclusion all I will say is that if the World Championship continues to be contested over the same number of frames as it is currently contested over then my argument about best of 9's in "majors" will be one that increasing numbers of fans will share with me.

Major doesn't need to be contested over same number of Frames as the World Championship.

in 1977 the UK was 21 Frames Final, Best of 17 Semi and Quarters Best of 9s

1977 Masters was 13 frame final Best of 9 Semi and Best of 7s Quarters (yes thats right Barry Hearn didnt invent Best of 7s)

1977 World was 46 frame final best of 18 semi and best of 25 quarters.

Yes, but the average number of exchanges between the players was far more in 1977. It doesn't matter how good you are, if you're sitting in your chair you can't do anything. For things to be really competitive there needs to be a certain amount of ebb and flow between the players, if your opponent is a great player "on fire" then what can you do but sit in your chair. Entertaining though it may be to watch the player "on fire" the competitive aspect is less, it becomes a sort of one mistake saloon for the opponent (who also maybe on great form!) and if you've been kept off the table for a good long time you're at a considerable disadvantage in that decisive exchange.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

Skullman wrote:Your whole argument is that the best of nines mean that some 'unworthy' players will make it through, so it doesn't deserve to be a major. But you have unexpected people getting through all types of matches. Eight seeds fell during this years worlds in the first round which were best of 19.

On the other hand, the 2010 World Open which was best of 5s had four world champions in its semis, and most of the PTCs have been won by top players. And all the 'bigger' PTCs, in terms of atmosphere and being televised, were won by top players. If the crowds are atmosphere isn't flat, the money is good and the top players are sharp, you won't have (m)any lesser players winning it.

I'm not really talking about "unworthy" players in the general sense. All I'm really talking about are relatively evenly matched pairings where one player "rides his luck" to win the match. If a player has comprehensively outplayed another I don't care who they are, they deserve to win. Unexpected people have got into the later stages of numerous tournaments, as long as they have done so by being the better player on the day of their matches I am all for it, in fact I love those players.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

I notice that Dave Hendon in his blog asks the same question as I posed in the title to this thread. His answer: Probably not. :-)

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Wildey

Andy Spark wrote:I notice that Dave Hendon in his blog asks the same question as I posed in the title to this thread. His answer: Probably not. :-)

no what dave hendon said it takes time to develop in to a major on the scale of the other 3 that doesn't mean its not no 4 and that doesn't mean given time it might even replace the UK seeing as the center of the snooker world is now moving to china.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Andy Spark

Wild WC wrote:
Andy Spark wrote:I notice that Dave Hendon in his blog asks the same question as I posed in the title to this thread. His answer: Probably not. :-)

no what dave hendon said it takes time to develop in to a major on the scale of the other 3 that doesn't mean its not no 4 and that doesn't mean given time it might even replace the UK seeing as the center of the snooker world is now moving to china.

Dave is just making exactly the same point I made in my first post on this thread about there being no history behind this event. So I make this point and people disagree with me but Dave Hendon goes on to make exactly the same point in his blog and all of a sudden it's a cogent argument.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Roland

It's only retrospectively you can call it a major. If it dies a death after 2 or 3 years then yes it won't be, but if it goes on for year after year then it will be. It's the same format as the UK, it's what we've been crying out for with all the new shorter format events springing up so basically I'm entirely comfortable with classing it as a major for the time being.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby SnookerFan

I can see Andy's point though, to be fair.

Setting up a new tournament with no history and adding a lot of prize money and ranking points, then saying; "By the way everybody, this tournament is now a major" seems somehow a bit of a marketing ploy to convince punters that this tournament is something special. I think; "Is this really a major?" is a fair question to be asked. The Masters is considered a major, but carries no ranking points at all. Surely there's more to a Major than just calling it one.

Though, I also see Sonny's point. The earlier matches might be shorter, but having longer matches later on does give it more of a special feelings in today's age of shorter match tournaments. And could well be a decent tournament, something a bit different. (Don't some of the first round matche already look tasty? Something that never seems to happen in the China Open or Shanghai Masters as much.)

I think the point is, it's not yet a Major, but if treated properly it could become one. One thing I'd do, if possible, is get rid of the Wildcards. How many tournaments are there in China now? Squillions. This tournament would feel even more exciting if it was the one tournament in China that didn't have them.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Roland

Earlier matches are shorter than what? It's exactly the same as the UK only with more prize money.

It's no one else calling it a major as far as I know, I just slapped it in this section when I set the forum up at the start of the season. For me it's one of the big ones to win this season. It's a major this season. The player who wins it will class it as their biggest win if it's not a former world or uk champion.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby SnookerFan

Sonny wrote:Earlier matches are shorter than what? It's exactly the same as the UK only with more prize money.

It's no one else calling it a major as far as I know, I just slapped it in this section when I set the forum up at the start of the season. For me it's one of the big ones to win this season. It's a major this season. The player who wins it will class it as their biggest win if it's not a former world or uk champion.


I was under the impression, obviously wrongly, that the earlier matches were best of nine. It's been a while since I looked at what the new format was going to be, so was just basing that on what was said earlier in the thread;


Andy Spark wrote:Best of 9 matches! No history. You can't give this the same status as the others. IMO It is a joke to call this tournament a major. The premier league has a higher status in my book.


Sorry about that. Should've checked when unsure, rather than just taking people's word.

Obviously a tournament that has matches all the way through that are as long as, or longer than the UK and has mega-ranking points and prize money, it's even harder to argue with your point about it being something to look forward to in these days of shorter match tournaments.

Lets hope that Eurosport do it some service, and not cut down the coverage of the final like they usually do.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Skullman

Eurosport were good with their coverage of the Masters and UK, didn't see much of their Worlds coverage. And they cover the well. They're okay with the big and small tournaments, just the average rankers where their coverage can be a bit poor.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Roland

Well given all the qualifiers were best of 11, it would be a stupid decision if then the early tv rounds were best of 9. Mind you the way World Snooker is these days I wouldn't put it past them.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby SnookerFan

Sonny wrote:Well given all the qualifiers were best of 11, it would be a stupid decision if then the early tv rounds were best of 9. Mind you the way World Snooker is these days I wouldn't put it past them.


It's a fair point, it'd had slipped my mind that the qualifiers were best of 11. But like you say, it wouldn't be particularly surprising even if it was the case.

Re: Is this a major?

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:Well given all the qualifiers were best of 11, it would be a stupid decision if then the early tv rounds were best of 9. Mind you the way World Snooker is these days I wouldn't put it past them.

yes it would be a stupid decision however there are precedent for that

British Open Mid 80s

Qualifying Rounds including Last 32 Best of 11

TV Stages
Last 16 Best of 9
Quarter Final Best of 9
Semi Final Best of 17
Final Best of 25

Re: Is this a major?

Postby SnookerFan

Wild WC wrote:
Sonny wrote:Well given all the qualifiers were best of 11, it would be a stupid decision if then the early tv rounds were best of 9. Mind you the way World Snooker is these days I wouldn't put it past them.

yes it would be a stupid decision however there are precedent for that

British Open Mid 80s

Qualifying Rounds including Last 32 Best of 11

TV Stages
Last 16 Best of 9
Quarter Final Best of 9
Semi Final Best of 17
Final Best of 25


Mr. Wild. :bowdown: