Post a reply

Wildcards

Postby Roland

This is an excerpt from the interview I did with Aditya Mehta and it concerns wildcards:

Every time there’s an event in China they always have a wildcard round and of course
the professionals hate that, but it sounds like if there’s a ranking event in India there
NEEDS to be a wildcard round.


There’s going to have to be yeah. Obviously like I’ve said the level is not as high as
China. I don’t think the professionals are going to have to be too worried right now!

It was the same in China wasn’t it when they started about 10 years ago? The
wildcards were considered a walkover.


Yes exactly. That’s how the game grows up isn’t it, and snooker needs China and
maybe in 5 years’ time they’ll need India. I think it’s to the benefit of the players in
the long run that they play that wildcard round and help promote the game in that country.


Whatever you think of the wildcard round at ranking events the fact is that if snooker enters new territory it is essential to have a wildcard round if snooker is to grow in that country.

In China the wildcard round saw Ding burst onto the scene when he won the China Open beating Hendry in the final. Still probably the biggest event in Chinese snooker history, and it wouldn't have happened without the wildcard round. When you go back a few years before that, the wildcards were easy meat for the professionals. Fast forward to today and they are a potential banana skin and a lot of professionals do fall at the wildcard stage. What this proves essentially is that the wildcard round works. Without the wildcard round, the interest in snooker and the standard of snooker in China would not have grown to be what it is today.

The problem (if there is one) now lies in the fact there are so many events in China and they ALL have wildcard rounds. Maybe the best scenario today would be for only one or two of the biggest events, like the China Open, to have a wildcard round, and then really go to town on it, get 16 of them involved.

Of course the fact is that Chinese sponsors who put on these events insist on a wildcard round and because of that World Snooker are contractually obliged to have a wildcard round, otherwise the event wouldn't take place. There have been many moaners and groaners about this with some calling for them to be banned, which is frankly ridiculous.

However it is slightly unfair on those qualifiers who have won several matches to qualify for the venue only to be knocked out before they get a chance to play a top 16 player on TV. I'm afraid that's just the way it is though, and if you're good enough you should beat the wildcards and if your outlook is positive you'll see this as a chance to get some match practice under tournament conditions and therefore get a head start (or unfair advantage depending on your viewpoint) on your seeded opponent in round 1 proper. At the very worst, the qualifier who has to play the wildcard doesn't lose any ranking points or money for going out at this stage, so there isn't that much to grumble about.

India could be the next hot bed of snooker. However firstly they need to host a big ranking event, and secondly they need to have some of their own players involved in order to generate the interest and try and kick start something big, and whether you like it or not, this means wildcards.

Re: Wildcards

Postby SnookerFan

That's pretty much it, yeah. The problem with Wildcards in China is that there are now a hell of a lot of events. It's one thing when having a country like India where the game hasn't developed yet, but you can't say this is true of China any more.

Like you say, it's the sponsors that seem to want them more than anybody else.
Last edited by SnookerFan on 17 Sep 2012, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Wildey

Wild Cards in India,Europe or Timbuktoo is a integral part of Helping develope The game there however in china they are not needed any more the standards there is up on the Amataur game in Britain so how about UK Wild cards.

Re: Wildcards

Postby PLtheRef

Wild WC wrote:Wild Cards in India,Europe or Timbuktoo is a integral part of Helping develope The game there however in china they are not needed any more the standards there is up on the Amataur game in Britain so how about UK Wild cards.


That's my point. Apart from China the only time we have any snooker tournaments now with a pre first round matches is at the Welsh Open if we have any Welsh players who are in the last 48 then their matches might be held over to the venue. - I cannot understand why they don't do this over there. Any Chinese players who reach the last 48 then get the chance to play their last qualifier at the 'finals'

The Welsh players all seem very determined to make it to the Welsh Open because its a chance that they have to earn. - For the Chinese players, it's almost a guarantee.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Roland

But they don't get the prize money do they.

Wildcards are not needed in the UK because snooker is established here, it was the most televised sport in the 1980s, so forget that one. They worked in China because look at the standard of snooker over there now, and now questions should be asked because if the wildcards are capable of beating the top professionals in televised tournaments, then there should be more tour places open to them surely? You wouldn't get amateur wildcards from the UK capable of beating the top players on tv.

As highlighted though, the main point is that you need a wildcard round to promote the game in the country that the tournament is being held in so whenever the main tour goes to India, there must be a wildcard round. Must, not should.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Wildey

its established in china too.

and no they dont work in china they are pointless crap and should be scraped.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Roland

Pointless crap like highlighting the 14 year old talent of Lu Haotian to a worldwide audience?

Re: Wildcards

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:Pointless crap like highlighting the 14 year old talent of Lu Haotian to a worldwide audience?


Shane castle will have to wait until he qualifies and reaches the Last 32 because he was unfortunate to be born British.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Roland

You've lost this arguement mate. Shane Castle isn't good enough to beat Marco Fu on TV yet even if he did get the chance.

I'm pretty baffled why you're arguing against wildcards anyway. Firstly you are called Wild which is short for wildcard, and secondly because you preach and preach and preach about what's in the best interests of the game and when it's pointed out that wildcards are, you disagree.

Re: Wildcards

Postby PLtheRef

Point taken but also remember an amateur has reached a final of a PTC this season ;)

For a Wild Card in China there is much more on offer than the prize money for defeating a big name. If any of the eight wild cards could reach the last 16 for example then they will suddenly have God-Like status for the game in China. Look at Ding. Though he was an emerging talent over here after his exploits at the 2004 Masters, he was not a completely known quantity he suddenly became the snooker star over there. The 'grand master' that everyone wants to be like. Regardless of that there is no prize money on offer. A good run, a raising of their own profile and they can suddenly start earning considerable sums as an 'amateur'

The Chinese wildcards however have outlived their use. The game is not really a developing sport there. It is an established sport there. Hence why we have five main ranking tournaments there this year. This is why the Wild Cards are now no longer needed there. Like I said they should do what they do with the Welsh and hold over last 48 matches involving Chinese players to the venue.

The Wild Card round shouldn't become a formality for all of the international events. Otherwise you might as well go back to having 48 fields in the finals of all tournaments bar the Crucible and the Masters. I'm sure I'm not the only one who views these tournaments as 40 man events rather than the 32 they're supposed to be.

In countries where the game's developing, i.e. India, and even Germany then keep the wild cards as they are needed but lets not have the wild cards being included in areas where there's now no longer a need for them as development. Like you said Sonny, there'd never be the best 8 UK amateurs competing at the UK's for instance.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:You've lost this arguement mate. Shane Castle isn't good enough to beat Marco Fu on TV yet even if he did get the chance.

I'm pretty baffled why you're arguing against wildcards anyway. Firstly you are called Wild which is short for wildcard, and secondly because you preach and preach and preach about what's in the best interests of the game and when it's pointed out that wildcards are, you disagree.

you lost the Argument.

What if there was a young British Player with the Talent they will have to get to the last 32 before playing in venues Chinese players has a unfair advantage based on nationality not talent.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Wildey

and BTW im not against Wild Cards as such its just not in the interest of the sport to give Wild Cards in the way chinese do it.

they are talented enough and Good enough to get on tour its not as if Giving Wild Cards gets them on the main tour its just Nothing matches for fat cats Chinese to see home grown players

seriously i find that Patronising for the players involved.

Wild Cards should be used in some cases But no more in china.

Re: Wildcards

Postby PLtheRef

Indeed and it's coming to the stage where the Chinese amateurs are becoming guaranteed five tournaments a year against the top players. No other country gives its amateurs such a chance.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Wildey

PLtheRef wrote:Indeed and it's coming to the stage where the Chinese amateurs are becoming guaranteed five tournaments a year against the top players. No other country gives its amateurs such a chance.

Chinese Amateurs plays more TV Matches than Xiao Guodong or Liang Wenbo does.

its interesting to Note despite reaching a world Ranking of 41 Guodong played in more venues as a Wild Card than he has on Tour.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Odrl

Wild WC wrote:What if there was a young British Player with the Talent they will have to get to the last 32 before playing in venues Chinese players has a unfair advantage based on nationality not talent.


Yeah, but then again, British players don't have to travel across the world to have any chance of starting a career, do they?

Most of the world's best players live and practice in the UK, and play most of their professional snooker there as well. British amateurs have every chance to play these players without major traveling, and they have every chance to actually qualify for the Main Tour without major financial sacrifices, at least compared to the Chinese.

Up to this season, virtually the only chance a Chinese amateur had to play a decent professional player was through these wildcard matches. And even when they played well and became a bit more known in the snooker world, they were still at a disadvantage compared to the British players, in terms of their chances of qualifying for the Main Tour. They still are. And for guys like Lu Haotian, the 14-year-old talents, it's not just a question of getting a spot, but also having to move to the other side of the world, on their own in a different culture, with almost no "life experience".

It's not an easy situation, and there may not be a perfect solution. But in any case, statements like "Chinese players has a unfair advantage based on nationality not talent" are ridiculous beyond belief. ;-)

Re: Wildcards

Postby Roland

I haven't lost the argument at all. If you see the opening post in this topic I said that the current problem is that there are 5 rankers in China and all of them have wildcards. The problem isn't that they were invented in the first place, that's a lot to do with the reason the Chinese are as good as they are today which proves that as a concept, they work. That's undeniable.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Roland

Bringing British players into the wildcards argument is clutching at straws. You may as well give up.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Wildey

Odrl wrote:
Yeah, but then again, British players don't have to travel across the world to have any chance of starting a career, do they?



But if they want a career in Snooker Wild Cards gives them nothing

No Tour Spots available they are nothing more than indulgence from the Chinese Snooker Authorities/sponsors.

if they want a Career Qualifiers are still in Britain in effect it encourages players not to be ambitious because then all you do is play in cubicles why not Stay a Amateur play in venues against the likes of Steve Davis.

Re: Wildcards

Postby PLtheRef

Sonny wrote:Bringing British players into the wildcards argument is clutching at straws. You may as well give up.


Claiming Wild should have unwavering loyalty to Wildcards because he's called Wild is clutching at straws, you may as well give up. :hatoff:

But the issue is that the Chinese interest in the game is now at a stage where you can have several Chinese players qualifying for the tour, and qualifying for tournaments on merit alone. - Look at the World Championships. Four Chinese players made it through to the finals on their own merit. China's the only country which pretty much grants automatic participation in the finals of major events to its best amateurs. With the ever growing number of majors this means as Wild says that the Chinese Amateurs get more chance to appear on TV than the Chinese players lower down the rankings. With Lu's win over Fu this morning it gets even more odd as Lu wouldn't be allowed to be on the tour anyway.

The issue is that the Chinese Wildcards now are no longer needed. - And that you might as well just have a situation like the Welsh Open where the home players in the last 48 have their games held over so they can play at the venue.

Save the Wildcards for the areas where we can work to develop the game. Don't make them ritualistic though.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Wildey

in the International championship you have a ludicrous situation where Cao Yupeng has to play a chinese wild card whitch could easily beat him such is the standard and deprive one of the most promising chinese tour player a meeting with John Higgins in china.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Odrl

Wild WC wrote:But if they want a career in Snooker Wild Cards gives them nothing


Exactly. That was kind of my point. It's much harder for Chinese amateurs to have a snooker career, compared to British ones. Wildcards don't contribute much in that sense, they are basically just an extension of the amateur scene, a kind of reward for the most successful players.

I guess one thing they do contribute is a sort of a reference of the standard of amateur players in China at any point in time. And of course also a reference to the players in question of how competitive they are, and if a professional career is something they should pursue. ;-)

Re: Wildcards

Postby kolompar

I believe the wildcards in China will disappear in some years, because there are the APTCs which are not just oppurtunity for the chinese amateurs to play but also some tour places
and I agree wildcards are not very good now, some amateurs play at more venues than some pros like Xiao, Liu Chuang, Zhang Anda, Li Yan...
also its stupid because there were only 2 wildcards at the Australian open and the Chinese have 5×8 in a season

Re: Wildcards

Postby Roland

Forget the arguments for and against Chinese wildcards as they are right now for the minute then and focus on these:

Firstly does this show that with the level of Chinese amateurs being good enough to beat the top professionals in televised events that they should have more automatic qualification spots for the main tour available to them?

Secondly, does the Chinese model prove beyond doubt the huge benefits to having a wildcard system in countries new to the game?

Re: Wildcards

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:
Firstly does this show that with the level of Chinese amateurs being good enough to beat the top professionals in televised events that they should have more automatic qualification spots for the main tour available to them?


How about this then 5 Chinese Wild Cards per year in china 8 players playing in each event.

Why not make them the same 8 players in each events and Rank them

if a Amateur player wins a match against a tour pro they are eligible for a tour spot the following season

Eligibility

1 Win 1 Match against a pro
2 Highest number of Frames over 5 events

Top Amateur gets a Tour spot the other 7 dont.

Make them count not just a knockabout for Amateurs against under pressure pros

Re: Wildcards

Postby Skullman

Sonny wrote:Forget the arguments for and against Chinese wildcards as they are right now for the minute then and focus on these:

Firstly does this show that with the level of Chinese amateurs being good enough to beat the top professionals in televised events that they should have more automatic qualification spots for the main tour available to them?

There should be a way to get the best Chinese amateurs on the tour somehow. I'm opposed to the idea of a separate Q-School for the Chinese players, but that's the best idea I can think of, unless there's a location available which would equally inconvenience all players.

Secondly, does the Chinese model prove beyond doubt the huge benefits to having a wildcard system in countries new to the game?

Yes. Builds up local interest in developing markets and gives them some experience they might not be able to get otherwise. Plus there's always the chance of finding a Ding or a Robbo.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Roland

I don't see a problem with having an Asian Q School, sure it'll happen one day.

Anyway as someone said earlier, I can't see China being allowed to have wildcards for much longer in all ranking events and if the tour opens up somehow and allows more Chinese spots then with the APTCs that should be enough to see the last of them. But then we will probably see more native amateurs in the Australian and German events for example, so more events will start to have them if they are held in new territory.

Re: Wildcards

Postby PLtheRef

The issue is about giving the Wildcards exposure to playing the top players but also TV exposure. If you are going to create a system where the Amateurs awarded Wildcards into the draw can use these to potentially take up a place on the professional tour you might as well create a five tournament Chinese amateur circuit with the quarter-finals onwards played at the main tournament venues. The winner of that circuit getting the Chinese nomination onto the main tour.

Like I said earlier, Lu wouldn't have been in this had he been on the tour as to compete you need to be 16. That's not to take away from his achievements in the game so far, and I was hugely impressed with the way he played. Even more impressed to find out he'd been 3-0 down against Marco but he's only in this tournament because of the wild card.

To answer the questions

Firstly does this show that with the level of Chinese amateurs being good enough to beat the top professionals in televised events that they should have more automatic qualification spots for the main tour available to them?


I think that the number of Chinese players will probably increase naturally as the tour switches to the 128 membership but that I don't think granting the automatic spots is a good idea in itself. The standard is clearly there that they can earn their places at tournaments, without being granted the Wildcards to compete. Look at the APTCs, the top four of those earn tour cards. That's only going to be beneficial for the game in China, considering all APTCs are held there and the majority of the Asian entrants are Chinese.

Secondly, does the Chinese model prove beyond doubt the huge benefits to having a wildcard system in countries new to the game?


It is certainly a benefit in the long term. Even if sometimes the results show a tough learning curve. Take Bahrain, all of the main tour pros won either 5-0 or 5-1 there seems to have been no encroachment upon that part of the world again. I couldn't understand that.

The problem with the Chinese Wildcards is as said before, they have outlived their use. They are needed in the development of the game. But they shouldn't become the staple diet of a tournament.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Skullman

Sonny wrote:I don't see a problem with having an Asian Q School, sure it'll happen one day.


The only problem I have with Q-Schools split up by region is that tour spots will be given based on nationality rather than merit. Say we give the Asian Q-School and the British Q-School twelve places each. What if the British amateurs who didn't make it were better than the Chinese qualifiers who did (or vice versa). This season can you say that someone like Mohammed Khairy deserves a place on the tour for being African more than some of the British amateurs?

I personally think there should be just one Q-School. The only problem is that wherever you hold it, the home players will have a advantage.

Also, PL, I think that they removed the age limit last season because wasn't Kacper 15 for half of last season? So Lu should be on tour next season as WorldU21 Champion.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Wildey

Skullman wrote:
Sonny wrote:I don't see a problem with having an Asian Q School, sure it'll happen one day.


The only problem I have with Q-Schools split up by region is that tour spots will be given based on nationality rather than merit. Say we give the Asian Q-School and the British Q-School twelve places each. What if the British amateurs who didn't make it were better than the Chinese qualifiers who did (or vice versa). This season can you say that someone like Mohammed Khairy deserves a place on the tour for being African more than some of the British amateurs?

I personally think there should be just one Q-School. The only problem is that wherever you hold it, the home players will have a advantage.

Also, PL, I think that they removed the age limit last season because wasn't Kacper 15 for half of last season? So Lu should be on tour next season as WorldU21 Champion.

i think Q School should be opened for everyone from any country BUT Move it Around

if there was 2 Q Schools Rotating from country to country But Nothing stopping Brits going to Australia the Same way the likes of Vinnie Calbrase or Little Robbo came to Sheffield to try it out.

Everything in Britain OR China is Wrong World Game means more than just two country.....now let the Brits travel if they have ambition.

Re: Wildcards

Postby Roland

I didn't realise Lu was World U-21 champion. That's the sort of thing that should get you a wildcard!