Post a reply

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby vodkadiet



More teasing from Sonny. All we have learned so far(for those who didn't know already), was that Ferguson was a decent player, who never had the mental strength to win big matches.

I also remember the Hendry match at The Crucible slightly differently to how Ferguson describes it. He wasn't 40 ahead each of the 2 frames after leading 6-3.

That sounds like the fisherman story.

Jason, I must have told you a thousand times not to exaggerate!

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby Roland

More teasing yes, because this one sets the scene for part 2. Part 2 is not to be missed ;-)

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby Wildey

i enjoyed that read but as a long standing snooker fan i knew where the guy handing out trophies had come from and his back ground.

a underrated player and he almost gave me a heart attack in 1996 watching the match against Stephen Hendry on bloody ceefax.

Part 2 is what im looking forward to the nitty gritty of where snooker is heading over the next few years.

there's no doubt about it under Barry Hearn regime Snooker is heading the right way and its interesting that someone that played the game had seen this vision years ago but the sport was in a rut and just couldn't get out of it.

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby Roland

Exactly, and when you read part 2 you will see how much the way the sport is heading is down to Ferguson just as much if not more than it is with Hearn.

It's pretty hard hanging back but New Years Day it will be. First blog of the new year and it will end up being the most read of all the interviews I've done.

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby vodkadiet

Sonny wrote:Exactly, and when you read part 2 you will see how much the way the sport is heading is down to Ferguson just as much if not more than it is with Hearn.

It's pretty hard hanging back but New Years Day it will be. First blog of the new year and it will end up being the most read of all the interviews I've done.


:gag:

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby Alex0paul

vodkadiet wrote:


More teasing from Sonny. All we have learned so far(for those who didn't know already), was that Ferguson was a decent player, who never had the mental strength to win big matches.

I also remember the Hendry match at The Crucible slightly differently to how Ferguson describes it. He wasn't 40 ahead each of the 2 frames after leading 6-3.

That sounds like the fisherman story.

Jason, I must have told you a thousand times not to exaggerate!


Yes he only scored an aggregate of 26 points in the 7 frames he lost in that session.

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby Smart

Alex0paul wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:


More teasing from Sonny. All we have learned so far(for those who didn't know already), was that Ferguson was a decent player, who never had the mental strength to win big matches.

I also remember the Hendry match at The Crucible slightly differently to how Ferguson describes it. He wasn't 40 ahead each of the 2 frames after leading 6-3.

That sounds like the fisherman story.

Jason, I must have told you a thousand times not to exaggerate!


Yes he only scored an aggregate of 26 points in the 7 frames he lost in that session.


I thought it was 25 :party:

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby vodkadiet

Alex0paul wrote:
vodkadiet wrote:


More teasing from Sonny. All we have learned so far(for those who didn't know already), was that Ferguson was a decent player, who never had the mental strength to win big matches.

I also remember the Hendry match at The Crucible slightly differently to how Ferguson describes it. He wasn't 40 ahead each of the 2 frames after leading 6-3.

That sounds like the fisherman story.

Jason, I must have told you a thousand times not to exaggerate!


Yes he only scored an aggregate of 26 points in the 7 frames he lost in that session.


If he is prepared to lie about that, I guess he will be prepared to lie about the plans for the tour structure.

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby Monique

Thank you for this interview, it's certainly very interesting and overall quite re-assuring regarding the future of the game.

On the back of this though there are two questions I'd have liked to put to Jason (and I suspect you wouldn't have liked to put to him … ;-) … teasing a bit here but not quite).
1. I understand his point about the wild cards, but then what about amateurs being thrown into main events draws? The problem is exactly the same as pro players who compete for a living and ranking points are thrown against amateurs who have absolutely nothing to lose and hence have no pressure. It is in my opinion even worse, as players facing the wilcards are guaranteed the points and money they have already earned - and we know that points wise the first match is the most important one when it comes to ranking under the current system - whilst round 1 players are guaranteed absolutely nothing. So what has Jason to say about this?
2. You have put the PL and Masters in your question about the money list but avoided to cite the PTC Grand Final (and I don't think it's just because you forgot). But to me the situation of the Masters and PTC GF are exactly the same under the money list system and flat structure. In both case the players will qualify for it by being in the top "n" of a money list over a certain number of events where they all start in the first round. I'm all for excluding the Masters from the ranking, but then so should be the PTC Grand Final, especially if the prize money in PTCs is increased. It would be rewarding some players twice for the same efforts and performances. Currently I can see why it's done: it's the carrot to try to motivate the players to give the low paying PTCs their best and it's only 3000 points for the winner. So it's a big financial incentive but not much distortion on the rankings. However with a £100 000 prize money, it would be a major distortion under a money list ranking system. Again I would be interested to read Jason's answer to this reasoning.
And finally, yes, I will admit that I find it satisfying that he did confirm what I said from the start: the money list is a major incentive for the sponsors to throw money in events and it's already happening to an extend. It's a basic economics concept and selling goods under their real cost is never a successful model when it comes to develop a business over time.

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby Roland

Regarding amateurs filling up spots, if there are 128 places in each event then the places should be filled up. By the sounds of it the amateur ranking list could be used in future.

As for the PTC grand finals, I like the way you assume I deliberately avoided mentioning it when the examples were more off the cuff. I think it's pretty obvious the same rules would apply as for the other events mentioned.

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby Wildey

I was pleasantly surprised with the direction that snooker will be taking over the coming years under Barry Hearn and Jason Ferguson and there were very few things I disagreed with and I'm very excited about the future. However I picked up on one point

Jason Ferguson wrote:We’re always open to discussions. The door is firmly open in terms of our sport and the television distribution. Talks are always going on and yes I wouldn’t rule that out, but we’re continually working with the BBC and we’re continually working with how we can improve that service.

I think in terms of production, they are superb and what actually comes out is superb, and one thing I can tell you is the viewing figures are still huge for snooker so I have to say I expect that our relationship with the BBC will continue to get better.

In terms of production the BBC are behind the times, they almost think we would rather listen to them talking or some stupid feature on this or that than watching the snooker on the table.

If World Snooker wants to continue their partnership with the BBC things will have to change to give a better experience for us to watch their channel and snooker on the table and less bullocks from the studio.

@Monique; the Masters and the PTC Grand Finals are different in the respect that the Masters is a tournament on its own where as the PTC Grand Finals are the culmination of a season long tournament, namely the PTC. Players will be playing in so many events with the aim of getting into the Grand Finals, and awarding ranking points in that tournament rewards consistency over a season long event.

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby Witz78

Good conclusive interview Sonny.

Ferguson basically said everything i hoped and expected him to say which fills me with confidence as to the way the sports going.

Wild, the money list will see prize money increase, its a no brainer plus it means someone who does well in an event is properly rewarded in the rankings. The days of players main priority being winning their opening match are over. This new format will encourage players to become winners and achievers as opposed to just picking up guaranteed prize money. Standards will improve significantly, its survival of the fittest and the landscape of snooker will change beyond recognition and for the better over the next 2 or 3 years.

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby Roland

A selection of quotes worthy of highlighting:

The one thing we were doing back then is we were playing 3 or 4 times a week. We used to play a pro-am on a Saturday, a pro-am on a Sunday, and then we’d play a small invitation event in a club somewhere during the week where we’d all put £100 in and play for it. We were full time; we were playing full time and although we were amateurs we were all playing every single day, somewhere. And that’s one thing you see on the tour now.

Amen to that, the more events the better. Some are complaining of saturation. Remember 6 ranking events per season? I am all for increasing the calendar and getting all the players playing as much as possible. No one is forced to play every event but it's a good thing having the calendar stacked out. Look at golf and tennis and the number of events going on worldwide in those sports.

I was one of the instigators in setting up World Snooker Limited as a separate commercial company, some time ago. The idea of that company was to do exactly what is in place now, to broker deals with promoters, investor partners, and actually try and grow the commercial rights away from the governing body.

Barry Hearn is Chairman of World Snooker Ltd, in charge of growing the commercial rights. Jason Ferguson is Chairman of the WPBSA, in charge of growing the game of snooker and looking after the players interests. Barry couldn't do Jason's job to the same standard and I dare say vice versa, so for me splitting the game into two parts has been proven right and as long as the two Chairmen in these positions work together the game will thrive.

...let’s say we have a new event in India. The likelihood is that we will want to hold over two of those matches for the Indian players. And I’m sure that that will eventually happen in China as well where they will want to hold over some of their best matches for the final stages. So we’ll certainly have to accommodate for a few extra matches at the venue.

Some of the players to be fair are raising concerns over that and asking whether it’s fair or not because it’s possible you could get the seeds in round 2 always playing at the venue. That is certainly a concern of mine as well, I think there are some issues there which we’ll need to iron out.


People will complain but you can see the situation from the point of view of keeping sponsors happy and being fair to the players. I would think they will end up trying to limit the number of games held over to the venue to a fixed number and base this on home players or particularly tasty matches between well known players. Over the course of a season I think they will find a balance to make sure your Ronnie's of the world don't always play at the venue from round 1 or 2, and that players who do end up with more matches being held over than others will have earned it through performances. This has been a talking point of late and it will be interesting to see how they deal with it.

If a player from say Jordan or the Middle East or anywhere else wants to be a professional snooker player, there has to be a career path for that person to qualify. And over the years there just hasn’t been the opportunity. Without having somebody to pay for that person to go and live in the UK for 3 or 4 years to see if they can make it, there just hasn’t been that opportunity, and I’m pleased to say that that is changing, fast.

It is so refreshing to hear a WPBSA Chairman bring this up because for years it was a major concern and as he says, things are changing for the better on this front and will continue to improve.

The encouragement that it gave people to climb a ranking system was incredible. You could get to the top and actually qualify for the tour. Out of that have come some of the ideas that we’ve got out there now..... the EBSA ranking list has been running alongside the PTC ranking list through some amateur events that we’ve been running, and the top 3 qualifiers from that system will qualify for tour spots.

Now we get to see what the idea is behind these other events for amateurs being held during the EPTC events. It's not perfect because amateurs having a good run have ended up having to choose which event to carry on playing in, but the idea of creating an amateur ranking list running alongside the professional one will inspire the amateurs and is a great move. Hopefully this list will become more and more significant when it comes to amateurs filling up spots made vacant from non-entries in 128 flat draw professional events. And if the names are picked from the amateur list then it is a lot fairer than the existing wildcard system because the players receiving invites will have earned them. The player in top spot will also not always be guaranteed a slot in the next event because the amateur list will keep moving and changing over time as well as the professional one.

As part of this new structure, we believe that we will get to a stage where we don’t have the wildcards coming in as seeds in a later round. That’s certainly my target.

This is the news everyone has been waiting to hear and I'm sure many players and commenters will be relieved to hear the top man talking along these lines.

I believe that we have outgrown the facilities that we’ve got there now, which is why we’ve been staging the qualifiers in the badminton hall..... There’s an argument to say that we may need up to 16 tables. Now if we do, then what I don’t want to see is 16 cubicles if you’ve got top players playing in there. It has to be 16 arenas. It has to look proper and it has to be accessible to people.

A new facility in Sheffield and with proper ambitions for it to be used as a venue in its own right where the public can go and watch the opening rounds of tournaments, and which can be used in conjunction with the Crucible to house the World Championships in a 128 flat draw format. I don't know about anyone else, but this concept has certainly got my juices flowing and I hope to god it happens.

For me the Wimbledon format is the one that works. You know, let’s cut to the centre table, let’s see what’s going on on an outside court where, you know, John Higgins is 4-1 down to a newcomer. We’re looking for stories, we’re looking for new blood to come through, we’re looking for those exciting moments which create news for us.

You can't argue with this vision. This is the one which brings snooker well and truly into the decies and beyond.

At heart I am still a snooker player and I’m still quite traditional in the way the game is played and whilst we can be quite radical with structures, what we mustn’t do is change the fundamental principles of the game. Snooker is a great product!

Jason understands that the championship format of snooker is the only one that counts and the only one which is a sport. You can do all your shot clock nonsense and power snooker and whatever else, but there's only one version of snooker that is a real sport and that matters in the general scheme of things.

For me, it’s all about the customer experience. You’ve got to give people a good night out. That’s the thing with live snooker, it’s not about going and sitting still and not speaking a word all night, it’s about customer experience and if we want to keep our customers then we’ve got to give them what they want.

Allowing the paying public to roam the venue and choose their matches will definitely help to bring the crowds in because once you've been an event like this, you will not want to stay at home and watch on tv any longer when you can reasonably get to a venue. It looks like this will be more the way the game is heading and thank god for that.

...if you can say you’ve got this multi-table format then you can update the ranking list after every tournament because the qualifying for the next tournament won’t have already taken place. And that’s where we’re moving to. We’d like to get to a position where you’re almost running a live system all year. That would be fabulous for everybody.

Ok it may be a money list, but at least it will be properly rolling in the true sense, and combined with the top 64 being seeded and the rest being drawn from a hat, it guarantees a different draw for each event.

Anyway, that's enough quoting, some things were worth repeating. There's plenty of other encouraging stuff from the interview as well. If you're not excited by any of it then you're not a snooker fan as far as I'm concerned.

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby Witz78

Almost wish we could fast forward a few years to the new era is fully functioning as snookers already been in a transitional phase for the last 2/3 years.

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby Roland

Witz78 wrote:Soundproofed glassed off areas where people can drink and make noise at arenas would be ideal too


:redneck:

To be honest I think the earlier rounds with the noise of the other tables and normal speaking chitter chatter among the spectators will not distract the players. It's only when there's no noise and a phone goes off one person speaks or moves that it becomes a distraction. Once the events get to the nitty gritty of the semis and final then normal service will resume, but by then the number of spectators will be concentrated on one or two tables and everyone will be engrossed in the same match.

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby Roland

Well obviously he speaks like a politician so he made clear an offer from China would always be considered because he has to say that. But I think it's clear he will do all he can to keep the Worlds at the Crucible and a lot depends on Sheffield City Council. The ball is in their court. Give us the 16 table facility and we're laughing for a long time to come.

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby SnookerAnalyst

Going back to the wider topic, how confident are we that players lower down the rankings will benefit from these changes? Consider a new player to the tour who ends up being drawn against players from the Top 32 in their first handful of events. Ok, it's good experience and there's a chance they could cause an upset. More likely they'll lose each match (possibly quite heavily) so what impact will that have on their confidence (and ranking)?

The system does need changing and I agree that they are heading in the right direction. I just wonder whether this is going to open up the Tour for new players as much as people are assuming. While the flatter tournaments are largely a good thing, the rankings are more likely to affect a player's ability better if players of a similar ability play against each other, rather than how many times they've managed to beat one of the top players.

Re: WPBSA Chairman Jason Ferguson

Postby Casey

Great interview :hatoff:

Hopefully ITV4 or ESPN can get involved too so some of the reliance on the BBC is removed.

I'm still not in favour of the World Championships changing to a flat draw. You play all year and earn a last 32 spot - i know it could potentially make the money list unfair but you have all year to play your way up the seeding.