Can we make six-reds work?
by Tubberlad » 06 Jan 2010 Read
Okay, before you all begin to pelt tomatoes at me, I don't particularly like the idea of Six Reds, but might it be any harm to have it in small doses?
The original aim of the sport was for shorter matches, and to have it as an equivalent to Cricket's Twenty20 game. However, the comparison is ridiculous and poorly thought through. Twenty20 is an entirely different game to it's longer format. The format benefits smash-hitters, and we begin to see a completely different way of playing cricket, and certain teams have shown a knack for it (India, Pakistan etc.). Six reds snooker doesn't benefit any style of player to my knowledge, and is basically snooker with less reds. That's the only difference.
So let's drop this whole myth of it being a 'Twenty20' version of snooker. Because it isn't. So how else can we make it work.
Over the last few weeks, I've been advocating a sets format, similar to darts, with each set being best of 3 frames. However, as much as I'd love to see a cutting-edge format like this used for 15, on further inspection I fear it may not be plausible. But then Oneball suggested it for six reds.... and I can't see any reason why not?
How about each set best-of-5 frames? And have best-of-5 or 7 sets? It's very different, and it's the only way I can see any hope for six reds. Because it's not different enough to attract new fans.
It's going to make the matches much longer than what was originally intended for the format, but World Snooker were way off the mark with their suggestions.
I don't want to see six-reds becoming the norm, but it may have it's own little place in the sport.
The original aim of the sport was for shorter matches, and to have it as an equivalent to Cricket's Twenty20 game. However, the comparison is ridiculous and poorly thought through. Twenty20 is an entirely different game to it's longer format. The format benefits smash-hitters, and we begin to see a completely different way of playing cricket, and certain teams have shown a knack for it (India, Pakistan etc.). Six reds snooker doesn't benefit any style of player to my knowledge, and is basically snooker with less reds. That's the only difference.
So let's drop this whole myth of it being a 'Twenty20' version of snooker. Because it isn't. So how else can we make it work.
Over the last few weeks, I've been advocating a sets format, similar to darts, with each set being best of 3 frames. However, as much as I'd love to see a cutting-edge format like this used for 15, on further inspection I fear it may not be plausible. But then Oneball suggested it for six reds.... and I can't see any reason why not?
How about each set best-of-5 frames? And have best-of-5 or 7 sets? It's very different, and it's the only way I can see any hope for six reds. Because it's not different enough to attract new fans.
It's going to make the matches much longer than what was originally intended for the format, but World Snooker were way off the mark with their suggestions.
I don't want to see six-reds becoming the norm, but it may have it's own little place in the sport.
-
Tubberlad - Posts: 5009
- Joined: 02 October 2009
- Location: Ireland
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie OSullivan
- Highest Break: 49
