Post a reply

Which was worse?

Making the UK a 128 with best-of-11s
17
65%
Making the shootout a ranking event
9
35%
 
Total votes : 26

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby Cloud Strife

From a personal point of view, it has to be the UK. He took what was my second favourite tournament of the season and turned it into your average run-off-the-mill ranker. By shortening the format a lot of the enjoyment was taken away for me.

The Shootout is a bad decision, but doesn't affect me as much as I didn't care for it before and I don't care for it now. Makes no difference to me personally if it has ranking points or not.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby Andre147

The UK wins it for me, as it is the 2nd biggest ranking event we've got.

ShootOut is indeed bad, but the UK tops it.

Another bad decision is how many Best of 7 tournaments we have nowadays. I would like to see more Best of 9s ones like the old days.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby eraserhead

This is a tough one one is ruining the second most prestigious tournament.

One is setting the bar so low for a ranking event it could have massive implications in future events. At least they still play snooker at the UK even if it's in a shorter format.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby SnookerFan

Dan-cat wrote:Being objective, if these are his worst decisions, I think we are in good hands.

What are his best decisions?


Hearn has done far, far more good for snooker than he has done bad. Let's not make any mistake there.

I think when he does make a mistake, no matter how big or small one thinks it to be, it gets amplified just due to Hearn arrogance. For example, his insistence that the Shoot Out should be a ranking event despite pretty much everybody else insisting it was a bad idea angers people, and makes them a lot more vocal about said mistakes.

Like I say he has done a lot of good things for the sport. A sport that was on the bones of it's bottom less than a decade ago.

Having said that, his decision to make the Shoot Out a ranking event was indefensively bad.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

I don't mind the UK changes up to a point. In the old system they would often show a match that was 7-1 or 6-2 and over as a contest but they would have to show the second session. Also the best of 11's allow more players to get on TV. It becomes more of a problem when you get to the quarter and semi finals where the matches really should be best of 17.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby Pink Ball

Dan-cat wrote:Being objective, if these are his worst decisions, I think we are in good hands.

What are his best decisions?

Definitely done way more good than harm, and I totally disagree with those who say we need someone new at the helm. Love that there's Snooker on so often nowadays when before a tournament was a rareity.

But buck me the above were clangers!

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby Lou147

Uk by far, having four rankers this season with a BO7 final is snake hiss poor aswell

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby gallantrabbit

The UK wasn't a bad decision. It was pretty much out of his hands. He might want to be the all-powerful one doing exactly what he wants with TV companies but he isn't. Sometimes even he has to listen bow his head and accept.
I think the key here is don't cry too much. You can't expect a snooker tour to feed 128 players. It barely fed 8 8 years ago. Let Hearn run it and concentrate on playing and getting better. Then there's money to be made.
The shootout is a bit of a joke. I'm not sure the tv company is insisting on it being a ranker. More like Hearn flexing his muscles. The occasional blind eye is also ok.
The players also have to learn to puish their status as pros to earn money aside from the tournaments. Go speak to Shaun Murphy, a shining example. This boy will end up the richest player in snooker and I think he's been doing the most off table for many years - it's not just because he's signed for a big agency. I'm not a great fan of his, but as an example to youngsters he's perfect. Plays in all the tourneys, courts a little publicity with some of his interviews, has advertised himself as a motivational, after dinner speaker for many a year and is generally as professional as any sportsman can be. Players need to look up not down. Look up to Murphy.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby PLtheRef

SnookerFan wrote:I felt a bit lied to about the UK. The reason given that the matches were shortened were so every match could be on television.

Erm.....


This.

This is why personally for me the UK decision just shades it. People could probably just about live with every match being televised but with the vast majority now on outside tables or worse still behind closed doors in the sports hall it just doesn't feel the same that it used to be.

Like I said before, though Hearn does make it clear TV have dictated some arrangements - but I'm not sure that he's doing all this against his wishes. He's a shrewd negotiator and the idea that he is being pushed about so easily doesn't seem right.

Snooker is in better shape than it was pre December 2009 and it has quite a lot to be grateful to Hearn for and it seems harsh to pick him up on his faults more than his successes

But alas the players sold him the controlling stake. Move back to 2010 would be the players do that now - I.e give Hearn the chairmanship AND the controlling stake?

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby gallantrabbit

Yes they would. Otherwise Hearn would have walked away. He had the players over a barrel but they've very much benefited from it. Snooker is in great hands with Hearn. Best for many many years. I'm inclined to let him get on with it and if the players occasionally have to bend over backwards then so be it. I'm sure Hearny even appreciates pantomime villain Mark Allen knocking him at times. The Donald Trump adage, any publicity is good publicity.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby SnookerFan

I'm surprised this is so one-sided.

I didn't like the UK Championship shortening, and even e-mailed World Snooker at the time saying I'd stop buying tickets to the tournament now. But, the ranking event Shoot Out is one of the stupidest ideas I think I've ever seen.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby The Herminator

I think it's because, although the shoot out decision was ridiculous and has ramifications for the ranking system as a whole, it doesn't significantly affect our enjoyment (or not) of the tournament. Taking the 2nd biggest tournament on the tour, with fantastic history and many memorable moments, and reducing it to a run of the mill cattle market however is unforgiveable.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby Iranu

The Shoot Out being a ranking event is stupid.

The current UK format is... just inappropriate, really.

On balance I'd say the Shoot Out being a ranker is worse because regardless of the format, the UK is what it is and its history alone will bring the pressure of a triple crown event.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby SnookerFan

SnookerFan wrote:I'm surprised this is so one-sided.

I didn't like the UK Championship shortening, and even e-mailed World Snooker at the time saying I'd stop buying tickets to the tournament now. But, the ranking event Shoot Out is one of the stupidest ideas I think I've ever seen.



:emb:

Ooops. That went well.

I did stop going for a few years.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby Dan-cat

SnookerFan wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:I'm surprised this is so one-sided.

I didn't like the UK Championship shortening, and even e-mailed World Snooker at the time saying I'd stop buying tickets to the tournament now. But, the ranking event Shoot Out is one of the stupidest ideas I think I've ever seen.



:emb:

Ooops. That went well.

I did stop going for a few years.


Hahaha. You are allowed to change your mind.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby Sickpotter

While I deplore the shortening of the format for the UK at least it's still snooker.

IMO making the shoot out a ranking event was by far the worst decision ever made.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby gallantrabbit

Can't say I'm overly bothered by the shortening of the UK. Yes it's deprived us of a few toe to toe 8-8 shoot outs but also saved us from a bunch of 1 or 2 frame second sessions. Day, King, Trump, etc winning 9-0 instead of 6...big deal.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby Andre147

Iranu wrote:The Shoot Out being a ranking event is stupid.

The current UK format is... just inappropriate, really.

On balance I'd say the Shoot Out being a ranker is worse because regardless of the format, the UK is what it is and its history alone will bring the pressure of a triple crown event.


I'd agree with that. The UK is still the UK and will always be a Triple Crown event, so yes more pressure on top players.

Shoot-Out decision was just plain stupid.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby Andre147

Dan-cat wrote:I feel spoilt by the best of 11s frankly after all the 7s so the UK feels like a big deal


Only the IC and of course The Masters has this kind of format from the first round, so yes, despite Hearn getting rid of the Best of 17s, the UK still remains one of the tournaments on the calendar with a longer format.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby SnookerFan

Snooker89 wrote:Constantly renewing with betting sponsors- Betway, Dafabet, Betfred etc are poor quality sponsors and are light years away from Embassy and Benson & Hedges.


This is something Hearn needs to address.

When he came into the sport, there were no sponsors. So he brought in some of the gambling companies Matchroom already had ties with. Fair enough. The sport needed that to maintain itself.

But if Hearn retires, what happens? Do the sponsors he always have ties with stay?

Even if they do, it feels like an all your eggs in one basket type deal.

Re: Which is Hearn's worst decision since 2010?

Postby Cloud Strife

SnookerFan wrote:
Snooker89 wrote:Constantly renewing with betting sponsors- Betway, Dafabet, Betfred etc are poor quality sponsors and are light years away from Embassy and Benson & Hedges.


This is something Hearn needs to address.

When he came into the sport, there were no sponsors. So he brought in some of the gambling companies Matchroom already had ties with. Fair enough. The sport needed that to maintain itself.

But if Hearn retires, what happens? Do the sponsors he always have ties with stay?

Even if they do, it feels like an all your eggs in one basket type deal.


We've been constantly hearing about the government possibly banning gambling sponsorship/advertising in sport. Of course we've been hearing it for years, but eventually it will happen, you would've thought. So what happens then? Perhaps move the entire tour to China?