by Pink Ball » 25 Feb 2017 Read
These are two awful decisions. One made a great tournament mediocre, the other made a fun tournament something it should never have been. Which is worse?
-
Pink Ball
- Posts: 22261
- Joined: 07 April 2015
- Location: Galway city, Ireland
- Snooker Idol: You are a banker
- Walk-On: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfgIUiCiUQ
by SnookerFan » 25 Feb 2017 Read
Shoot Out. Ranking.
No problem.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 149887
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Cloud Strife » 25 Feb 2017 Read
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.
-
Cloud Strife
- Posts: 18548
- Joined: 28 January 2014
- Location: Antarctica
- Snooker Idol: Roger Federer
- Highest Break: 155
- Walk-On: Don Vedda - buck You
-
by Andre147 » 25 Feb 2017 Read
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.
-
Andre147
- Posts: 41746
- Joined: 09 October 2011
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie and Luca
- Highest Break: 27
- Walk-On: Spies - Coldplay
by eraserhead » 27 Feb 2017 Read
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.
-
eraserhead
- Posts: 13019
- Joined: 20 March 2015
- Location: Lancashire
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie + Ding
- Highest Break: 31
- Walk-On: Spoon - The Underdog
by TheSaviour » 28 Feb 2017 Read
-
TheSaviour
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: 27 May 2014
- Location: Vandalising is boring when you have nothing to say.
- Snooker Idol: At times David Gilbert.
- Highest Break: 147
by Dan-cat » 28 Feb 2017 Read
Being objective, if these are his worst decisions, I think we are in good hands.
What are his best decisions?
-
Dan-cat
- Posts: 31412
- Joined: 20 August 2013
- Location: Shoreditch, London
- Snooker Idol: The Rocket + The Nugget
- Highest Break: 53
- Walk-On: www.instagram.com/dan_cat
-
by SnookerFan » 28 Feb 2017 Read
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.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 149887
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by KrazeeEyezKilla » 28 Feb 2017 Read
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.
-
KrazeeEyezKilla
- Posts: 4024
- Joined: 16 November 2009
- Location: Ireland
- Highest Break: 26
- Walk-On: Dazz Band - Let It All Blow
by SnookerFan » 28 Feb 2017 Read
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.....
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 149887
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Pink Ball » 01 Mar 2017 Read
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!
-
Pink Ball
- Posts: 22261
- Joined: 07 April 2015
- Location: Galway city, Ireland
- Snooker Idol: You are a banker
- Walk-On: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkfgIUiCiUQ
by Lou147 » 02 Mar 2017 Read
Uk by far, having four rankers this season with a BO7 final is snake hiss poor aswell
-
Lou147
- Posts: 417
- Joined: 16 March 2015
- Location: Dublin, Ireland
- Snooker Idol: Ricky Walden
- Highest Break: 22
- Walk-On: Ocean Colour Scene - The Riverboat Song
by gallantrabbit » 02 Mar 2017 Read
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.
-
gallantrabbit
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: 08 February 2010
- Location: são paulo
- Snooker Idol: forever jimmy
- Highest Break: 134
by PLtheRef » 02 Mar 2017 Read
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?
-
PLtheRef
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 20 December 2009
- Location: Sheffield
- Highest Break: 28
- Walk-On: Vangelis 1492 Conquest of Paradise
by gallantrabbit » 03 Mar 2017 Read
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.
-
gallantrabbit
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: 08 February 2010
- Location: são paulo
- Snooker Idol: forever jimmy
- Highest Break: 134
by SnookerFan » 03 Mar 2017 Read
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.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 149887
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by The Herminator » 03 Mar 2017 Read
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.
-
The Herminator
- Posts: 294
- Joined: 24 January 2017
- Snooker Idol: Lianne Crofts
- Highest Break: 27
- Walk-On: When the music's over
by Iranu » 03 Mar 2017 Read
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.
-
Iranu
- Posts: 41181
- Joined: 24 January 2010
- Walk-On: Fort Knox - Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds
by SnookerFan » 01 Dec 2017 Read
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.
Ooops. That went well.
I did stop going for a few years.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 149887
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Dan-cat » 01 Dec 2017 Read
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.
Ooops. That went well.
I did stop going for a few years.
Hahaha. You are allowed to change your mind.
-
Dan-cat
- Posts: 31412
- Joined: 20 August 2013
- Location: Shoreditch, London
- Snooker Idol: The Rocket + The Nugget
- Highest Break: 53
- Walk-On: www.instagram.com/dan_cat
-
by SnookerFan » 01 Dec 2017 Read
I didn't go for a few years.
Not been since it was in Telford.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 149887
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Sickpotter » 01 Dec 2017 Read
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.
-
Sickpotter
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: 05 October 2009
- Location: Toronto
- Snooker Idol: White-Hendry-ROS
- Highest Break: 147
by gallantrabbit » 01 Dec 2017 Read
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.
-
gallantrabbit
- Posts: 2010
- Joined: 08 February 2010
- Location: são paulo
- Snooker Idol: forever jimmy
- Highest Break: 134
by Andre147 » 01 Dec 2017 Read
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.
-
Andre147
- Posts: 41746
- Joined: 09 October 2011
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie and Luca
- Highest Break: 27
- Walk-On: Spies - Coldplay
by Dan-cat » 01 Dec 2017 Read
I feel spoilt by the best of 11s frankly after all the 7s so the UK feels like a big deal
-
Dan-cat
- Posts: 31412
- Joined: 20 August 2013
- Location: Shoreditch, London
- Snooker Idol: The Rocket + The Nugget
- Highest Break: 53
- Walk-On: www.instagram.com/dan_cat
-
by Andre147 » 01 Dec 2017 Read
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.
-
Andre147
- Posts: 41746
- Joined: 09 October 2011
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie and Luca
- Highest Break: 27
- Walk-On: Spies - Coldplay
by Snooker89 » 01 Dec 2017 Read
Constantly renewing with betting sponsors- Betway, Dafabet, Betfred etc are poor quality sponsors and are light years away from Embassy and Benson & Hedges.
-
Snooker89
- Posts: 50
- Joined: 30 October 2017
by SnookerFan » 02 Dec 2017 Read
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.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 149887
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-
by Cloud Strife » 02 Dec 2017 Read
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?
-
Cloud Strife
- Posts: 18548
- Joined: 28 January 2014
- Location: Antarctica
- Snooker Idol: Roger Federer
- Highest Break: 155
- Walk-On: Don Vedda - buck You
-
by SnookerFan » 02 Dec 2017 Read
The thing is, if Hearn is the super charasmastic business god he fancies himself as, he'd easily convince alternative sponsors in.
-
SnookerFan
- Posts: 149887
- Joined: 13 December 2009
- Snooker Idol: Michaela Tabb
- Walk-On: Entry Of The Gladiators
-