Post a reply

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby Iranu

vodkadiet1 wrote:I would like 'The Joker' being introduced. Whereby a player can say which frame or frames he wants to count as 2 frames if he wins it.

A player would get 1 joker per match for best of 7s, 9s, or 11s; 2 jokers for a best of 17, 19, or 25; and 3 jokers for a best of 33 or 35.

But he has to make a total clearance or else he gets 0 frames!

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby lhpirnie

PLtheRef wrote:From a rankings perspective, I think the OOM system works well enough, though I do feel on principle prize money for different events should be on some sort of comparative scale with the Crucible - i.e. if the World Championship prize is £500,000 for winning 71 frames, then there shouldn't be an event of the same prize money with short-format matches. - As well as this, the Shootout, shouldn't be a ranking event.

Disagree with the first part. I think that the ranking system is choking the game, because it seriously constrains the formats for so-called 'ranking tournaments', which practically have to be 'flat-draw'. For example, Stuart Bingham and Ali Carter get nothing for their Masters' performance, and Mark Allen nearly dropped out of the top-16 the year he won, which would have meant Sheffield qualifying. The upcoming tournaments in Dornbirn and Berlin are missing many top players who didn't qualify in Barnsley, and their isn't room for any local players. This badly affects growth in Europe. You are right that they will have to make allowances for the tariffs of some events, most notably next year's in Saudi Arabia. They should take the opportunity to rethink this stupid outdated system, which dates back to the 1970's.

The rest of your comments are great though!

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby vodkadiet1

Iranu wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:I would like 'The Joker' being introduced. Whereby a player can say which frame or frames he wants to count as 2 frames if he wins it.

A player would get 1 joker per match for best of 7s, 9s, or 11s; 2 jokers for a best of 17, 19, or 25; and 3 jokers for a best of 33 or 35.

But he has to make a total clearance or else he gets 0 frames!


If he makes a total clearance he gets to make his opponent drink 20 units of alcohol before the next frame! And it cannot take longer than 5 minutes and players cannot eat anything for 6 hours before a match!

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby Ck147

vodkadiet1 wrote:
Iranu wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:I would like 'The Joker' being introduced. Whereby a player can say which frame or frames he wants to count as 2 frames if he wins it.

A player would get 1 joker per match for best of 7s, 9s, or 11s; 2 jokers for a best of 17, 19, or 25; and 3 jokers for a best of 33 or 35.

But he has to make a total clearance or else he gets 0 frames!


If he makes a total clearance he gets to make his opponent drink 20 units of alcohol before the next frame! And it cannot take longer than 5 minutes and players cannot eat anything for 6 hours before a match!

2 bottles of wine in 5 mins? I'll happily be the losing player.

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby vodkadiet1

Ck147 wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:
Iranu wrote:
vodkadiet1 wrote:I would like 'The Joker' being introduced. Whereby a player can say which frame or frames he wants to count as 2 frames if he wins it.

A player would get 1 joker per match for best of 7s, 9s, or 11s; 2 jokers for a best of 17, 19, or 25; and 3 jokers for a best of 33 or 35.

But he has to make a total clearance or else he gets 0 frames!


If he makes a total clearance he gets to make his opponent drink 20 units of alcohol before the next frame! And it cannot take longer than 5 minutes and players cannot eat anything for 6 hours before a match!

2 bottles of wine in 5 mins? I'll happily be the losing player.



rofl rofl rofl

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby McManusFan

How about seeding the current Masters and UK champion through to the Crucible? Wouldn't change much most of the time, but it would be pretty good if there was ever a shock UK winner, or if the Masters' champion drops out of the top 16. It would certainly help to tie the triple crown events together a bit more.

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby lhpirnie

McManusFan wrote:How about seeding the current Masters and UK champion through to the Crucible? Wouldn't change much most of the time, but it would be pretty good if there was ever a shock UK winner, or if the Masters' champion drops out of the top 16. It would certainly help to tie the triple crown events together a bit more.

Perhaps, but why not just fix a broken ranking system to recognise the best players, whatever tournaments they win. Champion of Champions and Shanghai are pretty strong tournaments as well!

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby McManusFan

lhpirnie wrote:
McManusFan wrote:How about seeding the current Masters and UK champion through to the Crucible? Wouldn't change much most of the time, but it would be pretty good if there was ever a shock UK winner, or if the Masters' champion drops out of the top 16. It would certainly help to tie the triple crown events together a bit more.

Perhaps, but why not just fix a broken ranking system to recognise the best players, whatever tournaments they win. Champion of Champions and Shanghai are pretty strong tournaments as well!


I agree with fixing the ranking system, in as far as separating points from prize money, but ranking points for invitationals seem a bit too much like a double reward, and would make it even harder for new players to come through. There's probably an argument for the CoC though, it isn't that different to the ITV events in that it is all on a one year rotation.

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby lhpirnie

McManusFan wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:
McManusFan wrote:How about seeding the current Masters and UK champion through to the Crucible? Wouldn't change much most of the time, but it would be pretty good if there was ever a shock UK winner, or if the Masters' champion drops out of the top 16. It would certainly help to tie the triple crown events together a bit more.

Perhaps, but why not just fix a broken ranking system to recognise the best players, whatever tournaments they win. Champion of Champions and Shanghai are pretty strong tournaments as well!


I agree with fixing the ranking system, in as far as separating points from prize money, but ranking points for invitationals seem a bit too much like a double reward, and would make it even harder for new players to come through. There's probably an argument for the CoC though, it isn't that different to the ITV events in that it is all on a one year rotation.

Yes you are absolutely right about the 'double reward', and that's what's holding back everything. What's needed is an end to the whole concept of 'ranking points' in favour of some kind of incremental system: if you win it goes up, if you lose it goes down. Many other games/sports successfully adopt that. Snooker seems blinded by this obsession with 'ranking points'.....

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

You could count the Masters, Shanghai & CoC on the rankings but only for one year. Do the same for the WGP/PC/TC. If you don't count first first round losers than that's only eight players per tournament. Maybe have only a certain number of events count so that anyone who does well in these events gets a benefit from it but no-one gains for just showing up.

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby McManusFan

lhpirnie wrote:
McManusFan wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:
McManusFan wrote:How about seeding the current Masters and UK champion through to the Crucible? Wouldn't change much most of the time, but it would be pretty good if there was ever a shock UK winner, or if the Masters' champion drops out of the top 16. It would certainly help to tie the triple crown events together a bit more.

Perhaps, but why not just fix a broken ranking system to recognise the best players, whatever tournaments they win. Champion of Champions and Shanghai are pretty strong tournaments as well!


I agree with fixing the ranking system, in as far as separating points from prize money, but ranking points for invitationals seem a bit too much like a double reward, and would make it even harder for new players to come through. There's probably an argument for the CoC though, it isn't that different to the ITV events in that it is all on a one year rotation.

Yes you are absolutely right about the 'double reward', and that's what's holding back everything. What's needed is an end to the whole concept of 'ranking points' in favour of some kind of incremental system: if you win it goes up, if you lose it goes down. Many other games/sports successfully adopt that. Snooker seems blinded by this obsession with 'ranking points'.....


Something like the Elo system used in chess? I've always thought that would be interesting in snooker, it would really rewards wins like Cahill's win over O'Sullivan at the worlds last year.

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby lhpirnie

McManusFan wrote:Something like the Elo system used in chess? I've always thought that would be interesting in snooker, it would really rewards wins like Cahill's win over O'Sullivan at the worlds last year.

Yes, Elo devised it for chess, but is now used for many other sports, and for online gaming. So it's hardly a mystery anymore. The betting companies use Elo ratings to calculate odds. For snooker even something more rudimentary would be better than the system we have now.

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby Dan-cat

SnookerFan wrote:I demand a formal apology from Dan-Cat for locking this thread.


I’m really really sorry, I apologize unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby SnookerFan

Dan-cat wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:I demand a formal apology from Dan-Cat for locking this thread.


I’m really really sorry, I apologize unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.


Well, that was okay. I guess....

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby Iranu

Dan-cat wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:I demand a formal apology from Dan-Cat for locking this thread.


I’m really really sorry, I apologize unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

temp ban - sorry mate

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby HustleKing

SnookerFan wrote:Do we think there should be less flat-128, best of seven tournaments in a season?

:chin:


No. Less opportunities for young or struggling players to push on or revive their careers and less opportunities to see veteran players who are still good enough not to retire.

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby Vallomas

Snooker needs more "stand out" events, with a long format and multi session matches. Today we have only the World Championship and we'll see how Tour Championship will work - the beginning was promising,though.

I don't like the comparison with tennis, but you see that it has the four grand slam tournament that stand out of the rest. Maybe if the UK Championship returns to the previous format it will be easier to be considered as a major. I don't really feel that it is now.

I also agree that the ranking (prize money) system is unfair.

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby lhpirnie

HustleKing wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:Do we think there should be less flat-128, best of seven tournaments in a season?

:chin:


No. Less opportunities for young or struggling players to push on or revive their careers and less opportunities to see veteran players who are still good enough not to retire.

I think there should and could be more tournaments, but they can't all have 128 players. The Home Nations events are fine, and enjoyable. It's these overseas events with qualifying rounds in Barnsely or Preston that are ill-conceived.

There could be a whole variety of tournaments, with different numbers of participants, different locations around the world, different formats (e.g. tiered knockouts, leagues, challenge matches). But not with the current ranking system.

Re: Snooker: Changes You’d Like To See

Postby SnookerFan

Pink Ball wrote:The 128 format is the fairest and should be kept for the vast majority of events.

The UK should have the same structure as the Worlds, though. And a longer format.


:goodpost: