2020 World Champs to run from July 31 to August 16

I've said already that I think that WST should scrap the relegation and q-school for this season (promoting those players who've already earned tour cards for next year - this would only take two years of a few preliminary matches at the events to get back to the 128 tour card holders)

I think the other thing that WST should do at the moment is be prepared to run the World Championship as a non-ranking event as a one off for this year alone.

Well a World Champs like the Masters with only the Top 16 in it would feel very weird...

But who knows... that might be the case. I wouldn't want this to happen though, I'd rather not have the event at all this season than being forced to have it.

Andre147 wrote:

Wildey wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:I don't mind that they make a tournament that is top-16 only, or whatever.

But don't call it The World Championship. Call it The Coronavirus Classic or whatever.

You don't deserve to be called World Champion if you won a compromised tournament.

you cant call it a ranking event either all players has to be able to play in a ranking tournament.

The Coral events are also ranking events but every player gets the same chance to enter them, provided they got good enough results to be in the 1 year list Top 32, 16 and 8.

An event like the World Champs however isn't based on that kind of order of merit, so all 16 seeded players plus another 16 who got through the qualifiers make the 32 man field at the venue. It doesn't work any other way.

Coral series is based on the one year list not the 2 year list so every player has the same chance from the 1st event of the season.

if they play the WC on the 2 year top 32 then its not fair on the players whos had the best season take Liang Wenbo ranked 34 but 26 on the one year list and missing out on sheffield through no fault of his own.

PLtheRef wrote:I've said already that I think that WST should scrap the relegation and q-school for this season (promoting those players who've already earned tour cards for next year - this would only take two years of a few preliminary matches at the events to get back to the 128 tour card holders)

I think the other thing that WST should do at the moment is be prepared to run the World Championship as a non-ranking event as a one off for this year alone.

the winner can not be called the WORLD CHAMPION if they do that.


i think World Snooker has every intension to play qualifiers and if some players cant come over for whatever reason judging from my short comunication with Jason Ferguson earlier today they will scrap it for this year.

they just had to get dates worked out with BBC, Eurosport and The Crucible just incase things goes smoothly by July.

Wildey wrote:

PLtheRef wrote:I've said already that I think that WST should scrap the relegation and q-school for this season (promoting those players who've already earned tour cards for next year - this would only take two years of a few preliminary matches at the events to get back to the 128 tour card holders)

I think the other thing that WST should do at the moment is be prepared to run the World Championship as a non-ranking event as a one off for this year alone.

the winner can not be called the WORLD CHAMPION if they do that.

Yes they can.

World Snooker definitly has every intension to play the event proper in full on 2 tables https://wst.tv/wp-content/uploads/2020/ ... ETAILS.jpg

Pink Ball wrote:

Wildey wrote:

PLtheRef wrote:I've said already that I think that WST should scrap the relegation and q-school for this season (promoting those players who've already earned tour cards for next year - this would only take two years of a few preliminary matches at the events to get back to the 128 tour card holders)

I think the other thing that WST should do at the moment is be prepared to run the World Championship as a non-ranking event as a one off for this year alone.

the winner can not be called the WORLD CHAMPION if they do that.

Yes they can.

no never

Wildey wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Wildey wrote:

PLtheRef wrote:I've said already that I think that WST should scrap the relegation and q-school for this season (promoting those players who've already earned tour cards for next year - this would only take two years of a few preliminary matches at the events to get back to the 128 tour card holders)

I think the other thing that WST should do at the moment is be prepared to run the World Championship as a non-ranking event as a one off for this year alone.

the winner can not be called the WORLD CHAMPION if they do that.

Yes they can.

no never

They made the shootout a ranking event. I think they can do this too.

Wildey wrote:World Snooker definitly has every intension to play the event proper in full on 2 tables https://wst.tv/wp-content/uploads/2020/ ... ETAILS.jpg

Yes - exactly what I predicted .

Pink Ball wrote:

Wildey wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Wildey wrote:

PLtheRef wrote:I've said already that I think that WST should scrap the relegation and q-school for this season (promoting those players who've already earned tour cards for next year - this would only take two years of a few preliminary matches at the events to get back to the 128 tour card holders)

I think the other thing that WST should do at the moment is be prepared to run the World Championship as a non-ranking event as a one off for this year alone.

the winner can not be called the WORLD CHAMPION if they do that.

Yes they can.

no never

They made the shootout a ranking event. I think they can do this too.

Exactly. If they made the World Championship a non-ranking tournament (though with the same entry criteria as at present) do you think it would harm the prestige of the event. Do you think there'd be players refusing to enter it? Not really

Wildey wrote:

Andre147 wrote:

Wildey wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:I don't mind that they make a tournament that is top-16 only, or whatever.

But don't call it The World Championship. Call it The Coronavirus Classic or whatever.

You don't deserve to be called World Champion if you won a compromised tournament.

you cant call it a ranking event either all players has to be able to play in a ranking tournament.

The Coral events are also ranking events but every player gets the same chance to enter them, provided they got good enough results to be in the 1 year list Top 32, 16 and 8.

An event like the World Champs however isn't based on that kind of order of merit, so all 16 seeded players plus another 16 who got through the qualifiers make the 32 man field at the venue. It doesn't work any other way.

Coral series is based on the one year list not the 2 year list so every player has the same chance from the 1st event of the season.

if they play the WC on the 2 year top 32 then its not fair on the players whos had the best season take Liang Wenbo ranked 34 but 26 on the one year list and missing out on sheffield through no fault of his own.

I agree that there's no perfect system for finding a field of 32 - look at the arguments that have abounded with what should happen to the football season.

Removing the ranking aspect to the World Championship (for just the one year) would mean at least the tournament could go ahead if a final stages was viable but the qualifiers weren't.

I think the more insistent on a 'standard' World Championship we or WST are then the harder it makes it the event to stage. Obviously the preferable situation would be to have a qualifying tournament and a standard event - but we're not in preferable circumstances.

My issue is more with it being referred to as the World Championship than anything else.

Yes, I know World Championships prior to The Crucible era were different to what we have today, but the event has now been formalised and standardised. So, by all means put something on if you can. But if it wildly differs from what we have now, I don't see how the winner can be called World Champion. If you enter a tournament where not all players were invited to, and matches were all best of seven/nine/eleven, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable considering the winner to be the World Champion.

When it comes to whether it's a ranking event or not, the only real issue for me is it would seem unfair if certain players weren't allowed to enter it and were thus being punished for something that was beyond their control. If lower ranked players weren't invited because you couldn't hold a qualifying tournament, for example.

I'd prefer a standard World Championship, obviously. But if they can't do it quite like that, and have to come up with some alternative I'd be interested in watching it. But might suggest they call it something other than The World Championship.

the 'World Matchplay' would suffice for me, and revive another name from Snooker's past.

SnookerEd25 wrote:the 'World Matchplay' would suffice for me, and revive another name from Snooker's past.

I reckon they should call it The Caronavirus Classic.

Getting Corona beer to sponsor it would be fun...

SnookerEd25 wrote:Getting Corona beer to sponsor it would be fun...

You got to feel bad for them, haven't you?

Andre147 wrote:Well a World Champs like the Masters with only the Top 16 in it would feel very weird.

Why should it feel weird ?

The one table setup is far better, both for the audience and for the players.
Plus there's no need for so many players. As far as I'm concerned, they can even make it the top 8 only. This way, all matches will be of very high quality.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Andre147 wrote:Well a World Champs like the Masters with only the Top 16 in it would feel very weird.

Why should it feel weird ?

The one table setup is far better, both for the audience and for the players.
Plus there's no need for so many players. As far as I'm concerned, they can even make it the top 8 only. This way, all matches will be of very high quality.

Maybe you could recommend a venue that it should be played in.

Preferably somewhere that you've never been.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Andre147 wrote:Well a World Champs like the Masters with only the Top 16 in it would feel very weird.

Why should it feel weird ?

The one table setup is far better, both for the audience and for the players.
Plus there's no need for so many players. As far as I'm concerned, they can even make it the top 8 only. This way, all matches will be of very high quality.

You’re describing the Tour Championship.

Iranu wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Andre147 wrote:Well a World Champs like the Masters with only the Top 16 in it would feel very weird.

Why should it feel weird ?

The one table setup is far better, both for the audience and for the players.
Plus there's no need for so many players. As far as I'm concerned, they can even make it the top 8 only. This way, all matches will be of very high quality.

You’re describing the Tour Championship.

I'm beginning to think that Johnny Bravo doesn't watch snooker unless it's on ITV 4.

SnookerFan wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Andre147 wrote:Well a World Champs like the Masters with only the Top 16 in it would feel very weird.

Why should it feel weird ?

The one table setup is far better, both for the audience and for the players.
Plus there's no need for so many players. As far as I'm concerned, they can even make it the top 8 only. This way, all matches will be of very high quality.

Maybe you could recommend a venue that it should be played in.

Preferably somewhere that you've never been.

Hopefully I can pick up a few extra return tickets

SnookerFan wrote:My issue is more with it being referred to as the World Championship than anything else.

Yes, I know World Championships prior to The Crucible era were different to what we have today, but the event has now been formalised and standardised. So, by all means put something on if you can. But if it wildly differs from what we have now, I don't see how the winner can be called World Champion. If you enter a tournament where not all players were invited to, and matches were all best of seven/nine/eleven, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable considering the winner to be the World Champion.

When it comes to whether it's a ranking event or not, the only real issue for me is it would seem unfair if certain players weren't allowed to enter it and were thus being punished for something that was beyond their control. If lower ranked players weren't invited because you couldn't hold a qualifying tournament, for example.

I'd prefer a standard World Championship, obviously. But if they can't do it quite like that, and have to come up with some alternative I'd be interested in watching it. But might suggest they call it something other than The World Championship.

Yes, again we see all the problems caused by this idiotic ranking system. However things happen for the next 2 years, the rankings are bound to be distorted. If they don't hold a WC, or if the 'ranking points' don't count, then players who did well in the 2019 WC have a huge advantage.


Stupid, stupid, stupid system.

Incidentally, whether they call it 'World Championship' or not doesn't really matter. It's just a tournament. I expect whoever wins will have their name engraved on the trophy, even if only in italics. It matters for people who like to keep the record books 'nice and clean', which would normally include me. But I'll sacrifice almost all my pronciples during this crisis, just to get something on.

lhpirnie wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:My issue is more with it being referred to as the World Championship than anything else.

Yes, I know World Championships prior to The Crucible era were different to what we have today, but the event has now been formalised and standardised. So, by all means put something on if you can. But if it wildly differs from what we have now, I don't see how the winner can be called World Champion. If you enter a tournament where not all players were invited to, and matches were all best of seven/nine/eleven, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable considering the winner to be the World Champion.

When it comes to whether it's a ranking event or not, the only real issue for me is it would seem unfair if certain players weren't allowed to enter it and were thus being punished for something that was beyond their control. If lower ranked players weren't invited because you couldn't hold a qualifying tournament, for example.

I'd prefer a standard World Championship, obviously. But if they can't do it quite like that, and have to come up with some alternative I'd be interested in watching it. But might suggest they call it something other than The World Championship.

Yes, again we see all the problems caused by this idiotic ranking system. However things happen for the next 2 years, the rankings are bound to be distorted. If they don't hold a WC, or if the 'ranking points' don't count, then players who did well in the 2019 WC have a huge advantage.


Stupid, stupid, stupid system.

Incidentally, whether they call it 'World Championship' or not doesn't really matter. It's just a tournament. I expect whoever wins will have their name engraved on the trophy, even if only in italics. It matters for people who like to keep the record books 'nice and clean', which would normally include me. But I'll sacrifice almost all my pronciples during this crisis, just to get something on.

Well, they could have the 2021 season rankings based just on this season, not the two seasons. That would eliminate the 2019 WC problem, albeit causing some of its own.

I think it absolutely matters whether it’s called the World Championship because as you say the winner would forever have an asterisk next to their name and it would cause endless, pointless circular debate in service of a tournament that clearly isn’t really the World Championship. If they are going to have a limited field event they should just give it a different name, it’s by far the easiest thing to do.

lhpirnie wrote:
... I'll sacrifice almost all my pronciples during this crisis, just to get something on.

Me too. Non-ranking top 16 would be a fine watch.

'You don't like my principles? Well I have others'

France have now canceled all sporting events until September there will be pressure now from that for other countries to follow suit.

Dan-cat wrote:

lhpirnie wrote:
... I'll sacrifice almost all my pronciples during this crisis, just to get something on.

Me too. Non-ranking top 16 would be a fine watch.

'You don't like my principles? Well I have others'

My principles is clear People are dying so i dont give a buck about playing a Snooker tournament until that is resolved whenever that will be so its safe for players to play refs to ref etc etc.

all this desparation to get sport on is sickening if im totally honest id cancel the tournament until 2021 without a second thought.

Iranu wrote:Well, they could have the 2021 season rankings based just on this season, not the two seasons. That would eliminate the 2019 WC problem, albeit causing some of its own.

I think it absolutely matters whether it’s called the World Championship because as you say the winner would forever have an asterisk next to their name and it would cause endless, pointless circular debate in service of a tournament that clearly isn’t really the World Championship. If they are going to have a limited field event they should just give it a different name, it’s by far the easiest thing to do.

Yes, it would cause endless circular debate on forums like ours. The rest of the world would just shrug and move on. I'm not really losing sleep over whether Horace Lindrum won the World Championhsip.


But they have to promote it as the World Championship, otherwise they would be liable for not fulfilling their agreements with BetFred and the broadcasters, who paid for a 'World Championship'.

I agree with Wildey that it isn't a life-or-death priority. But if it goes ahead, on the 16th August TV viewers will see someone holding a trophy up at the Crucible after winning a best-of-35 final in a tournament that contained all of the top players (except Ding). It could even be remembered more than most normal World Championships.

lhpirnie wrote:

Iranu wrote:Well, they could have the 2021 season rankings based just on this season, not the two seasons. That would eliminate the 2019 WC problem, albeit causing some of its own.

I think it absolutely matters whether it’s called the World Championship because as you say the winner would forever have an asterisk next to their name and it would cause endless, pointless circular debate in service of a tournament that clearly isn’t really the World Championship. If they are going to have a limited field event they should just give it a different name, it’s by far the easiest thing to do.

Yes, it would cause endless circular debate on forums like ours. The rest of the world would just shrug and move on. I'm not really losing sleep over whether Horace Lindrum won the World Championhsip.


But they have to promote it as the World Championship, otherwise they would be liable for not fulfilling their agreements with BetFred and the broadcasters, who paid for a 'World Championship'.

I agree with Wildey that it isn't a life-or-death priority. But if it goes ahead, on the 16th August TV viewers will see someone holding a trophy up at the Crucible after winning a best-of-35 final in a tournament that contained all of the top players (except Ding). It could even be remembered more than most normal World Championships.

I think it would be brought up constantly by pundits and the media too, not just on forums. But I do take your point that eventually it will consigned to history.

I’m sure BetFred will be delighted to have any sporting tournament to sponsor at the moment; the amount of revenue they’re no doubt losing must be immense without any sport. I wouldn’t expect them to sponsor the same amount of prize money or do anything without negotiation of course. But they too have huge incentive in getting any form of snooker on TV with their name attached, whether it’s the World Championship or not. Also if it’s a different name, it could be sponsored by another company.

And yeah, if it goes ahead it’s bound to be one of the most memorable tournaments ever!

Lindrum's definitely counts