Post a reply

What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby SnookerFan

One thing I've noticed this season is that we are shortening a lot of matches. I've been quite vocal that I don't believe we should criticise Hearn too much, or lick his nutsack too much, until he's had his first full season in charge. Last season he came in half way through a season, where evertyhing was already signed, so he couldn't do too much to shake up the sport. It's at the end of his full season we'll see more what he can do. But on saying that, I think we should be open to analysing each change as we see it.

How do we feel about the fact a hell of a lot of matches have been shortened this year. The PTCs are obviously good for the players, and bring in more match practice for them. Gold star. So we can't really complain that they are best of sevens, as they weren't there last year. Same with the tournament in Germany, there are a lot of short matches there, but there was nothing there before.

But we also had the World Open with best of five matches, all the way though, apart from the best of nine final. I personally wasn't a fan, and thought it had got really stale before the end. Now the early rounds of the Welsh Open have been shortened. Is this a necessary shortening, do we think, due to a belief that the Welsh Open needed tinkering with? Or, does Hearn belive 'shorter matches are better'? Also we had Steve Davis and John Parrott discuss shortening The Worlds. Nothing concrete, obviously. So it may be analysists just filling in time between matches and nothing more.

My real question is, what is people's take on this? Are we worrying too much too soon that all matches will be shortened? Or do we think Hearn has an attitude 'shorter matches are fun'. Are we going to see more of this in the future? This isn't a complaint against Hearn, as I said before. He has done some good for the game. But, I just wondered on what people's take was.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Monique

I think that actually shortening matches in early rounds (rounds 1&2) and getting rid of MSI allows for more matches, maybe all matches, being on telly. That's what they want to achieve in the Welsh anyway. If that's the case then the positives largely outweight the negatives, if there are negatives, which I'm yet to be convinced about. It's good for the telly audience and it's attractive for sponsors.
For me the outcome of the world Open with 4 WC in the semis has shown beyond all doubts that long matches are not necessary to determine the best players. It's pressure that does it. Long matches have other qualities and I'm not asking for them to go, but it's a myth that the are needed to get the cream to raise at the top.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Wildey

but sometimes the MSI actually makes a match.

i have no doubt had there been no MSI over the years results would be so different and more 1 sided matches but i have no problem with best of 7s in PTC that is great i just dont believe that is automatic the answer for the Welsh Open but for whatever reasoning thats the mindset at the moment.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby SnookerFan

Monique wrote:I think that actually shortening matches in early rounds (rounds 1&2) and getting rid of MSI allows for more matches, maybe all matches, being on telly. That's what they want to achieve in the Welsh anyway. If that's the case then the positives largely outweight the negatives, if there are negatives, which I'm yet to be convinced about. It's good for the telly audience and it's attractive for sponsors.
For me the outcome of the world Open with 4 WC in the semis has shown beyond all doubts that long matches are not necessary to determine the best players. It's pressure that does it. Long matches have other qualities and I'm not asking for them to go, but it's a myth that the are needed to get the cream to raise at the top.


I agree that shortening matches doesn't prevent the best players from reaching the end. I never did think that. Anybody with any foresight could tell that wasn't going to happen. Just look at the marketing the WO did. It told us that the pressure was on from ball one, and you'd have to be able to handle it. It also told us that because the matches were shorter, anybody had any chance of beating anybody else. <doh> Clearly, both of those facts can't be true. Maybe if it was a best of 5 in a snooker hall somewhere with nobody watching could a complete amateur beat somebody in the top 16. But not in a ranking event.

I sat on a non-main table at the Welsh Open and it was fun, but it was still big enough for them to televise. (Even though it was for highlight purposes, and wasn't being shown live.) But the smallest table is kind of in the way, and they only had about 20 on. Bit of a shame there won't be three tables from which the fan in attendance can choose, but you can see why they'd do that.

I just hope best-of-sevens and the less don't become the norm. I find them less interesting, and less exciting. And I'm certainly glad this isn't a World Open, all-matches are short typ event. That was pretty grim. I'd rather watch one exciting match, then watch three 4-0 matches, personally. Best of fives worked for a day or two, but then we needed longer action, in my opinion.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby SnookerFan

Monique wrote:I think that actually shortening matches in early rounds (rounds 1&2) and getting rid of MSI allows for more matches, maybe all matches, being on telly. That's what they want to achieve in the Welsh anyway. If that's the case then the positives largely outweight the negatives, if there are negatives, which I'm yet to be convinced about. It's good for the telly audience and it's attractive for sponsors.
For me the outcome of the world Open with 4 WC in the semis has shown beyond all doubts that long matches are not necessary to determine the best players. It's pressure that does it. Long matches have other qualities and I'm not asking for them to go, but it's a myth that the are needed to get the cream to raise at the top.


I agree that shortening matches doesn't prevent the best players from reaching the end. I never did think that. Anybody with any foresight could tell that wasn't going to happen. Just look at the marketing the WO did. It told us that the pressure was on from ball one, and you'd have to be able to handle it. It also told us that because the matches were shorter, anybody had any chance of beating anybody else. <doh> Clearly, both of those facts can't be true. Maybe if it was a best of 5 in a snooker hall somewhere with nobody watching could a complete amateur beat somebody in the top 16. But not in a ranking event.

I sat on a non-main table at the Welsh Open and it was fun, but it was still big enough for them to televise. (Even though it was for highlight purposes, and wasn't being shown live.) But the smallest table is kind of in the way, and they only had about 20 on. Bit of a shame there won't be three tables from which the fan in attendance can choose, but you can see why they'd do that.

I just hope best-of-sevens and the less don't become the norm. I find them less interesting, and less exciting. And I'm certainly glad this isn't a World Open, all-matches are short typ event. That was pretty grim. I'd rather watch one exciting match, then watch three 4-0 matches, personally. Best of fives worked for a day or two, but then we needed longer action, in my opinion.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby NedB-H

What's wrong with MSIs? Football and rugby have half times. Cricket has lunch and tea, or between-innings breaks. Tennis has breaks at the end of each set. I'm struggling to think of a sport which doesn't have short intervals.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Bourne

I've got absolutely no problem with it as long as they leave the main two alone, well I think the UK should be slightly longer but that's not exactly a massive bugbear for me.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Wildey

Bourne wrote:I've got absolutely no problem with it as long as they leave the main two alone, well I think the UK should be slightly longer but that's not exactly a massive bugbear for me.

My concern is that the radical change in snooker is reducing without any reason for it..

its baffling how will cut off 2 frames fill up the newport centre :? <doh>

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Bourne

Maybe it's baffling but I certainly don't see any reason to moan about it, it's the same for both players. What we saw at the World Open was more pressure on the players to producer smarter snooker with little or no room to play stupid shots and I think that's a good thing. At least they've kept the final and semis the same.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Tubberlad

1) It is positive to have two tables rather than one
2) It is a silly change as far as I'm concerned. Having two best-of-7 rounds doesn't create an identity. An entirely new format is needed for this
3) If this leads to changes being made to the big two I will be absolutely sickened

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Roland

If the only reason for the changes is to get 3 tables down to 2 televised tables then fair enough. I still want an answer to my question are the quarter-finals roll on roll off? Because that is one cracking day of snooker when it happens.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Tubberlad

Sonny wrote:If the only reason for the changes is to get 3 tables down to 2 televised tables then fair enough. I still want an answer to my question are the quarter-finals roll on roll off? Because that is one cracking day of snooker when it happens.

Yeah, that's probably the one thing I really like about the Welsh Open. I used to take the day off school on the "Super Friday". In fact, I wouldn't object it being brought into all best-of-9 tournaments...

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Roland

Nor would I but it's what makes the Welsh stand out when it happens. I remember last time the commentators were moaning about how long the day was and discussing the merits of using two tables. buck them say I.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:If the only reason for the changes is to get 3 tables down to 2 televised tables then fair enough. I still want an answer to my question are the quarter-finals roll on roll off? Because that is one cracking day of snooker when it happens.

the Quarter Finals is not a Roll on Roll off i have answered it before but proberbly got lost in the threads somewhere

Format of Play
http://www2.seetickets.com/worldsnooker/welshformat.pdf

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Tubberlad

To answer your question Snookerfan, I don't have a problem with shorter formats for certain tournaments, but I'm not altogether in favour of what's happened here. I though the World Open was genuinely a fantastic spectacle, but I think it was because of it became something unique. In this situation, the World Open has gained nothing by opting for early rounds of best-of-7, and would have benefitted far more from a totally fresh, new format. It's also lost it's Super Friday, which was always a really smashing day of snooker.

My nightmare would be to see a reduction for the World Championship, and the UK Championship for that matter. The UK has suffered from poor venues and it's move away from a 31 frame final, while the World Championship is up there with Wimbledon, The Open etc.... would anyone dare mention tweaking them? Nope

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Roland

wildLOVESWAGNER wrote:
Sonny wrote:If the only reason for the changes is to get 3 tables down to 2 televised tables then fair enough. I still want an answer to my question are the quarter-finals roll on roll off? Because that is one cracking day of snooker when it happens.

the Quarter Finals is not a Roll on Roll off i have answered it before but proberbly got lost in the threads somewhere

Format of Play
http://www2.seetickets.com/worldsnooker/welshformat.pdf


Pah, there's room for change with a bit of campaigning

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Roland

I think what's happened with the best of 7s guys, is that they have well and truely tried and tested the format out with all the PTC events, and having 7 frames without interval obviously has something going for it as far as moving through the rounds at tournaments goes and allowing all the players a spot on television. I wouldn't for a second think the World Open and the best of 7s in the PTC and Welsh indicates the majors will be cut because they are already tried and tested and have the status.

Saying that though, the UK used to be better when it was in York and I'm still snake hissed off about missing out on certain matches which would have been televised previously just because one of the BBC team (Davis, Parrott, Doherty) is in the round. So as well as seeing the sense in this new Welsh format, I wish they would stick with the roll on roll off quarter-final day and move the UK back to how it was before, i.e. more of a spectacle and something for the snooker public to soak up. The Telford UK is too much of a rush job in the early rounds and it seriously devalues our second biggest event.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Tubberlad

I loved the UK, and it's still my second favourite, but I'm well in agreement about what has happened since it's move from York. We've been landed with a needless four table format, making the second biggest feel like Prestatyn.

It used to be a brilliant fortnight of action, loved every minute of it, but it's lost it's aura somewhat for me.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Wildey

thetubberlad wrote:I loved the UK, and it's still my second favourite, but I'm well in agreement about what has happened since it's move from York. We've been landed with a needless four table format, making the second biggest feel like Prestatyn.

It used to be a brilliant fortnight of action, loved every minute of it, but it's lost it's aura somewhat for me.

to be fair thats not to do with location ...

it used to be last 16 + top 4 seeds last 32 matches carried to the venue.

now its all last 32 matches at the venue.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Roland

It's to do with the venue because once it went to Telford it changed and you had to choose between 2 of 4 matches instead of being able to choose between every match. OK so tv coverage started towards the end of the last 32 round and you had the odd big name who was KO'd before the cameras rolled, but that added to the drama and the two weekends coverage allowed you to see every ball from the pick of the last 32 matches to the end. Telford is a cattle market.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:And actually I will correct you because the last 64 all played the venue, it was the tv cameras that turned up later on.

Yes ok but they played at a 8 table set up at the venue then they had a day off to convert it to 2 tables.

but my point the same its not to do with venue the reason theres 4 tables there. if they can put in 4 tables they can easily make it 2 tables.

it needs looking at from all aspects i agree.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Roland

It was 5 tables in York but the main thing was, as a tv viewer you came to the event knowing certain players had already fallen and picked up the story from there, whereas at Telford you miss big matches because they are not televised and that devalues the UK in my opinion.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:It was 5 tables in York but the main thing was, as a tv viewer you came to the event knowing certain players had already fallen and picked up the story from there, whereas at Telford you miss big matches because they are not televised and that devalues the UK in my opinion.


i agree

when you look at the UK Championship 12 Matches and 24 Session of play is played in qualifying Cubicles.

Suerly thats not good enough.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby SnookerFan

Sonny wrote:If the only reason for the changes is to get 3 tables down to 2 televised tables then fair enough. I still want an answer to my question are the quarter-finals roll on roll off? Because that is one cracking day of snooker when it happens.


My take on that is they thought it ran on too late. Some years it was getting on for half-ten or eleven pm, before the matches started. I know semis and finals tend to run late, but they tend to start before 10:30pm.

However, why does the roll on roll off have to suffer, particularly? I'm quite in favour of starting these things earlier. If they can start the matches on Monday at 11am, why not start the Friday at that time? Surely addding an extra couple of hours, we'd still get matches on well into the night, they just wouldn't be starting at 11pm. Which is a stupid time to start a game, in my opinion.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Monique

agreed and again totally unfair on the players who have to play at such hour because (bad) luck of the draw and then next day again.
Not to mention that roll on roll off does it more difficult for television broadcasting. They need a minimum of planning.

Re: What are people's take on match shortening?

Postby Roland

Start earlier. Easy. Last year they started too late. And logic dictates that the first two matches to finish will contest the first semi-final and the last two matches will contest the second semi which starts 7pm the following night. No excuses. Roll on roll off quarter-final day is one of the best days on the calendar and whether they use it this way or not, the tv people will show the same amount of snooker and the rest will be on interactive.