2023 WST Classic

[Cue crafty]

Jimmy bows out, decent tournament for him.

He's becoming the Fred Davis of the modern game. 😉

[147888J]

Wish this was somewhere where I could actually watch

[Cue crafty]

Wish this was somewhere where I could actually watch

https://youtube.com/@theworldofsnooker


Try this, you have to listen to the nice Indian man speak over (which he does to stop copy right sueing etc) but I quite like him, better than Dave Hendon anyway!! 🤣🤣

[fkhan]

Murphy replies to Ronnie's comments.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other...ooker-29518034

[trying]

I wouldn't disagree with either of them. I agree that the sport is in a bad way, though Ronnie's comments in the press don't do much to help to change things, as Murphy rightly point out.
Personally I think the sport is in a bad way. I think the prize fund distribution are too top heavy. Something like half the players on the tour are apparently on WST benefits which is ridiculous. The benefits which are being handed out should be added to the prize funds and then distributed better to the R1/R2 etc losers that they don't then need the benefits handout. If the argument is then that the tournament winners want bigger prizes then the sport needs to attract bigger prize funds. Some (carter most recently) say that the numbers of players on the tour should be culled, personally I wouldn't agree with that point and don't see how it would help but it may be part of the debate. Snooker is often being poorly represented eg. this current tournament being watched on dodgy independent feeds, whatever the excuses, this does nothing for the profile of the game if the majority of fans can't watch it! I know it is easy to criticise but sadly I think that the sport and players are being very poorly represented by WST/WPBSA

[itsnoteasy]

Is snooker much different to golf or tennis? They are also top heavy when it comes to prize money. It's great to say you are a pro snooker player but if you can't make a living out of it by winning some matches do you deserve to be? It may sound harsh but in the real world(terrible choice of phrase but couldn't think of anything better) lots of people lose their Job if they aren't good enough at it.

[trying]

Oh indeed. I just wonder whether reducing the tour to half its size would lead to shorter tournaments, less snooker on TV and therefore less interest from sponsors rather than more which seems to be what is needed

[itsnoteasy]

Oh indeed. I just wonder whether reducing the tour to half its size would lead to shorter tournaments, less snooker on TV and therefore less interest from sponsors rather than more which seems to be what is needed

My solution would be.
The first round should be played between numbers 65-128, giving them a far better chance of winning, the second round between 33-64 vs the winners of the first round, that gets you down to 64 as you will have the top 32 vs the 32winners from the second round. That way you have players of more similar abilities playing each other and they may actually win some matches.
Or reduce the tour to 64 and play best of nine first rounds instead of best of 7s.

[fkhan]

WST chairman responds to Ronnie's comments:

https://wst.tv/steve-dawson-responds...nie-osullivan/

[Cue crafty]

One thing I can't abide in politics is an opposition that merely complains about the state of affairs with absolutely zero positive feedback or viable ideas that they themselves would impose to actually improve things. It's so easy to throw mud but it takes far far more resolve to get involved and help make things better yourself.

[Odrl]

WST chairman responds to Ronnie's comments:

https://wst.tv/steve-dawson-responds...nie-osullivan/

I think Dawson's response is fair enough, but that famous line about there being 6 events in 2010 really annoys me. It's just a blatant lie to say it's gone from 6 events to 21 if you are not going to use the same criteria for both seasons.

[itsnoteasy]

WST chairman responds to Ronnie's comments:

https://wst.tv/steve-dawson-responds...nie-osullivan/

Not fussed about the politics of it all but him boasting that its grown form 6 events worth 3.5 million and now 21 events worth 11 million. I'm no genius but mathematically that makes every tournament worth less than they were when matchroom took over and that's not even adjusting for inflation. I don't quite think that's the boast he thinks it is.

[147888J]

I wouldn't disagree with either of them. I agree that the sport is in a bad way, though Ronnie's comments in the press don't do much to help to change things, as Murphy rightly point out.
Personally I think the sport is in a bad way. I think the prize fund distribution are too top heavy. Something like half the players on the tour are apparently on WST benefits which is ridiculous. The benefits which are being handed out should be added to the prize funds and then distributed better to the R1/R2 etc losers that they don't then need the benefits handout. If the argument is then that the tournament winners want bigger prizes then the sport needs to attract bigger prize funds. Some (carter most recently) say that the numbers of players on the tour should be culled, personally I wouldn't agree with that point and don't see how it would help but it may be part of the debate. Snooker is often being poorly represented eg. this current tournament being watched on dodgy independent feeds, whatever the excuses, this does nothing for the profile of the game if the majority of fans can't watch it! I know it is easy to criticise but sadly I think that the sport and players are being very poorly represented by WST/WPBSA

Doesn't do much to change things? It gets people, not just snooker fans, talking about snooker (could be done in a far more constructive way, but I am not, or anywhere near the level of good amateur, let alone the level required to be half as good as any of these guys).

Things need to make progress. Things need to change. Outlets for viewership certainly need remodeling. Access for fans to players, but also players to fans. New players. New crowds. All while sustaining the immensely high quality of matchplay that has been achieved in the modern game. How do you get players who have sacrificed so much for one idea of the game, to take all these risks on new ideas, tournaments and points systems? Pay them more? Give them a less high-pressure work place?

Very interesting to see professionals talk about such matters - the ever-changing nature of English cricket has set a good precedent in recent years I'd argue. Adapting one format of the game and generally looking to promote a more inclusive, easy-going attitude to the sport. All while maintaining SOME of the traditional values attached to the game that we all sulked over potentially losing, and shifting some of the outdated stuff that really had no place in modern society, let alone a sport lol.

Anyway, I digress. A league system of some kind is surely the way to go in snooker? Multiple tours by separate broadcasters/producers or whatever would simply divide the interest between nerds like us who already like the game. So, giving players opportunities to go up and down (perhaps at more than once in a season?) splits ability rather easily (probably need a seeding event for the inaugural) - each league with it's own prize purse. Tournaments simply contribute a set amount of points? I mean snooker ha sa lot of other data we could also scrutinize lol

5am coffee ))

[Cue crafty]

Doesn't do much to change things? It gets people, not just snooker fans, talking about snooker (could be done in a far more constructive way, but I am not, or anywhere near the level of good amateur, let alone the level required to be half as good as any of these guys).

Things need to make progress. Things need to change. Outlets for viewership certainly need remodeling. Access for fans to players, but also players to fans. New players. New crowds. All while sustaining the immensely high quality of matchplay that has been achieved in the modern game. How do you get players who have sacrificed so much for one idea of the game, to take all these risks on new ideas, tournaments and points systems? Pay them more? Give them a less high-pressure work place?

Very interesting to see professionals talk about such matters - the ever-changing nature of English cricket has set a good precedent in recent years I'd argue. Adapting one format of the game and generally looking to promote a more inclusive, easy-going attitude to the sport. All while maintaining SOME of the traditional values attached to the game that we all sulked over potentially losing, and shifting some of the outdated stuff that really had no place in modern society, let alone a sport lol.

Anyway, I digress. A league system of some kind is surely the way to go in snooker? Multiple tours by separate broadcasters/producers or whatever would simply divide the interest between nerds like us who already like the game. So, giving players opportunities to go up and down (perhaps at more than once in a season?) splits ability rather easily (probably need a seeding event for the inaugural) - each league with it's own prize purse. Tournaments simply contribute a set amount of points? I mean snooker ha sa lot of other data we could also scrutinize lol

5am coffee ))

I'm definitely starting to like you. Better than Ronnie Corbett anyway. 😉

[Nifty50]

I like the idea of some sort of league system with promotion and relegation. It’s clear with the current 128 system that the top 16 are miles better than the bottom 16. Every year some pretty useful players fall off the tour because they can’t quite squeeze into the top 64. So it’s back to Q school to try again.