New Tournament Format

[OmaMiesta]

Hey everyone, just wanted to express my opinion and hear others regarding the tournament formats nowadays. To be honest I'm not a huge fan of these short best of 7 (race to 4) matches. The out come is usually quite unpredictable and we've had a lot of great players eliminated due to the many factors that effect the outcome of these short races. You often find that the better player doesn't always win were as in a longer race lets say best of 19 for example, the better player usually always comes on top. Its kind of bs in my opinion that players like Ronnie have to travel all the way to China for example only to be knocked out in the first round and head straight back home. There should be a minimum of at least best of 9 and even that is kind of short but still gives a chance for both players to fight back with an extra frame. I unno, I just feel that race to 4 matches are very luck based and it isn't too fair in my opinion. What are your thoughts?

[robertmac]

I agree as you mentioned it is unpredictable and it is
a shame to have top players beaten in the first round
when the fans want to see them play and not go home.

[Byrom]

I agree with the opening post entirely - I think they did it to try and make the game fit in with all the pro's these days with qualifying and stuff and I think they thought it would speed the game up but I have to agree with the opening post - and I think it actually makes the game less interesting and more prone to tactical battles than the longer format when players could get in their stride and relax more - so in my opinion it defeats the object though I understand why they tried it.

It definitely favours some of the quick starters and some of the lesser known lads to compete but I hate it - watched Robertson v Davis match yesterday - it was shockingly negative like watching paint dry that last frame

[OmaMiesta]

I agree with the opening post entirely - I think they did it to try and make the game fit in with all the pro's these days with qualifying and stuff and I think they thought it would speed the game up but I have to agree with the opening post - and I think it actually makes the game less interesting and more prone to tactical battles than the longer format when players could get in their stride and relax more - so in my opinion it defeats the object though I understand why they tried it.

It definitely favours some of the quick starters and some of the lesser known lads to compete but I hate it - watched Robertson v Davis match yesterday - it was shockingly negative like watching paint dry that last frame

Yep, I hope they change it back...I guess it was worth it to try something new but Im sure many of the players aren't too happy with the format either.

[OmaMiesta]

I agree as you mentioned it is unpredictable and it is
a shame to have top players beaten in the first round
when the fans want to see them play and not go home.

Good point. Ive noticed with Ronnie specifically, the only time he plays well and still manages to lose is in best of 7 matches. 90 percent of all his other matches if he plays well... hes always a favorite.

[Csmith]

I'm not usually a fan of changing the game to suit television, but I do think a best of 7 has it's place. I think the winners circle is still relatively small, despite the increased frequency of upsets. But from a television perspective, 1.5 to 2 hour match is probably going to draw more viewers than a 3-5 hour match. Best of 9's and 11's are fine for bigger events, but it might be a bit much if it were 25-30 tournaments a year. I also expect it's easier to schedule a best of 7 event.

We have seen a few new faces in the top 16, but relatively speaking I think the top 10 has remained fairly consistent.

[OmaMiesta]

I'm not usually a fan of changing the game to suit television, but I do think a best of 7 has it's place. I think the winners circle is still relatively small, despite the increased frequency of upsets. But from a television perspective, 1.5 to 2 hour match is probably going to draw more viewers than a 3-5 hour match. Best of 9's and 11's are fine for bigger events, but it might be a bit much if it were 25-30 tournaments a year. I also expect it's easier to schedule a best of 7 event.

We have seen a few new faces in the top 16, but relatively speaking I think the top 10 has remained fairly consistent.

Hmm thats a very good point as well. Maybe it will just take the players a little time to adapt and get used to it but as it is I dont think I like this format. But I deff understand it from an audience viewer perspective.