Australian Open 2015 June 29 - July 5

[SnookerFan]

I watched the Tramp vs Lisowski match. Not exactly close-run was it?

[Master Blaster]

The first surprise early exit is Bingham who is defeated
by O'Brien 5-4. Bingham looked out of sorts as he missed
several relatively easy pots and O'Brien came back to win.
Woollaston was also defeated but that wasnt a surprise to
me. Trump plays next as well as Guodong.

As Atlas found out, holding up the world is not so easy.

[SnookerFan]

What about Ben Woollaston losing?

[JIMO96]

Wow, thanks for taking the time to put together a well constructed, detailed and convincing argument, Odrl!

I have to admire your memory for results, particularly when you recall Pettman's run and compare it to that of Milkins. And perhaps Pettman and Higginson do carry a sense of pride at having got through a minefield of opponents to reach the business end. But ultimately all 3 players have reached a semi or final by beating whoever was in front of them. Pettman went on to be relegated from the tour after that, so it didn't do him much good rankings-wise.

And that is where our perspectives differ, Odrl......you look at it from the 'snooker fan' angle, whereas a statto like me looks at it from a 'fair rankings system' angle. Pettman's isolated semi final run did him little good because all of the players around him in the rankings were also earning points, however little, that prevented Pettman from getting too far ahead. That doesn't happen under the new system, as you now have to WIN matches to get points. Pettman finished 37th in the 08-09 rankings, despite there only being 8 events that season and having been a semi finalist in one of the biggest events.

Compare that to Gary Wilson now, whose efforts are reaping rewards under the flat draw system. In fact Wilson, along with Li Hang, Davy Morris, Kyren Wilson, Robbie Williams and Stuart Carrington is the early beneficiary of the new system. It is my opinion that if the old tiered system of qualifying remained in place, these guys would not be in the top 64 at present. Instead, we'd have Jimmy White, Dave Harold, Alfie Burden, Nigel Bond, Jamie Cope and probably Steve Davis clogging up the 50-64 positions by scraping the odd win to add to their (unfair) stash of guaranteed points that the old system gifted them.

I also have to disagree with you about sections of the draw 'opening up' once a seed goes out. I think that's fantastic, as it guarantees fresh faces at a later stage of the tournament. Under the tiered system, I got really sick of seeing the same last 32 match ups, tournament after tournament. There's only so many Trump-Dale matches a guy can take! The sport NEEDS regeneration for a multitude of reasons, be they corporate or developmental, and the old tiered system did not make that happen quickly enough. Look at the average age of the top 32.....it was set to overtake carpet bowls if something didn't change.

And change is what it has brought. White, Cope, Bond etc will all have gotten the fright of their lives and will need something special to regain a top 64 place. Others are set to follow: McLeod, Ford, Lines all came dangerously close last season because their protection has been taken away, and their form has suffered. Look out for overdue top 64 berths in the coming season for: Sam Baird, Zhou Yuelong, Tian Pengfei and Oliver Lines. Are you not excited by these developments? Do you genuinely get joy out of watching (for example) Michael Holt reach the last 32 of everything, only to repeatedly lose out, yet retain a safe top 32 berth?

In summary, regeneration and fairness are the central themes for me, whereas seeing the top players is what it's all about for you. And that's fair enough

There is some common ground between us, however. When Hearn introduced flat 128 draws I was a mixture of overjoyed at the death knell for tiering, and genuinely shocked that he was so brutal. I personally think, like you, that there is a case for exempting one group of players from qualifying, and that is the elite. Whether it be top 16, or 10 or even 20, keep them out of the qualifiers, as that ensures:

(i) the elite are at the venue and the event is not devalued (the loss for Ding at Wuxi last season highlights how absurd it is to hold qualifying in a separate continent to the main event)
(ii) the highest ranked player a newcomer can draw in round 1 is 17th (if 16 are seeded), therefore easing the pressure of having multiple 'savage draws' in a season

For me, World Snooker got it spot on with the structure for last seasons World Championship: top 16 exempt, the rest flat drawn to qualify. I went on twitter to express how fair and balanced this system was and was astounded by the ignorance and self-entitled attitudes of certain top 32 players who've never won a tournament in their lives! All sports seed/exempt their elite players. Why snooker has felt the need, for decades, to apply this principle on multiple seeding levels, has always baffled me. Good riddance to it I say!

Enjoy the rest of the Australian Open guys, sorry for straying off topic.

[JIMO96]

What about Ben Woollaston losing?

Absolutely fantastic! Wildcards everywhere are vindicated with this 1 result! People slated the system when Vinnie Calabrese skipped the tour to requalify from a 'weak' region. Ridley winning today demonstrates that it is not. Take the qualifying to Australia instead of Barnsley and there'd be many more results like this.

[SnookerFan]

Qualifying was in Crawley. I went to the final day.

Quite enjoyed it, actually.

[JIMO96]

Qualifying was in Crawley. I went to the final day.

Quite enjoyed it, actually.

Is that Victoria? Or New South Wales?

[robertmac]

Georgiou vs Higgins was a good match which Higgins
was fortunate to win. Georgiou played very well and
has improved considerably it seems. He had a good
chance in frame 2 to clear the balls but had a kick
on the last red allowing Higgins to win the frame.

Trump had 2 centuries and played well however Lisowski
played the worst I have seen him play so Trump had a
'walk in the park' match.

I was surprised to see Guodong exit early as well.

[JoeJoeJoe]

There is some common ground between us, however. When Hearn introduced flat 128 draws I was a mixture of overjoyed at the death knell for tiering, and genuinely shocked that he was so brutal. I personally think, like you, that there is a case for exempting one group of players from qualifying, and that is the elite. Whether it be top 16, or 10 or even 20, keep them out of the qualifiers, as that ensures:

(i) the elite are at the venue and the event is not devalued (the loss for Ding at Wuxi last season highlights how absurd it is to hold qualifying in a separate continent to the main event)
(ii) the highest ranked player a newcomer can draw in round 1 is 17th (if 16 are seeded), therefore easing the pressure of having multiple 'savage draws' in a season

For me, World Snooker got it spot on with the structure for last seasons World Championship: top 16 exempt, the rest flat drawn to qualify. I went on twitter to express how fair and balanced this system was and was astounded by the ignorance and self-entitled attitudes of certain top 32 players who've never won a tournament in their lives! All sports seed/exempt their elite players. Why snooker has felt the need, for decades, to apply this principle on multiple seeding levels, has always baffled me. Good riddance to it I say!

Enjoy the rest of the Australian Open guys, sorry for straying off topic.

I though the World Qualifiers was generally good but was a bit too harsh on the Top 32 players, especially when you take into account the hectic schedule they had in March. The players who were outside the top 16 but who made to 32 man events like the WGP and Players Championship (Xao, Liang, Ebdon, Lawler, Gould, White) performed very poorly in qualifying against lower ranked players who didn't have as many tournaments. For the other events I think they should have as many as is realistically possible at venue whether it's 32, 64 or 128 but the top 16 should have an automatic place. Both the tiered and flat systems are far too rigid.

[SnookerFan]

Is that Victoria? Or New South Wales?

It's quite near Australia.

I had to go past the famous Australian airport of Gatwick.

[robertmac]

Another surprise as Allen has an early exit.
Robertson is down 2-0 and missed a black off the spot
which is very unusual for him. Hopefully he can win
frame 3 and take this match as it would be unfortunate
if he losses against someone like Selt.

[JIMO96]

I though the World Qualifiers was generally good but was a bit too harsh on the Top 32 players, especially when you take into account the hectic schedule they had in March. The players who were outside the top 16 but who made to 32 man events like the WGP and Players Championship (Xao, Liang, Ebdon, Lawler, Gould, White) performed very poorly in qualifying against lower ranked players who didn't have as many tournaments. For the other events I think they should have as many as is realistically possible at venue whether it's 32, 64 or 128 but the top 16 should have an automatic place. Both the tiered and flat systems are far too rigid.

Very good point. The tiered system was too rigid, but the flat 128 has gone too far the other way. The players you highlight all did have a busy March, but that's the price of success.

[mikeyd100]

I think the commentators took a fancy to Judd Trump.
They metioned more than once how young and flexible he was whilst stretching over the table for shots.
Hmmmm .... hahahaa

[mikeyd100]

Another surprise as Allen has an early exit.
Robertson is down 2-0 and missed a black off the spot
which is very unusual for him. Hopefully he can win
frame 3 and take this match as it would be unfortunate
if he losses against someone like Selt.

Wow, just watching the live feed and Robertson is 4-0 down !!!

[mikeyd100]

Wow, just watching the live feed and Robertson is 4-0 down !!!

Selt takes it... 5-4... the homeboy is out !!!
( Yes I'm mad...talking to myself )