Theory onpoor standard

[LittleMissAlexa]

Could the poor standard at the masters be due to its non ranking status seeing as due to the PTC there are three times as many ranking tournaments and of course its more important to play well at ranking events for your personal ranking

is it time the masters became a ranking tournament

in other sports every event is a ranking tournament like tennis

[gazza147]

I really think the Same!

As its Not a Ranking Event it seems as the Top Players couldn't be Arsed? If any of you Record the Snooker Watch it Back and you will see what I mean.

Althou the Results show this as the First 8 Favs to Win Lost!!....And they all Lost in a Way which was less than AM STANDARD PLAYERS....Going Wild on Silly Shots ete etc.

This should become a Ranking Event as its a Big Tourny!

[Odrl]

Well, fundamental changes such as this would take away most of the prestige of this tournament, the prestige that comes with its invitational status and unique format.

It's interesting, on one side you have people who go along with this "every event needs its own identity" nonsense and propose a bunch of redundant changes. And on the other side, you have people who want to see unique events turned into generic ones. We here it with the Masters all the time, someone even suggested that the Premier League be made a ranking event a while back.

But ultimately, whatever you think of this year's Masters, there is certainly no pattern of "poor standard". The last two tournaments in particular were top notch.

[andy carson]

i think the only reason some players have not performed as well, is due to them not being used to the cloth.

seems there was a lot of complaints about it and for the semis they have gone to the cloth used at telford

[Le Ball Sack]

If Cope manges to win the Masters, all I can say is Snooker is in a very poor state at the moment.

[Matt_2745]

The day that the Masters becomes a ranking event will be a sad one indeed.

[LittleMissAlexa]

what can really tell you about the standard the players are playing is how they are break building only Fu and Ding are breakbuilding well and reguarly winning in one visit

thats what i mean by poor standard

scrappy frames every frame is good for entertainment but not for standard

[Dr_Doctor]

If they make the Masters a ranking event, wouldn't that boost the top 16 players' points? Or did you mean they should make The Master's a generic tournament like any other tournaments.

It's mostly the quality of the cloths that is stopping players from winning frames in one visit. Believe me a lot of players who lost tried their best to bring their A game out but it didn't happen for some.

Also, scrappy frames every frames is not always good for entertainment. A good mixture of high quality play and a safety battle makes a perfect match in my opinion. And we have been seeing that a lot in this tournament. Can't really ask for more.

[checkSide]

The players didn't perform. It's nothing to do with status of the tournament.

This could have been any event.

They should practice more.

[nevets]

The day that the Masters becomes a ranking event will be a sad one indeed.

Well, it either becomes a ranking event or it dies. It had some glorious days in the past, but that was the past - snooker needs to live in the now if it is to survive in the UK. I am not saying that it should continue down it's current cheesy commercial route, but it needs to find a new 21st century identity. I don't see an elite Masters being part of this.

[Odrl]

Well, it either becomes a ranking event or it dies. It had some glorious days in the past, but that was the past - snooker needs to live in the now if it is to survive in the UK. I am not saying that it should continue down it's current cheesy commercial route, but it needs to find a new 21st century identity. I don't see an elite Masters being part of this.

Well, I couldn't disagree more with this...

But just to further the discussion, could you elaborate? Why do you think the Masters would "die" in its current format? And why do you think making it a ranking event would save it?

[nevets]

My thinking that it would die is purely a reaction to my perception of current players attitude toward it (I mean you Ronnie).

I remember the days when it really was a big event (I'm 37, I remember the eighties) and attracted a big purse.

It just doesn't feel the same any more, the magic has gone. That's why I can't see it surviving as a non-ranking event.

Having said that, I'm not too confident of the ranking events surviving either, not in the UK anyway. Snooker is becoming less and less popular in the UK while it grows in China/Mainland Europe.
Inevitably, major tournaments will be held outside the UK and what constitutes a "major" tournament will be decided by those staging them and the biggest audience ie China.
We will have to get away from our ideas of the traditional big tournaments as it is all going to change, like it or not.

Snooker, I feel, will thrive on a world level. That's the important thing.

Hope that contributes to the discussion (probably starts a few as well!)

Cheers

[sprogbasket]

I find it quite heartening to see the top pros struggling to string breaks together when the table runs slow and the pack doesn't break apart as if the balls are on ice....bloody hell welcome to my world.

I would give my eye teeth to play regularly on the top quality tables they have -club tables may have slightly oversized pockets ( which I have to say are not cut so the ball is directed into the pocket rather than onto the opposing jaw - like tournament tables) but they always seem to have very heavy cloths where you DO have to make allowance for the knap and which truly test cue power - albeit it at the expense of nurturing that smooth Rolls Royce cue action we all crave.


The Maters has been quite up and down this year but I also believe it is just the fact some players have struggled with the table and the venue.

I think it should remain as it is - the Masters for the masters who are accredited as such by their ranking status.

[Odrl]

My thinking that it would die is purely a reaction to my perception of current players attitude toward it (I mean you Ronnie).

I remember the days when it really was a big event (I'm 37, I remember the eighties) and attracted a big purse.

It just doesn't feel the same any more, the magic has gone. That's why I can't see it surviving as a non-ranking event.

Having said that, I'm not too confident of the ranking events surviving either, not in the UK anyway. Snooker is becoming less and less popular in the UK while it grows in China/Mainland Europe.
Inevitably, major tournaments will be held outside the UK and what constitutes a "major" tournament will be decided by those staging them and the biggest audience ie China.
We will have to get away from our ideas of the traditional big tournaments as it is all going to change, like it or not.

Snooker, I feel, will thrive on a world level. That's the important thing.

Hope that contributes to the discussion (probably starts a few as well!)

Cheers

Some interesting thoughts...

If you look at the provisional calendar for next season, it's already the case that most events will be held outside UK. Of the nine main ranking events scheduled, it looks like at least five will be "abroad", as well as two invitationals in China and one in Brazil.

A lot of the British events that filled the calendar over the years are no longer staged, but it's the majors that have survived. Whenever people start losing interest in a sport, it's the most prestigious events they let go of last. Outside of the WC, I think the Masters is probably the safest at the moment, especially since it's never been moved from place to place like that UK Championship has been. I think the format of the Masters is also a particular favourite of the fans. I know this forum is a pretty small sample, but the O'Sullivan-Selby finals of the past two years broke the "most users ever online" record both times. I suppose it's largely because that pairing was particularly interesting, but also because it was an occasion a lot of people cared about.

When you make radical changes to an event, you throw most of the tradition and history behind the event away. And with that, you risk losing prestige as well. Turning the Masters into a ranking event would effectively split its history in two, in the same way that we talk about the Crucible and the pre-Crucible eras. If you look at the case of the World Open, most people would say that Neil Robertson won the inaugural event, rather than defended his Grand Prix title from last season.

I agree that the events which are seen as the most prestigious now, could be overtaken by others in the future. As an event gains in prize money and the standard of organization rises, it also rises on the list of events players want to win the most. That inevitably makes the event more popular with the fans, as they feel like there is more at stake. And that's basically what prestige is. I for one don't think these changes are something we need to fight against. But I also think the changes should be natural rather than artificial.

As you say, outside of China, snooker also has great potential in Europe. But while there may be a great number of people watching on TV, they are scattered across the continent. For an event to be staged, what you really need is a large number of people in one place. I don't think there are many countries where that's the case. Not yet anyway. But the UK certainly has that, and any further decline of snooker's popularity would have to be pretty dramatic for the UK not to be able to stage a couple of major events a season. Especially when you consider the percentage of top players it has and is likely to have for the foreseeable future.

On the issue of the players' attitude... Well, that's the thing about invitational events, there is little to lose. What I don't like are the supposed "fun events" where players play a dumbed down version of snooker. Sometimes there are different rules that force them to, and sometimes they just "censor" their own games because they think that's what fans want to see. But while there is little to lose, there is a lot to be gained, especially with the big prize money the Masters has on offer, for example. I don't think there are any players who underperform intentionally, just the ones who struggle in this particular format and atmosphere. Although the Masters is not really an invitational event, as the players aren't really invited, they qualify through their ranking.

Ronnie O'Sullivan didn't really have a problem with the Masters in the past. Outside of the Premier League, it's arguably his best tournament. For all the incidents in recent years, his weird play against Allen was the first time it's happened in the Masters. But as far as O'Sullivan is concerned, it's his attitude towards the overseas events that is the real problem. The Chinese events are pretty healthy, but the events that are no longer on the calendar, such as the Malta Cup or the Bahrain Championship, they can't have been helped by O'Sullivan's absence and indifference. Although having said that, he is not going to be around for ever, so the events that can't survive without him are doomed as it is. Anyway, time will tell...

[nevets]

Excellent post Odrl, very well written.

I can see a time, in the not too distant future, when the "majors" are spread around the globe. Maybe one in China, one elsewhere in Asia, one in Europe, perhaps two in the UK. How the Masters would fit in to this I'm not sure.

I actually think this globalisation of snooker is exciting and should be welcomed. Most sports would be thrilled to have new audiences growing around the world like this. The increased interest overseas will hopefully spark a resurgence in popularity in snooker in the UK, but of course we need a healthy domestic governing body, and supportive broadcasters to achieve this.

Overall I'm optimistic about the game's future, but I think it will look a bit different to what we have been used to over the last thirty or so years.