John Higgins criticises new format

[SnookerFan]

What do people make of this story?

http://asia.eurosport.com/snooker/he...82/story.shtml

[ADR147]

i don't like shorter matches.

[cueman]

Best of 11's are hardly short matches though really. These can and mostly will last at least 2-3 hours and is hardly that much of a sprint. The masters has always been played under this format and I don't see the players moaning about that so why should it be any different for the UK? I think Higgins is just afraid that he's not got the best of records in the shorter format matches, which is why he is so good in the World's and the UK in the past. His game is probably more suited because he tends to play a tight safety first game and then when he's got control of the match do we see his strong break building side of things. Personally I think its just him that is bothered, I bet the majority of the players will be happier to play shorter games as best of 17 is a bit too much for a 1 week tournament.

[bricktip]

I think most players at all levels would favour longer matches.

[SnookerFan]

Best of 11's are hardly short matches though really. These can and mostly will last at least 2-3 hours and is hardly that much of a sprint. The masters has always been played under this format and I don't see the players moaning about that so why should it be any different for the UK? I think Higgins is just afraid that he's not got the best of records in the shorter format matches, which is why he is so good in the World's and the UK in the past. His game is probably more suited because he tends to play a tight safety first game and then when he's got control of the match do we see his strong break building side of things. Personally I think its just him that is bothered, I bet the majority of the players will be happier to play shorter games as best of 17 is a bit too much for a 1 week tournament.

I disagree.

I think the longer matches are the ultimate test of a players skill. And also their ability to show stamina/the ability to play tired. This is especially a factor when it comes to playing many long matches in a week. The World Championship is so special because it's so long. You can't just win a few frames and have a decent run. You need to be consistently good over two weeks, even when tired. The World Championship more than any other tournament has to be earned. That's why it's so prestigious.

As the second tournament behind the Worlds, it's a crying shame that the matches are now shortened. I can see why they do it, for TV reasons. But to shrug it off and say that it doesn't really matter is a travesty in my opinion. How can it be second only to the Worlds prestige wise if the matches are this short?

And saying; "People don't complain about The Masters" misses the point. The Masters prestige always comes from it's uniqueness. That it's the only tournament where only the top 16 enter. (Barring wildcards). If you made The Masters a ranking tournament, and entered 16 qualifiers people would complain, because you've taken the identity of the tournament away. The Masters unique selling point is not length of the matches, it's something else.

The unique selling point of the UK was that it was second in prestige behind the Worlds, and second in length. In the same way as my example above, in shortening the matches, they've taken away what is special about it. Even if they've done it for the right reasons.

Sadly, I share John's disappointment. When the matches were announced, I e-mailed World Snooker saying I would usually buy tickets for the UK, but this year would not be, because of the match-shortening. I'm glad a top-player has also made his disappointment known. Changing a tournament of this prestige shouldn't be done lightly, and I think Barry Hearn should be made aware of this.

It's not that people are complaining about the format, per se. It's just wrong for the second biggest ranking tournament of the year in my opinion. If they kept the UK as it was, and introduced this format for a new tournamet somewhere in the season, then fine. But they didn't. That's the disappointing thing.

[Looki]

Best of 11's are hardly short matches though really. These can and mostly will last at least 2-3 hours and is hardly that much of a sprint. The masters has always been played under this format and I don't see the players moaning about that so why should it be any different for the UK? I think Higgins is just afraid that he's not got the best of records in the shorter format matches, which is why he is so good in the World's and the UK in the past. His game is probably more suited because he tends to play a tight safety first game and then when he's got control of the match do we see his strong break building side of things. Personally I think its just him that is bothered, I bet the majority of the players will be happier to play shorter games as best of 17 is a bit too much for a 1 week tournament.

I haven't heard one single positive comment from any player about shortening the format. Williams, Maguire and Higginson have critcised it. I doubt that Hendry and Dott will love it either. It is possible that some players feel they've better chances against the top players in shorter mathces but I think vast majority is against the change.

I'm not totally against shoter formats but I think we need longer formats too. Comparison with the Masters isn't relevant in my opinion. It's the UK Championship, not the Masters. The Masters isn't a great tournament because of its format, its prestige is about something else. But the longer format is part and parcel of the UK and shortening it changes the tournament too much, it's just not the same anymore.

[SnookerFan]

I haven't heard one single positive comment from any player about shortening the format. Williams, Maguire and Higginson have critcised it. I doubt that Hendry and Dott will love it either. It is possible that some players feel they've better chances against the top players in shorter mathces but I think vast majority is against the change.

I'm not totally against shoter formats but I think we need longer formats too. Comparison with the Masters isn't relevant in my opinion. It's the UK Championship, not the Masters. The Masters isn't a great tournament because of its format, its prestige is about something else. But the longer format is part and parcel of the UK and shortening it changes the tournament too much, it's just not the same anymore.

I agree about almost everything that's said here. Though I like The Masters, it's a different tournament to the UK, meant to be a different thing. Saying; "Well the UK is now like The Masters" in my eyes is silly, because even if that's true it diminishes both the UK and The Masters, as they both had a unique feel too.

I agree with you on the idea of there being shorter and longer tournaments. I wasn't a big fan of the World Open, as I thought best of five matches were too short. But I know a lot of people who loved that tournament. It's because different people like different things though, that the idea of shortening matches will automatically make them better. It won't. But it seems to be the way things are going these days.

[PatBlock]

I used to think the world championships were safe from this kind of butchering, but now I'm not so sure.

-

[ADR147]

I used to think the world championships were safe from this kind of butchering, but now I'm not so sure.

-

frightening thought isn't it.

[DWOT]

Barry Hearn has and always will be a total and utter idiot, the second he was appointed I just knew that the game would slip further under peoples radars and that he'd start to tinker with things that he shouldn't...

The guy's an eejit of the highest order who doens't give a rats about snooker, just lining his own pocket and making as much money as possible......

Just about every single person I've spoken to in the game has nothing positive to say about the bloke at all, which should tell you a lot.

[spike]

Barry Hearn has and always will be a total and utter idiot, the second he was appointed I just knew that the game would slip further under peoples radars and that he'd start to tinker with things that he shouldn't...

The guy's an eejit of the highest order who doens't give a rats about snooker, just lining his own pocket and making as much money as possible......

Just about every single person I've spoken to in the game has nothing positive to say about the bloke at all, which should tell you a lot.

Dread to think what you thought of Rodney Walker then.

Ask most players on the tour and they will tell you Barry Hearn has been a godsend to Snooker since he to took over. As much as I disagree with the change of format of the UK Championship, on the hole Barry Hearn has/is taking Snooker in the right direction. No doubt in my mind he is the best man for the job.

[cueman]

I'm not totally in agreement of shortening the event but what choice does he have. The BBC are committed to big cost cutting and snooker unfortunately is going to be one of them to suffer with less viewing time. The whole part of this was not done just to spite anyone or to mess around with events, put simply there weren't any better offers on the table of who would back the event so had to basically do what the BBC asked of him, i.e. shorten the event.

Don't blame Hearn, he's putting on PTC's, taken snooker to other countries, basically done a lot to give the players what they want, if the alternative is for just 6 ranking events a season but left as they were people would then criticise that too. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

[vmax4steve]

Barry Hearn was given the job of selling snooker back to the public who have fallen out of love with it. To give them the very same that have have turned away from would be ridiculous so change, any change has to come even if it's just shortening matches for the majority who have short attention spans.
The new PTC's have been good this year after being ignored by some of the top pros last year and snooker is on its way to having a tour not unlike the ATP with smaller events alongside the established majors. Just to be controversial I would like to see the WSC turned into something like a world open and the world champion being the man at the end of the season who gains the most ranking points just like in other sports like F1 and Motogp. After all the WSC is only there because at the beginning that's all there was and that is certainly no longer the case, world champions should be based over a season not just a certain two weeks of the year.

[magicman]

Yeah it was so much better when there was six competitions in the entire calendar year! I think your comment does tell me a lot, but more about the people you associate with than Barry Hearn.

No player or fan worth his salt, could possibly be happy about a reduction in televised snooker. The fact that the shorter matches undermines the UK title itself is inarguable. Anyone who knows anything about snooker knows that the longer the match goes on, the classier player goes through. Not dissing Nigel Bond, who's a great pro, but would he really have won an event if the matches were all first to ten? At his peak - possibly, right now - no chance. Yet he won the shoot-out. So by reducing the frames played, you automatically increase the amount of players capable of winning the event. We don't really want this. We don't want just anyone to be able to win it, we want one of the best to win it.

I'm so anti this decision that I'm hoping the semi-finalists end up being Joe Jogia, Li Yan, Tom Ford and Rory McLeod. See how happy the TV companies and World Snooker will be then!

[SnookerFan]

I'm so anti this decision that I'm hoping the semi-finalists end up being Joe Jogia, Li Yan, Tom Ford and Rory McLeod. See how happy the TV companies and World Snooker will be then!

Imagine that.