Announcement

**PaddyLowson** · 16 September 2010, 09:38 AM

A Sceptics View

I remain sceptical about the short format. Its a great idea that like the FA Cup that some minnows can qualify and that shocks can happen, but back in 2006 when the GP introduced the Best of 5 frame format for the group stage, it came under heavy criticism - even though it meant you had the opportunity of four other games to qualify. I dont know how people are going to react to the best of 5 format for five rounds under the knock-out system. Its a format no-one will be used to when playing on the tour. It seems a shame really as it's been argued that this was to enable everyone to play on One Table. Not the worst idea in the world but with 43 players it doesnt work. Having one table works better in tournaments with less players to begin with, i.e. the Masters - the PTC finals would be a great example for it to work.

Setting up the final for a one session affair is something that could be understood but it shouldnt be at the expense of going through semi-finals the day before. The analogy 'aint broke dont fix it' seems appropriate here. It could be said to make it interesting having the final over just nine frames but to me, part of snooker is the longer matches and the development of them as a tournament progresses (i.e. the format we're used to).

That said I was a sceptic ahead of the 2008 GP with the Random Draw - but that won me over.

**ltfc39** · 16 September 2010, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by PaddyLowson View Post

A Sceptics View

I remain sceptical about the short format. Its a great idea that like the FA Cup that some minnows can qualify and that shocks can happen, but back in 2006 when the GP introduced the Best of 5 frame format for the group stage, it came under heavy criticism - even though it meant you had the opportunity of four other games to qualify. I dont know how people are going to react to the best of 5 format for five rounds under the knock-out system. Its a format no-one will be used to when playing on the tour. It seems a shame really as it's been argued that this was to enable everyone to play on One Table. Not the worst idea in the world but with 43 players it doesnt work. Having one table works better in tournaments with less players to begin with, i.e. the Masters - the PTC finals would be a great example for it to work.

Setting up the final for a one session affair is something that could be understood but it shouldnt be at the expense of going through semi-finals the day before. The analogy 'aint broke dont fix it' seems appropriate here. It could be said to make it interesting having the final over just nine frames but to me, part of snooker is the longer matches and the development of them as a tournament progresses (i.e. the format we're used to).

That said I was a sceptic ahead of the 2008 GP with the Random Draw - but that won me over.

'If it ain't broke don't fix it'

Well I think the crowds will beg to differ. This event over the past few years has been pitifully attended - especially at the Kelvin Hall (IMO the worst venue they could've got!)

Every tournament also needs their own identity. The general public is getting bored of the same best of 9 format every single tournament! There needs to be some sort of variety.

The problem with the group stages is that players didn't have a clue what they we're doing, or what they needed to do in order to advance! I do think there is room for a tournament group stage for one event somewhere down the line.

**ltfc39** · 16 September 2010, 10:45 AM

FAO MODS:

Could you change the title of the article - for some reason I put 2012 in the topic box?!

**PaddyLowson** · 16 September 2010, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by ltfc39 View Post

'If it ain't broke don't fix it'

Well I think the crowds will beg to differ. This event over the past few years has been pitifully attended - especially at the Kelvin Hall (IMO the worst venue they could've got!)

Every tournament also needs their own identity. The general public is getting bored of the same best of 9 format every single tournament! There needs to be some sort of variety.

The problem with the group stages is that players didn't have a clue what they we're doing, or what they needed to do in order to advance! I do think there is room for a tournament group stage for one event somewhere down the line.

Well you most certainly have a point about crowds - thats the problem about daytime matches - the most viable available slot is a problem. Arguably if they ran the tournament in an evening slot then it would probably benefit of better crowds - it seems to be a general problem - WC and Masters apart.

Variety can be a good thing but it can also cause problems if we have got too much variety, moving from one variation to a widely different can cause problems and make comparatives impossible to introduce. I mean can we say whoever wins the W.O. in 2010 has as much kudos as Robertson's win last year? Robertson won 10 more frames than the champion this year will have to win? I mean the Wins in the Shanghai Masters of Carter, O'Sullivan and Dale can all be easily compared as they each played under the same format. Likewise Robertson, Higgins, O'Sullivan, Williams, Hendry etc @ the Crucible as they all played in the same format.

As I said, one major complaint was how random best of five frames was and thats why the 2007 GP had the Best of seven format for the Group stage. Now if they are unhappy with how random best of five can be - when they have five matches to resolve their problems and still qualify i.e. a 3-0 loss didnt end the hopes there and then - you could get 4 or 5 shot in three frames and thats it your on the Motorway home.

I might warm to best of five - it could be said to make matches watchable in entireity, but I still think nine frames is a fair length for r1. I dont think there would have been much controversy had they increased the format as the tournament progressed e.g 7 frame for qfs - but its trying to fit everything in - and It will certainly make for a strangely interesting week but though too little variety can make the competition stale (as you suggest and thats why its great Hearn's in snooker) - too much variety can belittle events.

I think a Group stage could work under the following premise.

Two tables (SECC is already proven big enough)

8 Groups of Four. (Best of 5 or 7 Frames)

Match 1: Player 1 v Player 2
Match 2: Player 3 v Player 4
Match 3: Winner 1 v Winner 2 (Winner Qualifies as Group Winner)
Match 4: Loser 1 v Loser 2 (Loser is eliminated)
Match 5: Loser 3 v Winner 4 (Winner Qualifies as Group Runner-Up)

That means each match carries weight. - You can hold the Groups over the first four days before developing the knockout rounds.

**tatannes** · 16 September 2010, 03:35 PM

I think the main problem was the group stage.

When you win your 3 first matchs, you're sure to qualify.
Same stuff if you lose your first 3.

There are lots of useless matchs.

I'm not sure pro snooker players like anything else than sudden death.

BTW, i'm not very fond of premier league snooker...

**PaddyLowson** · 16 September 2010, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by tatannes View Post

I think the main problem was the group stage.

When you win your 3 first matchs, you're sure to qualify.
Same stuff if you lose your first 3.

There are lots of useless matchs.

I'm not sure pro snooker players like anything else than sudden death.

BTW, i'm not very fond of premier league snooker...

Thats why I think the Group Stage that I put down is so good. Each match counts for something. If you lose a game, you've got one more chance to get through to the Knock-out rounds.

**ltfc39** · 16 September 2010, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by PaddyLowson View Post

Thats why I think the Group Stage that I put down is so good. Each match counts for something. If you lose a game, you've got one more chance to get through to the Knock-out rounds.

Not unless if its 6th v 8th in the last group match with only the top 4 going through! When the players just can't be bothered and want to go home as they have nothing to play for!

**Mr P** · 16 September 2010, 07:10 PM

I'm pretty sure Mark Selby will win this with a few kind draws.

**Odrl** · 17 September 2010, 10:39 PM

Well, televised snooker continues tomorrow, and I've had a habit of posting my thoughts ahead of every major tournament in my past two years on this forum. The chance to discuss upcoming tournaments in detail doesn't come along very often outside of the internet for people like me, who are a bit isolated as snooker fans, and it's also a way of getting myself up for the "snooker week".

It's hard to talk about potential winners of an event when the draw is not known in advance, but even if it was, I would struggle to find the motivation to talk about this particular event. We've had a lot of discussions about this event over the last couple of months, whether the changes are in line with what the public and snooker fans want, and whether they're ultimately good for the future of snooker. I must accept that I'm in the minority on this issue, so it would be pointless to spread my negativism at this point.

But it can't hurt if I try to explain where I'm coming from...

Originally Posted by Odrl

If I see a best-of-7 match in a ranking event, or a one-session final, I think I might skip it and do something better with my time.

I posted this last December, in a thread about which events people think should be shortened. This was before the World Open plans were announced, so it was only hypothetical. I didn't imagine it would happen anytime soon, let alone in less than a year's time. But it is happening, and it's even worse than best-of-7.

When there is a ranking event on, I try not to miss any of the action. I pretty much try to watch every televised match, and I'm actually quite successful in that "quest". Or perhaps lucky is the word, because I have the opportunity and the time to watch as much as I can. And that's been the case for the last 44 ranking events, so the last thing I want is to see that streak ending.

I haven't been a snooker fan all that long, at least not as fanatical as I am now, so I find it surprising and a bit absurd to now find myself in the group of purists and traditionalists. But thinking about it, what was it that appealed to me in snooker? In large part, it was the image you get about snooker from watching it on TV. A lot of people talk about how redundant the dress code is, and how players in the 21st century shouldn't be forced to wear clothing that actually hinders them while playing. Well, it certainly grabbed my attention. It gave me the impression that snooker is somehow above other cue sports, that it has more substance and requires more skill. And most importantly, it gave me the impression that it's played by gentlemen, and that winning or losing doesn't come down to physical force.

Another thing snooker fans like to do is criticize commentators, the Eurosport ones in particular. But again, they were instrumental in getting me into snooker. I found it refreshing to watch a sport on TV and not have the commentators shouting to create excitement. It was the moments between important shots that I found the most dramatic. It's a funny thing, when you watch snooker, you probably see the static positions between shots for longer than the actual movement and development of the balls, which goes along perfectly with the slow and quiet nature of the game. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but for those of us who like it, there are not many alternatives.

I was lucky as a snooker fan. In the first few matches and tournaments I watched, I got to see the incredible diversity this game has to offer. I saw one-visit exchanges, great safety battles, a maximum break as it happened, exhibition shots, and nervy deciders with lots of misses. I realized an important thing about snooker. It was not like other sports. In Slovenia, they shove alpine skiing down our throats all winter, and I never understood the appeal of it. A number of skiers take the exact same line down the exact same hill, and the best finish within less than a second of each other. I never understood what the point of watching an hour of that on TV is, when you could just look at the results afterwards, and know exactly what happened. You could paint a pretty accurate picture in your head. But if you see a snooker result, you can't really know what happened without seeing the match. It's a turn-based game, and there is no direct interaction between the two players, but you still can't find two frames that are the same.

I haven't been too picky about the type of snooker I enjoy. I'll admit that the first three sessions of that infamous Ebdon-Dott WC final were not great stuff, but I'll never be convinced that the final session was boring. I still have a message a friend of mine sent me during that 70-minute frame. I would translate it as: "Damn they're annoying, already more than an hour. At this rate, they'll just about finish 'till morning." I remember thinking, what's wrong with this guy? It was some of the greatest drama I'd ever experienced. The match seemed as good as over before the final session, but somehow, Peter Ebdon had one last evening of intense concentration and fight in him. Seeing how much him and Dott wanted and cared about that title made me care as well. I almost went insane when I lost the picture for a minute.

That kind of matches are what it's all about for me. They don't really rely on the standard of play, so no matter how well snooker is played in the future, they will always happen. I've seen a couple of classic matches in these last few years, but I can't imagine any match topping the 2006 Masters final between O'Sullivan and Higgins. It was a dream match for any snooker fan. When John Higgins potted that final black, I screamed as loudly as I could, even though it was the middle of the night, because I realized I'd just seen one of the greatest clearances of all time, and a match that would go down in snooker history as one of the all-time classics. I literally couldn't function as a human being for about an hour after that match, just walking around the house in the dark, reflecting upon what I'd just seen. Now think about it, if that match was a best-of-5, it would have finished after O'Sullivan made his second consecutive total clearance to lead 3-0.

I've defended the Ebdon-Dott final on this forum on a couple of occasions. I've defended this year's WC final, which some people thought was the worst ever. I've defended Graeme Dott, Peter Ebdon, Mark Selby, and most of the other players accused of being boring, and I imagine I'll continue to do so. Whenever I talk about something or someone in a positive light, I mean it. I've never faked it in order to prove that I'm somehow a better snooker fan because I can enjoy the "boring" stuff as well. I've never needed to fake it, and I consider myself lucky. But as I said earlier, I can't find the magic in some other sports, and I guess that's my loss.

So, what was I trying to say? To me, as a viewer, it's about the story being told, and snooker is the tool that makes it happen. But you have to give it a chance, otherwise the story can't be an epic one. I think having best-of-5 matches is not giving snooker a chance. I get defensive about it because it takes away some of the things that made me love snooker in the first place. Perhaps I'm just being a snob, but I love that feeling of being a part of something better, grander, and ultimately something different than any other sport can offer.

Don't get me wrong, some of the things that make snooker special are still there, so I'm not saying that I could care less about this event. I just have those same feelings as when I watch the Premier League. Williams and Selby played a pretty good match last night, and it's still good entertainment, but shot-clock snooker just seems kind of cheep and underwhelming compared to the real thing to me. I imagine I'll be feeling the same way next week. I'll still watch some of it, but I won't be in "snooker week mode".

Anyway, I just thought I would post this, in case someone else was thinking along those same lines. After all, in the thread I mentioned above, only one person out of 63 voted in favour of shortening the Grand Prix. So perhaps some will even join me in wishing that this event, at least in its current form, be short-lived.

As for the people who are looking forward to this tournament, I can only wish you an exciting and enjoyable snooker week, and I look forward to discussing the UK Championship with you.

**snooky147** · 18 September 2010, 03:46 AM

A Fantastic post Odrl. Very, very well said. I live not far from the venue and I could go tomorrow if I wanted. Would not even need a ticket but I believe a best of five ranking event is a major step backwards, however well supported it might be. The PTC events are best of seven and earn the winner 2000 points. How is it justified in the winner getting 7000 points for this ill conceived tournament. They should have at the very least made it best of seven in line with the PTC events.

**gmg** · 18 September 2010, 07:16 AM

Really looking forward to this tournament. Should be a treat for snooker fans. I feel that I will be more likely to tune into a game that I wouldn't otherwise owing to the short format and it's also great that there will still be 8 players left by the final weekend and that the final will be played over one session. This is the type of shake up that snooker needed and is probably a sign of what is to come in the future. Once again, well done Mr. Hearn.
G.

**snooky147** · 18 September 2010, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by gmg View Post

Really looking forward to this tournament. Should be a treat for snooker fans. I feel that I will be more likely to tune into a game that I wouldn't otherwise owing to the short format and it's also great that there will still be 8 players left by the final weekend and that the final will be played over one session. This is the type of shake up that snooker needed and is probably a sign of what is to come in the future. Once again, well done Mr. Hearn.
G.

I bloody hope it's not a sign of what is to come.

**simplysnookeryt** · 18 September 2010, 10:32 AM

I'll definetley be tuning in, rarely get to see snooker, will give my verdict at the end of the tournament at how the format went. Freeview Plusing today's afternoon session as I'm watching the football, here's to 9 days of snooker!

**montoya10** · 18 September 2010, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by snooky147 View Post

I bloody hope it's not a sign of what is to come.

I second that.
The most popular and the biggest events amongst the ranking tournaments are World Championship and UK Championship, which are being played in a long format, and I should add that, regardless from their popularity, I also enjoy longer matches a lot more than best-of-9s.
I sometimes find a quarter final match dull with a first-to-five format, and now World Open completely steamrolls what made me a real snooker fan: The long battles in long matches.
I agree with Odrl, as well. It's not just a coincidence that I enjoyed the latter half of Williams-Selby Premier League match, when they were not dropping everything they touched. Heavy scoring is cool, but a good game needs a mixture of all types of the game; safety duels, drama, long potting, scrappy frames..
Unfortunately, World Open will not be able to include all these features in its matches, with a best-of-five format.

Announcement

World Open 2010 - Last 64 & 32 discussions!

World Open 2010 - Last 64 & 32 discussions!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment