How did you like this new short format?

[miscuehamburg]

Loved it, keep it, sometimes 5 different matches a day. Please keep the old longer formats as well, keeps Snooker multi faceted

I second that. But leave it to this one event, though. I missed the tension building up in longer matches when both players have their runs. Instead, the fear of failure and the resulting cautious play surprised me here negatively. As to the ranking points I see no reason why a pro should not be able to deliver in short formats as well. And in the end I think the results wouldn't have been much different had they played Bo9.

[PaddyLowson]

I can tolerate it for the odd event but it's over too quickly. And Ronnie's idea of shortening the world championship horrifies me...

Hear hear, reducing the worlds to one day finals would mean at best shortening the final to a best of 21 format (with rounds of 15, 15, 17, 19 and 21 as , something that apparently was mulled over. The Worlds should stay as they are tbh but they wont if 5 and 9 frame matches become the norm. I hope personally they wont be. To have variety wont harm the game, too much could be a huge problem which is why this tournament needs to establish itself, its hard to compare Robbo's successive wins as he's won 10 less frames this time.

I'm not lying when I say I enjoyed the tournament immensely, it was interesting to watch shorter games (though I prefer the longer game myself as thats not changed) and the 1 table set up was good, as was the realistic transition (though I prefer longer matches) from semis to final. That said best of 9 seems short for a final. TBH I think best of five for a knock-out when players at the top level are used to best of nines or 11s in early rounds did seem short and I think that the event of best of 5s works better if it's under a R.R. format,

If organising this myself next year I'd alter it slightly

If this was to adopt a group stage then I think the tournament would work better with a slimmer field of 24 for the TV stage - 6 groups of 4 (double elimnaton) days 1 to 6. Group winners qualifying for the quarter-finals - (For the 6 runners up a play-off day of 2 groups of three on day 7 with the two group winners joining the other six, with quarter-finals on day 8 and SFs/Finals day being day 9.


Double Elimination groups work out as

Match 1: Player A v Player B
Match 2: Player C v Player D
Match 3: Winner 1 v Winner 2 (Winner wins the Group)
Match 4: Loser 1 v Loser 2 (Loser is eliminated)
Match 5: Loser 3 v Winner 4 (Winner is Group runner-up and goes to group play-offs)

This guarantees qualifiers at least two best of 5 frame matches at the venue. My personal opinion is that if you ran the tournament using that format then you could retain the 5 frame matches up until a 9 or 11 frame final. You could fit six games in a day theoretically if you started at Noon on the play-off day)

Qualifiers
Last 48: QUALIFYING FINAL (top 32 + 16 winners from last round) - You'd enter the top 32 at the last 48 stage with the winners qualifying for the venue,

QUALIFYING SEMI-FINAL 16 matches (32 winners from last round) - winners go to Qualifying Final

33-64 enter QUALIFYING QUARTER-FINAL (33-64 and 32 winners from last round)

65-96 enter QUALIFYING ROUND 2 (65-96 and 32 winners from first round) winners to qualifying quarter-finals

QUALIFYING FIRST ROUND (64 winners of pre qualifying events etc. winners to round 2

Eveyone clear on that



If maintaining the knock-out tournament

Start the tournament at the last 32.

First Round best of 5 (day 1 to 4) two matches per s

Second round best of 5 (day 5 to 6) two matches per session

Quarter-Finals best of 7 (day 7-8) day three matches day 7, 1 match day 8

Semi-Finals best of 7 (day 8)

Final Best of 9 or 11 (day 9) - Evening session only)

You could have the split in the middle best of 7 at end the third or fourth frame.

[levon]

I have voted for "Not at all, wouldn't want to see another". Perhaps it's a breath of fresh air for some players but it's too short for me as a viewer. There's not enough time to enjoy the game of the favorite players. I'd like to see at least 11 frames in the first two rounds in ranking tournaments. I think this short format is more suitable to a non-ranking tournaments like Premier League.

[gettingbetter]

I have always been of the opinion that the difference between the top 16 players and the rest is how they are able to cope with pressure and I think the best of 5 is indicative of that. The best players made it through to the latter parts of the tournament and there weren't all that many upsets.

In saying that though, I think the amount on ranking points and the prize money (I am unable to find out how much prize money is allocated for the winner of the UK this season, the past few seasons it has been 100k) does not correspond to what is required to win the tournament.

[jb134]

There's room for one of these per season.

[the montrealer]

hi i wATCHED THE MATCHES ON THE iNTERNET AND I LIKED IT A LOT HOWEVER THEY SHOULD HAVE MATCHES 4 OUT OF SEVEN MATCHES INSTEAD OF 3 MATCHES OUT OF 5 MATCHES ITS A TOSS UP AND A PLAYER WITH LESS RANKING CAN BEAT A PLAYER LIKE RONNIE OSULLIVAN CHEERS LEONARD FROM CANADA

[Freddie Ng]

I find it quite interesting and like the way every player play fast. Players must minimized their error to avoid being finished of by their opponent.. :snooker:

[tatannes]

I have voted for "Not at all, wouldn't want to see another". Perhaps it's a breath of fresh air for some players but it's too short for me as a viewer. There's not enough time to enjoy the game of the favorite players. I'd like to see at least 11 frames in the first two rounds in ranking tournaments. I think this short format is more suitable to a non-ranking tournaments like Premier League.

Your problem is not the format.
You prefer some players & only watch them.

[cue1]

I liked it, enjoyed it & would love to see another one with the same format. It was great seeing all the matches and all the players. This format should give the lower ranked players the chance to get used to the one table format & the being on telly:snooker:

[tatannes]

t's not only best of 5.
Top16 had a huge blow this season.

TOP16 players were used to play a whole season final stages of ranking tournaments.
You had to play really poor for months to lose your privilege, and only next season.

Graeme Dott has had problems & has lost his TOP16 spot.
It was a real nightmare for him to regain his spot : he had to win a qualifier & play a strong on first round each time he qualified.
The main problem is that he had to be successful for more than an entire season.
Same stuff for rising stars like Judd Trump.

The margin between the 12-16 & 17-20 is thin at the end of the season. Nevertheless, it was really another game the next season whether you're in TOP16 or not.

I remember about Alan McManus who stayed longer than deserved in TOP16 since he did minimal results all season long.

Ebdon, Day, Fu & King lost in 1st round WC2010.
Ebdon lost his spot & luckily for him, he's already back in top16 thanks to good runs in first ranking events.
Day, Fu & King stayed in TOP16 and are about to lose their sport since they didn't score a lot.
I think it's fair.

[ltfc39]

Its definitely fair. I'm amazed its taken this long to change things.

Ranking systems in golf, tennis, football, rugby... the list is endless, are changed regularly, mostly every week. Its a fair way of awarding the form player.

[Vanidar]

Its definitely fair. I'm amazed its taken this long to change things.

Ranking systems in golf, tennis, football, rugby... the list is endless, are changed regularly, mostly every week. Its a fair way of awarding the form player.

I agree..new ranking system is much better and it's definitely fair

[tatannes]

I liked best of 5.

It allowed players to be on telly, another TOP16 privilege.

It was interesting for normal snooker fans to watch 3 different matchs in a row with a winner and a loser.
It was interesting for snooker addicts (like me) to watch players instead of reading their results at PTC or at Prestatyn.

I love snooker, have my favourites & I think it's good to see different stuff.

It's also a pity not to witness a 0-4 to a 5-4 win because it's best of nine & not on TV.
What about that 147 on table 3 ?

Is that good for snooker to have session I at evenings and not witness the victory since final session is played tomorrow afternoon while you're at work ?
Unless you're an addict, you don't watch session I.

WC, UK & Masters should remain the same anyway.
But I liked that new dynamic.
BTW, even with a shorter format, we had big names on the last days !
Just look at Shanghai results...

[Kingscratcher]

Really enjoyed the tournament, but don't see why there should a clamour for more of them - one every season is fine for a bit of a change. Shortening the World Championship is a terrible idea! Unfortunately I can see it happening as it did at the UK - also a mistake for me!

[debs]

Good points Odrl

All i can say is it was better than i expected but felt too gimicky