My view - The World Open format

[rambon]

AS I've said elsewhere, this is a valid tournament. I also think that, while the players may think best of 5 is a bit of a lottery, it isn't really.

OK. It is slightly more of a lottery than a longer match, but we have still seen the "better players" win more often than not this week which to me shows the value of the tournament and the merit it has of being a ranking tournament.

If you took away the ranking points, then it would become a big lottery as there would be less riding on the matches, but the fact that there are ranking points on offer increases tension, and the "better players" are those that can hold their game together under pressure, again which was proved this week.

The tv stages of a tournament over in a week, when had started with approximately 50 players still involved is a total new departure for snooker and a very welcome one. yes there is still a place for the peak of snooker, the World Championship. Yes, the 2nd ranked tournament the UK can still be that "mid-length" format.

We, as fans, and the players themselves, have to be more open to change in order for snooker to survive, and this shorter format World Open, the 1 Frame tournament later in the season (without ranking points and rightly so in thatc ase) and the Power Snooker event are things we definitely need to embrace.

Hopefully the life that has been breathed into snooker this past week with previously uninterested observers taking an interest throughout the week up to the final, will continue to see the game inflate and be once more one of the flagships for Sport on TV.

Final Point. Let us not forget that it is only as recently as 3o years ago that the World Championship Final was reduced to best opf 35 frames rather than the best of 47 frames when Terry Griffiths beat Dennis Taylor in 1979.

Change is good

[wildJONESEYE]

Well. i reckon i defo watched a few more tense matches this week than i would with a longer format...

to say the matches were over before they started, pfffttt, i watched numerous matches that were quite tense over the week

And you go on like the matches only lasted 20 minutes or summat, again, i watched a few matches that were long old hauls for a best of 5, i enjoyed the tense 1st frames then the other frames were generally as tense where nobody wanted to lose and that just made for good match play snooker in my eyes...

Hope it stays around and a few more little tourneys like this will be great...

there was no tension there as a fan from my perspective Tension is something that builds and build over time ....i normally want 1 player to do better over another with this i honestly couldn't care less who won or lost because it was not real snooker and no yardstick of form what so ever.

im just Glad Neil won to give the tournament some prestige.

[tatannes]

there was no tension there as a fan from my perspective Tension is something that builds and build over time ....i normally want 1 player to do better over another with this i honestly couldn't care less who won or lost because it was not real snooker and no yardstick of form what so ever.

im just Glad Neil won to give the tournament some prestige.

Perhaps you're more interested in the players you like instead of snooker by itself.

Once again, i'm not sure about tension when your match is not televised.

[wildJONESEYE]

Perhaps you're more interested in the players you like instead of snooker by itself.

Once again, i'm not sure about tension when your match is not televised.

im a hendry fan and it wouldn't bother me if Mark Davis beat him and it wasn't even on the scale after the ronnie defeat.

just moved on.

[murdock]

im a hendry fan and it wouldn't bother me if Mark Davis beat him and it wasn't even on the scale after the ronnie defeat.

just moved on.

I absolutely agree with you wildJoneseye. Though it seems like we're in the minority. I don't really see the point of a first to five match. There's so little tension - the matches were sometimes over before one player had had a single chance. Complete waste of time, in my opinion. There's no substitute for the tension of a 10-9 match (or 18-17!), or someone being one frame from defeat and winning several frames in a row to win. Matches finishing 3-2 just aren't the same. It's the first televised tournament that I haven't bothered with and I've been watching snooker for nearly 30 years. I guess that means I'm just showing my age!

[simplysnookeryt]

I really enjoyed the tournament, my brother even watched the final and some matches during the week. I hope it returns next year on the BBC, if not ITV4. It is likely they will shorten the World Championships, if not introducing a day break between semi finals and final!

[ltfc39]

That's the really good thing about this tournament. You're not just getting the normal snooker enthusiasts that watch it on Eurosport everytime there's a tournament on. I saw for the Shanghai Masters final they got just 68,000 viewers (source: Snooker Island). In the audience I noticed there were a high number of women and youngsters - something which you usually don't see.

I'd be interested to see what the audience figures we're against the X-factor that was on at the same time.

[tatannes]

I absolutely agree with you wildJoneseye. Though it seems like we're in the minority. I don't really see the point of a first to five match. There's so little tension - the matches were sometimes over before one player had had a single chance. Complete waste of time, in my opinion. There's no substitute for the tension of a 10-9 match (or 18-17!), or someone being one frame from defeat and winning several frames in a row to win. Matches finishing 3-2 just aren't the same. It's the first televised tournament that I haven't bothered with and I've been watching snooker for nearly 30 years. I guess that means I'm just showing my age!

I agree about the 10-9 match.
WC, the UK or the Masters deserves that.

If you want more tournaments, more people, more snooker on TV, you need something else in order to have more than 6-7 ranking events per season.

I'm not interested in shot clock, 6-ball or powerball...that's not real snooker.

Bo5 is a good alternative.
It gives the opportunity to follow matchs on TV rather than barely seeing sessions.

Even if you're a snooker addict, how many different players have you seen last year on TV ?

[wildJONESEYE]

I Do agree there's room for this tournament but there are other things that need addressing also

UK Championship final need to go back to best of 31 that was in my opinion as-well as moving it from Preston that has contributed in that Tournament loosing it unique identity.

and the china Open needs upgrading possibly best of 17 Semi Finals or even Best of 17 across the board.

i will guarantee you one think viewing figures will be higher for the UK than they was for the World Open and crowds will be roughly the same although Telford is the wrong venue it should be back home at The Guild Hall Preston.

[alex_5525]

i thought the wo was interesting shorter matches, but seriously theyre gunna be treading on broken glass if they shorten the world championships because it may not get that many more viewers and is probably likely to turn big fans like myself and many on here away from watching.

[wildJONESEYE]

i thought the wo was interesting shorter matches, but seriously theyre gunna be treading on broken glass if they shorten the world championships because it may not get that many more viewers and is probably likely to turn big fans like myself and many on here away from watching.

absolutely its suicidal.

idiotic that a so called intelligent man Like Steve Davis mentioned it......He needs a good kicking if you ask me.

[PatBlock]

I absolutely agree with you wildJoneseye. Though it seems like we're in the minority. I don't really see the point of a first to five match. There's so little tension - the matches were sometimes over before one player had had a single chance. Complete waste of time, in my opinion. There's no substitute for the tension of a 10-9 match (or 18-17!), or someone being one frame from defeat and winning several frames in a row to win. Matches finishing 3-2 just aren't the same. It's the first televised tournament that I haven't bothered with and I've been watching snooker for nearly 30 years. I guess that means I'm just showing my age!

Yes, I suppose this is partly an age thing. I've also been watching snooker on TV for over 30 years (you can't beat it in B&W.) and I much prefer a longer format. I'm in snooker heaven just as much watching a couple of grinders over 35 frames, as I am watching the guys who win frames in 1 visit.
But is that partly or even mostly because it's what I grew up with?

But over the last 20 years or so, the game's changed quite a lot, less grinding, more quick-fire. And, there's generally so much more 'stuff' to do these days. So if we want to keep the game alive for future generations, maybe some of us old farts will simply have to accept that the new generation of fans just doesn't have the time or the inclination to watch a 6, 8, or 12 hour match.

In the long term, I suppose the short format is better than nothing, which if we're not careful, may well be what we end up with.

-

[ThePhantomPotter]

I thought the format was fine actually, had my doubts at the start but it seemed less random than many were expecting. I certainly wouldn't want every tournament to be like this but it was entertaining and will help bring a new audience to the game.

I can't understand anyone wanting to watch O'Brien/Harold over 35 frames so each to their own. Overall, it was preferable to the round robin format which made no real sense and seemed like a perfect opportunity for match-fixing to me. I think there's a good chance the BBC will cover the event again which can only be a good thing.

I think the format of the UK is fine and should stay as it is. It's my favourite tournament actually. It should also stay where it is as its near me

But the world championship needs work. If people just watch the final as I'm sure some do then this year's will have put them off snooker. It was, quite frankly, interminable.

I would make all WC matches best of 19 in a 9/10 format. two sessions a day, afternoon and evening so you can see a match start and finish on the same day. Also move to one table by the quarters.

There's enough strength in depth now to bring the previous round to the crucible on a two table format. So I would look into that as well.

If the old guard want to keep the long matches, then at least shuffle the schedule so that there's a day off somewhere, probably after the quarters. Over the last few years, the tournament has fallen apart after the quarters (which are usually the best matches and the ones I go to see).

and for god's sake, start the afternoon sessions of the final by 2pm and the evening sessions at 7pm.

[PatBlock]

But the world championship needs work. If people just watch the final as I'm sure some do then this year's will have put them off snooker. It was, quite frankly, interminable.

That's a little harsh IMO, and there were extraordinary extenuating circumstances, under which I thought the boys did very well.

-

[Rane]

I was positively surprised, but didn´t see a lot though. I had expected much more surprises, but this tournament showed that the rankings isn´t that wrong. It´s good to see some new faces. I saw Campbell - Dunn not the most exciting, but fine to put a face on these players and get a little impression of them.

I still wonder what people would have said about the tournament, if the draw had fallen out diffent so maybe only one or two top 16 players had reached the quarterfinals. then there could have been lots of talk about " a Mickey Mouse tournament". 6 out of top 8 ended in the quarterfinals, and they could as well had met each other in the last 64 or 32, so in that respect there were some lucky draws (plus the pairing of O´Sullivan - White and O´Sullivan - Hendry as well, bourne classics before the first ball was potted).

But all in all an exciting new addition, but the long tournaments should stay as well.