My view - The World Open format

[alex_5525]

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.

it would have no character if they were all best of 19's, they would get used to it and i dont think it would bring the best out in the players and plus if they played on the same day they would certainly not play as good.
as a counter i would probably say the second round should be shortened to maybe best of 21 and semis maybe best of 29.

but i would agree with your one table by quarters would be a good idea.
i also would agree with the previous round idea.
if they were to shorten the formats slightly they would have to bring the previous round to the crucible, they could possibly stretch the championship an extra few days too. if im honest tho i would prefere a longer final like they used to do.

[tcollick]

For the WC's I reckon just shorten the 2nd round to best of 19 like what JP said, then the semi to best of 29. Surely there's no need to have it best of 33. I always thought that the semis are too long anyway. First to 17 when the final is first to 18 is over doing it aint it!. It must be the semis that tires out the players anyway. Until the quarters they get plenty of days off.
This would probably make only 2-3 days difference, but shaving any more off it and the WC's would lose its aura, which has taken 30 years+ with loads of great matches and history to build up. It aint broke, so doesn't need fixing...just a bit of tweaking cos the finals have certainly been a bit dull in recent history. All the best matches seem to be around the start of the second week when the players have found their groove but aren't knackered yet

The World Open was fun, but one event like this is plenty for me. The players are getting loads of short matches anyway with the PTCS. As for the Masters, UK, etc, they are fine as they are. The longer matches are more enjoyable to watch for me, cos the match develops as it goes along, a story in itself (if its a good one). Take the Ronnie/Selby matches from the Crucible and Masters. Classics. I don't think you will ever get a best of 5 being called a "classic".

[pat39]

I think the basic idea for the World Open worked, the only change I would make is to use 2 tables for the tv stages and play the tournament from the last 64 onwards on tv. Playing the best of 5 is probably right because you can't play best of 3 and best of 7 will probably take too long for the format to work.

Somebody said that shorter, quicker matches were the future of snooker but something similar was said about 20/20 in cricket but we got to the stage this summer where there were far too many matches in the season and that affected the size of the crowds.

We have a chance in snooker for there to be a bright new start under Barry Hearn with best of 5 matches, random draws, Power Snooker and playing under shot clock conditions, but there must also remain the traditional side of the game with the UK and World Championships staying the same. Winning the World Title has to be a test of every aspect of a player's game, not just quickfire break building and playing over 17 days does just that.

[rambon]

I think the basic idea for the World Open worked, the only change I would make is to use 2 tables for the tv stages

Single table format on tv was one of the bigger successes in my eyes. I also think that a bit of music and flashing lights between frames seemed to jazz it up a bit.

[pat39]

Single table format on tv was one of the bigger successes in my eyes. I also think that a bit of music and flashing lights between frames seemed to jazz it up a bit.

I guess the music and flashing lights etc are here to stay as used in the Premier League and Darts so it would be off putting for players on table 2 if players on table 1 were coming and going to different music etc. but I just thought it a little strange that 11 matches were carried over to the tv stages thus giving those players a possible advantage against their last 32 opponent.

Having said that it's no different to having the wild card round in overseas tournaments where the winners have the advantage over their next opponent. But overall I think the 2 table set up would be needed to play the whole tournament on tv with 64 players.

[spike]

Single table format on tv was one of the bigger successes in my eyes. I also think that a bit of music and flashing lights between frames seemed to jazz it up a bit.

I agree about the single table format as that was what i found most appealing about this event. In response to the music and flashing lights, apart from when the players are introduced, i felt as if it was totally unnecessary for there to be music played after every frame. I am sure some of the players found it a distraction also..

[PaddyLowson]

I think the basic idea for the World Open worked, the only change I would make is to use 2 tables for the tv stages and play the tournament from the last 64 onwards on tv. Playing the best of 5 is probably right because you can't play best of 3 and best of 7 will probably take too long for the format to work.

Somebody said that shorter, quicker matches were the future of snooker but something similar was said about 20/20 in cricket but we got to the stage this summer where there were far too many matches in the season and that affected the size of the crowds.

We have a chance in snooker for there to be a bright new start under Barry Hearn with best of 5 matches, random draws, Power Snooker and playing under shot clock conditions, but there must also remain the traditional side of the game with the UK and World Championships staying the same. Winning the World Title has to be a test of every aspect of a player's game, not just quickfire break building and playing over 17 days does just that.

Interesting, I dont think two tables would work - it brings back the noise issues from the other tables. One good thing about the WO was that there was one match which everyone focused on, its one of the big reasons why the masters is so great. Obviously in other events its not really realistic. TBH with you, you have a good idea but my suggestion is to have 32 players at the finals, best of 7 for the first round to the semis - 4 matches per day roll on roll off. The semis the best of 9 and the final the best of 11.

The WCs ideally ought to be left alone, but as someone who's worked at snooker events I understand how hard it is (for people involved - players aside). We've had a discussion about this over at Snooker Island forum and we've had some differring formats suggested. A rumour circulated Sheffield saying that the tournament would have the same format as the World 8 ball championship - best of 15s to the quarters best of 17, best of 19 and best of 21. Whereas I in taking into account the overrun sessions think this may be an alternative

1st round - best of 17 frames, 7/10

2nd round - best of 23 frames 7/8/8

quarter-finals - best of 23 frames 7/8/8

semi-finals - best of 29 frames 7/7/7/8

Final - best of 31 frames 7/7/7/10.

It means winning 7 frames less to winning the title than it was in the previous format. I've got the book with the scores - Crucible Almanac, it'd be interesting to see if the results in history would have been any different.

[pat39]

Interesting, I dont think two tables would work - it brings back the noise issues from the other tables. One good thing about the WO was that there was one match which everyone focused on, its one of the big reasons why the masters is so great. Obviously in other events its not really realistic. TBH with you, you have a good idea but my suggestion is to have 32 players at the finals, best of 7 for the first round to the semis - 4 matches per day roll on roll off. The semis the best of 9 and the final the best of 11.

The WCs ideally ought to be left alone, but as someone who's worked at snooker events I understand how hard it is (for people involved - players aside). We've had a discussion about this over at Snooker Island forum and we've had some differring formats suggested. A rumour circulated Sheffield saying that the tournament would have the same format as the World 8 ball championship - best of 15s to the quarters best of 17, best of 19 and best of 21. Whereas I in taking into account the overrun sessions think this may be an alternative

1st round - best of 17 frames, 7/10

2nd round - best of 23 frames 7/8/8

quarter-finals - best of 23 frames 7/8/8

semi-finals - best of 29 frames 7/7/7/8

Final - best of 31 frames 7/7/7/10.

It means winning 7 frames less to winning the title than it was in the previous format. I've got the book with the scores - Crucible Almanac, it'd be interesting to see if the results in history would have been any different.

Thanks for the mention about Snooker Island, I never knew it existed so will keep looking there in the future.

There are so many different permutations if looking to change the format of the World Championships but as mentioned before I would like it to remain unchanged. But if it did have to change I would make the 1st round best of 17 (8/9) thus trying to ensure fewer matches went over into a 3rd session. I would keep the final as best of 35 (8/8/8/11) but have earlier start times especially for the final session. I would also like to see all scheduled frames played in each of the 1st 3 sessions irrespective of how one sided the match is. This is something that has been interfered with over recent years and is one of the reasons for late night finishes on the final day. I do hope 3.00pm and 8.00pm starts for the final are a thing of the past. I mean it's a pretty easy thing to amend to ensure a final doesn't overrun into the early hours.

[montoya10]

I agree about the single table format as that was what i found most appealing about this event. In response to the music and flashing lights, apart from when the players are introduced, i felt as if it was totally unnecessary for there to be music played after every frame. I am sure some of the players found it a distraction also..

I agree with your idea.
From what I saw from the crowd judgind from the broadcast, I tried to monitor their reactions, those lights or music played between the frames did not make any impact at all in the arena..
This sport is not ready to be evolved into a darts game format and nor it will be..

[Vanidar]

I really enjoyed the tournament! Should be two of such format during the season....not more .

[PaddyLowson]

Thanks for the mention about Snooker Island, I never knew it existed so will keep looking there in the future.

There are so many different permutations if looking to change the format of the World Championships but as mentioned before I would like it to remain unchanged. But if it did have to change I would make the 1st round best of 17 (8/9) thus trying to ensure fewer matches went over into a 3rd session. I would keep the final as best of 35 (8/8/8/11) but have earlier start times especially for the final session. I would also like to see all scheduled frames played in each of the 1st 3 sessions irrespective of how one sided the match is. This is something that has been interfered with over recent years and is one of the reasons for late night finishes on the final day. I do hope 3.00pm and 8.00pm starts for the final are a thing of the past. I mean it's a pretty easy thing to amend to ensure a final doesn't overrun into the early hours.

I'd toyed with having an 8/9 first round in my ideas - tbh its the continual days of snooker that would wear people down towards the end, hence why they used to have the seven frame sessions initially when the semi-finals were best of 31. - The reason that they have to interfere with the sessions is to stop the sessions overrunning. Finals night is like no other night at the tournament and obviously needs more ample prep time rather than the earlier rounds where you could state no frame started beyond 6:15pm. - If the 2007 final had run on for the final two frames it would have been well past the time allotted and meant the final session being delayed. - A match was allowed to conclude before a final session started in 1983 - meaning Thorburn and Griffiths were delayed by almost 90 minutes in starting their final session and thus the reason why the session went on until 3:51am.

That said reducing worlds is going to have a knock-on effect with the other tournaments if they dont want to diminish the worlds as a tournament, hence the UK would probably revert to best of 13 frames and a best of 17 frame final. Alternatives of having best of 19 frames throughout would drag out the competition if done properly - so having a last 48 round at the crucible is a no-no.

Its generally fine as it is. Perhaps the players would take the £100,000 paycut for playing 40% less frames in the tournament very well. NB: Sacrasm spoiler

Anyway. I think if its reduced then the way I suggested couple with your idea of 8/9 session for best of 17 may be the more positive way. Someone suggested a three session best of 29 - with a 13 frame final session which is too much IMO.

[Cyril]

Whilst I enjoyed the format of the new World Open, I think such a reduced number of frames should be reserved for this event ONLY.

All other tournaments should remain as they are.

Regards the World's...
I think it is great as it is. The only change I would perhaps make is that the final session of the final should start earlier than 8pm.

Ideally, there should be a complete day off between semi's and final to give both players a chance to re-charge their batteries, but that maybe isn't really possible to fit with the schedule. Perhaps they could do without the 2 sissions break during the 17 days? (middle Sunday morning and second Thursday evening isn't it?)

The table fitters would have to work fast if that were the case!!! lol

[The Statman]

Whilst I enjoyed the format of the new World Open, I think such a reduced number of frames should be reserved for this event ONLY.

All other tournaments should remain as they are.

Regards the World's...
I think it is great as it is. The only change I would perhaps make is that the final session of the final should start earlier than 8pm.

Ideally, there should be a complete day off between semi's and final to give both players a chance to re-charge their batteries, but that maybe isn't really possible to fit with the schedule. Perhaps they could do without the 2 sissions break during the 17 days? (middle Sunday morning and second Thursday evening isn't it?)

The table fitters would have to work fast if that were the case!!! lol

Well they could do without the FIRST Thursday and middle Sunday break, which would enable them to keep the second Thursday for the table-fitters and accommodate a day off.

I'll admit I was a bit sceptical of the World Open format but I enjoyed it and have to say it won me over. We thought there could be plenty of what would normally be regarded as surprise wins but in the end the big surprise was that this didn't happen. A little bit of me wonders whether it would have been seen as such a success if more surprises had won through.

One thing that does seem a bit strange, given that it was all best-of-5s, was that the top prize was £100,000. Perhaps that could have been reduced by £20,000 or so and – dare I say it?! – that could have made way for a 147 bonus.

I don't think anything is going to replace best-of-9s as the staple of standard ranking events. Anything longer and tournaments would never end; anything smaller and I'm sure it would become too much of a lottery, however much it didn't happen last week. Plus, the 9-frame match handily accommodates an interval after the fourth.

But that does not mean that the Worlds should be shortened, and neither does it mean that the new format World Open should be ditched. I really enjoyed it.

One thing that concerns me a bit is the music between frames, but I found it far more annoying when watching on the telly than I did when in the arena.

There is room for all sorts of formats of matches without needing to alter the rules of the game. I must say I even enjoyed the round-robin format a few years ago and I'm sure it could have been successful if there had been enough financial or ranking-points incentives separating every placing to ensure players wanted to win the 'dead' matches.

[matoski]

The good thing about this tournament was that someone who has enough time may watch all matches and all players, which you can't in a 4 table format. But the thing that bothers me is that the WSA has taken this tournament far too seriously with the high prize money and the huge number of ranking points for such a "semi" tournament. And the dangerous thing is that a lot of the snooker fans liked the short format better than longer format tournaments, which may have a huge influence on WSA in their eventual decision to shorten the format of the WC or UK Championship.
This tournament was in a way ok, but the prize money and the ranking points have to be reduced in fairness to other tournaments such as Shanghai Masters, China Open and especially Welsh Open. No more short formats please. One is more than enough.

[The Statman]

The good thing about this tournament was that someone who has enough time may watch all matches and all players, which you can't in a 4 table format. But the thing that bothers me is that the WSA has taken this tournament far too seriously with the high prize money and the huge number of ranking points for such a "semi" tournament. And the dangerous thing is that a lot of the snooker fans liked the short format better than longer format tournaments, which may have a huge influence on WSA in their eventual decision to shorten the format of the WC or UK Championship.
This tournament was in a way ok, but the prize money and the ranking points have to be reduced in fairness to other tournaments such as Shanghai Masters, China Open and especially Welsh Open. No more short formats please. One is more than enough.

Yes I mentioned the highness of the prize money but not the ranking points because I had not seen the tariffs.

More than the money, I certainly believe the ranking points on offer should be roughly commensurate with the number of frames needed to win the tournament. These should be awarded on merit and not on perceived importance of the event.