Ssb - the grand prix: 25 years not out

[Monique]

well if you went to the final match with no wins you was there to make up the numbers knowing im last ill get points so ill sit here for a while before going home. if there was something at stake in winning frames in the last game it would give a edge to it and stop players taking the atetute nothing to gain or lose.

Actually Wild I have percieved more of a problem when you had players who had already qualified and played their last match. I have 2 examples in mind and I will not name the names. One is when a player was playing a friend and fellow citizen who needed to win to qualify and duly lost. The other is about a player who by losing heavily to the third of the table sent another guy out against all odds.

[In-off]

The round robins were a disaster for snooker. That's where all the match fixing talk started.

It isn't remotely fair to have a match when one player doesn't care about the result and the other needs to win.

Good riddance to it. Even World Snooker realised it didn't work.

[Migtsf]

No, no, there was qualification round for the Grand prix at Prestatyn too... .

Yes, there were a couple of qualifying rounds at Prestatyn, but the rest was staged at the main venue.
What we have today is 4 qualifying matches in North Wales and only 16 qualifiers present at the main venue. In the old format, you had more qualifiers at the beginning of the event proper and each of them played against at least 2 top 16 players.

[wildJONESEYE]

Actually Wild I have percieved more of a problem when you had players who had already qualified and played their last match. I have 2 examples in mind and I will not name the names. One is when a player was playing a friend and fellow citizen who needed to win to qualify and duly lost. The other is about a player who by losing heavily to the third of the table sent another guy out against all odds.

Agreed thats another reason...

i think if players was playing for £1000 or £500 a frame like PL they would have cash incentive to play for every frame.

[bkpaul]

Whenever you have a round robin or league event it will be open to "unusual results"

Same can be said when the players involved in a sport can bet on that sport which is why most governing bodies have rules against it.

Its human nature whether we like it or not, but saying that when situations arise and are proved the punishments should be severe.

I dislike talking about this subject but we have to address it, nature of the beast and all that.

All I can say is I have never thrown a match and never will......

[Migtsf]

The round robins were a disaster for snooker. That's where all the match fixing talk started.

It isn't remotely fair to have a match when one player doesn't care about the result and the other needs to win.

Good riddance to it. Even World Snooker realised it didn't work.

In my opinion, the main reason why the format wasn’t so successful was because snooker is a sport with strong connections with gambling activities.
In other sports, they have round robins for decades and there hasn’t been a problem with it.

[Migtsf]

Agreed thats another reason...

i think if players was playing for £1000 or £500 a frame like PL they would have cash incentive to play for every frame.

That's a bad idea. It gives people the impression the game is about winning frames. It's not. It's about winning matches.

There are other ways to minimize match fixing.

[bkpaul]

There are other ways to minimize match fixing.

I would be interested to hear how?

[Capelito]

I didn't like the round robin much, but I think it's better then the random draw. I would hate to see matches like O'Sullivan/Higgins, in the second round while some, not so high ranked players might get a quite "easy" draw in round two and three with some luck.

[Migtsf]

I would be interested to hear how?

I posted this a while ago:

"Regarding round-robin, I’m also in favour of those, but perhaps what works best is a pseudo round-robin format, meaning, in a group of 4 players, in day 2, winners of day 1 play against each other, and winner moves to the next round; losers of day 1 play against each other and loser is out. In day 3, loser of day 2 winner’s match plays against winner of day 2 loser’s match. Winner of this match moves to the next round and loser is out. This way there are no dead matches, something that can lead to match fixing, and there is no need to reward single frames."

[wildJONESEYE]

That's a bad idea. It gives people the impression the game is about winning frames. It's not. It's about winning matches.

There are other ways to minimize match fixing.

yes and not caring if you win frames or not is a FANTASTIC idea for snooker ?

[Migtsf]

That isn’t good either, but the road to single frame rewarding is a dangerous one, and it’s something that can enhance the problem it is supposed to eradicate.

Example: A player proposing to lose if his opponent let’s him win a couple of frames.

Since there are other alternatives to minimize match fixing, single frame rewarding get’s a big NO from me.

[Matt_2745]

Never liked the round robins myself, not because I couldn't understand them but because of not liking the fact that you could end up with effectively dead matches, the short format employed and the amount of matches to be played. I don't like group stages in football particularly and they were rightfully abandoned in tennis too. Just always preferred a knock-out format.

Really quite like the random draw too, I understand the argument of the unfairness to the top seeds but I do think that it adds to the excitement and for just one event I think that the pros outweigh the cons.

[Templeton Peck]

The problem with round-robins aside from potential match-fixing is the number of dead matches. Also earlier on there's a general lack of excitement too because if either player loses they can still pick it up at a later point. The round-robin is a necessity in something like the Premier League where matches are spread out across different venues, but when the timeframe is compacted and at one venue there is absolutely no benefit to a round-robin. I love the random draw and while I agree it can potentially distort the rankings, I don't think that really applies when it's just the one tournament, especially considering the first round isn't random.

[Monique]

The problem with round-robins aside from potential match-fixing is the number of dead matches. Also earlier on there's a general lack of excitement too because if either player loses they can still pick it up at a later point. The round-robin is a necessity in something like the Premier League where matches are spread out across different venues, but when the timeframe is compacted and at one venue there is absolutely no benefit to a round-robin. I love the random draw and while I agree it can potentially distort the rankings, I don't think that really applies when it's just the one tournament, especially considering the first round isn't random.

It's just one tournament but we have only 6 rankers and it's worth 7000 points. So I think it does and quite heavily so if top seeds meet in round 2.

Re round-robin. The fact that players can still pick it up later can also be a positive factor: players less stressed are more susceptible to play an open game and go for their shots. I don't think there is more risk of match fixing in round robins neither, especially in conjunction with irregular bettings. Actually the cases that were investigated all concerned knock-out matches. Finally dead matches can be avoided by properly rewarding any win even when qualification isn't a possibility anymore.
Round robin is the fairest format because it rewards consistency and leaves less space for bad luck or indeed a bad day.