Ssb - the grand prix: 25 years not out

[Migtsf]

I’m all for different formats in snooker events, but I draw a line between the things that have room in ranking events and the things that don’t. Since snooker is supposed to be a professional sport it needs to be fair, therefore, random draws that disregard ranking have no place in rankings events, in my opinion. Look at what happens in tennis, round robins may not be popular there, but as far as I know random draws have no place in there either.

However, if people enjoy this element of randomness, then by all means add it to the snooker calendar, but not in ranking tournaments.

Funny, I always thought British people valued fair play more than anyone. I’m finding out that it’s not fair play they like the most. Apparently and judging by the opinions expressed about this subject, they prefer it to be … random.

[Odrl]

Round robin is the fairest format because it rewards consistency and leaves less space for bad luck or indeed a bad day.

It would if it was a series of best of 9 matches. But a first to 3 or first to 4 is much more open to bad luck. These matches end where proper matches just get going.

That was always my problem with this format. I don't care about round robin one way or the other, but I don't remember ever being excited about a best of 7 match.

[Migtsf]

I agree with that. The shortening of matches devalued the round robin stage.

[Looki]

It would if it was a series of best of 9 matches. But a first to 3 or first to 4 is much more open to bad luck. These matches end where proper matches just get going.

That was always my problem with this format. I don't care about round robin one way or the other, but I don't remember ever being excited about a best of 7 match.

Best of 7 matches are ridiculous, I can't blame players disliking them. It's a toss of a coin who will win... But if I remember correctly it was changed in 2007 such that round robin matches were best of 9 (which is a bit too short match format if you ask me). Wasn't a fan of the format.

[Monique]

It would if it was a series of best of 9 matches. But a first to 3 or first to 4 is much more open to bad luck. These matches end where proper matches just get going.

That was always my problem with this format. I don't care about round robin one way or the other, but I don't remember ever being excited about a best of 7 match.

I agree with this. Best of 9 is a bare minimum. I think that would be fair. You won't get bad luck over 5 or 6 best of 9 matches.
IMO best of 9 is too short for knock-outs actually. Best of 11 should be a minimum, with the MSI after 5 frames.

[Odrl]

Best of 7 matches are ridiculous, I can't blame players disliking them. It's a toss of a coin who will win... But if I remember correctly it was changed in 2007 such that round robin matches were best of 9 (which is a bit too short match format if you ask me). Wasn't a fan of the format.

It was actually best of 5 in 2006, and best of 7 in 2007.

[Mal]

I’m all for different formats in snooker events, but I draw a line between the things that have room in ranking events and the things that don’t. Since snooker is supposed to be a professional sport it needs to be fair, therefore, random draws that disregard ranking have no place in rankings events, in my opinion. Look at what happens in tennis, round robins may not be popular there, but as far as I know random draws have no place in there either.

However, if people enjoy this element of randomness, then by all means add it to the snooker calendar, but not in ranking tournaments.

Funny, I always thought British people valued fair play more than anyone. I’m finding out that it’s not fair play they like the most. Apparently and judging by the opinions expressed about this subject, they prefer it to be … random.

It could be argued that having a random draw is the fairest of all as those that are ranked 1st/2nd don't get the perceived easier draws. Also, the players 15/16 rarely progress in other events as they have the nightmare draw. There is no bias in a random draw. I'm a traditionalist, and like the seeding format, but think the random draw does have a place once a year in a ranking event.

The point you make on tennis is a little bit out - It is seeded but also fairly random - They keep seeds apart in round 1 and 2 (depending on tournament size) but snooker does this as well and with the grandprix. However, seeds 1 and 2 are kept in different halves and 3 and 4 in different quarters, but it is random which quarter they fall in unlike snooker where each tournament is set the same way - For example in tennis in the semis it could be 1 vs 3 or 1 vs 4 and the quarters it could be 1 vs 5, 6, 7 or 8 depending on draw.
So although they do have seeding it is not not 1 vs 16 and 2 vs 15.

Also, all players go into the draw from the first round, not elitist like snooker and therefore, this gives more freedom in the rankings - If all players in snooker entered in round 1 I'd say that in short first to 5 matches that 3 or 4 at least of the top 16 would lose.

Of course, other sports like football is randomised for the FA Cup (i.e. not done by league positions). Darts has a couple of random events per year and this adds to the excitement - first with the draw and then the potential of having a big match earlier. (the later stages of random draw events still have the big players - and if not it is not because of the draw - it's just like other events when a lower ranked player gets through)

[Monique]

Someone corrects me if I'm wrong but I think it's only in the WC that the full seeding system is implemented and so that seed 1 meets seed 16 and seed 2 meets seed 15 in round 2. For other events there is a draw for seeds below 8.

[Templeton Peck]

I think in the Masters too Monique, where 1 meets 8, 2 meets 7 etc with the lower half of the top 16 randomly drawn. Of course semi-final draws can have different permutations throughout the season too depending on whether the defending champion is the world champion or world number 1, or someone else. The random draw is hardly a new concept in snooker, I think the British Open did it for a few years. The reason I like it is not because you sometimes get top players facing off - you often get that later in the tournament anyway - but because lower ranked players who don't really progress so far anymore can draw each other and you can get old rivalries renewed. One of the best draws in recent years was when Davis drew Parrott at the WC and Davis playing Hendry in the 2005 UK - those weren't random draws but that sort of thing has a greater chance of happening here.

[Mal]

Yes, that's right - in fact the top 8 were all in the seeded positions in Shanghai, but rest was randomised (but of course still seeded in last 32).

I think this event is still seeded in last 32, but then randomised, to the only difference is that the top 8 could play against each other in the last 16 which is a late stage of the tournament anyway - look at FA Cup where there are regularly all premiership ties in 3rd rd and Man Utd have played Chelsea and Liverpool twice in the 3rd round relatively recently.

[Looki]

It was actually best of 5 in 2006, and best of 7 in 2007.

Ok. That's pretty bad. Best of 5... That's madness.

[Migtsf]

It could be argued that having a random draw is the fairest of all as those that are ranked 1st/2nd don't get the perceived easier draws.

Well, those players ranked 1st and 2nd didn’t just landed in those spots. They have conquered them, so it’s only fair that they get a theoretical easy draw as part of the reward of reaching a higher place in the rankings.

I don’t understand this alleged excitement of a random draw. Why do people want to watch big clashes in early rounds? Those matches belong in finals. If those players meet early, one of them will be out early as well.

If they are the best players, why throw one of them out in the first rounds? The event loses something when one of the best players is knocked out early, and a random draw makes it possible for that to happen more often than with a regular draw.

[Mal]

Personally I don't think the event loses something -It is good to have a few shock results and players coming through (in a random draw or standard). I think it provides (the potential )big games in the early rounds, but there will still be big games in the later rounds.
Remember, it is only being implemented in the last 16, so lets say 5 seeds get beat, you will still have 11 top 16 players and 5 unseeded in the draw. It is still very unlikely that all the top names play each other - but chances are 2 unseeded player may meet, 3 seeds will meet 3 unseeded and there could be one match between two of top 4. The following round there might be 6 seeds (top 16) and two unseeded which would be similar to the non-randomised draw. Chances are the two unseeded players won't meet, but of course they may do (as sometimes happens in standard draws when there are a few shocks)
What I'm saying is that by the time you get to the semis chances are that all 4 player will be top 16 or certainly 3 of the 4 and this is what generally happens anyway! (It's exceedingly rare in standard draws for the top 2 to meet in the final.) A random draw increases the possibility that the top 2 will meet at some stage.

[Migtsf]

To me, a shock result is when a hot favourite is knocked-out by a qualifier or a much inferior player. If two of the best players meet early, well, it’s shocking, in a way, but one of them going home early is not something I see as a shock result, under those circumstances.

I like to see young players coming of age as much as anyone, but not by being fast-tracked or having difficult obstacles (seeded players) removed from their path to glory.

I think I understand what you’re saying though. It’s not uncommon for seeded players to be eliminated along the way and when we get to the final they aren’t there anymore. That is true, but a random draw is not the answer. If we want to make sure those and other interesting clashes happen then a league format is the way.

The other point you make about the event not losing interest because there would still be good players left, well I disagree, and I feel the event will suffer at the box office as well in case many seeded players meet each other early.

Anyway, I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of a top player who went out early because his ranking was completely disregarded.

[Mal]

Well if the likes of Ronnie O'Sullivan goes out early, I agree for the general public there is something that is lost in terms of appealing to the wider public, but I meant for me personally and I think most snooker lovers will still be watching as long as there are still a few big names.