Originally Posted by Alex0paul
View Post
It could be pretty timely decision to use Jimmy White while he still is an attraction (snooker and jungle wise) and can play to ok standard as well (that's arguable of course, but he did win 2 smaller events, and he's not going to get better later).
About the it's "unfair" argument - maybe it is unfair to Wenbo, but more personally unfair (he won't get match-play experience, some money. He'll get all that next year); for snooker overall that might just more beneficial...
Anyways, is there anywhere any criteria defined of who is to be granted wildcard?
I remember someone (moondan?) mentioning in earlier discussion about the same thing that initially Masters were only for top 16 players; as Alex Higgins fell out of top 16, wild card was introducted to make his participation possible.
Isn't it already enough that there are qualifiers for 1 of 2 wild cards? Cope, Wenbo, Trump or whoever else are guilty themselves for not winning it. Rory is not the youngest and not the fastest, but he won it and that's it.
Still the "best" case scenario would be if Jimmy getting the wild card is to cover up Ronnie going to Big Brother
P.s. Anyone knows the breakdown of say BBC snooker audience by age/ by something else? Maybe it's mostly 'oldies' and that's why they put that 1980s stuff in the breaks as Hegeland said? Or maybe commentators have all the decision making power in that
The only data I saw was number of millions that watched World Championship or Masters.
Comment