Ssb - jungle jimmy gets wembley wildcard

[April madness]

Ive done nothing wrong so I wont be???

Replacing swear words with *** is not allowed on TSF... if I got the message right. Ask Wild

P.S. I was just joking

[RocketRoy1983]

Thoroughly..

[RocketRoy1983]

Replacing swear words with *** is not allowed on TSF... if I got the message right. Ask Wild

P.S. I was just joking

I didnt maruta i typed the swear word out in full and it censored it.

[In-off]

Well I'm discontent with the decision and here is why. The wildcard is supposedly to be awarded on merits, at least that's what we've been told over the last years. On merits Jimmy doesn't deserve it, at all, and as such the decision is unfair to other players who do deserve it.
Now, if the powers in charge were coming forward and explaining that other criteria have been used, that wildcards are now awarded based on poputarity, or that broadcasters or potential sponsors have been insisting for this or that reason, then it would be different.

If I recall things rightly it was introduced originally because Alex Higgins had dropped out of the top 16 and they wanted him in the tournament. Nothing to do with merit, just plain commonsense.

All the talk of 'merit' and 'fairness' is nonsense. The Masters is perfectly fair: if you're in the top 16, you're in the tournament.

Liang Wenbo isn't in the top 16.

And he couldn't even be bothered to enter the qualifying competition.

[wildJONESEYE]

yes it was introduced because Alex Higgins dropped out of the top 16 but he was ranked in the top 32 and he reached a Ranking Final the season he was awarded the wild Card. he lost 10-8 to Bob Chaperon in the 1990 British Open.

come on who in their right minds wants to see Jimmy playing when he has done sod all to be there ?

look the title says it all "THE MASTERS" lets face it this season Jimmy couldn't even master a horse lol

[Odrl]

After more than 150 posts, it's clear that some people on both sides of the argument are not going to be convinced the other way. So I'll just state my case again one last time, then let it go, as it's not going to make any difference anyway.

I'll use your quotes ore, although this is not strictly directed at you...

Yeah wild look - Jimmy White playing in Masters is good for the long-term too: more people will come there to see him in person and more people will turn on the telly (I will... because I follow snooker for not long at all, and finally want to see Jimmy in a serious match! ), and this way they will notice others participating in the venue too. So this will result in bigger audience and more attention to snooker in general - including other at the moment less known snooker players - and more chance for these to become 'stars'. Bigger chance to attract possible sponsors' attention too.

I really can't see any long-term benefit of this decision. Jimmy White was a great player who played an extremely attractive and watchable style of snooker, and that's why he picked up so many fans and followers. But once White started to appear on TV less and less, his ability to gain new fans has diminished, and his previous fan base got older. These people will be seeing nothing new at the Masters. If you look at the current top16, six players are in their late 20s, eight players are older than that (some significantly older), and only two are in their early twenties. So my conclusion is that fans of Jimmy White have had a chance to see most of these players before, and have either decided that they're not worth watching, so it's not going to change this time, or they've decided that it's indeed worth watching, so they don't need Jimmy White to watch a tournament.

The one argument in White's favour could be his recent appearance on the reality show. I've already said that for me, this should have ended his chances of getting a wild card, because he had to sacrifice the 2nd biggest snooker event of the season to do it. But as far as exposure for snooker is concerned, I can't be the judge of that, because I'm not British, so I wasn't exposed to all of that. But if you tell me that the people who watched that show, and are not followers of snooker, are now likely to watch the Masters... I'll just have to believe you.

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.

It's hard to have criteria for wild cards, that's why they're wild cards. There is a set of rules on how you get to play in the Masters, and the wild card is for the one player that really should be there, but has failed to get entry according to the rules. It should be a common sense choice. If you take the spirit in which the first wild card was given to Alex Higgins as the criteria, then it was right that Jimmy White got it in 98, 99 and 01, less so in 2007, but it makes very little sense in 2010.

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.

For me, the qualifiers don't make any sense at all. You already have the top16 players in the event, why would you make everyone else play for one more spot? And on top of that, you hold the qualifiers in November, so that winner is unlikely to hold their form through to the actual event. If two common sense wild cards were given to White and Liang, this discussion wouldn't be taking place. Although the question of why White's wild card wasn't given to Walden instead might still be raised.

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...

It all depends on who's choice it is. If it was official policy that the title sponsor gets to choose the wild card, then there would be no problem. It would usually be a local company, and it would be well within their rights to chose a local favourite. If it was the choice of an organizer, who had to except the top16 players from the official world rankings, but was given discretion to pick one more player of their choice, they could choose whomever they liked, no problem there.

The problem is the way the game is currently organized. The organizer of the event is actually the WSA, who is also the governing body, and is supposed to be representing and working in the interests of professional players. If you're Liang Wenbo, you expect equal treatment from the governing body as any other player. The "Liang will be in the top16 next year anyway, so let's give it to Jimmy" attitude is in my opinion disgraceful. If I've counted correctly, of the 96 current professionals, 13 are Asian, 9 or 10 are Chinese. Of the 7 Main Tour events, 2 are held in China. Of the 4 directors on the board of the WSA, 4 are British. How lonely it must feel...

[Monique]

If I recall things rightly it was introduced originally because Alex Higgins had dropped out of the top 16 and they wanted him in the tournament. Nothing to do with merit, just plain commonsense.

All the talk of 'merit' and 'fairness' is nonsense. The Masters is perfectly fair: if you're in the top 16, you're in the tournament.

Liang Wenbo isn't in the top 16.

And he couldn't even be bothered to enter the qualifying competition.

I know that, that's why I wrote "that's what we have been told over the last years". Apparantly you didn't get my point. I'm discontent with the hypocrisy. They use the criteria they want, their choice; just don't say one thing and do the other. That's unfair or rather dishonest.

[CueAntW147]

come on who in their right minds wants to see Jimmy playing when he has done sod all to be there ?

me.......

[Mignon]

...and Barry Hearn: 'JIMMY White has been handed the prized wildcard for the Masters at Wembley in January - the first big decision by new snooker supremo Barry Hearn.' (More)

[superaussie]

...and Barry Hearn: 'JIMMY White has been handed the prized wildcard for the Masters at Wembley in January - the first big decision by new snooker supremo Barry Hearn.' (More)

just confirms what i always thought

a hearn decision and white was just speculating in november

[Mignon]

just confirms what i always thought

a hearn decision and white was just speculating in november

Superaussie, please, please, don't be so ......'unpredictable'!

[superaussie]

Superaussie, please, please, don't be so ......'unpredictable'!

well when im wrong people are happy to tell me so it works both ways

[Mignon]

I'm OK with that, but let's just wait and see more of what Mr Hearn will bring to the sport. Let's just give the man a fair chance.

[superaussie]

I'm OK with that, but let's just wait and see more of what Mr Hearn will bring to the sport. Let's just give the man a fair chance.

fair enough

[brendan147]

Hopefully these arguements are still have some positive elements...here...