Tweet
Maybe O'Sulivan, Higgins, Hendry etc. don't like staying in Sheffield for 17 days. Let's organise the WC in the Bahamas and see what they have to say.
-
-
I don't know for the others but ROS would hate it.Originally Posted by matoski View Post
Now seriously.
The argument that we need such long format to decide who is the best doesn't hold when you look at the facts.
From 1990 to 2009, 20 finals, there were only 3 occurences when after the 2 first sessions the eventual winner trailed. One involved Hendry and White in 1994, the two others were the 2 finals Stevens made ...
Within the same period of time there were only 2 occurences in the semis where the eventual winner trailed: 2 out of 40. 1990 Davis vs White and famously 2003 Hunter vs Doherty. There were quite a few ties after second session, that's true, 10 actually and again in 7 cases out of 10 the eventual winner got the next frame.
Personally I don't see what interest anyone can take in a very long match when it's clear one of the contestant has no chance to come back, and I'm sure we had a good few of those in the old days when the final was played over 50+ frames...
I think what we have today is about right. It should not be longer. However I think something should be done to increase the audience and possibly the quality of the finals. Too often the players, or one of them, have nothing left in the tank. This is snooker, not marathon. So a day of rest should be on order, or at least ensure the last Semi doesn't end at unholy hours... and the Final should end on Sunday, with the final session starting at a decent hour. Also I don't think it would be economically sound, under the current state of economy, to have the WC over more than 17 days, or 16 if we want the final on Sunday. The beep wouldn't be interested methinks and the BBC is essential at snooker survival currently. So what to do?
I don't know. But has it been examined how matches could be arranged if the second round and quarters were held over 2 sessions instead of 3? Two sessions, one of possibly 12 frames, one of possibly 13 with the MSI after 6 frames, one in the morning, one starting in early evening?Last edited by Monique; 22 March 2010, 09:17 AM.Comment
-
-
monique
thats ridiculous what has that got to do with anything if the player winning the first 3 frames in a best of 9 wins the majority of matches why not play best of 5s that what your saying.
if the winner of the first frame today in the championship league wins the first frame forget the other 4 and just play 1 frame.Comment
-
How do you know? I wouldn't be so sure. In mainland Europe not everyone has or at least had access to BBC and very few had the opportunity to go to life events. It was Eurosport who brought us snooker. It was free at the time. The Welsh for some reason always had extensive coverage in those days - probably because it used to be held during the Carnival term, when kids were off school and not much else was going on.Originally Posted by wildJONESEYE View PostComment
-
Again you distort what I wrote: I looked at the 2 first sessions, 16 frames. And what you can see is that in the very vast majority of cases the guy who is in front then was also the eventual winner. As obviously 16 frames offer the possibility of ties, I then looked at first to 17. OK?Originally Posted by wildJONESEYE View Post
So if you consider who was first to 17 in the WC finals and semi finals of the WC in the last 20 years, in 54 cases over 60 it was the eventual winner.
And in 3 cases out of the 6 exception the player who was in front but lost was Stevens. Knowing Maff's record in losing important matches when in front I think this says more about him than it does invalidate the stats.
So the players do have a point when they say there is no need to go to 35 frames to determine who is the best.Comment
-
I think they are fine as they are but i certainly wouldn't want to see them any shorter, not even by a single frame.Originally Posted by gettingbetter View PostComment
-
no what they saying is they hate the fact that someone could still pip me to the title even if i got a heavy lead which is different totally different thing.Originally Posted by Monique View Post
snooker should not be about winning easy.
if they reach 13 frames tired then good they should be tired and then they should scrape every last ounce of ability and guts to get over the line.Comment
-
Obviously Wild there is no point trying to debate with you. You can't make the difference between what is your opinion and what is fact. You are not in those guys head so you don't know what they have in mind. The very first thing I wrote about this subject is that I would want to actually hear from them what they have in mind, why Higgins (not Hearn, Higgins) has said what he said. And until he's explained that we don't know, I don't know, you don't know what's in his mind.Originally Posted by wildJONESEYE View Post
Dave H raised the point that several players had said before that there is no need to go to marathons to determine who is the best and the stats over the last 20 years finals and semis tend to prove them right. BTW I looked into those stats, not with any prejudice in mind, but out of curiosity. To see actually how often a player had sucessfully mounted a comeback after 17 frames and I must say I was myself very surprised at the result. I expected it that in a majority of cases the mid-match winner would be the eventual winner but I certainly was not expecting a 90% hit.Comment
-
monique
fact is the world championship is fine as it is fact is John Higgins is talking through his ass and making a habit of it.Comment
-
Wildjoneseye, the world is not black and white. There is no absolute right and wrong in everything, and just because *YOU* think it's ok as it is, doesn't mean to say that it is and that everyone else is stupid and wrong. We all have our own opinions, and maybe, just maybe, there's an option that would make a better WC by changing it.
Closing our minds to change is a recipe for disaster in the long run. There's an old adage that goes something like 'if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got'.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm not saying that the WCs *need* changing, but I keep an open mind as to whether changes could be good for the game.Comment
-
its black and white why the need to paint it gray for painting it sake.
its apalling that its even discussed shortening the World Championship im appalled by the whole thing i really am.Comment
-
There's just no reasoning with some people. Comment
-
No-one is really saying to shorten the World Championship, its a great championship as it is, but maybe if it could become more appealing to new fans, maybe the odd session could be tweaked ever so slightly.I Love Snook!Comment
-
Cutting the frames down would mean cutting the prize money down as well i guess. Is this what the pros want?!
I'm surprised that there are some people on this forum that are taking that idea into consideration. For some things there is no room for negotiating, and that's changing the current format of the WC. Period! Those 17 days are "holy" in my calendar. I don't want them cut down damn it!Comment
Comment