Ssb - the sad decline of the uk championship

[Odrl]

I remember a time when people were criticizing Rodney Walker for taking a commission after successfully negotiating the BBC contract. People thought Walker shouldn't even have got any credit, much less money, because the contract was taken for granted.

It's interesting that we no longer apply the same criteria. Not only do we not take it for granted, we see it as something impossible to negotiate, without paying a huge price such as this...

Of the four biggest events we once had, only two have retained their "grandness". The Grand Prix was dumbed down to a best-of-5 event, with the excuse that it was the only way to keep it on the BBC, and even that plan failed. And now the UK has gone from an event with two-session matches, to an event that is only slightly longer than most events used to be. Now, I'm not one of the people that think Hearn is "the worst thing to happen to snooker", but if this is not worth some heavy criticism, then I'm afraid to even imagine where the majority will draw the line.


As for the speculation that the BBC wants all of the top players on TV... Well, it depends what you consider top players. This change will supposedly allow for every match to be televised, and while people like myself love to see a variety of players, it's exactly what the BBC don't want. A choice of matches is very much in their interest. For example, if there is a choice between O'Sullivan-Perry followed by Allen-Hawkins, or just two sessions of O'Sullivan-Perry, which do you think TV companies would prefer? Yes, sometimes interesting matches get lost along the way, but for them, an uninteresting match with no alternative is the worse scenario.

[wildJONESEYE]

As for the speculation that the BBC wants all of the top players on TV... Well, it depends what you consider top players. This change will supposedly allow for every match to be televised, and while people like myself love to see a variety of players, it's exactly what the BBC don't want. A choice of matches is very much in their interest. For example, if there is a choice between O'Sullivan-Perry followed by Allen-Hawkins, or just two sessions of O'Sullivan-Perry, which do you think TV companies would prefer? Yes, sometimes interesting matches get lost along the way, but for them, an uninteresting match with no alternative is the worse scenario.

yes i think thats a great point from TV Angle they got scope with 4 tables so it cant be from the BBC.

[beechy1212]

Well i'm going to be in the minority of one here but i don't think it's as bad as it's being painted. I'll tell you why ;-

Nobody is watching the U.K. Numbers do not lie. The crowds at a lot of the games were very poor. Embarrasing. Maybe that was the location, i don't know but what can't speak, can't lie. So maybe this is just a one off to see if things improve and then get the fans back watching and then put it back up to best of 17 again.

There are two situations ;-

1) Keep the game as it is because of tradition and see the game go further into the gutter because let's be honest, that's where it's been for a good few years now.

2) Make drastic changes and try to save the game, get the people back watching and then get back to tradition. Fan's aren't going to flock back unless you givem them entertainment.

Personally, i think number 2 is more important than number 1. Without people watching, the game will get poorer and poorer. It's harsh but we need our game back. Us die hards might be happy but the casuals aren't and there are more of them than there are of us.

[wildJONESEYE]

Well i'm going to be in the minority of one here but i don't think it's as bad as it's being painted. I'll tell you why ;-

Nobody is watching the U.K. Numbers do not lie. The crowds at a lot of the games were very poor. Embarrasing. Maybe that was the location, i don't know but what can't speak, can't lie. So maybe this is just a one off to see if things improve and then get the fans back watching and then put it back up to best of 17 again.

There are two situations ;-

1) Keep the game as it is because of tradition and see the game go further into the gutter because let's be honest, that's where it's been for a good few years now.

2) Make drastic changes and try to save the game, get the people back watching and then get back to tradition. Fan's aren't going to flock back unless you givem them entertainment.

Personally, i think number 2 is more important than number 1. Without people watching, the game will get poorer and poorer. It's harsh but we need our game back. Us die hards might be happy but the casuals aren't and there are more of them than there are of us.

firstly what makes you think less=better ??

people and i include Barry Hearn in this is ****ing against the wind here people seems to think there needs to be changes in the way the game is organized to save it......the UK Started to go tits up after the Final was reduced Hendon is spot on so reducing it further will do **** to save it.

change has already happened the scenes at the best of 35 frame final in Sheffield shows that so reduction is not the answer with respect any fool should see that.

[beechy1212]

firstly what makes you think less=better ??

people and i include Barry Hearn in this is ****ing against the wind here people seems to think there needs to be changes in the way the game is organized to save it......the UK Started to go tits up after the Final was reduced Hendon is spot on so reducing it further will do **** to save it.

change has already happened the scenes at the best of 35 frame final in Sheffield shows that so reduction is not the answer with respect any fool should see that.

I don't know if less will be better but the best of 17 in the UK isn't proving too popular, is it? Empty seats do not lie. Something has to be tried. Let's be honest, the best of 5 tournament semed to prove very popular.

I'm not saying i like it but what's more important, keeping the die hards happy or trying to get some of the millions of casuals back? Let's be honest, most of us will still watch whatever the set up. Whereas the casuals have switched off in their droves.

I think it's worth a try. It doesn't necessarily have to be forever.

[wildJONESEYE]

I don't know if less will be better but the best of 17 in the UK isn't proving too popular, is it? Empty seats do not lie. Something has to be tried. Let's be honest, the best of 5 tournament semed to prove very popular.

I'm not saying i like it but what's more important, keeping the die hards happy or trying to get some of the millions of casuals back? Let's be honest, most of us will still watch whatever the set up. Whereas the casuals have switched off in their droves.

I think it's worth a try. It doesn't necessarily have to be forever.

ive been to telford in december and believe me it was not inspiering to go to...

thats the reason there was empty seats not the format.

[magicman]

Enjoying reading the "balanced" comments and arguments going on in this thread...!

Anybody ever thought that the BBC may have had some influence in the decision? Shorter matches, get all of the top players on TV or we'll not be showing the UK on the Beeb... something like that.

This is one of the first "bad news" stories we've had since Hearn took over. Suddenly he's the worst thing ever to happen to snooker and Ebdon was right after all. What a joke you all are if that's what you honestly believe.

Anybody also realise that the new season starts today - yes that's today, 18th June! And pretty much back-to-back snooker all the way through until the end of July with the Wuxi (independant of World Snooker, OK), World Cup and Australian ranking event.

Snooker hasn't looked this good for years. For Christ's sake gain some perspective before belittling Hearn for one decision.

MW

I have to agree with Matt here. Who on here was present when discussions took place? How do we know what conditions were imposed in order for the Beeb to continue coverage. It's fairly well known that the new head of the BBC is not a snooker fan. When we have TV companies and sponsors bashing down our doors competing against each other for coverage etc then we can complain.

[wildJONESEYE]

look if the decision was based on getting every player TV Exposure it was done with the right motive BUT they could have increased the final and semis in the way i put it above.

but if the decision was based around best of 17 is to long or doesn't work then they are misguided and taking snooker down the wrong path which is frightening.

[wildJONESEYE]

As for the speculation that the BBC wants all of the top players on TV... Well, it depends what you consider top players. This change will supposedly allow for every match to be televised, and while people like myself love to see a variety of players, it's exactly what the BBC don't want. A choice of matches is very much in their interest. For example, if there is a choice between O'Sullivan-Perry followed by Allen-Hawkins, or just two sessions of O'Sullivan-Perry, which do you think TV companies would prefer? Yes, sometimes interesting matches get lost along the way, but for them, an uninteresting match with no alternative is the worse scenario.

Look at that post

it cant be a TV Decision more matches they can choose to put on TV Tables the better now they got to give what they given no more they can hide away Dave Harold vs Rory McLeod in cubicles.

[trains]

On the coverage theme if they cant get cameras at this Sheffield academy for ptc's why didnt they play them all at the South west academy ? Will there be coverage of the Gloucester ptc's at least ?

[the_Crippler09]

Snooker politics! nothin we can do about it really, just dont mess with the Worlds Mr Hearn... please!! Leave the ****in Worlds alone!!