5 players in action tomorrow who have never qualified before, 1 will deft qualify, out of these two Xiao Guodong v Li Yan
Another player to look out for tomorrow Robin Hull a 39 year old from Finland, who had to retire due to health reasons a few years back but came out of retirement in 2011, he is trying to qualify for the first time since 2002, he is playing Peter Ebdon, I expect a very long match
Some big names out before the BBC tv stage of the WC. Former champs Williams and Dott failing to get over the winning line. All credit to Alan McManus reaching Sheffield. He got to the quarter finals of March's Haikou World Open so he must pleased with his form.
Also nice to see Ken Doherty - 44 - back on the big snooker stage.
By the way, that 44 is his age, not his highest break made to reach the last 32.
According to Barry Hearn, the top 16 won't have to qualify for the Crucible next season.
Really? Well that makes a joke of Hearn's plan to make the sport a level playing field for all. The BBC wouldn't need to show the earlier rounds, just start from the last 32 stage. It wouldn't alter the tv schedule nor the cost of showing the event.
I don't see why Hearn is being inconsistent given the fact he's been so vocal about players being too well protected within the top 16. Every ranking event should have the 128 format or none at all, surely? Slight whiff of hypocrisy from Barry Hearn, perhaps? Oh well, he's the boss, he can do what he likes.
Really? Well that makes a joke of Hearn's plan to make the sport a level playing field for all. The BBC wouldn't need to show the earlier rounds, just start from the last 32 stage. It wouldn't alter the tv schedule nor the cost of showing the event.
I don't see why Hearn is being inconsistent given the fact he's been so vocal about players being too well protected within the top 16. Every ranking event should have the 128 format or none at all, surely? Slight whiff of hypocrisy from Barry Hearn, perhaps? Oh well, he's the boss, he can do what he likes.
If the BBC insist on the present format to ensure all the big names on telly then his hands are tied to an extent though. Not sure if it's a clause within their current contract which I believe expires after next years tournament.
If the BBC insist on the present format to ensure all the big names on telly then his hands are tied to an extent though. Not sure if it's a clause within their current contract which I believe expires after next years tournament.
But all the top players are getting through to the latter stages of most events. It's not as if players outside the top 16 are routinely getting to the finals or sem-finals of the events. Heck, Ding has won four or five events this year! The new change has not resulted in loads of lower ranked players causing major upsets. And you could argue the case that some big upsets along the way to the WC would generate more interest, not less. If the final 32 has some talented unknowns, players that had taken out some of the bigger names, it would generate fresh media reporting. Remember last year Dechawat Poomjaeng made it to the tv stages and people enjoyed his eccentric style of play. He was something fresh.
If the BBC is against the new 128 format, well, that's silly, and it makes a mockery of Hearn's desire to make the sport fair for all players.
But all the top players are getting through to the latter stages of most events. It's not as if players outside the top 16 are routinely getting to the finals or sem-finals of the events. Heck, Ding has won four or five events this year! The new change has not resulted in loads of lower ranked players causing major upsets. And you could argue the case that some big upsets along the way to the WC would generate more interest, not less. If the final 32 has some talented unknowns, players that had taken out some of the bigger names, it would generate fresh media reporting. Remember last year Dechawat Poomjaeng made it to the tv stages and people enjoyed his eccentric style of play. He was something fresh.
If the BBC is against the new 128 format, well, that's silly, and it makes a mockery of Hearn's desire to make the sport fair for all players.
The Worlds is a BBC mainstay like the Masters. The Masters is a TV success because of the players in it. The worlds wouldn't be a TV hit if the likes of Ronnie, Robbo and Ding didn't make the last 32. Look at the PDC Darts final this year, no Phil Taylor and the audience was 45% down on 2013 final.
BBC show 3 events a year so that means the vast majority of the public only see snooker 3 times a year, they want names they know. 32 unknowns like you say would mean shocking viewing figures, sponsors wouldn't be keen and neither would the BBC. Nobody wins
I was a bit surprised the Beeb agreed to the UK as flat 128 tbh, although I suppose as they televised from the get-go all the big names were available to show.
BBC show 3 events a year so that means the vast majority of the public only see snooker 3 times a year, they want names they know. 32 unknowns like you say would mean shocking viewing figures, sponsors wouldn't be keen and neither would the BBC. Nobody wins
I don't believe this. If the people only want to see players they know, then how did they get to know those players in the first place? You have to have new players on the TV for people to get to know them.
The worlds wouldn't be a TV hit if the likes of Ronnie, Robbo and Ding didn't make the last 32.
With respect, how likely is that to happen? Those three players are the best (based on events won in recent years) so it's absurd to think they wouldn't make the last 32. And anyway, the point of the 128 format is to make it fair for everyone. If a players is good enough to win the WC then he's good enough to win from round 1. And if those three players aren't good enough - very unlikely given their past experience and wins - then so be it. But the main thing is every ranking event should have the 128 format or none at all. Be consistent or scrap the format, that's my opinion on this. I'm not a huge fan of the 128 format but I suppose it is the fairest system.
I don't believe this. If the people only want to see players they know, then how did they get to know those players in the first place? You have to have new players on the TV for people to get to know them.
Yes you do but you see them playing against the established stars.
With respect, how likely is that to happen? Those three players are the best (based on events won in recent years) so absurd to think they wouldn't make the last 32. And anyway, the point of the 128 format is to make it fair for everyone. If a players is good enough to win the WC then he's good enough to win from round 1. And if those three players aren't good enough - very unlikely given their past experience and wins - then so be it. But the main thing is every ranking event should have the 128 format or none at all. Be consistent or scrap the format, that's my opinion on this. I'm not a huge fan of the 128 format but I suppose it is the fairest system.
Unlikely but not impossible. Look at some results this year. We are not debating the merits of this format overall, I am pointing out the reasons why it wont work for the worlds. One thing you need to do is look at it from the point of view of somebody who doesn't follow the snooker on Eurosport etc but just watches the worlds, which most people do.
BBC is not a ratings broadcaster. It's funded by the licence fee so it's not meant to chase ratings and compete for ratings against rival channels. Of course we all know ratings are a reason why shows get commissioned and some get axed but in theory if a certain amount of the license fee is given to sport - and to coverage of the WC event - it shouldn't matter if the final is played by two unknown players. If people want to complain to the BBC and say "I pay for my licence fee but don't expect to watch the World Championship final and see two players I've never heard of before. Please do something about this, BBC, or I will never watch snooker again!"
...well, that reaction is kind of silly. But if people do want to see the same top players making it the final of the WC then you got to wonder what is the point of the 128 format. Seems as if people want to pick and choose when to use the 128 format.
We are not debating the merits of this format overall, I am pointing out the reasons why it wont work for the worlds.
With respect, you're doing just that. Picking when the 128 format is viable/fair, when it's not.
Personally, I wish they'd left it alone. If players are good enough to be in the top 16 then fair enough, they should be allowed to start the events at a later stage. But now we got this bizarre format where the top event - the World Championship, the ultimate test in snooker - is not 128 and most of the other events are 128. In this respect, Barry Hearn has made a mess of it (but he's done lots of other good things to improve the sport).
BBC is not a ratings broascaster. It's funded by the licence fee so it's not meant to chase ratings and compete for ratings against rival channels.. Of course we all know ratings are a reason why shows get commissioned and some get axed but in theory if a certain amount of the license fee is given to sport - and to coverage of the WC event - it shouldn't matter if the final is played by two unknown players. If people want to complain to the BBC and say "I pay for my licence fee but don't expect to watch the World Championship final and see two players I've never heard of before. Please do something about this, BBC, or I will never watch snooker again!"
...well, that reaction is kind of silly. But if people do want to see the same top players making it the final of the WC then you got to wonder what is the point of the 128 format. Seems as if people want to pick and choose when to use the 128 format.
With respect, you're doing just that. Picking when the 128 format is viable/fair, when it's not.
Personally, I wish they'd left it alone. If players are good enough to be in the top 16 then fair enough, they should be allowed to start the events at a later stage. But now we got this bizarre format where the top event - the World Championship, the ultimate test in snooker - is not 128 and most of the other events are 128. In this respect, Barry Hearn has made a mess of it (but he's done lots of other good things to improve the sport).
The viewing figures for the 1985 Final get trotted out constantly, so don't tell me viewing figures don't matter, they bloody do. I work in the media and when the radio listening figures come out the BBC are as keen as us commercial guys to know how they have done.
It isn't rocket science that two well known players will attract more viewers than two unknowns, it is fact. Unfair yes but fact nonetheless. Plus sponsors want viewers, they don't want the final to be seen by a few hundred thousand diehards, they want 5 million to be tuning in. Barry Hearn has to please all.
Looks like a few tickets have gone back on resale for all sessions of the semi finals (Thursday 1st to Saturday 3rd May) - possibly worth a visit if you wanted to head there to see the one table setup.
I'm away Fri-Sun that weekend (back in time for the final on telly, hehe!) or else I'd have considering getting a ticket for those myself.
The viewing figures for the 1985 Final get trotted out constantly, so don't tell me viewing figures don't matter, they bloody do. I work in the media and when the radio listening figures come out the BBC are as keen as us commercial guys to know how they have done.
It isn't rocket science that two well known players will attract more viewers than two unknowns, it is fact. Unfair yes but fact nonetheless. Plus sponsors want viewers, they don't want the final to be seen by a few hundred thousand diehards, they want 5 million to be tuning in. Barry Hearn has to please all.
I didn't say viewing figures don't matter. Of course they do, however, the BBC - when it was created - wasn't intended to compete with other channels. For a while there were no other channels! But that was decades ago and we all know the BBC does compete with rival stations and rival online content. BBC 3 is being axed next year due to low ratings and cost cutting.
From a ratings point of view it's more appealing if the WC final is Ronnie vs Ding - sure, few would disagree - but if Barry Hearn is so insistent about the new 128 format giving everyone a fair chance, everyone starting from round 1, then something has to be done to sort this out. Perhaps future WC (shown on the BBC) will have the 128 format? Ratings or no ratings, it's best to have consistency and make all events 128 or scrap the format all together! I can't imagine Hearn would scrap it. He doesn't strike me as the type of person to do major U turns.
Well don't leave us dangling with a teaser.....pray extend on your tale of derring-do!!
I was driving along in Wembley, when I saw him cross the road from his hotel to the Conference Centre. I could've easily taken him out if I'd have put my foot down, but I didn't. Thus I saved his life ;-) .
Questioned my decision a few days later, when I went to see Davis V Griffiths, and Griff won.
Looks like a few tickets have gone back on resale for all sessions of the semi finals (Thursday 1st to Saturday 3rd May) - possibly worth a visit if you wanted to head there to see the one table setup.
I'm away Fri-Sun that weekend (back in time for the final on telly, hehe!) or else I'd have considering getting a ticket for those myself.
Thanks zawtowers.
Got two semi final tickets for the Saturday evening (May 3rd). I assume that if a) semi is won with session to spare = refund, b) if one more frame is played in session = no refund.
Just thought I'd add my thoughts with regards to the Top 16 and World Championship qualification.
Unlike previous years, the cut off for the top 16 players to be automatically qualified for the WC was much later - it was indeed made after the PTC Grand Final in Preston at the end of March.
As such, and with most of the players having to battle through from the top 128 stages for most tournaments, you'd have had to be consistent over this year (and last) to be actually in the top 16. As such, all the other tournaments put together could well be considered to be one lengthy extended qualification session.
When it changes to a money instead of points-based list, and with the new 128 start for most events, by the time the next WC comes around in 2015, it'll be two years worth of tournaments with most as a full 128 start, so if you're in the top 16 by the cutoff, then I'd hope a place is well deserved and that people have earned the rights consistently over the year to be there.
Of course, there is the television aspect as well. BBC's contract is till 2015, and they'd want the best players being at the Worlds, but it wouldn't matter to me who they were - if they get there on merit then they have to be worth seeing. Obviously they along with the fans too would like to see the best players there (don't forget you've also got to get the paying public on seats and for some this may be their only exposure to snooker during the year if they don't follow it as much as some of us do!) so there's definitely a commercial aspect as well as a TV audience aspect to it.
Think how the ATP Tour Finals at the O2 are in tennis - a similar analogy - where the top 8 players qualify for that at the end if their season by being in the top 8 at the cutoff stage, and that's your top 16 cutoff for automatically getting to Sheffield done in a similar vein.
Comments
Another player to look out for tomorrow Robin Hull a 39 year old from Finland, who had to retire due to health reasons a few years back but came out of retirement in 2011, he is trying to qualify for the first time since 2002, he is playing Peter Ebdon, I expect a very long match
Also nice to see Ken Doherty - 44 - back on the big snooker stage.
By the way, that 44 is his age, not his highest break made to reach the last 32.
It look likely the 2015 WC will have the new format? I guess it makes it fairer if all players start at round 1.
According to Barry Hearn, the top 16 won't have to qualify for the Crucible next season.
Really? Well that makes a joke of Hearn's plan to make the sport a level playing field for all. The BBC wouldn't need to show the earlier rounds, just start from the last 32 stage. It wouldn't alter the tv schedule nor the cost of showing the event.
I don't see why Hearn is being inconsistent given the fact he's been so vocal about players being too well protected within the top 16. Every ranking event should have the 128 format or none at all, surely? Slight whiff of hypocrisy from Barry Hearn, perhaps? Oh well, he's the boss, he can do what he likes.
But all the top players are getting through to the latter stages of most events. It's not as if players outside the top 16 are routinely getting to the finals or sem-finals of the events. Heck, Ding has won four or five events this year! The new change has not resulted in loads of lower ranked players causing major upsets. And you could argue the case that some big upsets along the way to the WC would generate more interest, not less. If the final 32 has some talented unknowns, players that had taken out some of the bigger names, it would generate fresh media reporting. Remember last year Dechawat Poomjaeng made it to the tv stages and people enjoyed his eccentric style of play.
If the BBC is against the new 128 format, well, that's silly, and it makes a mockery of Hearn's desire to make the sport fair for all players.
The Worlds is a BBC mainstay like the Masters. The Masters is a TV success because of the players in it. The worlds wouldn't be a TV hit if the likes of Ronnie, Robbo and Ding didn't make the last 32. Look at the PDC Darts final this year, no Phil Taylor and the audience was 45% down on 2013 final.
BBC show 3 events a year so that means the vast majority of the public only see snooker 3 times a year, they want names they know. 32 unknowns like you say would mean shocking viewing figures, sponsors wouldn't be keen and neither would the BBC. Nobody wins
I don't believe this. If the people only want to see players they know, then how did they get to know those players in the first place? You have to have new players on the TV for people to get to know them.
With respect, how likely is that to happen? Those three players are the best (based on events won in recent years) so it's absurd to think they wouldn't make the last 32. And anyway, the point of the 128 format is to make it fair for everyone. If a players is good enough to win the WC then he's good enough to win from round 1. And if those three players aren't good enough - very unlikely given their past experience and wins - then so be it. But the main thing is every ranking event should have the 128 format or none at all. Be consistent or scrap the format, that's my opinion on this. I'm not a huge fan of the 128 format but I suppose it is the fairest system.
Yes you do but you see them playing against the established stars.
Unlikely but not impossible. Look at some results this year. We are not debating the merits of this format overall, I am pointing out the reasons why it wont work for the worlds. One thing you need to do is look at it from the point of view of somebody who doesn't follow the snooker on Eurosport etc but just watches the worlds, which most people do.
...well, that reaction is kind of silly. But if people do want to see the same top players making it the final of the WC then you got to wonder what is the point of the 128 format. Seems as if people want to pick and choose when to use the 128 format.
With respect, you're doing just that. Picking when the 128 format is viable/fair, when it's not.
Personally, I wish they'd left it alone. If players are good enough to be in the top 16 then fair enough, they should be allowed to start the events at a later stage. But now we got this bizarre format where the top event - the World Championship, the ultimate test in snooker - is not 128 and most of the other events are 128. In this respect, Barry Hearn has made a mess of it (but he's done lots of other good things to improve the sport).
The viewing figures for the 1985 Final get trotted out constantly, so don't tell me viewing figures don't matter, they bloody do. I work in the media and when the radio listening figures come out the BBC are as keen as us commercial guys to know how they have done.
It isn't rocket science that two well known players will attract more viewers than two unknowns, it is fact. Unfair yes but fact nonetheless. Plus sponsors want viewers, they don't want the final to be seen by a few hundred thousand diehards, they want 5 million to be tuning in. Barry Hearn has to please all.
I'm away Fri-Sun that weekend (back in time for the final on telly, hehe!) or else I'd have considering getting a ticket for those myself.
I didn't say viewing figures don't matter. Of course they do, however, the BBC - when it was created - wasn't intended to compete with other channels. For a while there were no other channels! But that was decades ago and we all know the BBC does compete with rival stations and rival online content. BBC 3 is being axed next year due to low ratings and cost cutting.
From a ratings point of view it's more appealing if the WC final is Ronnie vs Ding - sure, few would disagree - but if Barry Hearn is so insistent about the new 128 format giving everyone a fair chance, everyone starting from round 1, then something has to be done to sort this out. Perhaps future WC (shown on the BBC) will have the 128 format? Ratings or no ratings, it's best to have consistency and make all events 128 or scrap the format all together! I can't imagine Hearn would scrap it. He doesn't strike me as the type of person to do major U turns.
I was driving along in Wembley, when I saw him cross the road from his hotel to the Conference Centre. I could've easily taken him out if I'd have put my foot down, but I didn't. Thus I saved his life ;-) .
Questioned my decision a few days later, when I went to see Davis V Griffiths, and Griff won.
Thanks zawtowers.
Got two semi final tickets for the Saturday evening (May 3rd). I assume that if a) semi is won with session to spare = refund, b) if one more frame is played in session = no refund.
Is that correct?
Unlike previous years, the cut off for the top 16 players to be automatically qualified for the WC was much later - it was indeed made after the PTC Grand Final in Preston at the end of March.
As such, and with most of the players having to battle through from the top 128 stages for most tournaments, you'd have had to be consistent over this year (and last) to be actually in the top 16. As such, all the other tournaments put together could well be considered to be one lengthy extended qualification session.
When it changes to a money instead of points-based list, and with the new 128 start for most events, by the time the next WC comes around in 2015, it'll be two years worth of tournaments with most as a full 128 start, so if you're in the top 16 by the cutoff, then I'd hope a place is well deserved and that people have earned the rights consistently over the year to be there.
Of course, there is the television aspect as well. BBC's contract is till 2015, and they'd want the best players being at the Worlds, but it wouldn't matter to me who they were - if they get there on merit then they have to be worth seeing. Obviously they along with the fans too would like to see the best players there (don't forget you've also got to get the paying public on seats and for some this may be their only exposure to snooker during the year if they don't follow it as much as some of us do!) so there's definitely a commercial aspect as well as a TV audience aspect to it.
Think how the ATP Tour Finals at the O2 are in tennis - a similar analogy - where the top 8 players qualify for that at the end if their season by being in the top 8 at the cutoff stage, and that's your top 16 cutoff for automatically getting to Sheffield done in a similar vein.