Post a reply

Why did snooker move back to longer formats?

Postby Pink Ball

When I was doing my lists this week, it brought back a lot of memories of great tournaments that have since vanished, such as the Classic (the best tournament we've lost outright), the British Open and the Irish Masters. We have also, effectively, lost the UK Championship in all but name.

What came flooding back for me is that all these tournaments had longer formats. The Classic had best-of-17 semi-finals and a best-of-25 final. The British Open had best-of-17 semi-finals and a best-of-23 final. The Grand Prix had best-of-17 semi-finals and a best-of-19 final. The Irish Masters format changed quite a few times, but at one point it had best-of-17 semi-finals and a best-of-19 final. The UK Championship, aside from the World Championship, was by far the longest, with best-of-17s leading up to the final and, for many years, a best-of-31 final. This was changed in 1993 to the best-of-19 finals we still have today.

The game seemed to be moving irreversibly towards shorter and shorter formats. The UK Championship infamously changed its best-of-17s to best-of-11s, a change which has held through to today. A few years back, it seemed as though the best-of-9s that had been standard for most tournaments were being phased out in favour of best-of-7s. Some tournaments still have one-session finals today, a hangover from that era of 'cut everything'.

But the last few years, there has been what I see as a very positive move in the opposite direction – almost if not entirely when it comes to ITV events and Chinese events.

The Shanghai Masters and China Open both have best-of-19 semi-finals and best-of-21 finals. The Players Championship, which started out as one of those events with best-of-7s throughout, is now a much longer tournament, with best-of-11s up until the semi-finals and a best-of-19 final. The Tour Championship is the most noteworthy tournament introduced in years, with best-of-17 quarter-finals, best-of-19 semi-finals, and a best-of-25 final.

While I for one am delighted at this, why exactly did it happen? Was any reason given at all? Have TV companies noticed that they've been getting it wrong and that longer formats are more attractive? Or does this have nothing to do with it?

Re: Why did snooker move back to longer formats?

Postby Ash147

We can only speculate, but hopefully it is because they have noticed that the viewers enjoy the long format matches.

Whatever the reason, I am very happy for the move back to the longer format. I hope to see this trend continue with some of the other tournaments, namely the UK.

Re: Why did snooker move back to longer formats?

Postby Pink Ball

Ash147 wrote:We can only speculate, but hopefully it is because they have noticed that the viewers enjoy the long format matches.

Whatever the reason, I am very happy for the move back to the longer format. I hope to see this trend continue with some of the other tournaments, namely the UK.

Absolutely.

I just find it odd that it has happened without there being any kind of comment on it from higher up. Maybe it's because nobody complains about formats getting longer, whereas Hearn had to come out and explain what he was at when the UK Championship was shortenend.

Re: Why did snooker move back to longer formats?

Postby KrazeeEyezKilla

It's not so much about whether viewers prefer longer matches but more about how you can fit them in. The ITV tournaments in the late 80's had to reduce the format because of the huge increase of live First Division football on the channel.

BBC's coverage of the closing rounds was a lot more spotty at that time and highlights programmes were aired even on the final weekend so longer matches could be accommodated. Once the moved to full live coverage the matches were shortened to fit in the schedule.

The Tour Championship was a huge success but it had only eight players, the UK Championship has so much more to cover. Even with 32 players it was very hard to squeeze everything into nine days.

Re: Why did snooker move back to longer formats?

Postby Andre147

SnookerFan wrote:Never moan about longer matches existing.


He isnt moaning, on the contrary.

But instead the fact that since 2011 when Hearn took over shorter formats became the norm. Now we have again tournaments with longer ones which can only be good for the game.

Re: Why did snooker move back to longer formats?

Postby lhpirnie

Ash147 wrote:We can only speculate, but hopefully it is because they have noticed that the viewers enjoy the long format matches.

Whatever the reason, I am very happy for the move back to the longer format. I hope to see this trend continue with some of the other tournaments, namely the UK.

Part of the reason is down to scheduling. If you are going to have a 128-player tournament completed in 7 days, you can't have longer matches - it's necessary to have two semi-finals and one final played in the weekend, which also suits the broadcasters.

But now we are seeing the growth of tournaments comprising fewer than 128 players - invitationals and stratified (e.g. Tour Championship). This opens up the possibility of longer matches.

As I've posted before, I'm in favour of many more invitational events. It makes it possible to stage tournaments in places which help develop the game, and avoid many of the qualifying rounds in Barnsley and Preston which wreck the unity of a tournament. I don't care if it breaks the ranking system, which is irretrievable anyway.

Re: Why did snooker move back to longer formats?

Postby SnookerFan

Andre147 wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:Never moan about longer matches existing.


He isnt moaning, on the contrary.

But instead the fact that since 2011 when Hearn took over shorter formats became the norm. Now we have again tournaments with longer ones which can only be good for the game.


:goodpost:

Re: Why did snooker move back to longer formats?

Postby Wildey

Pink Ball wrote:
Ash147 wrote:We can only speculate, but hopefully it is because they have noticed that the viewers enjoy the long format matches.

Whatever the reason, I am very happy for the move back to the longer format. I hope to see this trend continue with some of the other tournaments, namely the UK.

Absolutely.

I just find it odd that it has happened without there being any kind of comment on it from higher up. Maybe it's because nobody complains about formats getting longer, whereas Hearn had to come out and explain what he was at when the UK Championship was shortenend.

Barry Hearn will never ever Admit he got it wrong so hes Phased in some longer formats along the way and said nothing about it.


Problem is to change the UK Back would mean admit he was Wrong and i cant see him doing that any time soon.

Re: Why did snooker move back to longer formats?

Postby Wildey

lhpirnie wrote:
Ash147 wrote:We can only speculate, but hopefully it is because they have noticed that the viewers enjoy the long format matches.

Whatever the reason, I am very happy for the move back to the longer format. I hope to see this trend continue with some of the other tournaments, namely the UK.

Part of the reason is down to scheduling. If you are going to have a 128-player tournament completed in 7 days, you can't have longer matches - it's necessary to have two semi-finals and one final played in the weekend, which also suits the broadcasters.

But now we are seeing the growth of tournaments comprising fewer than 128 players - invitationals and stratified (e.g. Tour Championship). This opens up the possibility of longer matches.

As I've posted before, I'm in favour of many more invitational events. It makes it possible to stage tournaments in places which help develop the game, and avoid many of the qualifying rounds in Barnsley and Preston which wreck the unity of a tournament. I don't care if it breaks the ranking system, which is irretrievable anyway.

Any Sport needs new players coming through and although a healthy mix of Invitationals along side ranking events is Good but you also need for players to get out there and play and attempt to get in to the invitational events.


What your saying is ignore the masses in favor of the few which is a load of rubbish.

Re: Why did snooker move back to longer formats?

Postby SnookerFan

Wildey wrote:
Pink Ball wrote:
Ash147 wrote:We can only speculate, but hopefully it is because they have noticed that the viewers enjoy the long format matches.

Whatever the reason, I am very happy for the move back to the longer format. I hope to see this trend continue with some of the other tournaments, namely the UK.

Absolutely.

I just find it odd that it has happened without there being any kind of comment on it from higher up. Maybe it's because nobody complains about formats getting longer, whereas Hearn had to come out and explain what he was at when the UK Championship was shortenend.

Barry Hearn will never ever Admit he got it wrong so hes Phased in some longer formats along the way and said nothing about it.


Problem is to change the UK Back would mean admit he was Wrong and i cant see him doing that any time soon.


:goodpost: