So what is going on with the top 16?
The 2017 UK Championship has been an event marked with a number of surprise results, and shock exits, including only four members of the top 16 seeds reaching the last 16 of the competition, and as at this moment with half of the fourth round remaining to be played, none of the top 16 seeds currently through to the quarter-finals, whilst only two remain.
Of course, an event with a series of surprise results and shock exits isn't that unusual in snooker. We've seen many events over the years where an unexpected winner has come through the battlefield to take the spoils at the end of the week. We've also seen a number of events where a number of the top players have struggled, the 2012 World Championship saw only eight seeds reach the last 16, whilst going further back the 2002 LG Cup saw just seven of the top 16 reach the last 16, in both cases needing to win just a solitary match compared to the three required by the top 16 in this 128 draw event.
However, for all that has been said about it not being unusual, 2017 does mark the fourth year in a row where the top 16 seeds have struggled, last year just seven top 16 reached the last 16, in 2015 it was only six and in 2014 just nine made the last 16.
So why is that the case? Does the format play a part? Possibly? In going from entering at the last 32 stage, to entering with everyone else in a flat 128 draw there was bound to be more of the top 16 seeds with the potential to depart earlier, but then again in the 2013 event which saw best of 11 frame matches up until the semi-finals, you had 14 of the top 16 make the last 16 in a 128 flat draw
Does the best of 11 frame format play a role? An unscientific guess would say that there is more chance of a surprise result in a best of 11 frame single session match than a best of 17 match over two sessions. How many of the top 16 who have lost their matches might have had a chance to recover the deficit in a longer format from 5-3 or 6-2 behind? Similarly, how many underdogs would have gone on to complete a win having had several hours or a day to ponder on their lead.
The comparisons suggest that there isn't that much of a difference however, the last four Best of 17 UK Championships that saw the top 16 seeds require multiple match wins to reach the last 16 (entering at the last 64 stage), 1996 saw 10 of the top 16 reach the last 16, 1997 saw seven, just five (though included in the other 11 was Ronnie O'Sullivan who withdrew from his first round match with John Read) and in 1999 nine top 16 players reached the last 16 stage. From 2000 onwards to 2012 only 48 or latterly 32 players qualified for the the venue meaning top 16 players enter at the last 32 stage.
Perhaps it is worth noting that of the players who reached the last 16 of this UK Championships, 11 of them are or are former members of the top 16. In addition, of the top 16, 11 have reached the UK Championship quarter-finals (added to by Ryan Day's fourth round win tonight), nine have been to the Semi-Finals, five have been to the Final and four have become Champion.
Thoughts?
Of course, an event with a series of surprise results and shock exits isn't that unusual in snooker. We've seen many events over the years where an unexpected winner has come through the battlefield to take the spoils at the end of the week. We've also seen a number of events where a number of the top players have struggled, the 2012 World Championship saw only eight seeds reach the last 16, whilst going further back the 2002 LG Cup saw just seven of the top 16 reach the last 16, in both cases needing to win just a solitary match compared to the three required by the top 16 in this 128 draw event.
However, for all that has been said about it not being unusual, 2017 does mark the fourth year in a row where the top 16 seeds have struggled, last year just seven top 16 reached the last 16, in 2015 it was only six and in 2014 just nine made the last 16.
So why is that the case? Does the format play a part? Possibly? In going from entering at the last 32 stage, to entering with everyone else in a flat 128 draw there was bound to be more of the top 16 seeds with the potential to depart earlier, but then again in the 2013 event which saw best of 11 frame matches up until the semi-finals, you had 14 of the top 16 make the last 16 in a 128 flat draw
Does the best of 11 frame format play a role? An unscientific guess would say that there is more chance of a surprise result in a best of 11 frame single session match than a best of 17 match over two sessions. How many of the top 16 who have lost their matches might have had a chance to recover the deficit in a longer format from 5-3 or 6-2 behind? Similarly, how many underdogs would have gone on to complete a win having had several hours or a day to ponder on their lead.
The comparisons suggest that there isn't that much of a difference however, the last four Best of 17 UK Championships that saw the top 16 seeds require multiple match wins to reach the last 16 (entering at the last 64 stage), 1996 saw 10 of the top 16 reach the last 16, 1997 saw seven, just five (though included in the other 11 was Ronnie O'Sullivan who withdrew from his first round match with John Read) and in 1999 nine top 16 players reached the last 16 stage. From 2000 onwards to 2012 only 48 or latterly 32 players qualified for the the venue meaning top 16 players enter at the last 32 stage.
Perhaps it is worth noting that of the players who reached the last 16 of this UK Championships, 11 of them are or are former members of the top 16. In addition, of the top 16, 11 have reached the UK Championship quarter-finals (added to by Ryan Day's fourth round win tonight), nine have been to the Semi-Finals, five have been to the Final and four have become Champion.
Thoughts?
- PLtheRef
- Posts: 5063
- Joined: 20 December 2009
- Location: Sheffield
- Highest Break: 28
- Walk-On: Vangelis 1492 Conquest of Paradise