Mark Selby is the latest player to have his say over the Bahrain/Premier League scheduling mess and the need for tournaments in Europe, where the game is hugely popular.

His interview with the Eurosport website is here.


mike p said...

Seems like there's a lot of positioning going on at the moment.

Anonymous said...

Very true.

I would think we are about to witness a snooker war in which there will be no winners.
As is usually the case, a war starts when the ego's of a select few is bruised.

Anonymous said...

I think we will avoid the war and will finally have a good dose of common sense prevailing in the end. I wish some people would see the wisdom in apologising and focusing on getting things right for 09/10. Selby Ding and Higgins should be credited with first round losers points for Bahrain, and commended for not entering, winning a match, and then withdrawing which would of damaged the tournament far more severely.
John H

Anonymous said...

I agree, Selby, Ding and Higgins shouldn't be damaged, and even if they are given loser points I don't think it would be enough, because they were stolen a possibility to score 5,000 points. So 700 is a very small compensation.

I've suggested elsewhere that these player's points be adjusted accordingly at the end of the season in proportion to the number of ranking events they participated in.

One other thing that could be done is to let everyone drop out one of this season’s results. After all, if you think about it, the way it is right now with 8 ranking events, one more than last season, the final ranking will give more emphasis on this season than the previous one, and I don't think that is a correct thing to do in a two year ranking system.


Anonymous said...

Not sure how players can be awarded ranking points for tournaments they didn't actually enter.
A dangerous precedent.

Anonymous said...

There is no way that Selby, Higgins and Ding can be awarded ranking points. Be realistic men.

Anonymous said...

My 2 cents' worth:

As far as I'm concerned it's strange to credit DIng, Selby, Higgins with points for not showing up in a tournament. Doing so would pave the way for more people to do this since they, too, could start thinking...nice easy points: enter for a tournament, don't play and STILL get points...strange.

The idea of awarding points based on achievements during the season is even further fetched imo. Reason why: imagine a player ONLY playing the UK and the WC, and winning both of them. That would give this player a huge boost in "average points" and thus pave the way for players to say...well I'm only going to play those 2 tournaments since if I perform well I'll get credited with more points in total than when I play all 8 ranking events.

I do agree with what's been said elsewhere in this blog: get rid of the 2-yr ranking list and only use a 1-yr list. On top of that: if the #1 ranked player in the world fails to perform and is #18 after, let's say, 3 ranking events, then he has to go to Prestatyn to qualify. I'm sure that knowledge will be quite an incentive for every player on the circuit.


mike p said...

To last anonymous: Your point about only playing 2 tournaments is very valid. We've seen that in other sports. In cycling, for example, you saw Lance Armstrong focusing his whole season on the Tour de France. He raced one or two smaller races during spring, had dress rehearsal at Dauphine Libere in June and then won the Tour. He did this for 7 years, while his competition had to race lots of other races.

I guess this would be possible in snooker as well, creating a preparation schedule that only focuses on two tournaments. Although the pressure of a match situation is perhaps something you only get used to by playing matches.