1.4.09

SHOULD THERE BE WILDCARDS?

Another day, another wildcard causes an upset at the Bank of Beijing China Open.

Tian Pengfei played superbly to beat Marco Fu 5-2 and join his compatriot Xiao Guodong – who defeated Ding Junhui 5-3 yesterday – in the last 16.

Gone are the days when the wildcards in ranking tournaments outside the UK were mere pushovers.

These guys can play and, in front of local support with nothing to lose, are a match for the game’s top stars.

But is it fair that they’re in the tournament to start with?

Why should the players who have already come through the tough Prestatyn qualifying school have to play them at all?

Some believe they shouldn’t. On balance, I’m not one of them.

This is because I was at the 2005 China Open. The event had not been held for three years and it was a real effort to get it on again.

It was a one-year deal with no guarantee it would take place again.

Ding was entered into the final stages as a wildcard and won the title. This sparked a snooker boom that persuaded the Chinese Billiards and Snooker Association to underwite the staging costs for the China Open for five years.

So without the initial decision to have wildcards the tournament may not now be on.

It's a difficult balancing act but sometimes the bigger picture is more important than the notion of 'fairness' and this is one of those times.

27 comments:

Monique said...

I see your point Dave ... however one guy who must find it hard to swallow is Jin Long. He made it all the way from round 1 of qualifiers to fail at the last hurdle against Stephen Lee. Contrary to Liang Wenbo he was not offered the possibility to play his last rounds at the venue. And now he is left to watch Xiao and Tian, two players who were on the main tour (in 2007/08 and 2006/07) but couldn't retain their place there, being "fastracked" and successful.

Anonymous said...

Wildcards are a great thing. Snooker doesn't owe anyone a living. For it to thrive there needs to be a way into the game for talent who live all over the world and don't want to live in Wales in order to qualify.

The whole damn system needs shaking up. These Chinese wildcards are a sensation and proof if it were needed that snooker is in the process of change. Hopefully the end of the Pontins era is in sight.

Anonymous said...

Monique - Wenbo lost in case you didn't spot it. Jin Long would have earned plenty of ranking points in getting to where he did. I don't feel sorry for him.

hegeland from TSF said...

"Gone are the days when the wildcards in ranking tournaments outside the UK were mere pushovers."

Well, at the Shanghai Masters earlier this season, none of the wildcard won their first match. So I find that statement a little premature.

Monique said...

Yes Liang lost. And Jin Long earned plenty of points. How does that make my point invalid? The guy didn't have the opportunity to play in the TV stage despite the fact he went one step further than Liang in qualifs and he will not get the opportunity to be exposed to the chinese public eye despite his tremendous effort. Before jumping at me agressively have you thought at what it could mean for him in terms of sponsoring for instance? or support by the national sports authority?

Dave H said...

The basic problem is that the game is too British centric

Why shouold Chinese players have to go to North Wales to qualify for a tournament in China?

It's a sign of how snooker has not properly expanded globally

Anonymous said...

I think the British based professionals have had things too easy ever since the last time the World Chapionships was played in Australia (early 70's)
Having watched Pengfei today, its apparent that this guy is very useful and its difficult for someone from a different part of the world to adapt to English conditions, food, culture etc especially when starting from a low ranking.
Pengfei was relagated from the tour yet that almost certainly wouldn't happen had the majority of the tour be played in Asia.
In fact, I would go as far as to say some of the wildcards we have seen this week would be top 32 players under those curcumstances.
I am not calling for the tour to be moved but just for people to be reminded that snooker has many talented players who do not get the same chances as the Brits.
We have seen some established home grown players complain of jet lag when playing abroad and generally giving numerous sob stories when losing.
This includes former world champions John Higgins, Graeme Dott and Shaum Murphy.
Its tough I am afraid and nobody should shed a tear for them in defeat. Also its nothing compared to the plight of some of the overseas players who travel to our shores to compete.

Mig said...

I’m going to give my opinion about wildcards, not only thinking about the wildcards for the China Open, but with the wildcard for the Masters and for a direct entry in the main tour in mind.

I feel there should only be wildcards when there is someone clearly “out of the picture” that should be in, and for some reason didn’t make it through the normal procedures.

The way it is right now there seems to be an obligation to have wildcards just because they existed the year before, which leads to places being given to players that don’t bring an extra value to the event they are participating in.

Wildcards should be optional.

kimball said...

I agree with the blogcomments that
favour a "shake up" of the system.

Yesteryears, it was deeply unfair
the way qualifications for the pro-
tour is run.
Today it is plain stupid, not to
rethink the system.
F.ex.
16 players in the televised stage
would mean thursday-sunday, cheaper
and better attendence.

2 qualifications the same week,
using Pont. & Sheffield in the same time.
Broadcasted qual. 17-32 in Sheff.academy.+( internet betting,
live streaming)

Reranking at newyear after 4 rank-
tournments.

8 Asian slots every six months.
*
Means more space for tournaments
more shuffling of new faces and
probably more and richer ranktourn.
(eventually)

Anonymous said...

i agree with wildcards for one round before the main event, but not more than one round.....there has to be a line and one round is fine by me, without exception

Anonymous said...

Why would China make a tournament with a big prize money if they could not promote their players? Non sense.

Anonymous said...

"i agree with wildcards for one round before the main event, but not more than one round"

When has there ever been more than one wildcard round?

Anonymous said...

where did i say there has been?

hegeland form TSF said...

As far as I know the Chinese do have their own tour, with tournaments that are watched by bigger audiences than the Crucible "world championship". Not as much money as in the WSA tour, but who knows a few years down the road?

hegeland from TSF said...

The tournaments are shown on Chinese TV, I should add.

Anonymous said...

Hi Dave,

For the first time I can remember, wildcards are making progress. Whenever a tournament was held in Malta or Thailand, it was always only going to be Drago or Wattana (and sometimes Norpachom?) who progressed in them tournaments. The local wildcards were rubbish..Did Joe Borgg ever progress for Malta?

(This is also happening now in the World Series of Snooker.)

Now, it seems, we have a great abundance of talent from China, and the WSA are going to have to get the structure right for this in future. I can understand giving a wildcard out to a seasoned Chinese professionally who has so far never progressed on the main tour - ie the guy that beat Trump on Monday. But the youngesters are either bouncing between the PIOS or the top 96.

For me, they should carry on giving the wildcards either to really good talent coming through yet to go on the main tour - like Ding four years ago, or to players who have been around a while but haven't made it (like the guy who beat Trump:) its the least they deserve.

If the others have to qualify and fail: so be it. I could name other players on the tour who would've probably caused an upset this week, like Liu Song, who made the quarters of the GP in 2007, who hasn't made it yet. Until the structure changes or qualifying for the Chinese tournaments change, this is the way it will be.

Then again, and I think we all feel, as you've expressed, Dave, that the qualifying structure should change. We know it isn't going to happen.

Thanks, Joe

PS - Cheers Matt, for telling me that the lad who play's O'Sullivan tomorrow isn't on the main tour but the PIOS.

Anonymous said...

Is Joe Borgg some kind of Maltese wildcard cross-match between Alex Borg and Joe Grech?

Anonymous said...

That's the one or two...cheers.

Also, another website, is, er, reporting that the mighty Mike Hallett has passed away...again!

Thanks, Joe

Anonymous said...

Hallett said earlier that Ronnie was a "talented player" which suggests he is still alive, I think.

Anonymous said...

"Gone are the days when the wildcards in ranking tournaments outside the UK were mere pushovers."

Following on from hegeland @11.19am, I seem to remember lots of 5-0 defeats for the wildcards in Bahrain. One did manage to get beat 5-1, so they are making steady, if slow progress.

Anonymous said...

Joe

Keep up - have a look here:

http://snookerscene.blogspot.com/2008/11/hallett-lives.html

Anonymous said...

Cheers 7.05.

I did say 'again' as I knew it had been posted on Wikipedia that he had 'passed away.'

No, this one was to do with a actor who passed away a couple of days ago with the surname 'Hallett.' A picture of the snooker player was/still is attached.

Thanks, Joe

Anonymous said...

Dave - in your betfair preview you said that the local wildcards don't seem to be getting any better.
Which is it? Make up your mind!

Anonymous said...

Yes Dave you did write,

Monday sees six matches in the wildcard round (John Parrott won't be playing his because he's pulled out with a back injury). THESE LOCAL WILDCARDS DON'T SEEM TO BE GETTING MUCH BETTER but some are better than others. Of those who could cause problems for the qualifiers, Xiao Guodong may be worth backing against Michael Holt. Xiao has won two titles this season on the game's secondary tour and Holt's record in China is, by his own candid admission, dreadful.

Dave H said...

There's no contradiction there. I don't think the wildcards are any better than they were four years ago.

But that's not to say they shouldn't be in the tournament.

Anonymous said...

Gone are the days when the wildcards in ranking tournaments outside the UK were mere pushovers.

These guys can play and, in front of local support with nothing to lose, are a match for the game’s top stars.


----

i am not saying there is a contradiction there, but i can see what the others have "read into" that part of your blog

Pete@CueSport.TV said...

There are some very good points of view in these comments. I like the one about snooker not owing anyone a living and also about Jin Long posted by Monique.

Wildcards have been a part of Tennis for many years and used for the same purpose - generate interest for the home crowd. The difference is that snooker is a closed tour (to only 96 players) so maybe offering Wildcards is actually doing an injustice to those players that are genuinely on the tour and legitimately have won their place.

Maybe opening up snooker is the answer?