What is the Tour Championship (and Coral Cup)?

Back in late March, you may remember a new ITV tournament which Ronnie O’Sullivan won 13-11 against Neil Robertson. This was the inaugural Tour Championship and the first of its editions. So, what’s the deal with this new ranking event?

Not much, to be honest. An addition to the Coral Cup, which already consists of the World Grand Prix and the Players Championship, the Tour Championship was added for the top of the top of the top. The Grand Prix consists of the Top 32 in the one year ranking list; the Players Championship consists of the Top 16; and now the Tour Championship exists for the Top 8 players.

Unlike most other tournaments, where finals are contested in a best-of-19 frame match, the Tour Championship recognises a slightly longer format where the finalists must try to reach 13 frames to take home the trophy. Not to mention, a prize of £150,000.

Much like the Tour Championship, the Coral Cup is something newly introduced in the 2018/19 snooker season. Starting from next season, whichever player collects the most money from the collective tournaments in the Coral Cup will also net a £100,000 bonus. If this bonus was in effect this season that would have gone to ROS with his considerable wins at the Players and Tour.

I had always been quite fond of the Players Championship especially because you were basically guaranteed top matches every single time where players go all out. But now the Tour takes things to the next level with an increased prize pot and the highest echelon of players. I mean, this was clearly evident in arguably the match of the season with ROS trailing from 6-2 down to beat Trump in the semi-final decider.

All that being said, February to March is a great time to be watching snooker in the coming seasons.

Top Ranking Events in 2018/19 Season

Obviously, we all know that the World Championship is definitely (and monetarily) the top prize in the sport of snooker. And it always has been/will be. Most consider prize money to be one of the main factors to determine the ‘importance’ of an event. If this is the way we view it, what were the most ‘important’ events this season, based on prize money?

Let’s just get WSC out of the way to begin with – top prize worth £500,000. By the way, this just considers top prize winnings as opposed to total tournament prize fund. However, they both tend to go hand in hand. This is followed by the China Open, with a winner’s prize of £225,000. Not surprising, considering the impressive and growing viewership of the Chinese audience. Also, even though it isn’t a ranking event, it’s always worth mentioning the Masters and the £200,000 winnings.

So that’s just top 2. Third place (but only by £5000) goes to the International Championship with top prize of £175,000 then the last of the triple crowns in a calendar year; the UK Championship with a taking of £170,000 for the champion.

If you wanted to win £150,000, you go to either the World Open, China Championship or the newly introduced Tour Championship. The next high prize tournaments rest with the rest of the Coral Cup events: the Players Championship and Grand Prix with first places taking £125,000 and £100,000 respectively.

Next, we have what the Top 16 probably consider as the peasant tournaments, where top prizes take less than £100,000. Firstly, the German and European Masters which award £80,000 and £75,000. Then, you have the home nations, each providing their winners £70,000 for victory.

Lastly, you have the Riga Masters and Indian Open, both with £50,000 winnings; then the Shoot Out, Gibraltar Open and Paul Hunter Classic with winnings of £32,000, £25,000 and £20,000 respectively.

Now, prize monies and funds are subject to change – in general, they are on the up for certain tournaments whereas, in others (i.e. home nations) it has mainly stayed constant. But this gives a pretty reasonable idea as to the top tournaments in a season, with the exception of the Triple Crown.

Should 147 prize money be increased (Part 2)

Barry Hearn just held a press conference in which one of the key announcements were the changes to the 147 prize system. Staring next season, there will no longer be a rolling prize system. Instead, there is a £1 million prize pot which gets activated once 20 maximums are made in a season; then the pot is shared among those who were made the perfect break.

One major concern with this is the closest there have been to 20 maximum breaks in a single season has been 13. So, let’s say standards rise and 19 maximums get made in a season: then that means all of the players that hit the magical 147 will not get any money. So, there isn’t any financial benefit to players after making a 147? Unless there still is a high break prize.

This could potentially change the dynamic of players going for the pattern of red and black as opposed to trying to win frames and matches. Maybe this is a ploy from Hearn to reduce the pay-out for 147’s, just like his £1 million bonus to whoever can win all the home nation tournaments. But who knows.

I think considering that snookers prize fund is rising quite nicely every year, then that should help with putting aside a little more money for those times that maximums are achieved, But I’m not going to delve into the economics of 147’s and say I’m on one side more than the other.

To me, making a 147 in competitive play should be a goal for every snooker player on the tour; especially in a bigger arena where the crowd and players themselves can really appreciate the atmosphere where the cheers get louder as each shot progresses. But there should absolutely be something for the player for being able to provide such a spectacle for the audience and tournament.

What do you think? Will the new system be better than the soon-to-be former rolling system?

Should 147 prize money be increased? (Part 1)

Previously, being able to achieve what’s known as the perfect break would result in 6 figure prize rewards. If you go back further in time, sometimes cars were offered as compensation for hitting that magical 147. Nowadays, a player would be lucky to even get over £10,000 for achieving one of snookers greatest feats. Is something wrong here?

Certain players (I’m not naming names) are notorious for either questioning prize money, or intentionally taking on a pink instead of a black during the middle of a maximum. As opposed to (significant) fixed sums being rewarded to a player, nowadays (since 2011 or so) a maximum break is rewarded via a rolling system where as each tournament goes on and no maximums are made, the prize pot increases. Once a 147 is made, the prize pot is reset.

Clearly, if we look at things from the perspective of World Snooker, they can’t afford to dish out £147,000 every time a maximum gets made. And maximums get made quite frequently, relatively speaking. For context, from the early 80s to late 90s only a handful of 147’s were made each year (2-3). This average has progressively increased over the years. From 2008, this has risen to roughly 7-8 maximums per year.

The only way World Snooker would be able to finance this would be to siphon funds from top prize winnings from various tournaments. And it’s no small amount that would be taken away. If it ever got to a point where prize money for winning tournaments were so low, then players would just enter tournaments to try and just get a single 147 as opposed to win any tournaments – reducing the standard of play across the board.

Obviously, the other view to look at is from the player’s side (and in a way, the audience’s as well). Hitting a 147 is by no means an easy feat at all. Being able to string together 36 precise shots definitely warrants a considerable reward for that player. Does Barry Hearn’s proposed changes following his recent press conference make any strides in going forward with 147 prize money? Check out part 2 of this short – coming soon.