World Snooker Championship 2020 - Shorts Thoughts

Similar to last year, when Snooker Shorts was brand new, we ran through categories of some the highlighting moments that transpired over the 17-day marathon. There were considerable ups and downs, tension and everything we’ve come to expect from the World Snooker Championship. We’re going through the same list of categories as before, plus some thoughts on the overall tournament!

Best Match:

Kurt Maflin/John Higgins (R2)

Noppon Saengkham/Mark Selby final session (R2)

Kyren Wilson/Judd Trump (QF)

Best Shots:

O’Sullivan off the cushion opening pot in Frame 32 against Selby

Saengkham five-cushion escape against Selby

McGill long red stun to free black 15-14 down against Wilson

Predicted Winner:

Judd Trump/Neil Robertson/Mark Selby. Got that one wrong O.o

Biggest Surprise:

Shaun Murphy eliminated in Round 1

Mark Selby losing the semi-final

Standout Moments:

Ronnie O’Sullivan becoming the six-time

Semi-final day

John Higgins 147

Neil Robertson dropping coffee

Favourite Players:

Jamie Clarke

Noppon Saengkham

Kurt Maflin

Honourable Mentions:

Rob Walker on commentary

Marcel Eckardt as the youngest referee in a world final

Hendry saying on commentary that no one could afford him as a positional coach

There were many things that fans and players had to adjust towards, chief among them being the artificial applause. While they did improve the audio quality of the canned applause as the event went on, there’s no real substitute for the presence of an actual crowd, which provided a little extra liveliness to the final.

Alas, the Crucible Curse is something we’ll have to wait a few more years to see if it gets broken. Despite not getting the result he may have wanted, Judd Trump cements his place at the top of the rankings thanks to his stellar performance in securing six ranking events this season alone. Players like Mark Williams and Selby who seemingly found good form during the WSC won’t have to wait too long to get back into it as the Championship League is right around the corner.

The fact that we had a WSC this year was pretty spectacular and credit must be given to all those involved behind the scenes, as well as the players and officials for adjusting to the circumstances. Nevertheless, I thought the tournament this year was terrific and despite the final not living up to standards, everything before that provided quality entertainment and tension. I think the day that resonated with most would be the conclusion of the semi-final matches where each contest went to a decider. There will be a Short post about this on Saturday so stay tuned for that!

---

Like this Short? Click here to read: The Trials of a World Snooker Champion

Have an idea for a Short post? Feel free to get in touch using the social media links below! Thanks for reading!

The Trials of a World Snooker Champion

There have been 21 winners at the Crucible (not including this year’s ongoing championship) and any one of those individuals will tell you the painstaking and arduous journey that’s required to reach that mountaintop. Most will already know this information but sometimes it’s worth reinforcing the voyage that players must undertake in order to, as Dennis Taylor says, ‘reach their ambition’.

Duration

The World Championship spans the course of 17 days in order to accommodate the longer form matches. Considering almost every tournament in the snooker calendar lasts the duration of one week, players have to find a way to hold their form and temperament for such a length of time.

Matches

The winner of the Worlds will have to overcome 5 opponents/matches in order to lift the coveted trophy. For the rare cases in which the individual happens to be a qualifier (much like Shaun Murphy in 2005), you can add at least another three matches to this total.

Frames

As we all know, WSC matches are significantly longer than the events that come before it. Winners need to best their opponents with 10 frames in Round 1; 13 in Round 2 and the Quarter-Final; 17 in the Semi-Finals; and 18 in the Final. Simple maths will tell us that 71 frames are needed to win the WSC. Again, in the case of a qualifier, you can add at least another thirty frames to this number.

Audience

The Crucible seats an impressive 980 spectators and for snooker’s largest tournament, you can expect it to be a packed and lively atmosphere. Some players can cope better than others, but the crowd certainly play their part in WSC matches. Not to mention the millions that watch from home, particularly on final day.

Late Nights

Due to the length of matches and structure of the tournament, you can expect some sessions to run into the late evenings, sometimes even past midnight. If you’re up against a player that is on the verge of being eliminated, you can be sure that they’ll do everything they can to stay in the event. So plenty of coffee and rest!

Fiercer Competition

The nature of the WSC means that you won’t get an easy route to the final, as it whittles out the weaker competition and the best performers remain. In certain iterations (such as this year) there will be significantly harder halves of the draw, meaning you will always have to face top players in order to reach the summit. And when it’s the World Championship, you can be certain that they’re on the ball.

---

Like this Short? Click here to read: Should The World Snooker Championship Only Include Top 32?

Have an idea for a Short post? Feel free to get in touch using the social media links below! Thanks for reading!

Ronnie O'Sullivan's Brutal Honesty - Is There Any Truth Behind It?

Following his second round triumph over Ding, Ronnie O’Sullivan took to the microphone in his post-match interview with Rob Walker to voice his honest assessment of the current standard of play. O’Sullivan stated his opinions on younger players and those lower in the rankings which received an uproar of a response on social media as he trended for some time afterwards. But is there any truth to what he said?

For those who didn’t catch the interview or are reading at a future date, O’Sullivan made the audacious, and perhaps excessive, statement involving sentiments such as ‘they’re not that good’ and ‘they would make half decent amateurs’. This was concluded by the jest of him saying that he would probably need to ‘lose an arm and a leg’ to fall out of the top 50. While he expressed a harsh reality, I think there may be a little misinterpretation (believe it or not) in how many understood his words as debates were sent flying regarding various establishment issues.

Here’s what I think O’Sullivan was trying to put across. I think his main point was that there aren’t any young prodigies that are comparable to what he, Higgins, Williams and Hendry introduced to snooker. By the time they were 25, they had all achieved each of the Triple Crown titles, whilst having to compete against each other. Following this Class of ’92, no one has come close to replicating these feats*. Players of this current generation tend to peak a little later on in their careers, during their late 20s/30s and hardly any of them introduced a game-changer similar to the aforementioned above.

A further underlying point I think O’Sullivan was trying to clarify was that he perhaps expected the likes of himself and Williams/Higgins to be forced out of the game by this point of their careers. And the fact that they are still playing to this level with the ranking positions they hold show that the standard isn’t as good as it should be. But I think this is more to do with how well they are competing in what is considered the most competitive era.

The natural evolution of sport is that athletes tend to improve over time and I think being able to perform highly whilst they age is part of that, which is what we’re seeing from the Class of ’92 (among others) and I expect many of the current top breed of players to do the same. Let’s not forget that in the pre-Crucible days, the average age of a snooker player was quite high in comparison to today.

The aftermath of O’Sullivan’s interview ignited a number of discussions pertaining to things such as the flat-128 draw, ranking system, tour cards and amateur scene. Things that are outside of O’Sullivan’s direct control. Now, was what he said harsh? Yes. But why are people acting so surprised? This is the same person that referred to everyone as ‘numpties’ before this. It’s all a part of his persona and character, something that still severely lacks in snooker today. He was definitely just having a bit of fun, as he stated in that very interview about his ability to easily switch off away from the table.

If anyone has the accolades to support saying statements like this, you would think it’s O’Sullivan. It doesn’t make it right, but it’s not even about that. The problems that were being talked about following this interview all related to the running of the snooker tour. And I reckon those at the helm would have loved seeing Ronnie O’Sullivan trending on Twitter along with the numerous headlines that came along with this expression of thought.

*There will be a future Throwback Short post looking at the successes of the Class of ’92 during the 1990s. Stay tuned!

---

Like this Short? Click here to read: Ronnie O'Sullivan and the World Championships

Have an idea for a Short post? Feel free to get in touch using the social media links below! Thanks for reading!

Should The World Snooker Championship Only Include Top 32?

I was asked recently whether it made sense for the World Snooker Championship to only include the Top 32 players and while it seemed to be an obvious answer, I thought I would attempt to see if there was any justification that could potentially support this idea. Whether it’s based on the official rankings or the one-year list, is it viable for the biggest tournament to house only the biggest players?

My guess for the logic supporting this idea is that since the World Championship is the most coveted prize in snooker, it’s only deserving that the Top 32 are the ones to contest for the top prize. In theory, it should result in the highest quality matches and provide the fans with familiar faces each year. Furthermore, considering the WSC hasn’t seen anyone outside the Top 32 win for the past twenty years (at least), with the exception of Shaun Murphy, then surely it makes sense to only include these players since the event whittles out the lower ranked players anyway?

Another factor that really disrupts the idea of qualifying for the WSC is the Coral Cup. The Coral Cup series of events (Tour, Players & Grand Prix) are ranking tournaments based on the one-year ranking list whereby the top performers of the current season are eligible to compete. And these are some of the most popular events of the season, among players and fans alike, which have the top players racing to try and reach the threshold that would allow them to compete in the next event of the series.

So if the most favoured tournaments follow this kind of format, and the winners of the WSC are the higher ranked players anyway, why shouldn’t the World Championship adopt a similar approach? Well, it comes down to the reasons we all love the WSC in the first place. The WSC isn’t just any event that is similar to the rest of the tournaments that reside in the season. The duration of the contest as well as what’s at stake changes the landscape of the environment, and the mentality of those competing.

While it would be a somewhat interesting ‘Race to the Crucible’ or ‘Race to Top 32’, only including these players would completely alienate the rest of the professional players on tour that fall outside of this ranking but deserve a shot at the World Championship. There would be no incentive for players that are perhaps outside of the Top 64 to continue their efforts if it won’t lead to anything. Of course they can continue competing in the already existing flat-draw tournaments but everything in the season is a build-up to the WSC, which is an opportunity every professional player should have a shot at earning.

Also, the sheer unpredictability of the WSC is what makes it so intriguing to watch in the first place. After a rigorous qualifying process (link to post below), the first round matches can often provide the biggest shocks as the tournament gets under way. I mean, look at this year as Noppon Saengkham surpassed Shaun Murphy, who is one of this season’s top players; and Jamie Clarke as he toppled Mark Allen in the first round. Disallowing 75% of the tour from competing in the WSC would deny moments such as these.

There may be some sound basis for the idea of only including the Top 32 players for the World Championship, but ultimately wouldn’t make too much sense to impose such a game-changing dynamic. While there are some tournaments which involve a unique format such as the Coral Cup - which personally, are among my favourite events – its distinctiveness and link as a group of events shouldn’t be diminished by populating the season with tournaments that exclusively follow this format.

But tell me, what do you think? What are some of your favourite events and do you think the World Championship should remain unaltered, as the constant for every season?

---

Like this Short? Click here to read: How Qualifying Works at the World Snooker Championship

Have an idea for a Short post? Feel free to get in touch using the social media links below! Thanks for reading!