It’s an age old question which still rings true to this day but is there something to say about the length of these matches? It’s a format which populates a vast majority of the tournaments in a season but is it something that should be altered or does it have a place in the game?
These short format ‘sprints’ came to the scene mainly after Barry Hearn took over the commercial arm of snooker. These shorter format matches are effectively what can allow all of these tournaments to take place and in such a tightly packed schedule.
The main criticism that come with these matches are that it doesn’t give enough time for a player to get into the game. Combined with the flat-128 draw that is associated with a lot of these tournaments can result in some shocking early round results, more often than not.
Also, a first-to-4 may not show the true representation of what could happen in a match, as compared to a first-to-6. Kyren Wilson was on the receiving end of a couple of these; most notably when he was 5-1 up against O’Sullivan in the Shanghai Masters and 4-1 up against Un-Nooh in the World Open, yet he still lost to both these competitors in the best-of-11 format. If it were a best-of-7, it would have resulted in dominant victories for Wilson, but the complexion of the match was significantly changed as it was a best-of-11. The best-of-11 is what seems to be the reasonable compromise for the early rounds of these events.
Another common issue is the playing conditions that come with these shorter style matches. As these matches often occur in qualifying rounds which all players are required to go through, this is something that should be looked at. Considering the money available to snooker is increasing as time progresses, some should trickle back down to improving these conditions for the players.
This shorter format will better suit certain players as opposed to a longer, drawn out tournament. But many say that a player isn’t really tested until they battle it out over a considerable number of frames. I think for certain tournaments it might be suitable, such as quick, non-ranking events like the Paul Hunter Classic, in which the final is contested in a best-of-7. A general guide could be the higher the prize money for an event, the more frames that should be contested.
I think best-of-7’s are okay for qualifying rounds for tournaments but once most of these tournaments commence, a best-of-11 is a better early round format. At the time of writing, the Champion of Champions is taking place which involves 16 of the top winners starting with a best-of-7. When dealing with the higher level players, this should be changed to a best-of-11 because I think it would provide a better match.