FEATURED: From Shanghai to Yushan: does this spell an end to tiered ranking events?

Weird stuff was happening a couple of weeks ago regarding the recently axed Shanghai Masters.

Recently, the Shanghai Masters was cancelled. To be honest, this is unusually unprofessional for Barry Hearn and World Snooker to do this at short notice, especially when this is one of the most favoured tournaments in the calendar according to snooker players such as Ronnie O’Sullivan, Barry Hawkins and Judd Trump.

Why has Shanghai been moved? Crazy. Best venue and event on the calendar @jasonferguson5 @grovesnooker @Snookerlegends

— Ronnie O'Sullivan (@ronnieo147) July 4, 2017

But that is okay, because it is quickly replaced by the World Open in Yushun. Apart from being a lot more inconvenient to travel to in comparison to Shanghai, I don’t value the World Open as much as it is sporadic and is only there when there is space to be filled it seems. Recently, it was around from 2012-2014, then a random hiatus in 2015 following a return last season, which Ali Carter the victor. It is still a great tourney, but it isn’t one that I pay much attention to in comparison to the others.

Bring back the shanghai masters!!! 😛😛

— Judd Trump (@juddtrump) July 4, 2017

It does seem that regardless of whether it stayed in Shanghai, it will be in the Last 128 flat draw format. This to me is really worrying. Having so many Last 128 tournaments will become repetitive and tired quickly and make these tournaments so similar to each other, it will be harder to find out whether one tournament is more important or has a greater prestige than the other. The only difference is the location. That is what made Shanghai so special, as it is where snooker is done differently compared to Riga, Gibraltar and Daqing.

One thing that cannot be ignored is the fact that the with the Shanghai Masters now gone, the World Championships is the only event that doesn’t have a flat draw. In some ways the tiered events will still be around, but in just this tournament. Still, this could have a more positive effect to the World Championship, according to the boss man:

The only tiered event that is a major will be the world champs and that makes that event even more unique. As us the prizemoney on offer.

— Barry Hearn (@BarryHearn) July 4, 2017

The only problem I have with his reasoning is that the World Championship shouldn’t have to be made more unique in the first place because it’s all there already: the Crucible, best-of-19s and with the best 32 players in the best arena possible. It shouldn’t need to stand out like that as well. It’s the question whether the World Championships stand out more just because of the similarities of the other events alone rather than letting the other ranking event make a name for itself. To me, this is more of a bad thing than a good thing. I did an article about this relating to the UK Championship having a flat draw and arguing whether it’s been tainted or not because of this. Here is the link: FEATURED: Is the UK Championship better with the current linear format?

Before, sixteen qualifiers will play the Top 16 seeded players at the official venue in the Last 32. Where lower-ranked players compete against other lower-ranked players to gain valuable ranking points rather be against the big boys each and every time. The tiered qualifying stages emphasise progression and that player’s rankings place greater importance than they do now – the higher the ranking, the fewer qualifying matches you play. It makes it extra special when you do win via the qualifiers. The last two players who won a ranking event who had to qualify for the main event are Stuart Bingham and his 2011 Australian Goldfields Open triumph and Kyren Wilson’s maiden title in the 2015 Shanghai Masters.

This format was in every tournament but now in favour of Barry Hearn’s “brutal” ways, lower-ranked players are having a greater chance to go deeper in tournaments by flatter formats. Now, only the Top 16 players are seeded in the Last 128, meaning anyone can be against anyone in the first round. Very much like tennis, where you had Fernando Verdasco vs. Kevin Anderson in the first round of Wimbledon; you have Liang Wenbo vs. Graeme Dott in the first round of the 2016 English Open. More competition = more interesting matches. It worked for the likes of Anthony McGill (2014 UK Championship quarter-finalist) and David Grace (2015 UK Championship semi-finalist) to storm up the rankings quicker than Mike Pence refusing questions. This current system fits very well with professional Alfie Burden here below:

Is bringing players on rather than if they happen to win 4 or 5 games get to a venue and then being like a rabbit in the headlights

— . (@ABOFLONDON) July 4, 2017

I am not against flat events. I love the randomness of the draws and of course, everyone is on a level playing field so that the Top 16 don’t get too comfortable. I just wish rankings mattered in more occasions than just automatically qualifying for the Crucible. Being No.17-No.32 has less significant value nowadays and the best way to show that appreciation is through tiered events. I make no secret that I like variety in events during the snooker season and the removal of the Shanghai Masters taints it for me. The only variety among ranking events are whether the matches are mostly between best-of-7s to best-of-9s until the finals. Hopefully, some of these events will return but I don’t think they will anytime soon. Here’s hoping!