Speaking today at the final of the 2011 Rileys Future Stars event as won by Welsh youngster Jamie Clarke, three-time world champion Ronnie O’Sullivan has also taken the opportunity to criticise the current structure of the PTC events, being quoted as saying that he feels like he is being blackmailed to play in them. Has he got a point? Click below for my take…
Ronnie is quoted at SportingLife as saying:
“I feel like I’m being raped when I’m playing in them,”
“I feel I’m being blackmailed. They put these ranking events on and ranking points at these tournaments and it just feels like the winner’s prize is not great, the loser’s prize…most players are going there and losing money, but they’re putting ranking points on so it’s forcing the players to play in it, which is not great, but what do you do? You have to go.
“The lower-ranked players can’t afford it and the top-ranked players don’t really get rewarded for what they do, so no-one is a winner.
“But I have to play in them, there’s not a lot you can do, you’ve got to do it. But I don’t agree with them.”
“I’ve played on my own in a room for the last 20 years, I don’t need anyone to watch me,”
“I just love the sound of the balls. It’s much better to play in a great atmosphere but the actual reality of it is that most of our time we play in a room where no-one watches us.
“I can get my head around that, but obviously they are two different games. You get people that perform better under pressure, which means cameras and crowds, and you get some that can’t perform under that pressure, so the true test is at the big events where the bigger players will come through.
“But these other little events, we have to play.”
The merits or otherwise of the Players Tour Championship events has been one that has been subject to an increased amount of discussion during recent months, both among players and between fans on the various blogs and forums. I offered my two cents worth in my article here, while Snooker Scene’s Dave Hendon has also posted at length about the issue here.
As is often the case both in life and snooker and as you will see from the numerous comments on both of the above articles, a person’s view on the PTC events will differ depending upon their individual circumstances, be it from a player’s perspective or a fan perspective.
For some, the PTC events are a fantastic development, providing playing opportunities to all that have simply not been available in recent years. The likes of Joe Jogia, Andrew Higginson and Jamie Jones to name just a few have all thrived during the events and seen their rankings rise as a result.
For fans too the PTC events are a positive step, providing them with more snooker on a regular basis, particularly now that they are now being streamed either on World Snooker TV or via Eurosport and provide us with an opportunity to watch players who previously we would not have been able to see in action. By the same token it allows those players to clash with those at the very top of the game from which they will surely learn a great deal.
But for some such as Ronnie O’Sullivan the PTCs are not a positive development and for me at least, it is easy to understand why. While his choice of words might not be the most politically correct, I can see why from the point of view of a three-time world champion who has won £6m in prize money and probably double that in endorsements, playing in smaller events for maximum prize of £10,000 wouldn’t appeal to him.
I often see people respond with the comment that snooker is their jobs and that they should effectively not complain at being able to play snooker but particularly in the case of a select few players such as O’Sullivan and Stephen Hendry who have played exclusively in front of big crowds for the past 20 years I am not sure that the argument works. I can’t help but see where they are coming from in their personal situations.
Is O’Sullivan correct to say that he is being blackmailed? In truth nobody is forcing him to enter the PTC series and there is nothing to stop him from declining any of the 12 events. As all of the players are now well aware however, such a decision would prove hugely detrimental to any player’s ranking and in Ronnie’s case, would cost him his place among the world’s top 16. Ronnie therefore knows that he must play them if he is to remain among the elite and from that point of view is effectively being forced to play them.
On the other hand of course it is arguable that the problem is of Ronnie’s own making as last season he did of course lose in the first round of the UK Championship, Welsh Open and China Open tournaments, which choosing not to compete during the German Masters. Had he performed better in these events then he may have been in a position to have skipped some of the PTC events, as Ding Junhui has in fact elected to do.
Personally, as a fan I love the majority of the PTCs, particularly those held in Europe such as the Paul Hunter Classic and the recent event in Warsaw which have attracted large crowds and in the case of Furth in particular, have become almost mini-ranking events and may one day grow into ‘full’ ranking events.
The events in Sheffield are somewhat less justifiable. Stuart Pettman in his book argues for example that the twin purposes of any sport are entertainment and marketing and that in the case of the PTCs he is less convinced due to the lack of media coverage and spectator facilities. While streaming has been introduced since Stuart wrote his book, in terms of the Sheffield events I think that his point stands and that in terms of promoting the sport, these events offer little.
That said, it is widely understood that World Snooker have inherited the use of the facility in Sheffield as a result of a contract negotiated by the previous board and that this will run until the end of the next season so hopefully such events will not form part of the long-term plan.
From a player point of view however, be it someone as established as Ronnie or a lower ranked professional or amateur losing money as O’Sullivan and others have identified, I can understand why some would feel differently.
In terms of O’Sullivan’s quotes which have today been widely quoted on websites such as the BBC, in truth he is only saying what a number of others have also been saying, for example Stephen Maguire last week who said that he feels like a ‘prostitute’ playing in the events or even Stuart Pettman in his book who discussed the topic of the PTCs and the rankings dilemma at length. Ronnie is not the first person to raise questions but because of his profile only now has it really hit the headlines in the wider press.
I am certainly not going to criticise him for the way that he feels and in truth think that it is good to see him being honest, regardless of whether you agree with him or not.
Ultimately the debate will no doubt rumble on, probably until either the PTCs have gone or there is more prize money on offer and your stance will no doubt come down to your perspective, be it as a fan, a player or anything else. Regardless of your view, with the ranking points currently at stake, the PTCs cannot be ignored which in a roundabout way perhaps proves O’Sullivan’s point…
Loading tweets...
18 comments
Monique
Twitter: rdy sometimes
October 19, 2011 at 4:27 am (UTC 0)
A balanced analysis as always Matt. Thank you.
Just a reminder of what I’ve already written often before. I like the PTC concept, but when the players as pros, regularly lose money, while actually winning matches, it’s not only wrong, it will soon become unsustainable for many. As such it is a threat to the future of the game because ultimately the players are the games most valuable asset. You can’t build a global sport if only a handful make a living on it. And it has no future if youngsters and their parents don’t see the sport as a valuable career option.
So, to me, it’s essential to reward those events better, especially the European ones that currently pay less while being more costly to to the players and that are more important for the games development.
Resources are limited but they should be used wisely. Maybe 8 PTCS rather than 12? Or leave costly far remote ventures like Brazil or India for later when money has started to come in more?
edd
Twitter: wildey_1
October 19, 2011 at 10:24 am (UTC 0)
monique you say leave brazil and india alone until money comes in ?
how do you sugest thats done if you dont take risks the same risks that was done with china and germany years ago.
the top players are well rewarded and should use the money they make to put it back in to the sport not withdraw then players lower down the rankings with less money gets a invite and goes.
with respect monique your way is heading us straight back to how Walker was doing it just waiting and waiting and waiting.
time for that is over thank god.
i do however believe the PTC Should be cut back to 8 and give the cash lower down the pecking order but not hold back on expansion in to new countries thats essential for snooker and it needs exploring NOW..
Time waits for no man and you could just about wait for ever.
Tony
October 19, 2011 at 8:00 am (UTC 0)
Hi,
In my opinion only the six best PTC-results (3 England+3 Europe) during the last year (not two) should count in the ranking. As it is now these little tournaments have too big inpact in the ranking [even for the best ones].
Look at Tennis – there we have 4(GS) + 10(Masters) + 1(ATP-finals) big ranking events which will deliver 4×2000 points + 10*1000 points + 1 500 points = 19 500 potentially points to the winner of all these tournaments. Then they have the possibility to count another four ATP 500 or ATP 250 – which means 2 000 pot points. That means “small” tournaments counts for 2 000 points compared to 19 500 points for the big ones = 10 %.
If We compare to Snooker we have this year (more big ranking events than usual) 47 000 pot ranking points to get from big ranking events. PTC give us 12*2000+3000 pot points = 27 000 pot points from these little tournaments: This means 27 000 / 47 000 = 57 %. Compare this with Tennis!!!
If we go down to 3 + 3 on a yearly bases then the inpact would be 6*2000+3000 = 15 000 pot. points vs 47 000 x 2 year = 16 %.
John McBride
Twitter: JohnMcBrideIRE
October 19, 2011 at 10:33 am (UTC 0)
Ronnie O’Sullivan has a point. Whether or not he has articulated this very point across right with his choice of words, is another thing.
Tony Hull
October 19, 2011 at 11:13 am (UTC 0)
I have never understood the basic ranking system for a start which does not allow a fair and free flow of talent with the ‘oh by the way you need to earn 20.000/30.000 extra points this season before you can get anywhere near the top 32′ type of set up.
The PTC events which in themselves as extra Pro-Am’s are fine but should never hold ranking points and used simply to promote the game and give players more events to take part in if they so wish.
Now I see that Nigel Oldfield is back, as he knows only to well about the events and system used in the past years to promote snooker outside of the UK which were very successful, why not look to revive this style of event?
The WSA really needs to concentrate on adding new Ranking events, two
of which are being spoken of but nothing confirmed.Invite only events for the top players is OK but do not use this as a high note for the increase of prize money, as it does not belong of most of the players.
Mr.O’Sullivan is entitled to his views which are partly correct but expressed in his own way.
tazmania
October 19, 2011 at 9:08 pm (UTC 0)
on your comment that ptc’s should not carry points but be promotional events, the previous regime tried this the pro challenge series was similar to the ptc’s that carried no points, this failed so badly the 4rth of the 8 event was cancelled and was never resumed. Look at it this way, even when there are ranking points many top players missed ptc poland, think how many top 16 players will participate if there was no ranking points. There will be no incentive as the money in these events are low, many will just give it a pass
John McBride
Twitter: JohnMcBrideIRE
October 19, 2011 at 12:36 pm (UTC 0)
Ronnie O’Sullivan certainly is entitled to his views as him & all players for that matter, should be invited & most certainly encouraged to give their own personal feedback.
However, I have learnt in life that sometimes saying things the right way & using more ‘tact’ when doing so, encourages the people you need to listen, listen.
I do think we have created a bit of a problem with the introduction of the PTC’s. If no ranking points were available, would the Top players enter? Probably not, so the ranking points being available are motivation in themselves for players entering. Whether or not the ranking points that are available should be so high, is another thing. The right balance needs to be found here. It’s great that we have so many tournaments, I just believe that a reduction in the ranking points available in the PTC’s should be reduced. Not scrapped, just reduced.
terry goodwin
October 19, 2011 at 12:50 pm (UTC 0)
its ronnie just looking for headlines again . a few years ago the players moaning there is no money in the game now they have the chance every few weeks to pick up prize money. ie andrew higginson ben wollstan .playing ptc events beats practiseing
Finland
October 19, 2011 at 1:44 pm (UTC 0)
Yes, playing in PTCs beats practising, but it is too expensive. For example once again Robin Hull. It is not free to fly from Finland to UK (Hull hasn’t taken part in 5 (?) PTCs so far). Because of that he drops down in ranking, although in qualifiers he’s got couple of wins. PTCs are awesome, but too expensive. Worldsnooker should somehow pay back players costs of flights (or other commuting).
edd
Twitter: wildey_1
October 19, 2011 at 3:30 pm (UTC 0)
yes but thats not the issue with Ronnie.
and this tells it own story regarding how young players in different countries feel about the PTC http://www.kerryman.ie/sport/kerrys-best-to-cue-it-up-with-top-snooker-professionals-in-killarney-2910256.html
Cab
October 20, 2011 at 10:25 pm (UTC 0)
I believe Hull hasn’t participated because of health issues. At the start of the season I vaguely remember him saying he was going to take part in 17-19 tournaments, so that’s pretty much all of them.
Finland
October 21, 2011 at 6:47 am (UTC 0)
Yes, Hull had some health problems, but not anymore. Now the problem is money. He’s going to take part in UK qualifiers, but PTCs he passes. Perhaps he didn’t exactly know, how much they would cost and how difficult it is to find a good sponsor.
shoaib
October 19, 2011 at 3:46 pm (UTC 0)
i just love to see ronnie moving around the table. i love ronnie o sullivan. i want him to be world no1 and world champion once again..
Andre
October 19, 2011 at 8:22 pm (UTC 0)
I think Monique has got a point in saying that the total number of ptc events should be reduced, maybe to 8. Scrap the Sheffield ones because they had nothing to the game and don´t promote snooker in any way. Yes players have the chance to get more match practice, but the Sheffield ones only promote top players to play in little cubicles. What they have to do is Increase the prize money for the other ptcs, especialy the ones abroad, so that a player that loses in the first round or so does not have to many expenses for participating in these events.
But I think that snooker is going in the right way in having events outside the Uk like the one in Brazil, if that doesn´t work, then we move on to another country that can show some potencial, but we have to keep trying, otherwise, like edd said, we go back to the way Walker was running the game, and that, as we all know, is not the right way to promote snooker globally.
matt2745
Twitter: prosnookerblog
October 19, 2011 at 9:53 pm (UTC 0)
Thanks all for the comments. I think it speaks volumes on this subject that on the various blogs etc there are so many different points of view. It’s not a simple one.
Prestatyn Fan
October 20, 2011 at 9:25 am (UTC 0)
Going up to 128 professionals on tour from 2013. Q School entrants on for 2 years. Ranking system based on prize money. WOW!! Things are happening. Perhaps Ronnie’s words are having some effect.
likahokeith
October 20, 2011 at 3:03 pm (UTC 0)
I don’t think reduce the recent number of PTC is the good decision, but the prize, location and media should be improved.
John B
October 22, 2011 at 2:11 am (UTC 0)
As usual Ronnie is not doing himself no favours by moaning in this way, and while I agree the lower ranking players costs have got to be addressed Ronnie’s motivation here is self interest as it normally is. He’s unhappy with the fact that he may fall out of the top sixteen if he doesn’t play in the PTC’s, and he really just wants to continue with the easy time he’s been use to in the past. I’m sure he’d soon change his mind if he had to go and get a real job like everyone else.
While I think Ronnie is a fantastic snooker player and of course he’s good for the game, he’s not bigger then the game as he sometimes seems to think he is, and I for one am fed up with his constant negative mindset.
I say embrace the new era Ronnie, or would you prefer that snooker dies and you have no tournaments to play in?