Matchroom Improvement list

[jbart65]

Lots of criticism of WNT/Matchroom lately from some fans, players, influencers and sport VIPs like Yohan Ruysink.

Some of the criticism is quite fair. Some of it might be unreasonable given the financial and limited-audience realities of the sport.

Here’s my list of MR improvements I’d like to see. I’ll add extended commentary in a followup post.

1) Create and publish the schedule well in advance.

2) Collaborate better with WPA/Predator on scheduling.

3) Revamp and unify the point system. It’s too top heavy.

4) Improve and publish the rules on qualifying for invitational events.

5) Merit-based Reyes/Mosconi player selection.

6) Set and stick to an invitational lineup.

7) Stop playing favorites.

8) Reward top-ranked players.

9) Fix and improve WNT.TV.

10) Get rid of the purple 5 ball.

 

[jbart65]

1) Create and publish the schedule well in advance.

Many WNT problems stem from the schedule coming out very late. It invites conflict with other promoters and limits the availability of top-draw players. Not good for ratings.

WNT is a relatively new, expanding and ambitious tour. But all successful pro tours/sports have predictable schedules published well in advance.

2) Collaborate better with WPA/Predator.

Both sides have already given each other some space. WNT focuses exclusively on 9 ball. WPA/Predator focuses on 10-ball, 8-ball and women’s pool.

Yet getting the schedule right requires active conversations with WPA/Predator. Some conflicts are inevitable, but the problem will only get worse unless the sides communicate frequently and directly.

Predator is here to stay. WNT has to accept that.

3) Revamp and unify the point system.

The winner of every Matchroom-designated major should get the same number of points. Same for second place, semis, quarters, etc.

If WNT really wants the WPC or US Open winner to get more points, make it 2x or 1.5x.

Yet it’s ridiculous to use prize money to determine points - the $250,000 prize for the WPC winner could let a player qualify for the Reyes or Mosconi by winning just that one event.

Spreading out the points would also encourage more players to play in more WNT events.

4) Improve and publish the rules on qualifying for invitational events.

Players and fans should know what the rules are. Every pro sport publishes its rules. WNT does not.

The absence of publicly declared rules allows conspiracy theories to develop and flourish. Controversy about who can play in Reyes/Mosconi is doing WNT no good.

Matchroom ostensibly uses a point system, but it also refuses to invite players with enough points to qualify if they didn’t play in a certain WNT major. This is wrong.

WNT can resolve the issue of players missing majors by avoiding scheduling conflicts. Failing that, points are points. MR is only hurting itself by excluding top players.

If a participation rule is a must, make it 50-plus of all WNT majors or some such.

5) Merit-based Reyes/Mosconi player selection.

I’d give automatic spots to the top four finishers instead of three in the rankings for the Mosconi and Reyes teams. Give players something to shoot for and more reason to play in Matchroom events. One wild card should suffice for marketing reasons.

Get rid of player coaches, especially those who don’t qualify on points. Bring in real coaches. The quality of the Mosconi is better with real coaches imo.

6) Set and stick to an invitational lineup. Is the World Cup of Pool ever going to come back? What happened to the World Pool Masters? Is the Premier League of Pool any better?

Personally I’d junk the Premier League and bring back the WCP and WPM. But MR needs to decide which if any of these events survive and hold them annually.

7) Stop playing favorites. WNT wants to reward players who play in most of its events. I get it. But don’t give freebies to undeserving players. Other players notice and resent it. This is a growing problem for WNT/Matchroom.

8) Reward top-ranked players. Give a cash prize to the top three or five finishers in the rankings each year. Make ranking points even more desirable.

One system: $50,000 for the No. 1 ranked player, $40,000 for No. 2, $30,000 for No. 3, $20,000 for No. 4 and $10,000 for No. 5.

9) Fix and improve WNT.TV. This is a potentially decent source of future revenue if done right. A bad user experience, on the other hand, hurts the WNT brand. While WNT is at it, lower ticket prices to get bigger crowds. That will also aid in the viewing experience.

10) Get rid of the purple 5 ball.

 

[garczar]

All this is great but what is posting it here going to accomplish? You REALLY need to contact MR directly. I agree with some of your takes but neither me or anyone else on here has the pull to get any of them adopted. Email all your points to Emily and see what she says,if anything.

 

[jbart65]

All this is great but what is posting it here going to accomplish? You REALLY need to contact MR directly. I agree with some of your takes but neither me or anyone else on here has the pull to get any of them adopted. Email all your points to Emily and see what she says,if anything.

Valid point. Yet one could ask, Garczar, if any post or thread on AZB ever accomplishes anything. Most do not. My posts, yours, others ...

I do know some people at WNT read some things on the forum. The name of the site has even been referenced on WNT.TV now and then.

A fan forum may be a shot in the dark, but you never know who is reading.

 

[trob]

The 5 ball is fine

 

[briankenobi]

I agree with the #3 point. Money should not be use for the rankings for the reasons stated.

 

[garczar]

I agree with the #3 point. Money should not be use for the rankings for the reasons stated.

Has worked for the PGATour for 60+ years. These guys are pros so using $$$ to rate them is fine by me. I guess since the pay is so paltry in pool that points would probably be better until the payouts get bigger.

 

[garczar]

Valid point. Yet one could ask, Garczar, if any post or thread on AZB ever accomplishes anything. Most do not. My posts, yours, others ...

I do know some people at WNT read some things on the forum. The name of the site has even been referenced on WNT.TV now and then.

A fan forum may be a shot in the dark, but you never know who is reading.

Emily Frazier is THE person that any of this has to be approved by. Why would you put it on a site just hoping she 'might' see it instead of just firing off an email direct? That's my point, saying it here is highly unlikely to be seen by any decision maker(s).

 

[skogstokig]

I agree with the #3 point. Money should not be use for the rankings for the reasons stated.

i agree that it's currently skewed, but the big money events have the toughest fields and the most pressure.

 

[Vahmurka]

All this is great but what is posting it here going to accomplish? You REALLY need to contact MR directly. I agree with some of your takes but neither me or anyone else on here has the pull to get any of them adopted. Email all your points to Emily and see what she says,if anything.

There is a tiny chance someone from MR team gets a glimpse of all the good points here. Like there is a member who is in touch with AZB for their streaming app. Emily personally does not care too much about emails addressed to her in regard with what she is doing wrong.

 

[Kris_b1104]

i agree that it's currently skewed, but the big money events have the toughest fields and the most pressure.

Haha just wait till the Phillipines Open. That will probably be the toughest field (mostly due to unknowns) and not the biggest payday.

 

[Vahmurka]

Finally! Kudos jbart for compiling such a list. Hopefully you could update it, as there could be more to add.

Thus far I'd like to comment on a couple of things you mention. It is about the points system MR uses.

First, being too top heavy. This is what Barry Hearn wants. Quotes:

his strategy has deliberately centered on raising payouts at the top tier

Elite earnings boosted: Hearn's model has focused on significantly increasing the prize money for winners and top-performing players to make the sport more commercially attractive.

Critics have pointed out that the distribution of wealth remains heavily weighted toward the top. Lower-ranked players still struggle to make a sustainable income and sometimes lose in the early rounds of tournaments with very little or no prize money.

So this is hardly going to change soon.

Last, the rankings, which are basically the same payouts being equal to points. Yes, it is not good enough. But the problem is, MR does not know any kind of a really balanced ranking system, because they simply took the same approach they were already using in snooker and darts.
There are better ways to weigh various tournaments, but chances we see any changes in this department are feasible.

 

[jbart65]

i agree that it's currently skewed, but the big money events have the toughest fields and the most pressure.

Yes and no. Is the WPC really tougher than the US Open? UK? European Open? Or Hanoi?

I don't think so. The WPC is watered down a bit by WPA and Saudi selections and only has 128 players. There is also hardly any crowd pressure.

The US Open has 256 players, a tougher field and requires more matches to win. Hanoi has big crowds and a lot of pressure.

That's why I think WNT events designated as majors should get the same/similar points. I can see the case for double the points for the WPC, but that's really about it.

MR now designates three tiers of events that it recently referred to as Gold, Silver and Bronze. The second- and third-tier events should have lower but uniform point scales. If you want to reward players for participation and finishing high (top 8 especially), make the points available to them.

 

[jbart65]

There are better ways to weigh various tournaments, but chances we see any changes in this department are feasible.

You are almost certainly right that MR will not change. I am not bothered by the higher payouts for top finishers, but the points system now used creates its own set of problems.

Filler and SVB are almost certain to qualify for the Mosconi on points. What does MR do? Even as recently as last week, I thought MR would omit them for non-participation. Now I wonder if they will really exclude them.

How is it going to look when MR excludes SVB, of all people? Not good.

 

[sjm]

Lots of criticism of WNT/Matchroom lately from some fans, players, influencers and sport VIPs like Yohan Ruysink.

Some of the criticism is quite fair. Some of it might be unreasonable given the financial and limited-audience realities of the sport.

Here’s my list of MR improvements I’d like to see. I’ll add extended commentary in a followup post.

1) Create and publish the schedule well in advance.

Yes, this is very important. Two comical occurrences in 2025 were a) UK Open dates were announced so late that many top players had already committed to an expo in Asia over the same dates, and b) the European Open dates were announced so close to the actual dates of the event that all WNT.TV subscribers were solicited to sign up for the event.

Fans and players alike suffer when there is no set schedule around which to plan.

2) Collaborate better with WPA/Predator on scheduling.

Obviously, yet it's hard to expect this. WPA has kept its word to this point by not penalizing anybody for participation in WNT events, even those like Hanoi that clash with a WPA sanctioned World championship. WNT's approach is to penalize those who play in WPA events to the max. There's no real reconciliation here.

3) Revamp and unify the point system. It’s too top heavy.

The WNT rankings are a joke. The World 9ball has made them ridiculous. On the other hand, these rankings aren't used anyway. Entering the Reyes Cup, the top five non-Asians in the WNT rankings were Gorst, Filler, Kaci, Neuhausen and Labutis. Three of them were left off Team ROW in favor of lower WNT ranked players. Performance is obviously not what it's all about when it comes to WNT invitationals.

4) Improve and publish the rules on qualifying for invitational events.

Never going to happen.

5) Merit-based Reyes/Mosconi player selection.

That would be nice.

6) Set and stick to an invitational lineup.

Not sure this is important. As long as the schedule is published early, I'm fine.

7) Stop playing favorites.

Not sure how this is different from number 5, merit-based selections for invitationals.

8) Reward top-ranked players.

This was done of the Camel Tour in the late 1990s and it added a lot of excitement.

9) Fix and improve WNT.TV.

Yeah, much room for improvement here.

10) Get rid of the purple 5 ball.

There's no question that the introduction of the purple five was a mistake. Still, I have a hard time understanding why the forum continues to beat this dead horse. Whether you are a fan or a player, you've had four WNT seasons to get used to the purple five. That really ought to be enough.

 

[sudocrushms]

All this is great but what is posting it here going to accomplish? You REALLY need to contact MR directly. I agree with some of your takes but neither me or anyone else on here has the pull to get any of them adopted. Email all your points to Emily and see what she says,if anything.

Expanding on this:

• Could a petition be created for us as a collective?
• Would seeing something with a pile of people signing be enough to get their attention?
• Could we collectively come to enough of a reasonable agreement to all be on board with it? (big ol 'if' there)
• Express this concern out of love for the game and desire to improve it rather than being critical of events and individuals (what can we do to make it better rather than complaining about things that are wrong with it)

I know there are plenty of big cheeses around here that could at least get an ear if they wanted, but most of us are just enthusiasts.

 

[sjm]

Expanding on this:

• Could a petition be created for us as a collective?
• Would seeing something with a pile of people signing be enough to get their attention?
• Could we collectively come to enough of a reasonable agreement to all be on board with it? (big ol 'if' there)
• Express this concern out of love for the game and desire to improve it rather than being critical of events and individuals (what can we do to make it better rather than complaining about things that are wrong with it)

I know there are plenty of big cheeses around here that could at least get an ear if they wanted, but most of us are just enthusiasts.

I don't think a petition would make any difference.

Two things that Matchroom should avoid doing are: 1) giving the players everything they want, and b) giving the fans everything they want. Only the most delusional would believe that what the fans want is the same as what the players want. For example, the pros would much rather play without a shot clock while the fans prefer that the matches keep moving. Matchroom understands this and all matches in the last 16 at WNT produced events have a shot clock. On another subject, most of the pro players I've spoken with would welcome a switch to alternate break but fans like packages and Matchroom knows it. Similarly, some pros don't want golden breaks to count, but Matchroom realizes that most pool fans get excited when they see a golden break.

Matchroom must remain aware of the needs of the players as well as those of the fans and then make decisions to maximize the marketability of pool. I feel Matchroom has kept abreast of what the fans want and have, in many cases, accommodated.

I must reject the idea that Matchroom doesn't know what the fans want, but there's no question that some of it remains undelivered, and for strategic reasons, some of it may never be delivered.

 

[boogieman]

Lots of criticism of WNT/Matchroom lately from some fans, players, influencers and sport VIPs like Yohan Ruysink.

Some of the criticism is quite fair. Some of it might be unreasonable given the financial and limited-audience realities of the sport.

Here’s my list of MR improvements I’d like to see. I’ll add extended commentary in a followup post.

1) Create and publish the schedule well in advance.

2) Collaborate better with WPA/Predator on scheduling.

3) Revamp and unify the point system. It’s too top heavy.

4) Improve and publish the rules on qualifying for invitational events.

5) Merit-based Reyes/Mosconi player selection.

6) Set and stick to an invitational lineup.

7) Stop playing favorites.

8) Reward top-ranked players.

9) Fix and improve WNT.TV.

10) Get rid of the purple 5 ball.

#10

 

[markjames]

There's no question that the introduction of the purple five was a mistake. Still, I have a hard time understanding why the forum continues to beat this dead horse. Whether you are a fan or a player, you've had four WNT seasons to get used to the purple five. That really ought to be enough.

because it is morally wrong

four years vs. our entire lives

 

[mnorwood]

All this is great but what is posting it here going to accomplish? You REALLY need to contact MR directly. I agree with some of your takes but neither me or anyone else on here has the pull to get any of them adopted. Email all your points to Emily and see what she says,if anything.

The point of posting here I’m sure is because this forum is about talking pool. This topic is an excellent conversation starter for pool.