Snooker player Shaun Murphy says Amateurs shouldnt be allowed to play with pros....

mark187

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I know there was a thread that already discussed this topic, but I found this interesting....

Bet he was rubbing his hands together when he drew an amateur first round. Didn't hear him complaining before he lost 🤔
 

JAM

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Sounds like Ronnie O'Sullivan's sentiments about the numpties. Speaking of The Rocket, he's up at the UK Championship in 1 hour and 15 minutes, live on Matchroom.live.
 

ChicagoRJ

EEEEEXCELLENT ;)
Silver Member
Kind of funny. I mean, he said there was no pressure on the kid but only on him because he makes his living at this game.

i'm sure most teenagers are just as nervous playing a pro, as some pro playing to pay the rent on his very lovely flat in a nice part of town ;)

Oh, well, he got mad, it happens. Next time you have to out play the amateur ;)
 

TrxR

Member
I think hes just being a sore loser and having a temper tantrum over losing to a amateur .

I also think if a person feels he or she can compete and has the entree fee they should be allowed to play as long as they follow the rules and are respectful to their competition and the refs. I believe some pros could learn from some amateurs .
 

JAM

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
25 more minutes for Ronnie's match. :p
Ronnie smile.png
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
IMO a handful of pre-qualified pros is less interesting than a true open class. Let anyone who can pay the entry fee compete.
That's not the way snooker works. So far as I know, there is essentially no entry fee.

The field size is limited. In this case I think it is 128. The players who are "on the tour" have priority. After that the spots are filled by some kind of ranking criteria. The kid had played in "Q School" (qualification competition) and did OK but not well enough to get a tour spot. The amateurs -- players not "on the tour" -- can win prize money but do not get ranking points. The kid is going to get at least $8500 with a first round win.
 
That's not the way snooker works. So far as I know, there is essentially no entry fee.

The field size is limited. In this case I think it is 128. The players who are "on the tour" have priority. After that the spots are filled by some kind of ranking criteria. The kid had played in "Q School" (qualification competition) and did OK but not well enough to get a tour spot. The amateurs -- players not "on the tour" -- can win prize money but do not get ranking points. The kid is going to get at least $8500 with a first round win.
I've heard of Q school. The rest is new to me. Honestly, it makes me less likely to develop anymore interest in snooker. If the off tour player is good enough to win against an on tour player, he should probably be on tour as well accumulating points too. How does preventing some players from earning points make the game more entertaining for viewers?
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I've heard of Q school. The rest is new to me. Honestly, it makes me less likely to develop anymore interest in snooker. If the off tour player is good enough to win against an on tour player, he should probably be on tour as well accumulating points too. How does preventing some players from earning points make the game more entertaining for viewers?
It was a relatively short match -- race to 6. Even I could beat a world champion in a short enough match (at pool).

Si Jiahui knows what he needs to do to advance to the tour and he has a clear, fair path which he is working on. There are many tour players I've never seen play before so for me there are plenty of new faces available. If I want to, I can watch some of the qualification events almost for free on matchroom.live.

I think all pro individual sports have a barrier to entry to major events. Golf, tennis, etc., may have qualifiers but you can't just pay and enter all events. The money for the prize funds comes from viewers. Viewers are not interested in watching me shoot a 95. For nine holes.

The traditional American method for funding cue sports is for the never-rans to donate to the prize fund plus a little added money. Snooker has moved beyond that. Producing good matches for the audience is the only way to make money for all involved.
 
Last edited:

tomatoshooter

Active member
I can sort of see where Murphy is coming from. I read similar, if much less butthurt and whiny, sentiments expressed by a poker player or two when poker took off. Basically, anybody can get a hot hand and knock off a contender or even get a win, even though they weren't capable of consistent performance at that level. The poker players seem to accept that the boom brought in a lot of money and then more people, which made the money harder to get. Murphy is dealing with a fixed number of entrants that had to accept "lesser" players to fill up. In a short race it's possible for an amateur to play really well and beat a top player X but it's definitely more likely that top player Z will prevail. Snooker seems like a long enough game that both players get opportunities. It's not like some nine ball matches where you lose the lag and don't see the table until you're down 4 games. The you gets a bad roll and the other player finishes you off.

I do understand Bob Jewett's point that the viewers turn out for the big names and protecting that is economically important. That's a fair point but March Madness always has a great storyline about some team from nowhere that catches fire and beats some top seeds. That wild card can be an important draw, too.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I just read Murphy's comments. I think he's wrong on a bunch of points, such as:

Si is living in a foreign country, trying to excel at a sport the locals dominate. He probably faces a lot of the reaction that Ding got about 10 years ago when he played O'Sullivan in a big event. The audience was not pleasant. Si may feel a huge responsibility to his family or whoever sponsored him to live in England. I don't think Murphy has any idea what pressures Si faces.

The top players already get a number of "favors" from the tour. There are several events, such as the recently completed Champion of Champions, that are by invitation and basically only the top players are there. They also normally have full seeding in the events, so that #1 starts with #128 in a 128-player field, etc.

Also, I think Si is an amateur only by the definition of not being on the tour right now. He was on the tour but fell off due to low results. He's doing his best to get back on. It's not like he is a potato farmer who normally only plays against numpties at the Grange.

Edit: I see that Murphy has won about $550,000 in the last two years. It sounded like he wasn't going to make his room rent.
 
Last edited:

trob

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I’ve seen enough pro tournaments here in the states and have seen many amateurs who had no business in the tournament but had the entry fee. To me it takes from the tournament but until we have a way for people to earn a tour card and prove they have the skills it is what it is i guess.
 

Welder84

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
That's not the way snooker works. So far as I know, there is essentially no entry fee.

The field size is limited. In this case I think it is 128. The players who are "on the tour" have priority. After that the spots are filled by some kind of ranking criteria. The kid had played in "Q School" (qualification competition) and did OK but not well enough to get a tour spot. The amateurs -- players not "on the tour" -- can win prize money but do not get ranking points. The kid is going to get at least $8500 with a first round win.
It's funny in the U.K snooker does not require dead money. In the U.S many pro players insist they should be allowed to compete in amateur tournaments (because they claim to be making amateurs better). Totally opposite!
 
Top