Cue Action Blog twitter debate: Is there too much snooker?

The first Cue Action Blog twitter debate, saw the snooker debate panel discuss the big issue of whether there is too much snooker on the calendar. The panel includes fans, betting specialists, pro players, referees and even World Snooker chairman Barry Hearn. This is what they all had to say:

James Kilmartin, armchair snooker fan: "If there are events all over the world, week in week out. When do players put some solo prep in? Players grow up and improve on solo practice. Take those hours away, the less natural players will fall by the wayside."

Ron Florax, runs a snooker and statistics website: "There is definitely not too much, a pro sport should run for nearly all of the year. I think it would be better to have all the Asian events in one block to stop the amount of travelling."

Steff Coyle, snooker fan: "There isn't enough snooker being played in the UK which is the home of snooker. It would be nice to see Barry (Hearn) connect with some big sponsors in the UK to help put on more events."

Shaun Murphy, World No.4 snooker player: "Playing your way into form is as good as hours practising. It would defo be better if we could get an Asian swing like the golf. Hopefully one day there will be an event every week somewhere."

Johnny May, fan: "No such thing as too much. The more snooker involved, the better. Only players, who have a family, should look for time off.  I think the players who have families, will be choosing their tournaments more often."

Paul Rinaldi, snooker coach:  "As long as the prize money covers the cost of the travel and expenses I can't see anyone bothering. The more (events)  the merrier. Snooker needs big  prize money about 10 £250,000 ranking events per season. That'll work."

Chris Vear, fan: "No there isn't. Perfect opportunity for the pros just starting out to get going. You might think though for the players and the fans, Snooker would stop becoming a novelty."

Brendan Moore, World Snooker referee: "From my point of view no there isn't. Sure it means a lot of travelling and being away from home, but it's a great job."

E. Jones: "Solo hours don’t win you money or make you better, it makes you think you’re in form when you’re not. Every tournament is important to make a tour great you need big and small events in a sporting tour."

Ash147promoter, betting expert: "No way is there too much, top players can choose whilst it gives younger players and amateurs much more opportunity. Those who oppose that view should look at where the game was before Barry Hearn came back."

Vikki, Bulgarian snooker fan: "Players have to travel too much and this is unhealthy. Well they are humans and they have families and friends. To be far away is hard. Asian tournaments should be in 4-5 following weeks the European too this way player’s would save money and maybe play better."

Barry Hearn, World Snooker chairman: "We are governed by the laws of supply and demand. Demand decrees how much snooker there is. It’s our job to supply the demand."
My Personal view is that there is not too much snooker, and that the amount of snooker is perfect for young players to grow their own games. However, some feel that there is a lot of travelling involved in the game, and a possible "group" of events over a period of a few weeks in places like Asia, like in Golf and Tennis, could perhaps solve this problem.

The main feeling amongst most panellists was that there is not too much snooker, but this produced an interesting debate about the amount of travelling players must do and how much solo practice time they actually get to improve their game and whether this is important.

It was a really fun and enjoyable debate, and the first of many more to come I hope. The best bits of next weeks debate will be posted on here a couple of days after the debate. Should be another good topic, so keep your eye on here for the best bits.