Didn't realise Matt Selt was so disliked / such a tool

yer and they used to call snooker a gentleman's game. most of em r childish cretins.

They should stay away from social media unless they have can handle it professionally.

Perhaps he is right that the draw for the qualifiers should be known further in advance but his ramblings about some of the players incapable of knocking in a 40 beak seems like something a forumite on here would say.

The twitter spats only seemed to fire him up. He went from 2-7 to 10-8 after all that sh!t yesterday.

Lesson for all aspiring pros, achieve success the Selty way. Make lots of enemies and stay up all night abusing them on twitter. Beats the hell out of practising any day!

he does throw plenty of hissy fits in matches

Wouldn't think making an enemy of Hearn was the brightest career move - but kind of applaud him sticking to his guns, just went about it totally the wrong way.

The player with the most to feel aggrieved over is surely Michael White who finished 16th on the OOM.

Would have thought something like only having to play one qualifier would have been a fair compromise?

Good bit of publicity for him.
And picking up on one of Angel Gabriels points I think it would be more of a surprise if a large number of professional snooker players did not sometimes act as immature as most of us on this forum as often guilty of doing.
You have to remember that outside of a certain ranking snooker is not a lucractive career. There are a lot of tournaments these days but also a lot of expenses if your not taking home any wages. Not sure you could say players outside of a certain ranking based on earnings are really fully professionals. Might sound nice being known as a professional snooker player but the earnings are not there to back up what most people would view as being a successful professional.
Happened to google a particular young player recently as I was betting on his match and knew little about him. Cant even remember his name but read a wee bit of a linked blog and he was one of two players in his local club fighting over the job ironing the tables to get free light money to practise each day. He was working casual part time jobs to get the money to travel to a few events he could afford.

If your one of the big named players or around the bubble for top 16 or top 32 your not going to be too critical of Hearns. But for a lot of other players they have nothing to lose having a pop at the games big cheese.

They need to know when they are playing to book flights & hotels so they can make advanced reservations.

Not sure if the seeding cut off points are the issue as to why the draws are put off until the last minute. Although Selt was asking why the draws where not processed in further advance, which tells me for whatever reason he hadn`t asked the right people at world snooker.

If you have queries about the working regulations of the company you are contracted to, then you don`t go onto twitter to get the answer.

Angel Gabrial 14 Apr 15 10:21 

Perhaps he is right that the draw for the qualifiers should be known further in advance but his ramblings about some of the players incapable of knocking in a 40 beak seems like something a forumite on here would say

I agree with Selt and the others having a pop at Hearn on a lot of things. Hearn keeps yapping on about fairness all the time, but how is it fair on players to have to play 3 best of 19 qualifiers in 3 days and then face the tournament proper another 3 days later? Why cant the qualifiers be played well in advance of the finals as they used to be and as they are for most tournaments? The top 16 already enjoy enough privileges without being gifted this huge advantage. If Hearn hadn't screwed up the calendar with poxy tournaments, this sh!t could and should be avoided. But pointless arguing about it one way or the other, as he regularly eats guys like Selt for breakfast. It's the double standards I can't stand.

Heard last month that Hendy got an invite to this years world championships but turned it down. Not sure what that meant though. Did it mean he was given a bye to the last round of qualifiers?
Personally think a few places in the main tournament proper could be reserved for players like Hendry and Jimmy and it would be better for it. They are still bigger draws from a spectator, tv and sponsorship point of view. No one would be missing out if the other players knew in advance some places were being kept for these special case players.

No no no Paddy, we can`t have elitist wildcards. All players should earn their place there, Jimmy has shown us he doesn`t deserve a place in the top 32. It would be cringe worthy watching him get destroyed in the first round. No point of the cries of "Jimmy" and then he can`t get a 40 break. He can not entertain anymore, it does not make for good TV. Like watching an overweight heavyweight holding on for 12 rounds.

He will always be the peoples champion Angel Gabriel and snooker like any sport should be about the people who watch it.

He might not be a top 32 player but he is box office and we have all cried with Jimmy and you have wildcards in lots of sports including the masters golf which has just finished. Think snooker is missing out not having a few wildcards.

Put it another way Angel Gabriel. If you were in a supermarket and Graeme Dott was down one aisle doing his shopping and Jimmy was down another aisle getting a few bits and pieces which aisle are you casually going to walk down.

Your not seriously comparing a golf tournament to a snooker tournament are you? Golf a sport that you are not facing anyone else and just playing yourself to get the best possible score. It's the WORLD championships, not the Pontins exhibition. It should go to the 32 players in the world who qualify and deserve it.

Maybe we should give Michael Johnson a free pass to the Olympics? Nigel Mansell a car for the Monaco GP? It's not fair to the young lads who slog their guts out travelling to places like China, India and Australia trying to make a name for themselves in the game.

Don't see why they should have a pop at him, he is supplying the vehicle, every one gets the same chance, some will make good money and others will fail, but they all get the chance it is up to them what they make of it, don't blame Hearne if you are not good enough.
When my son finished school we gave him a chance to try making a living playing snooker, at the club he played 4 of them got as much time on the tables as they wanted, they brushed the tables and did a hour or so cleaning the club each day for as much table time they wanted.
Cost wise it was not a lot really, coming straight from school none of them needed much money and the parents took turns in getting them to tournaments most weekends, as long as my son was working at his game I didn't mind supporting him in his venture. It will be the same with the lower ranked players many will get help from the family whilst they try to make a breakthrough.
I was looking at the prize fund for this season, if a player wins 50% of his matches he would be on 24k for the year, if a player can't win 50% of his matches after a few years then maybe he has to accept he may not be good enough. The main tour are not the only tournaments, there are pro\ams and smaller events as well. lower ranked players can pick up a bit from these as the top players won't bother with those events. Going back a fair few years but I remember Steve Newbury picking up over 30k one year whilst still being a postman.

Fair points about the oldies in the masters being there for show and are not competing in a knock out event.

But we are talking about just two or three wildcard places at most and they would only be for players such as a Jimmy or Hendry or the other handful of greats still playing when they are unlikely to qualify by right.

Just my opinion. I respect others will disagree.

And no I am not talking about giving permanent wildcards to jimmy, davis or Hendry when they are 70 years of age. I mean this year when they can still play to a reasonable level.

Goodnight all.

That will probably come in time, it will be the seniors tour. But I do not think there should be wildcards for the oldies, personally  I would rather watch Dott than Jimmy nowadays.

As for the Masters where you could say that it is ok to have the oldies I can accept that as long as they are paired together, I was not rite for Hass and Dufner to have to play with Crenshaw, really did their chances no good at all.

Don't think there should be wildcards for the older legends.
Small field World Championship so it should be for the players capable. All the lads starting out, trying to make a career deserve their chance through the Quals against allcomers.

Can't help but miss seeing Hendry play in the big one tho.

Nice story that AG, can picture the look on Hendry's face when he first found out.
It may have all been about winning for Hendry, but I reckon this Phil Mickleson quote from a TV commercial a few years back sums up how many players in lots of sports feel, " I hate losing more than I enjoy winning"

Jimmy will get a wildcard to play in the qualifiers when he's not on tour next year, think that's fair enough, and don't see why Reanne Evans shouldn't be considered for a tour exemption either, and that's not just because Ronnie says she should.

Superb comment from Hendry, AG. A rare attitude in any sport nowadays.

Would give any Crucible finalist a w/c into the qualifiers, but when it gets down to the last 32 proper you can't be having 'easy' draws.

If you are giving wildcards for the reasons advocated above then Reanne has to be in too, she is probably ahead of White in terms of generating publicity in media.

Personally, I think if you call yourself a sport and you call an event the World Championship only the best can take part.

So Matthew Selt thinks the system is all wrong and Hearn is biased towards the top players, it did not seem like that to me so just had a look. I will use 3 seasons winnings to start off with, season ending 1993 as that was Ronnie's first season and am going to use that to compare with Selt's this year, season ending 2010 because that was the season prior to Hearn taking charge, and the current season, although this season totals will not include the World Championship of course.

Firstly how much money did highest money earner win each of these years, followed by the 10th, 20th, 50th, 75th and 100th.

1992-93 1st 451,950  10th 87,825  20th 40,450  50th 10,950  75th 5,450  100th 3,125
2009-10 1st 427,935  10th 133,740 20th 56,260  50th 19,425  75th 5,300  100th 1,400
2014-15 1st 422,450  10th 218,000 20th 101,334 50th 37,649  75th 20,183 100th 10,000

Total prize fund for each year, 1993-94 3.8m, 2009-10 4.2m, 2014-15 7.3m.

I don't think those figures shows Hearn being biased towards the top players.

Have the figures gone up because there are far more tournaments? not really there was 25 tournaments in 1993-94, 23 in 2009-10 and 26 this season, 27 if you count the senior championship.

Finally lets compare Selt's current season with Ronnie's first season on tour just to see how unfair people are being to him. to start with if Selt can close todays game out in which he leads 6-3 he will win 12k with the chance of much more of course, even if he loses today he gets 9k for winning through 2 rounds.
Ronnie by contrast had to win 10 matches in his first World Championship before losing the 11th game in the last 32 stage, he got 8k for that.

Ronnie 1992-93 season Ranking events only.

Dubai Classic  won 7 games lost in last 96,  winnings 250 pounds ( blinking Pound sign don't work on this computer)
Grand Prix  won 9 games lost in last 64,  winnings 2,000
UK Championship  won 10 games, lost in last 32,  winnings 3,375
Welsh Open  won 10 games lost in last 32,  winnings 1,375
European Open  won 11 games lost in Q/F,  winnings 5,000
British Open  won 5 games lost in round 6,  No winnings, well you only won 5 games, what can you expect.
Asian Open  won 10 games lost in last 32,  1,500
International Open  won 8 games lost in last 32, winnings 1,250
World Champs won 10 games lost in last 32,  winnings 8,000

Won 89 games to earn 22,750, total for season was 40,450 from all events

Selt's current season Ranking events only
 
Wuxi Classic  won 1 game lost in last 64, winnings 3,000
Australian Open  No wins lost in last 96,  winnings 83
Shanghai Masters  won 3 games lost in last 32,  6,000
International open  won 1 game lost in last 64, winnings 3,000
UK Championship  won 3 games lost in last 16,  winnings 12,000
German Masters  won 2 games lost in last 32, winnings 2,500
Welsh Open  won 2 games lost in last 32,  winnings 2,500
Indian Open  won 2 games lost in last 32, winnings 3,000
Grand Prix  won 1 game lost in last 16,  winnings 5,000
Players Grand Final won 2 games lost in Q\F,  winnings  12,500
China Open  won 1 game lost in last 64, winnings 3,000
World Champs won 2 games so far,  winnings minimum of 9,000

Won 20 games to earn  61,583,  total for season was 107,483 with possibly more to come.

Must be a real pain for Selt having to start in the first round in most tournaments, so unfair eh?

If an average player had been playing those tournaments instead of Ronnie is it any surprise that so many could not afford to continue, win 1 game now and you get something, in 1992-93 you could win 11 games and get nothing!!
In 2009-2010 the year prior to Hearn you could still play 6 games and come away with nothing.

Hearn promised to make the game fairer, the top 16 still get benefits in that they are seeded and get strait through to the Worlds and other invitation events, but any one starting now has a better chance of moving up the rankings and as Hearn says "knock the top players off their perch"

I think Hearn is doing what he promised and think snooker will benefit from it.

Has Selt been complaining about earnings vs expenses for the lower ranked players then?

I can understand why the late draw has been an issue but every lowly ranked player worth his selt, would be gunning for at least a couple quarter finals or more. The opportunities are there to progress, what more do they want? Their sponsors will chip for some of the expenses, and they can always set up private money matches.

I've been a massive Jimmy fan for over 30 yrs but he should think himself lucky to get a chance in the first Qualifying round - Crenshaw got in the masters as a double past champion and all previous champs get invited and this has been the status quo for yrs, players know its probably the hardest major to get an invite too, but also the easiest to win cos there is less competition

advocating seedings for previous finalists is getting very tenuous - however great Jimmy was, on merit, you could argue Ebdons record is as good (3 finals, one win) - I cant see 20 million viewers tuning in to watch Peter chalking his cue for 45 seconds at a time

only way is to do it on merit - the previous system worked perfectly - harsh on 17-32 ranked players this way who have earned the right to be one game away from the Crucible

To be fair to Selt the only complaints i saw him make were about the world championship format and he wasn't the only one having a go about it. Now he may be a total bell end for all i know, but at least he's willing to put himself out there and i'd respect him for that. There's a difference between self-serving moaning and voicing a legitimate grievance. I bet there were a hell of a lot of lower ranked players out there secretly thanking Selt for saying things they'd only have the balls to say in private.

I don't get why a lot of lower ranked players would secretly be thanking Selt?

Because on a general level i'd say there exists a fair bit of distrust and dislike of Hearn personally and of the changes he's introduced, so when they see somebody like Selt sticking it to him, fairly ineffectually it must be said, i'd guess a lot of them would secretly enjoy it. Not necessarily saying they're right, or that i know that for a fact, i'm not close to the tour so obviously i don't, but i'm sure he can't be alone. Hearn, for all the good things he's done, will always be a divisive figure and fairness can be a highly elusive concept.

But I do think Selt landed a couple of solid blows. The qualifiers provided good drama, and underlined the superiority of the longer format, but i don't think the structure is quite right and i'd love to hear a review of the conditions at Ponds Forge as from any of the pics I saw it looked worse than Prestatyn!

It would not matter who was running the tour there would always be plenty who would prefer someone else to be doing it, each player in the top 64 got a vote and Hearn was the choice, I can't see a lot he has done wrong, players have a stronger tour developing, a massively fairer ranking system now it is based on money won and  re-ranked after every ranking tournament and more money to play for and not just for the top few, hence Ronnie moaning that there is no money in snooker, but Selt gets more than double what a player in his ranking would have got the year before Hearn took over.

I am sure the tour as it is now is not the finished article things will be tweaked year on year, but if Selt don't like it I certainly don't respect the guy for slamming Hearn on social media, and certainly not the most effective way of getting any changes he thinks there should be. I agree the Qualifiers followed on close after China, but many sportsmen travel from one side of the world to the other with even less days between tournaments, As for not knowing who he had to play in 3 days time, that's just a pointless moan you don't know who you are playing the next day in most tournaments.

As for not knowing who he had to play in 3 days time, that's just a pointless moan you don't know who you are playing the next day in most tournaments.


I can see why the players are annoyed at not knowing when they are playing, as the draw is left so close to the start of the tournament. I think that this is the issue trebor when not who. The system of re ranking after every ranking event obviously stalls the draw system. The alternative which Selt has suggested is to make the draws for ALL the tournaments at the start of the season and then you can judge what number you fall at for any upcoming tournament. Obviously the danger with that is corruption as some players will start losing on deliberately to avoid playing someone.

^ Although what i just typed points to who perhaps being the issue but it`s more to do with not knowing what dates to book your flight and hotel. They want to get the best advanced deal like the rest of us when we book.

Again I see that as a very reasonable question to be asking. Why the draw couldn't have been made an hour after the China was finished is a mystery to me. For an overseas player a Ryanair flight that cost 50 quid one day could be 250 quid the following day. Thats obviously what Selt and others are asking, why the need for any delay in making the draw?

I dont think making draws at the start of the year is a practical solution, but they could be made before the start of the previous ranking event, as places won't be altered that much by the end of it, or failing that, they should be made the night of the final and immediately posted on world snooker, which would give them some actual news to print for a change.

What the players can't acknowledge for fear of scorn is that the over-stuffed calendar is at the root of the issue. There are too many tournaments and logistical difficulties are the inevitable outcome. There should be a minimum of 4 weeks between ranking events and none of this would arise. In solving some problems, they are merely creating more.

Btw it's not that i hold any flame for Selt, a lot of the stuff he's going on with on twitter is mind-bogglingly dull and puerile, a chronic waste of time, but to be honest Hearn is just as bad, rising to the bait and giving off this "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" vibe. Maybe i'm old-fashioned but I dont believe the figurehead of a major sport should be so active on twitter, engaging in verbals with players or indeed any mug who fancies having a cut. Then again, he's in the promotion business so I guess it's grist to the old mill with him.

Yes I can agree with the when you play, it is what I meant but did not put very clearly when I said it followed on a bit close to China, and the same can be said with todays draw and not knowing if you start the World Championship Saturday morning or Wednesday afternoon and certainly one of the tweaks needed.

As I said above one of the biggest plus points is the change to the money list and regular re-ranking, it gives the players choice of when and where to compete and would not want to see it go back to knowing months ahead who you will be playing, and playing the same person many times in a season because of your ranking at the start of the year.
In the 15 year spell that Davis and Hendry dominated the number one ranking the 8th ranked player only managed to improve their ranking in 2 of the 15 seasons, one was Ronnie and the other was Joe Johnson the 2nd year he got to the world finals.
A ranking position can be quite a handicap and needs to be fluid to be fair.

Again I see that as a very reasonable question to be asking. Why the draw couldn't have been made an hour after the China was finished is a mystery to me. For an overseas player a Ryanair flight that cost 50 quid one day could be 250 quid the following day. Thats obviously what Selt and others are asking, why the need for any delay in making the draw?
Yep can agree with that.

What the players can't acknowledge for fear of scorn is that the over-stuffed calendar is at the root of the issue. There are too many tournaments and logistical difficulties are the inevitable outcome. There should be a minimum of 4 weeks between ranking events and none of this would arise. In solving some problems, they are merely creating more.
But can't agree with that, why can there not be tournaments every week? It is a money list that the players get ranked by now, so players are free to choose when and where to play, does Tennis or Golf suffer by having events for 11 months of the year? I would not expect a player to play in every single event, Bingham, Perry and Mavis seem to want try too, but most seem to realise it will not harm there ranking if they miss some.

There should be benefits for getting into the top 16 or 32 etc and as I see it there is, seeded through to the Crucible the Masters and the Grand Prix, but not to the degree that it was for so many years where once in the top 16 a player had to have a terrible two seasons before they dropped out, and that is how it was when run by player, many of whom where in the top 16, Being run by Hearn who is prepared to be unpopular seems good to me.

To clarify, when i said ranking tournaments, I was talking about the major ones, they should be better spaced out and not crammed into the last couple of months when the whole thing just seems incredibly convoluted. Maybe it's just a straightforward issue of scheduling. Why, for example, there seem to be so many gaps in the calendar between August-October while there's barely a free day February-May? That seems an anomaly to me but maybe there's an explanation for it that I'm not aware of.

I appreciate what you're saying makes sense. More tournaments = more opportunities for players to progress = more money in their pocket (although more expense too but we'll assume they're still in profit after deductions). But merely keeping players happy isn't what a governing body should be about. It should be about making the game a better sport, a more appealing spectacle, and I have my doubts this is happening. The difference between tennis and golf is that those sports are awash with cash, sponsorship and tv deals and have 100s of players who are competitive and can win tournaments. Golf can support at least 3 different tours as well as lots of satellite tours. The difference say between the No.50 ranked tennis player in the world and the No.250 is not actually all that great.

Snooker is not at that level and never will be. It can't sustain week to week interest beyond the few hardcore who make a living out of it. Of course, as a viewer, I am free to tune in and out at my leisure, but after watching a lot of snooker this season, I cannot help but arrive at the conclusion that the general standard of tournament play was poor, too many players seem to be struggling for motivation, and the only reason I can ascribe this to is overkill.

I realise it's not all about me either, of course, but I do remember a time when I really looked forward to the big tournaments, now they just seem to arrive one after the other, nothing to particularly get excited about. I believe there's an optimum level of exposure and the quality of the product suffers when it gets breached. I remember when Cheltenham was a 3-day festival and it felt insufficient, always left you wanting more, but then they made it 4, compromised the quality and left you feeling bloated and equally unfulfilled. The temptation is always to go for more, especially when commerce is involved, but finding the right balance is vital for the long term benefit of the sport.

Good post John, can't disagree with much there, other than "Snooker is not at that level and never will be". Well the way it was going I agree with that statement, but under Hearn it has a chance, what is the UK, less than 1% of the world population, 99% of the world no nothing (John Snow) about snooker, just get another 5% interested and involved over the next 20 years or so and where would it be then?

I know we see a lot of snooker but we sit here day after day working on it through streamed pictures, don't think the general public feel there is an overkill of snooker?

As I say maybe I am just an optimist but I like to think that there are better times ahead for snooker and all the guys who play it.

Fair point trebor, i do think global expansion is a reasonable policy to pursue, i just hope it leads to new generations of young players who are exciting to watch and want to entertain. I have nothign against China or Chinese people, but the players emerging from there all seem a little robotic to me, as if they are taught or coached to play the game that way? Maybe i'm being harsh, just seems that way watching them.

Anyway, as we are on the cusp of my fav 2 sporting weeks of the year, i'm going to lay off the hearn bashing and just sit back and enjoy the show. I can forgive a multitude of sins so long as the Crucible and the long-match format remains sacrosanct!

I know nothing about M.Selt as a person, nor do I follow him on twitter, but the clearance he produced against T.Ford in the final frame of their World qualifier on Wednesday was superb, and I do not use that word lightly. Ford had rallied from 5-9 to 8-9 and led by 64 in the next before Selt cleared. However, given the closeness of his 3 wins in qualifying (all 10-8) and the level of intensity he brought to those matches I'm a bit worried about him being ready again on Sunday morning. Had the match been scheduled a few days later I'd have considered backing him against a bang out-of-form B.Hawkins, but I'm not sure he'll be as mentally fresh as I'd like him to be, although the 2nd seesion is not until Monday morning.

hes just taken a brutal kicking from hawkins

Didn`t like the way he smiled at someone in the crowd when Hawkins had to get up off his shot when the mobile phone had gone off for the second time and the referee was addressing security to remove the phone.

The smile was that of ` ooh this is good, perhaps i have a lifeline `

agreed AG - thought that was a poor show from Selt