That's the kind of thing I was getting at anyway. Just seems a shame where we played a first to 7 in the final. Happens in pretty much all tournaments too.

A first to 16 (or even a first to 13 with 8 of each) sounds much more appealing than a first to 7.

longer final seems nice, nothing too drastic though, i think best of 25 would be okay for a final, Best of 31 seems too long.

Well, it can't be either of those really as the breaks need to be equal and the amount of games of each type needs to be equal.

Could do;

First rounds - Best of 12 (4 of each type)
Quarters - Best of 18 (6 of each type)
Semis - Best of 18 (6 of each type)
Final - Best of 24 (8 of each type)

It all depends on how many frames people would be willing to play. Personally I would have loved the final to be best of 24 frames but I'd understand if others didn't. 30 would be even better but that's probably too much for most peoples tastes

You could mate if you add the "Tie Breaker" frame which i did, effectively the current format is a Best of 13 (4 of each + 1 tie breaker).

I was thinking along your idea mate, Best of 19 Quarter and Semi and Best of 25 Final or First to 10/13.

My idea would be...

Rounds - Best of 13 (4 of each + 1 tie breaker)
Quarters - Best of 15 (If this FCL style couldn't happen due to no tie breaker then Best of 19)
Semis - Best of 19 (6 of each + 1 tie breaker)
Final - Best of 25 (8 of each + 1 tie breaker)

If 30 frames was added...

Rounds - Best of 13 (4 of each + 1 tie breaker)
Quarters - Best of 19 (6 of each + 1 tie breaker)
Semis - Best of 25 (8 of each + 1 tie breaker)
Final - Best of 31 (10 of each + 1 tie breaker)

Would be my suggestion

I'd prefer a Clan Tournament for each format, tho ya may end up with smaller/bigger numbers depending on what Players choose to participate in.
Sticking with 8us, 9us and 8uk.......,and possibly Str8 if the interest for it was shown.

Check mine on FCL discussion mate, thats more what your thinking of

This looks about right. It's logical to have longer matches in the latter stages of any competition, and I can't think why any top player wouldn't want this kind of format. After all, the final 8 are most likely going to be among the game's elite!

id like to see a full shake up

to represent the best overall clan player, who can deal with all situations

play 3 of each all, with a clock of 20 seconds
8 ball
9 ball
uk

then add in home and away choice
3 frames of the players choice
any of the 3 formats
with the clock being set by the home player
be it 5 seconds to 20
then reverse for the away player,

it gives it an edge

why not ?
3 games of each format
6 of home and away

its exciting and will always give an edge to every game

why play 20 or 30 frames
make it exciting
if your not at the races tough

it makes it unpredictable surely that's good for
the competition isn't it

1 If you want the best overall clan player, why do you want an unpredictable clan tournament?

2 Uneven number of frames will lead to an uneven number of breaks

3 I hate to play 5 seconds clocks - Why would an opponent be allowed to select 5 seconds when I can't select 90?

and that's why
a great clan player, can play all formats and can be adaptable

are you not adaptable ?

there are few great players who play 5 and 10 sec games
who think and see the table for what it is
as there are potters and safety players

why would they not have the choice of playing their format
instead of being forced to adjust to preferences
that don't suit them

make the tournament a one for the best player to win
why should the format only suit a select bunch of players

I'm not saying there are 100s of 10 sec players
but I know I would you use it, against a lot of players
and why not, its a tactic that makes the opposing player uncomfortable

is that not good for the game

again
the format structure is
8 ball 1st
9 ball 2nd
uk 3rd

why ?
the format is set for potters
safety play and potting in uk is last also
you could be out, before you get to your preferred game type

or the one you excel in

my format would make it fun for everyone, make it tactical
good for potting

and not forgetting
its home and away

your talking about 3 frames out of 15
players may not use the 5 sec clock anyway
but its an option

I didn't say I had an issue with somebody selecting a 5 second clock. What I said was why can somebody select a 5 second clock against me but I can't select a 90 second clock against them? 90 seconds is my preferred time limit.

Again - The more unpredictable a tournament format is the more likely a player wins by luck instead of skill - Hence not finding the best clan player as you say.

What's your actual proposal?

3 frames of US, 9 Ball & UK then an additional 3 frames of each players choosing?

How do you decide home and away in the later stages? Why should one player get an arbitrary advantage of choosing first? Why should one player get more breaks than the other?

As you say you can change the order the games are played though if that is wanted.

like ^
The very reason I prefer league-type formats over knock-outs, frame-count over match-count.

I too, like the increase in frames in later stages.

Just depends on what you want the tournament to be. If you want it to determine the best player, you increase the format.
If you want it to be an individuals tournament, then normal formats will do as well. That has the charm that not only the same top players end up in the last 4 or 8 every season. The Golden Cue table is already a pretty good indicator of who had the best season or who is the best player.

Either way, Craig's idea is crap lol. Keep it simple.

Great players like shorter times? Some do for the fast pace, but often the frames are decided by who makes fewer mistakes rather than who plays better. That's why most of the top players, particularly runout players, like te 90 second shot clock. So they play their best stuff, no rushing or random shots to ruins good game and shots can be fully thought out.

Games can be played in any order, there just needs to be a standard so there is something to fall on when players disagree. That's just common sense. It doesn't suit any player more than the rest because all game types can be played in any style.

Your format makes it unfair and suit specific people on several ways: shorter time players, people who get more breaks, even the home and away element gives advantages where an opponent picks a type suited to you but your type doesn't suit them (e.g I like the 8 ball types, you like the US types and you pick 8us and I pick 8uk, I gain an advantage because all types haven't been played to even things out).

This is far weaker and bias than the current system which is well balanced (bonuses removed to give no advantage to a potter over a safety player), even breaks so no chance of running the rack every frame yet losing. The standard time limit which suits all players (rather than giving an advantage to quick players).

that's your opinion
doesn't mean its right

More frames means the best player will go through unless the underdog outplays them. That is how it should be. More frames make it more difficult, and gives more prestige because you have to play well to win. If you want unpredictability then just have everyone play a single frame. You say good players need adaptability, but often then need patience and to take their chances. A good player will take their chances, even if they have to wait for them where others would lose heart. Long formats mean you can comeback even late on, where the shorter ones mean it is over before a comeback can grow.

You say you want a tournament which the best player will win, yet you want a format In which the best players don't flourish and can be beaten with luck. In short, I agree with Seb. If you want the best player to win, have the format which allows them to show they're the best.

there are many players
who play speed tournaments
who are fabulous players, who don't play clan pool

they know the table at a glance, so why should they be disadvantaged waiting for a player to take 90 seconds or 20 for that matter

the game is and should be inclusive for all
not the limited few

7000 members
less than 140 play clan pool

that's a fact not an opinion

Same for yours, I just used reason and logic.

There is no disadvantage to a speed player in the longer time limits, rather thy don't gain an advantage over slower players. They should wait because that is the standard time, fair for all. Why is the reverse no true? Why can't it be only 20 seconds and above? You want to cater for these people by disadvantaging another group (so some have an advantage and some a disadvantage), because that is a fairer system?

Your answer to making clans more inclusive for everybody is to make the format suit a minority, do you honestly not see the huge flaw in your idea?

Unless this version of craig is different to the one a few seasons ago, I think I know the answer.

ok I'll leave again

no what is the minority ????????????
is less than
140 clan members playing

6 860 clan members not playing
weak logic

figures are factual, maybe not accurate to 1 or 2
but overall about right