Detailed Schedule for the coming Championship League Snooker now available

WST has now published the detailed schedule for the CLS starting on Sunday

The match schedule for the first stage of the Championship League is now available.

Click here for the fixtures

Judd Trump, Ronnie O’Sullivan, Mark Selby, John Higgins and Neil Robertson are among the players contesting the world ranking event at the Marshall Arena in Milton Keynes.

Stage one is played across two blocks of eight days: September 13-20 and September 28–October 5. This stage features 32 groups of four players, with two tables per day hosting one group each. The player who tops each group will progress to Stage Two.

Details of how to watch the event will be released shortly. For more details about the event CLICK HERE

 

4 thoughts on “Detailed Schedule for the coming Championship League Snooker now available

  1. OK, so they’ve managed a 11am start this time, so none of the really late night finishes. If they can do that, I would actually prefer it if they played each group through on 2 tables at once. That way:
    (1) You get 2 climaxes per day, when the groups come to a finish
    (2) Table 1 can usually show the seeded player throughout, so there is decent quality
    (3) Every player in the competition gets at least 1 match on Table 1, giving them some welcome exposure
    The objection to this idea was that it would take longer (both tables have to start matches at the same time, so there are gaps waiting for the other to catch up). Also, I heard that cleaning the tables and equipment is an issue (although actually there were some swaps in June). The extra hours probably helps meet those objections.

    I’ve spoken before about the problems cause by the ‘high-break’ rule. It takes a very sharp mind to see all the ramifications of that, but here’s a puzzling one:

    Three players A, B and C end up on 5 points, each beating Player D 3-0 and drawing 2-2 with each other. Player A made a 75 break, Player B made a 70 and Player C a 65. But in the very last frame, A lost against C by making 3 consecutive misses, denying him the chance of overtaking his break. It’s a very difficult decision (a thin safety from the baulk cushion?), but the tournament director decides A did it deliberately, so disqualifies him. But who qualifies from the group?

    Monique, you’re a mathematician, work that one out!

    • It’s more a matter of command of the english language than mathematics for me. My understanding of “disqualify” is that 1. the disqualified player loses the match that was in progress when the offence happened, no matter the score when it happened 2. the disqualified players is not allowed to further play in the event 3. results of previously completed matches by that player stand. If this is correct then C qualifies because they have won two matches: they have beaten D by 3-0, and they have beaten A who was disqualified for deliberately fouling during that match, so C ends on 7 points. B still is on 5 points, A on 3 points and D on 0 points. High break doesn’t come into the equation.

      • That’s actually the most sensible answer! Disqualify A and award a 3-0 win in the last match!

        The next question would then be what if A, B and C had each finished on 6 points, with 3-0 wins (against D and against each other), but with a similar last frame. So C wins 3-0 either way, but doesn’t get the chance to overtake the higher breaks by A and B…

        Anyway, this is all very unsatisfactory, and I’m afraid the usual answer “oh well this would never happen” is not an acceptable viewpoint for devising rules for a professional tournament. Luca Brecel did win a group with a highest break, and he did forfeit a frame with 3 consecutive misses…

        My main objection is that after 9 hours of play, a tight group can then suddenly collapse into a dead frame as happened in the Brecel-Lisowski match. This is a huge anticlimax. It’s bad sport, and bad TV.

      • For me, the main underlying issue here is snooker’s far too strong reliance on bookies for their sponsoring. the “highest break” rule pobably offers a lot more opportunities for gambling, including in play, than a possible blue ball shoot-out. They use the blue ball shoot-out in case of a tie in the Shoot-out. Why not here? For me the answer lays in the first sentence of this comment.

Comments are closed.