Quick fire fun in Glasgow?

This weekend was a treat for sport lovers, and for me in particular. Obviously nothing can better the glamour and trepidation of Formula 1, but Snooker comes pretty close in my world. This does hold a degree of irony, considering the vast gulf in wealth and image of the two sports.

Whilst I was enjoying the Snooker World Open I was reminded of this gulf, and the social divides these two respective sports provide when juxtaposed so poignantly on the BBC Red Button! The working-class pub game on the one hand, and the frolics of the privileged few on the other.

I like to play up my working-class roots, hence I'm never ashamed to profess my love of staring at the balls on the baize every now and again. But I remain undecided about Barry Hearn's "revolutionary" new 5-frame format for the World Open, and if you love snooker you definitely love the long battles of the World Championship. So, I'm left feeling betrayed, as the sport tries to attract a new, impatient audience and neglects the adoration of its true supporters!

And why revert back to a traditional best of 9 in the final? This seemed to betray a week's worth of ranting about and analysis of the best of 5 frames format, making the finale just like that of any other tournament. I appreciate that the final should've arguably given each player a greater shot than the rest of the tournament provided, but why deny its entirely experimental nature when it matters most?

In reality, little really changed about the way each frame was played. There was just fewer of them. If Hearn really wants to make the game quicker and (allegedly) more exciting, then a time limit on shots seems the only solution. I certainly would welcome this as an experiment to mix things up. The performance of the sloth-paced Peter Ebdon in the World Open is proof enough that the new format doesn't automatically create a more exciting spectacle.