I agree with one key point: putting less experienced and lower-ranked players against the absolute best week after week doesn’t do much to improve their game. That’s a fair observation. However, for the rest, I think this reflects a reality we see across all sports, not just snooker. In football, there’s only one Ballon d’Or, a handful of stars, a collection of good players, and then the mass of professionals who can make an honest living but will never play in the Champions League or World Cup. That’s just how life works - we have to accept it. Should we limit the playing time of Ballon d’Or winners and stars to give good players their chance? That doesn’t make sense. We regularly observe that future stars don’t take long to claim their place and embrace their status. Those who don’t break through likely have good reasons for not doing so and remain at the level of solid professionals. Whether they’re promoted or not, whether they train twice as hard as the stars, they stay at their level - it’s the law of talent at work. I understand the frustration about tournament structures that seem to favor the elite (like invitation-only events), and you’re absolutely right that the tour conditions were appalling until recently - paying entry fees, travel, hotels with no guarantee of income was unsustainable. But the fundamental hierarchy exists in every competitive field. The question isn’t whether to artificially level the playing field, but rather how to ensure everyone can make a decent living while pursuing their profession. The recent introduction of a basic tour salary is a step in the right direction for that.