After a scrappy start, John Higgins finally began to stamp his authority over the final last night, potting his way to an overnight lead of 11-5 over rival Shaun Murphy. But away from the table, the buzz this year has been about the potential introduction of a new, shorter form of the game christened “Super 6s”. In an effort to emulate the excitement generated by Twenty20 cricket, snooker’s governing body is trying to shake things up and find a way to increase the popularity of the game. But is this a change too far? Does snooker really need sexing up? Should the World Snooker body be pandering to people with the attention span of goldfish? Click through to have your say.

Related: Top 5 TV snooker commentators | Snooker: The times they are a-changing

There’s not been a lot of coverage of the super6s idea this year, although I did catch the final of the inaugural tournament between blast-from-the-past name Tony Knowles and probably a blast-from-the-future: the Junior Pot Black champion Ross Muir.

Super 6s – which if you haven’t heard keeps all the rules the same apart from starting the frame with 6 reds instead of 15 – appears on the face of it to be a bastard child of proper snooker. The tournament was arranged as a sudden-death, single-frame knockout which offers almost no hope of recovery from a single mistake or, as was seen in the final, can lead to an easy win following a fluke. But maybe that’s the point. The speed of the game and the fact that sometimes anything can happen may appeal to a younger generation more used to instant gratification through their Wiis and PS3s.

At the other end of the generational spectrum, it’s also said to appeal to the old stagers (like Knowles, along with his contemporaries like Dennis Taylor and Neal Foulds who competed in the “legends” side of the draw) who don’t have the eyes or the stamina for the long game any more, but who are still famous enough to attract an audience.

All this kerfuffle was originally stirred up by Ronnie O’Sullivan’s comments last year that the game was “dying” and “becoming boring.” Is that true? Or is that just one player’s perspective? A player who, after all, is almost as famous for his struggle to maintain his enthusiasm for the game as he is for his battles on the baize. Why should one man – even three-times World Champion and World Number 1 O’Sullivan – be allowed to steer the course of snooker’s future when his outlook on the game is so jaded? And is there really a dearth of new young blood coming into the game when every year a new face is seen in the championship?

Steve Davis had some good ideas of how to make Super6s sufficiently different from the normal game to stand out. Things like doing away with the miss rule, forcing shots to hit at least one cushion to prevent roll-up snookers, and introducing the “ball in hand” rule from 9-ball pool after a foul. This could really mix things up and make them interesting, but what does it have to do with snooker? For many people, the interest is not in seeing players banging in huge easy breaks, but in the tactical play, and the positional shots that lead to slow and increasingly tense break-building. So does snooker need to change? And if so, is Super6s the way to go? What do you think?