Crucible Classics #6

At number six in my countdown is:

6. 2002 Final: Peter Ebdon 18-17 Stephen Hendry
94(65)-0; 140(100)-0; 73-13; 71-16; 0-126(126); 40-73; 4-119(116); 36-65; 134(134)-0; 56(56)-67; 68(52)-9; 70-68(68); 77-14; 69(56)-13; 4-70; 89(89)-33; 69(68)-32; 0-126(104); 0-108(108); 21-66; 36-89(68); 67-43; 0-110; 0-97(93); 1-127(63,55); 58-65; 103(103)-22; 62-26; 30-74(58); 73(73)-21; 111(111)-0; 39-78(67); 85(85)-4; 52(51)-62; 72(59)-14

Match progress: 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, 4-0, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 5-4, 5-5, 6-5, 7-5, 8-5, 9-5, 9-6, 10-6, 11-6, 11-7, 11-8, 11-9, 11-10, 12-10, 12-11, 12-12, 12-13, 12-14, 13-14, 14-14, 14-15, 15-15, 16-15, 16-16, 17-16, 17-17, 18-17

What are your memories/observations of this Crucible Classic?

Considering Ebdon's snooker isn't the most free flowing I was expecting him to struggle at the start of this match as he had won a titanic battle with Stevens the previous night so I was very surprised when he went 4-0 up.

Hendry seemed to have the match in his grasp when he recovered from 6-11 to win 8 of 9 frames to lead 14-12. the next frame was crucial. Hendry was in first but broke down after a relatively easy miss and at this point Ebdon had to punish him otherwise it was over and Ebdon duly obliged with a century.

From then on there was never a frame in it and Ebdon appeared to be getting stronger and looked set for the win at 17-16 but then began to panic and Hendry saved the match.

Ebdon was all over the place at the start of the final frame and Hendry would surely capitalise? Hendry missed 3 good chances and Ebdon somehow regrouped and produced a great 59 break under severe pressure to win the match.

It was a bizarre final frame. And I reckon it would hasve been tough for Ebdon to ever play snooker again if he had lost. But it was Hendry left disappointed.

Ebdon played well but I reckon Hendry may have thought the title was his after seeing off favourite O'Sullivan in the semis.

Matthew Stevens was a fraction away from making the final and he would have almost have been as disappointed as Hendry at losing to Ebdon in the semis.

vodkadiet1 wrote:Ebdon played well but I reckon Hendry may have thought the title was his after seeing off favourite O'Sullivan in the semis.

I think he’s actually said as much.

Iranu wrote:

vodkadiet1 wrote:Ebdon played well but I reckon Hendry may have thought the title was his after seeing off favourite O'Sullivan in the semis.

I think he’s actually said as much.

And it has become snooker's great horseshit myth.


So when he went 0-4 down and got it back to 4-4, would he not have said to himself "right Stephen, don't let that happen again"?

When he went 6-11 down and got it back to 12-12, would he not have said to himself "right Stephen, don't let that happen again"?

Hendry was up against a savage competitor, the best player outside of the big four. This isn't Joe bucking Johnson we're talking about here.

If Hendry, the game's greatest-ever competitor, went into that match taking Peter Ebdon of all people lightly, then that would make him mentally disabled.

But of course he wasn't mentally disabled. He was just beaten by someone who was always capable of beating him.

I don’t think there’s any doubt that Ebdon was capable of beating him.

However, that doesn’t mean there’s no chance of Hendry underestimating Ebdon prior to the match, or that this underestimation may have contributed to him going 4-0 down in the first place. The fact that you think he would have thought, “Don’t let that happen again” suggests that he let it happen in the first place.

I think both things can be true. I don’t think Hendry was still underestimating Ebdon as the match went on.

Iranu wrote:I don’t think there’s any doubt that Ebdon was capable of beating him.

However, that doesn’t mean there’s no chance of Hendry underestimating Ebdon prior to the match, or that this underestimation may have contributed to him going 4-0 down in the first place. The fact that you think he would have thought, “Don’t let that happen again” suggests that he let it happen in the first place.

I think both things can be true. I don’t think Hendry was still underestimating Ebdon as the match went on.

I don't think he thought that at all. I'm presenting the hypothetical bull thinking pattern Hendry would have had to follow for his adoring fans' bull theory to be true.

In 1997, Hendry was well beaten in a World Final by Ken Doherty. Just five years later, he was going into a final against a player better than Doherty, and people expect us to believe he wouldn't have taken that player seriously? What a load of cockerel.

Swap Hendry for O'Sullivan, Hendry fans for O'Sullivan fans, and imagine how the O'Sullivan fans would be received for advancing such bull excuses. It wouldn't be pretty.

Hendry was known to lose concentration at times and I think it may have happened here. Anyway, maintaining concentration is an underestimated skill and if it in any way cost Hendry the match then that is a failing. As he got older it happened to him quite a lot.

This takes nothing away from Ebdon's win it is just a fact. That said Ebdon played above his usual standard.

That year's event was maybe the best along with 1998 and 1999. The Hendry vs Doherty match was worthy of any final. Matthew Stevens played the match of his life to thrash John Higgins and then you had the semis and final. Great standard.

At that point in their careers, Hendry had a 13-3 head-to-head record against Ebdon, including a 10-match win streak.

This match still annoys me. I always felt Ebdon wouldn't be able to beat Hendry is a 4 session match. Hendry made the mistake of underestimating him and losing crucial frames. I'm sure Hendry will look back at 2 disappointing defeats with this game being one of them and the Masters final 1998 being the other.

I don't think Stephen took journeyman Peter Ebdon seriously and probably lost his concentration for 18 of 35 frames. I think Stephen's name should probably go on the trophy for 2002. I am converted.

Pink Ball wrote:I don't think Stephen took journeyman Peter Ebdon seriously and probably lost his concentration for 18 of 35 frames. I think Stephen's name should probably go on the trophy for 2002. I am converted.

EAT CROW

Before this match, Ebdon hadn't beaten Hendry since 1995.

Pink Ball wrote:

Iranu wrote:I don’t think there’s any doubt that Ebdon was capable of beating him.

However, that doesn’t mean there’s no chance of Hendry underestimating Ebdon prior to the match, or that this underestimation may have contributed to him going 4-0 down in the first place. The fact that you think he would have thought, “Don’t let that happen again” suggests that he let it happen in the first place.

I think both things can be true. I don’t think Hendry was still underestimating Ebdon as the match went on.

I don't think he thought that at all. I'm presenting the hypothetical bull thinking pattern Hendry would have had to follow for his adoring fans' bull theory to be true.

In 1997, Hendry was well beaten in a World Final by Ken Doherty. Just five years later, he was going into a final against a player better than Doherty, and people expect us to believe he wouldn't have taken that player seriously? What a load of cockerel.

Swap Hendry for O'Sullivan, Hendry fans for O'Sullivan fans, and imagine how the O'Sullivan fans would be received for advancing such bull excuses. It wouldn't be pretty.

That’s not true. You said, “Would he not have thought...” etc. Not, “I don’t think he thought...”

Underestimating is not the same as not taking a player seriously. It’s also not necessarily a conscious thing. I’m sure that after he’d achieved the 7th world title Hendry’s intensity dropped a certain percentage even without him realising.

If this same match had happened in ‘99, I’m convinced Hendry would have won. Probably handily.

Iranu wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Iranu wrote:I don’t think there’s any doubt that Ebdon was capable of beating him.

However, that doesn’t mean there’s no chance of Hendry underestimating Ebdon prior to the match, or that this underestimation may have contributed to him going 4-0 down in the first place. The fact that you think he would have thought, “Don’t let that happen again” suggests that he let it happen in the first place.

I think both things can be true. I don’t think Hendry was still underestimating Ebdon as the match went on.

I don't think he thought that at all. I'm presenting the hypothetical bull thinking pattern Hendry would have had to follow for his adoring fans' bull theory to be true.

In 1997, Hendry was well beaten in a World Final by Ken Doherty. Just five years later, he was going into a final against a player better than Doherty, and people expect us to believe he wouldn't have taken that player seriously? What a load of cockerel.

Swap Hendry for O'Sullivan, Hendry fans for O'Sullivan fans, and imagine how the O'Sullivan fans would be received for advancing such bull excuses. It wouldn't be pretty.

That’s not true. You said, “Would he not have thought...” etc. Not, “I don’t think he thought...”

Underestimating is not the same as not taking a player seriously. It’s also not necessarily a conscious thing. I’m sure that after he’d achieved the 7th world title Hendry’s intensity dropped a certain percentage even without him realising.

If this same match had happened in ‘99, I’m convinced Hendry would have won. Probably handily.

And what part of that isn't presenting it as a hypothetical that never actually bucking happened?

Ebdon's first 4 career victories against Hendry (including this one) were one in deciders. It wasn't until their 19th match against each other that Ebdon won by more than a single frame.

vodkadiet1 wrote:That year's event was maybe the best along with 1998 and 1999.

1998 was nothing special. The standard was very high in 1999, but the Higgins-Williams semi-final and the final were very meh.

2002, 2003 and 2011 were the best championships in my opinion. 2004 was also very good, but the final let it down with a bang, much like 1999.

2013 was the worst. Although 1985 was also snake hiss poor.

D4P wrote:Ebdon's first 4 career victories against Hendry (including this one) were one in deciders. It wasn't until their 19th match against each other that Ebdon won by more than a single frame.

I think we’ve all agreed by now that Hendry gifted this final to Ebdon. Kind.

Pink Ball wrote:

Iranu wrote:

Pink Ball wrote:

Iranu wrote:I don’t think there’s any doubt that Ebdon was capable of beating him.

However, that doesn’t mean there’s no chance of Hendry underestimating Ebdon prior to the match, or that this underestimation may have contributed to him going 4-0 down in the first place. The fact that you think he would have thought, “Don’t let that happen again” suggests that he let it happen in the first place.

I think both things can be true. I don’t think Hendry was still underestimating Ebdon as the match went on.

I don't think he thought that at all. I'm presenting the hypothetical bull thinking pattern Hendry would have had to follow for his adoring fans' bull theory to be true.

In 1997, Hendry was well beaten in a World Final by Ken Doherty. Just five years later, he was going into a final against a player better than Doherty, and people expect us to believe he wouldn't have taken that player seriously? What a load of cockerel.

Swap Hendry for O'Sullivan, Hendry fans for O'Sullivan fans, and imagine how the O'Sullivan fans would be received for advancing such bull excuses. It wouldn't be pretty.

That’s not true. You said, “Would he not have thought...” etc. Not, “I don’t think he thought...”

Underestimating is not the same as not taking a player seriously. It’s also not necessarily a conscious thing. I’m sure that after he’d achieved the 7th world title Hendry’s intensity dropped a certain percentage even without him realising.

If this same match had happened in ‘99, I’m convinced Hendry would have won. Probably handily.

And what part of that isn't presenting it as a hypothetical that never actually bucking happened?

A hypothetical that you presented as supporting or referencing your own argument. If that’s not how you meant to present it, you presented it incorrectly. The phrase, “Do you not think” means, “Do you not agree with me”.

It doesn’t make any sense to say it to support the horseshit myth that you were disputing.

What the buck is going on here?

Pink Ball wrote:2013 was the worst

A tale of two sides of the draw.

Ronnie's quarter-final featured 4 players who are now world champions, 3 of which have also won the career triple crown.

The other quarter-final featured 0 world champions, and just 1 player (Ding) who has won a UK and/or Masters.

Hendry has said when he beat ROS he thought there was no way he would lose the final.

Call it overconfident if you want. But Ebdon played the match of his life and duly won. He deserves every credit, in fact he also beat Hendry at the 2006 UK Champs Final.

Hendry admits in his autobiography that he took his opponent too lightly, especially at the beginning of the match.

Hendry had also taken his opponent too lightly in the 1988 UK Championship final against Doug Mountjoy.

By the time he realised he needed to play at his best it was already a titanic battle.

I feel Hendry should have won his 8th world title here. Hendry thinks he should have won his 8th world title here.

Let's be honest how many put Ebdon down as a potential world champion?

This defeat signalled the beginning of the end of Hendry's career. No longer would he compete with the big boys for the triple crown events.

Just compare the 2002 performance with the 2004 SF performance against the same player.

This final was brilliant but will haunt Hendry for ever more.

Cruelly overlooked by the BBC this fortnight.

mick745 wrote:Hendry admits in his autobiography that he took his opponent too lightly, especially at the beginning of the match.

Hendry had also taken his opponent too lightly in the 1988 UK Championship final against Doug Mountjoy.

By the time he realised he needed to play at his best it was already a titanic battle.

I feel Hendry should have won his 8th world title here. Hendry thinks he should have won his 8th world title here.

Let's be honest how many put Ebdon down as a potential world champion?

Emmm... ten ranking titles, three times World finalist, two triple crown wins... in my opinion, just outside of the top ten players of all time... many of the players who’ve overtaken him — Selby, Robertson, Trump, Ding — came along AFTER this final, so he was probably even higher at that stage.

So: I tipped him to become World Champion. A lot of people did.

The revisionism of Ebdon’s career is baffling. You’d swear he was Joe Johnson.

Pink Ball wrote:Emmm... ten ranking titles, three times World finalist, two triple crown wins... in my opinion, just outside of the top ten players of all time... many of the players who’ve overtaken him — Selby, Robertson, Trump, Ding — came along AFTER this final, so he was probably even higher at that stage.

So: I tipped him to become World Champion. A lot of people did.

The revisionism of Ebdon’s career is baffling. You’d swear he was Joe Johnson.

I think a lot of people equate Ebdon's slow play with crap play. The idea is that if he takes a long time to think of a shot, that must mean he's not as good as somebody with a far lower AST.

I don't necessarily agree with this. For example, Thepchaiya Un-Nooh frequently has the lowest average shot time on the tour, that doesn't mean he's the best player on the tour.

I'm not a huge fan of Ebdon, and yes I do often find his slow frames boring. But that doesn't mean I discredit his achievements. As you say, his tournament wins speak for themselves. If a player struggles against Ebdon because he takes longer to play shots than they do, that says more about themselves than it does about Ebdon. You could aruge that he's not as naturally talented as some, but there's plenty of naturally talented players that won't win as much as Ebdon did.

And it's not like he can't play attacking. I remember watching him play against John Higgins in that China Open final, where he won with a fairly attacking game. I just being more methodical works more for him, and tends to gain him more success. Do I like watching it? No. Is it his right to play that way? Yes. It's not the same thing as not being able to play the game.

Ebdon is one of the all-time greats in my opinion. Also one of the most interesting characters in snooker.

Here's an excerpt from Ronnie's book, where he talks about growing up with Ebdon and playing him in junior tournaments: "He used to turn up in a dickie-bow, wing-collar shirt, cufflinks and waistcoat, while everyone else was in jeans and a T-shirt. He was a character. He'd stand there not giving a f*ck what anyone thought of him. I think that's great. He's his own person."

That 2005 match with O'Sullivan really hurt Ebdon's reputation.

I remember a story years ago about Ebdon cracking up during the interval of the 1995 UK Championship final and Hendry seeing it. That might have gave him the feeling he owned Ebdon.

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:I remember a story years ago about Ebdon cracking up during the interval of the 1995 UK Championship final and Hendry seeing it. That might have gave him the feeling he owned Ebdon.

When you say cracking up, you mean like mentally breaking down? I say cracking up to mean having a laughing fit.

SnookerFan wrote:

KrazeeEyezKilla wrote:I remember a story years ago about Ebdon cracking up during the interval of the 1995 UK Championship final and Hendry seeing it. That might have gave him the feeling he owned Ebdon.

When you say cracking up, you mean like mentally breaking down? I say cracking up to mean having a laughing fit.

I think Ebdon was smoking crack.