Ebdon-Hang match
- rocketronnie147
- Posts: 177
- Joined: 20 February 2014
- Location: Canada
- Snooker Idol: Ronnie O Sullivan
- Walk-On: Eye of the Tiger
Wildey wrote:Peter ebdon when hes not cuing well looks like a hacker he always has.
that's the most disturbing thing about match fixing scandals then rubbish play is questioned
rocketronnie147 wrote:Wildey wrote:Peter ebdon when hes not cuing well looks like a hacker he always has.
that's the most disturbing thing about match fixing scandals then rubbish play is questioned
You know what, I hope you're right.....I've seen Ebdon play a lot, and even when he's off form, he grinds a lot. I'll tell you this, after I saw him blow the first 2 frames, I absolutely knew he was going to lose the next 2.....even when he was in the balls and up 32 (literally a perfect spread with no trouble), I knew he was going to lose the frame. If you see some of the long pots he succeeded on, you will know that he wasn't cuing all that bad at all.
I emailed world snooker and asked them to look into this. As I said, I don't give a hoot about a 100 bucks....but I do care about the integrity of the sports I choose to watch. Hopefully they look into it, because he's apparently been a strong candidate for match fixing before (in fact, after looking at some of the diagrams that the referee of that match brought to fruition, I have no idea how he got off.....then again, Higgins got off too so I guess the big names get passes while guy's like Lee, with virtually no evidence against them, get banned).
I know how Ebdon plays.....something still raises a red flag for me about this match. Did you watch it?
Andre147 PGC wrote:rocketronnie147 wrote:Wildey wrote:Peter ebdon when hes not cuing well looks like a hacker he always has.
that's the most disturbing thing about match fixing scandals then rubbish play is questioned
You know what, I hope you're right.....I've seen Ebdon play a lot, and even when he's off form, he grinds a lot. I'll tell you this, after I saw him blow the first 2 frames, I absolutely knew he was going to lose the next 2.....even when he was in the balls and up 32 (literally a perfect spread with no trouble), I knew he was going to lose the frame. If you see some of the long pots he succeeded on, you will know that he wasn't cuing all that bad at all.
I emailed world snooker and asked them to look into this. As I said, I don't give a hoot about a 100 bucks....but I do care about the integrity of the sports I choose to watch. Hopefully they look into it, because he's apparently been a strong candidate for match fixing before (in fact, after looking at some of the diagrams that the referee of that match brought to fruition, I have no idea how he got off.....then again, Higgins got off too so I guess the big names get passes while guy's like Lee, with virtually no evidence against them, get banned).
I know how Ebdon plays.....something still raises a red flag for me about this match. Did you watch it?
Humm have to disagree with that, there are loads of evidence that point that he is indeed guilty and no matter how much evidence Lee manages to gather in order to prove he's not he won't get away with that 12 year ban, and I hope he does get banned for that period of time because he's an absolute disgrace to the game.
And please don't bring Higgins into this, he served his time and there wasn't anymore evidence proving he should have been banned for longer.
Lee on the other hand as I said fully deserves this ban.
Andre147 PGC wrote:Well I had a look at it:
1st frame there didn't seem to be anything wrong, Ebdon lost position on 50 and then missed a tough pink with the rest, Hand after a 30 odd break left him in a difficult snooker and Ebdon couldn't hit the blue 2 and on the 3rd left Hang in and he won the frame from it.
2nd frame again nothing to note...Ebdon started well after Hang missed and was up 60 points but missed a very tough red close to the bottom rail and after he couldn't escape from a good snooker on the blue Hang made a superb clearance of 59 to snatch that frame.
3rd frame again Ebdon starting better with a cracking long red and when on 31 ahead missed a straight black off its spot... but even the top players do every now and again, think he was more focused on retaining position for the next red and forgot the pot, a common error in snooker. Then after Hang closed the gap again Ebdon had a good long one but didn't quite get the snooker behind the pink... but I'll tell you even those snookers may seem very easy on screen but I assure you they're not... the cue ball was close to the cushion and sometimes it's hard to judge the correct pace like he did there. Hang again cleared up to be 3 nil ahead.
4th and last frame yet again Ebdon started with a good long one and was 32 points ahead then missed a blue to left middle, but he was close to the cushion, should have potted that no doubt, but the way he was playing that didn't surprise me. Hang duly won the match from there.
So in short I'm almost 100% sure it wasn't match fixing, it was just a very bad day at the office and you know there are players in which their bad day is way worse than others bad day, such as Ebdon here, Fu, Walden and many others.
It is like Wild said, these Major match fixing scandals like Lee's do tend some to question rubbish play, but here that was what happened, a rubbish performance and a match to forget for Ebdon, nothing else.
Hope this clears up things rocketronnie147.
Ayrshirebhoy wrote:So your saying lee is innocent on your 'I think ebdon is match fixing' thread? If I were you mate I'd save your 100 bucks for beers and strippers. Ebdon is way to unpredictable to be betting on :)
rocketronnie147 wrote:Ayrshirebhoy wrote:So your saying lee is innocent on your 'I think ebdon is match fixing' thread? If I were you mate I'd save your 100 bucks for beers and strippers. Ebdon is way to unpredictable to be betting on :)
First of all, I never accused Ebdon of match fixing. I may have hinted towards that, but I never said it outright. His loss in 2008, though....I really have no idea how much more evidence you need than that (if circumstantial evidence is sufficient, as it was with Lee's case).
As for Lee, to be quite honest, I have no idea if he's innocent or guilty. I'm not suggesting it one way or the other. What I'm saying, though, is that the evidence is poor at best. As some have already said, citing poor performances and missed shots is not really logical in a game this hard. The betting patterns raise eyebrows, for sure, but with no direct link at all to these betters....You can't just assume these things, it's a person's life and career. What if he is somehow innocent? Think about it. And that's why I brought up Higgins. Though he never actually fixed a match, he was fully intent on doing so and the evidence was right there. I think it sent the wrong message to punish him so lightly for something so important to the sport.
rocketronnie147 wrote:Ayrshirebhoy wrote:So your saying lee is innocent on your 'I think ebdon is match fixing' thread? If I were you mate I'd save your 100 bucks for beers and strippers. Ebdon is way to unpredictable to be betting on :)
First of all, I never accused Ebdon of match fixing. I may have hinted towards that, but I never said it outright. His loss in 2008, though....I really have no idea how much more evidence you need than that (if circumstantial evidence is sufficient, as it was with Lee's case).
As for Lee, to be quite honest, I have no idea if he's innocent or guilty. I'm not suggesting it one way or the other. What I'm saying, though, is that the evidence is poor at best. As some have already said, citing poor performances and missed shots is not really logical in a game this hard. The betting patterns raise eyebrows, for sure, but with no direct link at all to these betters....You can't just assume these things, it's a person's life and career. What if he is somehow innocent? Think about it. And that's why I brought up Higgins. Though he never actually fixed a match, he was fully intent on doing so and the evidence was right there. I think it sent the wrong message to punish him so lightly for something so important to the sport.
Sonny wrote:If you read the judgement there's no way you'll think Lee is innocent.
And thanks Andre for clearing up the incorrect and wild suggestion that Ebdon threw this match based on someone losing a bet.
Most people who accuse players of throwing a match in whatever sport have money placed on it.
roy142857 wrote:rocketronnie147 wrote:Ayrshirebhoy wrote:So your saying lee is innocent on your 'I think ebdon is match fixing' thread? If I were you mate I'd save your 100 bucks for beers and strippers. Ebdon is way to unpredictable to be betting on :)
First of all, I never accused Ebdon of match fixing. I may have hinted towards that, but I never said it outright. His loss in 2008, though....I really have no idea how much more evidence you need than that (if circumstantial evidence is sufficient, as it was with Lee's case).
As for Lee, to be quite honest, I have no idea if he's innocent or guilty. I'm not suggesting it one way or the other. What I'm saying, though, is that the evidence is poor at best. As some have already said, citing poor performances and missed shots is not really logical in a game this hard. The betting patterns raise eyebrows, for sure, but with no direct link at all to these betters....You can't just assume these things, it's a person's life and career. What if he is somehow innocent? Think about it. And that's why I brought up Higgins. Though he never actually fixed a match, he was fully intent on doing so and the evidence was right there. I think it sent the wrong message to punish him so lightly for something so important to the sport.
I'm left questioning whether you actually read the independent inquiry report on the Stephen Lee case if you think he had no links to the betters ... or I wonder how close a link you think there should be? 3 sets of betters, one set a group of people known by Lee's manager, one set involving Lee's sponsor and his friends, and the third (not a group) being one of Lee's close friends. Just don't see how you can say there's no direct link.
edwards2000 wrote:Losing a frame, or match, and missing easy balls are not proof of guilt (not even close). The accusers of Lee would do well to remember that. The evidence against Lee is largely circumstantial, and we cannot go around blaming people because of a bad match.
Wildey wrote:edwards2000 wrote:Losing a frame, or match, and missing easy balls are not proof of guilt (not even close). The accusers of Lee would do well to remember that. The evidence against Lee is largely circumstantial, and we cannot go around blaming people because of a bad match.
evidence against lee is after years of proof. Its not circumstantial o knee jerk there's a pattern that dates back 5 years over many matches.
rocketronnie147 wrote:Ok, well, I'm done reading the report. If the penalty was death or freedom, I'd set him free....If the penalty was jail or freedom, I don't know what I would do.....if the penalty were banning him for 12 years or letting him play, I guess I'd have to admit it, I'd ban him. Though nothing directly links him to it, when you put it all together, it just looks like he jeopardized the integrity of the sport for personal gain. I hope that he admits to it and just gives his side of the story. It would put full closure on the whole thing. Too bad....to have all that talent and throw it away.