c4countdown

I've seen lots of little discussions about the possibility of another CoC pop up all around the forum so thought it'd be a good idea to make a thread for these discussions to be collated in one place.

So, do you think there will be another CoC tournament? If so, when, and who would you like to see in it?

Callum Todd wrote:I've seen lots of little discussions about the possibility of another CoC pop up all around the forum so thought it'd be a good idea to make a thread for these discussions to be collated in one place.

So, do you think there will be another CoC tournament? If so, when, and who would you like to see in it?

A few years ago, the idea of another CoC had been thoroughly ruled out by the team. Then the mother of all CoCs happened, the 30th birthday championship, taking everyone by surprise. By all accounts that tournament was hugely well received by the viewers too. I'm hopeful that there will be another CoC, but I doubt it will be so soon after the 30th birthday thing.

^ This. Next winter might be an idea, or Summer 2015. Wouldn't be too soon after the 30BC, I reckon.

I was thinking that, if there ever is another CoC, it won't be for a long while. The 30BC was so epic that another one so soon may just be in its shadow.

What about a match between the two champions of 2013 ? Didn't it happen regularly in the past ?

Zubair Patel wrote:What about a match between the two champions of 2013 ? Didn't it happen regularly in the past ?

No, I don't think Callum and Giles have ever played each other on the show before.

(Tiresome sarcasm or genuine stupidity? You decide)

Fred Mumford wrote:

Zubair Patel wrote:What about a match between the two champions of 2013 ? Didn't it happen regularly in the past ?

No, I don't think Callum and Giles have ever played each other on the show before.

(Tiresome sarcasm or genuine stupidity? You decide)

Er, genuine stupidity to think that could even come across as saracasm ?

COCs are all well and good, but what the world NEEDS is a special between Zarte Siempre and Phyl Styles, because both of them were very good contestants who ended up as number 9 seeds.

Andy Platt wrote:^ This. Next winter might be an idea, or Summer 2015. Wouldn't be too soon after the 30BC, I reckon.

There was always at least a two year gap so at least 2015 I'd say.

Thomas Carey wrote:COCs are all well and good, but what the world NEEDS is a special between Zarte Siempre and Phyl Styles, because both of them were very good contestants who ended up as number 9 seeds.

I kind of like the idea of this. You could even have a special week or two knockout for the best players to never have made a finals / lost their first game.

Surely these come under SPECIALS don't they?

CoC XIV would be effing awesome!!!

My 16 would be:

Adam Gillard
Andrew Hulme
Andy Platt
Callum Todd
Chris Davies
Dylan Taylor
Edward McCullagh
Eoin Monaghan
Giles Hutchings
Graeme Cole
Jack Hurst
Jack Worsley
Jonathon Rawlinson
Kirk Bevins
Oliver Garner
Paul James

Maybe swop Deeks for James???

Dave Preece wrote:Maybe swop Deeks for James???

Well, Paul James did win his series, so he should be there, in terms of having the 10 champions and the next 6 best, that's pretty decent billing, I'd say

I don't think that's a very realistic list.

The 30th Birthday Championships fulfilled essentially the same role as a Champions of Champions tournament, so it would be a little strange to include those players included in that, especially those who had a good run. You've also missed out women, for whatever reason. I think Jen and Heather would be definites and the likes of Gemma, Eileen, Rose, Jayne, etc would probably also be shortlisted. I don't think having a whole tournament of 18-30 year old males would make for particularly interesting viewing for a lot of viewers.

I agree with Andy that 30th BC was basically just an extended CoC, so series 60-66ers wouldn't (/shouldn't) be involved in a future CoC. Innis's idea in the spoiler thread about having contestants who couldn't make the CoC but would have otherwise been invited (Eoin, Oli Garner et al) invited back was nice, although it would might make it a bit confusing to explain to viewers ("We're having the best contestants from the last _ series! ...and also randomly one from series 63 and one from series 62").

Obviously all series winners and runners-up should be shoo-ins. I'd definitely include Eileen Taylor as well, as a demographic breaker x2, good player and fan favourite.

Oh and +1 to Tom Carey's idea about a Zarte v Phyl special too. Especially as they're both awesome people generally.

I don't think it would be that confusing to have players like Eoin, Oliver etc. It's happened before (e.g. Jon Corby), and I'm not sure that the issue even needs to be addressed. Just have them on. I doubt there will be too many people pulling their hair out about it.

I would say that obviously series winners would make it automatically and the rest depending on how good they were and number of spaces. So you'd definitely invite Oliver Garner, Paul James, Giles Hutchings and Callum Todd, but then you'd likely have players like Eoin Monaghan, Andy Platt, Dylan Taylor and Jen Steadman as well. You'd really want it to be 16 players especially if it's not going to be for over a year and it would be a tight fit for 8 even now.

I know Eileen Taylor was a "demographic breaker" but I'm generally against inclusion on these grounds. It's a bit, you know, racist.

Specials are good, but I'm not sure the Zarte v Phyl one would really work that well. It's likely to be fairly one-sided if I'm being totally honest.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I don't think it would be that confusing to have players like Eoin, Oliver etc. It's happened before (e.g. Jon Corby), and I'm not sure that the issue even needs to be addressed. Just have them on. I doubt there will be too many people pulling their hair out about it.

I would say that obviously series winners would make it automatically and the rest depending on how good they were and number of spaces. So you'd definitely invite Oliver Garner, Paul James, Giles Hutchings and Callum Todd, but then you'd likely have players like Eoin Monaghan, Andy Platt, Dylan Taylor and Jen Steadman as well. You'd really want it to be 16 players especially if it's not going to be for over a year and it would be a tight fit for 8 even now.

I know Eileen Taylor was a "demographic breaker" but I'm generally against inclusion on these grounds. It's a bit, you know, racist.

Specials are good, but I'm not sure the Zarte v Phyl one would really work that well. It's likely to be fairly one-sided if I'm being totally honest.

I agree. Phyl's always kicking my arse.

Why not get Abdi on as the token black guy; a couple of girls... and players from Ireland, Scotland and Wales... Whilst you're there... Invite a wheelchair player and an autistic/aspergers type?

FFS... Can't we just have the BEST, without worrying about ticking boxes?

Or shall we have a gay/lesbian special too!?

Dave, this is a thread just for light chatter about who you'd like to see, not furious debate over who definitely should or shouldn't be on. We're not actually drawing up the invite list here.

Personally I think it would be nice to have some representative people, while still maintaining a good level of competition. This is a entertainment television show, not an elitist battle for the title of #1. I would like to see Eileen back in the chair.

Any more thoughts on if/when the next CoC would occur?

They're not going to get rid of CoCs permanently. If, God forbid, Countdown is ever cancelled, they're definitely going to go out with a bang, not a whimper. But I'm sure that that day will be far in the future. I believe there will be time for many more CoCs during Countdown's history.

Specials are nice, but they are just single games, not tournaments. A tournament offers fifteen* games, and thus fifteen times more opportunities for Countdowny action, drama and suspense. And the recent success of the 30th Birthday Championship proves that people do, indeed, enjoy matches of a high standard.
*Assuming that the CoC is of the same format as those in the past.

In my opinion, it's still much too soon to have a full CoC, however, given that the 30BC was only nine months ago. I could see one coming around Series 73. I realize that this is two years from now and that such a long wait may be disheartening to some, but I personally doubt that they are going to include people from Series 60-66 in the next CoC given that they made up the bulk of the 30BC's contestants. Having Kirk, Chris, Jack, et al., play in a smaller-scale event after their Supreme Championship successes would just feel... incongruous to me. Assuming there isn't another hiatus, I think CoC XIV will be composed of players from Series 67 onward.

Maybe a token ginger, fat guy and sex changer whillst we're at it???

PS. I cover 2/3 of those.

I'd say January 2015 is the earliest reasonable time, but January 2016 might be slightly more realistic (whatever series number they happen to be).

Johnny Canuck wrote:Assuming there isn't another hiatus, I think CoC XIV will be composed of players from Series 67 onward.

Yeah, my guess is that if they did do it again, they'd wait until at least the end of 2014, after 2 more series are done, so they have 5 series worth of players (67-71).

Let's hope and pray.

Dave Preece wrote:Maybe a token ginger, fat guy and sex changer whillst we're at it???

PS. I cover 2/3 of those.

Which two?

Callum Todd wrote:Dave, this is a thread just for light chatter about who you'd like to see, not furious debate over who definitely should or shouldn't be on. We're not actually drawing up the invite list here.

Personally I think it would be nice to have some representative people, while still maintaining a good level of competition. This is a entertainment television show, not an elitist battle for the title of #1. I would like to see Eileen back in the chair.

Any more thoughts on if/when the next CoC would occur?

I'm fully aware of all that, young Callum.

Are you suggesting I'm not allowed my true thoughts in this thread?

Maybe we should also have some sort of SPECIAL involving people who aren't allowed to express their opinions in a public forum?

Can I put my name forward for this edition please?

Dave Preece wrote:

Callum Todd wrote:Dave, this is a thread just for light chatter about who you'd like to see, not furious debate over who definitely should or shouldn't be on. We're not actually drawing up the invite list here.

Personally I think it would be nice to have some representative people, while still maintaining a good level of competition. This is a entertainment television show, not an elitist battle for the title of #1. I would like to see Eileen back in the chair.

Any more thoughts on if/when the next CoC would occur?

I'm fully aware of all that, young Callum.

Are you suggesting I'm not allowed my true thoughts in this thread?

Maybe we should also have some sort of SPECIAL involving people who aren't allowed to express their opinions in a public forum?

Can I put my name forward for this edition please?

I never said you couldn't express your true thoughts. I just suggested you could try expressing them a little less aggressively, condescendingly, and smugly. And I repeat that suggestion now. Please can we get back on topic, and onto a more friendly tone?

Dave Preece wrote:Maybe a token ginger, fat guy and sex changer whillst we're at it???

PS. I cover 2/3 of those.

If you're that desperate to get on, I'll let you have my "token disabled" place because you're being a fucking retard.

Your list not only contained several people who had already been on for the 30th BC, but failed to include ANY women. Now I totally disagree with Callum about someone like Eileen being around as a demographic breaker. But Jen having the highest female octototal? And only losing to a series champion? I'm pretty sure that even if as the only woman, she'd be in the top 16 of players eligible for it.

If you're going to shout your exasperated UKIP-esque ramblings on here without regard for how you may be coming across, then we're going to feel free to shout our exasperated exclamations of how much of a fucking twat you're being when you get like this.

I see c4c is alive and kicking again!

Rather more aggressive and unpleasant than ANY of my posts that Zarté...

I'm almost half-offended!

Andy Platt wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:Maybe a token ginger, fat guy and sex changer whillst we're at it???

PS. I cover 2/3 of those.

Which two?

I'm slightly ginger and fat... and never say never about the other one!

Dave Preece wrote:Rather more aggressive and unpleasant than ANY of my posts that Zarté...

I'm almost half-offended!

Aggressive, perhaps. But after tolerating you raising the imbecility levels of the forum much better than most have, I feel perfectly comfortable with releasing my torrent of STFU in one go.

As for unpleasant, I'd be inclined to say that your seemingly latent sexism would be viewed as more consistently unpleasant than myself just doing what I'm known for. Calling spades, spades. Or in this instance, calling a wanker, a wanker.

Definitely agree with those who've said that there's no need to include 30BC contestants in the next CoC, we had our moment in the sun, and considering how rare these tournaments are it wouldn't be right to deprive other people of the same opportunity just so we can have a second one. Besides, with people like Craig Beevers not having taken part in a CoC, it's not as though the CoCs represent a solid history of all the best contestants anyway.

If it's done in this way, as things stand, there shouldn't be much of a shortage of female contestants in the next CoC anyway. Jen and Heather are obvious picks, and Eileen and Rose would be entirely justifiable choices on merit too.

Why is it so important to some to have female contestants? Surely going out of your way to even mention it never mind ensure they get invited is sexism itself? Surely everyone should be treated equally, if you're good enough to be invited then it should matter not whether you are female or whatever?

Zarte Siempre wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:Rather more aggressive and unpleasant than ANY of my posts that Zarté...

I'm almost half-offended!

Aggressive, perhaps. But after tolerating you raising the imbecility levels of the forum much better than most have, I feel perfectly comfortable with releasing my torrent of STFU in one go.

As for unpleasant, I'd be inclined to say that your seemingly latent sexism would be viewed as more consistently unpleasant than myself just doing what I'm known for. Calling spades, spades. Or in this instance, calling a wanker, a wanker.

Wouldn't you agree that your levels of imbecility were extremely high in the above post by suggesting someone - you don't know and have never even met - is a wanker?

You're acting like a little school boy, sunny!

Dave Preece wrote:

Zarte Siempre wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:Rather more aggressive and unpleasant than ANY of my posts that Zarté...

I'm almost half-offended!

Aggressive, perhaps. But after tolerating you raising the imbecility levels of the forum much better than most have, I feel perfectly comfortable with releasing my torrent of STFU in one go.

As for unpleasant, I'd be inclined to say that your seemingly latent sexism would be viewed as more consistently unpleasant than myself just doing what I'm known for. Calling spades, spades. Or in this instance, calling a wanker, a wanker.

Wouldn't you agree that your levels of imbecility were extremely high in the above post by suggesting someone - you don't know and have never even met - is a wanker?

You're acting like a little school boy, sunny!

No, I wouldn't. You've managed to fuck off a fair percentage of the people on this website. I'd suggest that qualifies you nicely for the category of wanker.

If you wish to resort to being patronising rather than face up to the fact that your input on this site is about as useful or valued as that of a South African interpreter for the deaf then that's your prerogative - it certainly doesn't bother me being called a "school boy" - however personally, if I was seeming to fuck off long-standing members of a community I'd not long been part of, I'd be considering discovering why such opinions were being formed, and attempting to purport accordingly, instead. I have no doubt however, that you'll continue as you were and so whilst you do, I'll sit here feeling perfectly justified in my aforementioned opinion.

It'd probably be worth contacting a moderator to lock this now.

I think we'd all like to see Dave's amended list if he takes into account that a CoC would most likely be drawn from series 67 onwards. It would be interesting to see how his argument (that the female players suggested thus far would be arbitrary box-ticking inclusions) stands up to the fact that a third of finalists from these 3 series have been female! Or were we all there on the box-ticking whim of the producers?

There's nothing wrong with this thread (other than the thread title now and maybe that's an argument for not allowing thread name changes without a moderator).

But so what, some of you disagree with Dave Preece. I can't help but think there's been some massive overreacting on here. Get over it. Get on with it.

I don't agree that series 60-67 were covered by the Supreme Championship, to be honest.

Gavin Chipper wrote:There's nothing wrong with this thread (other than the thread title now and maybe that's an argument for not allowing thread name changes without a moderator).

But so what, some of you disagree with Dave Preece. I can't help but think there's been some massive overreacting on here. Get over it. Get on with it.

There was nothing wrong with this thread. The difference of opinion is not the problem, it's the argument that has resulted from that difference of opinion that is the problem. Dave posted his list, and a few people replied, some agreeing with him, and some disagreeing (calmly and politely) and suggesting alternatives for his list.

Then this happened:

Dave Preece wrote:Why not get Abdi on as the token black guy; a couple of girls... and players from Ireland, Scotland and Wales... Whilst you're there... Invite a wheelchair player and an autistic/aspergers type?

FFS... Can't we just have the BEST, without worrying about ticking boxes?

Or shall we have a gay/lesbian special too!?

That was the death blow to this thread and most of the posts since have just been further stabs at its corpse. I see people mentioning the possibility of a moderator locking this thread, and I think that would be a good idea. Or even deleting it, or at least the posts from that first inflammatory one quoted above all the way down to the most recent, excluding Innis's and Mark's. And maybe Jen's.

Callum Todd wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:Why not get Abdi on as the token black guy; a couple of girls... and players from Ireland, Scotland and Wales... Whilst you're there... Invite a wheelchair player and an autistic/aspergers type?

FFS... Can't we just have the BEST, without worrying about ticking boxes?

Or shall we have a gay/lesbian special too!?

That was the death blow to this thread and most of the posts since have just been further stabs at its corpse.

He was being a bit of a dickhead certainly, but let it slide. There's no point in getting worked up over it. There is a point he's making in that as well.

Hmmm... my post seems to have mysteriously not sent.

Anyhow...

For COC14 I really want to see Channel 4 make an effort. I don't care how long it is, even if it's crammed into one week like COC10 was at the end of 1999. I agree with Mark; Series 60-67 were not covered by the Supreme Championship fully, but the problem is that I felt the Supreme Championship was too heavily biased towards players from the Apterous era, but that's another story (yes, I am still bitter about no Scott Mearns!).

They should broadcast COC14 aroundabout the time of year I'm posting, 30 December, at 5pm or thereabouts. I'm sure people would think 'Ooh, Countdown's back on', as shows before 4pm tend to get swallowed up in TV guides etc - in the Radio Times, for example, they're written in a very small font on the previous page or crammed into a box.

My pick for COC14 would be more formulaic. Let's look at each scenario.

One week, five episodes, six players, with byes for the top 2 seeds:

Oliver Garner (S62) - BYE TO SEMI FINALS
Paul James (S67) - BYE TO SEMI FINALS
Eoin Monaghan (S63)
Giles Hutchings (S68)
Dylan Taylor (S69)
Callum Todd (S69)

One and a half weeks, seven episodes, eight players, no seeds, no byes:

Oliver Garner (S62)
Eoin Monaghan (S63)
Adam Gillard (S64)
Paul James (S67)
Heather Styles (S67)
Giles Hutchings (S68)
Dylan Taylor (S69)
Callum Todd (S69)

Three weeks, fifteen episodes, sixteen players, no seeds, no byes:

Kirk Bevins (S60)
Chris Davies (S61)
Innis Carson (S61)
Oliver Garner (S62)
Jack Hurst (S63)
Eoin Monaghan (S63)
Edward McCullagh (S64)
Adam Gillard (S64)
Graeme Cole (S65)
Jack Worsley (S66)
Jonathan Rawlinson (S66)
Paul James (S67)
Giles Hutchings (S68)
Andy Platt (S68)
Dylan Taylor (S69)
Callum Todd (S69)

EDIT: Forgot Series 68 & 69!!

Think you should delete Rhys's post as well while you're at it.

Andy Platt wrote:Think you should delete Rhys's post as well while you're at it.

Nice try.

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Hmmm... my post seems to have mysteriously not sent.

Anyhow...

For COC14 I really want to see Channel 4 make an effort. I don't care how long it is, even if it's crammed into one week like COC10 was at the end of 1999. I agree with Mark; Series 60-67 were not covered by the Supreme Championship fully, but the problem is that I felt the Supreme Championship was too heavily biased towards players from the Apterous era, but that's another story (yes, I am still bitter about no Scott Mearns!).

They should broadcast COC14 aroundabout the time of year I'm posting, 30 December, at 5pm or thereabouts. I'm sure people would think 'Ooh, Countdown's back on', as shows before 4pm tend to get swallowed up in TV guides etc - in the Radio Times, for example, they're written in a very small font on the previous page or crammed into a box.

My pick for COC14 would be more formulaic. Let's look at each scenario.

One week, five episodes, six players, with byes for the top 2 seeds:

Oliver Garner (S62) - BYE TO SEMI FINALS
Paul James (S67) - BYE TO SEMI FINALS
Eoin Monaghan (S63)
Giles Hutchings (S68)
Dylan Taylor (S69)
Callum Todd (S69)

One and a half weeks, seven episodes, eight players, no seeds, no byes:

Oliver Garner (S62)
Eoin Monaghan (S63)
Adam Gillard (S64)
Paul James (S67)
Heather Styles (S67)
Giles Hutchings (S68)
Dylan Taylor (S69)
Callum Todd (S69)

Three weeks, fifteen episodes, sixteen players, no seeds, no byes:

Kirk Bevins (S60)
Chris Davies (S61)
Innis Carson (S61)
Oliver Garner (S62)
Jack Hurst (S63)
Eoin Monaghan (S63)
Edward McCullagh (S64)
Adam Gillard (S64)
Graeme Cole (S65)
Jack Worsley (S66)
Jonathan Rawlinson (S66)
Paul James (S67)
Giles Hutchings (S68)
Andy Platt (S68)
Dylan Taylor (S69)
Callum Todd (S69)

EDIT: Forgot Series 68 & 69!!

And what about Series 70+?

Johnny Canuck wrote:

I wrote:some stuff

And what about Series 70+?

I don't know, but I'm not sure where they'd go. Looking back on the one week, six players, I feel Dylan and Eoin may lose their places for the champions of S70 & 71, the seven episodes/eight players, I feel any two to four of Eoin, Adam, Heather, and Dylan would go. For the full monty three weeks, any two to four of Innis, Eoin, Adam, Andy, and Dylan would go.

Gavin Chipper wrote:There's nothing wrong with this thread (other than the thread title now and maybe that's an argument for not allowing thread name changes without a moderator).

Gev nails it again.

Apologies if this goes over any old ground as I don't come on here regularly, but I personally would love to see another C of C as these have very much formed part of the Countdown landscape. Whilst I can see the reason for not wanting to hold one, I don't think 2-3 weeks of devoting time to such an event is going to do more harm than good especially as viewers seemingly praised the 30th BC.

I must admit, I do feel slightly sorry for those 2009-present contestants who took part in the 30th and didn't have a C of C under their belts as to me, for gifted Countdown players, your record as a contestant is a bit like a CV and can only enhance your profile. This isn't a criticism at all of the 30th BC but I must admit I was incredibly surprised that after a reluctance to hold a C of C they then came in with the 30th.

I still think though that for exceptional players from 2009 should be allowed to take part in a C of C and that includes players who took part in the 30th but with nearly 5 years since the last one, if they are going to do one I think at the latest they should do one at the end of 2014. If they were reluctant to do this and/or having as much as a 16 player tournament, they could do an 8 player tourney from 2013-15 which I don't think would be too bad at all or at a minimum, have the 2 series winners play each other in a yearly battle and if that was done on a separate recording day, fill it with specials. (An idea off the cuff would be the two number 9 seeds of the year battle it out) Shortly after I did my C of C they filmed a load of specials such as replayed finals, people in the same profession and mother and son etc and I don't think that's a shabby idea.

Just food for thought

1. Gev - I don't disagree that Dave has a point in as much as people shouldn't be picked solely for the purpose of fulfilling a quota, even if he's undermined his point with unnecessary embellishments. What I DO disagree with is the suggestion that no 'quota-fulfilling' contestants would qualify on the basis of merit. This is what I was getting at in my last comment.

2. Perhaps it's unfortunate that 60-66 didn't get their own CoC when the series before that did. But post-30th BC, there's no point trying to amend that retroactively. While those who lost to contestants from before that era might have cause to feel aggrieved, they've still had another tournament in which to get some more airtime and enjoy being back in the studio. Is it fair to deprive other notable contestants from series 67 onwards of this just because the 60-66ers want a Conor-free tournament? No offence, but it seems like a vain complaint. No-one can doubt that these contestants are fantastic players, but it's kind of overkill to have the same people recycled for tournaments again and again when there are more recent contestants who are just as good.
The only argument I can really see for it is for those contestants who would have probably been included in a 60-66 CoC but, due to number of spaces, weren't invited to the 30th BC (Daniel Pati, perhaps). But I don't think anyone's list thus far has included anyone who wasn't in the 30th BC (Eoin and Oli aside*), so that's clearly not the argument those in favour of it are championing.
I just can't see Countdown Team going for it to be honest.

*They only weren't invited because of exam issues, I believe, so I'd be all for them being included now these are over.

3. Rhys - your lists don't make sense. Surely byes would be randomly decided (how did you calculate the top 2 seeds for the first list anyway?). Also not sure why you'd have Adam in there over Ed in your second list (surely series winner trumps runner-up?), or invite Heather to a seven-episode CoC but not a 15-ep one.

The 30th BC wasn't equal to a CoC. A CoC is supposed to feature the best of the best. The 30th BC didn't - it featured some of the best of the best, but some who definitely weren't, some who had had CoC's of their own, and some who never would have done. It was an anomaly, a one off, and should be treated as such. Whether or not 60-66 ought get a separate CoC is a different question, but it's a valid one, and it's silly to call it vain.

Mark Deeks wrote:The 30th BC wasn't equal to a CoC. A CoC is supposed to feature the best of the best. The 30th BC didn't - it featured some of the best of the best, but some who definitely weren't, some who had had CoC's of their own, and some who never would have done. It was an anomaly, a one off, and should be treated as such. Whether or not 60-66 ought get a separate CoC is a different question, but it's a valid one, and it's silly to call it vain.

I think the spirit of a CoC was embodied in the 30th BC. CoCs haven't always featured the best of the best - people have always been invited because they were an interesting character, were popular with viewers, etc., same as the 30th BC.

If that's the case, why therefore would those not invited to the 30th BC now be considered candidates for a future CoC? Can't have it both ways. It either sufficed, or it didn't.

Mark Deeks wrote:If that's the case, why therefore would those not invited to the 30th BC now be considered candidates for a future CoC? Can't have it both ways. It either sufficed, or it didn't.

Well there is a band of people who didn't make the cut of 41 from the show's 30-year history but would make the cut of 16 since the last CoC.

Then surely the 30th BC didn't suffice as a CoC. I get that it had elements of it, but it wasn't one, and nor was its guest list.

Mark Deeks wrote:If that's the case, why therefore would those not invited to the 30th BC now be considered candidates for a future CoC?

I think due to changes in filming procedure by the time of 30th BC, Eoin wasn't allowed to film unless he'd taken his GCSEs? I've heard it was something convoluted like that, anyway. I don't doubt he would've been invited if not for rules like that.

All these posts are invalid. This is a spam thread.

I think I'm safe to say that I don't believe that for those exceptional players who appeared from 2009-30th BC that I don't think a C of C will happen which to me is a shame. I would personally have done a C of C first then a 30th. With the praise that came in from the 30th, I think the responsible people should take the hint that a C of C (with players in the last few years now stronger than ever before would by and large produce mouth watering classics)

Thinking about it, a few of the prelims/1st round matches of the 30th included people that no doubt would have been in a C of C such as Mark vs Jack and Ed v Jonathan which were brilliant games. I fully agree with Mark and Jon in that the spirit of a C of C was embodied and that it didn't have all the best players in. With a tournament like the 30th, they no doubt wanted a good spread of people down the ages; out of the apparent 214 people who applied, I'm confident that 40+ who applied would have been post 2008 and I got the impression that if you did well further back than that you'd be looked upon slightly more favourably) Put it this way, if there was a good spread of exceptional players down the years and assuming they were all available, I doubt I would have had a look in. There were some notable casualties but I guess you'd expect that plus there would have been no way of reaching out to all former players.

Mark Deeks wrote:Then surely the 30th BC didn't suffice as a CoC. I get that it had elements of it, but it wasn't one, and nor was its guest list.

It didn't suffice in the sense that not all the likely CoC candidates since the last CoC could have taken part, which is why it's being suggested that those people should get the opportunity to play in the next one. But I'd be amazed if there was anyone who took part in the 30BC and felt that it didn't suffice for them in terms of feeling like a CoC. And even if there is, I really don't see why this feeling should be given priority over those who haven't had any chance to take part in any champions tournament. It would feel wrong to deprive people of this opportunity just to fulfil some tenuous idea of completeness, and besides, I doubt the viewing audience will be particularly won over by "Remember that huge tournament of past champions you just watched, which was referred to on-screen as a 'champion of champion of champions'? Well, that's not the same thing as a champion of champions. So here's all the same people all over again".

should be given priority

Didn't say this.