Yearly Champion

[Dinos Sfyris]

*Hails Mike's idea*

[David Roe]

How's about the 2010 grand final being the first match of 2011? The second series of 2010 will end just before Christmas as usual, and the new series starts in January with a little bang. The champ has at least a few days off between filming dates, as well.

This is a good idea. Especially since I suggested it.

Sorry. It's this "first unread post" thing, it meant I'd already read your post and forgotten it.

I'm only sorry I didn't have a post further up the thread I could have edited.

[David Williams]

Mike Brown's format is similar to the CoC that Scott Mearns won. That had four series winners, plus two losing finalists. Scott and Kate Ogilvie were given byes to the semis (not sure how that was decided) and they duly won and contested the final.

At the time I was new to Countdown, and didn't know either that CoC was a regular thing, or that this was a different format to normal. To me it was just Scott beating some more people I hadn't seen before, neatly filling the week between Christmas and New Year.

Perhaps Mike and Damian can cast their minds back to why it happened, whether they thought it worked, and why it wasn't repeated.

[D Eadie]

Mike Brown's format is similar to the CoC that Scott Mearns won. That had four series winners, plus two losing finalists. Scott and Kate Ogilvie were given byes to the semis (not sure how that was decided) and they duly won and contested the final.

At the time I was new to Countdown, and didn't know either that CoC was a regular thing, or that this was a different format to normal. To me it was just Scott beating some more people I hadn't seen before, neatly filling the week between Christmas and New Year.

Perhaps Mike and Damian can cast their minds back to why it happened, whether they thought it worked, and why it wasn't repeated.

This C of C circa 2000 was quickly put together because IIRC, C4 extended our series run to go over the whole of Xmas, and we didn't want to start a new series proper in the middle of the festive period. It wasn't repeated because it seems harsh to only have a limited number of competitors when there are more than enough worthy participants, and it's perhaps unfair on those who miss out. That was 2000, but 10 years later things are different and times have changed. It's pretty foolhardy to have a 16-player C of C tournament, spread over 3 weeks, to be broadcast at our peak time of year, January, when the likelihood is that around 12 of those taking part have little or nothing to say for themselves. For Countdown to carry on, we need applicants, people willing to take part. They can only be sourced from viewers, which pretty much stands to reason. The viewers want to be entertained, as well as playing along with the game. The lighter the feel of the show, the better the show is, the more people will watch, the more will want to take part, and the more they feel they can compete with those on screen, there more likely they are to apply in the first place. It's not a situation of my making. Earlier this year, for the first time ever, i had to go to the lengths of typing out a polite note and placing it in the green room, asking contestants to look at Jeff when being spoken to, to try and muster up more than a 1-word reply, and to remember that they were appearing on television, not sitting in their bedrooms playing apterous. Something had to be done because it was that bad. I can only suppose it's down to a trend in the social habits of the younger generations today. Online facebooking, internetting, twittering etc, maybe that has something to do with it, i dunno. When Des O'Connor was hosting, the biggest single complaint we had, across the board, was that the contestants were not given enough attention, it was all jokes, gags, Glasgow Empire, Butlins etc etc. Now we're trying to throw as much stuff as possible to those taking part and at times we're barely getting an audible response. Believe you me, if i could wave a wand and make it different i most certainly would.

[Charlie Reams]

I can only suppose it's down to a trend in the social habits of the younger generations today.

Or maybe there have always been shy people, and now there's a way they can go on TV, be good at something, gain some confidence and have a good time. Give them a break.

[David Williams]

Not quite what I was expecting as a response! However, it does suggest that two of the things 'wrong' with CoC 2000, the need to seed series champions and the exclusion of worthy players, would be solve by doing it annually as Mike Brown suggested. I'm not totally convinced yet. If the series championships are more important, then what's the point? And if the yearly champion is the one that matters, why split into series, and invite back people who have already lost? But I'd still look forward to it!

Speaking as someone who was pretty mono-syllabic, are you sure things are so different? Were younger players ever that garrulous? Maybe there are just more of them, or that they win more matches, so they figure in more shows. Or maybe Richard Whiteley's style and interviewing skills were better suited to Countdown contestants than his successors'. Even if it's true, by the time they come back for a second or third time most people are a lot more relaxed. There are good reasons not to have a three week CoC, but I don't see this as one of them.

[Marc Meakin]

I can only suppose it's down to a trend in the social habits of the younger generations today.

Or maybe there have always been shy people, and now there's a way they can go on TV, be good at something, gain some confidence and have a good time. Give them a break.

I thought the younger generation were all off their faces on Mephadrone.

[D Eadie]

I can only suppose it's down to a trend in the social habits of the younger generations today.

Or maybe there have always been shy people, and now there's a way they can go on TV, be good at something, gain some confidence and have a good time. Give them a break.

Which we do Charlie, as you well know, and will continue to do, but just not for 3 weeks on the bounce.

[Marc Meakin]

I can only suppose it's down to a trend in the social habits of the younger generations today.

Or maybe there have always been shy people, and now there's a way they can go on TV, be good at something, gain some confidence and have a good time. Give them a break.

Which we do Charlie, as you well know, and will continue to do, but just not for 3 weeks on the bounce.

Maybe show it on More 4 and see what the audience figures are like.

[Michael Wallace]

Maybe show it on More 4 and see what the audience figures are like.

Or C4+1?

[D Eadie]

There are good reasons not to have a three week CoC, but I don't see this as one of them.

Oh well, these are the decisions i have to make and they're always taken with the best interests of the show at heart. Cest la vie.

[Jon Corby]

Supreme Champion II is still going ahead though, right?

[Matt Morrison]

Force the winner of any of these tournaments to make a five minute acceptance speech.

[Clive Brooker]

Damian, have you tried debriefing contestants to find out how it felt from their point of view, what would have helped to make life easier, etc? I know you're all busy, but it sounds as though this is important.

[Charlie Reams]

Which we do Charlie, as you well know, and will continue to do, but just not for 3 weeks on the bounce.

That's fine, I don't have any objections to the CoC restructure. I just think it's a bit unnecessary to advertise the fact that you're changing the structure of the programme in response to certain contestants being a little quiet, especially when those contestants are obviously reading this and are probably well aware of their social nerves already. I felt someone had to stick up for them, because they've given us some great telly in other ways. But I don't doubt that everything you do is in the best interests of the show, and you're clearly doing a good job on that front.

Damian, have you tried debriefing contestants to find out how it felt from their point of view, what would have helped to make life easier, etc? I know you're all busy, but it sounds as though this is important.

Because he's not busy enough producing the show or anything, right?

[D Eadie]

Which we do Charlie, as you well know, and will continue to do, but just not for 3 weeks on the bounce.

That's fine, I don't have any objections to the CoC restructure. I just think it's a bit unnecessary to advertise the fact that you're changing the structure of the programme in response to certain contestants being a little quiet, especially when those contestants are obviously reading this and are probably well aware of their social nerves already. I felt someone had to stick up for them, because they've given us some great telly in other ways. But I don't doubt that everything you do is in the best interests of the show, and you're clearly doing a good job on that front.

Look a little deeper into what i'm doing here. Who started the thread? It's utterly exasperating and i'm not trying to piss anybody off, i've not mentioned any names and never will, i'm just trying to flag up to people that they need to do a little bit more. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it. I've spent hours upon hours in the green room hoovering up the atmosphere, quietly clocking who's saying what, who's saying anything at all, who's smiling, twitching, shaking, bagging it. This all goes into the final product one way or another. I've had Jeff's intro cards re-written to take out certain questions, having figured out that there's no way we'll get a comfortable answer. The idea being he talks about the person more as opposed talking to them, then you look at the application form for information, and the hobbies, special interests and entertaining details sections are virtually blank, so you're scuppered once again.

I don't want to write off the C of C any more than the next man, perhaps just a compromise that instead of spending 1000 hours online practising Countdown in readiness for the show, maybe spend 998 hours playing and give 2 hours thought to what you can put into the televisual side of things. It's not a lot to ask really.

[Ian Volante]

Which we do Charlie, as you well know, and will continue to do, but just not for 3 weeks on the bounce.

I don't want to write off the C of C any more than the next man, perhaps just a compromise that instead of spending 1000 hours online practising Countdown in readiness for the show, maybe spend 998 hours playing and give 2 hours thought to what you can put into the televisual side of things. It's not a lot to ask really.

I fully agree - it's great that CD is a show that is truly based on merit unlike most other game shows which appear to require chatty competitors and demographic box-ticking, and it would be a shame if Damian was forced to go that way.

I greatly appreciated that, and tried my best to be chatty on screen, but simultaneously concentrating hard and crapping myself was not conducive to such things, so I probably came across as being much more wooden than I actually am, which I've never been happy about. Always going to be a problem with such set of nerds!

[Jon Corby]

I don't want to write off the C of C any more than the next man, perhaps just a compromise that instead of spending 1000 hours online practising Countdown in readiness for the show, maybe spend 998 hours playing and give 2 hours thought to what you can put into the televisual side of things. It's not a lot to ask really.

It's interesting you say this, as I was actually bricking it about the audition because I'm generally quite shy, and was worried because I just knew there'd be parts of the audition where I'd have to maybe stand up and talk about myself a bit, and shit like that, and I just hate having to do that (on training courses etc). I was stunned when there wasn't, and that it really was wholly about assessing your ability at the game. Ironically, I wasn't worried about that bit at all, and was utter shit at it, whereas I probably did okay on the other bit because I was quite chatty and managed to make a few weak jokes. But anyway - can't you use the audition to... well, audition people for TV?

[Michael Wallace]

It's interesting you say this, as I was actually bricking it about the audition because I'm generally quite shy, and was worried because I just knew there'd be parts of the audition where I'd have to maybe stand up and talk about myself a bit, and shit like that, and I just hate having to do that (on training courses etc).

Yeah same. When I auditioned I put on my talkative hat, only to find out much later it didn't matter.

[Marc Meakin]

I don't want to write off the C of C any more than the next man, perhaps just a compromise that instead of spending 1000 hours online practising Countdown in readiness for the show, maybe spend 998 hours playing and give 2 hours thought to what you can put into the televisual side of things. It's not a lot to ask really.

It's interesting you say this, as I was actually bricking it about the audition because I'm generally quite shy, and was worried because I just knew there'd be parts of the audition where I'd have to maybe stand up and talk about myself a bit, and shit like that, and I just hate having to do that (on training courses etc). I was stunned when there wasn't, and that it really was wholly about assessing your ability at the game. Ironically, I wasn't worried about that bit at all, and was utter shit at it, whereas I probably did okay on the other bit because I was quite chatty and managed to make a few weak jokes. But anyway - can't you use the audition to... well, audition people for TV?

Better still get the contestants pissed before recording.

[D Eadie]

But anyway - can't you use the audition to... well, audition people for TV?

If we want to turn it into Strike It Lucky then yes. We never get to see the full personality at auditions, and i completely understand the nerves having done it myself, but bear in mind we're not talking about the series proper here, it's about a 3 week C of C, which moves the goalposts a little bit. Countdowners are a different breed, it's a game that's unique in terms of what it requires mentally, and it stands to reason that it'll attract the more nerdy type of person, and i'm proud to be among them, but a really tense, serious and quiet C of C for 3 weeks isn't a true representation of the all-year-round product, and given that it goes out in January when TV ratings are at their highest, i want people to see a true representation of the show, so that some of them come back in Feb, March, April and the rest, which means we'll get to celebrate 10000 shows, nevermind 5000.

[Douglas Wilson]

Kirk, Neil, Hamish, James, Andrew, Jeffrey, Oliver, Craig.

All contenders to be participants in the next CoC and IMO have more personality than your average Countdown contestant.

[Ralph Gillions]

Kirk, Neil, Hamish, James, Andrew, Jeffrey, Oliver, Craig.

All contenders to be participants in the next CoC and IMO have more personality than your average Countdown contestant.

Oh yes indeed.

[David Williams]

The original suggestion was that there be a yearly champion, and the question was whether it was reasonable to have this immediately after the series final. Some good points were made about the practicalities, and most people welcomed the idea - so long as CoC continued.

But now it seems that actually the three week CoC is dead (for reasons that don't really matter), and the yearly championship is an idea to substitute something shorter and more frequent for it. If so, I'm not so sure it's a good idea. If the notion is that viewers will tolerate seven days of series finals, but are tearing their hair out after fifteen days of CoC, I don't see the sense in doing five days (or even one) of yearly championship straight after the series finals. If the notion of just having one champion a year doesn't work, then just scrap CoC and leave well alone. I'd stress that this is not necessarily what I want to see, just what seems to be the logic of what we're told viewers in general want.

As regards getting contestants to say a few words (and let's face it, it's only a few, not their life story), anyone who's been on an interviewing course will know that to a large extent it's a matter of technique by the interviewer. Easier to improve the skills of one presenter than a whole generation of contestants. I might also stress that I fast-forward all this guff, so I've no idea what anyone says other than during the game.

[Kirk Bevins]

but a really tense, serious and quiet C of C for 3 weeks isn't a true representation of the all-year-round product

Whilst true, the semi final between Innis and Chris was probably the best episode of Countdown there's ever been. Several people told me they enjoyed it. Imagine having 15 of those

[Ian Volante]

but a really tense, serious and quiet C of C for 3 weeks isn't a true representation of the all-year-round product

Whilst true, the semi final between Innis and Chris was probably the best episode of Countdown there's ever been. Several people told me they enjoyed it. Imagine having 15 of those

How about making Fridays the day to broadcast a load of stored-up CoC matches - that could probably fill up the quieter summer months and gives a little variety to each week.

[JackHurst]

How about making Fridays the day to broadcast a load of stored-up CoC matches - that could probably fill up the quieter summer months and gives a little variety to each week.

This is a nice idea. There would still be a CofC and it wouldn't all be shown in a big block. If they were all recorded together and then spread out, you wouldn't have two champions in the green room at recordings everyday with the normal contestants either. As I understand it, episodes are recorded in bunches of 5 (5 a day), which makes sense and is very convenient for the DC guest as it is the number of episodes in a week. So with your suggestion there would arise another problem, perhaps the most obvious solution would be to record only 4 episodes a day for the normal series. This itself could have problems or benefits tho, who knows?

[Gavin Chipper]

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular by the way. There are lots of quiet contestants - is the evidence really there that CofC contestants are overall "worse" in this respect than your average contestant? Or, perhaps more significantly, have the viewers noticed/mentioned it? I sometimes wonder if a lot of this sort of talk is based on our assumptions of the "regular viewer". Things like "your regular viewer wouldn't understand what was going on in a three-week CofC." Really? Have they written in and complained? Perhaps Damian could tell us. And a lot of people say that viewers wouldn't like being beaten for three weeks. Damain must have some idea of the viewers' positive/negative responses in proportional terms.

If January is a problem for the CofC because you don't want to risk the high viewing figures, then why not have it in July after the June series. Job done. Thread locked. Oh, it's about the yearly champion. Yeah, have that as well if you want. Thread relocked.

[Gavin Chipper]

How about making Fridays the day to broadcast a load of stored-up CoC matches - that could probably fill up the quieter summer months and gives a little variety to each week.

This is a nice idea. There would still be a CofC and it wouldn't all be shown in a big block. If they were all recorded together and then spread out, you wouldn't have two champions in the green room at recordings everyday with the normal contestants either. As I understand it, episodes are recorded in bunches of 5 (5 a day), which makes sense and is very convenient for the DC guest as it is the number of episodes in a week. So with your suggestion there would arise another problem, perhaps the most obvious solution would be to record only 4 episodes a day for the normal series. This itself could have problems or benefits tho, who knows?

This would surely be far too spread out and hard to follow.

[Ian Volante]

How about making Fridays the day to broadcast a load of stored-up CoC matches - that could probably fill up the quieter summer months and gives a little variety to each week.

This is a nice idea. There would still be a CofC and it wouldn't all be shown in a big block. If they were all recorded together and then spread out, you wouldn't have two champions in the green room at recordings everyday with the normal contestants either. As I understand it, episodes are recorded in bunches of 5 (5 a day), which makes sense and is very convenient for the DC guest as it is the number of episodes in a week. So with your suggestion there would arise another problem, perhaps the most obvious solution would be to record only 4 episodes a day for the normal series. This itself could have problems or benefits tho, who knows?

This would surely be far too spread out and hard to follow.

Presenter gives update in opening chat - Robert is your grandfather's nephew's sibling. Or something.

[David Williams]

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular by the way. There are lots of quiet contestants - is the evidence really there that CofC contestants are overall "worse" in this respect than your average contestant? Or, perhaps more significantly, have the viewers noticed/mentioned it? I sometimes wonder if a lot of this sort of talk is based on our assumptions of the "regular viewer". Things like "your regular viewer wouldn't understand what was going on in a three-week CofC." Really? Have they written in and complained? Perhaps Damian could tell us. And a lot of people say that viewers wouldn't like being beaten for three weeks. Damain must have some idea of the viewers' positive/negative responses in proportional terms.

Without re-reading loads of stuff, I think we think all this sort of stuff because Damian has indeed told us. It's always surprised me, so I can't think of any other reason for my believing it other than that it's come from the horse's mouth.

[David O'Donnell]

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular by the way. There are lots of quiet contestants - is the evidence really there that CofC contestants are overall "worse" in this respect than your average contestant? Or, perhaps more significantly, have the viewers noticed/mentioned it? I sometimes wonder if a lot of this sort of talk is based on our assumptions of the "regular viewer". Things like "your regular viewer wouldn't understand what was going on in a three-week CofC." Really? Have they written in and complained? Perhaps Damian could tell us. And a lot of people say that viewers wouldn't like being beaten for three weeks. Damain must have some idea of the viewers' positive/negative responses in proportional terms.

Without re-reading loads of stuff, I think we think all this sort of stuff because Damian has indeed told us. It's always surprised me, so I can't think of any other reason for my believing it other than that it's come from the horse's mouth.

I don't buy this 'apterous produces nerdy quiet contestants' argument: if anything it 'outs' them into a social environment wherein their introverted tendencies are challenged. Chris seemed fairly quiet but then was selected to play the Big Brother version of the game so producers must not be as concerned as they maintain.

Then you have people like Andrew Hulme and Kirk Bevins who come across as really outgoing. I don't want to reduce this to a ... 'this one was quiet/this one wasn't' but I really dispute the idea that the nerd quotient has gone up. I have been watching the show for years and can remember a certain Damian Eadie being regarded as extremely outgoing because he was such a revelation compared to former contestants.

Also, I'd much prefer a modest quiet contestant to an arrogant 'water sipper' who makes me want to punch my way through the TV screen. It is true that some of the most memorable contestants have had a certain charisma but the defining moment for me was when Jim Martin solved that numbers game: in short, it's the moments of genius that captivate me most about the show: you'll only get these moments if you let the best players fight it out occasionally.

[D Eadie]

This isn't aimed at anyone in particular by the way. There are lots of quiet contestants - is the evidence really there that CofC contestants are overall "worse" in this respect than your average contestant? Or, perhaps more significantly, have the viewers noticed/mentioned it? I sometimes wonder if a lot of this sort of talk is based on our assumptions of the "regular viewer". Things like "your regular viewer wouldn't understand what was going on in a three-week CofC." Really? Have they written in and complained? Perhaps Damian could tell us. And a lot of people say that viewers wouldn't like being beaten for three weeks. Damain must have some idea of the viewers' positive/negative responses in proportional terms.

Without re-reading loads of stuff, I think we think all this sort of stuff because Damian has indeed told us. It's always surprised me, so I can't think of any other reason for my believing it other than that it's come from the horse's mouth.

There is no evidence to suggest anything i may have said above was ever true, in fact i made it all up in the name of attention seeking, because i've got nothing else better to do. Thanks for the constructive input though, it's greatly appreciated.

[D Eadie]

I don't buy this 'apterous produces nerdy quiet contestants' argument: if anything it 'outs' them into a social environment wherein their introverted tendencies are challenged. Chris seemed fairly quiet but then was selected to play the Big Brother version of the game so producers must not be as concerned as they maintain.

Then you have people like Andrew Hulme and Kirk Bevins who come across as really outgoing. I don't want to reduce this to a ... 'this one was quiet/this one wasn't' but I really dispute the idea that the nerd quotient has gone up. I have been watching the show for years and can remember a certain Damian Eadie being regarded as extremely outgoing because he was such a revelation compared to former contestants.

Also, I'd much prefer a modest quiet contestant to an arrogant 'water sipper' who makes me want to punch my way through the TV screen. It is true that some of the most memorable contestants have had a certain charisma but the defining moment for me was when Jim Martin solved that numbers game: in short, it's the moments of genius that captivate me most about the show: you'll only get these moments if you let the best players fight it out occasionally.

David, wake up.

[David O'Donnell]

I obviously don't have your insight, Damian, I freely admit that. Just expressing my views as a diehard fan though I do realise that we form the minority of your viewing demographic.

I would say though ... didn't you think Jim Martin's number solution was a wonderful piece of television and, if so, how would you plan to replicate such feats if you 'dumb down' the show? Because let's face it, that's what this amounts to.

[David Williams]

Been thinking a bit more about the "polite note" in the green room asking contestants to think of the "televisual side of things". I have to say that when a contestant comes on who clearly isn't good at this side of things, all I can think is what a bonus it is that Countdown's only consideration is that you are good at words and numbers.

But maybe a couple more polite notes could help. Rachel may be trying to help the televisual side of things by telling someone their seven point solution is "Brilliant!", but it falls a bit flat when she immediately gets it spot on. And that "Fantastic!" seven letter winner is not quite so fantastic when Susie has a couple of eights. My televisual experience is also not enhanced by Susie sticking her hands up the celebrity's nose and miming a clap. It doesn't persuade me that the word they've just read is their own at the best of times. It certainly doesn't when they've just said QV (cuvee), or liba-ross (liberos). Or my all-time favourite, Martin Jarvis' disingenuous "Is there such a thing as a solaria?" And goodness only knows how many pages the polite note in the celebrity's dressing room would run to.

No need for thanks, Damian. Always ready to assist.

[D Eadie]

I obviously don't have your insight, Damian, I freely admit that. Just expressing my views as a diehard fan though I do realise that we form the minority of your viewing demographic.

I would say though ... didn't you think Jim Martin's number solution was a wonderful piece of television and, if so, how would you plan to replicate such feats if you 'dumb down' the show? Because let's face it, that's what this amounts to.

I'd like to think we'd dumb up, if that's the term to use. James Martin's numbers was terrific, can't see how this would be affected by us asking for more of an effort from the younger guys who play. I've said before but it think it's worth repeating because it's important to stress it, that the regular series of Countdown isn't an issue here, it's about dedicating 3 whole weeks of peak-audience Countdown to a C of C that would be largely made up of pretty quiet / shy males under 25, it's just too long.

[Ian Fitzpatrick]

Countdown is an entertaining and challenging programme, the problem of the three weeks CofC is that it becomes less "challenging" to the normal viewer who can only dream of ever winning a teapot.

It is interesting to see past champions returning but before I came on here I would probaly only recognise 10% of them.

[Kirk Bevins]

I certainly was excited when I heard Paul Gallen and Conor Travers were returning for CofC and me and Sid always went into a friends room and used her TV for 45 minutes whilst Countdown was on. I wasn't that good back then and I was so impressed, even though I was getting hammered. I think viewers may like the fact these people are coming out with obscure words rather than being able to compete. Maybe 3 weeks is too long, I'm not sure, but I know I was happy when say Mark won and Des said he'd be back next Thursday. I was like "damn that's ages away" but that meant I got to watch a whole week of other exciting shows. Then that Thursday came and it produced an amazing game between him and Shore - classic TV.

Yes, this doesn't solve the problem of quietness on TV but from a "normal" viewer I enjoyed having 3 weeks of top class contestants that I'd recognised from the TV.

[Ben Wilson]

Or my all-time favourite, Martin Jarvis' disingenuous "Is there such a thing as a solaria?"

Oh god that. Then he asked if it was the plural of celeriac.

In all seriousness though, why not just shift the c of c to after the spring-summer series instead? Seems like an obvious solution to me though no doubt there'll be something I've missed (Damian)...

[Gavin Chipper]

There is no evidence to suggest anything i may have said above was ever true, in fact i made it all up in the name of attention seeking, because i've got nothing else better to do. Thanks for the constructive input though, it's greatly appreciated.

Well, it would be interesting to know if it's based on viewers' comments or your own theories. And as at least one person has mentioned, viewers are more likely to write in to complain than praise or express neutrality, so the results would be skewed anyway.

In all seriousness though, why not just shift the c of c to after the spring-summer series instead? Seems like an obvious solution to me though no doubt there'll be something I've missed (Damian)...

Well, if he considered it a good idea, he'd have a dilemma now because I suggested it.

[Andrew Hulme]

I think viewers may like the fact these people are coming out with obscure words rather than being able to compete.

I'm pretty sure they don't... at least in the majority

[Michael Wallace]

I think viewers may like the fact these people are coming out with obscure words rather than being able to compete.

I'm pretty sure they don't... at least in the majority

Agreed. I can remember watching a CoC, or maybe even just the regular finals, back when I was much younger (and bad at Countdown), and I just found it a bit boring.

[Jeff Clayton]

Damian

I agree that an annual face-off between the two series winners is very good, and given that Countdown scores some worthwhile column inches when a series champion is an interesting character, I wonder if there is potential to raise the show's profile and appeal to a broader section of the population with this.

The game between Chris and Kirk was one that most people could only really sit back and enjoy, rather than trying to play against them - but it was still broadcast in its regular afternoon slot (and if you like Big Brother but have a daytime job, you'd still be under the impression that Chris is the "2009 champion").

So by looking at such a show as delivering far more entertainment value than anything else, what about airing this well away from the regular daytime proceedings, offering it as just a one-off and at a time when more people might be interested in watching or just are at home to see it.

The 2009 battle shown on the Monday afternoon in Cheltenham week was not just good telly, and proved that the idea has got legs. However I don't believe that this face-off should be straight after the December final, as it would detract from the December winner's glory and probably be too intense a session for all involved in the production.

For a 2010 face-off, what about leaving it until a few months into 2011 and use something like the Easter weekend? Maybe a nice slot somewhere between about 5pm and 7pm on the Good Friday or Easter Saturday, with some teasers beforehand, to build up Channel 4's schedule?

Take Deal or No Deal, which is now a regular daytime fixture. We all recall the hype it generated when it first hit our screens in 2005, but I think it's fair to say that every once in while is enough now and private citizen Joe Bloggs might like to tune into a special that he can just watch and enjoy with his teatime beer and sandwiches on his day off.

Both Countdown and DoND are staples of the daytime schedule, both are well known, both have minorities of serious aficionados, both have lots of applicants queuing up to appear on them, but most people just like a dose every so often for entertainment value. But as for the winners, they deserve something special. I think their battle should have a sense of occasion and a higher profile.

Happy to discuss offline if you want.

Cheers
Jeff

[D Eadie]

There is no evidence to suggest anything i may have said above was ever true, in fact i made it all up in the name of attention seeking, because i've got nothing else better to do. Thanks for the constructive input though, it's greatly appreciated.

Well, it would be interesting to know if it's based on viewers' comments or your own theories. And as at least one person has mentioned, viewers are more likely to write in to complain than praise or express neutrality, so the results would be skewed anyway.

Gavin, if you weren't so deliberately antagonistic and matter of factly up yourself, i'd furnish you with a comprehensive reponse, but alas history dictates that whatever is put in front of you, you somehow find a way of questioning it and come over so authoritarian on things that in truth, you know little or nothing about. Therefore, despite having just got back from Scunthorpe having seen my beloved Seasiders turn in an brilliant performance, and despite feeling relaxed about a rare 4 days off work and enjoying a nice bottle of wine, i'd much rather dine out on the undigested sweetcorn kernels freshly picked from a vagrants faeces than spend one more jot of my life acknowledging your existence.

[D Eadie]

Damian........

Greatly appreciated. Still not sure which way to go with anything at the moment. We're really unlikely to get anything on C4 in the evening, it's a different ball game and all the scheduling etc is solely down to C4, not the guys who make Countdown. Enjoyed reading your constructive comments -let's see what happens. A lot of it is about dipping toes into the water and seeing how many piranhas are down there Cheers Jeff.

[Gavin Chipper]

Gavin, if you weren't so deliberately antagonistic and matter of factly up yourself, i'd furnish you with a comprehensive reponse, but alas history dictates that whatever is put in front of you, you somehow find a way of questioning it and come over so authoritarian on things that in truth, you know little or nothing about. Therefore, despite having just got back from Scunthorpe having seen my beloved Seasiders turn in an brilliant performance, and despite feeling relaxed about a rare 4 days off work and enjoying a nice bottle of wine, i'd much rather dine out on the undigested sweetcorn kernels freshly picked from a vagrants faeces than spend one more jot of my life acknowledging your existence.

You can read what you want into my posts - but most of what you do is made up by you. It's a shame that you can't be more mature in your posts, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

[Rhys Benjamin]

I understand Damian has changed his details, so I can't talk directly, but, Damian, if this reaches you, then I think that an 8-contestant COC is the best idea.

This is the 1999 COC. The reason that Scott & Kate had a bye because they were unbeaten - i.e. Octochamp, Finals. Of course, I don't pretend to be an expert in this - this information comes from Mike Brown. Well actually it's his scans but it was him really.

However I feel I am deviating. This is an example of 8 contestant COC's. It only takes 7 days (excluding weekends). Yet at the end of Series 63, us lot on the wiki speculated that following information from Robbo that the final is 10th December, we (well, JohnnyCanuck thought) that COC14 may be squeezed in before the end of the year and would finish on New Years' Eve. I opposed that as it was unlikely that it would run over Christams Day and suggested that they do an 8-contestant COC ('till the 22nd). Then the 17th was confirmed and everything got blown out the window.

We would think that Kirk Bevins, Jimmy Gough, Chris Davies, Andrew Hulme, Oliver Garner, Nicki Sellars, Jack Hurst and Eoin Monaghan are expected to take part at least. Others could be Neil Zussman, Innis Carson, Daniel Pati, Marcus Hares, Tom Rowell, Scott Gillies, Ryan Taylor, Lee Graham or Craig Chittenden perhaps? (Yes, I know that's 17.)

(Could those contestants give their thoughts please?)


Hope this is taken on board,

Rhys

[Charlie Reams]

Hope this is taken on board

lol

[Rhys Benjamin]

Hope this is taken on board

lol

[Johnny Canuck]

Hope this is taken on board

lol

Is there anything that's actually seriously wrong about these ideas

Personally, I think yearly champion (instead of COC) is not a bad idea either, as long as some other type of tournament is added or improved as well.

If the problem with recent COCs (and, for that matter, series finals) is that the contestants are getting "too good", a solution could be to increase the series finals from 8 to 16 players, like in Series 2. In Series 60, 61 and 63, more than half of the finalists were Octochamps, and IMHO that percentage is too high. Having 16-person finals would make for a longer leader board with more talent from throughout the series. It would provide an opportunity for some "normal people" (see "RAISING THE BAR ON COUNTDOWN") to get a chance in the finals, because like in the old days, two or three wins could be enough to qualify. I think that if the old 3-month-long series worked well with 8 people in the finals, the new 6-month ones should have 16 people.

I know that some people will disagree with me, but I've also supported the idea of a second Supreme Championship for a while. My ideal plan for a 6-month SC2 would be to have 15 groups (instead of 7 like in the old one), with the finals being made up of the 15 group winners and Harvey Freeman. Players could be seeded according to their performance in their COCs or yearly championships. Personality could be a major factor in getting in (because there's been some discussion about "boringness" as a reason not to have one). If it wouldn't appeal to the general public to have a championship running for six months straight, the SC2 wouldn't have to. It could run on weekends, for example, or during the summer breaks. Remember also that, although it would be bigger than COC14, its standard wouldn't be as high, simply because it would feature contestants going all the way back to Series 34.

I'm fine with COC being removed (for now, anyway), as long as the show moves up to bigger and better things, rather than down to smaller ones.

I don't usually write this much here, but those are my ideas. I have to go edit recaps from the original SC now.

[Oliver Garner]

If the problem with recent COCs (and, for that matter, series finals) is that the contestants are getting "too good", a solution could be to increase the series finals from 8 to 16 players, like in Series 2. In Series 60, 61 and 63, more than half of the finalists were Octochamps, and IMHO that percentage is too high. Having 16-person finals would make for a longer leader board with more talent from throughout the series. It would provide an opportunity for some "normal people" (see "RAISING THE BAR ON COUNTDOWN") to get a chance in the finals, because like in the old days, two or three wins could be enough to qualify. I think that if the old 3-month-long series worked well with 8 people in the finals, the new 6-month ones should have 16 people.

Series 47 had 8 octochamps. No-one complained then. What's the point in having a series finals with the best players in if you have some with 2 wins in?

I know that some people will disagree with me, but I've also supported the idea of a second Supreme Championship for a while. My ideal plan for a 6-month SC2 would be to have 15 groups (instead of 7 like in the old one), with the finals being made up of the 15 group winners and Harvey Freeman. Players could be seeded according to their performance in their COCs or yearly championships. I'm fine with COC being removed (for now, anyway), as long as the show moves up to bigger and better things, rather than down to smaller ones.

I had a chat about this with John Ashmore (series 38 champion) at the Twixmas Scrabble tournament. He seemed surprised about Damian saying there wouldn't be a CofC. I (facetiously) suggested that it should be moved to Sky and there would be a £1 million first prize to lure the likes of Julian Fell, Stewart Holden and Craig Beevers into playing. I think it would be even less likely to happen because instead of a 3-week CoC, there would be 6 months of top players. Although highly improbable, I hope Damian changes his mind because I'd love to play in a CofC and (most likely) get knocked out in the first round. Like I've said elsewhere, I don't think viewers would be turned off by not being able to beat the contestants. Whilst it needs to appeal to a mass audience, I don't think they should worry too much about being perceived as 'high brow'

[Johnny Canuck]

Series 47 had 8 octochamps. No-one complained then.

Yes, but they didn't have 900+ points or solve the conundrums in 0.5 seconds like a lot of Octochamps today.

I think it would be even less likely to happen because instead of a 3-week CoC, there would be 6 months of top players.

As I mentioned, it wouldn't replace regular Countdown. It could be shown during breaks and on weekends.

[Kirk Bevins]

Series 47 had 8 octochamps. No-one complained then.

Yes, but they didn't have 900+ points or solve the conundrums in 0.5 seconds like a lot of Octochamps today.
/quote]

But it's good to encourage the standard to increase. I watched the Mastermind COC and, while I couldn't compete, it was just as awe-inspiring to watch the top guys battle it out.

[Oliver Garner]

Yes, but they didn't have 900+ points or solve the conundrums in 0.5 seconds like a lot of Octochamps today.

Only one contestant scored 900+ points in Series 63 and only 5 have done so ever. One of them was Julian Fell who did so in 2002. Jeffrey Hansford solved a fair few conundrums in less than 0.5 seconds as well.

As I mentioned, it wouldn't replace regular Countdown. It could be shown during breaks and on weekends.

Do you really think Jeff/Rachel/the team could do 120 episodes on top of the 200+ a year they do presently? They would have to use the studios far more and there would be loads of logistical issues. Channel 4 wouldn't want to show more Countdown than what is on at present, especially since they are moving it back to 3:10 to accommodate 15 more minutes of DonD. Even if it was on at every break/week-end, it would take exactly a year. (365-245 episodes of normal series shown last year).

[Johnny Canuck]

But it's good to encourage the standard to increase. I watched the Mastermind COC and, while I couldn't compete, it was just as awe-inspiring to watch the top guys battle it out.

I understood the main point of this thread to be that the standard was too high, and that most people don't only want to watch the top guys battle it out, they want to see people to whom they can relate, both in terms of personality and word/number knowledge.

Only one contestant scored 900+ points in Series 63 and only 5 have done so ever. One of them was Julian Fell who did so in 2002. Jeffrey Hansford solved a fair few conundrums in less than 0.5 seconds as well.

OK, maybe "a lot" of Octochamps was an exaggeration, but my point was that the standard for the current 8-person finals is getting too far beyond what many people enjoy, and that adding more people would bring the average calibre of difficulty down to a level that would be more suitable for the so-called "general public". (Another suggestion, following in the vein of American game shows including Jeopardy!, would be to rename the finals the Championship of Champions, so that there would be a Series 64 CoC, Series 65 CoC, etc... I know this suggestion is probably lame.)

Do you really think Jeff/Rachel/the team could do 120 episodes on top of the 200+ a year they do presently? They would have to use the studios far more and there would be loads of logistical issues. Channel 4 wouldn't want to show more Countdown than what is on at present, especially since they are moving it back to 3:10 to accommodate 15 more minutes of DonD. Even if it was on at every break/week-end, it would take exactly a year. (365-245 episodes of normal series shown last year).

Supreme Championship episodes could be shown on a particular day of the week (e.g., every Friday) and only replace regular Countdown on that day, although then the championship would take even longer.

A 0-player CoC would be awesome.

This.

How can you be completely sure it hasn't already been done? A bunch of times?

[Oliver Garner]

[ but a really tense, serious and quiet C of C for 3 weeks isn't a true representation of the all-year-round product, and given that it goes out in January when TV ratings are at their highest, i want people to see a true representation of the show, so that some of them come back in Feb, March, April and the rest, which means we'll get to celebrate 10000 shows, nevermind 5000.

I just had a look back at the CofC XII which went out in May/June and thought 'this standard of play is ridiculous'. Even not including current apterites (Conor, Jono, Mark, Paul H, Corby) and Paul G who told me how he spent loads of time practising, the quality of the games was amazing. On a par with the likes of Kirk, Innis, Chris and Jack I'd say. I don't think the viewers would be any more put off by the standard of play now than they were in 2006 IMO.