Yearly Champion

[D Eadie]

Am toying with the idea of having a yearly champion, which means the winner of Jan - Jun plays the winner of July - Dec, at the end of the year - to transmit the day after the final proper, which would move to the Thursday.

Slightly concerned about the workload for the winner of the July-Dec series though.

Interested to hear from finalists, in particularly series winners, on how they think they'd feel having to win the series, then have a 30 min break before taking on the previous series winner in the yearly-champ thing. Too much on the stresses in one afternoon maybe?

Opinions welcomed, preferrably from those who've been and done it and are talking from experience.

[Marc Meakin]

I think it is a great idea as long as the COC will still continue.
IMO the December champion would be at a slight advantage as he/she will have less nerves.
I also think it would be good to have champions from previous years battle it out in some specials in the future.

[Ben Wilson]

I think it is a great idea as long as the COC will still continue.

Agreed.

IMO the December champion would be at a slight advantage as he/she will have less nerves.

Besides the rampaging nerves they'll have had during their SF and GF, you mean?

I also think it would be good to have champions from previous years battle it out in some specials in the future.

Agreed, for obvious reasons Maybe a slightly late 'champion of the decade tournament'?

[Marc Meakin]

[Agreed, for obvious reasons Maybe a slightly late 'champion of the decade tournament'?

Now that, I would pay to see.

[Kirk Bevins]

I'd have been up for that. They'd know they'd have to play a series winner straight after a 15 minute break or whatever but both players will be just as nervous and I think the person in the chair's adrenaline will still be running so should make a good contest.

I also think COC should still continue though. I've had a few people say to me how they really enjoyed the me vs Chris (especially the numbers changing) special and they thought that nobody could stop Chris so it was nice for them to see an even match up/close contest. COC should provide many more tight matches (with plenty of obscure words to keep Susie busy and viewers perplexed) and would be awesome. 3 weeks of magic games.

But yeah, in short, you could do a yearly champion sort of thing, but mix up the large numbers just for something different (like the special) and in COC do a regular 15 rounder.

Edit to add: I played one game on the Thursday and two on the Friday and it was all over. Having 1 more game on one of the days shouldn't be too much more stressful.

[Craig Beevers]

I think it would be better and fairer to film it on a different day to the series final personally. Give someone a chance to celebrate their series win properly, would be a bit rough if they immediately lost thereafter. Although that would obviously depend on how serious the yearly winner show was meant to be.

[Gavin Chipper]

I think it is a great idea as long as the COC will still continue.
IMO the December champion would be at a slight advantage as he/she will have less nerves.
I also think it would be good to have champions from previous years battle it out in some specials in the future.

The June chamipion would also not be "match fit" (not televisionb match fit anyway) and couldn't let their form drop over the six months. I suppose that's the case anyway with the CofC.

[Charlie Reams]

I like the idea. But I wouldn't have liked to do another game immediately after the final, I was drained afterwards and mine was filmed separately from the other six games. Could it be filmed as the first episode of the start of the next series?

[Michael Wallace]

I like the idea. But I wouldn't have liked to do another game immediately after the final

AND THAT'S WHY YOU'LL NEVER BE A WINNER, REAMS

[Matthew Green]

The player who has just won would be more tired but they'd also be more attuned to the game and the studio while the other guy might be a bit rusty.

At the 2008 Wimbledon, Nadal battled through some long matches while Federer cruised through so everyone thought Federer would kill him because he was fresher. As it turned out, Nadal was more battle-hardened and it ended up being dead even, as well as supremely high quality.

[Helen Andrews]

I really enjoyed the Kirk vs. Chris special, and I think having an end of year play-off like this would be great. Although if it would be too much of a drain on the recently-crowned champion (which I could imagine it might be, though obviously I've no idea), then it might be better to schedule it for the start of the next series, like Charlie suggested.

[craig]

I like the idea. Hope it wouldn't be in place of COC though. It would work well with the COC because it increases the chance of having rematches which are always good.

I think it might be better having it at the start of the next year as well. It might detract from the final if it was the next day.

[Jon Corby]

I think it would be better and fairer to film it on a different day to the series final personally. Give someone a chance to celebrate their series win properly, would be a bit rough if they immediately lost thereafter. Although that would obviously depend on how serious the yearly winner show was meant to be.

I think Craig makes a very good point here.

[Ciaran Thompson]

I personally think its a really good idea as well, but as others have said, perhaps give the Dec champ a break by filming a few days later after their final?

I agree with Kirk

mix up the large numbers just for something different (like the special) and in COC do a regular 15 rounder.

However I'd possibly change the letters/and or conundrum as well to make it more fun/challenging. And/or could you do it as a mega game of 18 rounds by squeezing in an extra letters, numbers and conundrum, by having a shorter DC section and cutting out Origin of Words, so in total you'd have 12 letters, 4 numbers and 2 conundrums (1 conundrum being in the middle of the game, similar to the old finals)?

[D Eadie]

I think it would be better and fairer to film it on a different day to the series final personally. Give someone a chance to celebrate their series win properly, would be a bit rough if they immediately lost thereafter. Although that would obviously depend on how serious the yearly winner show was meant to be.

I think Craig makes a very good point here.

Going from personal experience, albeit 500 years ago, i know i was mentally shattered after playing the final, as the waiting around inbetween Qf - Sf - F drained me senseless, and once it was all over i only had one thing on my mind, which was a much needed beer.

There are a few niggles with doing it on a different day. The dictionary changes at the start of 2011, so it's not ideal to kick off the year with 2 people who's heads are firmly entrenched into ODE2. Also, if you're a first-time player, it can be pretty intimidating sharing a green room / stage with established regular Countdown faces, so i'd much rather keep it to the end of the year, the last game.

It's meant to be taken seriously, but how seriously the players take it is up to them. There won't be any more fiddling with rounds, numbers, rules etc, that was all a one-off for the specials, so it's always going to be 15 regular rounds from here on in, unless of course we're asked to make more specials. The C of C is a weird kettle of fish. 3 weeks is too long but nothing else fits very well if it's less than 16 players, so i think we'll either do a scaled-down version OR knock them on the head altogether, hence the yearly championship instead. Thanks for the input folks.

[craig]

If you did do it on another day could you not just use the old dictionary for that game and then go to the new one, or is that not fair on Susie/just a shit idea?

[Kirk Bevins]

3 weeks is too long but nothing else fits very well if it's less than 16 players, so i think we'll either do a scaled-down version

Why is 3 weeks too long? The viewers get 15 days of high quality matches with some close games and crucial conundrums. A lot of tension in 15 shows has got to be good for the viewers.

[David O'Donnell]

I can really understand Craig's concern here. Give the big guy a break, he'd be up against me and would obviously be shitting himself - it would be totally unfair on him.

Actually it'd be me and Junaid? No wonder he's taken up long distance running.

[D Eadie]

A lot of tension in 15 shows has got to be good for the viewers.

It's not really. The light-hearted atmosphere of the show disappears, it gets very serious and we lose a little entertainment value. Fine in short bursts, but not for 3 weeks. On the games front there isn't an issue, they'd be top drawer stuff, but overall i think 3 weeks of fiercely competitive games, coupled with a lot of tension and extremely quiet competitors is something we're looking to get away from.

[Howard Somerset]

A lot of tension in 15 shows has got to be good for the viewers.

It's not really. The light-hearted atmosphere of the show disappears, it gets very serious and we lose a little entertainment value. Fine in short bursts, but not for 3 weeks. On the games front there isn't an issue, they'd be top drawer stuff, but overall i think 3 weeks of fiercely competitive games, coupled with a lot of tension and extremely quiet competitors is something we're looking to get away from.

I'd go along with this view.

COCs are absolutely great for pretty well everyone here. Certainly great for the contestants, and also great for the rest of us, who often know at least some of the contestants. And I would definitely hate to see them go.

But I guess the main purpose of the programme is to entertain and attract a much wider audience. I've got a number of friends who regularly watch, and every one of them says that they are relieved when it's a normal programme, when they've got a chance of equalling, or even beating the contestants.

[Marc Meakin]

How about a compromise.
Still have the COC, but air them in 3, or more, seperate chunks, over a 3 month period.(or longer).

[Ian Dent]

The dictionary changes at the start of 2011,

Oh my God.

[Marc Meakin]

The dictionary changes at the start of 2011,

Oh my God.

Will we get a heads up of additions/subtractions from the new book. (2 -9 letter words, obviously)

[D Eadie]

The dictionary changes at the start of 2011,

Oh my God.

Will we get a heads up of additions/subtractions from the new book. (2 -9 letter words, obviously)

Not from me mate, it's all copyright stuff and there aren't enough hours in the day. I do know that AIRDATES loses its validity, but i can't remember the other 500

[Kirk Bevins]

It's not really. The light-hearted atmosphere of the show disappears, it gets very serious and we lose a little entertainment value. Fine in short bursts, but not for 3 weeks. On the games front there isn't an issue, they'd be top drawer stuff, but overall i think 3 weeks of fiercely competitive games, coupled with a lot of tension and extremely quiet competitors is something we're looking to get away from.

I agree that the light-hearted atmosphere disappears and it gets serious...no bones about that. I'm not sure all 16 players (whoever they may be) are quiet. A few of us like to chat on screen and so I'm sure it won't be 3 solid weeks of boring contestants. That said I think COC should go ahead (maybe I'm biased) as it's a tradition and is awesome. You suggested top 8 but would be a nightmare to schedule....agreed, so the final would be on a Wednesday with the next series starting on the Thursday. Not sure if this is problematic or not.

Someone suggested splitting the 3 weeks up - I think this is worse in that you'll have one week of COC and you'll say "next week we have the regular series so those that want to see who else from the last 16 gets to the quarter finals...you have to wait another week" and it would be so broken and wrong.

Not sure what mail you get from viewers from COC (although I'm guessing whatever mail you do get tends to be negative...our culture of 'if you deserve praise you'll hear nothing but if you've done bad you'll hear complaints'.) and whether they like it or not. Yes, some people are quiet, but do viewers actually object to this or do they still enjoy the show for the game itself and the banter and camaraderie between Jeff and Rachel?

[Charlie Reams]

An 8-player CoC would be awesome.

[Marc Meakin]

An 8-player CoC would be awesome.

Still have the 16 player format but only show the last 7 matches.

[Kirk Bevins]

Still have the 16 player format but only show the last 7 matches.

Hopefully this is a jokey request. If not that's a ridiculous idea. Poor people....recording for Countdown and not actually having it televised.

"The number 1 seed from series 63 was knocked out in the last 16 by Bob De Caux in a quality match but unfortunately you're not going to see what happened although records were broken."

[Marc Meakin]

Still have the 16 player format but only show the last 7 matches.

Hopefully this is a jokey request. If not that's a ridiculous idea. Poor people....recording for Countdown and not actually having it televised.

"The number 1 seed from series 63 was knocked out in the last 16 by Bob De Caux in a quality match but unfortunately you're not going to see what happened although records were broken."

Maybe they could have a highlights of the first round matches aired the day before.

[D Eadie]

Still have the 16 player format but only show the last 7 matches.

Hopefully this is a jokey request. If not that's a ridiculous idea. Poor people....recording for Countdown and not actually having it televised.

"The number 1 seed from series 63 was knocked out in the last 16 by Bob De Caux in a quality match but unfortunately you're not going to see what happened although records were broken."

Maybe they could have a highlights of the first round matches aired the day before.

Nah, you can't make TV shows and never screen them, it's like setting fire to bagfuls of money.
16 players, 3 weeks - that's the ideal scenario but it's no longer ideal, hence it's probably no longer.
I think the yearly champ is better and gives a faster end-product in terms of conclusion, rather than waiting 2 or 3 years.

[James Robinson]

"The number 1 seed from series 63 was knocked out in the last 16 by Bob De Caux in a quality match but unfortunately you're not going to see what happened although records were broken."

One slight problem with that is the inclusion of Bob De Caux in there.

Well, we all know how good he is on Apterous, but he didn't even get to the finals in his series, so how would he have even qualified for the CoC

Or have there been instances where people haven't reached the series finals, then got into the CoC?

[D Eadie]

One slight problem with that is the inclusion of Bob De Caux in there.

Well, we all know how good he is on Apterous, but he didn't even get to the finals in his series, so how would he have even qualified for the CoC

Or have there been instances where people haven't reached the series finals, then got into the CoC?

Surely you don't need it spelling out to you that Kirk was speaking hypothetically? Even by your standards that post is extraordinary.

[James Robinson]

One slight problem with that is the inclusion of Bob De Caux in there.

Well, we all know how good he is on Apterous, but he didn't even get to the finals in his series, so how would he have even qualified for the CoC

Or have there been instances where people haven't reached the series finals, then got into the CoC?

Surely you don't need it spelling out to you that Kirk was speaking hypothetically? Even by your standards that post is extraordinary.

Maybe I should have hypothesised that coming.

[Junaid Mubeen]

An 8-player CoC would be awesome.

This. It seems a shame to restrict the elite tourneys to series winners only. We would have been deprived of the heroics of Gallen, Briers, Nyman and many others. This way, the purists get their fix and such top players won't slip through the net.

[D Eadie]

A 0-player CoC would be awesome.

This.

[Marc Meakin]

A 0-player CoC would be awesome.

This.

Maybe Apterous will have to run the COC instead or perhaps have it at a CO event and post the games on youtube.

[Marc Meakin]

Nah, you can't make TV shows and never screen them, it's like setting fire to bagfuls of money.

What like, these http://wiki.apterous.org/Category:Unreleased_episodes

[D Eadie]

A 0-player CoC would be awesome.

This.

Maybe Apterous will have to run the COC instead or perhaps have it at a CO event and post the games on youtube.

A COC. Got a great ring to it.

[David Williams]

Great idea. Countdown Champion 2010 sounds much better than Series Champion.

But am I alone in thinking April 1st has come early. If anyone else had suggested this it would have been ridiculed. We have champions, series champions, champions of champions. We even had a supreme champion once. So what we really need is another sort of champion the day after one of the existing sorts.

Personally I'd have the top four each quarter play off, and the four winners meet to decide the yearly champion. And ditch the current six month series. There's no particular reason to have six-month series anyway. Mind you I've suggested this before and been ridiculed.

[Charlie Reams]

Personally I'd have the top four each quarter play off, and the four winners meet to decide the yearly champion. And ditch the current six month series. There's no particular reason to have six-month series anyway. Mind you I've suggested this before and been ridiculed.

That sounds like a pretty neat idea, but I believe the six-month series is dictated to them by Channel 4.

[Tom]

Coming in late, does this mean its a likelihood C of C would be scrapped in the future? whilst 16 players is a lot for a C of C I think 8 would still be OK and exciting.

Speaking as an ex-finalist I think a yearly champion game would be a great idea, the year I was on would have produced Julian Fell vs Chris Wills and although that game did happen in a special and not taking anything away from the special, I think the hype and anticipation would have been even better had it happened at the end of the year as opposed to being broadcast later the next. I'd say go for it.

With the latter series winner having to play straight after the final, although their focus will be winning their respective series and they might feel drained after, I can then imagine the prospect of them having the opportunity of yearly champion after 1 more game should balance the drained-ness out of them and spur them on as they’ll no doubt feel on a roll and would prove a great incentive for them.

[Jon Corby]

I think the annual champion should get a million pound recording contract.

[D Eadie]

Personally I'd have the top four each quarter play off, and the four winners meet to decide the yearly champion. And ditch the current six month series. There's no particular reason to have six-month series anyway. Mind you I've suggested this before and been ridiculed.

That sounds like a pretty neat idea, but I believe the six-month series is dictated to them by Channel 4.

The series length is our call, not C4's. They're happy to let us make the best shows we can. There are reasons in having a 6-month series, several of them, but i know what you mean about having a finalist winner then the glory lasting one day. That's why i asked for input. I personally don't think its fair to expect someone to raise their game and play the yearly final straight after winning the series, but i'm also not sold on having quarters either, too many flaws.

[Mike Brown]

Interesting thread, this.

I must admit I also think the idea of having the one-off game straight after the final is (a) a bit unfair on the champion who's only just won, as their glory could be taken away almost immediately and (b) it also detracts from the final being the climax of the series from the viewers' point of view, which seems to me a bit counterproductive.

How about having a week-long championship at the start of the following year, perhaps involving two 'quarter finals' played by four top players from the last two series (excluding the series champs, chosen by Damian and co., natch), two semis involving the series champs and the two winners of the quarters, and then a final on the Friday? Fits nicely into a week, might bore the regular viewers somewhat less if that's an issue, while the aficioanados still get 10 top-flight games to watch every two years. (I see where you're coming from btw, Damian, about most viewers not wanting to see three weeks of scarily good players they can't compete with from their armchairs, but I'd have thought a lot of them would still enjoy seeing 'old faces' returning - I know I always have, and it's not just because I think records are going to be broken or something.) It also means no one gets a chance to get rusty, as some players might have got in the past by the time CoC came around (although this may be a less of a problem these days with apterous on tap). And the dictionary change? If it's really an issue to introduce ODE3 a week into the new series rather than at the start, make the players use it if that's the only sticking point. Bit unfortunate, perhaps, but surely a small price to pay?

Shame in a way if C of C goes, as it's somewhat of an institution, but if change is required, that's my contribution. I'll get my tin hat ready.

[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.

[Charlie Reams]

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.

[Dan Vanniasingham]

How about having a week-long championship at the start of the following year...

FWIW I like Mike's suggestion - if it's feasible.

[D Eadie]

I agree Dan, it does seem the most workable. It's only 1 week and we can take 3 from each series.
Defo have to use new ODE3 at the start though, can't confuse people by accepting words on a Friday then disallowing them the following Monday, so the participants will just have to use it.

The ODE3 comes out several months before Jan 2011, so those who might need it have a chance to look at things if they wish.
Thanks Mike et al.

[Clive Brooker]

Defo have to use new ODE3 at the start though, can't confuse people by accepting words on a Friday then disallowing them the following Monday, so the participants will just have to use it.

I'm all for making these super-champions work as hard as possible in return for yet more television glory, but I don't really see this argument. How would it look if the same word that had been disallowed a few days ago to decide the series final is now allowable and decides the result of the play-off final?

Presumably the lexicographer is going to announce the new dictionary when it is first used, rather than slipping it in unannounced, and will spend a few moments outlining the key changes and giving an indication of how much difference we are likely to see. The start of a new series seems the most logical place to me, and anyone who doesn't pick up on the dictionary change is hardly going to notice that certain words have suddenly started to be allowed.

I'm assuming this thread is still a ridicule-free zone.

[Jon Corby]

I'm assuming this thread is still a ridicule-free zone.

What?

[D Eadie]

Defo have to use new ODE3 at the start though, can't confuse people by accepting words on a Friday then disallowing them the following Monday, so the participants will just have to use it.

I'm all for making these super-champions work as hard as possible in return for yet more television glory, but I don't really see this argument. How would it look if the same word that had been disallowed a few days ago to decide the series final is now allowable and decides the result of the play-off final?

Presumably the lexicographer is going to announce the new dictionary when it is first used, rather than slipping it in unannounced, and will spend a few moments outlining the key changes and giving an indication of how much difference we are likely to see. The start of a new series seems the most logical place to me, and anyone who doesn't pick up on the dictionary change is hardly going to notice that certain words have suddenly started to be allowed.

I'm assuming this thread is still a ridicule-free zone.

Not following you Clive. If we do a 1 week 'best of the year' thing as per Mike's suggestion above, then it's going to be at the start of the year - say January 10th 2011. This is when we'd intro the new ODE3. The previous series would have ended on Dec 17th, so there's a clear space. And yes, of course we'll mention it on the show beforehand, as we have done with every other dictionary change. If you're suggesting we use the ODE2 for the January 10th week then intro the ODE3 the week after, then no this isn't ideal, but i'm not really sure what you're getting at.

[Ben Hunter]

Will 'lesbigay' still be in?

[D Eadie]

Will 'lesbigay' still be in?

Unfortunately, yes.

[Jon Corby]

Will 'lesbigay' still be in?

Unfortunately, yes.

Not come out then?

[Chris Corby]

Surely for one game only, both ODE2 and ODE3 could be used with Susie saying something like "We are using the new version of the dictionary from today but to be fair to both these players, for this day only, words will be accepted if they are in the previous version."

But to be honest, the chances that a word will be offered that has been removed is fairly unlikely. However, unquestionably, this would be the most important match of the Countdown year so it would be pretty unfair to lose it on a 'disallowed' word that was in ODE2 and not ODE3!

[Helen Andrews]

Surely for one game only, both ODE2 and ODE3 could be used with Susie saying something like "We are using the new version of the dictionary from today but to be fair to both these players, for this day only, words will be accepted if they are in the previous version."

But to be honest, the chances that a word will be offered that has been removed is fairly unlikely. However, unquestionably, this would be the most important match of the Countdown year so it would be pretty unfair to lose it on a 'disallowed' word that was in ODE2 and not ODE3!

As a casual viewer, I think I'd find that first suggestion a bit confusing (or at least, I can see how it could confuse people, having read through this thread I can appreciate it's not really that complex an issue), but I agree that it seems really unlikely that it would make a difference, if there are really only around 500 changes. I suppose the trouble is you can't assume there won't be a problem like that, because then what do you do if there is one?

[Charlie Reams]

Given that the difference between the two versions is miniscule, I doubt even the top players will be too fussed about playing to a new dictionary. From a gameplay perspective it's virtually a non-issue, so I'd go with making things simple for the viewer.

[Clive Brooker]

Given that the difference between the two versions is miniscule, I doubt even the top players will be too fussed about playing to a new dictionary. From a gameplay perspective it's virtually a non-issue, so I'd go with making things simple for the viewer.

I'm persuaded. Have you deliberately used one of the upcoming changes?

In the past some of the changes have been very obvious - MALTIER/MALTIEST being the one I remember best - so perhaps my judgment is clouded by that. I was certainly confused when MALTIER suddenly started being acceptable having been disallowed a few weeks earlier. But I agree that it was hardly a change that would have troubled a strong player.

[Charlie Reams]

Given that the difference between the two versions is miniscule, I doubt even the top players will be too fussed about playing to a new dictionary. From a gameplay perspective it's virtually a non-issue, so I'd go with making things simple for the viewer.

I'm persuaded. Have you deliberately used one of the upcoming changes?

You win a VFSMB.

I believe there are a couple of high-probability changes, but you could brief someone on them in five minutes and it's highly unlikely to matter anyway.

[Ian Volante]

The ideas above sound great.

As for the new dictionary, surely Susie can mention it in passing as she looks up a word - simple and effective.