Countdown Team wrote:There WILL be another C of C.
Logistics yet to be worked out as we're not that far ahead, but likely on-screen in Jan 2015 for 3 weeks, so just 16 players and definitely excluding 30th birthday participants, for no other reason other than to give different people a chance to play again. Filming would be in November / December.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Terrific news!Countdown Team wrote:There WILL be another C of C.
Logistics yet to be worked out as we're not that far ahead, but likely on-screen in Jan 2015 for 3 weeks, so just 16 players and definitely excluding 30th birthday participants, for no other reason other than to give different people a chance to play again. Filming would be in November / December.
Woo! Yay!Countdown Team wrote:There WILL be another C of C.
This was expected, is understandable, and genuinely doesn't dampen my "woo yay" one bit. There are at least 16 players from series 67 onwards (or from earlier but who couldn't play in the 30BC) who would deserve a place in a CoC, so it makes sense.Countdown Team wrote:definitely excluding 30th birthday participants, for no other reason other than to give different people a chance to play again.
I was going to write this emoticon. Now I have to think of a different one.Countdown Team wrote:
Dave?Gavin Chipper wrote:Excellent. Obviously we're now going to have to start saying who we think should be included.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
You'd include Dave Preece? Interesting choice.Callum Todd wrote:Dave?Gavin Chipper wrote:Excellent. Obviously we're now going to have to start saying who we think should be included.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
Well, all the previous CoC's have included players from the last main series, so I assume it wouldn't be much of a problem. I'm assuming that the Series 71 finals will be recording in early November, so CoC XIV would record in late November, or possibly early December.Callum Todd wrote:Hang on, will series 71 definitely be included in this then? I imagine filming will start very soon, if not immediately, after series 71 finishes so will it be possible to plan them in? If so, great, the more the merrier. But I assumed that wouldn't be the case. Would be good for Bradley, Jen, and David to get their chance.
The pool of contestants for a CoC has generally seemed to close about two-thirds of the way through the last series before it. For instance, Jon Corby and Tony Warren weren't entered into CoC XII, but Matthew Shore was; and Martin Bishop wasn't entered into CoC XIII, but Charlie Reams was. I'd say there could well be time for at least two people from S71.Callum Todd wrote:Hang on, will series 71 definitely be included in this then? I imagine filming will start very soon, if not immediately, after series 71 finishes so will it be possible to plan them in? If so, great, the more the merrier. But I assumed that wouldn't be the case. Would be good for Bradley, Jen, and David to get their chance.
I think that's only a recent thing and may only actually have happened once (the Corby case). It was said that Jon Corby would have been put into the CoC but he went on too late and indeed he was put in the next one. Tony Warren's octorun carried on into the next series anyway so doesn't count. Also, Charlie Reams was seeded higher than and got further than Martin Bishop so that's not really strong evidence. I don't think there's any evidence with previous series, so I don't think it should be a major problem using the late contestants from series 71.Johnny Canuck wrote:The pool of contestants for a CoC has generally seemed to close about two-thirds of the way through the last series before it. For instance, Jon Corby and Tony Warren weren't entered into CoC XII, but Matthew Shore was; and Martin Bishop wasn't entered into CoC XIII, but Charlie Reams was. I'd say there could well be time for at least two people from S71.Callum Todd wrote:Hang on, will series 71 definitely be included in this then? I imagine filming will start very soon, if not immediately, after series 71 finishes so will it be possible to plan them in? If so, great, the more the merrier. But I assumed that wouldn't be the case. Would be good for Bradley, Jen, and David to get their chance.
Just seen this. Excellent news, looking forward!Countdown Team wrote:There WILL be another C of C.
Logistics yet to be worked out as we're not that far ahead, but likely on-screen in Jan 2015 for 3 weeks, so just 16 players and definitely excluding 30th birthday participants, for no other reason other than to give different people a chance to play again. Filming would be in November / December.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Series 69 happened to be an exceptionally talent-heavy series.Gavin Chipper wrote:Also it's very series 69 heavy.
Wot no Jen?Rhys Benjamin wrote:Given a free choice:
Series 60: J Gough
Series 61: R Taylor
Series 62: O Garner
Series 63: E Monaghan
Series 67: P James, D Barnard
Series 68: G Hutchings, A Platt
Series 69: C Todd, D Taylor
Series 70: M Murray, A Naylor
Series 71: (two to three people)
Standby list:
S Pilica
P Munday
Well, the fact that Zarte didn't make the finals of his series sort of rules him out, I'm afraid, Zubair. (Although, he would've been brilliant in it too.Zubair Patel wrote:Great news ! Should make excellent viewing.
So many good players to pick from but I'm surprised Zarte's name hasn't been mentioned yet.
)I don't think there are actually any specific criteria as such, but realistically those who didn't make the quarter finals probably won't be selected.Zubair Patel wrote:Ah ok. Wasn't sure of the criteria.
:'(James Robinson wrote:Well, the fact that Zarte didn't make the finals of his series sort of rules him out, I'm afraid, Zubair. (Although, he would've been brilliant in it too.Zubair Patel wrote:Great news ! Should make excellent viewing.
So many good players to pick from but I'm surprised Zarte's name hasn't been mentioned yet.
Rhys Benjamin wrote:Given a free choice:
Series 60: J Gough
Series 61: R Taylor
Series 62: O Garner
Series 63: E Monaghan
Series 67: P James, D Barnard
Series 68: G Hutchings, A Platt
Series 69: C Todd, D Taylor
Series 70: M Murray, A Naylor
Series 71: (two to three people)
Standby list:
S Pilica
P Munday
I'm with you on that one Zarte, us '5 wins and standby finalists' folk probably won't be eligible :'(Zarte Siempre wrote::'(James Robinson wrote:Well, the fact that Zarte didn't make the finals of his series sort of rules him out, I'm afraid, Zubair. (Although, he would've been brilliant in it too.Zubair Patel wrote:Great news ! Should make excellent viewing.
So many good players to pick from but I'm surprised Zarte's name hasn't been mentioned yet.
I'd forgotten Ryan wasn't in the 30BC so he's another possibility. My picks would be...Rhys Benjamin wrote:Given a free choice:
Series 60: J Gough
Series 61: R Taylor
Series 62: O Garner
Series 63: E Monaghan
Series 67: P James, D Barnard
Series 68: G Hutchings, A Platt
Series 69: C Todd, D Taylor
Series 70: M Murray, A Naylor
Series 71: (two to three people)
Standby list:
S Pilica
P Munday
I don't think that's necessarily fair or true. Apterous performance simply should not factor, not at all.Andy Platt wrote:We all know Zarte and David would smash it, but on paper, the likes of Andy Naylor are more likely to be called up, so it's tricky.
I think you're right really. Apterous shouldn't count so I wouldn't include Zarte even though he's obviously be very good. David Barnard is borderline anyway, so I could claim to choose him on Countdown performances and just say "How am I supposed to know if some subconscious force nudged him from just missing out to just making it?"Jon Corby wrote:I don't think that's necessarily fair or true. Apterous performance simply should not factor, not at all.Andy Platt wrote:We all know Zarte and David would smash it, but on paper, the likes of Andy Naylor are more likely to be called up, so it's tricky.
Exactly the same as mine.Dave Preece wrote:My 16:
E MANAGHAN
O GARNER
P JAMES
D BARNARD
H STYLES
G HUTCHINGS
A PLATT
E TAYLOR
D TAYLOR
C TODD
J STEADMAN
G WEBB
B CATES
M MURRAY
A NAYLOR
S PILICA
Overall I'd say her record is weaker than the others, and personally if I picked her, she'd be the fourth pick from a series that wasn't the strongest anyway.Jennifer Steadman wrote:Surprised no-one's mentioned Rose Boyle yet. She took the eventual series winner to a crucial in the semi final, got 11 maxes in doing so, overcame a 24-point deficit in her QF, and was an octochamp prior to all that. Plus she's a demographic breaker although, quite frankly, that's barely relevant when there are quite a few strongly eligible female contestants whose performances and achievements negate any need for tokenism.
S67 had the most number of wins between quarter finalists since S47 (which has not been bettered since), the 9th seed was beaten by the 5th seed in S68, the 10th seed beaten by the runner-up, the 11th seed beaten by the winner. Each series has it's own merits for being strong.Gavin Chipper wrote:Overall I'd say her record is weaker than the others, and personally if I picked her, she'd be the fourth pick from a series that wasn't the strongest anyway.Jennifer Steadman wrote:Surprised no-one's mentioned Rose Boyle yet. She took the eventual series winner to a crucial in the semi final, got 11 maxes in doing so, overcame a 24-point deficit in her QF, and was an octochamp prior to all that. Plus she's a demographic breaker although, quite frankly, that's barely relevant when there are quite a few strongly eligible female contestants whose performances and achievements negate any need for tokenism.
Jon Corby wrote:Apterous performance simply should not factor, not at all.
I'm glad we're in accordanceAndy Platt wrote:I have a feeling on-screen performance might be the decider.
Good point. You should be in it. I won't amend my list just yet though...Chris Marshall wrote:S67 had the most number of wins between quarter finalists since S47 (which has not been bettered since), the 9th seed was beaten by the 5th seed in S68, the 10th seed beaten by the runner-up, the 11th seed beaten by the winner. Each series has it's own merits for being strong.Gavin Chipper wrote:Overall I'd say her record is weaker than the others, and personally if I picked her, she'd be the fourth pick from a series that wasn't the strongest anyway.Jennifer Steadman wrote:Surprised no-one's mentioned Rose Boyle yet. She took the eventual series winner to a crucial in the semi final, got 11 maxes in doing so, overcame a 24-point deficit in her QF, and was an octochamp prior to all that. Plus she's a demographic breaker although, quite frankly, that's barely relevant when there are quite a few strongly eligible female contestants whose performances and achievements negate any need for tokenism.
. One of these days I'll appear on a list. The list will probably be something completely unrelated to countdown right enough.G Hutchings?David Barnard wrote:The 16 who I think will get in (want would make this narcisistic as I'd love to play)
C Todd
D Taylor
J Steadman
M Murray
A Naylor
E Taylor
A Platt
A Fish
E Monaghan
P James
H Styles
R Boyle
The other 4, I honestly can't choose
What about Oli Garner though?Edward McCullagh wrote:What I'd like to see is the 5 series champs and 5 runners-up in a first round proper and the 10 semi finalists plus Jen Steadman and Eoin Monaghan play off for the remaining spots in six preliminary games.
Fred Mumford wrote:What about Oli Garner though?Edward McCullagh wrote:What I'd like to see is the 5 series champs and 5 runners-up in a first round proper and the 10 semi finalists plus Jen Steadman and Eoin Monaghan play off for the remaining spots in six preliminary games.
He's had his chance.Oliver Garner wrote:Certainly flattered to be considered for such a tournament - thought my onscreen Countdown days were over! I would love to do it but it would have to fit with other stuff and it would also mean I'm putting my unbeaten record at risk, which is always my reason (along with exams) whenever people ask why I haven't done a CoC or similar.
That's just meanEdward McCullagh wrote: He's had his chance.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
It's not that I worry or care particularly about my unbeaten record, of course I'd love to do CofC, what I was saying was that it's an explanation I use whenever I get in a conversation with a non-Countdowner that goes something like "have you done champions of champions?" - "no" - "why not?".Mark Deeks wrote:Dude, Oli, don't worry about the unbeaten record. Seriously. You'll always be Oli Garner, Countdown champion. Everything else is profit.
It's not that I worry or care particularly about my unbeaten record, of course I'd love to do CofC, what I was saying was that it's an easy explanation I use whenever I get in a conversation with a non-Countdowner that goes something like "have you done champions of champions?" - "no" - "why not?".Mark Deeks wrote:Dude, Oli, don't worry about the unbeaten record. Seriously. You'll always be Oli Garner, Countdown champion. Everything else is profit.
I agree with this. However, if I wanted to play devil's advocate I might say: what if there were some people from series 60-66 who didn't make the cut for the 30BC, but could have been picked for a 16-player CoC if that had happened in January 2013 instead?Ben Wilson wrote:Anyone pre-30BC who didn't apply for the 30BC shouldn't be considered for the CoC IMHO. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the 30BC is effectively seen as a CoC for people who appeared between series 60 and 66.
This has come up before, and there's a lot of luck anyway, such as only 6 people being in the Scott Mearns CoC. So it's not a level playing field to begin with. So I would dismiss such a complaint.Graeme Cole wrote:I agree with this. However, if I wanted to play devil's advocate I might say: what if there were some people from series 60-66 who didn't make the cut for the 30BC, but could have been picked for a 16-player CoC if that had happened in January 2013 instead?Ben Wilson wrote:Anyone pre-30BC who didn't apply for the 30BC shouldn't be considered for the CoC IMHO. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the 30BC is effectively seen as a CoC for people who appeared between series 60 and 66.
Well, this might be true if there were fewer than 16 players from series 60-66 in the 30th Birthday Championship. Today I thought to count them, and there were exactly 16. And 12 of those 16 played someone from that same era in their first 30BC game. So seeing the 30BC as a CoC for people who appeared between series 60 and 66 turns out to be surprisingly accurate.
Based on what I've been reading, it looks like it has been put on hold, as a few specials are being recorded in December instead........Johnny Canuck wrote:Have any of the fixtures been decided yet?
