Re: Spoilers for Friday 30th January (CofC XIII GF)
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:56 pm
Yep. The rest of us got a slightly smaller glass trophy. Countdown really isn't the program to go on if you want big prizes.
A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/
Just to clarify, the early morning repeats are not on Tuesdays and Wednesdays but are on Saturdays and Sundays, so the 2.5 days formula can vary.Lucy Gowers wrote:Yes. That's right Jeff.Jeff Clayton wrote:Can anyone confirm if the early morning repeats of Countdown are shown two-and-a-half days after the original afternoon broadcast?
If so, will the programme scheduled for 5:10am on Monday 2 February be a re-run of Friday's final?
TIA
Jeff
Rachel seems only to have worked out one or two since she started: she either hasn't had to (unsurprising of course given that it's been a CoC run) or she has failed. Wonder of she feels a bit under pressure to make it look as easy as Carol did? I guess now that the 'ordinary' shows are about to resume, she'll have more opportunities to show her abilities.Michael Wallace wrote:Felt a bit sorry for Rachel today - after looking up solutions for the numbers (was surprised neither player got 831 as outlined above - my first thought was 52*16) they look like pretty hard ones.
I was surprised about this too. Given that a CoC final is surely a 'bigger' event than a series final, I'd have expected some kind of reasonably grand presentation. It seems to me that everything is kept deliberately more low-key with the two new hosts, but then this is the first CoC that I've seen, so cannot compare with previous ones (presumably the last one was when Richard Whiteley was still with us, and I wasn't a regular viewer then).Tracey Lilly wrote:Well done Steve and Charlie for an excellent game.
Pity there wasn't a presentation of some description.
I've thought about this before - had you beaten Mark Tournoff in the series final, do you think you wouldn't have become the player you did at the CofC?Paul Gallen wrote:Well done to Steven on his deserved victory. The motivation of his shock early round series exit has obviously spurred him on to this great success.
No offence to CharlieThe final was not a classic but from the reviews it looks like the two best players reached the final.
I still think the last CofC stands above any other in terms of quality. These CofC players were obviously all very good, but to me the last one really stood out.Howard Somerset wrote:What an excellent CofC. I'd thought earlier that the standard of CofC12 could not be equalled. But I was wrong. These last three weeks have been brilliant. Congratulations to all contestants.
No, I absolutely agree. Whoever won that match deserved to take the title.Gavin Chipper wrote: No offence to Charliebut I do think the Briers - O'Donnell match was the classic game of the tournament and probably would have been a better match-up for the final. Charlie put in that brilliant performance against Corby but I wouldn't put him as the second best player. (Obviously this highlights one of the few disadvantages about having the players as people on the forum - it makes you feel awkward about saying this stuff).
Martin Gardner wrote:I suppose one thing that Charlie can say, is that he played 15 games - the maximum under the current system, ignoring any future specials.Nick Wainwright wrote:Great final today I thought to round off a good start to the new Countdown era.
Congratulations to Steven who, in my opinion, was a very worthy winner of the tournament and well played to Charlie who must have had one of the most entertaining run of games of any Countdown contestant - the conundrum declaration of gandiseeg being a fitting end.
I don't know about anyone else, but for me this is one of the major appeals of the game. The best players are pursuing achievements in the game rather than pursuing a large amount of cash or whatever.Charlie Reams wrote:Countdown really isn't the program to go on if you want big prizes.
I think Steven was the best player of the tournament - I think his two scores of 121 and 118 where the top two of the tournament - not that many centuries in total, mainly because the standard was so high - the players kept stopping each other getting 100. As for the second best player, Corby was good but didn't get a century in any game. Nick also got a century in his first game, but I think Charlie with his score of 110 was maybe the performance of the tournament - noting that if he'd got the conundrum that would be 120 without a nine, which would equal Beavers' record. I don't think it quite reached the heights of the previous CofC tournament - I think mainly because the conundrums were so damn difficult, the games that went to crucial conundrums, I think it's much more exciting when someone buzzes in on one second, but in the end nobody buzzed at all. How many of the crucial conundrum were actually solved by either player? I can only recall the very first game.Charlie Reams wrote:No, I absolutely agree. Whoever won that match deserved to take the title.Gavin Chipper wrote: No offence to Charliebut I do think the Briers - O'Donnell match was the classic game of the tournament and probably would have been a better match-up for the final. Charlie put in that brilliant performance against Corby but I wouldn't put him as the second best player. (Obviously this highlights one of the few disadvantages about having the players as people on the forum - it makes you feel awkward about saying this stuff).
Sorry to correct you, Chris, but unless it's changed, the repeats ARE usually 2.5 days behind, as follows:Chris Corby wrote:Just to clarify, the early morning repeats are not on Tuesdays and Wednesdays but are on Saturdays and Sundays, so the 2.5 days formula can vary.
Not really- the series final is something that's been worked towards for six months (as said at the beginning of each one, 2000 applied, 120 entered, now we have 2). A c of c, on the other hand, whilst immensely prestigious, is an invitational tournament lasting three weeks. Or, as I like to refer to it, a three-day piss-up interspersed with the occasional recording session. I for one hope Damo doesn't so away with it, it does its job brilliantly- showcasing the best of the best players in a way a normal series finals round can't.Andy Clews wrote:I was surprised about this too. Given that a CoC final is surely a 'bigger' event than a series final, I'd have expected some kind of reasonably grand presentation. It seems to me that everything is kept deliberately more low-key with the two new hosts, but then this is the first CoC that I've seen, so cannot compare with previous ones (presumably the last one was when Richard Whiteley was still with us, and I wasn't a regular viewer then).Tracey Lilly wrote:Well done Steve and Charlie for an excellent game.
Pity there wasn't a presentation of some description.
Hear, hear. (Oh dear, isn't that a bit like "me too"...?)Ben Wilson wrote:I for one hope Damo doesn't so away with it, it does its job brilliantly- showcasing the best of the best players in a way a normal series finals round can't.
Me too!Mike Brown wrote:Hear, hear. (Oh dear, isn't that a bit like "me too"...?)Ben Wilson wrote:I for one hope Damo doesn't so away with it, it does its job brilliantly- showcasing the best of the best players in a way a normal series finals round can't.
Does anyone know anyone who was recording who might let us know in advance...Kirk Bevins wrote:An excellent final which I've only just seen as I was on a weekend holiday in a forest. I had two DC beaters with MINNEOLA (round 4) and SELENITE (round 11) but it was fantastic to watch. That's twice now Charlie has buzzed in with 1 second to go to say something funny. Great stuff to watch - well done lads.
Next week will be interesting - I wonder how long it will be before Jeff and Rachel notice a remarkable difference in abilities of the contestants.
Ah, I see. I didn't realise C of C was *invitational*. That explains why I noticed two obvious absentees (no names, no pack drill, but one was a beaten finalist who got a bit overexcited on the day, and the other a series winner who appeared too scared to smile lest it killed him). I was surprised but to be honest rather pleased that they didn't feature in the C of C. No offence intendedBen Wilson wrote: Not really- the series final is something that's been worked towards for six months (as said at the beginning of each one, 2000 applied, 120 entered, now we have 2). A c of c, on the other hand, whilst immensely prestigious, is an invitational tournament lasting three weeks.
Several people were invited but did not attend for various reasons.Andy Clews wrote:Ah, I see. I didn't realise C of C was *invitational*. That explains why I noticed two obvious absentees (no names, no pack drill, but one was a beaten finalist who got a bit overexcited on the day, and the other a series winner who appeared too scared to smile lest it killed him). I was surprised but to be honest rather pleased that they didn't feature in the C of C. No offence intendedBen Wilson wrote: Not really- the series final is something that's been worked towards for six months (as said at the beginning of each one, 2000 applied, 120 entered, now we have 2). A c of c, on the other hand, whilst immensely prestigious, is an invitational tournament lasting three weeks.
In retrospect I didn't get the third game either.Martin Gardner wrote:Yeah there have been zero numbers beaters posted here, but two letters games beaters. I tried about 5 minutes on each of them after the game finished, and got one away for all three, but nothing better.Joseph Bolas wrote:I don't think so. The first and third numbers were solveable but only had 1 solution each and the second numbers you could get only 1 away, again though there was only 1 solution. They were very hard.Tracey Lilly wrote:Poor Rachel - what stinky numbers and I bet Carol devotees were shouting at the camera ' Bet Carol would have got it'
Not to mention, a funny guy!Steven Briers wrote:Charlie was a great guy.