c4countdown

Hmmm - i'd forgotten about that. It was ridiculous IMO to have a No.1 seed with 7 wins and No.2 seed with 8 wins - bonkers in fact.

I can't remember who changed it and how it came about. Mark and Michael governed over the rules in those days and were obviously happy with the set-up, so i can only presume it was me who queried it and then it changed. I honestly cannot remember. Does seem weird though to have an unbeaten player ranked below a person who lost thier 8th game.

Charlie Reams wrote:I've read the novelisation of Battlefield Earth.

I quite liked the film. The book came before the film, right?

Damian E wrote:Hmmm - i'd forgotten about that. It was ridiculous IMO to have a No.1 seed with 7 wins and No.2 seed with 8 wins - bonkers in fact.

I can't remember who changed it and how it came about. Mark and Michael governed over the rules in those days and were obviously happy with the set-up, so i can only presume it was me who queried it and then it changed. I honestly cannot remember. Does seem weird though to have an unbeaten player ranked below a person who lost thier 8th game.

Kate Surtees was seeded number one above Ray McPhie in series 37 despite only winning 7 to Ray's 8, so that might have been the catalyst. Also Helen Grayson was number one seed in series six ahead of Darryl Francis. She didn't lose her 8th game though; she stopped unbeaten after seven and still had a higher total than his eight.

Damian E wrote:Not sure about the bit about sorted by highest scores in the event of a tie either. Has it ever happened??

Ben Wilson tied with Phil Wass on points.

But what would've then happened in the situation with Matt Coates and Tony Durrant as both players got the same total when you added there losing score too. Say this week was the last week before finals and noone knocked Matt off #8 seed, what would happen in that situation?

Tony and Matt have different totals. 389 to Matt, 379 to Tony. We only count the points scored in the first 15 rounds.