c4countdown

It's amazing how different a year is.................., this time last year the final stages of the 30th Birthday Championships, whereas today, we're still searching for our first octochamp of Series 70......................

Although, judging by his performances at the end of last week, that could change at the end of the week.....................

Our current champion, Andy Naylor, is on 3 wins and has been very dominant in all 3 of his wins so far, surely he must be a candidate to be the first S70 octochamp (Slightly ironically enough, he was previously on in Series 49, which didn't have its first octochamp till May (which is the longest wait for an octochamp in any series in which there was one. ))

Janet Street-Porter will be in DC this week for her 4th spell.

Andy will be recapping for us all later on.

DETORSION round .. 7?

Andy Platt wrote:DETORSION round .. 7?

I was pleased to beat them with SNOOTIER for 8 but I used the standard method.

HETAIRA round 10

HETAIRA in the round where the contestants got FATHER

INVOLUTE R13

A few equallers: MUDSTONE (R2), PARVENU (R8), GEODE (R11) and BURIALS (R12).

He seems to start off slowly but then steamrollers through the opposition. You really don't want a bad start against him.

Jack Worsley wrote:A few equallers: MUDSTONE (R2), PARVENU (R8), GEODE (R11) and BURIALS (R12).

R12 also BAILORS.

Andy Platt wrote:INVOLUTE R13

Cost me a MAX GAME did that. Ah well, never mind.

GRASPER in round 4 as an equaller.

Did ((50 + 8) x 5) - 9 for one of the numbers rounds.
I'm forming the impression with some recent contestants that not being any good at the numbers at your audition doesn't seem too important. Or maybe it's just nerves on the day.
Noticed JSP was playing the game today rather than being Susie-fed, which is always a bonus.

Philip Wilson wrote:I'm forming the impression with some recent contestants that not being any good at the numbers at your audition doesn't seem too important. Or maybe it's just nerves on the day.

I think it's been the case for years, if not always. In some cases it probably is nerves. But sometimes you can tell by the methods people actually use and so their likely approach that their numbers probably aren't that strong.

Always maintained that numbers are really hard when you're on TV.

For contestants who aren't particularly good at maths or arithmetic naturally, and haven't done much practice before going on, and haven't been on TV before, then it can only get worse.

That said, there have been some shockers recently. At least declare the obvious one or two away.

There are several different methods for solving the numbers, but if you pick the wrong one initially there isn't much time to change tactics. Most of the numbers are solvable if you had a couple of minutes, but not the case with 30 seconds.

Philip Wilson wrote:Did ((50 + 8) x 5) - 9 for one of the numbers rounds.
I'm forming the impression with some recent contestants that not being any good at the numbers at your audition doesn't seem too important. Or maybe it's just nerves on the day.
Noticed JSP was playing the game today rather than being Susie-fed, which is always a bonus.

I was in the audience for todays (and the rest of the weeks shows), and Dudley said that a lot of the recent contestants have been phone auditionees, and that he thought some of them had been using online solvers during the auditions. Could explain about some of the poor numbers games recently

I had an audition by phone. That possibility did occur to me, but why would you want to face likely humiliation on TV?

Probably don't want to leave that sort of comment on a public message board, at least not attached to a particular person ^

But to be honest I agree, it's something that's at least possible. Not wildly accusing anyone in particular, but as a general example I don't think certain performances can be explained by simple nerves or pressure.

I think you just accused someone in particular.

Haha true.

What I meant to say is that it's possible, but not definite, and I could find examples for a lot of particular contestants. I just meant I didn't want to wildly accuse one person more than any other and that was one particular example.

Particular.

Martin Thompson wrote:I had an audition by phone. That possibility did occur to me, but why would you want to face likely humiliation on TV?

Exactly this.

If someone does cheat their way through an audition, they'll only have themselves to blame when their opponent wipes the floor with them on the telly. Prospective contestants must realise this. I can't say that nobody has cheated on their audition ever, but it must be rare.

Everyone who has played Countdown in any form - on the show, online, at events - knows that it's easy to play very well in one game and then badly in the next. They also know that no matter how good you are, there will still be the occasional easy numbers game that you don't spot. So it should come as no surprise to anyone who plays the game that sometimes, a contestant capable of playing well enough to pass the audition might not achieve the same standard on their recording day. Isn't this a more likely explanation than phone audition shenanigans for when a contestant gets a low score?

I did the phone audition and got on despite ballsing up both the numbers, if that helps to add to the debate. And I certainly look back and think I probably missed one numbers per game compared with what I'd expect to get at home due to studio pressure etc.

Notably though Holly did suggest to me swotting up on numbers was sensible before filming. I do wonder if some people forgot to do this!

I think it would help to think about what is meant by passing an audition for Countdown. It does not seem to be the same as passing an exam which has a definite pass/fail score. A person who passes an audition on one particular occasion might not be objectively and consistently better than another person who does not pass an audition on another occasion. I know only too well how one can play okay one game and, erm, considerably less well the next Pressure and nerves affect different people differently.

Martin Thompson wrote:why would you want to face likely humiliation on TV?

The vast majority of contestants must go into it knowing there's a distinct possibility of being humiliated. If you've been watching half a dozen apterite octochamps per series, you'll think it's 50/50 whether you get one or not. If I was new to watching Countdown I wouldn't apply.

David Williams wrote:

Martin Thompson wrote:why would you want to face likely humiliation on TV?

The vast majority of contestants must go into it knowing there's a distinct possibility of being humiliated. If you've been watching half a dozen apterite octochamps per series, you'll think it's 50/50 whether you get one or not. If I was new to watching Countdown I wouldn't apply.

Some that aren't new won't apply either!

Matt Morrison wrote:

David Williams wrote:

Martin Thompson wrote:why would you want to face likely humiliation on TV?

The vast majority of contestants must go into it knowing there's a distinct possibility of being humiliated. If you've been watching half a dozen apterite octochamps per series, you'll think it's 50/50 whether you get one or not. If I was new to watching Countdown I wouldn't apply.

Some that aren't new won't apply either!

People like you appal me.

During the 8 years or so between deciding I wanted to apply and doing so (in 2009), most of the comment on this forum (and its predecessors) suggested that what people were expected to do to pass the audition would automatically put them amongst the top players on the show. Also, I could see no reason why the recording studio should be any more intimidating that the audition, and having been through the whole process I still believe this to be so. Logically therefore, as well as people who pass the audition comfortably enough and then flop on the show, there should be others who under-perform in the audition but would have been perfectly OK on the show. So I can well understand that some applicants, confident (however misguidedly) that they would do OK on the show, might take the opportunity provided by a telephone audition to tilt the odds a little in their favour.

I'm not sure what defence the auditioner has. If someone is using a solver it might be apparent, but if, for example, the auditionee has an accomplice who is effectively doing what Susie does, I can't see how this would be detected.

For the record, I went through a conventional audition as one of 9 hopefuls including Tony Warren's wife (Tony himself sat in as an observer) and Micheal Harris who wiped the floor with everybody. I was pretty pathetic on the letters (and the conundrums for that matter). The numbers were none too difficult but I think I must have got some credits for style - I remember one of the targets was 208 and I began (50 - 10) x 5 leading to a much more elegant solve than those who started by making a 4. It was also apparent that they needed to fill quite a few spaces in the first shows to recorded in Manchester about 3 weeks later, so they probably had to take a few more chances than they might normally have done. So who knows what they're actually looking for at any particular time?

As for the danger of getting stuffed by an all-conquering Apterite, I would suggest that an essential part of anyone's training (unless he or she is an all-conquering Apterite) should be learning how to fake the sudden onset of a kidney stone. These can come out of nowhere and be gone within half and hour, but whilst active cause the sufferer to make a great deal of noise with no obvious external reason.

I did use face in face audition for good reason as i can't talk on the phone and also i against with phone audition for two reasons are the applicants can cheating to find good word to try and impress them. Also phone audition don't have facial expression which you won't assessed for how did they felt and how can they cope with the cameras and studio pressure. Audition must be everything includes test your nerves and your words/numbers/conundrums skills! People who didnt do well on show and done well in audition which is must be nerves.

I am in doubt to pass audition because i have 1 number round messed it up but i must say 2 conundrums done me a favour to pass the audition which i am feeling satisfied but i just know anything can happens to people who have a fail for some reason.

Ciaran McCarthy wrote:I did use face in face audition for good reason as i can't talk on the phone and also i against with phone audition for two reasons are the applicants can cheating to find good word to try and impress them. Also phone audition don't have facial expression which you won't assessed for how did they felt and how can they cope with the cameras and studio pressure. Audition must be everything includes test your nerves and your words/numbers/conundrums skills! People who didnt do well on show and done well in audition which is must be nerves.

I am in doubt to pass audition because i have 1 number round messed it up but i must say 2 conundrums done me a favour to pass the audition which i am feeling satisfied but i just know anything can happens to people who have a fail for some reason.

Well, that's clear enough.

Chuffed I managed to get most of the beaters you spotted.

I think my housemates didn't enjoy it when I shouted expletives at the TV in the ARBOURS round because she picked a consonant in the end instead of a vowel - I wanted to fish for LABORIOUS - as it turned out, the next vowel was an O which would have got it.