Countdown G.O.A.T.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

Similar to the "Best Ever Contestants" thread, but this one is about the game itself, not the TV show.
e.g. Jack Worsley (based on TV alone) would not make a Top 10 best players list... but with achievements on Apterous and at co-events etc. factored in, there are few who can rival him...

Who makes your CD top 10 "Greatest Of All Time" list?

[Mark James]

Me. The rest of yis are all cunts.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

I don't have a firm list yet...
But, off the top of my head, contenders would include:-

Jack Worsley
Elliott Mellor
Conor Travers
Callum Todd
Zarte Siempre
Harvey Freeman
Julian Fell
Helen Grayson
Tim Morrissey
Rob Foster
Steven Briers
Joyce Cansfield
Stewart Holden
Tom Cappleman
Kirk Bevins
Innis Carson
Chris Davies
Paul Gallen
Eddy Byrne
Jennifer Steadman
Dylan Taylor
Craig Beevers

I am rusty on historical champions (from before 2008)... so probably a few more of those.

[Johnny Canuck]

Better question, who is the Goatdown C.O.U.N.T.?

[Thomas Cappleman]

It's an interesting question generally - if you're bringing things like Apterous and co-events in, then it'd be hard to make the case for anyone who's only done the show itself and so not had the longevity and spread of opponents that recent players have. Especially when you consider the sheer quality of players nowadays, the best you can say about most early players is that they were exceptional for their time, and so may have done very well now. Maybe 1 or 2 (like Julian) might make it near the top of the list.

Given that, I think the top 3 of your list are probably the top 3 contenders.
- Jack for sheer amount of dominance at co-events and Apterous rankings, plus obviously still a series champion on the actual show.
- Elliott for Countdown records smashed, Apterous dominance, and Zoomdown performance, and will still hopefully have more opportunity on the show. - Conor has Serena Williams' old approach - doesn't necessarily turn up to much (e.g. not enough human games on Apterous to top ProRanks for long stretches), but when he does he absolutely smashes it.

There's a few that are probably in the next batch on the list, with Rob still being very active and quite likely to join those 3 in the list of properly plausible contenders.

And speaking of plausible contenders, thanks for throwing me into the list, but there's plenty in your list that beat me on most if not all of the criteria.

[Thomas Carey]

I think nowadays the 4 of Jack W, Elliott, Conor and Rob in no particular order feel like they're in a tier of their own. Some people in the past, like Innis, would be up there maybe but nowadays I think it's just those four. Ahmed seems like he hasn't peaked yet and could break into that top tier at some point?

[JackHurst]

Are we really going to entertain the idea that it could be anybody other than Conor?

Longevity: He's been at the top of the game for 17 years, winning a series of Countdown in 2005, and consistently being one of the strongest players at any point in time all the way to now in 2022. He won Colin first in 2007 and then again in 2022.

Exceptionality: He's the youngest ever series champ at 14 years old! He won the 30BC in emphatic style getting 3 max games and equalling the old 15r record for the show in the grand final!!?

Prowess: The only player who can rival him on letters is Rob Foster, but Conor sweeps Rob aside on numbers (sorry Rob). I've also seen many of the top players take on supernundrums and it's actually incredible how much daylight there is between Conor and the rest on these.

Performance: Always holds his nerve to play at a consistently high level. Unfortunately, there are many players at the highest skill level who have had their moments where the occasion got to them on TV.

Discipline: Doesn't waste his time on Apterous playing a game he's effectively completed. If he needs to practise then most of his time is spent efficiently using tools he's made for himself.

[Tom]

In short it’s Conor. Was around pre apterous winning a series at 14 and coming back many years later at the 30th and winning it and in the games before it in the way he did.

Some others have been great but are not quite at the same level. Dylan Taylor would run him close and I’d personally love to see a match between the two of them.

In a way it’s a shame there wasn’t a c of c for players between 2009-13. Both Jacks and Kirk I think would have been in with a great chance and on their could give Conor a run for his money at least.

[Philip A]

In a way it’s a shame there wasn’t a c of c for players between 2009-13.

I agree. 16 of the 41 entrants for the 30 BC would actually have been the 16 for the CoC.

[Philip A]

IMO there won’t ever really be a G.O.A.T. People don’t notice that there were some very good players pre-technology. At a time when players had to learn words on paper and in dictionaries, and when it was harder to avoid a crucial conundrum due to the shorter 9-round format, Harvey Freeman made two 1-point-off-max games, and he played 19 games (apart from a team special) unbeaten. He’s the only contestant to become octochamp, No. 1 seed, series champion, champion of champions AND champion of champion of champions. The Supreme Championship had more players than the 30BC as well. Conor definitely the best since Apterous undoubtedly, with 3 maxes games on the spin, but Harvey Freeman was very good at a time when there were no Co:events (just Scrabble) and no or little technology that was relevant for Countdown training.

[Dan Byrom]

I think nowadays the 4 of Jack W, Elliott, Conor and Rob in no particular order feel like they're in a tier of their own. Some people in the past, like Innis, would be up there maybe but nowadays I think it's just those four. Ahmed seems like he hasn't peaked yet and could break into that top tier at some point?

This is along the lines of what I would have said.

Elliott, Jack, Conor and Rob.

Ahmed is now hitting multiple max games a day on apto so think he is just about in this conversation too.

But Jack puts forward a very convincing case for Conor being the 1 that's just a level above and to be honest I can't argue with that

[Philip A]

I would like to see a 4-player Round Robin G.O.A.T Championship in primetime with jazzed up music, big audience and darker background lighting in primetime to celebrate 40 years.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

They are doing SOMETHING to celebrate 40 years... which is why CM is contracted till November and not December.
My prediction: a special 16-player tourney with CV as hostess.

Now that we all know anyway, they may as well just spill the full details!

[Gavin Chipper]

Are we really going to entertain the idea that it could be anybody other than Conor?

In short it’s Conor.

This is it really. When it comes to greatness, I think most people would define it in some combination of skill and achievement. And while there may be two ro three players who have reached a similar skill level to Conor, when you factor in achievement as well, it's not even close. And although we're including CO-events and Apterous as well, there's still got to be some sort of weighting to the importance of tournaments, and winning the 30th Birthday thing with three max games in a row trumps anything the others have done. But he's also won COLIN (twice), which is also probably the most prestigious non-TV tournament. And the Apterous Masters, probably the most prestigious Apterous tournament (though Jack Worsley has won it six times). He also won a series of Zoomdown and the Zoomdown CoC, so he's won most of what there is to win outside the television series, even if he doesn't spend as much time on it so hasn't racked up as many CO-event or Apterous titles as some other people.

The main people that get discussed as being of a similar level to Conor are Jack Worsley, Rob Foster and Elliott Mellor. And if you were making a top ten list, then I'm sure there'd be plenty of space for all three of these, but for the number 1, it's got to be Conor. By the way, whenever I look at the top letters players statistic on Apterous (and yes, I know the game isn't just letters) it always seems to be Rob Foster and Jack Worsley (and Conor when he's been playing) with a decent gap to the rest, including Elliott, which is quite interesting. Right now it's Rob on 90.7%, Jack on 89.4%, Ahmed on 86.3% and Elliott on 85.4%. Then it goes down to 80.8% (Hazel Drury). Though that statistic doesn't take into account that some people might play occasionally when they're not fully focused, which would ruin their score.

Of course, we can ask about previous players who played at a time when Apterous didn't exist and consider their greatness too. A lot of sportspeople from the past are considered great even if their objective level isn't as high as today's players. Which brings us onto Harvey Freeman:

IMO there won’t ever really be a G.O.A.T. People don’t notice that there were some very good players pre-technology. At a time when players had to learn words on paper and in dictionaries, and when it was harder to avoid a crucial conundrum due to the shorter 9-round format, Harvey Freeman made two 1-point-off-max games, and he played 19 games (apart from a team special) unbeaten. He’s the only contestant to become octochamp, No. 1 seed, series champion, champion of champions AND champion of champion of champions. The Supreme Championship had more players than the 30BC as well. Conor definitely the best since Apterous undoubtedly, with 3 maxes games on the spin, but Harvey Freeman was very good at a time when there were no Co:events (just Scrabble) and no or little technology that was relevant for Countdown training.

Well, I wrote something about this previously so I won't duplicate my work:

Harvey Freeman obviously achieved greatness in the earlier days, and pretty much was the greatest before the Fell era. You could argue that the lower standard shouldn't count against him because there was no Apterous etc. in those days and he was the best there was with what they had, so chances are he would have also been pretty great with Apterous. However, although he won the Supreme championship, I cannot help but think he somewhat fluked it. He was a good player and everything, but based on the tournament as a whole, Allan Saldanha was much better than him, and he scraped through on a lot of crucial conundrums. His performances weren't massively strong. However, that performance along with his series and CofC wins was enough to make him the greatest overall at that point and for many years after, but Conor won this tournament by being the best, and that's a better way to win.

By the way, last time I posted in the best ever contestants thread, I made a top ten trying to include old an new players, and had the following list (in chronological order):

1. Helen Grayson
2. Mark Nyman
3. Harvey Freeman
4. Allan Saldanha
5. Julian Fell
6. Paul Gallen
7. Conor Travers
8. Jack Hurst
9. Zarte Siempre
10. Dylan Taylor

It's not necessarily exactly what I'd have now, but I'd include most of them. But anyway, in a top ten including both televised and non-televised Countdown, as well as Conor, Jack Worsley, Rob Foster and Elliott Mellor, I'd still definitely have Harvey Freeman and Julian Fell, making six. Looking at the thread on greatest Apterites, I'd also include Innis and Kirk. Both also have good CO-event records. Two more spaces. I have some names in mind But I'll leave it tere for now.

[Tom]

It’s certainly a point to take in that there weren’t things like computer programs, co-events and apterous for a long time. Age you’ve got to take into account as well.

People like Allan Saldanha going on at I think (10 years old) and in the 80s would probably be worthy of getting into anyone’s top 10. Harvey Freeman also did his thing a long time before such tools came around.

Julian Fell would easily get in to a top 10. He was basically circa 7 years ahead of his time. I don’t think he’d have quite won the 30th had he been in it, but a safe bet on the semis had he taken part and prepped for it.

Round the time of the 30th, apterous had only been around for a few years and had changed the standards of countdown. I think probably a worry of a c of c then would have been that it would have been seen as an apterous exhibition by viewers. When the 30th went down well, I think then the realisation would have been that c of c’s can still go down well in spite of apterous.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

Which brings us onto Harvey Freeman

Here's the thing with Harvey Freeman... he had so many opportunities on TV.
He played in a era when the show was mad for specials / CoCs / CoCoCs / Supreme / Masters etc. etc.
He rose to the occasions, sure... but it is impossible to second guess which other players would have risen to similar occasions had they existed.

Having said that, we can only go on the evidence in front of us, and for that reason, I would probably include him in a finalised Top 10 list.

[samir pilica]

If he ever records, Chris Hare will be regarded as one of the greatest too. Would certainly add Ann Dibben as having graced the game.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

Would certainly add Ann Dibben as having graced the game.

Agreed, but she would be one of at least 100 who have similarly graced it.

[JackHurst]

The topic of ranking top current players is an interesting one. I think there is such a high level of subjectivity to it because we don't really have a perfect way to find out who the best players are.

Apterous:
- Too much historical cheating to trust the data fully
- Bias towards people who play a lot because they end up having more shots at setting records
- Some top players don't play on apterous that much
- You are doing it "from the arm chair" so to speak, so there's no real pressure.

ZoomDown:
- Too much historical cheating to trust the data fully
- Not a large enough pool of games to sample from
- Invite only

TV Show:
- Invite only
- Luck of the draw in terms of opponents and available 9s etc (I say there here because people often talk about Octo total as a measure of greatness)
- Not a large enough pool of games to sample from
- Very few games are actually between strong players

Co:Events
- 9 Rounders involve more luck
- The Swiss system often penalises top players. e.g. if Jack Worsely Conor and Rob turn up to a co-event of otherwise average players, it's quite likely they will not end up as players 1 2 and 3 after 6 games, even though they almost certainly would after say 10 games.



It's interesting that Conor is so dominant that in spite of this imperfect system, there's still no disputing that he's the very best. But then on the topic of ranking the rest of the current top 10, it's so wide open.