c4countdown

By the title I don't mean bring back Kirk and Conor etc for specials, I mean players that lost a couple of games and have significantly improved or were just unlucky on their first game. To keep it loose you can nominate anyone who didn't get to the series finals.

My nominations would be: Dinos, Sudbery and the attractive lass that Lisa Thomson beat in the last series.

Chris Kirby definitely springs to mind. And obviously Dinos and the others you mentioned.

Definitely Dinos.

Allan Harmer

This thread was just started for fun (although I would like to see all 3 given another go).

Could realistically Dinos get another crack seeing as he did win 3 shows?

I agree with your nominations, Douglas. Although as much as Sudbery would love the satisfaction of "redeeming" herself, I don't think she would like the stress of having to appear again in order to achieve it.
Always nice to see Dinos again, and that girl did make lovely television. I am sure there were some other people in the last series who were very unfortunate with who they came up against too, but I will have to think harder to think of their names.
Also, Chris Philpot and Sue Sanders.

Oliver Garner wrote:Allan Harmer

IAWTP

Anna Sears?

YES PLEASE.

It'd be interesting to see if they ever let someone with a teapot go on again. I can't really think of any good examples off the top of my head (this probably comes from not having watched particularly consistently for a while, and not being able to use apterous laterly). Not really sure why Sudbery has been mentioned - she apparently remains rubbish (looking at apterous), and she got thrashed by someone who Wasn't That Good.

Andrew Laycock. Hubba-hubba.

George Robertson.

Carol Vorderman

Ben Hunter wrote:Andy Crompton

I had two very good opponents in my run. If I hadn't been there, it would have been very interesting to see how Andy would have done against Thomas Cappleman. Both of those players could have made the finals.

I'd like Matt Le Tissier to reappear as a contestant.

Jerry Humphreys. And, er, me.

Derek Hazell wrote:I agree with your nominations, Douglas. Although as much as Sudbery would love the satisfaction of "redeeming" herself, I don't think she would like the stress of having to appear again in order to achieve it.
Always nice to see Dinos again, and that girl did make lovely television. I am sure there were some other people in the last series who were very unfortunate with who they came up against too, but I will have to think harder to think of their names.
Also, Chris Philpot and Sue Sanders.

Ta Mate!! Although on losing to ,ultimately I think, 5 times winner Maurice, I was very relieved not to have to go through it again, I actually would have beaten the next player - he had one of those games from hell - and then, the next day, I'd have got to meet Jo Brand. Sometimes, though, when I'm watching at home and not doing well, I think, thank God I didn't make a fool of myself on the day. Oh, and of course, I have now forgotten my 75 times tables!

Kezra Shakir

Phil Makepeace wrote:Jerry Humphreys

Raw scores 116 - 111!

I reckon Aaron Higgs, with him being young and losing his first game to an octochamp-in-waiting.

Douglas Wilson wrote:Dinos

Innis Carson wrote:obviously Dinos

Steve Durney wrote:Definitely Dinos

Woo I have a following

Srsly tho Andrew Swale was a pleasant young fella and rather unlucky monochamp
Anita Fairhurst pushed Zussman rather close as well and I think she was merited for return elsewhere.
Also Raccoon Boy?

Austin Shin and Lewis Mackay. Two 800 club members right there, simple as. Given enough practice and motivation both might crack 900.

I agree with what seems to be the vast majority on this topic by saying Mr Konstadinos Sfyris.

I actually managed to meet Dinos a few weeks ago at one of the recordings (as well as other forumites Howard Somerset & Rich Priest) and I think he could have been an octochamp first time round, but had an unfortunate conundrum in his fourth show. (in a way, like me, but without the slightly stupid guess on 29 seconds! )

However, he deserves a second chance asap!

James Robinson wrote:
I actually managed to beat Dinos a few weeks ago at one of the recordings

Do you mean "meet" rather than "beat"?

Anyway people allowed a second go are restricted to one-time losers atm else there would be too many octochamps demanding a second chance.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Oliver Garner wrote:Allan Harmer

IAWTP

Thanks for the vote of confidence chaps - much appreciated!

I would also love to see Dinos get another go too.

Kirk Bevins wrote:

James Robinson wrote:
I actually managed to beat Dinos a few weeks ago at one of the recordings

Do you mean "meet" rather than "beat"?

Anyway people allowed a second go are restricted to one-time losers atm else there would be too many octochamps demanding a second chance.

Yes, thanks for that, Kirk.

By the way, congrats from me on being the series champion!

The general rule / train of thought behind the second-chancers theory is that it should / will only include people who lost first time around and who weren't altogether prepared for what came their way.

Really keen on sticking to this, so anyone from the last 5 or 6 years who's been on and won a few, well sorry but it's not going to happen just yet. If you lose as a champion, then it's hard to see any justification for coming back again.

Derek Hazell wrote:Also, Chris Philpot and Sue Sanders.

Thank you, kind sir! Maybe I'll put in a bit of practice and see if I can get (reasonably) good at Countdown again.

Sue Sanders wrote:

Derek Hazell wrote:I agree with your nominations, Douglas. Although as much as Sudbery would love the satisfaction of "redeeming" herself, I don't think she would like the stress of having to appear again in order to achieve it.
Always nice to see Dinos again, and that girl did make lovely television. I am sure there were some other people in the last series who were very unfortunate with who they came up against too, but I will have to think harder to think of their names.
Also, Chris Philpot and Sue Sanders.

Ta Mate!! Although on losing to ,ultimately I think, 5 times winner Maurice, I was very relieved not to have to go through it again, I actually would have beaten the next player - he had one of those games from hell - and then, the next day, I'd have got to meet Jo Brand. Sometimes, though, when I'm watching at home and not doing well, I think, thank God I didn't make a fool of myself on the day. Oh, and of course, I have now forgotten my 75 times tables!

p.s. Just read a post that mentioned the teapot. THE TEAPOT. A secomd crack at it means I could win THE TEAPOT!!

Dinos Sfyris wrote:Also Raccoon Boy?

Haha thanks, although my recent return to apterous suggests I need to get a bit better at spotting 9s...

Michael Wallace wrote:my recent return to apterous suggests I need to get a bit better at spotting 9s...

...or at spelling STERILE.

D Eadie wrote:The general rule / train of thought behind the second-chancers theory is that it should / will only include people who lost first time around and who weren't altogether prepared for what came their way.

Really keen on sticking to this, so anyone from the last 5 or 6 years who's been on and won a few, well sorry but it's not going to happen just yet. If you lose as a champion, then it's hard to see any justification for coming back again.

Fair dooz. I'll be waiting for 2013

Oliver Garner wrote:Allan Harmer

Oh yeah forgot about him. Definitely!

Elfie Winterton, Tudor Radcliffe (pity this game's not online, I remember Tudor went off like a train and was something like 23-0 up before Mike reeled him in with his trademark tricky selections), David Moore (he should have beaten me really), Stuart Lightfoot (ditto), Bob Brock (Stuart Solomons totally Hansforded the conundrum, taking about five seconds of dithering about before he realised what it was), Paul Skingsley, John Charleston-Stokes, Mo Janson, Greg Bryce, Luke Boynton, Felicity Geddes and especially Karen Pearson, who is also much apto-improved now.

Nice post Jim, and thanks for all the effort for easy cross-referencing!

JimBentley wrote:especially Karen Pearson

Karen Pearson once told me on the Yahoo! group that she is good-looking, so I would agree with her as a choice!

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:my recent return to apterous suggests I need to get a bit better at spotting 9s...

...or at spelling STERILE.

s/spelling/typing/ (naturally I had a load of other 7s too, but went for that because I liked it, except I didn't notice the typo until it was too late)

D Eadie wrote:The general rule / train of thought behind the second-chancers theory is that it should / will only include people who lost first time around and who weren't altogether prepared for what came their way.

Really keen on sticking to this, so anyone from the last 5 or 6 years who's been on and won a few, well sorry but it's not going to happen just yet. If you lose as a champion, then it's hard to see any justification for coming back again.

Fair enough, since Sudbery didn't actually win a game can we get her back on?

Amey Deshpande.

Rory Miller

Douglas Wilson wrote:Fair enough, since Sudbery didn't actually win a game can we get her back on?

Seriously, why?

D Eadie wrote:The general rule / train of thought behind the second-chancers theory is that it should / will only include people who lost first time around and who weren't altogether prepared for what came their way.

Really keen on sticking to this, so anyone from the last 5 or 6 years who's been on and won a few, well sorry but it's not going to happen just yet. If you lose as a champion, then it's hard to see any justification for coming back again.

I think the majority of people reapplying because they are much better now are hoping to become octochamps and have a decent crack at the series. Whether they lost first time or won one or two first time round don't seem much different from that perspective. There will be people annoyed that they did manage to scrape that one win which seems a rather bizarre situation.

D Eadie wrote:The general rule / train of thought behind the second-chancers theory is that it should / will only include people who lost first time around and who weren't altogether prepared for what came their way.

Really keen on sticking to this, so anyone from the last 5 or 6 years who's been on and won a few, well sorry but it's not going to happen just yet. If you lose as a champion, then it's hard to see any justification for coming back again.

Bit of a disappointment this post came before any Van-related speculation.

Irrespective of what has been posted already, has anyone considered that there are only a finite number of contestant places per series? If there are more applicants than available positions, as evidenced by people being knocked out at the audition stage, then why should the producers agonise over who should be given a second chance when there is ample cannon fodder (and fresh faces for television) ready, and capable enough, to be a contestant on the show?

Were the ratings or interest to be high enough, then maybe there is sufficient impetus for a "second-go show", a la early on in "The Weakest Link" when those voted off in the first round got to compete against each other! I leave it to the sadisticians to debate further....

kevin manthorpe wrote:If there are more applicants than available positions, as evidenced by people being knocked out at the audition stage...

I don't believe that's how passing the audition works. Damian (or someone else) may well correct me on this, but I was under the impression that there was some sort of 'pass mark' (criterion, perhaps), which has remained constant for ages, and I distinctly remember Damian saying he really didn't ever want to have to lower it (as you might have to do if you weren't getting enough contestants).

Michael Wallace wrote:I don't believe that's how passing the audition works. Damian (or someone else) may well correct me on this, but I was under the impression that there was some sort of 'pass mark' (criterion, perhaps), which has remained constant for ages, and I distinctly remember Damian saying he really didn't ever want to have to lower it (as you might have to do if you weren't getting enough contestants).

I think this is still the case, as when I recorded those who had phone auditions said they were told immediately if they were on- something you couldn't do if you wanted to compare everyone and then select, say, the top 20 or whatever.

Sure there are loads more applicants than places available, it goes without saying.

Just can't see why someone who's been on and done okay, should come back later on and try again. If you could cite immaturity, inexperience, nerves etc then fair enough, but just to try again for the sake of it doesnt seem right to me.

Where do you draw the line? People who lost in a semi who hope to go all the way this time.........do we get Charlie back to see if he can win the final?

There is no need from our point of view - and apterous players get a fair old shout as it is already. There is a sizeable enough pool for us to draw from, so for me its new faces all the way unless someone deserves another crack for the reasons stated above.

D Eadie wrote:Just can't see why someone who's been on and done okay, should come back later on and try again.

Gonna raise the issue here before anyone (Gevin) else pounces- how do you define 'done okay'? Okay, it's safe to say that first-time losers avoid that category, but what about such talents as the aforementioned Dan Van (one win before losing to a high-scoring octochamp) or Melanie Beaumont (two wins before losing to an undefeated champion of champions)?

There are some who would say (and have done quite vocally) that people should never get another chance regardless of how badly they did first time, but the likes of Mubeen, Bevins and (almost certainly) Hulme would have a few things to say about that, and rightly so.

I'm pleased to read what Damian says.
I think giving second chances should not be encouraged except in the circumstances Damian describes.
Wouldn't want to run the risk of creating a favoured few in what is, after all, a knockout competition.
I hope Damian stands firm on his criteria.

There should be two challengers every game. You'd get fewer, more deserving, octochamps, because you'd have to beat sixteen people to do it. And everyone who wanted could have a second go. Obvious really.

D Eadie wrote:.........do we get Charlie back to see if he can win the final?

So basically Damian, you'd like me and Charlie to come back for a special one off decider? Well okay, if you insist, I suppose.

I had 3 very tough opponents in my Octochamp run, 1 of whom came back for a special and all 3 of them on another day could have gone very far. My 7th opponent, Carol Merchant had me all the way until round 13 when I got a tricky nine. Had she won, I think she would have beaten my 8th opponent, then probably would have beaten all 5 players the next day of recording as well so she'd be worth considering if anything ever got implemented.

If this concept ever happened, I think it should be players only who lost on their first time round who were unfortunate to come up against gems.

Tom wrote:My 7th opponent, Carol Merchant... Had she won, I think she would have beaten my 8th opponent... so she'd be worth considering...

If this concept ever happened, I think it should be players only who lost on their first time round who were unfortunate to come up against gems.

How modest of you!

Andrew Hulme and Junaid were juniors when they first came onto the show, so no harm them trying again whatsoever. But if someone comes up against a tough opponent and loses as a current champion, then it's pretty tenuous in my view, to say well......'perhaps if i hadn't met such a difficult opponent then i could have gone further, therefore i deserve another go'. We can't make it easy for everyone and pave the way to the quarter-finals by lining up 8 sub-standard opponents.

Granted, some players will now be far better than before due to Apterous practice, but nobody forced them to apply first time around. You don't apply for a driving test after 1 lesson, you apply for it when you're good and ready to pass. And it's worth remembering that Countdown is a competition, so there is only one overall winner per series.

If you lose to a high-scoring Octochamp, that means, when stripped down, that you lost to a good opponent who was better than you on the day. We all know from playing on Apterous than everyone can beat each other, nothing is guaranteed. Do we want a series of games where players consistently win by 65 pts, or do we want a competition?

Whoever gets to the QF's, becomes an Octo, wins the series, will do so because they deserve to, likewise those who don't. All in my opinion of course, and i do keep on open mind on things, but this seems pretty cut and dried to me. Countdown can't become monopolised by the current generation of players who want to keep on trying again. You came, you saw, you didn't conquer, but had some fun and a good experience, but its time to move on.

I think we'd all love to see Dinos back on the show and I have a solution. Why not claim that his victor, Dorian Liddell, was actually a prolific serial killer and therefore should have not appeared on the show. This works on 2 levels; partly because he did look very much like a serial killer and also because, in the eyes of Countdown fanatics, mass murder is probably only slightly more offensive than offering PROMATE and then taking advantage of DesOs senility and changing it to PRONATE. And that guy got another go so why not Dinos.

D Eadie wrote:Andrew Hulme and Junaid were juniors when they first came onto the show, so no harm them trying again whatsoever. But if someone comes up against a tough opponent and loses as a current champion, then it's pretty tenuous in my view, to say well......'perhaps if i hadn't met such a difficult opponent then i could have gone further, therefore i deserve another go'. We can't make it easy for everyone and pave the way to the quarter-finals by lining up 8 sub-standard opponents.

Granted, some players will now be far better than before due to Apterous practice, but nobody forced them to apply first time around. You don't apply for a driving test after 1 lesson, you apply for it when you're good and ready to pass. And it's worth remembering that Countdown is a competition, so there is only one overall winner per series.

If you lose to a high-scoring Octochamp, that means, when stripped down, that you lost to a good opponent who was better than you on the day. We all know from playing on Apterous than everyone can beat each other, nothing is guaranteed. Do we want a series of games where players consistently win by 65 pts, or do we want a competition?

Whoever gets to the QF's, becomes an Octo, wins the series, will do so because they deserve to, likewise those who don't. All in my opinion of course, and i do keep on open mind on things, but this seems pretty cut and dried to me. Countdown can't become monopolised by the current generation of players who want to keep on trying again. You came, you saw, you didn't conquer, but had some fun and a good experience, but its time to move on.

Yeah, that's very nicely put, Damian.

I, like many others, I'm pretty sure, miss the amazing atmosphere that you seem to get when you sit in the chair on the set, and I'm sure that many will want to have another go.

But, of course, we have to remember there's more than just us on the forum who want to have a go on Countdown. There are many who just want to have the experience of being on this great TV show and we can't just let people who want to have another go come back on the show all the time.

Maybe, we make mistakes that we live to regret. That's just the way it is. I'm having to live with my mistakes and I try to get over it by visiting the set as many times as possible. That at least makes me feel better.

Matthew Green wrote:I think we'd all love to see Dinos back on the show and I have a solution. Why not claim that his victor, Dorian Liddell, was actually a prolific serial killer and therefore should have not appeared on the show. This works on 2 levels; partly because he did look very much like a serial killer and also because, in the eyes of Countdown fanatics, mass murder is probably only slightly more offensive than offering PROMATE and then taking advantage of DesOs senility and changing it to PRONATE. And that guy got another go so why not Dinos.

Why not forget Dinos was on the show at all? Then, not only can Dinos come back, but Marianne can also return for her second game.

D Eadie wrote:if someone comes up against a tough opponent and loses as a current champion, then it's pretty tenuous in my view, to say well......'perhaps if i hadn't met such a difficult opponent then i could have gone further, therefore i deserve another go'. We can't make it easy for everyone and pave the way to the quarter-finals by lining up 8 sub-standard opponents.

This is only speculation of course, but surely (taking Series 61 as an example) Innis, Davies and Hulme have all been deliberately spread out so as to ensure they all get their octochampdoms. You know how great they are from their apterous reputations, and you wouldn't allow them to meet in the preliminaries because firstly you appreciate that they deserve octoruns, and secondly because such battles will make the kind of great TV that you want saved for the finals. On the other hand, there's likely to be at least a few octoworthy contestants who, because they aren't playing apterous, you know much less about. Yes, obviously they would have shone to some extent in their interviews but they must still be surprise packages when it comes to recording their game(s). You're right that you can't give everyone an easy path to the finals, but if some people ARE getting easy paths to the finals, then those who aren't might be more deserving of a second look, otherwise it feels apterous reputations give an unfair advantage.

The same methods of production have applied since day dot, not just for Series 61. If someone comes along at an audition who clearly excels at the game, then we wouldn't put them up against someone else of the same ilk straight away. That's a no brainer really. We don't have preference on who gets to the finals. Sure, it's often youngish males, and while those games might make for great TV, you'll prob find that the shows suffer because of a lack of contestant personality at times.

To be fair, we know more about the people who audition for real than we ever could about someone who plays online. Not in terms of consistency and ability, but in terms of character etc, it's far better to see people in person than judge their scores on a web game.

Not sure who ever gets an easy path to the finals. That's probably inexperience talking on your part, Matt. I think if you ask Innis, Kirk, Junaid, Reams etc if there was anything easy about any of it, they'll tell you otherwise. It's easy to look at Apterous players and prejudge what is going to happen because you know who they are capable of, but at the end of the day its a competition that revolves around ability, and ability shines through all the time, whether someone plays apterous or not.

The apterous unfair advantage stuff does the show a little bit of an injustice in my view. It's been around for 1 year, while the show has rolled on for 27. Beevers, Hansford, Corby, Hurrell, David O'Donnell, Richard Priest, Wainwright, Cummings, Brittain, Jono, Holden, Fell ...... etc etc etc etc......all on the show long before apterous ever came to light. Nothing has changed.

I kinda think you might be taking away some of the credit of TV Octochamps by inferring they have some kind of planned path. A quick look back at the games and scores of Neil Zussman and Shane Roberts might convince you otherwise. It's still not convincing me that just because someone lost to a better player, they should get another chance. If you get to the champions chair then lose, then fair enough, that's the party over. The whole idea of the word champion is supposed to mean something surely. Nobody gets given the title of Series Champ, you have to earn it and that means beating the best.

D Eadie wrote:Nobody gets given the title of Series Champ, you have to earn it and that means beating the best.

Exactly and after I was allowed back on again I knew I had to win a series as I wouldn't get another chance if I won 2 and then lost. I made sure I was fully prepared, beating nearly every contestant going in practice as I didn't want to play against a Conor Travers or a David O'Donnell and get knocked out. If I got knocked out by Neil Zussman in the semis for instance, sure I'd be annoyed as I'd never lost to him from home but as Damian said - anybody can beat anybody on the day and it wouldn't be fair had I lost to Neil to give me another chance.

Not sure how this relates to people losing as a child or losing their first show when inexperienced (definition?) etc but thought I'd have a say.

If I had been aware that young first time losers could possibly get another chance, I would have applied a long time before I did. The only thing stopping me was the fear that one day I would practice a lot and get really good, but not be able to go on. I don't agree that anyone should be let back on- one go and that's it. Until I joined these boards, I was unaware that anyone had been let on twice, so I'm actually quite curious as to why, for example, Hamish thought he could get another go. (For entertainment value alone, Hamish gets my vote as somebody who should get a third go!).

Kirk Bevins wrote:If I got knocked out by Neil Zussman in the semis for instance, sure I'd be annoyed as I'd never lost to him from home but as Damian said - anybody can beat anybody on the day and it wouldn't be fair had I lost to Neil to give me another chance.

Did you once tell me that you had been scheduled to record a day earlier than you did, but couldn't make it due to work commitments, and that therefore you would've faced me in my sixth game? If so, I could've been 18-0 up after one round, and may have knocked you out a lot earlier than the semis... (although even 18-0 down, you'd still be a heavy favourite)

Incidentally, an easy way to get a rough idea of who has gotten an easier ride to the finals than others would be to look at the percentage of max of the raw score of their opponents. Any statto-nerds fancy that?

Okay, time to break my slience over the whole second chance issue, although I don't think what I say ought to be too controversial. I was absolutely gutted when I lost first time round. I was just 13, lost on a crucial to a fairly decent champ (4 time winner), and it was over 9 rounds not 15. These were arguably all plausible reasons for allowing me to return. However, that judgement is left to the production team and I always respected their decision. I waited 10 years and was turned down several times. I never felt I had a right to go back on and saw it as nothing but a privilege - one I'll always be grateful for. I waited 10 years to return and would happily have waited another 10. If I was never allowed back on, I'd content myself with the knowledge that appearing on Countdown was probably the best experience of my childhood, even if it didn't end as I'd hoped.

I reserve judgement on who should/shouldn't be allowed back on, but I would hope that anyone who is given a second shot realises what a gift it is.

But of course, I'd love to see Bolas vs Deshpande any day.