c4countdown

LET'S BE HAVIN' YOU!

No, that's not my new address, but a clue as to the guest in DC this week, if you don't already know, or didn't watch Friday's show.

But this is a pivotal week in the run-up to the Countdown finals which begin in just 10 days time

Tom Barnes looks set to take one of the available 2 places, and if he does become an octochamp on Thursday, then Andrew McNamara's spot will be sealed too.

After a few tense wobbles on Friday, he managed to cross the finish line with ease in the end. Can he make it five of a kind today

Making her DC debut this week is cook and Norwich City board member, Delia Smith, who also has the distinction of having her first name in the dictionary (whether it's this one or not, I don't know.)

So, join Ryan for the recap later.

James Robinson wrote:LET'S BE HAVIN' YOU!

No, that's not my new address

Haha.

She's managed to take it a stage further at the parade last Tuesday

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebri ... -fans.html

I'll bet James wishes the Terriers' directors could say the same about the playoffs

I just knew Christine was going to use the D twice (even before the end of the round) after her A[r]EOLA[e]S* declaration for six (!) in the previous round. Still felt sorry for her though. Loving Tom's "don't disturb the microphone" clapping. Not sure his hands even touch half the time!

Countdown recap for Monday 16 May 2011

Champion Tom Barnes (4 wins, 416 points)

Challenger Christine Buffrey (née Prune)...

(not sure of spelling of Christine's name)

Although CANNIEST is pretty good; TENANCIES was superb from Tom.

Adam Gillard wrote: Challenger Christine Buffrey (née Prune)...

Not watched yet but this doesn't look great. Is this the one that scores 7 points?

I will have to go gentle on her when I come to recapping it if it is.

Lowest. Score. Ever.

Sorry Christine

I would have been a little gentler on her, as this would have been my 8th show. I would have let her score 15
as I missed TENANCIES. Well done Tom! Glad I lost to Cliff, as if we had played I might have stopped you from
doing so well.

Christine seemed to take it pretty well; not sure what she was like after the game but during the game at least, she took it as well as I think anyone could. I'm guessing ^BOOLEAN is capitalized as nobody's mentioned it yet (in the BOLERO round).

Adam Gillard wrote: Challenger Christine Buffrey (née Prune)..

Literally LOL

Tom Barnes is an absolute bastard.

ASSLOAD was there in round two.

Martin Gardner wrote:I'm guessing ^BOOLEAN is capitalized as nobody's mentioned it yet (in the BOLERO round).

Yup.

2nd Numbers Alt.: ((100 + 4 + 4) x 6) + 10 + 9 = 667

Very good performance, Tom.

That also gives him the highest winning margin record too, beating Julian Fell's record of 8 and a half years by 3. (138-29)

Excellent game today Tom but I felt really sorry for Christine - every players nightmare to only score in one round.

You have to feel sorry for Christine, wouldn't wish that on anyone.

But when someone like her comes on it makes me wonder why the Production team will not reconsider the rule insisting somebody can't have a second go (except in exceptional circumstances). Presumably they would say they get enough people apply who are good enough. That doesn't seem to me to be the case now, certainly amongst the 40+ age group (many of whom will have already done the show in their 20s or 30s). There have been quite a number of surprisingly weak candidates in the last two series, particularly on the numbers rounds.

The way Tom's been playing he can obviously beat the vast majority of contestants. But even the best players can have the occasional off-day, though he hasn't (yet).

The ideal for me is that if someone like Tom, Adam, Ned etc. has an off-day whoever they are playing should on their own good day be able to take advantage and spring a surprise. Christine, and too many candidates like her, would not be able to do that.

Keith Bennett wrote:The ideal for me is that if someone like Tom, Adam, Ned etc. has an off-day whoever they are playing should on their own good day be able to take advantage and spring a surprise. Christine, and too many candidates like her, would not be able to do that.

To be fair, I think 4 of my opponents would have been able to do that, especially the three who scored 70+. But they would have needed their A-game and me my C-game probably. I certainly remember feeling a little pressured against Ray Li and Liz Prior.

Keith Bennett wrote: But when someone like her comes on it makes me wonder why the Production team will not reconsider the rule insisting somebody can't have a second go

Because that would require the inconceivable admission that members of this forum had a good idea.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Keith Bennett wrote: But when someone like her comes on it makes me wonder why the Production team will not reconsider the rule insisting somebody can't have a second go

Because that would require the inconceivable admission that members of this forum had a good idea.

They do it for Mastermind, you can re enter, like this year's winner was a semi-finalist 2 years ago and Mastermind is still going strong having ran for longer than Countdown. Even on X-Factor you can reapply 2 years after you first went on. No harm in it. Maybe it will happen sooner or later?

well played Tom.

But while theres no way someone as good as you would ever lose to a 60+ year old woman who's only practice comes from watching on TV, you could have just declared the same as her on a few rounds when you were way ahead. That would have been the nice thing to do (thats what Keith would have done)

Andy McGurn wrote:But while theres no way someone as good as you would ever lose to a 60+ year old woman who's only practice comes from watching on TV, you could have just declared the same as her on a few rounds when you were way ahead. That would have been the nice thing to do (thats what Keith would have done)

+1

Andy McGurn wrote:you could have just declared the same as her on a few rounds when you were way ahead. That would have been the nice thing to do (thats what Keith would have done)

Tom has issued a Facebook apology to Christine. From the heart.

Andy McGurn wrote:well played Tom.

But while theres no way someone as good as you would ever lose to a 60+ year old woman who's only practice comes from watching on TV, you could have just declared the same as her on a few rounds when you were way ahead. That would have been the nice thing to do (thats what Keith would have done)

Actually it was Tony who wrote "I would have been a little gentler on her, as this would have been my 8th show" so credit where credit's due. But I would as well - not out of the goodness of my heart but because I aint as good as Tom.

Ryan's point about Mastermind is spot on, and one reason for it was that they recognised that they were getting less able applicants and that people who have been on can improve. For either show there will always be a handful of contestants who are a cut above the rest - it's the make up of the rest that's the issue. The gap has been exacerbated on Countdown by moving to 15 rounds without increasing the value of the conundrum, so there are less crucial ones than there used to be.

I think they should start inviting people to reapply but to avoid to big a flood of applicants limit it to:

Those over 50 who were on in the 9-round days, were beaten by an octochamp and are shorter than Jeff - what a selling point that last one could be! And also perhaps they could adopt the QI model, so next series it's surnames begining with A, the one after B, and so on. Not that I'm thinking of anyone in particular of course but as it happens that would give a bit more time to practice....

Keith Bennett wrote:I think they should start inviting people to reapply but to avoid to big a flood of applicants limit it to:
...

I think you should just be able to reapply as long as you weren't a series champion.

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Keith Bennett wrote:I think they should start inviting people to reapply but to avoid to big a flood of applicants limit it to:
...

I think you should just be able to reapply as long as you weren't a series champion.

Or made it to the series finals.

James Robinson wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote:

Keith Bennett wrote:I think they should start inviting people to reapply but to avoid to big a flood of applicants limit it to:
...

I think you should just be able to reapply as long as you weren't a series champion.

Or made it to the series finals.

Or have already been on more than once

Andy McGurn wrote:But while theres no way someone as good as you would ever lose to a 60+ year old woman who's only practice comes from watching on TV, you could have just declared the same as her on a few rounds when you were way ahead. That would have been the nice thing to do (thats what Keith would have done)

Seriously? Which part of being 60+ and a woman do you consider pitiable?

Hugh Binnie wrote:

Andy McGurn wrote:But while theres no way someone as good as you would ever lose to a 60+ year old woman who's only practice comes from watching on TV, you could have just declared the same as her on a few rounds when you were way ahead. That would have been the nice thing to do (thats what Keith would have done)

+1

I disagree, every point counts for possible higher seeding.

Adam Gillard wrote:But they would have needed their A-game and me my C-game probably.

Does the "C" stand for conceited?

Jon Corby wrote:

Adam Gillard wrote:But they would have needed their A-game and me my C-game probably.

Does the "C" stand for conceited?

Heh, thought I'd got away without anyone picking up on that self-aggrandisement (still true though)

Jojo Apollo wrote:

Hugh Binnie wrote:

Andy McGurn wrote:But while theres no way someone as good as you would ever lose to a 60+ year old woman who's only practice comes from watching on TV, you could have just declared the same as her on a few rounds when you were way ahead. That would have been the nice thing to do (thats what Keith would have done)

+1

I disagree, every point counts for possible higher seeding.

Agreed Jojo. Hammer them with everything you have is what I say. Show no compassion - it's not your fault. If I was playing someone in a competition at darts and I knew I'd beat them as they could hardly hit the board I'd still go for the 12 darter and a 170 checkout...I wouldn't start hitting 1s, 5s and throwing with my left hand as a) what's the point, b) it's taking the piss and c) that's the idea of competition....to see who is better than you.

Let's not detract from the excellent performance from Tom. Would never had spotted TENANCIES and a very quick spot on the conundrum.

Keith Bennett wrote:
The way Tom's been playing he can obviously beat the vast majority of contestants. But even the best players can have the occasional off-day, though he hasn't (yet).

Indeed. I faced two crucials, and only played poorly in one of them. Remember James Rawson, I was wetting my pants at the prospect of having to play him, but he lost to someone who didn't win another match and didn't qualify for the finals.

Also regarding the age issue, never ever underestimate the older generation. I can remember years ago watching one elderly lady on the old nine format, foolishly thinking to myself that she would be a soft touch for her opponent, what happens, bang! First two rounds she comes out with two nines, one of the nines was CALUMNIES if I recall correctly.

Then you have Eggheads Daphne Fowler, who appears as a "sweet old granny" but is one of the most ruthless quiz competitors ever, she shows no mercy and rightly so.

Jojo Apollo wrote:Then you have Eggheads Daphne Fowler, who appears as a "sweet old granny" but is one of the most ruthless quiz competitors ever, she shows no mercy and rightly so.

I agree with the sentiment, but how do you show mercy on Eggheads?

Jojo Apollo wrote:Also regarding the age issue, never ever underestimate the older generation. I can remember years ago watching one elderly lady on the old nine format, foolishly thinking to myself that she would be a soft touch for her opponent, what happens, bang! First two rounds she comes out with two nines, one of the nines was CALUMNIES if I recall correctly.

Do you happen to be referring to this episode, Jojo : http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5686

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:Then you have Eggheads Daphne Fowler, who appears as a "sweet old granny" but is one of the most ruthless quiz competitors ever, she shows no mercy and rightly so.

I agree with the sentiment, but how do you show mercy on Eggheads?

Very easily. The whole thing is entirely fiddlable ("I'm sorry that's not a word so we can't allow it." "Oh Sod Off, it should be").

Just because the challengers choose to go first or second for example doesn't mean they get different questions - we can't actually see where the host gets them from. And if the Es have had a winning run and it's time to have them lose (just to remind people it's possible) that' so easy to achieve - as soon as a half decent challenger comes along slant the questions appropriately. In fact who knows if they may deliberately give wrong answers occasionally just for TV? I believe that if all questions were open to all players (as on UC for example) Eggheads would win every time - in fact Ashman or Gibson could probably do it on their own. They can't allow that to happen otherwise nobody would apply.

Going back to this I think everyone agrees that none of us would "show mercy"; it was only Tony Atkins who suggested it, and that was probably to remind us he's good enough to have been in a position to do so.

And agreed, must not detract from Tom's achievements on the show to date.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:Then you have Eggheads Daphne Fowler, who appears as a "sweet old granny" but is one of the most ruthless quiz competitors ever, she shows no mercy and rightly so.

I agree with the sentiment, but how do you show mercy on Eggheads?

Well eg. if there's a youngster/student she feels sorry for who has gone first and got both his/her first two questions wrong and Daphne already has her first question correct, she could deliberately get her second question wrong to force it to go to the contestants third question or beyond,to give the contestant a chance to get a question right, small consolation and all that. I was thinking more of Daphne's other quiz shows really though eg 15 to 1 etc.

Reminds me of an elderly killer in a Columbo episode asking Columbo to show her mercy, playing on her age factor, he replied: "You're a professional and so am I". Sums it all up nicely I reckon.

James Robinson wrote:

Jojo Apollo wrote:Also regarding the age issue, never ever underestimate the older generation. I can remember years ago watching one elderly lady on the old nine format, foolishly thinking to myself that she would be a soft touch for her opponent, what happens, bang! First two rounds she comes out with two nines, one of the nines was CALUMNIES if I recall correctly.

Do you happen to be referring to this episode, Jojo : http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5686

That's the one, James.

ps. Congrats to Tom on beating one of the legend Julian Fell's records.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Andy McGurn wrote:But while theres no way someone as good as you would ever lose to a 60+ year old woman who's only practice comes from watching on TV, you could have just declared the same as her on a few rounds when you were way ahead. That would have been the nice thing to do (thats what Keith would have done)

Seriously? Which part of being 60+ and a woman do you consider pitiable?

Well I'm 60+ and only watch on TV, where I've outscored him every time, so it must be because I'm not a woman. And it's "whose", moron.

I'm a bit surprised GREATER was missed by both in round 7 for a 7 --- I mean, the last 5 letters were in order haha

But yea, I know such things as nerves exist and all, but a maths teacher scoring 0 in 3 numbers rounds, two of which weren't even maxed by her opponent, and the 3rd being pretty easy... just ugh. I thought the state of education here in America was atrocious.

Still think it's very unlucky for Christine to get The Record considering round 11 -- an 8 is probably what almost everyone caps out at on that selection (certainly including myself). I don't feel bad considering the numbers botches, but I mean yea.

Can't wait to actually be able to watch this episode here in America when it's uploaded to Youtube in 2 years or whatever. I get bizarrely sadistic pleasure watching record blowouts in any contest