c4countdown

FAO Damian Eadie (if you are still monitoring this site)

Dear Damian

After being treated to Jack Worsley’s skills over the past 8 episodes, I see the standard of today’s Countdown contestants slumped in comparison. Whilst I’m just a medium ranked player in Apterous terms, I still managed to beat them by 80+ and 90+ points respectively (albeit from the comfort of my armchair).

Is there now a case for using your discretion by inviting back selective past contestants who lost their first game? I know of several players on Apterous who still avidly follow Countdown, where it has been 10 or more years since they appeared. I’m sure they would jump at the chance if you contacted them with an invite. I'll gladly provide a few suggested names, my own included.

Can I expect to receive a PM or email from you in the near future?

Kindest regards, Philip

Philip Jarvis wrote:I see the standard of today’s Countdown contestants slumped in comparison. Whilst I’m just a medium ranked player in Apterous terms, I still managed to beat them by 80+ and 90+ points respectively

Today's winning score was 98 - are you saying you scored 178+?

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Philip Jarvis wrote:I see the standard of today’s Countdown contestants slumped in comparison. Whilst I’m just a medium ranked player in Apterous terms, I still managed to beat them by 80+ and 90+ points respectively

Today's winning score was 98 - are you saying you scored 178+?

Ha, you know what he means.... don't you?

Jon Corby wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Philip Jarvis wrote:I see the standard of today’s Countdown contestants slumped in comparison. Whilst I’m just a medium ranked player in Apterous terms, I still managed to beat them by 80+ and 90+ points respectively

Today's winning score was 98 - are you saying you scored 178+?

Ha, you know what he means.... don't you?

Um, no.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Um, no.

Scoring as if he was playing them, rather than flat scoring. (Which is obviously a little dubious given risk-taking decisions etc.)

Michael Wallace wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:Um, no.

Scoring as if he was playing them, rather than flat scoring. (Which is obviously a little dubious given risk-taking decisions etc.)

I don't think it's that dubious when the margins are above 80!

Oh right, gotcha. Anyway Phil, wouldn't you stand a better chance of Damian reading your request if you emailed it to the programme?

Jon Corby wrote:

Michael Wallace wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:Um, no.

Scoring as if he was playing them, rather than flat scoring. (Which is obviously a little dubious given risk-taking decisions etc.)

I don't think it's that dubious when the margins are above 80!

Fair.

Philip Jarvis wrote:FAO Damian Eadie (if you are still monitoring this site)

Dear Damian

After being treated to Jack Worsley’s skills over the past 8 episodes, I see the standard of today’s Countdown contestants slumped in comparison. Whilst I’m just a medium ranked player in Apterous terms, I still managed to beat them by 80+ and 90+ points respectively (albeit from the comfort of my armchair).

Is there now a case for using your discretion by inviting back selective past contestants who lost their first game? I know of several players on Apterous who still avidly follow Countdown, where it has been 10 or more years since they appeared. I’m sure they would jump at the chance if you contacted them with an invite. I'll gladly provide a few suggested names, my own included.

Can I expect to receive a PM or email from you in the near future?

Kindest regards, Philip

All very sensible but there is an underlying assumption that the skill of the contestants is correlated with the quality of the programme. I think it is fairly well known that Mr. Eadie doesn't necessarily agree with this when it comes to apterous-trained contestants.

It's also worth noting that often straight after an octorun, you'll get a "standby" contestant filling in the unscheduled gap that it creates.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:Um, no.

Scoring as if he was playing them, rather than flat scoring.

This.
From memory, I scored 119 against scores of 38 and late 20 something. But the margin of my armchair performance v a studio score is not that important. I just felt motivated to open up discussion on an old chestnut after witnessing the abject performance of the losing contestant. From discussions with other "losers" from a decade ago, more formal contacts with the programme have not, so far, proved successful. I thought "What the hell" if I try something different Damian might consider giving another opportunity to some "old" blood.

From a personal point of view, because I've stuck my head above the parapet a few times, I seriously don't expect to receive an invite. For me it's more about the principle. I wanted to test the water as to whether Damian has mellowed since changing the policy on applications almost 3 years ago.

I am not holding my breath but I am always receptive to nice surprises.

Philip Jarvis wrote:From discussions with other "losers" from a decade ago, more formal contacts with the programme have not, so far, proved successful. I thought "What the hell" if I try something different Damian might consider giving another opportunity to some "old" blood.

From a personal point of view, because I've stuck my head above the parapet a few times, I seriously don't expect to receive an invite. For me it's more about the principle. I wanted to test the water as to whether Damian has mellowed since changing the policy on applications almost 3 years ago.

I am not holding my breath but I am always receptive to nice surprises.

I think posting on the forum has even less chance of eliciting a response. In my email exchange with Damian about under-16 players (which I actually initiated on Twitter) he said he didn't use the forum any more.

I'd be surprised if he didn't reply to an email though, even if only to say "sorry, my opinion hasn't changed".

For what it's worth, I don't think today's contestants were that bad at all. Sure, the guy who lost (I think we're pretty safely beyond spoilers now) had a lot of disallowed words, but at least a few were genuinely unfortunate, and at least he was making a go of it.

Regardless, as alluded to above, I'd be really surprised if the 'core' viewers find what apterites would consider bad contestants bad TV. Certainly if by 'bad' we simply people who get What was the standard like for the first, say, 10 years of the programme? Could be a fun analysis, that.

Compared to the contestants on shows like million pound drop, the "bad" contestants on countdown are fecking geniuses.

Damo's main point (I believe) is that crap contestants make Joe Bloggs out there in armchair-land feel good about himself because he can beat the speccy boffin that's managed to make it onto the telly. The occasional (relative) genius was a stand-out event, and are often remembered many years later, whereas a series with a dozen geniuses would destroy that specialness by making amazing players seem normal.

Also, in my experience, people are unaware that it's not actually that tough to get onto a game show, and are really much more impressed than they should be.

Ian Volante wrote:Damo's main point (I believe) is that crap contestants make Joe Bloggs out there in armchair-land feel good about himself because he can beat the speccy boffin that's managed to make it onto the telly. The occasional (relative) genius was a stand-out event, and are often remembered many years later, whereas a series with a dozen geniuses would destroy that specialness by making amazing players seem normal.

I agree. Forumites (and apterites in particular) might be forgiven for forgetting that we're not really Countdown's core audience. I certainly remember in my early days of watching Countdown (before I was any good) the satisfaction of beating the mediocre players in a series, while marvelling at the abilities of the Octochamps.
I've only recently started watching Countdown again after an 18 month gap (so correct me if I'm wrong if thing have changed over the last couple of series) but there's maybe been a mistake in choosing contestants, in that there aren't as many little old ladies/men as there used to be. Perhaps there are just too many good younger players at the auditions these days to ignore them, but I feel that the older audience probably would prefer a few more players who they could identify with.

Phil Reynolds wrote:Anyway Phil, wouldn't you stand a better chance of Damian reading your request if you emailed it to the programme?

Graeme Cole wrote:I think posting on the forum has even less chance of eliciting a response. In my email exchange with Damian about under-16 players (which I actually initiated on Twitter) he said he didn't use the forum any more. I'd be surprised if he didn't reply to an email though, even if only to say "sorry, my opinion hasn't changed".

Thanks for the advice guys. On reflection, that's what I should have done in the first place.

Email now sent - We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the future.

Philip Jarvis wrote:Email now sent - We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the future.

Really? What did it say? (If you can't be more specific you might have been better off not saying anything on here!)

Can you ask if I can go back on as well please?

Jon Corby wrote:

Philip Jarvis wrote:Email now sent - We'll just have to wait and see what happens in the future.

Really? What did it say? (If you can't be more specific you might have been better off not saying anything on here!)

Can you ask if I can go back on as well please?

Jon - I couldn't possibly divulge the contents of a private communication on a public website. However, I will contact you privately via a PM.

Interesting point Julie:

"but there's maybe been a mistake in choosing contestants, in that there aren't as many little old ladies/men as there used to be. Perhaps there are just too many good younger players at the auditions these days to ignore them, but I feel that the older audience probably would prefer a few more players who they could identify with."

But that's partly a function of the no return rule and the fact that the show has been going 30 years. A large chunk of the people now in their 50s or 60s who might be capable of putting up a good fight have already been on in their 20s, 30s, 40s. Not all, as the likes of Daves Taylor and Butcher showed in the last series, but it must be a factor.

What I find curious is that despite this rule some younger contestants have been allowed back for a second go. I think this applies to Kirk and James the Terrier (and Marcus possibly?) and maybe others. Would be interested to know why this has only applied to young contestants except where someone has been eliminated due to an error.

Re the chap on Wednesday - he was almost certainly a standby. After an octochamp run there's normally at least one candidate from within reach of Manchester in the next show, he being from Macclesfield, which is a bit of a hint though not conclusive.

Keith Bennett wrote:Interesting point Julie:

"but there's maybe been a mistake in choosing contestants, in that there aren't as many little old ladies/men as there used to be. Perhaps there are just too many good younger players at the auditions these days to ignore them, but I feel that the older audience probably would prefer a few more players who they could identify with."

But that's partly a function of the no return rule and the fact that the show has been going 30 years. A large chunk of the people now in their 50s or 60s who might be capable of putting up a good fight have already been on in their 20s, 30s, 40s.

Good point, and I'm sure that's part of it. However, (and I'm only guessing here!) I expect that a lot of the older people watching the show didn't used to watch it before they retired, and so might only consider applying in their 60s+.

Keith Bennett wrote:

What I find curious is that despite this rule some younger contestants have been allowed back for a second go. I think this applies to Kirk and James the Terrier (and Marcus possibly?) and maybe others. Would be interested to know why this has only applied to young contestants except where someone has been eliminated due to an error.

I think that this is quite fair, as an adult you've had your chance really. However I don't think anyone should be excluded as an adult because of a decision they made as a child, or possibly even pushed into by parents.

An end to this controversy is a useful by-product of the new "no kids" rule.

True, there will be no very young contestants who would do better to wait until they are (say) 20 or 21, though I think Kirk was 17 when he first appeared so wouldn't have been affected.

But Philip's opening post was partly driven by the perceived lack of quality of candidates. I'm not convinced by this argument that having poorer candidates that the audience can beat is that important. I watch University Challenge every week, and suffer thorough humiliation from people 30+ years younger than me, and worse still from my better half, who's annoyingly quite good. She, likewise, watches Countdown from a similar perspective. But we still watch.

It's not easy for the producers. They need the best part of 250 challengers a year and are expected to cover all areas and age groups, despite the older age groups already being depleted as previously noted. Maybe anyone fancying a second go should move to the Outer Hebrides - I bet they'd love to be able to find someone who lives there to have a go (think there was a guy from Shetland last year).

I lost to Andy McGurn 96-83 last March (having missed a really easy numbers game because I was staring at Rachel's legs at the time and forgot what I was doing) - I was his 7th victim - two days later two old ladies who both lived within 5 miles of the studio played each other and the score was about 60-45 or something. I am extremely average in apterous terms (I only discovered its existence a couple of months before my Countdown appearance) but I went on a run of 6 games unbeaten two days after I was beaten playing from home of course. It is frustrating watching relatively poor players winning a game (or 5 in this week's case!), knowing that you will never sit in the champion's chair even though you were a high scoring loser, but I suppose it is just pot luck who you come up against!