c4countdown

What is this...spoiler thread? It's been so long I've almost forgotten.

Hi folks. Hopefully I'm back for most of this series. I figured with Robbo's stats and his cap locks that he was excited enough to do the spoiler threads for the last two months that I didn't want to touch it. Now, hopefully I can get back into a somewhat regular rhythm of this.

Speaking of regular rhythm, Rachael Moran is starting to get into a rhythm of her own, with a score of 117 yesterday that defeated any score from Series 67. Can she get the fourth win today? It will not be easy if I heard correctly, because right off the bat, we have another aptoforumite in this series, Philip Jarvis. This is also not Philip's first time in the Countdown studios. He was a contestant back in series 47, losing to semi-finalist Kevin Thurlow by 10 points. It's been over 10 years, and he's hoping to not be too knackered in his second go around. Interestingly, he is following a very similar trajectory to Peter Lee last year, who also lost to Kevin Thurlow in his prelim and came back over 10 years later. I'm putting money on Jean Smith coming back in 2014. Regardless, I must truly say that no matter what this game, I will feel greatly happy for the winner and greatly disappointed for the loser. If I did not hear correctly, you can take most of what I said today and put it into the appropriate spoiler thread when its time.

Join Jack for the recap later.

Good intro from Mr Jarvis there and a strong start so far from him against the champ. FRAENUM as a beater in Round 4 I think.

Ryan Taylor wrote:Good intro from Mr Jarvis there and a strong start so far from him against the champ. FRAENUM as a beater in Round 4 I think.

Yep, you're right, darrenic if I remember rightly

Apostrophe's, if you'll pardon the pun.

Apostrophe's is an 8, by the way

Well done Philip, very nice to see you get a win after over 10 years, and to get it against someone as strong as Rachael must feel good too. Speaking of which, as I said before, it'd be sad for me to see either of these two lose, and very unlucky Rachael to lose after a strong four games. I hope with the shortened series that it'll end up being enough for the finals.

Adam Gillard wrote:Apostrophe's is an 8, by the way

Let us hope Chris Packham is not around on National Grammar Day!

For two keen apterites they have only played once online. On 29th Dec last Phil beat Rachael 74-73.
And now Phil has a teapot to go with the mug he got last year - well done.

Jordan F wrote:Well done Philip, very nice to see you get a win after over 10 years, and to get it against someone as strong as Rachael must feel good too. Speaking of which, as I said before, it'd be sad for me to see either of these two lose, and very unlucky Rachael to lose after a strong four games. I hope with the shortened series that it'll end up being enough for the finals.

Yeah, I reckon 4 wins makes it to be honest.

Good win Philip, well done. Also well done Rachael for playing all your games in good friendly spirits.

PENTANE for 7 in one of the rounds

Bad luck Rachel! Well played Philip.

They are only sixes, but:
BOOGIE in round 8 and PATTEN in round 9

I can't believe how tough Nick was on Rachel Moran. There were constant negative remarks from around Round 3 onwards about how she wasnt meeting yesterdays standard and then towards the end, how it was probably too late for her to catch up, accompanied with sighs and looks of disaproval etc. I like Nick along with his often dry, abrasive, humorous comments, but this was too much. It was great how she got better towards the end, got the conundrum and was very gracious even so.

Ciaran Thompson wrote:I can't believe how tough Nick was on Rachel Moran. There were constant negative remarks from around Round 3 onwards about how she wasnt meeting yesterdays standard and then towards the end, how it was probably too late for her to catch up, accompanied with sighs and looks of disaproval etc. I like Nick along with his often dry, abrasive, humorous comments, but this was too much. It was great how she got better towards the end, got the conundrum and was very gracious even so.

I don't think he was tough on her; it's just his manner. I don't see a problem with it.

Adam Gillard wrote:

Ciaran Thompson wrote:I can't believe how tough Nick was on Rachel Moran. There were constant negative remarks from around Round 3 onwards about how she wasnt meeting yesterdays standard and then towards the end, how it was probably too late for her to catch up, accompanied with sighs and looks of disaproval etc. I like Nick along with his often dry, abrasive, humorous comments, but this was too much. It was great how she got better towards the end, got the conundrum and was very gracious even so.

I don't think he was tough on her; it's just his manner. I don't see a problem with it.

Yeah, but I think his manner caused him to be a touch mannerless today (excuse the pun). As I say, I like his no-nonsense 'come-on now' style, especially as it can add humour, but I think his remarks were too frequent and constant throughout the game, which can be off-putting.

A very good "début", Phil.

No signs of nerves at all, maybe the fact that you'd been there before helped a bit, but there were some good spots in there.

Let's hope for a few more wins for West Yorkshire.

1st Numbers Alt.: (8 x 25) + 75 + (6 x (100 / 50)) = 287

Nice for Phil to get another shot on the show, very well played Phil!

Very good second debut, Phil, well played! I also hope Rachael has done enough to make the finals, which could happen with this series being much shorter than normal.

Many thanks for the comments. Every year counts – it’s actually over 11 years since I was last on Countdown and lost. Hopefully, it won’t be as long before Dan McColm gets another chance.

I had hoped that I wouldn’t be up against another Apterite in my first game and was sorry that it had to be either me or Rachael. Rachael’s previous game was quality and I would have been on my way home if the draw had not been kind to me. From a selfish point of view, I was fortunate that Rachael got off to a poor start today as I knew she had a good chance of picking up points on the numbers and conundrum. Rachael is a really nice person and, with 4 wins, that hopefully will be enough to see her through to the quarters.

As far as the game is concerned, when I look back, my only true disappointment was missing the 9 letter word in round 1. I told Rachael between rounds that the only thing I could see for the first 20 seconds was “WANKIEST”. I never thought of putting the other “S” on the front as I tried to find an alternative in the last few seconds.

Of all the things I have achieved in my life, this was my last current outstanding ambition. I would like to thank Damian and the rest of the Countdown Team for giving me this opportunity. I’m now officially a Countdown winner and I have the privilege of being a fully fledged owner of a Countdown teapot.

If this is my only win, and I have the misfortune of walking under a bus tomorrow, I will die a happy man.

Jordan F wrote:Speaking of which, as I said before, it'd be sad for me to see either of these two lose

This. I wanted to see Phil get his teapot after ten years of waiting, but at the same time Rachael deserved to win more than four games. Still, people have qualified for the finals before with four wins, and they were full-length series.

Philip Jarvis wrote:As far as the game is concerned, when I look back, my only true disappointment was missing the 9 letter word in round 1. I told Rachael between rounds that the only thing I could see for the first 20 seconds was “WANKIEST”. I never thought of putting the other “S” on the front as I tried to find an alternative in the last few seconds.

Heh, this!
Only until some woman in the audience in front of me said "ooooh Beryl I think I've got a nine here" did I see it.
Weird how much it helps to 'know' there's nine.

Really hope we'll see you back for the finals, Rachael - that 117 might come in useful. But well played Phil, especially after such a long wait.

Philip Jarvis wrote: Hopefully, it won’t be as long before Dan McColm gets another chance.

Thanks, Phil! I hope you do well on the show on your second go

Graeme Cole wrote:

Jordan F wrote:Speaking of which, as I said before, it'd be sad for me to see either of these two lose

This. I wanted to see Phil get his teapot after ten years of waiting, but at the same time Rachael deserved to win more than four games. Still, people have qualified for the finals before with four wins, and they were full-length series.

If you look at the last few years (pretty mouch since Rachel arrived), the Jan-Jun serieses have let in people with few (4ish) wins, whereas the Jul-Dec serieses always need so many more. Case studies: Phyl Styles and Rob Gibney, to name some recent ones.

With a shortened Jan-Jun series, I wouldn't be surprised if people with 3 wins got in, so 4 wins+good score surely will.

If Rachael doesn't qualify for these series finals, I'll record myself eating a whole 5kg bag of potatoes (not the actual bag) and put it on YouTube. There, I said it.

Well done, Philip. I'm glad you now have a teapot to go with your well-deserved mug!

Heather Styles wrote:Well done, Philip. I'm glad you now have a teapot to go with your well-deserved mug!

Thomas Carey wrote:If Rachael doesn't qualify for these series finals, I'll record myself eating a whole 5kg bag of potatoes (not the actual bag) and put it on YouTube. There, I said it.

Please don't.

Johnny Canuck wrote:

Thomas Carey wrote:If Rachael doesn't qualify for these series finals, I'll record myself eating a whole 5kg bag of potatoes (not the actual bag) and put it on YouTube. There, I said it.

Please don't.

Heh, OK. Rachael's going to get into the finals anyway.