c4countdown

So, we now move onto the semi-finals, safe in the knowledge that we will have a Xicount for the 23rd consecutive series, as just the 4 octochamps (or should that now be nonachamps) are left.

There haven't really been many surprises in the finals so far, probably except for the closeness of the result in the 1st quarter-final, but the fact that Giles still got 13 maxes pretty much negates that.

But, our #1 seed is back, 12 days on from his quarter-final win, to take on yesterday's winner, the #4 seed, Joe McGonigle, for a place in Friday's final.

Here are the stats:

Firstly, No.1 Seed Giles "The Farnham Firestorm" Hutchings - 9 Wins, 1,074 Points. (Average: 119.33)
Highest Score: 130 vs. Alan Flanagan (6th Game)
Lowest Score: 109 vs. Peter Fenton (Quarter-Final)
9's Achieved: 6/9
Total Points/Max/%: 1074/1194 (90%)
Letters Points/Max/%: 668/753 (89%)
Numbers Points/Max/%: 326/351 (93%)
Conundrum Points/Max/%: 80/90 (89%)

Secondly, No.4 Seed Joe "The Stockport Sparkler" McGonigle - 9 Wins, 824 Points. (Average: 91.56)
Highest Score: 108 vs. Sam McElhinney (Quarter-Final)
Lowest Score: 78 vs. Mark Ivey (5th Game)
9's Achieved: 0/4
Total Points/Max/%: 824/1157 (71%)
Letters Points/Max/%: 478/707 (68%)
Numbers Points/Max/%: 276/360 (77%)
Conundrum Points/Max/%: 70/90 (78%)

I'll be around later for the recap.

Round 1 RAVIOLIS if Susie consistent with previous rulings? (As in "Two raviolis, please".

Sorry to see Joe suffer as he is a good player, and Giles was beatable on more rounds than the one Joe did.
For instance not seeing any of the 7s in the nosily/slinky round, or seeing the 38x25-5 method in the last numbers.

Just after the round I asked Susie about pluralising RAVIOLI, she checked its entry, and (as I knew from looking a few weeks ago) it says it's a plural noun. So since it's a plural noun already it trumps the order-in-a-restaurant rule.

I did fail to see a 7 in that round, saw SNAKILY afterwards. And I mucked up some "easy" numbers like the 869.

X rated stuff on Countdown today with Myleene offering TONGUED ORIFICES and BONDAGE. Very cheeky

A couple of alternatives in round 8 - WARIEST and LAWSUIT. Round 6 seemed to have loads of alternative solutions like 6 x (10-4) x 3 and ((3 x 10) - 3) x 4, and round 3 had the rather more "pedestrian" solution of ((4+7) x 75) + (9x3).

Quite pleased at getting ORIFICES in round 4 and hitting the target in round 9 but Giles would still have beaten me! Well done.

Well done Giles, not your absolute best but you weren't really troubled in fairness. I would have gone for RAVIOLIS^.

SARKILY in round 10.

Paused the last numbers and took about 2 minutes to eventually come up with the same method as Giles for 951 to even get within 10!
Then RR does it so easily with 9 x 105 and now reading the recap I've spotted the much more straightforward ((10+9) x2 x 25) - 6 + 1. Hindsight is wonderful
Anyone notice how Nick said more to Joe after this match than what was shown in all his introductions put together?!

Jack Worsley wrote:Well done Giles, not your absolute best but you weren't really troubled in fairness. I would have gone for RAVIOLIS^.

We had a discussion about this not so long ago.

Jack Worsley wrote:SARKILY in round 10.

Was TROIKAS also available in that round?

Brian Moore wrote:

Jack Worsley wrote:SARKILY in round 10.

Was TROIKAS also available in that round?

No, for 2 reasons.

1) The selection for round 10 was this: B N G E A N S O D

2) I'm sure Jack meant Round 11's selection, which was this: K L S Y A O I N R, and it seems to be T-less, so no, I'm afraid...........

James Robinson wrote:

Brian Moore wrote:

Jack Worsley wrote:SARKILY in round 10.

Was TROIKAS also available in that round?

No, for 2 reasons.

1) The selection for round 10 was this: B N G E A N S O D

2) I'm sure Jack meant Round 11's selection, which was this: K L S Y A O I N R, and it seems to be T-less, so no, I'm afraid...........

The phantom letter strikes again. Thanks James. I thought it was probably me.

This was more comfortable than I expected for Giles, but Joe's INDULGER was a great spot in a round where you can easily be distracted by -ING (as I was), so he can be very pleased with that one. DOGBANES from Giles was excellent, too. I remember the RAVIOLIS* discussion recently, so well done to Giles "I write the dictionary" Hucthings for avoiding that trap. Being a little bit harsh, I think it's fair to say that Giles was eminently beatable on the numbers today, which he'd need to sharpen up with Andy as his probable final opponent, but the letters and conundrum were of a high standard as usual.