Let’s start this second semi final review with another
look at the form book: -
Alan
Diment
|
The
Life and Work of Edvard Munch
|
14
|
0
|
15
|
0
|
29
|
0
|
Sarah Lake
|
Joni Mitchell
|
13
|
1
|
15
|
0
|
28
|
1
|
James Haughton
|
History of the World Cup
1982 - date
|
14
|
0
|
13
|
0
|
27
|
0
|
Gill Taylor
|
The Honey Bee and Bee Keeping
|
12
|
3
|
15
|
4
|
27
|
7
|
Mohan
Mudigonda
|
Nirvana
|
11
|
1
|
12
|
3
|
23
|
4
|
There’s some really very good GK scores in the
first round there, and in fact nobody’s GK score seemed to suggest they might struggle.
Our repechage slot last night was taken by James Haughton who, you might
recall, had been in the same first round heat as our own Daniel Adler. Underdog
in this semi, if such a thing there was, was Mohan Mudigonda, but a good
performance on SS would put him right up there.
In fact we’d see just such a SS round from him
early doors since he was the first up. Now, he was offering us the Asterix
Stories 1961 – 1987. I haven’t read all of the Asterix stories, but those I
have read, I love. I think that Goscinny and Uderzo’s English translators, who
I believe were Anthea Bell and Derek Hockridge, did the most fantastic job on
taking the original French stories and remaining faithful to them while
delivering a level of humour and word play every bit as clever as that in the
original French – I’ve read a few in the original by way of comparison.
Detailed memories of Asterix and the Roman Agent, Asterix and the Big Fight,
and Asterix in Britain were enough to bring me about half a dozen points. Mohan’s
even 10 looked a good performance, and off 90 seconds it was somewhat better
than his 11 from his heat.
I didn’t do so well with the Periodic Table,
bagging a mere 4. I used to play Sporcle a lot, and what little I know about
the Periodic Table is mainly derived from one of those games where you have 20
minutes to name all the elements in the correct order. Little things . . . Last
week we saw everyone still in the hunt by the time the half time oranges were
being given out. Sadly Gill Taylor’s 7 meant it looked highly unlikely that she
would have a realistic chance of winning the show.
Our first teacher of the semis, Sarah Lake, stepped
forward next. Based on her form in her heat, Sarah looked as good a contender
to relieve me of the burden of being the last schoolteacher to win Mastermind
as any. Back then she whacked in a good 13 on Joni Mitchell. Last night she
offered us the Novels of Nick Hornby, and again, while being by no means a bad
round at all, her score of 8 left her what you thought would be a couple of
points short of the kind of score you need going into the GK.
As I mentioned at the top of the show, James
Haughton was unfortunate to feature in the same heat as Daniel, but he made a
clear statement of his intent in this show with the finest score of the round
so far. Answering on Richard Feynman, or to give him his LAM Towers title,
Richard Who?, James produced a perfect 12 from 12. That’s not quite the best
round ever in a 90 second specialist round, but it takes something very special
to do much better, and James was certainly sitting in pole position for the
time being.
Alan Diment produced one of the first round
performances that really caught the eye, in a terrific first round arm match
with LAM reader Ian Fennell. Back then he produced a perfect SS score on Edvard
Munch. Last night he only missed the one question on the life and films of Stan
Laurel – having recently read a book about the films of Laurel and Hardy I
managed 5. That one question missed though meant that he sat 2 points behind
James.
Here’s an observation I made as I watched the
second round last night, and as always, this is just my opinion so feel free to
disagree. Due to the quality of last week’s first semi this didn’t really come
into play then, but last night I did feel that what we saw demonstrated a point
I made at the time about the GK rounds in the first round heats. I did feel
quite often that the GK rounds were rather more gentle in many cases than we’ve
seen in recent years. So while on paper, contenders might be very close in
terms of their GK scores from the heats, in practice, with harder questions in
the semis, we might see some large fluctuations in the scores. I believe that
this was the case in this 2nd semi.
Mohan Modigonda
|
The Asterix Stories 1961-1987
|
10
|
1
|
12
|
3
|
22
|
3
|
Gill Taylor
|
The Periodic Table
|
7
|
0
|
9
|
3
|
16
|
3
|
Sarah Lake
|
The Novels of Nick Hornby
|
8
|
0
|
6
|
4
|
14
|
4
|
James Haughton
|
Richard Feynman
|
12
|
0
|
6
|
0
|
18
|
0
|
Alan DIment
|
The Life and Films of Stan Laurel
|
10
|
0
|
11
|
0
|
21
|
0
|
5 comments:
I'm starting to think that semis are kinda jinxed and challenging, last week I felt certain that Steve Lacey would overtake everyone in general knowledge and the same went for James this week. It's a real pity that the 90 second jinx always kicks in at that point.
As for Mohan, a good job and in my view a contender with his eye on the prize by the look of it.
Hello Liam,
I did allude to the fact that this what can happen when you have what I felt were a lot of really rather gentle GK rounds in the first round heats. They can make it difficult to predict what will happen in the semi final when the GK seems to get a bit harder. For example, there's not much on paper to choose from the reasonable quizzer who sores 14 on a gentle GK round, and the good quizzer who gets 15 on a gentle GK round. Put the two in the semis with harder GK questions, though, and you'll often see the difference.
This is not meant as a criticism of any of our semi finalists, each of whom earned their rightful place in the semis, more a possible explanation for some of the GK rounds we've seen in the last two semis.
Good morning everyone,
I came across this lovely blog quite by chance whilst preparing for my appearances on Mastermind this year. David, I really must compliment you on the sheer detail of your posts and I am also very humbled by your comments about my appearances on the show.
I think you make some very salient points about the GK rounds. Speaking for myself personally, I'm quite bad at discerning what counts as an "easy question" or a "difficult question". If I know the answer to something, is it because it was easy, or am I clever because I knew the answer to a difficult question? :) As Chris Tarrant used to say.. "it's only easy if you knew the answer"
On the flip side however,I do agree that some questions in the GK rounds have been relative Gimmes. "which city is Charles de Gaulle airport in" for instance is one I remember from this series.
Liam, thank you for your very kind comments also :)
Frankly, I genuinely thought I didn't have a chance in hell of getting through the first round let alone the semi. What an experience.
Cheers Mohan
I'm sure the final will make for good TV like it did last year. Also I only noticed they won't be showing Mastermind this Friday evening because of the UK's Eurovision Selection on BBC 2!
Hi Mohan! Thank you so much for your very kind words, and for taking the time and trouble to leave a comment.
Easy v. difficult? Well, let's be honest, it's all in the eye of the beholder and the ear of the behearer. As with everything else in the blog, it's purely a subjective view. I base it on my experience of setting quizzes for the rugby club to a large extent. I think - would all the teams in the club get that one right? If the answer is yes, or even most of them, then it's an easy question. I also take into consideration how often I've heard the same question being asked in the last few years - some questions do seem to go in and out of fashion, interestingly.
I wish you the very best of retrospective luck in the final.
Post a Comment