Hello and a very Happy New Year to you, Dearly Beloved. Sadly this year’s New Year quiz in the rugby club, scheduled for Thursday, has been postponed due to the number of staff who have contracted Covid in the last few days – a sign of the times, I‘m afraid. So you can imagine that the return of quizzy Mondays was very welcome here in LAM Towers.
The first contender to be broadcast in 2022 was Bryan Dunlop.
Bryan was answering on The Gurkhas. This is not a subject about which I could
ever claim to have much knowledge – about 4 questions’ worth as it turned out,
which rather surprised me. That was very welcome, especially considering that I
didn’t trouble the scorers in the remaining three SS rounds. Bryan answered
well, confidently and quickly, and the score of 11 that he finished with certainly looked as
if it would give him a shout.
Sadly the same could not really be said for Charlie Bonham’s
round on Fernando Torres. Now, there have been hardly any specialist rounds in
the current series where I’ve found myself murmuring – you really haven’t
learned your subject properly, have you? - I certainly didn’t murmur anything of
the sort during Charlie’s round. She clearly knew her stuff, but the round just
didn’t quite come off – not quite. In this day and age 7 is a perfectly
respectable score. However, 4 points behind at half time is a significant deficit
to have to make up. There were also two contenders still to go, who could conceivably push that target further out of reach.
Speaking as someone who studied English Literature at
University in the 80s, who would rather teach poetry than any other aspect of
English, and who reads ‘serious’ poetry for pleasure, I’m perfectly happy to
say that I do actually really enjoy Pam Ayres’ work. Of course, I’ve already admitted
that I didn’t score a single point on Lisa von Fircks’ round on Pam and her
oeuvre, but that’s just the way it went. Here’s a funny thing. Lisa scored only
1 point more than Charlie had scored, and yet after Lisa’s round I thought – ‘Good
round, job well done’. So, is that maybe where the line between respectable and
good can be drawn?
Well, whatever the answer is to that question, there’s no
doubt about how we can rate Anthony Fish’s round on The 1950s films of Alfred
Hitchcock. 14 from 14 – that’s a perfect round. I do have an observation to
make on the round. This is no reflection on Anthony – his performance was
brilliant, and nothing can be taken away from it. I did think though, as a set
of questions on films this was a strange set. I’ll try to explain. Of all the 14 questions asked, 1 was about the writer of “Dial M For Murder”. All 13 of the
rest were about details from the films. There were no other questions dealing
with the production, or the actors, or anything else. Compared with film rounds
we’ve seen in the past, these were all rather samey. Not that this bothered
Anthony. He had prepared so well that I reckon you could have asked him
questions about the films for the whole 30 minutes and he would have had them
all right. Superb performance.
So to the GK. Charlie returned first to the chair, and she
gave it a lash, and made a decent fist of the first part of her round. Sadly it
all became rather hard going after that, and she finished the round with a
total of 12 points.
In order to go into the lead, Lisa needed 7 points to take
her to 15. So when she arrived there, it was a question of whether she could
add enough points to that to place the two remaining contenders within the
corridor of doubt. Well, she added a further 3 to this to finish with 18, which
didn’t look like it was going to be enough. On the other hand though it did
take her to a total of 10 on GK, and that’s a good performance.
Not as good, it must be said, as Bryan Dunlop’s. Bryan
smoothly knocked off the points needed
to pass Anthony’s score, added another 4 to go past the target, and then took his score
for the round up to 11, to raise the bar to 22. In layman’s terms this meant
that Anthony was going to need 8 and no more than 1 pass to win. A huge target?
No. Yet definitely enough to create that little bit of doubt.
In the end, though, all it did was to spur Anthony to produce
the best GK round that we’ve seen this series. Scores in the high 20s have been
rare in this series, and this is the first 30 pointer that we’ve seen this
season. In the present day and age, 30 points in Mastermind is a monster total,
and Clive himself called it colossal. I don’t recall ever meeting Anthony, and
I don’t think that the show ever mentioned where he calls home. So maybe it was
just my imagination that he seemed to have a Welsh accent. I’m pretty sure that
I’m the last winner based in Wales. Anthony, if I’m right about his accent,
could just be the person to take that honour from me.
Whatever the case, this was a magnificent performance, and I wish
you every success in the semi-finals. You, sir, are one to watch.
The Details
Bryan Dunlop |
The Gurkhas |
11 |
0 |
11 |
2 |
22 |
2 |
Charlie Bonham |
Fernando Torres |
7 |
0 |
5 |
2 |
12 |
2 |
Lisa von Fircks |
The Life and Works of Pam Ayres |
8 |
1 |
10 |
4 |
18 |
5 |
Anthony Fish |
Alfred Hitchcock films of the 1950s |
14 |
0 |
16 |
0 |
30 |
0 |
3 comments:
I think the difference with Lisa and Charlie is that Lisa may have only scored one point more, but Charlie had more questions that she struggled with than Lisa did. Lisa's Achilles heal was that she wasted a lot of time on one single question, asking for it to be repeated AFTER she'd already taken more time on it than she ideally should have. Had that not happened, she probably would have had an SS score closer to Bryan's.
Anthony Fish is from Torfaen in South Wales. I remembered that he was on the first ever Sandi Toksvig episode of Fifteen to One, so just checked on All4. He didn't win that episode, but did get to the final three.
Also... I'm wondering if the order the contestants come in has any relevance to the result? I don't know about previous series, but I've just looked through all the episodes and in nine episodes out of the seventeen so far, the winner has been the person in seat 4 (whereas seat 1 has only had one winner). There's three possibilities I can think of for this: either it's just coincidence, or the producers seat them in order of how likely they think they are to win (unlikely, I think, as the runners-up don't follow any sort of pattern) - or maybe the quiz is just slightly easier if you go last and know what score you have to beat?
Hi George. Happy New Year to you.
Yes, I think that you're probably spot on about the differences between Charlie's and Lisa's specialist rounds. Lisa's had the feeling of being a bit better than the score, while Charlie's score looked fair for what she did - it didn't loo as if it was going to be better than it was.
With regards to the seating of contenders, the production team during my time on the show really weren't bothered about how well you did once the show started. Their only real concern was to put interesting combinations of subjects together for each show, and putting them into the most appealing and interesting running order within each show. During my time on the show I have gone 3rd, 1st, 4th (out of 4) and 5th (out of 6) in the specialist round, and I'd tend to say that this didn't seem to make a lot of difference to me. What did make a difference was going last in the GK. I did this twice, and won one and lost one (chap of champs) and I really didn't like having to chase a target in that way.
I mentioned the seat thing In the comments of one of the other Mastermind reviews. I find it oddly distracting. Glad someone else noticed it!
Post a Comment