Yes, forgive me if I say one last set of final congratulations to my boys of the Llangewydd Arms quiz league team. Last night we played the final of the cup competition in Bridgend. I was worried that it was going to be a close call, and for much of the match that's exactly what it was . Our opponents, a very fine team from Maesteg Catholic Club even led after the first set of A and B questions, and the Individual rounds. We hit a little run of form after this, and had some questions which suited us, and we managed to pull away, but it was by no means easy. So Andrew, Neil, and of course John, many congratulations. You can't do better than to have a 100% record for the season.
But thanks also to all of the teams we've played in both league and cup this season. Your welcome and good humour has been one of the things that has made this season a joy from start to finish. If I admired and respected the league before I played in it (and I did ) , then that admiration and respect has increased exponentially. Many, many thanks indeed.
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
University Challenge - Grand Final - 2010/11
Magdalen , Oxford v. York
Yes, the contest that everyone has been waiting for finally took place last night. After a huge struggle, Llangewydd Arms won the cup final in Bridgend. Oh, and there was the small matter of a little University Challenge match on at the same time. Of course, it was Grand Final night, of this, the most closely contested series of University for quite a while. The mental gladiators prepared to give their all in this final bout were :-
James McComish,
Kyle Haddad- Fonda,
Will Cudmore
Captain Matthew Chan
for Magdalen, and for York,
Chris Caudwell,
Ben Keane,
Simon Donnelly
captain Andrew Clemo
The outcome of the final was always going to be settled in the buzzer race. Possibly the race to the first starter could be an indication of how the whole contest was going to go. First blood went to Andrew Clemo, the inspirational captain of York, who knew that the rule of mughal emperor Akbar the Great closely coincided with that of Elizabeth Ist. Bonuses on responses to Shakespeare proved rather daunting, and they only managed one. Will Cudmore hit back immediately, knowing that the man who changed the eating habits of the British more than any other man since world war 2 was Egon Ronay. Good bonuses were taken on Huxley, Handel and others. A great answer to the next starter followed from Andrew Clemo, involving working out the differences in minutes between historical events if rendered as times on a clock. Believe me, it was as hard as it sounded. 2 game theory bonuses followed. Will Cudmore took the first picture starter, identifying Berlin. More of the same followed, and all three were taken. Magdalen were certainly into their stride on their bonuses early in this show. Will Cudmore then correctly paired Perdita with Florizel from the play “A Winter’s Tale”. Bonuses on names of elements of the periodic table saw them drop their first points, but nonetheless they were still forging ahead. A great early buzz from Kyle Haddad-Fonda saw him say what sounded like ‘jumping jeans’ but I guess was ‘jumping genes’. It was right, anyway. A set of bonuses on quotations rather stopped them in their tracks, although they managed the last of them. Kyle Haddad-Fonda identified definitions of the words – east – least – yeast for the next starter. I half hoped that he was going to follow it up with –iron – lion – zion – but alas it was not to be. Bonuses followed on British trees, which took them up to a score of 105 by the 10 minute mark. York languished on 35, and at this stage were looking to get a toehold in the match again.
Kyle Haddad-Fonda knew the term fixation, and this brought up a set on metaphysics and theology. 2 were taken. Simon Donnelly , justifiably trying to break the cycle of Magdalen dominance, buzzed early on the next starter, unfortunately wrong, and given the whole question Will Cudmore confidently asserted that the answer required was Elgar . So it was. On the music starter neither identified a little tune on the harpsichord by Bach. Andrew Clemo managed to nip in with a double a town – Aachen – to get the music bonuses. This involved identifying keyboard instruments. Simon Donnelly got virginal ( ooh, matron ! ) , the clavichord and spinet got away. James McComish waited until York jumped too early on the next starter, then came in with tea tree for the next starter. 2 bonuses on rulers with epithets were taken. And still it went on. Magdalen took the next , and a full set of bonuses on JM Keynes. Ben Keane came in with the epiglottis to take the next starter, and made a slight temporary inroad into the lead. However bonuses on conductors and artistic directors proved difficult and only yielded one. A mathematical starter I couldn’t follow came next. Neither team could either, and so we rolled on to the next. Will Cudmore took the unzip starter, and the bonuses brought them up to 200, and , realistically, took them over the event horizon before the 20 minute mark. The picture starter asked for the painters of two paintings to be identified. Neither team could see Turner and Constable. Andrew Clemo knew that if its Hungarian wine, then its either Tokay or Bulls Blood, and he zigged correctly with Tokay. Picture bonuses comparing a Turner with another artist’s work followed, but I’m afraid they managed none of them. So at the twenty minute mark there was, realistically, only pride left for York to play for, as Magdalen led by 200 to 60.
A brilliant buzz from Matthew Chan for the next starter showed that he knew that ten to the power of minus 9 is – nano, and if you turn that round you get the name Onan. Fantastic answer. A set on medicine proved tricky, but no matter. Lovely starter next , about titles of books with the word ‘room’ in them – and Forster’s, as Will Cudmore knew, had a view. A set on economists proved difficult. Ben Keane took another starter for York, recognising a set of areas of the city of Beijing. Terms from the lyrics of Bohmeian Rhapsody were my all time favourite set of bonuses ever, and I’m delighted that York had them all. Still, back came Magdalen to take the next mathematical starter. A set of bonuses on astronomy saw them add a couple more . They were in no mood to show mercy to York, and Will Cudmore leapt in on the next starter on The Merry Wives of Windsor. A couple of bonuses on writers were taken. With the next starter it was Kyle Haddad-Fonda leaping in with Piaget. A set of literary terms followed, and a couple again were taken. Poor Ben Keane buzzed in for the next, but made the mistake of hesitating, and JP was having none of it. Kyle Haddad-Fonda knew hydrofluoric acid for the last starter, and then that was it. At the gong Magdalen had won by 290 to 85.
The trophy was presented by Anthony Beevor, who certainly impressed JP, going by the fulsome approval which he gave him. Thanks to Mr. Beevor for pointing out that the series gives the lie to the old chestnut of the dumbing down of education.
Hard lines York. You have played with guts, grit, and knowledge in your last few matches, and fully deserved your place in the final.
Many congratulations to Magdalen. Any team from Magdalen has a lot to live up to, and you have proven yourselves the equals of any previous vintage. Very well done.
Jeremy Paxman Watch
Surprisingly not a lot to report tonight. I enjoyed his comment that Anthony Beevor rather broke the mould by topping the best selling non fiction charts without having written a cookery book. Thanks, Mr. P. as always, for the enjoyment you have given us during the series. In a world of often very bland, eminently forgettable hosts, you are a purple emperor among cabbage whites.
Interesting Fact That I Didn’t Already Know Of The Week
I liked two of them so much that I couldn’t choose between them – so here they both are.
The Queen Mum said that T.S.Eliot looked so gloomy he looked like he worked in a bank. ( He did !)
The only headword in the OED beginning with unz – is unzip.
Yes, the contest that everyone has been waiting for finally took place last night. After a huge struggle, Llangewydd Arms won the cup final in Bridgend. Oh, and there was the small matter of a little University Challenge match on at the same time. Of course, it was Grand Final night, of this, the most closely contested series of University for quite a while. The mental gladiators prepared to give their all in this final bout were :-
James McComish,
Kyle Haddad- Fonda,
Will Cudmore
Captain Matthew Chan
for Magdalen, and for York,
Chris Caudwell,
Ben Keane,
Simon Donnelly
captain Andrew Clemo
The outcome of the final was always going to be settled in the buzzer race. Possibly the race to the first starter could be an indication of how the whole contest was going to go. First blood went to Andrew Clemo, the inspirational captain of York, who knew that the rule of mughal emperor Akbar the Great closely coincided with that of Elizabeth Ist. Bonuses on responses to Shakespeare proved rather daunting, and they only managed one. Will Cudmore hit back immediately, knowing that the man who changed the eating habits of the British more than any other man since world war 2 was Egon Ronay. Good bonuses were taken on Huxley, Handel and others. A great answer to the next starter followed from Andrew Clemo, involving working out the differences in minutes between historical events if rendered as times on a clock. Believe me, it was as hard as it sounded. 2 game theory bonuses followed. Will Cudmore took the first picture starter, identifying Berlin. More of the same followed, and all three were taken. Magdalen were certainly into their stride on their bonuses early in this show. Will Cudmore then correctly paired Perdita with Florizel from the play “A Winter’s Tale”. Bonuses on names of elements of the periodic table saw them drop their first points, but nonetheless they were still forging ahead. A great early buzz from Kyle Haddad-Fonda saw him say what sounded like ‘jumping jeans’ but I guess was ‘jumping genes’. It was right, anyway. A set of bonuses on quotations rather stopped them in their tracks, although they managed the last of them. Kyle Haddad-Fonda identified definitions of the words – east – least – yeast for the next starter. I half hoped that he was going to follow it up with –iron – lion – zion – but alas it was not to be. Bonuses followed on British trees, which took them up to a score of 105 by the 10 minute mark. York languished on 35, and at this stage were looking to get a toehold in the match again.
Kyle Haddad-Fonda knew the term fixation, and this brought up a set on metaphysics and theology. 2 were taken. Simon Donnelly , justifiably trying to break the cycle of Magdalen dominance, buzzed early on the next starter, unfortunately wrong, and given the whole question Will Cudmore confidently asserted that the answer required was Elgar . So it was. On the music starter neither identified a little tune on the harpsichord by Bach. Andrew Clemo managed to nip in with a double a town – Aachen – to get the music bonuses. This involved identifying keyboard instruments. Simon Donnelly got virginal ( ooh, matron ! ) , the clavichord and spinet got away. James McComish waited until York jumped too early on the next starter, then came in with tea tree for the next starter. 2 bonuses on rulers with epithets were taken. And still it went on. Magdalen took the next , and a full set of bonuses on JM Keynes. Ben Keane came in with the epiglottis to take the next starter, and made a slight temporary inroad into the lead. However bonuses on conductors and artistic directors proved difficult and only yielded one. A mathematical starter I couldn’t follow came next. Neither team could either, and so we rolled on to the next. Will Cudmore took the unzip starter, and the bonuses brought them up to 200, and , realistically, took them over the event horizon before the 20 minute mark. The picture starter asked for the painters of two paintings to be identified. Neither team could see Turner and Constable. Andrew Clemo knew that if its Hungarian wine, then its either Tokay or Bulls Blood, and he zigged correctly with Tokay. Picture bonuses comparing a Turner with another artist’s work followed, but I’m afraid they managed none of them. So at the twenty minute mark there was, realistically, only pride left for York to play for, as Magdalen led by 200 to 60.
A brilliant buzz from Matthew Chan for the next starter showed that he knew that ten to the power of minus 9 is – nano, and if you turn that round you get the name Onan. Fantastic answer. A set on medicine proved tricky, but no matter. Lovely starter next , about titles of books with the word ‘room’ in them – and Forster’s, as Will Cudmore knew, had a view. A set on economists proved difficult. Ben Keane took another starter for York, recognising a set of areas of the city of Beijing. Terms from the lyrics of Bohmeian Rhapsody were my all time favourite set of bonuses ever, and I’m delighted that York had them all. Still, back came Magdalen to take the next mathematical starter. A set of bonuses on astronomy saw them add a couple more . They were in no mood to show mercy to York, and Will Cudmore leapt in on the next starter on The Merry Wives of Windsor. A couple of bonuses on writers were taken. With the next starter it was Kyle Haddad-Fonda leaping in with Piaget. A set of literary terms followed, and a couple again were taken. Poor Ben Keane buzzed in for the next, but made the mistake of hesitating, and JP was having none of it. Kyle Haddad-Fonda knew hydrofluoric acid for the last starter, and then that was it. At the gong Magdalen had won by 290 to 85.
The trophy was presented by Anthony Beevor, who certainly impressed JP, going by the fulsome approval which he gave him. Thanks to Mr. Beevor for pointing out that the series gives the lie to the old chestnut of the dumbing down of education.
Hard lines York. You have played with guts, grit, and knowledge in your last few matches, and fully deserved your place in the final.
Many congratulations to Magdalen. Any team from Magdalen has a lot to live up to, and you have proven yourselves the equals of any previous vintage. Very well done.
Jeremy Paxman Watch
Surprisingly not a lot to report tonight. I enjoyed his comment that Anthony Beevor rather broke the mould by topping the best selling non fiction charts without having written a cookery book. Thanks, Mr. P. as always, for the enjoyment you have given us during the series. In a world of often very bland, eminently forgettable hosts, you are a purple emperor among cabbage whites.
Interesting Fact That I Didn’t Already Know Of The Week
I liked two of them so much that I couldn’t choose between them – so here they both are.
The Queen Mum said that T.S.Eliot looked so gloomy he looked like he worked in a bank. ( He did !)
The only headword in the OED beginning with unz – is unzip.
Monday, 4 April 2011
Calling david.call2
I was delighted to receive an email from Thomas Benson, Questions editor on University Challenge. On the subject of spoilers, Thomas is quite rightly anxious that people's enjoyment of the series is not ruined by spoilers, and so he asked me if I could confirm the website referred to by david.call2 in a comment he posted after the second semi final review - which I take the liberty of reproducing here : -
"Talking of spoilers (which you were) it seems to me that the BBC is as bad as anyone. Even before Monday's programme had been transmitted the UC website was announcing that the Grand Final constituted a contest between Magdelen Oxford and York - which rather made Magdelen scorching hot favourites to win their semi. I believe a similar thing happened before episode 34 was transmitted (when York featured in two programmes in a row)."
David - can you tell us exactly which UC website you were referring to, and leave us the URL if possible ? You can email me personally, or leave it as a comment to this post if you prefer. Thanks for your help on this on.
"Talking of spoilers (which you were) it seems to me that the BBC is as bad as anyone. Even before Monday's programme had been transmitted the UC website was announcing that the Grand Final constituted a contest between Magdelen Oxford and York - which rather made Magdelen scorching hot favourites to win their semi. I believe a similar thing happened before episode 34 was transmitted (when York featured in two programmes in a row)."
David - can you tell us exactly which UC website you were referring to, and leave us the URL if possible ? You can email me personally, or leave it as a comment to this post if you prefer. Thanks for your help on this on.
University of Manchester Quiz Society Tournament
Delighted to receive an email from Rach Cherryade over the weekend. Amongst all the news, was a request if I could carry this message from Tom Whyman - a good UC man himself, you'll recall. I think you might be interested in it -
"Hi, my name is Tom Whyman and I am the chair of the newly-formed University of Manchester Quiz Society. We are hosting our first tournament on April 30th. This is an academic quizbowl which will take the form of a round-robin tournament. It follows a number of successful university quizbowls that have been staged in Oxford recently. One of these was won by Manchester: it was in fact the heats for a major quizbowl held in the USA, and we got to go to Chicago and participate against 30-odd American and Canadian teams (a team from Oxford went too). There we saw first-hand the quality of the academic quizzing scene in America. The best teams are intensely committed, very competitive, and almost impossibly quick and knowledgeable. They also play tournaments frequently throughout the year.
By contrast quizzing in British universities is very much oriented around University Challenge. The biggest problem with this I think is that they only let you go on once, so there's no way you can build on past successes if you did well on the show and enjoyed it but didn't quite win (for example). So, what we want to do is help move quizzing in the UK away from a focus on just UC and towards more American-style quiz bowls.
There are a few institutions that get involved on a regular basis: Oxford, Manchester, Sheffield, Imperial, Warwick, Oxford Brookes (and some others have shown up too: York, Southampton, Cambridge, UCL). But the purpose of this tournament is really to get as many new institutions involved as possible. In particular, universities from the north of England: like I say, the quizbowl scene has up until now been focused exclusively on Oxford, which Manchester can just about get to and from in a day (although our ability to beat Oxford A, never substantial anyway, is diminished by the early mornings), but anyone further away or less well-connected on the trains might struggle to make the journey. So, if anyone is from an institution that is interested in attending please e-mail me at thomas.whyman@student.manchester.ac.uk.
We need four-player teams but don't be discouraged if you can't find four people: we are open to allowing nearby institutions to compete together if they can't get enough players to attend on their own to get as many people involved as we can (and you are allowed to compete with fewer than four members anyway). The questions are from the 2011 University of Minnesota Undergraduate Tournament with British alterations by myself and others, so they are about the same level of difficulty as UC (but longer and in a pyramidal format which means the hardest clues are always first before the reveal at the end). There is a £40 tournament fee with a £5 discount if you bring a buzzer set.
Even if you can't make this quiz, get in contact anyway if you're interested so that I can let your university know about future quizzing events. The next big academic quizbowl that is coming up is the British Student Quiz Championships which will be hosted by Imperial on June 11th.”
"Hi, my name is Tom Whyman and I am the chair of the newly-formed University of Manchester Quiz Society. We are hosting our first tournament on April 30th. This is an academic quizbowl which will take the form of a round-robin tournament. It follows a number of successful university quizbowls that have been staged in Oxford recently. One of these was won by Manchester: it was in fact the heats for a major quizbowl held in the USA, and we got to go to Chicago and participate against 30-odd American and Canadian teams (a team from Oxford went too). There we saw first-hand the quality of the academic quizzing scene in America. The best teams are intensely committed, very competitive, and almost impossibly quick and knowledgeable. They also play tournaments frequently throughout the year.
By contrast quizzing in British universities is very much oriented around University Challenge. The biggest problem with this I think is that they only let you go on once, so there's no way you can build on past successes if you did well on the show and enjoyed it but didn't quite win (for example). So, what we want to do is help move quizzing in the UK away from a focus on just UC and towards more American-style quiz bowls.
There are a few institutions that get involved on a regular basis: Oxford, Manchester, Sheffield, Imperial, Warwick, Oxford Brookes (and some others have shown up too: York, Southampton, Cambridge, UCL). But the purpose of this tournament is really to get as many new institutions involved as possible. In particular, universities from the north of England: like I say, the quizbowl scene has up until now been focused exclusively on Oxford, which Manchester can just about get to and from in a day (although our ability to beat Oxford A, never substantial anyway, is diminished by the early mornings), but anyone further away or less well-connected on the trains might struggle to make the journey. So, if anyone is from an institution that is interested in attending please e-mail me at thomas.whyman@student.manchester.ac.uk.
We need four-player teams but don't be discouraged if you can't find four people: we are open to allowing nearby institutions to compete together if they can't get enough players to attend on their own to get as many people involved as we can (and you are allowed to compete with fewer than four members anyway). The questions are from the 2011 University of Minnesota Undergraduate Tournament with British alterations by myself and others, so they are about the same level of difficulty as UC (but longer and in a pyramidal format which means the hardest clues are always first before the reveal at the end). There is a £40 tournament fee with a £5 discount if you bring a buzzer set.
Even if you can't make this quiz, get in contact anyway if you're interested so that I can let your university know about future quizzing events. The next big academic quizbowl that is coming up is the British Student Quiz Championships which will be hosted by Imperial on June 11th.”
Saturday, 2 April 2011
Mastermind - Semi Final 5
If you read the blog earlier in the week, you’ll know that I already highlighted Rach Cherryade’s appearance in this semi final. I always look forward to a Mastermind show, but you’ll appreciate that this one held a special fascination.
Julia Hobbs, who kicked off the show, won show 19 when she answered specialist questions on Armistead Maupin. Back then she scored 14 on GK, and she had the 17th highest score of all the qualifiers for the semis. All of which marked her out as a contender to take seriously in this semi, but not necessarily a favourite. Last night she offered us Calvin and Hobbes. And a very good job of it she made too. 12 on a 90 second round is the equivalent of 16 or 17 in old money, and that’s good quizzing. So she would certainly be in the shake up for the place in the final.
Our second contender, Hamish Cameron, is, I am fairly certain, the most experienced Mastermind semi finalist there is. Hamish had made the semi finals in three previous series, the most recent being the 2007 SOBM, where he was unlucky to meet Stewart Cross. That night Stewart produced by far the best performance of all of the semis. Hamish, had he been in 4 of the other 5 semis, would have won a place in the final on the strength of his performance that night. Well, what will be will be. In show 9 Hamish became one of the highest scoring runners up answering on The Scottish Covenanters. More importantly he scored a very fine 17 on GK that night, and this marked him out as one of the most likely finalists from this group. However his specialist tonight, the Life and Work of Aphra Behn, left him with some work to do. Yes, 9 is a perfectly good score in a 90 second round, but you don’t want to be 3 points behind a quizzer like Julia going into the GK round.
Lee Holmes beat Diane Hallagan in the last show of the first round, when he answered on British Domestic Politics 1970 – present day. His score was the 11th best of the first round. I did point out in my review of the first round that even though he beat Diane, I felt she was more likely to get to the final, since her GK score was quite a bit better than Lee’s 14. Well, Diane is already through to the final. Could Lee join her ? His specialist subject was my favourite of the 5 on offer tonight, and I have to say that I did rather well on The Life and Work of Ronnie Barker. Lee didn’t do badly, either, with a nifty 11 points putting him only a point off the lead at this stage.
Thomas Perry was one of the surprise packages in the first round. He answered on freshwater fish of the British Isles in show 23, and also scored 16 on GK. His score was actually the fifth highest of the first round. Which should have made him one of the favourites for tonight’s show . . . only it hasn’t been working out like that so far in this series, has it ? 9 points and 1 pass is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in a 2 minute round, let alone a 90 second one, but as I said with Hamish, 9 points put him 3 points behind Julia, and that is a significant gap to have to close.
At last Rachael came to the chair. Rachael produced one of the finest specialist rounds of the heats when she scored 18 on Belle and Sebastian in show 3. Her overall total was the 15th highest of the first round. Significantly, though, her GK score in the heat was a little lower than any of the other contenders in this show. Imperative, then , for her to take a lead on the specialist round. Answering on John Shuttleworth’s radio series, she didn’t disappoint. 13 is a superb score , and frankly on a par, I thought, with her round in the heat. Well done Rach ! I will admit that I was shouting at the telly at this stage in the competition.
On to the GK round. Hamish had to come back to the chair first. In the heats, it can happen that one contender is so much better than the rest on GK that they can overturn deficit on all of the other contenders, but that’s always less likely to happen in a semi. Its even less likely to happen when you get a really rather tricky set, which is exactly what was served up on a plate to poor Hamish. He just really couldn’t get his round started, and a run of passes scuppered his chances.
You may remember how last week the contenders seemed struck by tension and nerves in the GK round. Well, as for last week, so for this week. Poor Thomas Perry seemed frozen into indecision with some of his own questions, so much so that although he passed fewer times than Hamish did, he also scored less, and ended with 14 points.
The contest was crying out for someone to grab it by the scruff of the neck, and force themselves into the final. Lee certainly started as if this was what he was going to do, but his round too unravelled a little as time went on. He kept his head enough o keep pushing the score on to 9 , which gave him a total of 20 . Alright, it didn’t look that much like a winning total, but it was certainly enough to give Julia and Rachael food for thought, and to use a term from boxing parlance, to keep them honest.
Julia needed 8 and less than 3 passes to take the outright lead. She kept her head, and I thought had some great answers at the start of the round to build just that little bit of momentum that you need. She kept her head well, and offered answers to every single question. There was still time left on the clock as she reached the target , and in the end she scored 10 and no passes to set the bar at 22. Not perhaps a vintage GK round, but the semis are a funny old round, and its all about doing enough to get to the final. This looked like it might well be that.
However , the fact was that 9 and no passes would put Rachael through. A serious target, yes, but not an insurmountable one, albeit that this would be a win rather against the odds. Fair play, Rachael gave it a go. However she was behind on the clock by the one minute mark, and notwithstanding a rally in the last quarter of the round, she fell a little short , ending in third place with 19.
Well done Julia ! Best of luck in the final .
Well done, Rach, too. Semi finalist in University Challenge, and semi finalist in Mastermind. That’s an impressive looking CV you’re building up.
So , by a process of elimination, I believe this should leave us with: -
Paul Steeples
Min Lacey
James Collenette
Robin Seavill
Peter Watkins
next week. A few names to conjure with there. Should be a very good show.
The Details
Julia Hobbs, who kicked off the show, won show 19 when she answered specialist questions on Armistead Maupin. Back then she scored 14 on GK, and she had the 17th highest score of all the qualifiers for the semis. All of which marked her out as a contender to take seriously in this semi, but not necessarily a favourite. Last night she offered us Calvin and Hobbes. And a very good job of it she made too. 12 on a 90 second round is the equivalent of 16 or 17 in old money, and that’s good quizzing. So she would certainly be in the shake up for the place in the final.
Our second contender, Hamish Cameron, is, I am fairly certain, the most experienced Mastermind semi finalist there is. Hamish had made the semi finals in three previous series, the most recent being the 2007 SOBM, where he was unlucky to meet Stewart Cross. That night Stewart produced by far the best performance of all of the semis. Hamish, had he been in 4 of the other 5 semis, would have won a place in the final on the strength of his performance that night. Well, what will be will be. In show 9 Hamish became one of the highest scoring runners up answering on The Scottish Covenanters. More importantly he scored a very fine 17 on GK that night, and this marked him out as one of the most likely finalists from this group. However his specialist tonight, the Life and Work of Aphra Behn, left him with some work to do. Yes, 9 is a perfectly good score in a 90 second round, but you don’t want to be 3 points behind a quizzer like Julia going into the GK round.
Lee Holmes beat Diane Hallagan in the last show of the first round, when he answered on British Domestic Politics 1970 – present day. His score was the 11th best of the first round. I did point out in my review of the first round that even though he beat Diane, I felt she was more likely to get to the final, since her GK score was quite a bit better than Lee’s 14. Well, Diane is already through to the final. Could Lee join her ? His specialist subject was my favourite of the 5 on offer tonight, and I have to say that I did rather well on The Life and Work of Ronnie Barker. Lee didn’t do badly, either, with a nifty 11 points putting him only a point off the lead at this stage.
Thomas Perry was one of the surprise packages in the first round. He answered on freshwater fish of the British Isles in show 23, and also scored 16 on GK. His score was actually the fifth highest of the first round. Which should have made him one of the favourites for tonight’s show . . . only it hasn’t been working out like that so far in this series, has it ? 9 points and 1 pass is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in a 2 minute round, let alone a 90 second one, but as I said with Hamish, 9 points put him 3 points behind Julia, and that is a significant gap to have to close.
At last Rachael came to the chair. Rachael produced one of the finest specialist rounds of the heats when she scored 18 on Belle and Sebastian in show 3. Her overall total was the 15th highest of the first round. Significantly, though, her GK score in the heat was a little lower than any of the other contenders in this show. Imperative, then , for her to take a lead on the specialist round. Answering on John Shuttleworth’s radio series, she didn’t disappoint. 13 is a superb score , and frankly on a par, I thought, with her round in the heat. Well done Rach ! I will admit that I was shouting at the telly at this stage in the competition.
On to the GK round. Hamish had to come back to the chair first. In the heats, it can happen that one contender is so much better than the rest on GK that they can overturn deficit on all of the other contenders, but that’s always less likely to happen in a semi. Its even less likely to happen when you get a really rather tricky set, which is exactly what was served up on a plate to poor Hamish. He just really couldn’t get his round started, and a run of passes scuppered his chances.
You may remember how last week the contenders seemed struck by tension and nerves in the GK round. Well, as for last week, so for this week. Poor Thomas Perry seemed frozen into indecision with some of his own questions, so much so that although he passed fewer times than Hamish did, he also scored less, and ended with 14 points.
The contest was crying out for someone to grab it by the scruff of the neck, and force themselves into the final. Lee certainly started as if this was what he was going to do, but his round too unravelled a little as time went on. He kept his head enough o keep pushing the score on to 9 , which gave him a total of 20 . Alright, it didn’t look that much like a winning total, but it was certainly enough to give Julia and Rachael food for thought, and to use a term from boxing parlance, to keep them honest.
Julia needed 8 and less than 3 passes to take the outright lead. She kept her head, and I thought had some great answers at the start of the round to build just that little bit of momentum that you need. She kept her head well, and offered answers to every single question. There was still time left on the clock as she reached the target , and in the end she scored 10 and no passes to set the bar at 22. Not perhaps a vintage GK round, but the semis are a funny old round, and its all about doing enough to get to the final. This looked like it might well be that.
However , the fact was that 9 and no passes would put Rachael through. A serious target, yes, but not an insurmountable one, albeit that this would be a win rather against the odds. Fair play, Rachael gave it a go. However she was behind on the clock by the one minute mark, and notwithstanding a rally in the last quarter of the round, she fell a little short , ending in third place with 19.
Well done Julia ! Best of luck in the final .
Well done, Rach, too. Semi finalist in University Challenge, and semi finalist in Mastermind. That’s an impressive looking CV you’re building up.
So , by a process of elimination, I believe this should leave us with: -
Paul Steeples
Min Lacey
James Collenette
Robin Seavill
Peter Watkins
next week. A few names to conjure with there. Should be a very good show.
The Details
| Julia Hobbs | Calvin and Hobbes | 12 - 1 | 10 - 0 | 22 - 1 |
| Hamish Cameron | The Life and Work of Aphra Behn | 9 - 0 | 7 - 7 | 16 - 7 |
| Lee Holmes | The Life and Work of Ronnie Barker | 11 - 1 | 9 - 3 | 20 -4 |
| Thomas Perry | History of Burnley FC | 9 - 1 | 5 - 5 | 14 - 6 |
| Rachael Neiman | John Shuttleworth’s Radio Series | 13 - 0 | 6 - 3 | 19 - 3 |
Friday, 1 April 2011
University Challenge - Grand Final Preview
Right then, lets get down to business. That there has been nothing clear cut or predictable about this year’s series is shown by the fact that both teams contesting Monday night’s final lost their first quarter final matches. Lets get the statistics out of the way first, then, shall we ? Both teams have played 6 matches so far in this year’s series.
The average match scores for both teams are : -
York – 214.2
Magdalen – 265
The average match score for their opponents is a lot closer : -
York – 155.8
Magdalen – 153.3
The average winning margin of both teams are these : -
York – 58.3
Magdalen – 111.6
So going on the stats alone, it’s a win for Magdalen, then. Not only that, but lets not forget that Magdalen only lost by 5 points to Sheffield, while York were beaten by 85 points by Peterhouse.
However, its not quite as simple as that. Magdalen have been impressive throughout the competition, but they have never again looked quite as impressive as they were in their first match, when they looked like series champions in waiting. As for York, they looked unimpressive right up to and including the defeat by Peterhouse. Then a transformation seemed to happen, and they have looked a different team since. They beat Sheffield in the semis, who were favourite for the final among many people , this writer being one of them.
What it may come down to is the fact that although captain Andrew Clemo has received useful support from his team mates, it is his performances that have really driven York on to the final. As for Magdalen, Will Cudmore has been a huge star on the buzzer, but Kyle Haddad-Fonda and James McComish have also been big hitters in the buzzer battle during the series. If Andrew Clemo has a bad day at the office in the final, you feel that York will struggle for starters. Yet if, for example, Will Cudmore struggles, Magdalen still have plenty of firepower.
Put a gun to my head, and insist on a prediction, then I’ll say that I think that Magdalen are the more likely winners. But York are a team with momentum at the moment, and if Andrew Clemo has one more great performance on the buzzer, then they can win . I wish both teams the best of luck, and thank you both for the entertainment you’ve provided us with this year.
The average match scores for both teams are : -
York – 214.2
Magdalen – 265
The average match score for their opponents is a lot closer : -
York – 155.8
Magdalen – 153.3
The average winning margin of both teams are these : -
York – 58.3
Magdalen – 111.6
So going on the stats alone, it’s a win for Magdalen, then. Not only that, but lets not forget that Magdalen only lost by 5 points to Sheffield, while York were beaten by 85 points by Peterhouse.
However, its not quite as simple as that. Magdalen have been impressive throughout the competition, but they have never again looked quite as impressive as they were in their first match, when they looked like series champions in waiting. As for York, they looked unimpressive right up to and including the defeat by Peterhouse. Then a transformation seemed to happen, and they have looked a different team since. They beat Sheffield in the semis, who were favourite for the final among many people , this writer being one of them.
What it may come down to is the fact that although captain Andrew Clemo has received useful support from his team mates, it is his performances that have really driven York on to the final. As for Magdalen, Will Cudmore has been a huge star on the buzzer, but Kyle Haddad-Fonda and James McComish have also been big hitters in the buzzer battle during the series. If Andrew Clemo has a bad day at the office in the final, you feel that York will struggle for starters. Yet if, for example, Will Cudmore struggles, Magdalen still have plenty of firepower.
Put a gun to my head, and insist on a prediction, then I’ll say that I think that Magdalen are the more likely winners. But York are a team with momentum at the moment, and if Andrew Clemo has one more great performance on the buzzer, then they can win . I wish both teams the best of luck, and thank you both for the entertainment you’ve provided us with this year.
Throwing Matches
I never managed to beat my father at draughts. Alright, I never played him that many times, although it wasn’t for the want of asking on my part. I never got to play him after I was about 10 or 11 years old, so maybe it doesn’t come as a surprise that I couldn’t beat him. That having been said, though, I was, although I say it myself, a nifty little player. I’ve never been more than a very basic chess player, but at draughts I was a bit of a star. My grandmother taught me when I was about 5 years old, and I could beat her within a day or two of learning the game. Then I progressed to every other adult in my house, and could beat all of them by the time I was 6 . Except my father. With every other person I played against I knew what they were up to within a couple of moves. Not Dad. He had this way of conjuring up dreamlike attacks which you just never saw coming until they hit you right between the eyes. But he didn’t like the game, and so I could rarely, if ever, persuade him to play it.
Scrabble was a different kettle of fish. For about two years he was mad on it. He’d beg, wheedle, insist and demand that you played him, several times a day sometimes. And the thing was that he was no good at it. He was rubbish. Years of being enslaved to penny dreadfuls with titles like “The Rustlers of Deadman’s Gulch” and the like had dulled his vocabulary. Not only that, but Scrabble can be a more tactical game than you might think, and in stark contrast to his ability at draughts, his tactical awareness in Scrabble was virtually zero. I may never have beaten him at draughts, but on the other hand, he never once beat me at Scrabble. Which was great when it started, but after a year or so, I came to long for the day when he would finally manage to do it. My father was a man of limited attention span to some extent, who went through various fads and crazes. Now, I knew that he desperately wanted to beat me once. In all likelihood if he managed to do that then he’d lose interest and move on to something else, which would mean I could go back to enjoying “The Six Million Dollar Man “ on the telly without being interrupted constantly by “ How do you spell ‘excite’ ?” and so on.
As I say, he never did manage it. Now, at this point it may occur to you to ask yourself why I didn’t just let him beat me once. Don’t think that it didn’t occur to me. If I had just once deliberately soft pedalled, left him a few easy openings, frittered away my best letters, in short, played like Dad normally played, then he could have won. It would have been a simple thing to do to make him very happy, and to get him to leave me to watch ‘Charlie’s Angels ( ah – Jaclyn Smith /Kelly Garrett) in peace. But I never did. I couldn’t. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I wanted him to beat me. I wanted to lose to him. But I couldn’t do it deliberately . I would be middling along, trying to ignore the potential 7 letter word building up on my rack in front of me, and then he would leave me an opening so inviting that I just couldn’t stop myself from destroying his hopes, time after time after time. I was irresistibly reminded of this when I used to watch “The Fast Show”. There was a character on that played by Simon Day , an ultra-competitive dad, who did things like setting up a game of cricket on a family picnic with his two pre-teen sons, then proceeding to smash their bowling all over the place, etc. etc. The only difference being that I saw myself as the father, and my dad as the resigned and disappointed child.
He eventually kicked his Scrabble habit, although as I say it took a lot longer than I’m sure it would have done had he been able to conjure up the elusive win . All of this was brought home to me last night, in the rugby club. It was my quiz, but I was having a chat with some of my usual teammates afterwards, and I updated them on the end of the winning streak. If they were amused about it they at least had the decency to hide it behind their condolences. Knowing that I have the cup final in Bridgend coming up on Monday, one of them asked,
“If you’d won on Tuesday, would you have deliberately lost the quiz you’re going to on Sunday , so that the winning streak can’t end in the cup final ? “
In all honesty, such a thought had never entered my head. And the more I thought about what she’d said, the more I began to wonder whether I am actually capable of deliberately losing a quiz . I should add that I am extremely capable of losing a quiz, and have lost plenty in my time, but none because I wasn’t actually trying to win. As regards deliberately losing, I’m not sure that I could do it. In fact I’d go so far as to say that I’m pretty certain that I couldn’t. The same instinct which kicked in every time it looked like I was giving the old man a chance at Scrabble would kick in, and I’m sure that I couldn’t bring myself to deliberately write down a wrong answer when I know the right one. I suppose it’s the same as when you hear a question asked, and you know that there’s a really tricky right answer, and you also know that the question master is bound to have the wrong answer, you write down what you think the question master is going to give as the answer, not what you know to be right.
My girls say that I’m horrible to play Monopoly with as well !
Scrabble was a different kettle of fish. For about two years he was mad on it. He’d beg, wheedle, insist and demand that you played him, several times a day sometimes. And the thing was that he was no good at it. He was rubbish. Years of being enslaved to penny dreadfuls with titles like “The Rustlers of Deadman’s Gulch” and the like had dulled his vocabulary. Not only that, but Scrabble can be a more tactical game than you might think, and in stark contrast to his ability at draughts, his tactical awareness in Scrabble was virtually zero. I may never have beaten him at draughts, but on the other hand, he never once beat me at Scrabble. Which was great when it started, but after a year or so, I came to long for the day when he would finally manage to do it. My father was a man of limited attention span to some extent, who went through various fads and crazes. Now, I knew that he desperately wanted to beat me once. In all likelihood if he managed to do that then he’d lose interest and move on to something else, which would mean I could go back to enjoying “The Six Million Dollar Man “ on the telly without being interrupted constantly by “ How do you spell ‘excite’ ?” and so on.
As I say, he never did manage it. Now, at this point it may occur to you to ask yourself why I didn’t just let him beat me once. Don’t think that it didn’t occur to me. If I had just once deliberately soft pedalled, left him a few easy openings, frittered away my best letters, in short, played like Dad normally played, then he could have won. It would have been a simple thing to do to make him very happy, and to get him to leave me to watch ‘Charlie’s Angels ( ah – Jaclyn Smith /Kelly Garrett) in peace. But I never did. I couldn’t. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I wanted him to beat me. I wanted to lose to him. But I couldn’t do it deliberately . I would be middling along, trying to ignore the potential 7 letter word building up on my rack in front of me, and then he would leave me an opening so inviting that I just couldn’t stop myself from destroying his hopes, time after time after time. I was irresistibly reminded of this when I used to watch “The Fast Show”. There was a character on that played by Simon Day , an ultra-competitive dad, who did things like setting up a game of cricket on a family picnic with his two pre-teen sons, then proceeding to smash their bowling all over the place, etc. etc. The only difference being that I saw myself as the father, and my dad as the resigned and disappointed child.
He eventually kicked his Scrabble habit, although as I say it took a lot longer than I’m sure it would have done had he been able to conjure up the elusive win . All of this was brought home to me last night, in the rugby club. It was my quiz, but I was having a chat with some of my usual teammates afterwards, and I updated them on the end of the winning streak. If they were amused about it they at least had the decency to hide it behind their condolences. Knowing that I have the cup final in Bridgend coming up on Monday, one of them asked,
“If you’d won on Tuesday, would you have deliberately lost the quiz you’re going to on Sunday , so that the winning streak can’t end in the cup final ? “
In all honesty, such a thought had never entered my head. And the more I thought about what she’d said, the more I began to wonder whether I am actually capable of deliberately losing a quiz . I should add that I am extremely capable of losing a quiz, and have lost plenty in my time, but none because I wasn’t actually trying to win. As regards deliberately losing, I’m not sure that I could do it. In fact I’d go so far as to say that I’m pretty certain that I couldn’t. The same instinct which kicked in every time it looked like I was giving the old man a chance at Scrabble would kick in, and I’m sure that I couldn’t bring myself to deliberately write down a wrong answer when I know the right one. I suppose it’s the same as when you hear a question asked, and you know that there’s a really tricky right answer, and you also know that the question master is bound to have the wrong answer, you write down what you think the question master is going to give as the answer, not what you know to be right.
My girls say that I’m horrible to play Monopoly with as well !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
