Only Connect – Semi Final ½ - The Archers Admirers v. The Gamblers
On paper this week’s show was the ‘good enough to be a final’ semi final. We had one last year as well, you may recall. I’m not trying to be rude to both the Strategists and the Hitchhikers, who will contest next week’s show, but the fact is that the two teams in this week’s show have been the pick of the bunch in the two rounds so far. The Archer’s Admirers, Paul Peters, Andrew Bull and captain Min Lacey, have shown all round excellence, and set the highest scores in both the first and second rounds. The Gamblers meanwhile, Jenny Ryan, Alan Gibbs, and captain Dave Bill have set the second highest scores in both rounds, and are known for their all round quiz excellence. So who do you pick. Well, my ‘gun against the head and forced to make a choice’ prediction last week was the Archers. So how did it all pan out ?
Round One – What’s the connection ?
The Gamblers kicked off with alpha and landed the picture connection. Offered a coin, the crossed swords of the hands of Victory in Baghdad, a plaque on the side of Nelson’s column, and the Victoria cross, neither team could see the proper connection. The Victoria cross, I will be honest was the only one I knew was made from melted down guns, and so I wouldn’t have had that one either. Hey, it’s the semis – its meant to be hard. The Archers got the music connection which I had on 2 ! Kiki Dee – Bobby Vee and Danny Kaye gave them singers whose surnames are letters of the alphabet. Now that’s a nice connection. Purple dye, the Lascaux Cave Paintings, James Cracknell’s medals, and the Jules Rimet trophy gave the Gamblers a set that were all found/recovered by dogs. Very good shout there, I thought. The Archers took triangle, and then when their second clue – pi – radians came up I gave up at once.Andrew, though, confidently supplied the answer of 180 degrees – internal angles of a triangle etc. Very good work, and you have to say that the Archers were making the running at this stage. The Gamblers were given a cryptic – bottle = drink, silk = bail out, roof = get angry, and Jenny realised at the same time as me that the connection was –hit the. To be fair she was under pressure in the studio and I wasn’t. The Archers finished with Sister Rosetta Tharp, Zadie Smith, David Walliams and st. Paul. I was as nonplussed as the Archers were, but the Gamblers knew it. All of them had changed their name by one letter. Damn good shout – like all the best connections to get wrong, you can see it clearly once you know. A timely shout from the Gamblers meant that the Archers only finished the round 5 – 4 ahead.
Round Two – What comes 4th ?
The Gamblers began with 0 = black , 1 = brown, 2 = red, and I = confused. So were both teams. 3 actually equals orange, as it is a sequence of colour coding of resistors. You pays yer money . . . The Gamblers had 29/11/1192 – and I cheated by putting the pause button on the iplayer while I worked it out for 5 points here. It was obviously palindromic dates, but what came 4th ? With a second to go, Min and the boys worked out it would be 01/02/2010.The Gamblers were given the pictures, and began with the national flag of Afghanistan. Well, Afghanistan is alphabetically the first country, so working alphabetically, it would give you the flags of Albania, Algeria, and for the point – Andorra. The team worked hard for the point here. Well worked out. Woodrow Wilson 1944, Harry S. Truman 1975, Richard Nixon 1995 escaped both teams. Although I noticed Dave of the Gamblers just got it too late – the last being Riachrd Nixon 2008. The connection was when actors playing these roles were nominated for Oscars. Tricky, but once again, it’s a semi final. The Gamblers correctly predicted that 1947 India would follow 1944 Iceland, 1945 Korea, and 1946 Syria, these being the years in which they gained independence. Given Esteem, Love and Safety the Archers had to pass, and although the Gamblers could see it was the hierarchy of needs, they didn’t get it was physiological needs. Not surprised, either.
So a tough round of sequences, well played by both teams, took the score to 8 – 7 in favour of the Gamblers. So far so much to plan – I had the Gamblers as slightly better on the first two rounds in the previous matches. So what would the walls bring ?
Round Three – The Connecting Walls
The Archers took the first go. In a nasty wall they found a set of terriers, and then a set of names meaning red, then what looked a little like inspired hitting and hoping solved the whole thing with seconds to spare. The other two sets were surnames from Sex and the City, and words which follow the word blood – which they failed to identify. So 7 points altogether. The Gamblers followed, and they were given the alpha wall. Jenny took my breath away with the speed at which she identified that Cabbage Patch Kids, Superman, Moses and Kate Aide were all adopted. A set of baskets followed shortly after. So plenty of time was left in which to use the three chances for the last two lines. Again , it looked like Jenny who figured out that four of the words could be doubled with themselves to make song titles – eg sugar sugar – louie louie etc. The last lot were all Dickie’s, which Dave seemed to realise as they were giving answers to the others. So a full house, which gave them a 4 point lead of 18 to 14. Now, gentle readers, if you read my preview of the semi finals, I said that I thought that the Gamblers needed a 4 point lead going into the missing vowels round, which the Archers have been superb in. They had just such a lead. Grandstand finish to come ? You bet.
Round Four – The Missing Vowels
The first set was Subtitles of novels. 2 – 1 to the Gamblers. The next set was Greek Gods and their roman equivalents. At this point the Gamblers held a 6 point advantage. 4 points of which disappeared as Paul and Andrew shut them out completely. The next set was famous football derbies. The first two fell to the Archers. We were all square ! 6 unanswered points didn’t become seven though, as Alan buzzed in for the next, and Dave, the one after that. Two point lead duly restored. The next category was railways and rail services. Alan identified the Shinkansen, and that was it, game over.
So the Gamblers won a match which always promised to be as good as a final, by 21 to 24. Many commiserations to the Archers. You have been a very fine team, and you never know, had the draw for the semis worked out another way, you might well have made the final. That’s the luck of the draw. I do apologise with landing you with the curse of the Clark sofa. Gamblers – I take my hat off to you. You've made a bit of a nonsense of my pre-match prediction, but I don’t mind at all. To use a sporting analogy, your performance on the wall tonight was worth the price of the entry ticket by itself. I wish you the very best of luck in the final.
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Tuesday, 30 March 2010
TV Watch - University Challenge
University Challenge – Semi Final 2/2 Manchester v. Emmanuel , Cambridge
My friends in the Manchester team arrived in the semis after comprehensively beating St. Andrews, drawing with finalists St. John’s Oxford then losing on a tie break, and then beating Edinburgh in an exciting and closely fought contest. Emmanuel had a smoother passage through the quarters, comfortably beating Jesus College and Imperial. So did that make them the favourites for this evening ? Well, yes, perhaps, but even then there was the lingering suspicion of their vulnerability , due to their first round defeat by Regent’s Park College.
Jenny Harris showed that she had no intention of allowing this to be the Alex Guttenplan show as she took the first starter – which provided my interesting fact of the week – for Emmanuel. Bonuses requiring knowledge of Jane Austen and the Smiths fell to them, but they missed out on 3 Men in A Boat. Shame on you ! Jenny Harris also took the second, identifying the Forest of Arden from a set of definitions. Once again, two out of three bonuses fell their way. Miss Harris tried valiantly for her hat trick, identifying the painter of The Boating Party as Seurat, but it was in fact Renoir. No points to either side. If you remember Emmanuel’s match against Imperial you’ll recall that captain Alex Guttenplan took some time to get into his stride. Not tonight, as he confidently took the next starter, to earn a bonus on diplomatic crises in the late 19th and early 20th century. True to form, 2 bonuses were taken. The next starter, requiring an identification of a quote by WC Fields, fell to Mr. Guttenplan, making it 2 – all. That’s 2 – all between himself and Jenny Harris. Nobody else of either team had yet got a look in.
I loved the next starter – which made it 3 – 2 to Mr. G. – which meant identifying the English translation of Audere est Facere. Being a Spurs supporter I knew it meant to Dare is To Do. I loved the bonuses on latin mottos of other teams in the Premiership – I just knew Everton’s would be there, and it came up as the first bonus. Enough bragging.
With a lead of 90 to –5 Emmanuel had got off to the best possible start, but my guys from Manchester are a tough lot, and captain Jakob Whitfield stopped the rot, identifying the animal in an Albrecht Durer engraving as a rhinoceros. One bonus was taken to reduce the deficit to 80 points. Two thirds of the contest still remained – plenty of time, albeit that cool heads and quick buzzer fingers were called for. Josh Scott of Emmanuel claimed the next starter, rightly thinking that Milton rhymed with Hylton, Stilton etc. He obviously enjoyed the experience so much that he repeated it, taking the next . The set of bonuses on web comics again brought them 2 bonuses. Alex Guttenplan took the next starter, one of those cryptic things he excels at , basically identifying the word spelled out by names of four people – the last of who was John KAY . You get it now.
On 13 minutes Jakob took Manchester’s second starter by identifying Archbishop Thomas Cranmer as the man who presided over Henry VIII’s divorces. The bonuses took them up to 35 points, but Emmanuel had already scored 145 as we neared the halfway mark. Neither side recognised Delibes, but Nick Daunt recognised a nova when he heard one described, and brought Manchester their third starter. Alas, they took no bonuses on waltzes.Still, at least it was the start of a mini roll as Jakob took the next starter, correctly seeing the connection between Athena and the owl. Jenny Harris impressed, unravelling the last words of The Ancient Mariner read in reverse order. Good shout !This was followed by what I like to think of as an Ask the Family question. It began – if an airplane is travelling due west at an airspeed of etc. etc. Alex Guttenplan buzzed in even as the last word of the question was still expiring on JP’s lips, but for once got it wrong. Jakob made no mistake , though, and pulled his team ever closer to the 100 point mark. Two bonuses on decades in which dictionaries were first published brought them up to 85. Tom Whyman buzzed in first to give three states of the USA on the gulf of Mexico. 2 came at once, one didn’t, and so over to Alex G. for a bonus duly snapped up .
On the twenty minute mark Emmanuel were in cruise control mode. That Man Guttenplan snapped up a chemical element bonus simpler than it looked, where the symbols were arranged in alphabetical order, and ag – for silver – was missing. The set of bonuses took Emmanuel through the 200 point barrier. Alas, poor Manchester, the match was over by this point, but at least we were given the treat of watching Emmanuel try to become the first team this series to break through the 300 point barrier. With 5 minutes to go they reached 250. Jenny Harris buzzed and then hesitated, and this time JP was firm. Nick Daunt took his second starter now, correctly identifying a definition of the derivation of the word – undermining . Our own Rach Cherryade gave captain Jakob two correct answers for legal terms for bonuses. It looked like she gave another correct one too, but it was overruled. Never mind – captaincy is a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Manchester at least were now in triple points. So yes, they were going down, but they were going down fighting.
Two Guttenplan interruptions, and one from Jenny Harris brought Emmanuel three unanswered starters, which , together with bonuses, pushed them through the magic 300 point barrier, the first team to achieve it this series. Tom Whyman of Manchester took the next, identifying the word Port as being part of the names of the capitals of Mauritius, Vanuatu, and Papua New Guinea . No prizes for guessing who took the next starter, though. The gong followed soon after, with the final score of 315 to 120.
Our Jeremy crossed his arms, turned to Manchester and said “Well, I’m surprised that you didn’t do better. You got off to a terrible start. “ Nothing like a few ill chosen words to rub salt into the wounds. To be fair, he did say to Manchester that they were a great team, and this is only fair for they have been. Tom, Rach, Jakob and Nick, here’s thanks for the wonderful, exciting matches you’ve given us this year. Don’t feel bad about this – you played a great series, and there’s no shame at all in losing out to a team as good as this Emmanuel outfit.
As for Emmanuel – congratulations of course ! A superb performance against a Manchester team who are far too good to have been taken lightly. I await a cracking final.
Jeremy Paxman Watch
When Alex Guttenplan suggested that the motto Proud in Battle belonged to Hull City, JP replied “Hull ? HULL ? !” in exactly the same tone of voice that Peter Kay described his dad saying “Garlic Bread ??!!!”
When Manchester offered Strauss as the composer of their third waltz, JP tmoved on from Peter Kay to John McEnroe “You can’t be serious ! Its Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake “
Interesting Fact That I Didn’t Already Know Of The Week
The name George – my middle name – derives from the greek for farmer or earthworker.
My friends in the Manchester team arrived in the semis after comprehensively beating St. Andrews, drawing with finalists St. John’s Oxford then losing on a tie break, and then beating Edinburgh in an exciting and closely fought contest. Emmanuel had a smoother passage through the quarters, comfortably beating Jesus College and Imperial. So did that make them the favourites for this evening ? Well, yes, perhaps, but even then there was the lingering suspicion of their vulnerability , due to their first round defeat by Regent’s Park College.
Jenny Harris showed that she had no intention of allowing this to be the Alex Guttenplan show as she took the first starter – which provided my interesting fact of the week – for Emmanuel. Bonuses requiring knowledge of Jane Austen and the Smiths fell to them, but they missed out on 3 Men in A Boat. Shame on you ! Jenny Harris also took the second, identifying the Forest of Arden from a set of definitions. Once again, two out of three bonuses fell their way. Miss Harris tried valiantly for her hat trick, identifying the painter of The Boating Party as Seurat, but it was in fact Renoir. No points to either side. If you remember Emmanuel’s match against Imperial you’ll recall that captain Alex Guttenplan took some time to get into his stride. Not tonight, as he confidently took the next starter, to earn a bonus on diplomatic crises in the late 19th and early 20th century. True to form, 2 bonuses were taken. The next starter, requiring an identification of a quote by WC Fields, fell to Mr. Guttenplan, making it 2 – all. That’s 2 – all between himself and Jenny Harris. Nobody else of either team had yet got a look in.
I loved the next starter – which made it 3 – 2 to Mr. G. – which meant identifying the English translation of Audere est Facere. Being a Spurs supporter I knew it meant to Dare is To Do. I loved the bonuses on latin mottos of other teams in the Premiership – I just knew Everton’s would be there, and it came up as the first bonus. Enough bragging.
With a lead of 90 to –5 Emmanuel had got off to the best possible start, but my guys from Manchester are a tough lot, and captain Jakob Whitfield stopped the rot, identifying the animal in an Albrecht Durer engraving as a rhinoceros. One bonus was taken to reduce the deficit to 80 points. Two thirds of the contest still remained – plenty of time, albeit that cool heads and quick buzzer fingers were called for. Josh Scott of Emmanuel claimed the next starter, rightly thinking that Milton rhymed with Hylton, Stilton etc. He obviously enjoyed the experience so much that he repeated it, taking the next . The set of bonuses on web comics again brought them 2 bonuses. Alex Guttenplan took the next starter, one of those cryptic things he excels at , basically identifying the word spelled out by names of four people – the last of who was John KAY . You get it now.
On 13 minutes Jakob took Manchester’s second starter by identifying Archbishop Thomas Cranmer as the man who presided over Henry VIII’s divorces. The bonuses took them up to 35 points, but Emmanuel had already scored 145 as we neared the halfway mark. Neither side recognised Delibes, but Nick Daunt recognised a nova when he heard one described, and brought Manchester their third starter. Alas, they took no bonuses on waltzes.Still, at least it was the start of a mini roll as Jakob took the next starter, correctly seeing the connection between Athena and the owl. Jenny Harris impressed, unravelling the last words of The Ancient Mariner read in reverse order. Good shout !This was followed by what I like to think of as an Ask the Family question. It began – if an airplane is travelling due west at an airspeed of etc. etc. Alex Guttenplan buzzed in even as the last word of the question was still expiring on JP’s lips, but for once got it wrong. Jakob made no mistake , though, and pulled his team ever closer to the 100 point mark. Two bonuses on decades in which dictionaries were first published brought them up to 85. Tom Whyman buzzed in first to give three states of the USA on the gulf of Mexico. 2 came at once, one didn’t, and so over to Alex G. for a bonus duly snapped up .
On the twenty minute mark Emmanuel were in cruise control mode. That Man Guttenplan snapped up a chemical element bonus simpler than it looked, where the symbols were arranged in alphabetical order, and ag – for silver – was missing. The set of bonuses took Emmanuel through the 200 point barrier. Alas, poor Manchester, the match was over by this point, but at least we were given the treat of watching Emmanuel try to become the first team this series to break through the 300 point barrier. With 5 minutes to go they reached 250. Jenny Harris buzzed and then hesitated, and this time JP was firm. Nick Daunt took his second starter now, correctly identifying a definition of the derivation of the word – undermining . Our own Rach Cherryade gave captain Jakob two correct answers for legal terms for bonuses. It looked like she gave another correct one too, but it was overruled. Never mind – captaincy is a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Manchester at least were now in triple points. So yes, they were going down, but they were going down fighting.
Two Guttenplan interruptions, and one from Jenny Harris brought Emmanuel three unanswered starters, which , together with bonuses, pushed them through the magic 300 point barrier, the first team to achieve it this series. Tom Whyman of Manchester took the next, identifying the word Port as being part of the names of the capitals of Mauritius, Vanuatu, and Papua New Guinea . No prizes for guessing who took the next starter, though. The gong followed soon after, with the final score of 315 to 120.
Our Jeremy crossed his arms, turned to Manchester and said “Well, I’m surprised that you didn’t do better. You got off to a terrible start. “ Nothing like a few ill chosen words to rub salt into the wounds. To be fair, he did say to Manchester that they were a great team, and this is only fair for they have been. Tom, Rach, Jakob and Nick, here’s thanks for the wonderful, exciting matches you’ve given us this year. Don’t feel bad about this – you played a great series, and there’s no shame at all in losing out to a team as good as this Emmanuel outfit.
As for Emmanuel – congratulations of course ! A superb performance against a Manchester team who are far too good to have been taken lightly. I await a cracking final.
Jeremy Paxman Watch
When Alex Guttenplan suggested that the motto Proud in Battle belonged to Hull City, JP replied “Hull ? HULL ? !” in exactly the same tone of voice that Peter Kay described his dad saying “Garlic Bread ??!!!”
When Manchester offered Strauss as the composer of their third waltz, JP tmoved on from Peter Kay to John McEnroe “You can’t be serious ! Its Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake “
Interesting Fact That I Didn’t Already Know Of The Week
The name George – my middle name – derives from the greek for farmer or earthworker.
Sunday, 28 March 2010
Boot Sale Tales - 2
I’ve been at the boot sale again this morning. Well, you know how it is. Or maybe you don’t. It doesn’t really matter but whatever your own experience of boot saling, I took Mrs. Londinius and daughter number 4 to a boot sale, and we all picked up daughter number 1 from her flat while we were on the way. Yes, I know that this is going on a bit, but I like to think that these small vignettes add a little homely feel to a blog entry, don’t you ? Oh well, please yourself.
I picked up something which is not a quiz book as such, but is not without its own interest. If you’ve been quizzing for a while, you might just remember a series of quiz books , from the 90s, published by a company called Right Way. I remembered them mainly because of playing in a Sunday night quiz league in Cardiff and district at that time. One of our team recognised a set of a dozen or so consecutive questions one Sunday as all coming from Right Way’s Question Setters Quiz Book, Quirky Quizzes, or Question Masters Quiz Book - I forget exactly which one but it was one of that series. The rest of the team all hurriedly got hold of copies of the book, and for a couple of weeks it worked like a charm, until the setter switched sources. Whether someone had tipped him off that people knew where he was getting a sizeable proportion of his questions, or whether he changed sources as a matter of course I couldn’t say.
So when I saw a copy of Right Way’s How to Run a Quiz, I felt a little nostalgic. Now, I’ve been setting quizzes on a regular basis in the Aberavon Rugby Club for 15 years, so of course I think that I already know how to run a quiz. Still, the book was only 50p, and as in anything else, you should always be looking to learn if there are any ways that you can improve upon what you do, so I bought it anyway.
The usual boot sale drill is that I go round quickly, and then return to the car to enjoy the thrill of the first read of any purchases while Mrs. L. and the girls do their stuff. So when I got back to the car I began to look at the book a little more closely. It’s a little bit misleading calling it How To Run A Quiz. I mean, it does actually tell you how to run a quiz, but it only takes 42 of its 188 pages to do so. The rest of it is ‘sample questions’. Which is a little ironic, since one of the pieces of advice that the book gives you is
“it is inadvisable to use questions from published quiz books “.
Alright, I am taking that a little out of context. Basically the author, Dave Cornish, says that you should use quiz book questions as a starting point, to suggest better questions to you. I wouldn’t disagree with that, but I certainly wouldn’t say that you should never lift questions directly from quiz books. I just wouldn’t take a whole set. Cherry picking seems a reasonable way of doing it to me.
One thing I find interesting is the wide range of different types of quizzes that Dave Cornish gives you advice on running. I’ve no idea if he’s still doing it or not, but certainly at the time, he got around a bit, in quiz terms. The book was first published in 1992, which was actually right towards the end of my first incarnation as a quizzer. Due to break up of teams I was in, quiz friends being ill or becoming disillusioned, and general not-being-bothered-about-it-ness, I hardly went to any quizzes at all in 1992 - 4. I have made up for it a bit since. Still, things definitely were different in quizdom in the late 80s and early 90s. As late as 1995, when I became a born-again quizzer, I could play in three separate quiz leagues during the week. Now there’s only Bridgend still going strong locally. There seemed to be a lot more open charity quizzes then as well- this may be distance lending enchantment to the view, but it seemed like there was one in Port Talbot alone every month or so back then. There were annual local events too, for example in Port Talbot the Eddie Roberts, in Aberavon Quins Rugby Club, where I would dearly have loved to have been on the winning team once, but never was.
All this was brought back to me in the section where Mr. Cornish discusses quiz formats, and he gives you quite a few of these. Individual quizzes, for example. Head to head formats. Mastermind type formats. I’ll be honest, the only individual quiz I’ve ever taken part in away from TV, radio or Grand Prix was on the night of the finals of the 1988 Port Talbot Quiz League, where each team was invited to send one member to compete head to head for the individual trophy. Yes, I did, thanks for asking, although the trophy itself went the way of all flesh yonks back. He talks about how to set out the teams, and where to accommodate the audience . Audience ? Blimey, its difficult enough to get enough teams to run a quiz sometimes, let alone an audience. He even gives you a circuit diagram to make your own buzzers for a quickfire quiz – (I quote – “ for safety reasons , always run it off batteries and NOT the mains “ Quite. ) .
I was also interested, for reasons which I shall explain, in some of the things he brought up about what I shall call, for want of a better phrase, quiz etiquette . For one thing, this piece of advice had me diving for my biro : -
“ However attractive it may appear , never allow one team/person to mark the answers of another. “
As it happens, in the Thursday night quiz in Aberavon Rugby Club we do collect all of the rounds in, and either the question master, or sometimes a specialist marker, will mark them, but this method is very much the exception to the rule nowadays. Mr. Cornish cites his reasons for this piece of advice as – loss of tempo – disruption with teams trying to find out what others are prepared to accept as correct , which leads to – inconsistency .
Almost every quiz I go to now is a ‘swap your answers quiz’ and there’s a whole unspoken etiquette to avoid the above. For one thing, getting teams to hand in to a central marker is every bit as frustrating and time consuming as getting them to swap amongst themselves. As for the rest, I thought that it was fairly well understood in quizzes that you give the benefit of the doubt to the answerer, that is, if the answer has the gist, yet maybe not the exact wording, you give them the mark anyway. If you can’t make the call, then you ask the question master , who as we know IS ALWAYS RIGHT EVEN WHEN HE IS CLEARLY WRONG.
To be fair to Dave Cornish, as I’ve said the quiz landscape is quite a bit different from the way it was 20 years ago. Also, I do agree with a huge amount of what he says about setting a quiz. He is absolutely right to stress that it is crucial to get the phrasing of your question right – I’ve always said that this is a sadly neglected aspect of the question master’s craft in many , many of the quizzes I’ve played in. I also whole heartedly agree that its worth taking time and trouble to set the level of the quiz as appropriately as you can. I just don’t see why anyone would want to ask a question which not only does no one answer, but which they know that nobody will possibly be able to answer.
Moving away from the book, and returning to the question of quiz etiquette, the reason why I bring it up is that for years I have followed what I have always felt to be a generally accepted rule, which is, when a name is asked for in a question or a handout, unless a first name is specifically asked for, then a surname is quite sufficient. For which reason, unless absolutely certain it is usually better to just put down a Christian name. Now, last Monday night I accompanied my son to a quiz in Cardiff, which is a bit run of the mill, but has the distinct advantage of giving away a £100 first prize every week. I’m sure you can see the appeal. For the handout, which was photographs of famous sportspeople, we followed normal procedure of only putting surnames. The bloke who marked our paper wrote all over it, in green ink, which should have told me something -
“YOU SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IN THE CHRISTIAN NAMES !”
– and refused to give marks until he was told to by the question master. I mean, when we put Best under a picture of George Best, I would have thought that it was fairly obvious that we didn’t mean Susan, Bert or even Baby David Best. Likewise Davydenko. At least the question master had the moral fibre to back us up on this one. Still, it did make me wonder what on earth would have possessed him to make such a fuss about it. Maybe the 12 points by which we beat him and his team to the money had something to do with it . So it is true, even in a social quiz, radix malorum est cupiditas. Either that or he was drunk. Or both.
I picked up something which is not a quiz book as such, but is not without its own interest. If you’ve been quizzing for a while, you might just remember a series of quiz books , from the 90s, published by a company called Right Way. I remembered them mainly because of playing in a Sunday night quiz league in Cardiff and district at that time. One of our team recognised a set of a dozen or so consecutive questions one Sunday as all coming from Right Way’s Question Setters Quiz Book, Quirky Quizzes, or Question Masters Quiz Book - I forget exactly which one but it was one of that series. The rest of the team all hurriedly got hold of copies of the book, and for a couple of weeks it worked like a charm, until the setter switched sources. Whether someone had tipped him off that people knew where he was getting a sizeable proportion of his questions, or whether he changed sources as a matter of course I couldn’t say.
So when I saw a copy of Right Way’s How to Run a Quiz, I felt a little nostalgic. Now, I’ve been setting quizzes on a regular basis in the Aberavon Rugby Club for 15 years, so of course I think that I already know how to run a quiz. Still, the book was only 50p, and as in anything else, you should always be looking to learn if there are any ways that you can improve upon what you do, so I bought it anyway.
The usual boot sale drill is that I go round quickly, and then return to the car to enjoy the thrill of the first read of any purchases while Mrs. L. and the girls do their stuff. So when I got back to the car I began to look at the book a little more closely. It’s a little bit misleading calling it How To Run A Quiz. I mean, it does actually tell you how to run a quiz, but it only takes 42 of its 188 pages to do so. The rest of it is ‘sample questions’. Which is a little ironic, since one of the pieces of advice that the book gives you is
“it is inadvisable to use questions from published quiz books “.
Alright, I am taking that a little out of context. Basically the author, Dave Cornish, says that you should use quiz book questions as a starting point, to suggest better questions to you. I wouldn’t disagree with that, but I certainly wouldn’t say that you should never lift questions directly from quiz books. I just wouldn’t take a whole set. Cherry picking seems a reasonable way of doing it to me.
One thing I find interesting is the wide range of different types of quizzes that Dave Cornish gives you advice on running. I’ve no idea if he’s still doing it or not, but certainly at the time, he got around a bit, in quiz terms. The book was first published in 1992, which was actually right towards the end of my first incarnation as a quizzer. Due to break up of teams I was in, quiz friends being ill or becoming disillusioned, and general not-being-bothered-about-it-ness, I hardly went to any quizzes at all in 1992 - 4. I have made up for it a bit since. Still, things definitely were different in quizdom in the late 80s and early 90s. As late as 1995, when I became a born-again quizzer, I could play in three separate quiz leagues during the week. Now there’s only Bridgend still going strong locally. There seemed to be a lot more open charity quizzes then as well- this may be distance lending enchantment to the view, but it seemed like there was one in Port Talbot alone every month or so back then. There were annual local events too, for example in Port Talbot the Eddie Roberts, in Aberavon Quins Rugby Club, where I would dearly have loved to have been on the winning team once, but never was.
All this was brought back to me in the section where Mr. Cornish discusses quiz formats, and he gives you quite a few of these. Individual quizzes, for example. Head to head formats. Mastermind type formats. I’ll be honest, the only individual quiz I’ve ever taken part in away from TV, radio or Grand Prix was on the night of the finals of the 1988 Port Talbot Quiz League, where each team was invited to send one member to compete head to head for the individual trophy. Yes, I did, thanks for asking, although the trophy itself went the way of all flesh yonks back. He talks about how to set out the teams, and where to accommodate the audience . Audience ? Blimey, its difficult enough to get enough teams to run a quiz sometimes, let alone an audience. He even gives you a circuit diagram to make your own buzzers for a quickfire quiz – (I quote – “ for safety reasons , always run it off batteries and NOT the mains “ Quite. ) .
I was also interested, for reasons which I shall explain, in some of the things he brought up about what I shall call, for want of a better phrase, quiz etiquette . For one thing, this piece of advice had me diving for my biro : -
“ However attractive it may appear , never allow one team/person to mark the answers of another. “
As it happens, in the Thursday night quiz in Aberavon Rugby Club we do collect all of the rounds in, and either the question master, or sometimes a specialist marker, will mark them, but this method is very much the exception to the rule nowadays. Mr. Cornish cites his reasons for this piece of advice as – loss of tempo – disruption with teams trying to find out what others are prepared to accept as correct , which leads to – inconsistency .
Almost every quiz I go to now is a ‘swap your answers quiz’ and there’s a whole unspoken etiquette to avoid the above. For one thing, getting teams to hand in to a central marker is every bit as frustrating and time consuming as getting them to swap amongst themselves. As for the rest, I thought that it was fairly well understood in quizzes that you give the benefit of the doubt to the answerer, that is, if the answer has the gist, yet maybe not the exact wording, you give them the mark anyway. If you can’t make the call, then you ask the question master , who as we know IS ALWAYS RIGHT EVEN WHEN HE IS CLEARLY WRONG.
To be fair to Dave Cornish, as I’ve said the quiz landscape is quite a bit different from the way it was 20 years ago. Also, I do agree with a huge amount of what he says about setting a quiz. He is absolutely right to stress that it is crucial to get the phrasing of your question right – I’ve always said that this is a sadly neglected aspect of the question master’s craft in many , many of the quizzes I’ve played in. I also whole heartedly agree that its worth taking time and trouble to set the level of the quiz as appropriately as you can. I just don’t see why anyone would want to ask a question which not only does no one answer, but which they know that nobody will possibly be able to answer.
Moving away from the book, and returning to the question of quiz etiquette, the reason why I bring it up is that for years I have followed what I have always felt to be a generally accepted rule, which is, when a name is asked for in a question or a handout, unless a first name is specifically asked for, then a surname is quite sufficient. For which reason, unless absolutely certain it is usually better to just put down a Christian name. Now, last Monday night I accompanied my son to a quiz in Cardiff, which is a bit run of the mill, but has the distinct advantage of giving away a £100 first prize every week. I’m sure you can see the appeal. For the handout, which was photographs of famous sportspeople, we followed normal procedure of only putting surnames. The bloke who marked our paper wrote all over it, in green ink, which should have told me something -
“YOU SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN IN THE CHRISTIAN NAMES !”
– and refused to give marks until he was told to by the question master. I mean, when we put Best under a picture of George Best, I would have thought that it was fairly obvious that we didn’t mean Susan, Bert or even Baby David Best. Likewise Davydenko. At least the question master had the moral fibre to back us up on this one. Still, it did make me wonder what on earth would have possessed him to make such a fuss about it. Maybe the 12 points by which we beat him and his team to the money had something to do with it . So it is true, even in a social quiz, radix malorum est cupiditas. Either that or he was drunk. Or both.
Saturday, 27 March 2010
Answers to those Family Fortunes questions
Look, I don't like to encourage this sort of question, but by popular demand here are the answers to those Family Fortunes questions I mentioned last week in my post Blame it on the Boot Sale.
Name a London Railway Station apart from Euston : -
Kings Cross - 29
Victoria - 25
Paddington - 20
Waterloo - 12
St. Pancras - 10
Name a dangerous instrument for a nude musician to play : -
Cymbals - 32
Accordion - 18
Double Bass - 18
Cello - 13
Harp - 12
Drums - 5
The handout, not to my surprise, but very much to my frustration, went down a treat. Just one of the sacrifices we sometimes have to make to stay true to our craft.
Name a London Railway Station apart from Euston : -
Kings Cross - 29
Victoria - 25
Paddington - 20
Waterloo - 12
St. Pancras - 10
Name a dangerous instrument for a nude musician to play : -
Cymbals - 32
Accordion - 18
Double Bass - 18
Cello - 13
Harp - 12
Drums - 5
The handout, not to my surprise, but very much to my frustration, went down a treat. Just one of the sacrifices we sometimes have to make to stay true to our craft.
March Quiz
Ok - it was my turn to do the quiz for the rugby club this week. Following a couple of weeks of unusually difficult quizzes I deliberately set an easier one than what we've been having. So there's a real preponderance of old chestnuts here. As a rough guide, the team that went on to win the quiz scored 36 on these. Good luck.
Round One
1) This year is the 25th anniversary of dot.com on an internet address. But which word does com actually stand for ?
2) Where is your axilla ?
3) In which range of hills does the River Mersey have its source ?
4) Who created the detective Mike Hammer ?
5) Which island in New York was the disembarkation point for immigrants throughout the 19th and early 20th century ?
6) Which soft french cheese has a name which means Port of Safety ?
7) Chernobyl – site of the 1986 nuclear power station meltdown, was then in the Soviet Union. Which country is it in now ?
8) In which film did Robin Williams play DJ Adrian Cronauer ?
9) What was unusual about the doctor in Star Trek Voyager ?
10) In which sport might you perform a telemark landing ?
11) Following two deaths last week there have been calls for which legal stimulant drug to be banned ?
12) What type of fruit is a biffin ?
13) In Greek Mythology, who escaped from the labyrinth aided by a ball of wool ?
14) BD is the first part of the postcode of which UK city ?
15) In the Netherlands, which word is used for lands which have been reclaimed from the sea ?
16) In the food industry – what does TVP stand for ?
17) What is the main difference between refracting and reflecting telescopes ?
18) Reggae Reggae Sauce, available in all good supermarkets, is the most famous product which to come about through which TV show ?
19) Which 3 words complete the full title of Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin’s Je T’aime ?
20) In which year was the football world cup final between Italy and Brazil decided on penalties ?
21) Whose face appeared on English banknotes before Elizabeth II ?
22) What type of fin is a fishes tail ?
23) Who composed the Liverpool Oratorio ?
24) Which Radnorshire town is known as the town on the dyke ?
25) Which two nations fought the Battle of Marathon ?
26) Which cartoon strip heroine was created for the Evening Standard newspaper in 1966 by Peter O’Donnell ?
27) When does a meteor become a meteorite ?
28) What started in Singapore in 1940, and ended in Hongkong in 1962 ?
29) The French song Comme d’Habitude was better known in the version with English lyrics by Paul Anka – how do we know it ?
30) In formula 1, what name is given to the area where the winning cars must be parked for a final inspection ?
31) He Pingping died last week. Why was this in the news ?
32) Which bird is also called a laverock ?
33) All that Glisters is not gold is a quotation from which of Shakespeare’s plays ?
34) Which is the largest country through which the Tropic of Capricorn passes ?
35) The hexagonal columns of the Giants Causeway in Antrim are formed from which rock ?
36) What is the difference between a hitch and a splice ?
37) What do the letters PH stand for, as in PH scale ?
38) In Pinocchio, which character sings “When you wish upon a star “ ?
39) Which Sci Fi Tv show began with the words “There is nothing wrong with your TV set – do not adjust the picture “
40) Who was the first person to captain a winning Britain and Europe team in the Ryder cup ?
Round One
1) This year is the 25th anniversary of dot.com on an internet address. But which word does com actually stand for ?
2) Where is your axilla ?
3) In which range of hills does the River Mersey have its source ?
4) Who created the detective Mike Hammer ?
5) Which island in New York was the disembarkation point for immigrants throughout the 19th and early 20th century ?
6) Which soft french cheese has a name which means Port of Safety ?
7) Chernobyl – site of the 1986 nuclear power station meltdown, was then in the Soviet Union. Which country is it in now ?
8) In which film did Robin Williams play DJ Adrian Cronauer ?
9) What was unusual about the doctor in Star Trek Voyager ?
10) In which sport might you perform a telemark landing ?
11) Following two deaths last week there have been calls for which legal stimulant drug to be banned ?
12) What type of fruit is a biffin ?
13) In Greek Mythology, who escaped from the labyrinth aided by a ball of wool ?
14) BD is the first part of the postcode of which UK city ?
15) In the Netherlands, which word is used for lands which have been reclaimed from the sea ?
16) In the food industry – what does TVP stand for ?
17) What is the main difference between refracting and reflecting telescopes ?
18) Reggae Reggae Sauce, available in all good supermarkets, is the most famous product which to come about through which TV show ?
19) Which 3 words complete the full title of Serge Gainsbourg and Jane Birkin’s Je T’aime ?
20) In which year was the football world cup final between Italy and Brazil decided on penalties ?
21) Whose face appeared on English banknotes before Elizabeth II ?
22) What type of fin is a fishes tail ?
23) Who composed the Liverpool Oratorio ?
24) Which Radnorshire town is known as the town on the dyke ?
25) Which two nations fought the Battle of Marathon ?
26) Which cartoon strip heroine was created for the Evening Standard newspaper in 1966 by Peter O’Donnell ?
27) When does a meteor become a meteorite ?
28) What started in Singapore in 1940, and ended in Hongkong in 1962 ?
29) The French song Comme d’Habitude was better known in the version with English lyrics by Paul Anka – how do we know it ?
30) In formula 1, what name is given to the area where the winning cars must be parked for a final inspection ?
31) He Pingping died last week. Why was this in the news ?
32) Which bird is also called a laverock ?
33) All that Glisters is not gold is a quotation from which of Shakespeare’s plays ?
34) Which is the largest country through which the Tropic of Capricorn passes ?
35) The hexagonal columns of the Giants Causeway in Antrim are formed from which rock ?
36) What is the difference between a hitch and a splice ?
37) What do the letters PH stand for, as in PH scale ?
38) In Pinocchio, which character sings “When you wish upon a star “ ?
39) Which Sci Fi Tv show began with the words “There is nothing wrong with your TV set – do not adjust the picture “
40) Who was the first person to captain a winning Britain and Europe team in the Ryder cup ?
Friday, 26 March 2010
Mastermind - First Round - Heat 23/24
You know me well enough by now. I do like a closely fought contest, but if I can’t have that, then I’ll gladly settle for a virtuoso performance from one of the contenders. I’ll leave it to you to decide which of these we got tonight.
Our first contender tonight was the first one who has previous form for quite some time. Kathryn Johnson has competed twice before. However its not just in Mastermind that she has previous form. Kathryn Johnson is currently ranked within the top 20 quizzers – of either gender – in the whole country. As such, I expected fireworks. I certainly wasn’t disappointed. Kathryn offered us Victorian and Edwardian Poisoners , an interesting subject indeed, for her specialist round. I was interested to hear her say in her filmed insert that in the 19th century, if you poisoned someone you actually had a 70% chance of getting away with it. This was a fine round, with Kathryn confidently batting back some quite involved and complicated questions, setting the target at 15 and 1 pass.
Daniel Tudor was the first of three Mastermind newcomers to follow Kathryn to the chair. His specialist subject was the Life and Music of Lead Belly. Huddie William Leadbetter was an American folk and blues musician . According to Mr. Tudor , in his filmed insert he heavily influenced American folk and blues music from the 1950s onwards, and pointed out that the White Stripes use one of his songs in their stage performances. I’ve no doubt that Mr. Tudor know his subject, but a couple of early questions floored him, and this , allied to what seemed quite a bad attack of nerves, meant that he was never really able to build up a head of steam. He finished the round with 8.
Bishop John Robinson – no – he wasn’t the next contender, but the next specialist subject, and he was offered to us by Andy Lie. Mr. Lie explained that Robinson, at one time the bishop of Woolwich, and the Dean of Trinity College Cambridge, was an influential cleric who was open to inspiration from other traditions of faith encountered on his international travels. Mr. Lie made quite heavy weather of this round. He seemed rather overcome by the speed required, and did struggle his way to 7 points.
Youngest contender of the week was Gavin Fraser, a student whose specialist subject was The Football World Cup from 1930 – 58 , in what passed for the most obviously populist specialist round of this week. Mr. Fraser certainly knew his stuff. There were a few old stagers to begin with – Fontaine and Belo Horizonte for example, but plenty of far more obscure stuff too. For example, I didn’t know that it was Stan Mortensen who scored England’s first ever goal in the world cup finals. A good round saw Mr. Fraser take his score to 13.
Andy Lie was first to return for the General Knowledge round. I’m afraid that his general round made his specialist round look positively relaxed by comparison. He knew , obviously knew, more than the three questions he managed to answer, but he just couldn’t drag many of the answers past the tip of his tongue. He finished with 10 points. Daniel Tudor at least managed to match his first round score in his general round. Its all relative, I know, but I found his set of questions to be a bit more difficult than the other three sets of GK questions. Its just the luck of the draw. Still, at least his final score of 16 was enough to give him the lead, albeit only for a couple of minutes inevitably.
Gavin Fraser followed. While it never looked likely that he was going to post a target that would prevent any real problems to Kathryn, I he did have at least an outside chance of pushing his way onto the runner up board. He’d need 12 to do it , though, and after the first minute this looked unlikely. Younger contenders are often at a disadvantage in the GK rounds I feel, and viewed in this light his 9 was a decent battling performance. He finished with 22.
Right, time for a little bragging. Before tonight’s show, the last two people to score 30 in proper Mastermind were Nancy in last year’s final , and myself in the previous final. Yes, there were quite a few other scores of 30 or better in my series too, but certainly since then 30 point scores have become pretty rare. Kathryn’s round looked like a winner right from the start. I’ve seen people answer more quickly, but when you are getting so many of them right as Kathryn did, then you do build up an almost irresistible momentum. The target was easily reached, and then she pushed on, and hit 30 with a question to spare. 15 is a terrific score on GK, and this was the first 30 we’ve seen this series. I think John Humphrys called it a ‘stonking’ score, and he’s right. Congratulations, Kathryn. Who is to say we won’t have a second female champion in 2 years ?
The Details
Current Highest Scoring Runners Up
Our first contender tonight was the first one who has previous form for quite some time. Kathryn Johnson has competed twice before. However its not just in Mastermind that she has previous form. Kathryn Johnson is currently ranked within the top 20 quizzers – of either gender – in the whole country. As such, I expected fireworks. I certainly wasn’t disappointed. Kathryn offered us Victorian and Edwardian Poisoners , an interesting subject indeed, for her specialist round. I was interested to hear her say in her filmed insert that in the 19th century, if you poisoned someone you actually had a 70% chance of getting away with it. This was a fine round, with Kathryn confidently batting back some quite involved and complicated questions, setting the target at 15 and 1 pass.
Daniel Tudor was the first of three Mastermind newcomers to follow Kathryn to the chair. His specialist subject was the Life and Music of Lead Belly. Huddie William Leadbetter was an American folk and blues musician . According to Mr. Tudor , in his filmed insert he heavily influenced American folk and blues music from the 1950s onwards, and pointed out that the White Stripes use one of his songs in their stage performances. I’ve no doubt that Mr. Tudor know his subject, but a couple of early questions floored him, and this , allied to what seemed quite a bad attack of nerves, meant that he was never really able to build up a head of steam. He finished the round with 8.
Bishop John Robinson – no – he wasn’t the next contender, but the next specialist subject, and he was offered to us by Andy Lie. Mr. Lie explained that Robinson, at one time the bishop of Woolwich, and the Dean of Trinity College Cambridge, was an influential cleric who was open to inspiration from other traditions of faith encountered on his international travels. Mr. Lie made quite heavy weather of this round. He seemed rather overcome by the speed required, and did struggle his way to 7 points.
Youngest contender of the week was Gavin Fraser, a student whose specialist subject was The Football World Cup from 1930 – 58 , in what passed for the most obviously populist specialist round of this week. Mr. Fraser certainly knew his stuff. There were a few old stagers to begin with – Fontaine and Belo Horizonte for example, but plenty of far more obscure stuff too. For example, I didn’t know that it was Stan Mortensen who scored England’s first ever goal in the world cup finals. A good round saw Mr. Fraser take his score to 13.
Andy Lie was first to return for the General Knowledge round. I’m afraid that his general round made his specialist round look positively relaxed by comparison. He knew , obviously knew, more than the three questions he managed to answer, but he just couldn’t drag many of the answers past the tip of his tongue. He finished with 10 points. Daniel Tudor at least managed to match his first round score in his general round. Its all relative, I know, but I found his set of questions to be a bit more difficult than the other three sets of GK questions. Its just the luck of the draw. Still, at least his final score of 16 was enough to give him the lead, albeit only for a couple of minutes inevitably.
Gavin Fraser followed. While it never looked likely that he was going to post a target that would prevent any real problems to Kathryn, I he did have at least an outside chance of pushing his way onto the runner up board. He’d need 12 to do it , though, and after the first minute this looked unlikely. Younger contenders are often at a disadvantage in the GK rounds I feel, and viewed in this light his 9 was a decent battling performance. He finished with 22.
Right, time for a little bragging. Before tonight’s show, the last two people to score 30 in proper Mastermind were Nancy in last year’s final , and myself in the previous final. Yes, there were quite a few other scores of 30 or better in my series too, but certainly since then 30 point scores have become pretty rare. Kathryn’s round looked like a winner right from the start. I’ve seen people answer more quickly, but when you are getting so many of them right as Kathryn did, then you do build up an almost irresistible momentum. The target was easily reached, and then she pushed on, and hit 30 with a question to spare. 15 is a terrific score on GK, and this was the first 30 we’ve seen this series. I think John Humphrys called it a ‘stonking’ score, and he’s right. Congratulations, Kathryn. Who is to say we won’t have a second female champion in 2 years ?
The Details
| Kathryn Johnson | Victorian and Edwardian Poisoners | 15 – 1 | 15 – 2 | 30 – 3 |
| Daniel Tudor | The Life and Music of Lead Belly | 8 –3 | 8 – 6 | 16 – 9 |
| Andy Lie | Bishop John Robinson | 7 – 2 | 3 – 3 | 10 – 5 |
| Gavin Fraser | The Football World Cup – 1930 – 58 | 13 – 2 | 9 – 6 | 22 – 8 |
Current Highest Scoring Runners Up
| John Cooper | 29 – 3 |
| Ian Scott Massie | 26 – 2 |
| Les Morrell | 26 - 3 |
| Colin Wilson | 25 - 0 |
| Peter Cowans | 25 - 2 |
| William de'Ath | 25 - 4 |
Only Connect - Semi Final Preview
On Monday we move into the semi-finals on Only Connect. I’ve been having a little look at the teams’ relative strengths based on their performances in the first round and the quarter finals.
The first semi matches the team who had the best scores in both the first round and the quarter finals , the Archers Admirers, with the team who had the second best score in both the first round and the quarter finals, the Gamblers. I guess it’s the luck of the draw that this ends up being a semi final match rather than a final.
Now both teams have LAM readers among them, so let there be no accusations of unfair bias in the analysis which follows.
The Archers have achieved an average total score of 34 in their first two matches, while the Gamblers have achieved an average of 30. Impressively high in both cases. Looking at their relative performances in the first round, there is virtually nothing to choose between both teams. The Gamblers have twice managed 5 points, while the Archers are a little less consistent with a 2 and a 4. Going on the two teams' last performances I think we can say that both teams will probably get all of their connections, but it’s a question of how many points they’ll do it for. Gambling to go for 3 points off two clues could be a risky strategy but one which might pay dividends. In round two, where they have to predict the 4th in a sequence there really doesn't seem to be so much to chose between the two teams. Still the form guide, when you take both first round and quarter final matches into consideration suggests a slight lead for the Gamblers going into round three. With the walls, the Archers have solved both of theirs, which seems to give them a clear advantage. Yet so much depends on the luck of the draw as to which wall you get, and I wouldn’t like to read anything into this. However the Archers have scored very heavily in the missing vowels round both times. The Gamblers have done well in this round too, but not quite as well. Could just be down to the opposition both teams faced.
All of this makes it a very close contest to call. IMHO the Gamblers need a gap of a good 3 or 4 points going into the last round . They may find it a tall order. Having said that, the Gamblers won’t give away anything to the Archers in terms of bonuses.
Moving to the second semi for a moment, we are in the position of having a clear underdog. The Strategists have an average total score for the two matches of 26.5, while the Hitchhikers have an average total of 18. The Strategists’ superiority doesn’t show in the teams’ scores for the first or second rounds, which are very similar. However when we look at the connecting walls the Strategists have twice completely solved their walls, while the Hitchhikers have not yet managed to do it. The Hitchhikers were very solid on the missing vowels round in their heat, but struggled in the quarter final match, and could have lost . The Strategists have scored very well in their heat, and solidly in their quarter final match.
Its possibly actually a closer match up than it looks on paper. As with the first semi, any huge difference between the relative performance of the teams comes down to the connecting walls. The difference here though is that the Hitchhikers just haven’t shown any form on the wall to date.
SO what are my predictions ? I find semi final 2 easier to call than semi final 1. I’m not saying that the Hitchhikers can’t win, but I am saying that – and this is only my opinion – the Strategists have been the more impressive team in two rounds, and so I feel they are the more likely winners of this semi. Feel free to disagree. As for the first semi, I know that both teams are capable of winning the whole series. I think that there won’t be much in it at all, and it will come down to one or two calls. Put a gun against my head and order me to pick a winner, and I would say that the Archers have the highest scores so far, they’d been slightly more consistent, so they’re what I’d go for. Once again, do feel free to disagree.
Relative performances
Semi final 1
Semi Final 2
The first semi matches the team who had the best scores in both the first round and the quarter finals , the Archers Admirers, with the team who had the second best score in both the first round and the quarter finals, the Gamblers. I guess it’s the luck of the draw that this ends up being a semi final match rather than a final.
Now both teams have LAM readers among them, so let there be no accusations of unfair bias in the analysis which follows.
The Archers have achieved an average total score of 34 in their first two matches, while the Gamblers have achieved an average of 30. Impressively high in both cases. Looking at their relative performances in the first round, there is virtually nothing to choose between both teams. The Gamblers have twice managed 5 points, while the Archers are a little less consistent with a 2 and a 4. Going on the two teams' last performances I think we can say that both teams will probably get all of their connections, but it’s a question of how many points they’ll do it for. Gambling to go for 3 points off two clues could be a risky strategy but one which might pay dividends. In round two, where they have to predict the 4th in a sequence there really doesn't seem to be so much to chose between the two teams. Still the form guide, when you take both first round and quarter final matches into consideration suggests a slight lead for the Gamblers going into round three. With the walls, the Archers have solved both of theirs, which seems to give them a clear advantage. Yet so much depends on the luck of the draw as to which wall you get, and I wouldn’t like to read anything into this. However the Archers have scored very heavily in the missing vowels round both times. The Gamblers have done well in this round too, but not quite as well. Could just be down to the opposition both teams faced.
All of this makes it a very close contest to call. IMHO the Gamblers need a gap of a good 3 or 4 points going into the last round . They may find it a tall order. Having said that, the Gamblers won’t give away anything to the Archers in terms of bonuses.
Moving to the second semi for a moment, we are in the position of having a clear underdog. The Strategists have an average total score for the two matches of 26.5, while the Hitchhikers have an average total of 18. The Strategists’ superiority doesn’t show in the teams’ scores for the first or second rounds, which are very similar. However when we look at the connecting walls the Strategists have twice completely solved their walls, while the Hitchhikers have not yet managed to do it. The Hitchhikers were very solid on the missing vowels round in their heat, but struggled in the quarter final match, and could have lost . The Strategists have scored very well in their heat, and solidly in their quarter final match.
Its possibly actually a closer match up than it looks on paper. As with the first semi, any huge difference between the relative performance of the teams comes down to the connecting walls. The difference here though is that the Hitchhikers just haven’t shown any form on the wall to date.
SO what are my predictions ? I find semi final 2 easier to call than semi final 1. I’m not saying that the Hitchhikers can’t win, but I am saying that – and this is only my opinion – the Strategists have been the more impressive team in two rounds, and so I feel they are the more likely winners of this semi. Feel free to disagree. As for the first semi, I know that both teams are capable of winning the whole series. I think that there won’t be much in it at all, and it will come down to one or two calls. Put a gun against my head and order me to pick a winner, and I would say that the Archers have the highest scores so far, they’d been slightly more consistent, so they’re what I’d go for. Once again, do feel free to disagree.
Relative performances
Semi final 1
| Team/match | Round1 | round 2 | round 3 | round 4 | total |
| Archers Admirers –Heat | 2 | 6 | 10 | 17 | 35 |
| Archers Admirers – Quarter | 4 | 7 | 10 | 12 | 33 |
| Gamblers – Heat | 5 | 5 | 10 | 11 | 33 |
| Gamblers – Quarter | 5 | 10 | 4 | 8 | 27 |
Semi Final 2
| Team/match | Round1 | round 2 | round 3 | round 4 | total |
| Hitchhikers - Heat | 5 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 21 |
| Hitchhikers – quarter | 3 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 15 |
| Strategists – Heat | 5 | 4 | 10 | 12 | 31 |
| Strategists – quarter | 1 | 4 | 10 | 7 | 22 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
