Page 3 of 3

Re: Only Connect

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:16 pm
by Marc Meakin
Easiest walls for a long time.
But well done both teams

Re: Only Connect

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:52 pm
by Gavin Chipper
Well done indeed, and particularly to the Verbivores (Graeme Cole, Tom Cappleman, Phyl Styles) for winning the whole series!* I do think it's slightly odd that you get timed out if you don't buzz in time in round 1. Basically you're just buzzing to buy a bit of extra time for your guess anyway. Given that everyone would do this, they might as well take a non-buzz as an assumed buzz at the end of the time.

*This is a spoilers thread. You wouldn't come in here if you hadn't seen the programme.

Re: Only Connect

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:14 pm
by Adam Gillard
Yay, well done to Graeme, Phyl and Tom! Superb quizzing :)

Re: Only Connect

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:04 am
by Adam Gillard
MR KLWSF RNC SBKWL
YLNSN BYVL RDM S
ST VCR MNT LMNT SH
LRRNG NZ BDBB

Re: Only Connect

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:44 pm
by Matt Bayfield
1) Mark Lewis-Francis Obikwelu
2) Yelena Isinbayevalerie Adams
3) Steve Cramantle Montsho
4) Lorraine Ugenzebe Dibaba

Re: Only Connect

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 11:37 pm
by Adam Gillard
Matt Bayfield wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:44 pm
1) Mark Lewis-Francis Obikwelu
2) Yelena Isinbayevalerie Adams
3) Steve Cramantle Montsho
4) Lorraine Ugenzebe Dibaba
Correct! Francis Obikwelu was pervading my consciousness this morning for some reason so I decided to incorporate his name into a quiz.

Re: Only Connect

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:02 pm
by Fred Mumford
Just when I thought I had worked out how the Only Connect heats system works, it throws a complete curveball.

Surely tonight's game should have been between the Dicers and the Forrests, both of whom won their opening games? What does the withdrawal of the Dragons have to do with it? The Dragons shouldn't have been playing until the next section, where all the 1-1 teams play off for a quarter final place (based on my understanding of how I thought this worked).

It would make much more sense if it was the Forrests who had withdrawn. But now the Brews have played 3 games, lost them all, and STILL aren't eliminated (capitals for emphasis, not impotent armchair rage. Though I admit I'm not happy).

Re: Only Connect

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:31 pm
by Graeme Cole
Fred Mumford wrote:
Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:02 pm
Just when I thought I had worked out how the Only Connect heats system works, it throws a complete curveball.

Surely tonight's game should have been between the Dicers and the Forrests, both of whom won their opening games? What does the withdrawal of the Dragons have to do with it? The Dragons shouldn't have been playing until the next section, where all the 1-1 teams play off for a quarter final place (based on my understanding of how I thought this worked).

It would make much more sense if it was the Forrests who had withdrawn. But now the Brews have played 3 games, lost them all, and STILL aren't eliminated (capitals for emphasis, not impotent armchair rage. Though I admit I'm not happy).
The first eight matches were between the 16 teams in the series. The eight losers played each other in four other matches (the "second chance saloon"?), the losers of which went out (this included the Brews), and the winners of which (including the Dragons) were to join the eight first round winners in the second round, which is the round being played at the moment. Tonight's episode was the third game in the second round.

But the Dragons withdrew, so they needed to be replaced. Of the four losers in the second chance saloon, the Brews lost with the highest score (26). In fact you don't even have to limit this choice to those four losing teams - the Brews' score of 26 is the highest losing score of the series so far.

I don't think there's any requirement that in the second round, the first-round winners have to play each other rather than the winners of the saloon round - why would there be?

Re: Only Connect

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:12 am
by Fred Mumford
Based on what has happened so far, I think it works like this:-

16 teams, so 8 games in the "heats" round. Following this we have 8 winners (1-0) and 8 losers (0-1).

Next stage is the "losers" round - win this and you're at 1-1 and survive, lose and you're 0-2 and BFH as Jim Bowen would say.

Then all the first round winners play each other. Win this and you go straight to the quarter finals with a 2-0 record. Lose it and you go to 1-1 and survive.

So now we have 4 quarter finalists (2-0), 4 eliminated teams (0-2), and 8 teams sitting on (1-1). These eight teams presumably then play off to join the 2-0 teams in the quarter finals.

But that's getting ahead of ourselves, we are still at the stage of all the first round winners playing each other. It all made sense until last night.

Re: Only Connect

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:13 am
by Thomas Cappleman
Fred Mumford wrote:
Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:12 am
Based on what has happened so far, I think it works like this:-

16 teams, so 8 games in the "heats" round. Following this we have 8 winners (1-0) and 8 losers (0-1).

Next stage is the "losers" round - win this and you're at 1-1 and survive, lose and you're 0-2 and BFH as Jim Bowen would say.

Then all the first round winners play each other. Win this and you go straight to the quarter finals with a 2-0 record. Lose it and you go to 1-1 and survive.

So now we have 4 quarter finalists (2-0), 4 eliminated teams (0-2), and 8 teams sitting on (1-1). These eight teams presumably then play off to join the 2-0 teams in the quarter finals.

But that's getting ahead of ourselves, we are still at the stage of all the first round winners playing each other. It all made sense until last night.
Yeah, this was my understanding too. This would be basically be 2 lots of the UC quarter final format in parallel. If you don't match up teams with the same number of wins and losses then you can't guarantee how many wins and losses the winner and loser will have. For example, if the Dragons had been in that match and lost they'd then be going out with 3 losses if they lost their next as well, whereas the Dicers would go out with only 2 losses.

I suspect what happened here is that when they needed to make a sudden replacement this was the easiest way to schedule it. Sucks for the Forrests though, as they could now go out with only 1 loss (or potentially another team, if there's been even more shuffling).