Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Off the top of my head,
Philip Aston
Paul Anderson
Brendan Duke
Hazel Drury
Eddy Byrne
James Robinson
Callum Pickering
Patrick Thompson
Cammy Lovatt
James Rowan
George Armstrong
Aidan Linge
Anthony Endsor
Phil Hannan
Adam Dexter
Ian Linton
James Hall
Criteria* for an unlucky loser:-
1. Had octo-potential.
2. Was stopped in their tracks.
3. Their max rate - BEFORE they met their conqueror -was an average of 70% or higher.
Candidates like e.g. Philip and Paul are easy to spot when looking through the wiki, as they won so many before it all came tumbling down. I wonder can many of ye spot some of the others who are more likely to go under the radar, i.e. the ones who won just one game, or the ones who were (particularly talented) cannon fodder during the run of a mercurial talent?
In the world of 2020's Countdown, where you may get a 2nd (or even 3rd) bite at the cherry less than 5 years after your first try, these unlucky losers take on a particular significance as potential future finalists. (e.g. Zarte S, Martin M, Paul H, Paul N, Dinos S, Sandra P, Tony M, James K, Jeff C, Elliott M, etc. from the last decade.)
*inb4, I am aware that some of the names on that list do not fit the criteria... In those cases, current form is taken into consideration.
Philip Aston
Paul Anderson
Brendan Duke
Hazel Drury
Eddy Byrne
James Robinson
Callum Pickering
Patrick Thompson
Cammy Lovatt
James Rowan
George Armstrong
Aidan Linge
Anthony Endsor
Phil Hannan
Adam Dexter
Ian Linton
James Hall
Criteria* for an unlucky loser:-
1. Had octo-potential.
2. Was stopped in their tracks.
3. Their max rate - BEFORE they met their conqueror -was an average of 70% or higher.
Candidates like e.g. Philip and Paul are easy to spot when looking through the wiki, as they won so many before it all came tumbling down. I wonder can many of ye spot some of the others who are more likely to go under the radar, i.e. the ones who won just one game, or the ones who were (particularly talented) cannon fodder during the run of a mercurial talent?
In the world of 2020's Countdown, where you may get a 2nd (or even 3rd) bite at the cherry less than 5 years after your first try, these unlucky losers take on a particular significance as potential future finalists. (e.g. Zarte S, Martin M, Paul H, Paul N, Dinos S, Sandra P, Tony M, James K, Jeff C, Elliott M, etc. from the last decade.)
*inb4, I am aware that some of the names on that list do not fit the criteria... In those cases, current form is taken into consideration.
Last edited by L'oisleatch McGraw on Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
S:778-ochamp
-
- Series 72 Champion
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:42 pm
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Ciaran McCarthy and Peter Steggle also come to mind - both lost to Mark Murray with scores of 104 and 95 respectively.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Is it unlucky though if someone works on their skill afrer they lose? Almost any player could become retrospectively unlucky that way.L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:19 am *inb4, I am aware that some of the names on that list do not fit the criteria... In those cases, current form is taken into consideration.
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
From my series, I'd add John Ashcroft to the list - I was convinced he'd make octo and hope we see him back on in the not too distant future.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
I don't think you can count Philip Aston because the ultimate goal isn't to become an octochamp - becoming an octochamp is just a step to the knockout stage, which he made anyway. He still got to the grand final of his series and the semi-final of the CoC.
Unless you also want to include Callum Todd?
Unless you also want to include Callum Todd?
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Possibly Stephen Mellor from 81 deserves a mention, despite the letters inconsistency.
Arran Cleminson and Harry Clark from S80- both finalist potential.
Chris Sturdy from S79 (despite the odd numbers-mishap). His letters were on a par with Martin May in that series.
Jason Palmer who lost to Toby M definitely deserves a mention.
Sarah Holey, Ben Leyburn, Phil Peel were finalist potential from (79)
Suzy Turner, Dave Ryan from 76.
Norm Ahmad from 75.
Arran Cleminson and Harry Clark from S80- both finalist potential.
Chris Sturdy from S79 (despite the odd numbers-mishap). His letters were on a par with Martin May in that series.
Jason Palmer who lost to Toby M definitely deserves a mention.
Sarah Holey, Ben Leyburn, Phil Peel were finalist potential from (79)
Suzy Turner, Dave Ryan from 76.
Norm Ahmad from 75.
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Very good points made by Gavin, as is to be expected... This thread is pretty irritating, as the definition for what constitutes an 'unlucky loser' is woolly and imprecise. We must remedy that...
I believe there is an argument to be made for Phil A's inclusion, in spite of a great performance in his series finals and CoC. In the history of the show, there have been thousands of contestants, but only ever 15 "champions of champions"... and for Philip to have come up against one of those, not once, but THREE times, smacks of 'bad luck' to me, particularly when he's otherwise unbeaten.
But that ^^^ is an aside.
1. Unluckiest Losers.
This category is the one we are most interested in here, and it comprises only those players who showed great potential, won fewer than 8 games, and missed the series finals.
2. The Premature ej-applicators (lol, sorry)
This category includes anyone who applied to the show before they hit peak form. Non-apterites, or those who practise the game secretly cannot be included, as no-one is aware their skills have improved. There would be some overlap with "Unluckiest Losers" as the likes of Hazel Drury and Sam Prouse could fit both. However, this category can also be applied to some very successful contestants... e.g. Jack Worsley, Innis Carson, and yes, Callum Todd.
3. The Redeemed
This is for anyone for whom the original unlucky loss was actually a Godsend in hindsight... as they got to compete again and smash it. e.g. Zarte, T-Cap, Dan McC etc. (and hopefully Robbo someday...)
.
[4. Unluckiest Winners (I suppose)
Do we need a special category to cater for the Philip Aston dilemma? i.e. Someone who applied at the right time (approx peak form), did well on TV, but can still be considered unlucky due to *something noteworthy*.]
I believe there is an argument to be made for Phil A's inclusion, in spite of a great performance in his series finals and CoC. In the history of the show, there have been thousands of contestants, but only ever 15 "champions of champions"... and for Philip to have come up against one of those, not once, but THREE times, smacks of 'bad luck' to me, particularly when he's otherwise unbeaten.
But that ^^^ is an aside.
Excellent point, and I agree: even the Christine Buffreys of this world probably have their personal set of "if onlys", and any past contestant has the potential to train up and come storming back some day. But we can only go with what we know, so with that in mind I would make 3 (or possibly 4) categories:-Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:59 am Almost any player could become retrospectively unlucky.
1. Unluckiest Losers.
This category is the one we are most interested in here, and it comprises only those players who showed great potential, won fewer than 8 games, and missed the series finals.
2. The Premature ej-applicators (lol, sorry)
This category includes anyone who applied to the show before they hit peak form. Non-apterites, or those who practise the game secretly cannot be included, as no-one is aware their skills have improved. There would be some overlap with "Unluckiest Losers" as the likes of Hazel Drury and Sam Prouse could fit both. However, this category can also be applied to some very successful contestants... e.g. Jack Worsley, Innis Carson, and yes, Callum Todd.
3. The Redeemed
This is for anyone for whom the original unlucky loss was actually a Godsend in hindsight... as they got to compete again and smash it. e.g. Zarte, T-Cap, Dan McC etc. (and hopefully Robbo someday...)
.
[4. Unluckiest Winners (I suppose)
Do we need a special category to cater for the Philip Aston dilemma? i.e. Someone who applied at the right time (approx peak form), did well on TV, but can still be considered unlucky due to *something noteworthy*.]
S:778-ochamp
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 425
- Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 2:32 pm
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
In category 1, I can't help thinking of poor old Jonny Rye.
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
I'm gung-ho for this now... so have been trying to work out a system for quantifying the "unluckiest loser" stat*.
There are certain (arbitrary, and subject to adjustment) thresholds to be met as regards winning max %, losing max %, and the relationship between losing max % and conqueror's overall max %. It's sort of complicated, so I won't bore you too much with the specifics.
Using S81 as a guinea pig series, I have applied the thresholds to all players, and come up with a list of 42 that *could* be eligible for 'unluckiest loser' status... However, I already know that that is a load of crap, as 42/126 is one third of the contestants, which is far too many!
Before the system gets tweaked, I'd like to run the names past ye...
1. [S81] Colin Beattie
2. [S81] Sam Digby
3. [S81] Libby Fawcett
4. [S81] Trevor Coates
5. [S81] Aaron Samuel
6. [S81] Darren Rampton
7. [S81] Katrina Bond
8. [S81] Caroline Raby
9. [S81] Stephen Mellor
10. [S81] Nina Gunton
11. [S81] Martin Garrett
12. [S81] Liam Bastick
13. [S81] Sarah Delap
14. [S81] Matt Sykes
15. [S81] Gerry Gray
16. [S81] Bekki Peckett
17. [S81] Abbie Arrowsmith
18. [S81] Daniel Smith
19. [S81] Geoff Pinney
20. [S81] Harry Robinson
21. [S81] Elliot Black
22. [S81] Matt Rosenfeld
23. [S81] Pierse Walsh
24. [S81] Mike Woodberry
25. [S81] Susie Fytche
26. [S81] Kay Goodsell
27. [S81] Alfie Webb
28. [S81] Lynne Scanlon
29. [S81] Ray Albrow
30. [S81] Paul Anderson
31. [S81] Ewen Alexander
32. [S81] Nick Parden
33. [S81] Peter Rattle
34. [S81] Greg Folgate
35. [S81] Peter Jackson
36. [S81] Alan Jones
37. [S81] Barbara Wylde
38. [S81] Joseph Bennett
39. [S81] Alex Stuart
40. [S81] Janice Collins
41. [S81] Jim Torpey
42. [S81] Stephen Rooney
Based purely on their stats and/or what you remember of their abilities from TV, which of these names stand out as people who definitely belong on an 'unlucky loser' list, and which names stand out as ones that most likely don't.
Link to the S81 page
[*Whether or where Corrina Attwood fits into all of this is anyone's guess...]
There are certain (arbitrary, and subject to adjustment) thresholds to be met as regards winning max %, losing max %, and the relationship between losing max % and conqueror's overall max %. It's sort of complicated, so I won't bore you too much with the specifics.
Using S81 as a guinea pig series, I have applied the thresholds to all players, and come up with a list of 42 that *could* be eligible for 'unluckiest loser' status... However, I already know that that is a load of crap, as 42/126 is one third of the contestants, which is far too many!
Before the system gets tweaked, I'd like to run the names past ye...
1. [S81] Colin Beattie
2. [S81] Sam Digby
3. [S81] Libby Fawcett
4. [S81] Trevor Coates
5. [S81] Aaron Samuel
6. [S81] Darren Rampton
7. [S81] Katrina Bond
8. [S81] Caroline Raby
9. [S81] Stephen Mellor
10. [S81] Nina Gunton
11. [S81] Martin Garrett
12. [S81] Liam Bastick
13. [S81] Sarah Delap
14. [S81] Matt Sykes
15. [S81] Gerry Gray
16. [S81] Bekki Peckett
17. [S81] Abbie Arrowsmith
18. [S81] Daniel Smith
19. [S81] Geoff Pinney
20. [S81] Harry Robinson
21. [S81] Elliot Black
22. [S81] Matt Rosenfeld
23. [S81] Pierse Walsh
24. [S81] Mike Woodberry
25. [S81] Susie Fytche
26. [S81] Kay Goodsell
27. [S81] Alfie Webb
28. [S81] Lynne Scanlon
29. [S81] Ray Albrow
30. [S81] Paul Anderson
31. [S81] Ewen Alexander
32. [S81] Nick Parden
33. [S81] Peter Rattle
34. [S81] Greg Folgate
35. [S81] Peter Jackson
36. [S81] Alan Jones
37. [S81] Barbara Wylde
38. [S81] Joseph Bennett
39. [S81] Alex Stuart
40. [S81] Janice Collins
41. [S81] Jim Torpey
42. [S81] Stephen Rooney
Based purely on their stats and/or what you remember of their abilities from TV, which of these names stand out as people who definitely belong on an 'unlucky loser' list, and which names stand out as ones that most likely don't.
Link to the S81 page
[*Whether or where Corrina Attwood fits into all of this is anyone's guess...]
S:778-ochamp
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Well another contender for that category must be Corrina, who despite winning her 8 games failed to make the finals. On the other hand, she could be a considered a lucky winner as her name remains on the exclusive list of unbeaten contestants.L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:02 pm [4. Unluckiest Winners (I suppose)
Do we need a special category to cater for the Philip Aston dilemma? i.e. Someone who applied at the right time (approx peak form), did well on TV, but can still be considered unlucky due to *something noteworthy*.]
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13324
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
I'd also question how many people you'd put on an "unluckiest" list. I'd probably be looking for 10 or so people over the whole history of Countdown, rather than every player who won a handful of games or averaged more than about 80.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
There's more than one way to be unlucky.
You can get drawn against a top player in the heats.
You can have a valid word disallowed (or your opponent can have an invalid word allowed).
You can get an 'impossible' crucial conundrum when you are behind, or a trivial one (50/50 shot) when you're ahead.
If you are a long way ahead and your opponent needs a nine letter word, you are unlucky if one is actually available.
Your opponent can take a desperate punt at an unlikely word he's made up - and get lucky.
For me the unluckiest loser is the one who has played well, lost narrowly, and had several of these happen. You are unlucky to draw Manchester City in the early rounds of the FA Cup. It takes a close game decided by a freak deflection and a terrible refereeing decision before it becomes noteworthy.
You can get drawn against a top player in the heats.
You can have a valid word disallowed (or your opponent can have an invalid word allowed).
You can get an 'impossible' crucial conundrum when you are behind, or a trivial one (50/50 shot) when you're ahead.
If you are a long way ahead and your opponent needs a nine letter word, you are unlucky if one is actually available.
Your opponent can take a desperate punt at an unlikely word he's made up - and get lucky.
For me the unluckiest loser is the one who has played well, lost narrowly, and had several of these happen. You are unlucky to draw Manchester City in the early rounds of the FA Cup. It takes a close game decided by a freak deflection and a terrible refereeing decision before it becomes noteworthy.
- Tracey Anne Mills
- Devotee
- Posts: 732
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:30 pm
- Location: The Series 72 Runner Up, The Crazy Cat Lady that lives with her two cats Freddie and Callie
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Matt Croy v Drew Halliburton series 65 heats, when Matt was looking for his 6th win and a possible shot at octochampdom but lost by 1 point on a crucial conundrum, that is why I think he deserves another bite at the cherry.L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:19 am Off the top of my head,
Philip Aston
Paul Anderson
Brendan Duke
Hazel Drury
Eddy Byrne
James Robinson
Callum Pickering
Patrick Thompson
Cammy Lovatt
James Rowan
George Armstrong
Aidan Linge
Anthony Endsor
Phil Hannan
Adam Dexter
Ian Linton
James Hall
Criteria* for an unlucky loser:-
1. Had octo-potential.
2. Was stopped in their tracks.
3. Their max rate - BEFORE they met their conqueror -was an average of 70% or higher.
Candidates like e.g. Philip and Paul are easy to spot when looking through the wiki, as they won so many before it all came tumbling down. I wonder can many of ye spot some of the others who are more likely to go under the radar, i.e. the ones who won just one game, or the ones who were (particularly talented) cannon fodder during the run of a mercurial talent?
In the world of 2020's Countdown, where you may get a 2nd (or even 3rd) bite at the cherry less than 5 years after your first try, these unlucky losers take on a particular significance as potential future finalists. (e.g. Zarte S, Martin M, Paul H, Paul N, Dinos S, Sandra P, Tony M, James K, Jeff C, Elliott M, etc. from the last decade.)
*inb4, I am aware that some of the names on that list do not fit the criteria... In those cases, current form is taken into consideration.
Tracey 'Old Enough To Be My Mum' Mills aka Crazy Cat Lady and Cat Lover
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Tracey Mills in knowing-stuff-about-Matt-Croy shocker!
(Has anyone ever made a thread about 'most telegenic contestants'?)
S:778-ochamp
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
From series 69:
Abdirizak Hirsi, who lost to Mark Hartnett
Mark Hartnett, who lost to Bradley Cates
Sean D (whose surname I can't remember - sorry Sean!) who I think also lost to Bradley Cates, but might be wrong.
Abdirizak Hirsi, who lost to Mark Hartnett
Mark Hartnett, who lost to Bradley Cates
Sean D (whose surname I can't remember - sorry Sean!) who I think also lost to Bradley Cates, but might be wrong.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
- Richard Priest
- Devotee
- Posts: 678
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:30 pm
- Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Ed Rossiter. Leading Scrabbler with definite octochamp potential who ran into Chris Davies after winning a few. Around series 61 I think.
-
- Acolyte
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:30 pm
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Mark Goodliffe, arguably the greatest cryptic crossword solver, lost to Oliver Garner in Series 62 having led by 26 points at half stage, only to.lose on conundrum.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:57 pm
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Reminded by the Dictionary Revival thread.
Helen Wrigglesworth, who lost by two points having suffered a 15 point swing through having ROADSIDE disallowed, because the COD10 economised on space by omitting compound words whose meaning was clear. They did give her another go, and dropped COD10 after a single day's filming.
http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_2682
I particularly remember Richard Whiteley saying to her opponent that he must be disappointed at winning the round in that way, and him clearly not being disappointed one bit.
Helen Wrigglesworth, who lost by two points having suffered a 15 point swing through having ROADSIDE disallowed, because the COD10 economised on space by omitting compound words whose meaning was clear. They did give her another go, and dropped COD10 after a single day's filming.
http://wiki.apterous.org/Episode_2682
I particularly remember Richard Whiteley saying to her opponent that he must be disappointed at winning the round in that way, and him clearly not being disappointed one bit.
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Very good shout I think, David.
On a more mundane note, I think Norm Ahmad might have been the Apterite with the highest rating at the time (1550-1600 iirc) not to make the series finals since I joined in 2015. Anyone know if Matt Croy or anyone else before Norm would have been higher? (I assume Zarte would have been, but I'm not really thinking of players who have since had another chance.)
On a more mundane note, I think Norm Ahmad might have been the Apterite with the highest rating at the time (1550-1600 iirc) not to make the series finals since I joined in 2015. Anyone know if Matt Croy or anyone else before Norm would have been higher? (I assume Zarte would have been, but I'm not really thinking of players who have since had another chance.)
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
From one point of view, I could be considered unlucky perhaps, but from another I've had a great experience that I wouldn't change at all, so sometimes you just gotta run with the hand you're dealt.
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Quite right!Paul Anderson wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:10 am From one point of view, I could be considered unlucky perhaps, but from another I've had a great experience that I wouldn't change at all, so sometimes you just gotta run with the hand you're dealt.
Perspective makes a difference.
You could argue that the likes of Dinos S and Mark M were rather fortunate to have not made the finals of their original series, as they got to experience the fun of it all for a 2nd time... (and get a pretty nice result to boot).
But for the purposes of the "unluckiest losers" list that I'm trying to compile, we're just looking at cold hard stats, and ignoring the human interest side of it.
S:778-ochamp
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Well, in that case, I'm happy to make your list!
Corrina must figure too, as she did all she was asked to do, won 8 games, 700 points, didn't get to show her stuff in the finals.
That's unlucky
Corrina must figure too, as she did all she was asked to do, won 8 games, 700 points, didn't get to show her stuff in the finals.
That's unlucky
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Ah now Gevin!Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 3:51 pm I'd also question how many people you'd put on an "unluckiest" list. I'd probably be looking for 10 or so people over the whole history of Countdown, rather than every player who won a handful of games or averaged more than about 80.
Where's the fun in that?
I reckon a list of around 800 would be more appropriate here... approx 10 per series.
And then rate that list from #1 to #800 based on an algorithm that has a dubious mathematical basis.
Then we can debate how crap the system is!
Nerdtastic times await...
S:778-ochamp
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
:::WARNING:::
There seems to have been a serious change of heart at Countdown Towers!
As we know, there have been quite a number of repeat contestants, particularly over the last decade.
The official line was that there had to be a 10 year gap, but unofficially ...if the gap was around 5, that'd be fine, especially if you hadn't won a show. (Think of the likes of Dan McColm and a few others having notably short gaps between appearances.)
Two contestants from 2017 (one from S76 and another from S77) recently applied for the show, passed the auditioned, and then were informed that it was too soon, and if they were still interested they could go back on in 2027! This is unexpected!
I wonder is this still discretionary, or is there now a definite 10-year rule in place?
One thing that certainly changed recently is that the host (started by Anne, with Colin following her lead) now mentions if a contestant has been on the show before... Before the 2020s, this was NEVER mentioned. It was as though it were a taboo topic, like Apterous. Perhaps now that a contestant's previous record on the show is more public domain, the producers want to be sure that the gap between appearances is never too short. Don't wanna appear too needy.
There seems to have been a serious change of heart at Countdown Towers!
As we know, there have been quite a number of repeat contestants, particularly over the last decade.
The official line was that there had to be a 10 year gap, but unofficially ...if the gap was around 5, that'd be fine, especially if you hadn't won a show. (Think of the likes of Dan McColm and a few others having notably short gaps between appearances.)
Two contestants from 2017 (one from S76 and another from S77) recently applied for the show, passed the auditioned, and then were informed that it was too soon, and if they were still interested they could go back on in 2027! This is unexpected!
I wonder is this still discretionary, or is there now a definite 10-year rule in place?
One thing that certainly changed recently is that the host (started by Anne, with Colin following her lead) now mentions if a contestant has been on the show before... Before the 2020s, this was NEVER mentioned. It was as though it were a taboo topic, like Apterous. Perhaps now that a contestant's previous record on the show is more public domain, the producers want to be sure that the gap between appearances is never too short. Don't wanna appear too needy.
S:778-ochamp
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2045
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Just because two people were rejected and told to apply again after it had been ten years, doesn't mean it isn't discretionary. "Discretionary" doesn't mean "the rule is never enforced", it just means "occasionally it might be waived depending on circumstances".L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:31 pm :::WARNING:::
There seems to have been a serious change of heart at Countdown Towers!
As we know, there have been quite a number of repeat contestants, particularly over the last decade.
The official line was that there had to be a 10 year gap, but unofficially ...if the gap was around 5, that'd be fine, especially if you hadn't won a show. (Think of the likes of Dan McColm and a few others having notably short gaps between appearances.)
Two contestants from 2017 (one from S76 and another from S77) recently applied for the show, passed the auditioned, and then were informed that it was too soon, and if they were still interested they could go back on in 2027! This is unexpected!
I wonder is this still discretionary, or is there now a definite 10-year rule in place?
Apterous has been referred to quite a few times, although not usually by name, presumably because they have to be careful about giving brand names undue prominence. Anyway, how would mentioning a player's previous appearance help the gap between appearances not be too short?L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:31 pm One thing that certainly changed recently is that the host (started by Anne, with Colin following her lead) now mentions if a contestant has been on the show before... Before the 2020s, this was NEVER mentioned. It was as though it were a taboo topic, like Apterous. Perhaps now that a contestant's previous record on the show is more public domain, the producers want to be sure that the gap between appearances is never too short. Don't wanna appear too needy.
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
I usually like the pedantic nerdery, but this is just exhaustingly dull from you Graeme. Reminds me of the time you defended Damian Eadie's chastising of the CD community because he was unable to get Moose Rosser interested in his CoC.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:55 pm Just because two people were rejected and told to apply again after it had been ten years, doesn't mean it isn't discretionary. "Discretionary" doesn't mean "the rule is never enforced", it just means "occasionally it might be waived depending on circumstances".
What I am implying here is that this is new.
I would like to hear some real life examples of people you know of who have re-applied or the show within the 10 year limit and been refused. I would argue that no reapplying contestant with a gap of 5+ years who failed to win a teapot first time around, had their reapplication postponed or refused in the period 2010-2020. Prove me wrong.
"Referred to quite a few times" counts for nothing unless it has been referred to by name, or -at a stretch- described well enough that a casual TV viewer could then find it based on the description given.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:55 pm Apterous has been referred to quite a few times, although not usually by name, presumably because they have to be careful about giving brand names undue prominence.
And if your theory that they can't be "supporting a commercial enterprise" is genuinely the reason why CD team forbid any mention of Apterous (if that is even true)... then they really are a shower of c**ts. The annual price for Apterous is so low, it hardly counts as a business enterprise. If the CEO and several staff members made a living off it, then maybe. I'm pretty sure the only beneficiary from the tiny subscription fee is Charlie, and that he needs to work full time with Apterous as a passion project on the side. (I may be wrong about some of those assumptions... but probably not by much.) Furthermore, Charlie Reams is part of the Countdown Family. He is a beloved alumnus. When I mentioned his name to Susie Dent in 2017, a spontaneous smile broke out and she said, "I love Charlie." If they are happy to mention Rachel's book now and then, and to plug Susie's books so aggressively that they are included in the goodie bag and shown onscreen in every other episode, it would not kill them to give an occasional plug to one of their brightest and best sentinels. As regards plugging other commercial enterprises that have ZERO connection to Countdown, Rachel in her opening comments has mentioned that vile "Twitter" website more times than I have cared to hear it... I am pretty sure Jack Dorsey (or whoever owns it now) does not need the plug, and he is more than making a living off the site.
This is smug, and probably shouldn't be justified with an answer, but I'll bite.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:55 pm Anyway, how would mentioning a player's previous appearance help the gap between appearances not be too short?
The length will actually stay the same, Graeme! Excellent sleuthing there.
But this is not about immutable facts about the time space continuum, it is about optics. You mention it, people are more aware of it, perhaps they google the contestant. Perhaps there are complaints if that person was only on, say, 2 years ago. However, if you let that point go under the radar, significantly fewer people will register it. Much lower chance of any complaints coming in.
S:778-ochamp
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2045
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
How do you know it's new? No, I don't know of any other cases of applications being rejected, just as I don't know who these 2017 contestants are or what discretionary treatment they felt should apply, if any. But that doesn't mean such cases don't exist, it just means the Countdown team don't personally notify us about every application they reject.L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:56 pmI usually like the pedantic nerdery, but this is just exhaustingly dull from you Graeme. Reminds me of the time you defended Damian Eadie's chastising of the CD community because he was unable to get Moose Rosser interested in his CoC.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:55 pm Just because two people were rejected and told to apply again after it had been ten years, doesn't mean it isn't discretionary. "Discretionary" doesn't mean "the rule is never enforced", it just means "occasionally it might be waived depending on circumstances".
What I am implying here is that this is new.
I would like to hear some real life examples of people you know of who have re-applied or the show within the 10 year limit and been refused. I would argue that no reapplying contestant with a gap of 5+ years who failed to win a teapot first time around, had their reapplication postponed or refused in the period 2010-2020. Prove me wrong.
All you've proved is that some applications get refused because the applicant has been on too recently, and that there's some kind of 10-year rule which hasn't always been strictly applied. You imply there's been some kind of significant change in policy recently, but I can't see it. Applications for game shows get rejected all the time - maybe all that's changed is that this time you got to hear about it?
Surely you can see how a passing mention to Twitter in some wider chat about social media, or a brief shot of the prizes a contestant has won, is less likely to be considered "undue prominence" than if a presenter suddenly segued into an endorsement of a named online word game?L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:56 pm"Referred to quite a few times" counts for nothing unless it has been referred to by name, or -at a stretch- described well enough that a casual TV viewer could then find it based on the description given.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:55 pm Apterous has been referred to quite a few times, although not usually by name, presumably because they have to be careful about giving brand names undue prominence.
And if your theory that they can't be "supporting a commercial enterprise" is genuinely the reason why CD team forbid any mention of Apterous (if that is even true)... then they really are a shower of c**ts. The annual price for Apterous is so low, it hardly counts as a business enterprise. If the CEO and several staff members made a living off it, then maybe. I'm pretty sure the only beneficiary from the tiny subscription fee is Charlie, and that he needs to work full time with Apterous as a passion project on the side. (I may be wrong about some of those assumptions... but probably not by much.) Furthermore, Charlie Reams is part of the Countdown Family. He is a beloved alumnus. When I mentioned his name to Susie Dent in 2017, a spontaneous smile broke out and she said, "I love Charlie." If they are happy to mention Rachel's book now and then, and to plug Susie's books so aggressively that they are included in the goodie bag and shown onscreen in every other episode, it would not kill them to give an occasional plug to one of their brightest and best sentinels. As regards plugging other commercial enterprises that have ZERO connection to Countdown, Rachel in her opening comments has mentioned that vile "Twitter" website more times than I have cared to hear it... I am pretty sure Jack Dorsey (or whoever owns it now) does not need the plug, and he is more than making a living off the site.
And the idea that different hosts might make different kinds of small talk with the contestants doesn't seem plausible to you? I think that's more likely than some subtle conspiracy around announcing or not announcing whether someone's been on before.L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 10:56 pmThis is smug, and probably shouldn't be justified with an answer, but I'll bite.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:55 pm Anyway, how would mentioning a player's previous appearance help the gap between appearances not be too short?
The length will actually stay the same, Graeme! Excellent sleuthing there.
But this is not about immutable facts about the time space continuum, it is about optics. You mention it, people are more aware of it, perhaps they google the contestant. Perhaps there are complaints if that person was only on, say, 2 years ago. However, if you let that point go under the radar, significantly fewer people will register it. Much lower chance of any complaints coming in.
- L'oisleatch McGraw
- Devotee
- Posts: 930
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
- Location: Waterford
- Contact:
Re: Who are Countdown's unluckiest losers?
Ok. Yes, this is a theory. There is a bit of gut feeling involved. But there is almost certainly some truth in it.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:34 pm How do you know it's new? No, I don't know of any other cases of applications being rejected, just as I don't know who these 2017 contestants are or what discretionary treatment they felt should apply, if any. But that doesn't mean such cases don't exist, it just means the Countdown team don't personally notify us about every application they reject.
All you've proved is that some applications get refused because the applicant has been on too recently, and that there's some kind of 10-year rule which hasn't always been strictly applied. You imply there's been some kind of significant change in policy recently, but I can't see it. Applications for game shows get rejected all the time - maybe all that's changed is that this time you got to hear about it?
Of the two contestants in question... neither are Apterites, one is a lady who won a 2 or 3 games in S76. Just after her loss, she was consoled by a member of the CD staff who advised her to reapply "in two years or so" -that's a direct quote. The second appeared in S77, and won no teapot as he lost to an Octochamp - just like so many of the zillions of people on this list. Is your (similarly unsubstantiated) theory that contestants who get a wait time of <10 years will only qualify for an early reappearance if they have some sort of sob story attached? I find that highly unlikely to be true. Countdown is not X-Factor.
No. Don't minimise this. Twitter is NOT simply a part of everyday life. It is a business and a brand. A horribly bloated overly successful brand, yes, but a brand nonetheless, and as such should be given the same treatment as any other brand, as regards free plugs. Some of Rachel's references to Twitter have been lengthy and utterly unnecessary, rather than a "wider chat". She speaks of the site as though it is something every one is familiar with. It is not. It is only for narcissists and cnuts.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:34 pm Surely you can see how a passing mention to Twitter in some wider chat about social media, or a brief shot of the prizes a contestant has won, is less likely to be considered "undue prominence" than if a presenter suddenly segued into an endorsement of a named online word game?
I am not suggesting that the presenter say one word about Apterous... ("suddenly segued into and endorsement of" is a pretty hilarious reimagining of my point, so cheers for that. Not exhaustingly dull this time! ) It is cringeworthy to see Apterites squirm and struggle for an answer any time the host specifically quizzes them on how they practise, how they got so good, whether they read the dictionary daily, etc. Ridiculous that Apterous does not get mentioned at those times. Definitely more relevant to the natural conversation of the show than Twitter ever could be. The word "Apterous" by this stage should be as familiar to regular viewers as AUTOPEN, GODETIA or GIAOUR.
Ok. So you still don't understand the point I am making.Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 11:34 pm And the idea that different hosts might make different kinds of small talk with the contestants doesn't seem plausible to you? I think that's more likely than some subtle conspiracy around announcing or not announcing whether someone's been on before.
I will try explain more clearly...
Here is what I think, in point form:-
1. Anne Robinson made a habit of referring to contestants' previous appearances.
2. This had been not done on the show for at least a decade... (perhaps never before? I don't know the full history of hosts pre-2008.)
3. Then maybe there was negative feedback from viewers about the likes of -perhaps- Eddy being allowed back before 10 years had elapsed, perhaps from salty ex-contestants who had been told 10 years and had been patiently waiting like good citizens should.
4. Maybe it wasn't that (but it probably was). One way or another, there has been a firming up around the 10 year rule, and that firming up is very very recent.
5. Why this seems highly probable, is that potential returning contestants from 2017 have recently been informed that they must wait a full 10 years before appearing again.
6. These two contestants VERY MUCH fit the mould of contestants who -till recently- would have been allowed go back on after 4 or 5 years, i.e. a talented player who was unlucky to lose their only game to an Octo, and a female contestant (assuming they more readily accept female contestants to ensure a healthy gender balance... I think that is a thing, but am not 100% sure.)
7. From personal experience, I have not heard of anyone AT ALL being told after audition that there was a 10 year rule and that they would have to wait. And there have been plenty of return contestants.
8. You try to dismiss this next point as not relevant... but it is actually VITAL to the establishment of any realistic quashing of my theory. Can you furnish me with details of contestants you have heard of before now who had their application rejected, with the reason given being that they had not waited 10 years yet. If no-one here can do that... the theory is looking particularly strong.
S:778-ochamp