c4countdown

Yep. The rest of us got a slightly smaller glass trophy. Countdown really isn't the program to go on if you want big prizes.

Lucy Gowers wrote:

Jeff Clayton wrote:Can anyone confirm if the early morning repeats of Countdown are shown two-and-a-half days after the original afternoon broadcast?

If so, will the programme scheduled for 5:10am on Monday 2 February be a re-run of Friday's final?

TIA
Jeff

Yes. That's right Jeff.

Just to clarify, the early morning repeats are not on Tuesdays and Wednesdays but are on Saturdays and Sundays, so the 2.5 days formula can vary.

And in case you were wondering why Jon hasn't posted, I have just got back from baby-sitting his children- he went out on the piste straight from work and won't have seen the final yet. Well done Stephen, Charlie should have changed his shirt for luck - I could still see Jon's tear stains all over the shoulder...............

Well in everyone on a fantastic C of C. It was a pleasure to watch... even more so for not having to write reviews any more, haha. Those were a miserable set of numbers games. I got none of them.

Oddly I did R10 for 835 by going ( 50 * ( 10 + 6 ) ) + 25 + 10. leaving the 6 left over. Spot the pillock.

R11: a highlight, I've never heard of either word. Awesome stuff.

As others mention, I was quite expecting more of a presentation/gathering and all that like at the end of a series. Bit disappointed by that, the C of C being such a big event and all.

As with C of C 12, we shall all have to get used to regular games again, perhaps it is now Rachel's time. It is of course more likely she will find solutions the contestants miss. Not done too badly at all thus far I think.

DC

Michael Wallace wrote:Felt a bit sorry for Rachel today - after looking up solutions for the numbers (was surprised neither player got 831 as outlined above - my first thought was 52*16) they look like pretty hard ones.

Rachel seems only to have worked out one or two since she started: she either hasn't had to (unsurprising of course given that it's been a CoC run) or she has failed. Wonder of she feels a bit under pressure to make it look as easy as Carol did? I guess now that the 'ordinary' shows are about to resume, she'll have more opportunities to show her abilities.
Nice to see her and Jeff starting to settle in, though, even if Jeff's 'jokes' often seem to fall a bit flat (IMHO).

Tracey Lilly wrote:Well done Steve and Charlie for an excellent game.
Pity there wasn't a presentation of some description.

I was surprised about this too. Given that a CoC final is surely a 'bigger' event than a series final, I'd have expected some kind of reasonably grand presentation. It seems to me that everything is kept deliberately more low-key with the two new hosts, but then this is the first CoC that I've seen, so cannot compare with previous ones (presumably the last one was when Richard Whiteley was still with us, and I wasn't a regular viewer then).

Well done to Steven on his deserved victory. The motivation of his shock early round series exit has obviously spurred him on to this great success. The final was not a classic but from the reviews it looks like the two best players reached the final.

Interesting that people were disappointed that there was no presentation/gathering at the end of Friday's show. There wasn't one at the end of the last C of C- we got a few words from Des Lynam and Carol. For whatever reason, they do a presentation for the series final but not the C of C.

Paul

Paul Gallen wrote:Well done to Steven on his deserved victory. The motivation of his shock early round series exit has obviously spurred him on to this great success.

I've thought about this before - had you beaten Mark Tournoff in the series final, do you think you wouldn't have become the player you did at the CofC?

The final was not a classic but from the reviews it looks like the two best players reached the final.

No offence to Charlie but I do think the Briers - O'Donnell match was the classic game of the tournament and probably would have been a better match-up for the final. Charlie put in that brilliant performance against Corby but I wouldn't put him as the second best player. (Obviously this highlights one of the few disadvantages about having the players as people on the forum - it makes you feel awkward about saying this stuff).

Howard Somerset wrote:What an excellent CofC. I'd thought earlier that the standard of CofC12 could not be equalled. But I was wrong. These last three weeks have been brilliant. Congratulations to all contestants.

I still think the last CofC stands above any other in terms of quality. These CofC players were obviously all very good, but to me the last one really stood out.

Gavin Chipper wrote: No offence to Charlie but I do think the Briers - O'Donnell match was the classic game of the tournament and probably would have been a better match-up for the final. Charlie put in that brilliant performance against Corby but I wouldn't put him as the second best player. (Obviously this highlights one of the few disadvantages about having the players as people on the forum - it makes you feel awkward about saying this stuff).

No, I absolutely agree. Whoever won that match deserved to take the title.

Martin Gardner wrote:

Nick Wainwright wrote:Great final today I thought to round off a good start to the new Countdown era.

Congratulations to Steven who, in my opinion, was a very worthy winner of the tournament and well played to Charlie who must have had one of the most entertaining run of games of any Countdown contestant - the conundrum declaration of gandiseeg being a fitting end.

I suppose one thing that Charlie can say, is that he played 15 games - the maximum under the current system, ignoring any future specials.

Yes, well played both Charlie and Steven and congratulations to Steven. I guess many of us were cheering Charlie on as he runs this forum, and no disrespect was meant towards Steven who is a brilliant player.

I imagine under the Countdown rules it's unlikely we'll see Charlie playing again, but, I would love to see a "best of three" Charlie V Junaid. If you two guys are up to it, perhaps we should pester C4 by emailing requests for a final "Showdown"!!! What does everyone think? Perhaps we should start a new thread on this?

Charlie Reams wrote:Countdown really isn't the program to go on if you want big prizes.

I don't know about anyone else, but for me this is one of the major appeals of the game. The best players are pursuing achievements in the game rather than pursuing a large amount of cash or whatever.

I'm not sure "wogan's recall" or whatever it's called or Brainteaser really attract the same sort of passion.

DC

Congratulations, Steven, and well done!

And well done to the rest of you who have made it such an enjoyable tournament, particularly because we feel we 'know' so many of you from here. Having your familiar mugs on the box has also helped to make the transition to the next Countdown stage a lot easier.

I'm looking forward to next week, though it will be odd having 'normal' players again, even if it does mean the rest of us will feel much more sure of our own capabilities playing along at home.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote: No offence to Charlie but I do think the Briers - O'Donnell match was the classic game of the tournament and probably would have been a better match-up for the final. Charlie put in that brilliant performance against Corby but I wouldn't put him as the second best player. (Obviously this highlights one of the few disadvantages about having the players as people on the forum - it makes you feel awkward about saying this stuff).

No, I absolutely agree. Whoever won that match deserved to take the title.

I think Steven was the best player of the tournament - I think his two scores of 121 and 118 where the top two of the tournament - not that many centuries in total, mainly because the standard was so high - the players kept stopping each other getting 100. As for the second best player, Corby was good but didn't get a century in any game. Nick also got a century in his first game, but I think Charlie with his score of 110 was maybe the performance of the tournament - noting that if he'd got the conundrum that would be 120 without a nine, which would equal Beavers' record. I don't think it quite reached the heights of the previous CofC tournament - I think mainly because the conundrums were so damn difficult, the games that went to crucial conundrums, I think it's much more exciting when someone buzzes in on one second, but in the end nobody buzzed at all. How many of the crucial conundrum were actually solved by either player? I can only recall the very first game.

Still, I think nobody's taken Gallen's crown as the best CofC performer ever.

Chris Corby wrote:Just to clarify, the early morning repeats are not on Tuesdays and Wednesdays but are on Saturdays and Sundays, so the 2.5 days formula can vary.

Sorry to correct you, Chris, but unless it's changed, the repeats ARE usually 2.5 days behind, as follows:

Mon pm repeated Thu am
Tue pm repeated Fri am
Wed pm repeated Sat am
Thu pm repeated Sun am
Fri pm repeated Mon am.

On a related note (but getting dangerously off-topic for this thread, but then what's new?), I wonder if More4 is going to start repeating Countdown again? Shame if they don't, surely that would be a sign of a lack of support from within C4 Towers?

Andy Clews wrote:

Tracey Lilly wrote:Well done Steve and Charlie for an excellent game.
Pity there wasn't a presentation of some description.

I was surprised about this too. Given that a CoC final is surely a 'bigger' event than a series final, I'd have expected some kind of reasonably grand presentation. It seems to me that everything is kept deliberately more low-key with the two new hosts, but then this is the first CoC that I've seen, so cannot compare with previous ones (presumably the last one was when Richard Whiteley was still with us, and I wasn't a regular viewer then).

Not really- the series final is something that's been worked towards for six months (as said at the beginning of each one, 2000 applied, 120 entered, now we have 2). A c of c, on the other hand, whilst immensely prestigious, is an invitational tournament lasting three weeks. Or, as I like to refer to it, a three-day piss-up interspersed with the occasional recording session. I for one hope Damo doesn't so away with it, it does its job brilliantly- showcasing the best of the best players in a way a normal series finals round can't.

Ben Wilson wrote:I for one hope Damo doesn't so away with it, it does its job brilliantly- showcasing the best of the best players in a way a normal series finals round can't.

Hear, hear. (Oh dear, isn't that a bit like "me too"...?)

Mike Brown wrote:

Ben Wilson wrote:I for one hope Damo doesn't so away with it, it does its job brilliantly- showcasing the best of the best players in a way a normal series finals round can't.

Hear, hear. (Oh dear, isn't that a bit like "me too"...?)

Me too!

Me too too!

I'd also like to congratulate Steve on a great performance, Charlie for his grace and gandiseeg in defeat, and all the other COCers for a fantastic series of 3 days (or is it 15?)

Now onto the series proper, and I hope Jeff and Rachel can continue the vibe. They've had a good start thanks to some excellent games, and look like they'll make a good team.

Tim.

Well done Steve(n) on your prestigious title. I'll feel smug for days knowing I armchair beat you by 31 points

An excellent final which I've only just seen as I was on a weekend holiday in a forest. I had two DC beaters with MINNEOLA (round 4) and SELENITE (round 11) but it was fantastic to watch. That's twice now Charlie has buzzed in with 1 second to go to say something funny. Great stuff to watch - well done lads.

Next week will be interesting - I wonder how long it will be before Jeff and Rachel notice a remarkable difference in abilities of the contestants.

Kirk Bevins wrote:An excellent final which I've only just seen as I was on a weekend holiday in a forest. I had two DC beaters with MINNEOLA (round 4) and SELENITE (round 11) but it was fantastic to watch. That's twice now Charlie has buzzed in with 1 second to go to say something funny. Great stuff to watch - well done lads.

Next week will be interesting - I wonder how long it will be before Jeff and Rachel notice a remarkable difference in abilities of the contestants.

Does anyone know anyone who was recording who might let us know in advance...

Ben Wilson wrote: Not really- the series final is something that's been worked towards for six months (as said at the beginning of each one, 2000 applied, 120 entered, now we have 2). A c of c, on the other hand, whilst immensely prestigious, is an invitational tournament lasting three weeks.

Ah, I see. I didn't realise C of C was *invitational*. That explains why I noticed two obvious absentees (no names, no pack drill, but one was a beaten finalist who got a bit overexcited on the day, and the other a series winner who appeared too scared to smile lest it killed him). I was surprised but to be honest rather pleased that they didn't feature in the C of C. No offence intended

Andy Clews wrote:

Ben Wilson wrote: Not really- the series final is something that's been worked towards for six months (as said at the beginning of each one, 2000 applied, 120 entered, now we have 2). A c of c, on the other hand, whilst immensely prestigious, is an invitational tournament lasting three weeks.

Ah, I see. I didn't realise C of C was *invitational*. That explains why I noticed two obvious absentees (no names, no pack drill, but one was a beaten finalist who got a bit overexcited on the day, and the other a series winner who appeared too scared to smile lest it killed him). I was surprised but to be honest rather pleased that they didn't feature in the C of C. No offence intended

Several people were invited but did not attend for various reasons.

Martin Gardner wrote:

Joseph Bolas wrote:

Tracey Lilly wrote:Poor Rachel - what stinky numbers and I bet Carol devotees were shouting at the camera ' Bet Carol would have got it'

I don't think so. The first and third numbers were solveable but only had 1 solution each and the second numbers you could get only 1 away, again though there was only 1 solution. They were very hard.

Yeah there have been zero numbers beaters posted here, but two letters games beaters. I tried about 5 minutes on each of them after the game finished, and got one away for all three, but nothing better.

In retrospect I didn't get the third game either.

Thanks to everyone for their words of congratulations and compliments, and apologies for not posting sooner; I've lost my Internet connection and have had to rely on others (college etc.) to access the forum. It still hasn't totally sunk in yet. Charlie was a great guy; as was everyone who was involved in the tournament. Although I don't think I could quite be placed in the same league as Paul in the last CofC. Standard aside, there seemed to be a lot more focus on good sportsmanship rather than the competition, which made it in a way more entertaining, and a privilege to be a part of.

However, referring to the final, I think REENACT was probably one of the stupidest mistakes I've ever made; it didn't even look right when written down so why I opted for it over CATERAN I'll never know.

Steven Briers wrote:Charlie was a great guy.

Not to mention, a funny guy!