c4countdown

Clever and hot, much like myself.

A deadly combination.

Didn't Carol split time with someone else during the first series? I thought Cathy Huytner did the letters board, and Carol and A.N.Other the numbers, alternate weeks?

David Roe wrote:Didn't Carol split time with someone else during the first series? I thought Cathy Huytner did the letters board, and Carol and A.N.Other the numbers, alternate weeks?

Going by the first episode, Beverley Isherwood (I think it was, but might be wrong), actually picked out the numbers and put them on the board, but it was Carol who did the solving part.

Edit: Beverley Isherwood was a former Miss England winner and Miss United Kingdom finalist, and apparently a favourite of Cecil Korer. She was Countdown's original "numbers girl" until it was realised that having a separate hostess just to put numbers up on the board was rather silly, and the task was given to Cathy Hytner instead.

Excellent choice!

Thinking of changing your avatar Corby??

The photo of Jeff and Rachel in front of the board makes me indescribably happy. Well done and thank you to everyone at Countdown HQ who worked so hard to make it happen.

Excellent.

Thanks guys.

If I wasn't already excited about CoC, I am almost uncontrollable now!!! 16 days to go....

David Roe wrote:Didn't Carol split time with someone else during the first series? I thought Cathy Huytner did the letters board, and Carol and A.N.Other the numbers, alternate weeks?

You're thinking of Linda Barrett.

http://www.countdownwiki.com/Linda_Barrett

Charlie Reams wrote:The photo of Jeff and Rachel in front of the board makes me indescribably happy. Well done and thank you to everyone at Countdown HQ who worked so hard to make it happen.

It just looks so right to see them both there. I'm relieved.

Fantastic that Jeff has got the host's job, and as he might say, 'Rachel's Old Mother will be pleased !'.

Interesting.

David Roe wrote:Didn't Carol split time with someone else during the first series? I thought Cathy Huytner did the letters board, and Carol and A.N.Other the numbers, alternate weeks?

Cathy Hytner used to put the letters and numbers on the board and Carol would do the solutions, then when Cathy left Carol combined the 2 roles.

Looking forward to seeing how they get on and hearing how they are with the contestants, audience etc.

I can't say as I like that dress much.

Martin Gardner wrote:I can't say as I like that dress much.

...can't say I like your vest much, mate.

KateHorton wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:I can't say as I like that dress much.

...can't say I like your vest much, mate.

Martin Gardner wrote:I can't say as I like that dress much.

Beyond belief. Well actually, not. Its you.

KateHorton wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:I can't say as I like that dress much.

...can't say I like your vest much, mate.

Nice one Kate. What a team.

Will there be any changes to the format, I wonder?

If we are to believe that Rachel is to get the same money as Carol was being offered (surely not - that really would imply they wanted to force Carol out), then presumably she gets second billing and takes over all that Carol did. Or is Susie now "Senior Assistant", in which case she might well introduce the DC guest, for example, though I've always thought that should be the host's job. And does Susie continue to get help with words, but Rachel is on her own with the numbers?

Not seen a lot of Jeff Stelling, but it all looks very promising to me. And if we have to have guests in DC, lets have more like John Inverdale and Pam Ayres. No telling lies, no showing off, normal people with a bit of intelligence and talent who actually make a contribution to your afternoon's entertainment.

David

David Williams wrote:Will there be any changes to the format, I wonder?

If we are to believe that Rachel is to get the same money as Carol was being offered (surely not - that really would imply they wanted to force Carol out), then presumably she gets second billing and takes over all that Carol did. Or is Susie now "Senior Assistant", in which case she might well introduce the DC guest, for example, though I've always thought that should be the host's job. And does Susie continue to get help with words, but Rachel is on her own with the numbers?

Not seen a lot of Jeff Stelling, but it all looks very promising to me. And if we have to have guests in DC, lets have more like John Inverdale and Pam Ayres. No telling lies, no showing off, normal people with a bit of intelligence and talent who actually make a contribution to your afternoon's entertainment.

David

No change to the format, apart from that Jeff will intro the guests.

Here's to a new era. We have to give them time to settle in though. It must be quite daunting for them both. Jeff who? Is it cos I is not a sporting person, but never heard of him!

Sue Sheldon wrote:Here's to a new era. We have to give them time to settle in though. It must be quite daunting for them both. Jeff who? Is it cos I is not a sporting person, but never heard of him!

Daily Mirror online tells you 10 things about Jeff Stelling.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/latest/2 ... -20913662/

Damian E wrote:No change to the format, apart from that Jeff will intro the guests.

I may not be sure about Mr Stelling yet, but a big hurrah from me for that! And I agree with David, the more guests that appear to play along, don't obviously lie about how they got the long words, and show a degree of humility, the better.

Did anyone else except me notice an error in the title of the dailymail article (the first link Damo posted)? It repeats Oxford.

Kirk Bevins wrote:Did anyone else except me notice an error in the title of the dailymail article (the first link Damo posted)? It repeats Oxford.

Must admit that I didn't. It reminds me of that well-known test where you are shown a sign that says "I Love Paris In The The Spring" (with a new line separating the 'the's) and most people only 'see' one of the 'the's. A case of the brain only seeing what it wants or needs to.

Mike Brown wrote:...A case of the brain only seeing what it wants or needs to.

Which of course in this case was the delightful Ms Riley

Mike Brown wrote:

Kirk Bevins wrote:Did anyone else except me notice an error in the title of the dailymail article (the first link Damo posted)? It repeats Oxford.

Must admit that I didn't. It reminds me of that well-known test where you are shown a sign that says "I Love Paris In The The Spring" (with a new line separating the 'the's) and most people only 'see' one of the 'the's. A case of the brain only seeing what it wants or needs to.

Yeah, that's the example I was thinking of too, Mike!

Mike Brown wrote:

Damian E wrote:No change to the format, apart from that Jeff will intro the guests.

I may not be sure about Mr Stelling yet, but a big hurrah from me for that! And I agree with David, the more guests that appear to play along, don't obviously lie about how they got the long words, and show a degree of humility, the better.

How do you know they are lying?

I think its analysis-overkill that claims your head on these matters.

Damian E wrote:How do you know they are lying?

I think its analysis-overkill that claims your head on these matters.

Not saying they all do, but some of the guests seem so uninterested in the game and they then come up with some obscure nine-letter word. And isn't analysis-overkill part of what we do on here?

Mike Brown wrote:

Damian E wrote:How do you know they are lying?

I think its analysis-overkill that claims your head on these matters.

Not saying they all do, but some of the guests seem so uninterested in the game and they then come up with some obscure nine-letter word. And isn't analysis-overkill part of what we do on here?

Which guests seem uninterested? Curious to know.

Yeah, anaylsis-overkill is all about what happens on here, sure. But there is analysis and then there is scrimmaging for negatives for the sake of it. Given that we make 250 shows a year, i think variety is important, whether it be something good or bad.

Edit to add, not accusing you of being negative for the sake of it btw, BUT there are some on here who could win the Euro Millions Lottery next week but would still be pissed off 24hrs later.

Jeff is the best choice the team could have made, i love watching him on soccer saturday, although he does jinx my bets nearly every week

Rachel seems great as well, cant wait to see them on screen.

David Williams wrote:If we are to believe that Rachel is to get the same money as Carol was being offered (surely not - that really would imply they wanted to force Carol out), then presumably she gets second billing and takes over all that Carol did.

I'm sure Channel 4 would rather axe the show than give Rachel anything like Carol's salary. The demographic that buys walk-in baths can't be that lucrative.

Damian E wrote:No change to the format, apart from that Jeff will intro the guests.

If you're keeping Susie's solo spot, then please: after the second numbers game, not before.

Damian E wrote:

Mike Brown wrote:

Damian E wrote:How do you know they are lying?

I think its analysis-overkill that claims your head on these matters.

Not saying they all do, but some of the guests seem so uninterested in the game and they then come up with some obscure nine-letter word. And isn't analysis-overkill part of what we do on here?

Which guests seem uninterested? Curious to know.

Nigel Rees certainly did in one of my shows, pretty sure Martin Jarvis did as well.

Martin Gardner wrote:I can't say as I like that dress much.

In fairness that was a poor choice of words. I have to say that I see a lot of girls at the University that wear really short skirts or hot pants and I find it "girlish" rather than "womanly". I think knee-length or just above the knee covers up a lot more, but is actually more sophisticated and sexier. So I was referring to the dress, not to her. I think she's very good looking and it would be hard for me to make another comment on her because she hasn't actually filmed a show yet. But certainly the degree at Oxford, the other skills, they are all there.

Re: Wikipedia, she's listed as an English television presenter, is she actually originally from England? There's no reason why she couldn't be Scottish, Welsh or Irish.

Martin Gardner wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:I can't say as I like that dress much.

In fairness that was a poor choice of words. I have to say that I see a lot of girls at the University that wear really short skirts or hot pants and I find it "girlish" rather than "womanly". I think knee-length or just above the knee covers up a lot more, but is actually more sophisticated and sexier. So I was referring to the dress, not to her. I think she's very good looking and it would be hard for me to make another comment on her because she hasn't actually filmed a show yet. But certainly the degree at Oxford, the other skills, they are all there.

Re: Wikipedia, she's listed as an English television presenter, is she actually originally from England? There's no reason why she couldn't be Scottish, Welsh or Irish.

Are you a warm blooded man, Martin?

Damian E wrote: Which guests seem uninterested? Curious to know.

Yeah, anaylsis-overkill is all about what happens on here, sure. But there is analysis and then there is scrimmaging for negatives for the sake of it. Given that we make 250 shows a year, i think variety is important, whether it be something good or bad.

Not sure I wish to name names in a public forum, but they certainly exist (maybe I'll PM you). You can probably think of some yourself, but I don't expect you to say who they are. And of course there are always going to be differences of opinion on who are the good and bad guests, that's all part of what makes life interesting.

Damian E wrote:Edit to add, not accusing you of being negative for the sake of it btw, BUT there are some on here who could win the Euro Millions Lottery next week but would still be pissed off 24hrs later.

Jennifer Turner wrote:

David Williams wrote:If we are to believe that Rachel is to get the same money as Carol was being offered (surely not - that really would imply they wanted to force Carol out), then presumably she gets second billing and takes over all that Carol did.

I'm sure Channel 4 would rather axe the show than give Rachel anything like Carol's salary. The demographic that buys walk-in baths can't be that lucrative.

Damian E wrote:No change to the format, apart from that Jeff will intro the guests.

If you're keeping Susie's solo spot, then please: after the second numbers game, not before.

Sorry, it stays where it is.

Damian E wrote:

Mike Brown wrote:

Damian E wrote:How do you know they are lying?

BUT there are some on here who could win the Euro Millions Lottery next week but would still be pissed off 24hrs later.

I'd still be pissed 24 hours later but I don't think that's what you meant.

Looking forward to the new combo and you weren't lying when you told me Carol's replacement wouldn't disappoint: she may be a little distracting though [Excellent: I now have a great excuse for losing to James!]

Personally, I am glad that Armstrong pulled out - it's understandable that such a cutting edge comedian/bass singer (in fact he had a comedy show so cutting edge that nobody watched it) would find Countdown a little meek for his tastes after all it's no Pimm's advert.

David O'Donnell wrote:

Damian E wrote:How do you know they are lying?

BUT there are some on here who could win the Euro Millions Lottery next week but would still be pissed off 24hrs later.

I'd still be pissed 24 hours later but I don't think that's what you meant.

You'd be pissed 24 hours before!

Good to see that the new pairing is taking the C of C - at least they won't have to worry about the contestants not knowing what to do for the first few shows.

I think it's going to be amazing. Watching Jeff on Soccer Saturday yesterday just reinforced how potentially brilliant he could be on Countdown if he's allowed to do his own thing (and I'm sure he will be). It'll be interesting to see how much Rachel gets involved in the show; it would be understandable if her role is similar to the role of Carol twenty years ago, but it would be much better if she's involved more heavily and allowed to build up a rapport with Jeff and Susie from the start.

Anyway, I'm blathering, Damian & Co. know better than I do how these things work and I'm sure everything will be great. Super-great. And excellent.

Charlie Reams wrote:The photo of Jeff and Rachel in front of the board makes me indescribably happy. Well done and thank you to everyone at Countdown HQ who worked so hard to make it happen.

Interestingly I thought I'd beaten Apterous Rex in this game but it turned out I had the wrong spelling for the conundrum! http://apterous.org/viewgame.php?game=11764

Well done to all concerned in getting those two. I'm sure the programme will continue to be a success.

And thanks Dinos, for letting me know while I was away for the weekend.

Jennifer Turner wrote:

Damian E wrote:No change to the format, apart from that Jeff will intro the guests.

If you're keeping Susie's solo spot, then please: after the second numbers game, not before.

Seconded!

Julie T wrote:

Jennifer Turner wrote:

Damian E wrote:No change to the format, apart from that Jeff will intro the guests.

If you're keeping Susie's solo spot, then please: after the second numbers game, not before.

Seconded!

Thirded

Fourthed (*runs and hides from Damian* )

Lesley Jeavons wrote:Fourthed (*runs and hides from Damian* )

I'll jump on that bandwagon. Fifthed.

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Lesley Jeavons wrote:Fourthed (*runs and hides from Damian* )

I'll jump on that bandwagon. Fifthed.

I must be the only person who prefers Susie's segment before the numbers. Its a nice little break before the numbers round (which would've come in very very handy on my game... possibly).

I also like where the slot is. It can prove to be valuable run-up time to a hardcore six small.

Jeff

Jeff Clayton wrote:I also like where the slot is.

Jeff

Wayhey!

Ms Riley is a former pupil of Southend High School for Girls and grew up in nearby Thorpe Bay, the local Evening Echo newspaper has reported this week.

A couple of short articles from the same source for your general reference:

__


Southend girl to star in TV's Countdown (22 November)

By John Geoghegan

A FORMER Southend schoolgirl will replace Carol Vorderman as the maths brainbox on TV quiz show Countdown.

Rachel Riley, 22, a former pupil of Southend High School for Girls, will join Sky Sports presenter Jeff Stelling as co presenter on the popular Channel 4 show.

Rachel, who graduated from Oriel College, Oxford, with a masters degree in mathematics, fought off stiff competition from more than 1,000 hopefuls. She said: “This is the best graduate job in the world. There's only one cool maths job around and I was lucky enough to get it, so I’m absolutely thrilled.”

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/search/38688 ... Countdown/

__

Our Rachel’s the new queen of Countdown (24 November)

By John Geoghegan

A FORMER Southend schoolgirl will replace Carol Vorderman as the maths brainbox on TV quiz show Countdown.

Rachel Riley, 22, a former pupil of Southend High School for Girls, will join Sky Sports presenter Jeff Stelling as co presenter on the popular Channel 4 show.

Rachel, who graduated from Oriel College, Oxford, with a masters degree in mathematics, fought off stiff competition from more than 1,000 hopefuls. She said: “This is the best graduate job in the world. There’s only one cool maths job around and I was lucky enough to get it, so I’m absolutely thrilled.”

For the auditions, Rachel and the other applicants had to conduct an interview and were tested on their maths skills. She was then shortlisted alongside five others for a screen test in Leeds, where candidates were tested on their maths and word skills. She had to put up several letter selections and tackle various maths games at the numbers board to win the approval of programme bosses.

Southend Girls headmistress Alison Clewlow said: “We are delighted for her and obviously very proud one of our most able pupils has got such an amazing job.

“Rachel was always exceptionally good at maths. I remember her well – she was a very nice girl. She was a good all-rounder who did a lot of sports and was popular. I think she will have no problems with the numbers game and I’m sure she’ll do tremendously well.”

Helen Warner, head of Channel 4 daytime shows, said: “I’m very excited Jeff and Rachel will be picking up the Countdown baton from 2009. They make a great team and I feel certain our much-loved words and numbers game will go from strength to strength with them.”

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/search/38689 ... Countdown/

__


Jeff

Hmmm... the first one appears to be exactly the same as the first three paragraphs of the second one. Is that why it's called the Echo?

Having now seen her in real life, I'm stunned by how slim she is. I just can't imagine how all of the essential plumbing can fit through her waist.

Having now seen her in real life, I'm stunned by how fit she is.

harry wrote:Having now seen her in real life, I'm stunned by how slim she is. I just can't imagine how all of the essential plumbing can fit through her waist.

Nowt wrong with a slim girl.

Joseph Bolas wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:

Lesley Jeavons wrote:Fourthed (*runs and hides from Damian* )

I'll jump on that bandwagon. Fifthed.

I must be the only person who prefers Susie's segment before the numbers. Its a nice little break before the numbers round (which would've come in very very handy on my game... possibly).

Agreed. I think it is much more at home before the numbers, as it has more to do with the letters game.

I think it would be a little jerky to have the numbers game stuck in between the two.

Ben Hunter wrote:

harry wrote:Having now seen her in real life, I'm stunned by how slim she is. I just can't imagine how all of the essential plumbing can fit through her waist.

Nowt wrong with a slim girl.

Just don't sneeze in the same room or she may break.

Jennifer Turner wrote:

Ben Hunter wrote:

harry wrote:Having now seen her in real life, I'm stunned by how slim she is. I just can't imagine how all of the essential plumbing can fit through her waist.

Nowt wrong with a slim girl.

Just don't sneeze in the same room or she may break.

Jealous of the new girl already? Excellent.

Having filmed with Rachel and chatted to her (all too briefly) in the bar afterwards, I can confirm beyond doubt that she is totally, unreasonably lovely. And she'll only improve with time.

Agreed! Just thinking that now I am going to have to apply for audience tickets at some point so I can see her again. Oh well, back to the real world....