Monday 20 August 2012

University Challenge: Round 1: Match 4: Strathclyde vs Durham

Well, this was going to be interesting. Normally, Durham gets my undivided support, seeing as my mother studied at Durham. However, she went on to do a PhD at Strathclyde! So, therefore, I was undecided who to support.

Strathclyde began life as a college in 1796, and later became the second university in Glasgow. It’s now the third largest in Scotland. It last entered the contest in 2005-06, where its team narrowly lost a low scoring first round match to Birmingham. Playing for them tonight were:
Michael Doreszenko, from Kilmarnock, studying Electrical and Mechanical Engineering
Julia Hyslop, from Glasgow, studying Chemistry
Captain: Martin Nealon, from Glasgow, studying Politics
Bruce Wareham, Campbeltown in Argyll, studying Chemistry

Yay, a full team of Scots!

Durham is the third oldest university in England after Oxford and Cambridge, a fact I first learned on the Weakest Link twelve years ago! It has not missed a series of UC for fourteen years; last year, its team trounced Plymouth in the first round, and were unlucky to draw and lose to Homerton College Cambridge in the second. Playing for them this year were:
Philip Ferry, from Northumberland, studying Maths
Katie Vokes, from Edinburgh, studying Maths
Captain: Richard Thomas, from Hook in Hampshire, studying Politics
Dominic Everett Riley, from Farnham in Surrey, studying English

Like last year, Durham quickly leapt out into the lead, scoring well on the bonuses. Strathclyde incurred a penalty early on, and this may have knocked their early confidence. Durham picked up an early penalty too, and Strathclyde were a little unlucky not to pick up that starter.

By the time we reached the music round, Durham lead 155-(-5). Paxo gave his usual reassurance to Strathclyde that “there’s still plenty of time”; as Dave Clark and Iain Weaver have both said before, when he says that to you, you know you’re in trouble. The music starter was dropped, but Strathclyde finally got going with the replacement starter. On the music bonuses, on bands where one member has a PhD, I recognised one of the songs (from, of all things, a Tony Hawk computer game!), but I didn’t know who it was, which was really annoying.

Durham continued to power on throughout the second half, and, at the picture round, the score was 220-10. Strathclyde couldn’t catch them, but could they still recover to a respectable score.

Yes they could. In the closing minutes, Michael Doroszenko, who had been trying unsuccessfully to buzz in throughout the game, scored three consecutive starters, which lifted his team out of the ‘Sub 50 Club’, and into respectability.

The final score was a victory for Durham by 245-70, which is fair enough. Mr Doroszenko’s three starters were his side’s best tally; they answered 6 bonuses out of 15 with two penalties. Durham split their starters evenly, with all four getting at least two starters; Philip Ferry’s four was best; the side answered 26 bonuses out of 36, which is very impressive, and incurred just the one penalty.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we have our first real contenders for the series title here.

Next week’s match: Queen Mary London vs Jesus College Oxford

Tune back in tomorrow for a review of the 2,000th Deal or No Deal!

1 comment:

  1. Hi Jack


    I agree with what you say about Durham. for the first time this series I´ve seen a winning team who I can see going at least as far as the quarter finals. This is not intended to be disrepsectful to our first two winners, but purely based on their first round performances I think that they will struggle, because they have gaps in their teams´collective knowledge and they are profligate with their bonus chances. But hey , what do I know ?

    First round form can be a little unreliable as a guide to a team´s potential. There are several reasons why a team might have a score which is higher than their usual, or lower than their usual performance : a set of questions that just doesn´t or particularly does suit. Particularly strong or particularly weak opposition to name but two. So we have to bear in mind this caveat before making pronouncements on the relative strengths of our three heat winners thus far. Having said that, though, I have to say that in my opinion this Durham team seem quite a bit stronger than the other two teams who have made it through to the second round so far. This is just my opinion, and of course everyone can feel free to disagree. But when I´m assessing the strength of a UC team, I don´t just look at the final score, and I don´t just look at the questions they answered correctly. I also think about the questions they answer incorrectly, because these will tell you where a team´s subject gaps are, if any. Teams that have a wider knowledge base tend to do better than teams who may have deep subject knowledge in several areas, but not a great deal at all iin others. Durham loook the most complete team of the three winners so far. Their bonus conversion rate is considerably the best of the three shows we´ve seen. This is not to say that I wish to burden them with the Clark tip at this stage, though - but they´re a good team who could do well.

    ReplyDelete