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