Evening all. We've made it to the prolonged and always intriguing quarter-final stage. From now on, the teams need to win twice to go through to the semis. Winning twice gets a team straight through, losing twice puts a team straight out, one of each puts them in the play-offs. As I guessed, we began with two teams who, with a different second round draw, may not still be with us.
Bristol defeated the Courtauld Institute comfortably in Round 1, and then narrowly took out the very pleasant L.S.H.T.M. team in Round 2. So, they've taken out two specialist institutions; how would they fare against a general uni? Eager to find out were the unchanged foursome of:
Lewis Rendell, from Saffron Walden, studying Maths
Benjamin Moon, from Marksbury in Bath, studying Geology researching Ichthyosaur Systematics and Taxonomy
Captain: Anastasia Reynolds, from Scholes in West Yorkshire, studying Czech and Russian
Miles Coleman, from North London, studying Spanish and Portuguese
Liverpool had two narrow wins over Sheffield in Round 1, and then Glasgow in Round 2; on the latter occasion, they were lucky to ace the buzzer race due to a far inferior bonus rate. Hoping to fix that and complete the hat trick tonight were the also unchanged foursome of:
Ben Mawdsley, from Southport, studying Astrophysics
Jim Davis, from Gullane near Edinburgh, studying Tropical Disease Biology
Captain: Declan Crew, from Liverpool, studying Biochemistry
Hugh Hiscock, from Southampton, studying French
Off we set then, and Mr Mawdsley took his first starter of the series straight away, and the Liverpool side took all three bonuses from their first set, thus suggesting they had fixed their problem from before. A slip-up then knocked them back and allowed Bristol to catch them quickly. The Avonsiders then ran up an early run of momentum on the buzzer, which saw them up to the first picture round, on maps showing travel routes in novels. After this, they lead 50-20.
The Bristol run continued into the next starter, but no bonuses went with it this time. Liverpool broke back into the game via the prior impressive High Hiscock, and took a second full set of bonuses to cut straight into Bristol's lead. The lead then vanished altogether when Miss Reynolds misjudged a swerve on a starter, losing five, and then Mr Crew (to whom I must apologise for not getting his name right before) forgetting to buzz before giving the right answer! He got the points anyway, and his side truely put all memories of last time behind them with a third full bonus set.
The music round, on Northern soul, went to the Merseysiders, but answering Aretha Franklin to all the bonuses didn't get them anywhere! They now led 80-55. A starter was dropped, before Miss Reynolds avenged her earlier error, and the side took two bonuses on Barcelona Metro stations. Liverpool then slipped-up twice and dropped back ten points, but Bristol failed to pick either drop up. The next starter handed Bristol the lead, but they only took one bonus.
The second picture round, on engravings of Dante's Inferno, went to Bristol, and they had opened up a lead of 115-70, despite a lot of fiddle-faddle over one of the bonus answers! Liverpool broke back into the game with the next starter, and took yet another full bonus set on Wikipedia editing laws. (Yes, really) The next starter was dropped, and Miss Reynolds was unlucky to miss the next starter, which was handed over to Liverpool for the points; two bonuses leveled the scores, and set up a sprint finish.
Hugh Hiscock began that sprint by taking the next starter on famous trumpeters, and the side took two bonuses on real names with US states in them. (We've had that before quite recently haven't we?) When the Merseysiders took the next starter, you began to think they had done enough; when they took all three bonuses, that looked pretty surely game over. As if to make sure, they took the final starter and the one bonus they had time for. At the gong, Liverpool won 175-115.
A surprisingly good and enjoyable match between two pretty evenly matched teams. Unlucky Bristol, but they're not finished yet, and we will see them again; best of luck to them then. Well done to Liverpool, though, on their best innings yet IMO, and best of luck to them in their qualification match!
For the first time this year, all eight players got at least one starter correct. Messrs Mawdsley and Hiscock were joint best for Liverpool with three, and Mr Coleman was single best for Bristol also with three. On the bonuses, Bristol converted a fair 10 out of 21 (with one penalty) and Liverpool an absolutely superb 20 out of 25 (with three penalties).
Next week's match: by process of outworking, I'd say St Peter's vs Oxford Brookes (good luck 'aspinctersays' if so!)
Only Connect was good tonight too, with two very pleasant teams who congratulated each other at the end of the show. The show has settled nicely into BBC2, much better than many expected.
Liverpool have benefited from some favourable seeding, but fair play to them anyway, you can only beat what is put in front of you.
ReplyDeleteIf University Challenge has some kind of rulebook, surely one of the basic requirements is that a player has to buzz in before answering a starter, instead of just yelling it out? That really should not have been allowed. There doesn't seem to be any consistency in how the rules of this show are applied.
The purpose of the buzzer is to establish who got there first. Given the other team had already buzzed in incorrectly on that one, I don't think a bit of leniency is a bad thing.
DeleteYes, but if contestants are not allowed to confer on starters (a rule that is strictly enforced), it stands to reason that one contestant should press the buzzer before answering. If I remember rightly, the captain Crew gave the answer in the end, but there was every possibility that one or more of his team-mates could have simultaneously shouted out a different (and wrong) answer. These are the kind of things that could happen if you permit such leniency.
DeleteLeniency in itself is fine, but what gets my goat is the inconsistency of how UC rules are applied. One week, "the letter V" is accepted when the answer was "Victory"; another week, "the Lady of Shalott" is rejected despite Paxman having asked vaguely for the "name" of the person at the end of Tennyson's poem. One week, the captain is given a second chance to be more specific with an answer to a bonus; another week, no second chance is offered when the captain genuinely misheard the correct answer supplied by a team-mate. These kinds of discrepancies are what lead to accusations of unfairness and the like.
I can recall at least three prior occasions where a player has answered without buzzing. Two promptly corrected themselves and buzzed to answer properly, the other didn't and was wrong anyway.
DeleteConsistency is a problem most competition shows fall into, and UC is no exception. For example, on Pointless, 'Adam Hill (rather than Hills) and Ray Parks (Park) are unacceptable answers, but 'Daria O'Brian' is allowed for 'Dara O'Briain'.
Sure, and if someone else had answered simultaneously that would have been unacceptable. But they didn't. My point is, there's no reason to penalise someone purely for forgetting to buzz in the heat of the moment.
DeleteI agree they should be a bit more consistent about which answers are acceptable to given questions. (Although, by the by, the Lady of Shalott one was entirely unambiguous: the question asked for the name which ends every stanza of the poem, which is true of Shalott but not "Lady of Shalott" - the first stanza, for example, ends "island of Shalott".)
Of course, what you don't see broadcast are the (sometimes lengthy) arguments on the night by the teams about answers given. Some teams were very cute about challenges, others less so.
ReplyDelete