It seems such a long time ago that Manchester were trailing Lincoln College Oxford by nearly 100 points in the first match. Since that 'scare' in the first round, they've defeated Magdalen College Oxford, Imperial College London, and St George's London, as well as losing to U.C.L.. Aiming for their fifth final in eight years were:
David Brice, from Kingston-upon-Thames, studying Economics
Adam Barr, from Muswell Hill in North London, studying Physics with Astrophysics
Captain: Richard Gilbert, from Henley-in-Arden in Warwickshire, studying Linguistics
Debbie Brown, from Buxton in Derbyshire, studying Pain Epidemiology
Bangor also got off to a shaky start in the contest, winning a low scoring match over St Andrews. But they've subsequently proven their worth by beating Durham, Imperial and James G. and co from King's College Cambridge, as well as giving U.C.L. a good fight in their defeat to them. Aiming to get a Welsh side into the final for the first time under Paxo were:
Adam Pearce, from Barry in the Vale of
Glamorgan, studying Translation Studies
Mark Stevens, from Widnes in Cheshire,
studying Environmental ScienceCaptain: Nina Grant, from Enfield in London, studying French and Linguistics
Simon Tomlinson, from Manchester, studying Neuropsychology
And off we went quickly, and it was Manchester who got off to their quicker start, getting the first three starters, including an amusing one about how Oscar Wilde's grave has been threatened by lipstick erosion due to repetitive kissing! Nina 'pocketmouse' Grant soon got Bangor off the mark, and the side had an unlucky miss on the bonuses, answering 'School for Scoundrels', instead of 'School of Scandal'.
Now, earlier this evening, the perennial Pointless favourite the Central African Republic won a pair the Jackpot for the first time. A few hours later, its flag was the first picture starter on UC! Three more African flags with five colours formed the bonuses, after which Manchester led by 70-15.
A good interruption from Mark Stevens got Bangor going again, but just one bonus followed. A short run of momentum for the Welsh side followed, with Simon Tomlinson once again displaying good buzzer skills which have served him well this series. The music round saw Adam 'Welshguy' Pearce finally get his first music starter of the series, which he celebrated with a fist pump! Regular readers may recall Adam expressing his annoyance at how his side never got any good classical music rounds before. (No offense is intended, of course Adam!)
The music bonuses had given Bangor a narrow lead of 80-75. But Manchester quickly took it back with the next starter, but only one bonus followed from a complicated bonus set on computer science. Another unlucky miss for Bangor followed, with Mark Stevens answering two over pi, whne pi over two was wanted! A run of three incorrect interruptions from Bangor saw Manchester build up a bit of a lead. On one set of bonuses, Manchester took so long conferring that Paxo complain that he was getting a headache from listening to them!
The second round, on depictions of Hercules, allowed Bangor to get back into the match, but no bonuses followed. They were now trailing by 120-75, and could still catch Manchester with a good run of questions. Adam P. tried on the next starter, but was wrong, and his namesake Mr Barr duely corrected him.
Another starter for Mr Barr followed, and it now looked unlikely that Bangor could catch up. An interesting set of bonuses asked for the position in line to to the throne various monarchs, including the Queen, were when they were born. Nina Grant managed one more starter for Bangor, but the side just fell short of reaching three figures. The final starter went to Manchester, and the gong went during the bonuses. Manchester won, by 160-95.
Bad luck Adam and co, but you've done incredibly well to reach this far, and, as Paxo said, it's the joint furthest Bangor has ever got under him. And thank you Adam and Nina for posting on here, and giving us some good insight.
But well done Manchester, and best of luck against U.C.L. next week!
The stats: Richard Gilbert was the night's best buzzer, getting four starters; the side struggled with the bonuses, getting just 12 out of 32 (with two penalties), and that will have to be improved on next week. Simon Tomlinson got three starters for Bangor, and the Welsh side managed 8 bonuses out of 21, with three penalties.
Next week: the final, between U.C.L. and Manchester. Best of luck to all involved!
I hoped Bangor couldwin, and for a while believed as they edged ahead briefly after the music round. Sadly after that they almost started going backwards, but Manchester is always going to be a tough team to beat. Bad luck to Bangor, and now it's up to UCL to stop the Manchester juggernauts from winning again.
ReplyDeleteOn a personal note, I kinda wish we'd had all those maths starters in our last match. After about the third in a row I could feel Bangor's pain. The questions just weren't falling for them, though I'd suspected that at some point that lack of maths and Science knowledge would hurt them. Pity it couldn't have waited just one more match.
*sigh* - This was a round of might-have-beens. I think we were actually a lot closer than the scoreline suggests. I had a real mental block over the flag - I knew it was the CAR but it just wasn't coming to my head. I'd have got all three bonuses too, which would have made it +25 to us and -20 to them for 120-140; again I had a mental block over Hercules (I saw the bloody dog and recognised it was Cerebus but for some reason couldn't remember who fought him! Simon (Tomlinson) said he didn't notice the Dog, had he noticed it he'd have known it was Hercules...). And I should have guessed Purcell - they LOVE him on UC, he gets 5+ questions per series. Just not our day. Or rather, not Simon's day; his three starters are his worst performance while the rest of us did pretty well by our standards (4 between us) - I guess you were right, we did rely too much on him.
ReplyDeleteLots of silly penalties too, though I have no regrets for Spreading Santorum on BBC2.
There was a huge amount of trouble during the filming of this round. Brown's microphone stopped working in the middle of filming and it took them 20 minutes to fix it so the end of the episode is actually almost an hour after the beginning. I'm not saying it helped Manchester win (after all, they had to put up with it too) but I certainly think my adrenalin had burned out by the time we got back to filming.
When Paxo said it was the best Bangor performance, I actually corrected him and said it was joint best (with Bangor's 1999 semi-finalists); evidently the producers decided to edit that out! So I guess we're at least joint best Bangor & Wales team in the Paxo era. Feels like an achievement to me!
My one regret is, actually, that I revealed my identity on these blogs - not because I haven't enjoyed commenting and discussing things, but because I think everyone's commentary might have been less neutral and perhaps a little more honest if you hadn't known I was reading... still, what's done is done. Thanks for watching us, I guess!
Bad luck Adam, but thank you for your commentary throughout the series; it's been good fun reading it.
DeleteAnd why did they cut you correcting Paxo out? That would've been hilarious!
All I said was "joint" in response to his comment, it wasn't very funny - I guess they don't like the contestants speaking except when they're supposed to, which is fair enough in keeping with the streamlined-nature of the show. To be fair on Paxo he said "I *think* that's the best performance from Bangor". So anyone watching will think we definitely are the best - hard luck on the 1999 team I suppose, but then, you could well argue that we *are* the best ever Bangor (and Welsh!) team, because we won more matches than anyone else.
DeleteAt least you got your music starter - I was rooting for you on that one!
ReplyDeleteI recognised it quickly too, would have been nice to have had a buzz-off on that one. Anyway, bad luck and yes I suppose matches can and do swing on tiny margins.
I did even better on the second bonus - I knew it was Nielsen before he'd even played it, although with "Danish Composer" there's not a lot of choice!
ReplyDeleteThe Manchester team were a nice bunch and I didn't really mind being beaten by them all that much, although I agree that they could stand not to win a series for once!
There was an article in the Times today rooting for Manchester, explaining how much effort they put into this. Training at least once a week (three UC-style matches at a time, I believe) against former contestants. Strikes me as missing the spirit of the thing, but I can't write in and say so really.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I was aware of the extraordinary help / pressure the Manchester teams get. Not sure whether that means they "deserve" it more, in the sense that they should be supported for putting in so much effort. It obviously pays off, though there's more to it than that - it certainly helps that Manchester is such a big university (about twice the size of Bangor, which isn't exactly tiny itself), which gives you a bigger pool of potential team members. Also the very fact that they put so much effort in suggests it's very well advertised. Nina (Grant) & myself actually got as far as the non-televised interview stage of UC 2 years ago, with a weaker team; that year only about 20 people turned up for the tryouts. For this series there were about 100, so it's no surprise the team did so much better. Our success indicates that universities like Bangor (who don't even get on the program most years) are perfectly capable of putting together a series-winning team, it's just a question of advertising and getting the message out, as well perhaps as encouraging potential team members to get involved.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how true this is, but I've heard that Manchester only got about 150 applicants every year. (I think it might have been from the current Manchester captain? I can't remember.) There's probably a great deal of self-selection there (i.e. people are aware of Manchester's reputation and don't apply just for fun because they figure they have no chance), but it's worth considering when talking about Manchester's huge student pool.
ReplyDeleteI'm not upset at going out at this stage, it's as close as we could get without getting to the final, and it's even more satisfying when looked at as a series of individual matches: we beat some very reputable institutions, and put our little university on the map.
ReplyDeleteI'm still a bit agog at the fact that Manchester have a coach, though. We had a UC quizbook and some ramshackle pub quizzes :D
And you were an immensely likeable and entertaining team, too, if you don't mind my saying. I think the vast majority of people on Monday were rooting for you guys. :D
DeleteFollowing you on twitter has been fun, too. I'm very impressed with how you dealt with some of the less savoury comments people made about your team!
"I'm not sure how true this is, but I've heard that Manchester only got about 150 applicants every year."
ReplyDeleteSure; but the sheer size of the university ensures that the people are there in the first place. Speaking for the 100 who turned up to tryout for Bangor, there were a lot of people there who were just going for a laugh, I think; certainly it was marketed at least partly as something people should "give a go" for fun even if they had no expectation of getting onto the team. Something tells me Manchester's tryouts aren't like that!
Their having a coach certainly seems somehow unfair, but it's hard to say exactly why - after all there's nothing in the rules that forbids it and nothing stopping other institutions from having similar systems. Nina - I still have a piece of paper that says Bar Uno owes Bangor's UC team a yard of beer...
I know what you mean. The closest thing we had to a coach was someone to act as questionmaster and scorekeeper. It's like having a team of all mature students - there's nothing explicitly prohibiting it, but it just feels a little against the spirit of the competition. University Challenge is best if not taken incredibly seriously, I think.
DeleteHmm, well, as the second youngest person on our team, I was 24... I was a postgrad, Nina a mature student (though doubtless she won't like me pointing that out...), and Simon (Tomlinson) both, so I guess Bangor's was a bit of a cheesy team in that respect. Mark (Stevens) was our only 'real' student, and I think he was 21 (certainly he's now graduated). I am full of admiration when Paxman says such-and-such a team has an average age of "19" or similar, don't know what ours was...
ReplyDeleteI guess it depends on what counts as a mature student. I hope nobody resented my being on the program, as a PhD... in my defence (not sure it's a defence) I've been at Bangor for yonks, I was an undergraduate here at 18.
I actually think that all-(or mostly)-40+-mature student teams are disadvantaged at the interview stage (in other words they're deliberately not chosen to take part). There was a lot of complaining back in the late 90s (I seem to recall there being one team from the Open University who did ridiculously well and were all 60+); I think they've taken it on board and want to avoid getting into that again. There was a team at interview the same time as us none of whom seemed younger than about 35; I think they were from Leeds (?) but we never saw them again. I guess it explains why it's a while since there's been such a team on TV.
My feeling is that if such teams are going to be rejected, there should be a formal rule which codifies it. No sense wasting people's time if they're not going to get on, and it also denies others the chance of getting on TV (perhaps there were "real" students from Leeds who would have liked to have a go). Perhaps something like a maximum average age (say, 35 or something), or the requirement to have no more than 2 members over the age of 25. The latter would be better because the former would discriminate more the older the team member got, which seems unfair.
Wow, really? I'd pretty much assumed you were around my age (20). Rest assured yours wasn't the sort of team I had in mind when I made that comment - I was thinking of the Open University type teams you mentioned. Apologies if I caused offence!
DeleteBut yes, I think you're right. The one time Manchester haven't been on in the last ten years or so it was when they had two mature students on the team. I think they're probably a bit more lenient with some universities, which are just more likely to have lots of postgrads/mature students (say, SOAS), though. I agree it would be nice to have a rule about this, but I've thought about it before and I'm not sure what the best way to go about it would be...
No worries, I'm not offended at all. But doing a PhD at 20?! Did you think I was some kind of Savant or something? I'd have to have started my undergrad degree at 16, even assuming I didn't do a Masters (which I did) and was in the first year of my course (which I wasn't) and was young for my academic year (which I'm not). I must look younger on TV - when I was 20 people always used to say I looked about 25; it was probably the beard. I went to Bangor at 18, I've been there ever since, though I'll probably be gone before the end of this year.
DeleteBangor's team was by no means unique in having an older student - there was Manchester of course, plus Lancaster, who had two. It also seemed to me that UCL and Lincoln College had higher average ages than most of the other teams.
I don't think it would be too difficult to institute a system that formally forbids all-mature-genius-teams. Like I've said, It'd be much fairer to have formal rules about it than just to reject them outright at interview; I suspect they don't want to be accused of being ageist (although if they reject them anyway it doesn't seem any less apposite an accusation now). A system whereby you have to have 2 members younger than 25, for example; it wouldn't discriminate against specific individuals, just the idea of a whole team of older students. I don't think any of the teams in this series would have fallen foul of such a rule (we wouldn't - just), though I don't know how old people were so maybe not.
I've always felt that having older players on a team is a bit against the spirit of the competition - shouldn't it be regular young-ish students?
DeleteMind, I could just be saying that because I'm bitter about how Tomlinson was the main reason we got thrashed by Bangor. On another day, with another set of questions, it would have been a more even fight (e.g. if the semi-final set were used one match earlier). So really age doesn't always matter so much. Except when Open University fielded a team of 40-somethings + who were all quiz experts. That was just taking the Michael.
Hmm. Sure, there are good 40+ students. But then were you just as resentful in losing to New College, with (the presumably <25) Cappleman?
ReplyDeleteNope. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it.
DeleteIn both cases we were, to be fair, well-beaten. And also, to be fair, I've had that view for a long time. Make of it what you will - as long as no Uni Challenge team ever behaves like Open University did about 15 years back and abuse the system, there's no real problem.
I don't see the problem with there being teams with mature students and postgraduates, but it seems like a lot of people do. I was disappointed to hear that KCL were rejected this year despite having a player who would almost certainly be the best ever, this is probably because they were all postgraduates. This will be something of an obstacle to some teams getting on the show. I believe the University of Sheffield has more mature students than many similar universities, so, unsurprisingly, there are usually mature students on the team. I applied twice with the Sheffield team and I was the only undergraduate on the team the first year and one of only two the year we were selected, and it's been like that since. I suspect this is why Sheffield has only appeared once in five years (they're not on the next series). I imagine Stephen Pearson at Manchester chooses teams with three undergraduates in order to get on the TV.
ReplyDeleteThat brings me on to the Manchester team. When I was on the show I was surprised and somewhat annoyed at how seriously some of the other teams took it, it felt like an unfair advantage. Manchester wasn't on that year, but I was aware they had a coach having auditioned with them the previous year, Ian Bayley (Brain of Britain Brain of Brains, Mastermind Champion, Only Connect Champion of Champions of Champions etc) was coaching Oxford Brookes and both Oxford and Cambridge have their intercollegiate quizzes. Since the show I've attended the quizbowl competitions that have sprung up over the last few years, first with Sheffield and now with the OU, and now rather than thinking that it's a shame some teams have this advantage, I think it's a shame fewer teams are involved in these competitions the rest of the year. Of course practice is hugely important, and I suspect the fact Oxford's quiz society is so much better organised than Cambridge's is a big factor in why Oxford colleges have generally outperformed their Cambridge counterparts (with some notable exceptions, of course).
The Open University team that won in 1999 only had one player who was a really serious player (Lance Haward, three times Brain of Mensa) and one other who'd been on TV quizzes before. To prevent this happening I believe they enforced a rule about having to be on a full course rather than enrolled on a single module, which is what Mr Haward did in order to appear on the show. It's worth pointing out that the OU team that won beat an Oriel team containing David Stainer and David Brewis (both Only Connect champions) in the final, and a Durham team containing World Quizzing Champion and Mastermind Jesse Honey in the semi-final (although they were all undergraduates at the time).