And so, off we set again, for another round of University Challenge. The second play-off tonight, with the winners taking the final place in the second round. Two very likeable teams, who both scored 155 in their first match, so very little between them in that sense.
Southampton were comfortably beaten by SOAS in their first match, but scoring their points against such a good team means they were the favourites for tonight's match, in most peoples' books. With LAM and JOW reader and contributor Cromarty(IV) amongst their number, the unchanged quarter were:
David Bishop, from Reading, studying Physics
Richard Evans, from Frimley in Surrey, studying Chemistry
Captain: Bob de Caux, from West Sussex, studying Complex Systems Simulation
Matt Loxham, from Preston, studying Respiratory Toxicology
Loughborough lost a tighter match to Clare College Cambridge a week prior (the day Paddy won the Jackpot on DoND). It took them one starter more than their opponents to reach that score, hence their ranking below Southampton, but still a respectable effort. There were also unchanged from before:
Ali Thornton, from Penicuik in Scotland, studying Banking, Finance and Management
Cathy Morten, from Southampton, studying Aeronautical Engineering
Captain: Grant Craig, from Bonybridge near Falkirk, studying Analytical Chemistry
Katie Spalding, from Ipswich, studying Maths
So, very little between these two teams. It could go either way.
David Bishop took his first starter of the series, getting Southampton off the mark first. More starters went Southampton's way, but very few bonuses went with them. Katie Spalding was unlucky to miss one starter, answering 'Dowager Queen' when 'Queen Dowager' was what was sought. Loughborough did manage one starter before the first picture round, on US states which ticket candidates in US election represented. Southampton led by 55-20.
The next starter went to Loughborough, and a full set of bonuses on rugby players allowed them to pull within five points. The next starter, on the horses of historical figures, saw at least three players race to their buzzer; Bob de Caux got there first, increasing Southampton's lead, though, again, only one bonus went their way. Loughborough weren't getting as many starters, but their slightly better bonus showing allowed them to keep in touch.
The music round, on renditions of You've Got to Pick a Pocket or Two, went to Loughborough, who produced laughter with suggestions of Laurence Olivier and Omid Djalili! It did, however, allow them to sneak into the lead, 70-65. But Bob de Caux immediately took it back for Southampton, and two further starters allowed the side to pull away into three figures. An interesting set of bonuses on people born on the same day went to the side, with two bonuses falling their way too.
The second picture round was on representations of months in the Bedford Hours, and both sides narrowly missed the starter by being a month out both ways! Southampton got the bonuses, and now led 135-70. Not quite a match winning lead yet, but it would be if they kept getting starters.
And that they did, and when Richard Evans completed a complex piece of arithmetic, their lead reached three figures, and the win was secure. Grant Craig did pull one starter back for Loughborough, ensuring all eight players had answered at least one starter correctly, but just one bonus came out of a complex set of gold winning athletes and their surnames. An odd moment happened when Ali Thornton interrupted incorrectly, but Southampton did not get the rest of the question.
At the gong, Southampton won by 185-80. A close match in the first half, but Southampton pulled away in the second for a respectable win. Bad luck Loughborough, but you still pretty well, and shouldn't be disheartened over either loss at all. But well done Cromarty(IV) and co, and best of luck next time!
The stats: Bob de Caux was the night's best buzzer, getting five starters for Southampton, and the side converted 15 bonuses out of 33 (with two penalties), which is OK, but may need to be improved on next time. Cathy Morten got two starters for Loughborough, with her colleagues getting one each, and the side managed 7 correct bonuses out of 15 (with one penalty).
Next week: the second round begins. No word on the draw yet. Good to see extra care being taken to avoid accidental spoilers though.
Damn, I wish we'd got that picture question on US elections. I had four out of four, no problem. Oh well. :D
ReplyDeleteBoth teams did a little worse than their first performance here. Southampton earned themselves a score of 154 for an average of 176 and Loughborough 101 for an average 137. Also, I have Southampton down as getting 15/33, which I think adds up correctly. Perhaps you forgot to account for their interruptions?
As for Thornton's interruption, I believe Paxman had finished reading the question by the time he answered, but not by the time he buzzed in. Something similar happens in our next match, as I recall.
Just double checked; you are quite right. Fixed now. Thanks!
DeleteOn the minus side: I can't argue with your conclusion that we were a bit hit-and-miss on the bonuses in this game. We were just incredibly unlucky on many occasions, going for the wrong answer when we had two to choose between - although I hope we can be forgiven for 1984, because three of the four personalities in that election were also around for the 1980 election!
ReplyDeleteOn the plus side: we succeeded in doing what we came back to do, which was to go all guns blazing on the buzzers. After the SOAS experience, I brought down my University Challenge "game", complete with a set of four buzzers, and we practised with those in advance of this match so that we could hopefully avoid millisecond defeats in the buzzer races. Apart from the "crucifixion" starter, which I thought I'd bagged until Kathy Morten got called out, I think we achieved that aim by and large. (The sad thing is that the inorganic chemistry bonuses that followed the crucifixion starter were right up my street!)
I certainly can't condense all of my other observations on this match into one comment. I could write a more detailed review from the "contestant's chair" perspective and send it to you if you're interested - I think Mr Gratrex did something similar last year on LAM. Let me know.
So we will be seeing you again in round 2! I can now admit that I know a fair bit about what happens in round 2, because our match was far from the first to be filmed in this round. To pull out the old cliché, if you think you've seen it all in the terrific round 1 games, you'd better think again. Coming up in round 2 is, quite possibly, the biggest shock in University Challenge history.
All will be revealed...!
Yes, that'd be good if you could send that to me.
DeleteCould you just let me know what address I should send it to? It'll probably be late Thursday or Friday when I can send it.
DeleteI'm not comfortable with revealing my address in public. I could mail you, and then you back to me.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteInteresting, Cromarty... I hope I'm wrong when I say I might have an idea of what that shock is, already. Fingers crossed that I am!
ReplyDeleteYou'll have to let us know what your idea is now that you've said that - but not until after the end of the second round, obviously!
DeleteI'm just trying to work out what your idea might be, Jim. After all, you knew about the unusually high number of Cambridge teams in this year's series. I won't ask who you've got this information from just yet!
In other news, I've just got news of when our round 2 game will be aired, as well as who's on next week...
I've also just found out, and it's two weeks earlier than I expected! It seems our match was moved up a bit, which is great - it'll be JUST in term now. I'm looking forward to watching it in college. :D When are you next on? And how do you know who's playing next week (assuming it isn't you)? :o
DeleteJames - I think I know what you mean.
At some level it's easy to have a decent guess anyway at which teams the "biggest shock" might involve.
Delete