Fifteen-to-One 2.0 is a bit like MK Dons: it gets heavily slated by purists for not being what it used to be, but if you give it a chance, you'll find it's actually half decent. The final of the third series was today, so here's a quick summary.
Playing in the Final were: Ian Harrison, Peter Finan, Quentin Holt, Gareth Watkins (top of the finals board with 241), Mike Grundmann, Alison Spring, Kyle Hobman, Matt Guilfoyle, Fraser Lamont, Gordon Taylor, Greg Spiller, Mike Clark, Gill Munro, Harry Bell and Alan Heath.
All good players who had done well to win their respective heats. The first round was a testament to that: no-one got both questions wrong and went out as a result.
The players began to fall in the second round, with Mr Munro and Mr Hobman first to go before the pointless mid second round break. After that break, things picked up, and the players began to fall half rapidly. Eventually, Mr Holt was last to go, finishing fourth.
So, the final three were: Ian Harrison, Peter Finan and Gordon Taylor.
So, the final round: 40 questions on the buzzer, last man standing or highest score after the questions have been used up wins. And all three gave it a very good go. Mr Taylor was playing catch up from early on, after his first buzz was incorrect. Soon, he was well behind, and needed to catch up frantically. He gave it a go, but, with just six questions left, he ran out of lives and bowed out third.
At this point, Mr Finan was just ahead, with 132 to Mr Harrison's 131, and both had two lives left. He then took the next three questions, which put his score out of reach. Then, Mr Harrison pulled one back, and Mr Finan got the penultimate one wrong, cutting him to just one life. If he got the next question wrong, he'd lost. So, he played safe, and didn't buzz. Nor did his opponent!
And so, by just 11 points, Peter Finan won the series, and the £40,000. Very well done to him! And well done to Mr Harrison too for a superb contest.
So, that's the third series over with. The show is still in its slot tomorrow, but whether it's a new series or a repeat of one of the first two remains unclear.
So, did I enjoy the series? Yes, I did. Sure, it's nowhere near as quickly paced and impressive as the original. But, it just about works out in an hour long slot. The questions flow slowly and carefully, and, with the exception of the old natter, and the pointless break in the middle of Round 2, there is barely any padding.
Plus, the rules on returnees are much fairer than the original. In the original, you only got one go, and, if you didn't win the show, you had to wait several years before being allowed another shot. Which was pretty elitist, when you notice that a lot of the series were won by the same people over and over. Giving all players three gos to reach the final is a lot more fair, as it allows most players to reach their full potential, and not get unceremoniously turfed out in the first round after getting two unlucky questions. At least, if you have three gos, you stand more of a chance of getting something you know, and a chance of a run.
It's fair to say, as well, that, compared to the first two series, there weren't as many regular quizzers on the show. Out of the finalists, Messrs Holt and Heath are both OC alumni, but that's about it. I spotted a couple of others: OC champ Paul Steeples appeared, but went out in the final of his first show, while Sree Kanthamneni, who is on the current series of UC for the Railwaymen, won his show, but didn't make the final.
The undoubted highlight of the series for me was when a chap was asked which animal you needed a license to keep as a pet until 1987. He responded 'a monkey?!', and reduced the other players to hysterics!
Overall, it's been a decent series. Yeah, the standard hasn't been that high (the lowest score on the finals board was 103), but it's been perfectly acceptable viewing. And we'll be getting at least two more runs of it, though when they start is not yet clear. I'll keep you posted.
I'll be back on Monday with my usual UC write-up.
No comments:
Post a Comment