Well, here we are again folks, the University Challenge Grand Final! The final of a series we went into a bit apprehensive about what the show would be like without Paxo and whether the incoming Amol Rajan could fill his boots sufficiently. To which the answer has definitely been, yes, he has done so pretty well, and hopefully the final will be the finale the series deserves. Our two finalist teams are:
Imperial: Justin Lee, Adam Jones, Suraiya Haddad and Sourajit Debnath.
and
U.C.L.: James Hall, Ali Izzatdust, Tayana Sawh and Jacob Finlay.
So, it's only the second ever all-London final, after the 1995-96 final also won, coincidentally, by Imperial. It's also the third final in a row with no Oxbridge teams in the final, meaning we'll be getting a sixth non-Oxbridge winner in a row. It's a seventh final for Imperial, of which they've won a joint-record four, while U.C.L. are in their third, of which they'll be hoping to finally win. How did they get here then?
Imperial impressively defeated Balliol of Oxford 285-145 in the first round, then Lincoln of Oxford 250-120 in the second. They looked a bit shakier in their first QF win over Sheffield, winning 195-160, and then, after a close first two thirds, ran away with their second QF against Manchester in the third to win 205-120. They then convincingly defeated Trinity 240-110 in the semis to reach a third final in five series.
U.C.L. were low scoring winners over King's of Cambridge 190-145 in the first round, before impressively beating the fancied Hertford of Oxford team 225-140 in the second. They were similarly comfortable winners over Christ Church 200-130 in their first QF, before a spectacular comeback from a tough start saw them also beat Trinity, 165-150, in their second. Their semi against Manchester was another close affair, before they eventually won 210-165.
So, that's the form book so far; now to forensically analyse the stats of both finalists.
Well, Imperial have so far accumulated 1,175 points over five games, an average of 235 per game, whereas U.C.L. have 990 over the same, an average of 198 per game. Imperial have also conceded fewer, 655, average 131, to U.C.L.'s 730, average 146.
Imperial have also answered more starters correctly, 63 over five games to U.C.L.'s 55. Both sides have two pretty strong buzzers, with Mr Lee for Imperial (28) and Mr Izzatdust for U.C.L. (25) backed up by Mr Jones (21) and Mr Hall (18) respectively. Their bonus rates are largely the same: Imperial 117 out of 187 and U.C.L. 100 out of 162.
So, the stats are in Imperial's favour; so, they're the favourites, right? Probably, yes. Does that mean they're definitely going to win on Monday? Of course not! After all, U.C.L. were the favourites for the first final I covered on this blog, and they ended up losing that.
(It would be an odd bookend for my full UC coverage on this blog for U.C.L. to lose both the first and last series I do!)
I very much suspect this final could be decided on the buzzer: both teams have very strong and quick buzzers, but they are also rather prone to incorrect interruptions, U.C.L. especially, who were nearly undone by them in both their last two games. In that sense, I'd say Imperial, again, have the advantage.
But then, U.C.L. have overcome adversity many times to get here; a lesser team probably would've folded in both the Trinity and Manchester games. Imperial, in contrast, were only really challenged in their first QF, where Sheffield actually bettered them on the buzzer, but a much better bonus rate helped them win. They were also on equal terms with Manchester until the last ten minutes.
In short, as usual, this final is definitely one either team could win, and neither winning would be surprising. These are two excellent teams, either would be worthy and deserving champions. Best of luck to both of them; hopefully a great game to end the series, and my regular UC blogs, on!
Back on Monday with my final full UC write-up; see you then then...
No comments:
Post a Comment