Page 5 of 8
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:03 pm
by nikgaukroger
dave_r wrote:babyshark wrote:I am experiencing total, seething envy while reading this on my computer at work.
Good luck, people, and may Dan Hazelwood win. (You will note that I did not say the "best man.")
Marc
Given that Dan got a narrow win in his first game (11-9 I think) and got walloped 24-1 in the second then I suspect the Septic challenge is now over.
And what does your failure to mention today's scores for yourself indicate
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:06 pm
by david53
nikgaukroger wrote:dave_r wrote:babyshark wrote:I am experiencing total, seething envy while reading this on my computer at work.
Good luck, people, and may Dan Hazelwood win. (You will note that I did not say the "best man.")
Marc
Given that Dan got a narrow win in his first game (11-9 I think) and got walloped 24-1 in the second then I suspect the Septic challenge is now over.
And what does your failure to mention today's scores for yourself indicate
It would be nice to know some...
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:14 pm
by babyshark
dave_r wrote:Given that Dan got a narrow win in his first game (11-9 I think) and got walloped 24-1 in the second then I suspect the Septic challenge is now over.
This represents a well thought out submarine strategy.
Marc
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:42 pm
by nikgaukroger
babyshark wrote:dave_r wrote:Given that Dan got a narrow win in his first game (11-9 I think) and got walloped 24-1 in the second then I suspect the Septic challenge is now over.
This represents a well thought out submarine strategy.
Marc
Badly executed
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:26 am
by babyshark
nikgaukroger wrote:babyshark wrote:dave_r wrote:Given that Dan got a narrow win in his first game (11-9 I think) and got walloped 24-1 in the second then I suspect the Septic challenge is now over.
This represents a well thought out submarine strategy.
Marc
Badly executed
We told Dan to use the submarine strategy, not to explore the Marianas Trench. I blame operator error.
Marc
Sack nik
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:22 am
by expendablecinc
Feel free to comment all you want after the games.
I think it is very disappointing that the formal list checker is providing public commentary on submitted lists before the worlds.
I know you have a big mouth some times Nik but you thought you a little more proffestional that this.
disappointed
Anthony
ps surely others have commented and this should have been retracted after a bit of thought?
nikgaukroger wrote:WIC 2011 Runners & Riders – the List Checker Comments
Having seen all the lists here are some entirely biased comments on the offerings.
...
Worlds ranking after rounds 4
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:41 am
by zoltan
Drummond 77.7
Ruddock 67.2
Holland 61.6
Winter 59.3
Stacey 56.4
Hamilton 56.3
Stubbs 56.1
Nicoll 54.8
Rattray 54.3
Gardner 52.7
Hodgson 51.6
Haycock 50.6
Kvisle 49.1
Hazelwood 48.5
South Pacific Shield (lowest score wins)
NZ top 6 placings 36
Oz top 6 placings 64
Re: Worlds ranking after rounds 4
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:27 am
by nikgaukroger
zoltan wrote:Drummond 77.7
Ruddock 67.2
Holland 61.6
Winter 59.3
Mr D well in the driving seat now as he has played and beaten Ruddock - given SD's dominance down under I think it is his to lose. Hamster off the pace as expected, but could still submarine to a place.
Re: Sack nik
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:30 am
by nikgaukroger
expendablecinc wrote:
I think it is very disappointing that the formal list checker is providing public commentary on submitted lists before the worlds.
I know you have a big mouth some times Nik but you thought you a little more proffestional that this.
Created to cause controversy and, it was intended, banter on the event - as is done with some other events. OK-ed by the organisers before posting, perhaps asking them about it would be appropriate.
Allows all concerned to tell me afterwards what a bloody useless pundit I am and what the f*&% do I know about army choice - I await your (possibly justified) abuse on that score ...
Re: Sack nik
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:38 pm
by babyshark
expendablecinc wrote:Feel free to comment all you want after the games.
I think it is very disappointing that the formal list checker is providing public commentary on submitted lists before the worlds.
I know you have a big mouth some times Nik but you thought you a little more proffestional that this.
disappointed
Anthony
Nah. Once all the lists are in there really isn't anything anyone can do to change things. The outcome of the event will be determined by who plays well (or rolls poorly, Dan H), not by any snark thrown around by the list checker.
It's all good.
Marc
Re: Sack nik
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:44 pm
by david53
nikgaukroger wrote:expendablecinc wrote:
I think it is very disappointing that the formal list checker is providing public commentary on submitted lists before the worlds.
I know you have a big mouth some times Nik but you thought you a little more proffestional that this.
Created to cause controversy and, it was intended, banter on the event - as is done with some other events. OK-ed by the organisers before posting, perhaps asking them about it would be appropriate.
Allows all concerned to tell me afterwards what a bloody useless pundit I am and what the f*&% do I know about army choice - I await your (possibly justified) abuse on that score ...
I'd think it would be a good laugh if this was done at some of the BHGS in the UK, as stated once lists are in nothing changes. Maybe we could start betting on the result. Its all done as a joke really. Side issue can scotland not have a team next year?
Re: Sack nik
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:49 pm
by titanu
expendablecinc wrote:I think it is very disappointing that the formal list checker is providing public commentary on submitted lists before the worlds.
I know you have a big mouth some times Nik but you thought you a little more proffestional that this.
Thats what we need a bit less wit, charm and humour and more personal abuse!!
Personally I think Nik needs a bigger mouth especially when calling time near French players!!
Re: Worlds ranking after rounds 4
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:52 pm
by titanu
zoltan wrote:Drummond 77.7
Ruddock 67.2
Holland 61.6
Winter 59.3
Stacey 56.4
Hamilton 56.3
Come on Dave and James show the colonials how it should be done!
Re: Worlds ranking after rounds 4
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 6:07 pm
by zoltan
titanu wrote:zoltan wrote:Drummond 77.7
Ruddock 67.2
Holland 61.6
Winter 59.3
Stacey 56.4
Hamilton 56.3
Come on Dave and James show the colonials how it should be done!
So will Drummond and Holland draw in round 5 allowing Ruddock and Hammy to sneak through the middle with big wins in the final two rounds? Will it be a Winter of discontent for some?
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:39 pm
by marty
Come on Dave and James show the colonials how it should be done!
I've repeatedly tried to show Mr Drummond how it is done. Unfortunately he already seems to know.
Martin
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:22 am
by zoltan
Final placings for FoG Worlds 2011:
1st Shaun Drummond (NZ) 110.7 (big win against Stacey in round 6)
2nd Dave Ruddock (GB) 96.8 (big win against Rattray in round 6)
3rd James Hamilton (GB) 89.1 (big win against Holland in round 6)
4th Richard Stacey (NZ) 84.6 (big lost to Drummondin round 6)
5th Richard Stubbs (AUS) 81.2 (winagainst Evans in round 6)
6th Aaron Nicoll (NZ) 80.0 (winning draw against Winter in round 6)
7th Michael Haycock (NZ) 79.9 (big win in round 6)
8th Steve Murton (GB) 74.6 (big win in round 6)
9th Mark Holland (NZ) 74.4 (well beaten by Hammy in round 6)
10th Paul Rattray (AUS) 74.3 (well beaten by Ruddock in round 6)
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:43 am
by david53
Well done to all the players
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 10:18 am
by zoltan
dave_r wrote:Four UK Wargamers were asked for their predictions on the upcoming IWF tournament in Wellington. Here is what they thought:
Ian Stewart:
1. Hammy
2. Shaun Drummond
3. Dave Ruddock
Phil Powell:
1. Dave Ruddock
2. Shaun Drummond
3. Mark Holland
Nik Gaukroger:
1. Dave Ruddock
2. Shaun Drummond
3. James Hamilton
Dave Ruddock:
1. Dave Ruddock
2. James Hamilton
3. Shaun Drummond
There is beer involved in this - points scoring system is as follows
- named player in the top three - 1 point
- named player in correct spot - 3 points
Feel free to add your own gueses. It must be noted that Phil felt "shamed, unclean and somewhat soiled" over his choice, but as there was beer involved he went for the pragmatic rather than romantic viewpoint.
Looks to me like the list checker cleans up!
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 12:47 pm
by nikgaukroger
Congratulations to Shaun - well played
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:51 pm
by timurilenk
nikgaukroger wrote:Congratulations to Shaun - well played
I concur - won by a good margin too - well done Shaun!
Interestingly 3 of 4 of us got the top 3 and Phil had 2/3. Just the order wrong!