This question popped up in the #knightmare chat room earlier, so, looking at the Series guides, I decided to find out. First I looked at the 8 winning teams, and added one point to each part of the UK they came from. This produced a three-way tie, so I decided to add the teams who died in Level 3, and add them as half points to the totals. I've since done that, so now I can reveal the most successful part of the country that participated in Knightmare. It's...
...the WEST MIDLANDS, with 2 winning teams and 1 Level 3 team! (2 1/2 points) Here are the rest of the results:
Second place (2 points): Oxfordshire and Devon, each with 2 winning teams, and London, with 4 Level 3 teams.
Third place (1 1/2 points): Hertfordshire, with 1 winning team and 1 level 3 team.
Fourth place (1 point): Yorkshire, with 2 level 3 teams, and Wiltshire, with 1 winning team.
Fifth place (1/2 of a point): Merseyside, Tyne & Wear, Hampshire, Northamptonshire, Dorset, Cornwall, Southampton and Leicester, each with 1 level 3 team.
Maybe one day I'll add up the teams who died in Level 1, and see which part of the UK was the worst at Knightmare!
Ah, but have you taken into account how many teams came from each area (statistician kicking in here) or are we presuming that an equal ratio from each area applied for the interviews ?
Kicking my own statistical knowledge here, it might be good to weight the points system according to the population of each area being surveyed. For example, an area with twice the population should get half the points.
No, because the population size of a particular area has no effect on its chances of being successful i.e. every team, no matter which area it came from, had four members. The only counterbalance should be the number of teams that came from a particular area.
This best region question should be answered in the next release of the FANSFAQ, which I expect to have complete before the start of June.
HStorm wrote:
No, because the population size of a particular area has no effect on its chances of being successful i.e. every team, no matter which area it came from, had four members. The only counterbalance should be the number of teams that came from a particular area.
Firstly, there isn't a large enough data set to make a statistically valid analysis such as that.
At the same time, I think you should take a look at how many teams came from each area and then divide it. Sure, 4 teams might have made level 3 from london but if 20 london teams played then are london teams really better than for example yorkshire (that may have had 2 level 3 teams out of 3 playing teams).
Just something to think about if you're going to make this more official.
Well yes, Rachel, what you're describing is exactly what I have in mind. I was just saying that the gross population of a particular area isn't really relevant but the number of teams coming from that area is.
HStorm wrote:
Well yes, Rachel, what you're describing is exactly what I have in mind. I was just saying that the gross population of a particular area isn't really relevant but the number of teams coming from that area is.
It is though. A larger area will have more teams coming from it to the interview. Only the 'best' teams get through the initial interview stages and there would probably have been complaints if all the teams were middle-class white males from London so they would have possibly tried to maintain a reasonably even regional distribution meaning the teams from lesser-represented areas mightn't have needed to meet as high a standard.
(Note: this is speculation, but I know they would filter teams like this today).
Fair point, but the trouble is we don't have access to practically any of the audition info, and I'd be amazed if Broadsword or Anglia had retained it after all these years. The only info we can work with will have to be the contestants on the programme itself.
i think the midlands did very well all round actually!!! they were voted the ebst on that test the nation a couple of years ago werent they??? or it was Leicester or summat???