European (Tea)Cup - League B - Budapest vs Prague

[TeaLovingDave]

This time round, we see a pair of highly well-regarded Central European collections facing off against one another; one has been having an extremely successful Cup thus far, whilst the other has yet to win any matches.... but how will the category of CARNIVORES impact the record of the two collections in question?

As always, you lot decide

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Feels like a fairly cut-and-dried win for Prague here, although I am open to being persuaded otherwise; as such, pending any further arguments I shall start off with a 4:1 vote for the Czech contender.

 

[Philipine eagle]

Prague not only has a far larger collection than Budapest (35 versus 19), but there are also more interesting species to see, including some true rarities: Brown hyena, Cape fur seal, Indochinese Smooth-coathed otter, Central African ratel, Malayan tiger, North American river otter, Palawan binturong and Palawan leopard cat.

So far I'm with you for 4:1

 

[lintworm]

Lucky draw for Prague . While they have plenty of carnivores, their enclosures are not always great, with the polar bears as obvious low point. Budapest has finally given away their polar bears, but many of their carnivore enclosures are on the smaller side of acceptable and I cannot think of any great ones. Voting 3-2 Prague, that polar bear enclosure is really dragging them down.

 

[Kalaw]

When I visited Prague for the first time last summer, I had heard a lot about the low quality of their carnivore displays, and therefore, as excited as I was for my visit, I was somewhat nervous that I wouldn't enjoy it as much for that reason.

Thankfully, I found that whole narrative to be somewhat overblown. The Polar Bear enclosure is poor, no arguing with that, and I wasn't a massive fan of the all-indoor Palawan Leopard Cat enclosure either, but other than those two blemishes I was mostly very impressed by Prague's carnivoran offerings.

A few of the more noteworthy enclosures for this category:

@Kalaw - the spacious, dense and attractive red panda enclosure, fading nicely into the cliff face.

@LaughingDove - the larger of the two Polar Bear grottos, undeniably awful.

@Robaque - the large and shaded Maned Wolf enclosure.

@lintworm - one of the larger and more attractive Bush Dog enclosures that I have seen, with a pool and a sizable onshow indoor area. It is worth noting that the entire upper half of the zoo, and therefore all the carnivore enclosures found there, are enriched by the beautiful mature tree coverage, such as what is pictured above.

@Robaque - a very large North American River Otter enclosure with a nice water feature.

@Robaque - the White-nosed Coati enclosure, for me Prague's best carnivore offering. Many mature trees, dense undergrowth, and ropes to connect the trees, with all fencings well-hidden and the enclosure giving the illusion that it never ends.

@Baldur - the Siberian Tiger enclosure in Northern Forest, large and well-landscaped. From memory, the above picture shows roughly two thirds, possibly less, of their space, with the off-camera portion being even more dense.

@Maguari - a small portion of the large, grassy and shaded Eurasian Grey Wolf enclosure.

@vogelcommando - a huge Brown Hyena enclosure, one of two roughly similar-sized ones. Together, they constitute what is for me, along with the coatis, Prague's best carnivore enclosure. Again benefitting from the mature trees, as well as the abundance of offshow dens, and being larger than many enclosures for the even larger Spotted species!

@Kalaw - the two very nice Pallas' Cat cages, both of which are, rather unusually, desert-themed.

@Robaque - the Malayan Tiger enclosure in the Feline and Cat Pavilion really impressed me, with its many trees, deep pool, solid climbing apparatus and ample retreats for privacy. The nearby Sumatran one (so Prague indeed has three tiger subspecies!) is near-identical. Not amazing, but certainly not as bad as many strangely make it out to be.

@Kalaw - to be fair, this Asiatic Lion enclosure is quite mediocre as well. It isn't too bad, with only a single male, and the questionably large moat drained to increase land space, but even still I found it a little small and barren.

@Kalaw - one of three, similar-sized and all excellent small cat enclosures in the Feline and Cat Pavilion. This one houses Fishing Cat and is notable for its deep pool with underwater viewing, but the others (Geoffroy's and Amur Leopard Cats) are good too.

@Baldur - indoors for the tigers. While I do believe the outdoors are very good, the indoors for all cat species in the Feline and Reptile Pavilion are far less pleasant, very barren and unattractive. That said, with a series of interconnected stalls, space and separation options are catered for, and I wouldn't be surprised if most such big cat indoor enclosures in Europe are similar, just offshow.

@Maguari - an aerial view of the large and hilly Cheetah enclosure. Great for the animals, but viewing is a little limited at just one end of the enclosure, with the massive hill allowing the cheetahs to easily retreat from the animals. As such, an aerial view is needed to appreciate the size of the enclosure. The cheetahs also have additional offshow enclosures near the Northern Forest.

@Kalaw - a very large and deep Cape Fur Seal pool, although not the best-looking.

Overall, I found Prague's carnivore enclosures to be of a very high standard, and if it wasn't for the Polar Bears weighing them down it would probably be amongst the highest standards I have seen, and for the largest collection of carnivore taxa at a non-specialist zoo in Europe at that. Not to mention the added charm of the displays from the use of natural materials and in particular the abundance of mature trees. There are offshow breeding complexes for species such as cheetahs and Amur Leopards, which as I understand it are not currently used for breeding, but still provide extensive separation options. And as @Philipine eagle has already described, Prague's collection isn't just bigger, it is more interesting. Brown Hyenas alone deserve a point, never mind NARO, Honey Badgers, Palawan Leopard Cats, Tayras, Cape Fur Seals and three subspecies of tiger!

I don't know too much about Budapest, but from what I can tell from the gallery, the average standard of exhibitry there for carnivores is considerably lower than it is at Prague, with the distinction that Budapest lacks a single enclosure as atrocious as Prague's Polar Bear grotto, but even then I'm not sure. The sea lion and bear enclosures look very bad, and I am not convinced either by what seems to be a very small and cramped mongoose enclosure, or the small water source in the Giant Otter enclosure - granted, both of the latter inferences could be illusions from the photos. For just about every species which both zoos keep (lions, tigers, Pallas' cats, etc) Prague's enclosure seems to be far superior. It's all subjective, of course, but I personally don't see why a zoo of 35 carnivore taxa becomes a mediocre zoo for carnivores when one of them is held in poor accommodation and the rest of them are displayed excellently.

4-1 Prague for now, but if someone can convince me that Budapest is worthy of two points I am more than happy to change.

 

[Dassie rat]

Prague has 25 carnivores listed on ZTL that Budapest doesn't have. I've added 22 points for carnivores found in up to 10 European ZTL collections
Budapest has 12 carnivores listed on ZTL that Prague doesn't have. All of these are found in more than 10 European ZTL collections
This is a 47-12 win for Prague, giving it a 4-1 win

 

[twilighter]

Praguecentric League B starts to be boring Prague vs x = 4:1

Unfortunately that's the reality...

Budapest carnivores didn't really stepped into the 21 century and looks like they missed the big renovation processes in the late 90's. Given the zoos enormous finance burdens, I am not sure when this going to change.

The Polar Bears are not the only red flag for Prague in this category, but the quality and quantity gaps are serious...

 

[TeaLovingDave]

Praguecentric League B starts to be boring Prague vs x = 4:1

I reckon matters would have been far worse if I hadn't made an exception for the two Berlin collections when deciding to combine zoological collections managed under a single umbrella (so as to increase the overall pool of collections represented) and kept both Zoo Berlin and Tierpark Berlin as distinct entities.

Similarly, if I do indeed extend the Cup out to a worldwide scope after the first long slog has ended, i will most certainly keep the two San Diego collections distinct. The issue of how to deal with the Singapore question will be another difficult one.....

Lucky draw for Prague .

Out of curiosity, which categories do you predict Prague would fare the worst in?

 

[twilighter]

I reckon matters would have been far worse if I hadn't made an exception for the two Berlin collections when deciding to combine zoological collections managed under a single umbrella (so as to increase the overall pool of collections represented) and kept both Zoo Berlin and Tierpark Berlin as distinct entities.

Similarly, if I do indeed extend the Cup out to a worldwide scope after the first long slog has ended, i will most certainly keep the two San Diego collections distinct. The issue of how to deal with the Singapore question will be another difficult one.....



Out of curiosity, which categories do you predict Prague would fare the worst in?

Btw my comment doesn't implying that there's something wrong with the draw. I am happy that you decided to take this enormous task on your scholders and I respect the final result as it is.

I am just acknowledge the Prague superiority, as a neutral fan and as I commented before, I hardly see any weaknesses in the current format. And of course they have some flaws in each category.

I think is definitely important not to combine the two Berlin collections in a Europe cup, if you want to be intresting and competitive.

World Tournament is a different Cup of Tea, but again, I don't think it would be fare to combine the San Diegos or Berlins either. Even tho the all four collections are practically wakened because of the need to share resources, rare animals and glory with their sibling, they have unique personal carecter and trade mark collection.

Singapore is a very special case, tho. Imho all Mandai collections should be considered as one entity. However, the moment that they open Rainforest fase II, they probably should compete in their one league. Or there should be a Super League where the whole areas of San Diego, Berlin, Singapore and maybe New York compete But that's for the future debate.

 

[lintworm]

Out of curiosity, which categories do you predict Prague would fare the worst in?

That is a hard question. Prague probably has the best all-round zoo in the competition when combining quality and quantity. But it has one major weakness in that it has no aquarium, so with ectotherms, but especially water, it is vulnerable against the right opponent (though that is probably limited to Wroclaw, Cologne, Zoo Berlin & Burgers' Zoo). But even in that category there is a lot of quality with the gharials & giant salamanders, as well as the SE-Asian wader aviary near the cliff. There are only a few zoos that would stand a chance. I also think South America would be a tough sell against the right opponent and because that category lacks any of the real highlights of Prague, it might be their weakest category. Even a zoo like the Wilhelma would stand a real chance. Prague's real luck was the draw, with Zagreb, Copenhagen & Budapest instead of WIlhelma, Nuernberg & Leipzig OR Burgers' Zoo, Beauval & Cologne. Though it would still have won most of those matches.

With how the cup is designed (this is just an observation, not a criticism) any match is basically scored on a combination of quantity and quality. But what is most rewarded in general is large quantities of good (enough), over smaller quantities of excellence. This means that having a bigger collection is a bigger asset than having better exhibits. But only as long as the bigger collection has enough average to good exhibits (and preferably one or two excellent ones), then it will basically almost win. As an example, Prague will always win in this competition from Burgers' Zoo in the bird category. Even though there are plenty of small(ish) or overcrowded aviaries in Prague, whereas over 80% of all the birds at Burgers' are free-flying (and often breeding) in halls of 3.000-13.000 square metres). That Burgers' Zoo has 8 species on show that can be seen nowhere else in Europe (and another 20 something that are also rarities), doesn't matter as Burgers' Zoo has only 68 bird species, compared to the hundreds of Prague which also has plenty of rarities,. It would be arguing to get most people to vote 3-2 instead of 4-1 Prague. Even though the weakest exhibit in Burgers', which is in my opinion the vulture aviary, is still vastly superior to all but one of the many bird of prey exhibits in Prague.

That is just how it works with this format, but it would be interesting to see if one could come up with a format that relies less on quantity and rewards quality more. Otherwise every Zoochat cup will most likely find the Berlins, Prague or Chester as winner in Europe, with a worldwide version adding Omaha, San Diego, Bronx and Singapore as real competitors. I don't know how to do that, but it is a fun thought experiment. Which to repeat, is not a criticism of the current format, but it could be interesting to spice things up in the future. Basically the current format asks "Where would I want to go to see XX", whereas you could try to change that to " Where would I want to be XX".

 

[CrashMegaraptor]

So, on a quick count...

Spoiler

Present in Both
Red Panda
Yellow Mongoose
Dwarf Mongoose
Pallas' Cat
Asiatic Lion
Amur Tiger
Meerkat

Prague Only
South African Cheetah
Palawan Binturong
Cape Fur Seal
Eurasian Wolf
Caracal
Maned Wolf
Fossa
Tayra
Jaguarundi
Geoffroy's Cat
North American River Otter
Smooth-Coated Otter
Ratel
White-Nosed Coati
Indochinese Clouded Leopard
Bat-Eared Fox
Amur Leopard
Tiger (Malayan & Sumatran)
Brown Hyena
Leopard Cat (Amur & Palawan)
Fishing Cat
Cougar
Bush Dog
Polar Bear

Budapest Only
Chinese Dhole
Wolverine
Banded Mongoose
European Polecat
South American Coati
Persian Leopard
Harbour Seal
Kinkajou
Giant Otter
European Brown Bear
Red Fox
California Sea Lion

It would definitely seem Prague has a distinct advantage in terms of species number, although both have a couple of distinct, hardly super common species.

Also, yeah, that polar bear exhibit is just...wow. Especially having just come back from YWP, it's night and day.

 

[twilighter]

That is a hard question. Prague probably has the best all-round zoo in the competition when combining quality and quantity. But it has one major weakness in that it has no aquarium, so with ectotherms, but especially water, it is vulnerable against the right opponent (though that is probably limited to Wroclaw, Cologne, Zoo Berlin & Burgers' Zoo). But even in that category there is a lot of quality with the gharials & giant salamanders, as well as the SE-Asian wader aviary near the cliff. There are only a few zoos that would stand a chance. I also think South America would be a tough sell against the right opponent and because that category lacks any of the real highlights of Prague, it might be their weakest category. Even a zoo like the Wilhelma would stand a real chance. Prague's real luck was the draw, with Zagreb, Copenhagen & Budapest instead of WIlhelma, Nuernberg & Leipzig OR Burgers' Zoo, Beauval & Cologne. Though it would still have won most of those matches.

With how the cup is designed (this is just an observation, not a criticism) any match is basically scored on a combination of quantity and quality. But what is most rewarded in general is large quantities of good (enough), over smaller quantities of excellence. This means that having a bigger collection is a bigger asset than having better exhibits. But only as long as the bigger collection has enough average to good exhibits (and preferably one or two excellent ones), then it will basically almost win. As an example, Prague will always win in this competition from Burgers' Zoo in the bird category. Even though there are plenty of small(ish) or overcrowded aviaries in Prague, whereas over 80% of all the birds at Burgers' are free-flying (and often breeding) in halls of 3.000-13.000 square metres). That Burgers' Zoo has 8 species on show that can be seen nowhere else in Europe (and another 20 something that are also rarities), doesn't matter as Burgers' Zoo has only 68 bird species, compared to the hundreds of Prague which also has plenty of rarities,. It would be arguing to get most people to vote 3-2 instead of 4-1 Prague. Even though the weakest exhibit in Burgers', which is in my opinion the vulture aviary, is still vastly superior to all but one of the many bird of prey exhibits in Prague.

That is just how it works with this format, but it would be interesting to see if one could come up with a format that relies less on quantity and rewards quality more. Otherwise every Zoochat cup will most likely find the Berlins, Prague or Chester as winner in Europe, with a worldwide version adding Omaha, San Diego, Bronx and Singapore as real competitors. I don't know how to do that, but it is a fun thought experiment. Which to repeat, is not a criticism of the current format, but it could be interesting to spice things up in the future. Basically the current format asks "Where would I want to go to see XX", whereas you could try to change that to " Where would I want to be XX".

You summerise it better than anyone else @lintworm! It's important to mention also that many of us who vote are not a zoo professionals, but passionate zoo and animals lovers and sometimes travel thousands of miles to visit a new place and see new animals. Zurich is probably the best Zoo in Europe, if you judge only by quality of their exhibits, but leaves you quite unsatisfied of their collection.

There is definitely a bias towards big and diverse collections in the current format. Maybe If we narrow down some of the categories, for example "Giraffes" , "Mustelidae", "Nocturnal exhibits" or maybe "Conservation" it will probably benefit smaller, but higher quality zoos. The bigger collection still going to have more potential to cover more categories in the draw

 

[pipaluk]

I have not had the good fortune to visit Prague, having had 2 visits there cancelled.
Although it is strong in most areas, I would suggest Africa or primates could be weaknesses against the wrong opponent, in addition to the Ectotherms, Water and South America already suggested by @lintworm

 

[lintworm]

There is definitely a bias towards big and diverse collections in the current format. Maybe If we narrow down some of the categories, for example "Giraffes" , "Mustelidae", "Nocturnal exhibits" or maybe "Conservation" it will probably benefit smaller, but higher quality zoos. The bigger collection still going to have more potential to cover more categories in the draw

I don't think narrower taxonomic categories would work. Exhibit styles are a category that might work. Many other potential categories, such as husbandry, conservation & education, are things that are not accessible enough for this format.

Zurich is probably the best Zoo in Europe, if you judge only by quality of their exhibits, but leaves you quite unsatisfied of their collection.

As long as the ape house (and adjacent seal pool) exist, I would say Burgers' Zoo can still claim that title among the competitors in this competition. Fun fact: Burgers' Zoo has only 63 individual exhibits (of which 1/3rd are located in the tunnel & Desert), there are plenty of individual zoo buildings that have far more.

If we take the whole of the continent, smaller places like Bern, Nordens Ark and Doue come into contention too. But on that scale it is an impossible question to answer.

 

[CrashMegaraptor]

In terms of narrower taxonomic categories, I'm not entirely sure if that'll work considering some of them could be extremely niche... perhaps, it could be argued, too niche. The categories we've got (six animal family-based groups, four location-based groups and five habitat-based groups) do cover a wide variety and are inevitably almost-always present in most of the big-name zoos.

I think there could definitely be an argument on considering quality over quantity (as in, don't just pick one simply because it has twice as many animals as the other), but from what I've seen so far, this appears to be what everyone here is doing anyway. Although I suppose there is also the possibility of ranking the best zoos based on each individual category alone...

 

[Kalaw]

Another factor that hugely favours Prague (and Köln, both Berlins, Chester, and the other more well-rounded, generalist zoos) is the structure, and more specifically the lack of knockout rounds. If, on the final matchday against Wrocław, Prague draws 'water' or 'ectotherms,' it will most likely lose, but it won't matter, because it has already won its other four games by big margins, and will safely be advancing, most likely top of the group. Even if Wrocław also advances (which it most likely will) and therefore the result carries over to the next league phase, there will still be four other matches on different, more advantageous categories, and Prague will likely win most of them. By contrast, if we had knockout rounds, then all that had to happen was for Prague to draw 'water' against somewhere like Wrocław or Burgers', and it would be out like that, without the lifeline of playing Budapest on 'carnivores' and Zagreb on 'islands'. Even if we had more traditional group stages of four teams each, then it would have a chance of being eliminated because it only needs two unlucky draws - looking back at the archives, this appears to be what happened in the most recent World Cup where Prague had a narrow defeat to Chester on carnivores and was subsequently eliminated. That said, the structure moving on from the semi-final group stage is yet to be revealed. Maybe we will have a knockout, or something similar, for the final, which could be very suspenseful for some zoos who need to hope they don't draw an unlucky category.

This isn't a criticism of the new structure, which I actually am really fond of. Much like the new Champions League format, a bit of me expected that I wouldn't like this struture compared to the old group stages in the archives, but I've actually preferred it. It has handed us some absurd upsets like Zürich losing all of its first three and Pairi Daiza losing all of its first four, with both now on course to be shock early eliminations. Football fans will be able to equate this to the collapse of Manchester City, whom, much like Pairi in a way, are in a far better financial position than anyone else, dominated as a result, and therefore had the whole world celebrating their collapse this season.

 

[pipaluk]

This is down to the luck of the draw, but of the seeded zoos Prague seems to have done rather well when the groups were formed - Copenhagen, Budapest and Zagreb (even the Belgian duo) are probably amongst the weaker opponents Prague could have got.
Compare that to Zoo Berlin which was drawn with ZSL, Beauval, Cologne and Burgers who would all probably contend for 2nd at worst in any of the other groups!

 

[twilighter]

Another factor that hugely favours Prague (and Köln, both Berlins, Chester, and the other more well-rounded, generalist zoos) is the structure, and more specifically the lack of knockout rounds. If, on the final matchday against Wrocław, Prague draws 'water' or 'ectotherms,' it will most likely lose, but it won't matter, because it has already won its other four games by big margins, and will safely be advancing, most likely top of the group. Even if Wrocław also advances (which it most likely will) and therefore the result carries over to the next league phase, there will still be four other matches on different, more advantageous categories, and Prague will likely win most of them. By contrast, if we had knockout rounds, then all that had to happen was for Prague to draw 'water' against somewhere like Wrocław or Burgers', and it would be out like that, without the lifeline of playing Budapest on 'carnivores' and Zagreb on 'islands'. Even if we had more traditional group stages of four teams each, then it would have a chance of being eliminated because it only needs two unlucky draws - looking back at the archives, this appears to be what happened in the most recent World Cup where Prague had a narrow defeat to Chester on carnivores and was subsequently eliminated. That said, the structure moving on from the semi-final group stage is yet to be revealed. Maybe we will have a knockout, or something similar, for the final, which could be very suspenseful for some zoos who need to hope they don't draw an unlucky category.

This isn't a criticism of the new structure, which I actually am really fond of. Much like the new Champions League format, a bit of me expected that I wouldn't like this struture compared to the old group stages in the archives, but I've actually preferred it. It has handed us some absurd upsets like Zürich losing all of its first three and Pairi Daiza losing all of its first four, with both now on course to be shock early eliminations. Football fans will be able to equate this to the collapse of Manchester City, whom, much like Pairi in a way, are in a far better financial position than anyone else, dominated as a result, and therefore had the whole world celebrating their collapse this season.

Prague - Chaster on Carnivores was a classic bloody game I somehow have a feeling that those two will meet again.

 

[Lafone]

Have only been to Budapest out of the two, so have enjoyed the interesting information and discussion in this and the other threads.

Voted 3:2 Prague due to the Polar bear enclosure dragging a point off for me.

Also interesting to see the views on collection size and voting influences - I find I fall into the seeming outlier / minority group of liking quality more over quantity. I’d rather see a few things well displayed and contextualised for conservation and education than 24 unusual cats in a box, but mileage differs and as mentioned elsewhere it would be a dull old competition if we all liked the same thing. It is the case that places with lots of things pretty well held will come off well vs those with fewer held in an equivalent way though.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

With how the cup is designed (this is just an observation, not a criticism) any match is basically scored on a combination of quantity and quality. But what is most rewarded in general is large quantities of good (enough), over smaller quantities of excellence. This means that having a bigger collection is a bigger asset than having better exhibits. But only as long as the bigger collection has enough average to good exhibits (and preferably one or two excellent ones), then it will basically almost win.

Exhibit styles are a category that might work. Many other potential categories, such as husbandry, conservation & education, are things that are not accessible enough for this format.

There is definitely a bias towards big and diverse collections in the current format. Maybe If we narrow down some of the categories, for example "Giraffes" , "Mustelidae", "Nocturnal exhibits" or maybe "Conservation" it will probably benefit smaller, but higher quality zoos. The bigger collection still going to have more potential to cover more categories in the draw

That said, the structure moving on from the semi-final group stage is yet to be revealed. Maybe we will have a knockout, or something similar, for the final, which could be very suspenseful for some zoos who need to hope they don't draw an unlucky category.

All factors which I have already been considering when trying to work out how precisely the categories in the semi-final and final stages will be determined there's a few ideas I have been playing around with, but all still in the early stages as yet!