ZooChat Cup - rebooted

This is a great idea and a lot of fun! I was worried I may not feel like I can contribute or vote because I haven't been to most of the zoos, but everyone's comments help and I can scroll through the gallery. For reference, I have only been to 3 places in the competition (St. Louis, Omaha, and Detroit), but will also be going to the 2 San Diego facilities in the next 2 weeks. I regret not stumbling across this sooner to participate in the first round or being able participate in the previous ones.
 
Ok. My thanks to @TheGerenuk , who kindly understood my request to leave the punditry to me. I mostly stay out of the debates, so these review-and-preview posts are where I get to engage most fully in the game.

Each zoo has now played two matches. A couple have safely advanced and a couple are out, but the vast majority still have a chance to advance. So let’s see where we are.

Group A

Los Angeles 50 d North Carolina 19 - ectotherms
Vienna 34 d Munich 26 - primates
Munich 78 d North Carolina 3 - miscellaneous mammals
Vienna 56 d Los Angeles 19 - birds

Vienna 2 wins, 0 losses, 65.7%
Munich 1 win, 1 loss, 69.8%
Los Angeles 1 win, 1 loss, 48.9%
North Carolina 0 wins, 2 losses, 15.6%

This group is pretty simple. Vienna’s win over Los Angeles means it has safely advanced, and it can top the group with a win over North Carolina which, I’m afraid to say, is left playing for pride. The remaining categories are carnivores and ungulates & elephants, though, so NC stands a pretty good chance of restoring its dignity. The winner of Munich and Los Angeles will decide who gets the other spot in the next round.

Group B

Detroit 58 d Berlin 53 - carnivores
Wroclaw 90 d San Diego 0 - miscellaneous mammals
Berlin 81 d San Diego 6 - primates
Wroclaw 61 d Detroit 17 - birds

Wroclaw 2 wins, 0 losses, 89.1%
Berlin 1 win, 1 loss, 70.4%
Detroit 1 win, 1 loss, 31.6%
San Diego ZSP 0 wins, 2 losses, 3.5%

San Diego ZSP’s misfortune has exposed its unbalanced collection in rather humbling fashion. Had it drawn carnivores and ungulates it’d be on its way into the second round by now... instead, it’s at 3.5% and faces coming stone motherless last among the 32 zoos in the comp.

Wroclaw effortlessly knocked aside a second US challenger and is now mathematically certain to advance: even a whitewash loss in the third match can only reduce its average to 59.4%, whereas a Detroit whitewash over San Diego can only get it up to 54.4%.

That doesn’t quite mean Detroit is out of contention, though, because if it beats San Diego and Wroclaw brushes aside Berlin, Detroit is through and the Euro title-holder is gone. The remaining categories are ectotherms and ungulates, which means it really is all or nothing for Detroit: draw ectotherms and have a real shot at advancing, or hit ungulates and be on the wrong side of a spiteful San Diego.

Group C

Plzen 63 d Columbus 27 - miscellaneous mammals
Rotterdam 43 d Singapore 38 - ectotherms
Rotterdam 36 d Columbus 18 - primates
Singapore 36 d Plzen 18 - carnivores

Rotterdam 2 wins, 0 losses, 59.9%
Singapore 1 win, 1 loss, 56.8%
Plzen 1 win, 1 loss, 51.7%
Columbus 0 wins, 2 losses, 31.7%

This is delicately poised. Rotterdam only needs a win, obviously, to advance out of the group undefeated. It would be very happy to face Plzen on ungulates, one suspects, and rather warier about the same match-up on birds.

Singapore doesn’t want birds either - remember, Jurong doesn’t count - but it probably doesn’t love ungulates much anyway. That might not even matter: a big win for Rotterdam that knocks Plzen’s percentage down far enough could see Singapore through on percentage even if it loses to Columbus. The same applies for Plzen if Columbus does enough damage to Singapore. And if *both* matches are blowouts there’s even a narrow but plausible path for Columbus to come from a winless fourth place to snatch second spot. Think at the margins about these matches, everybody: it’s going to matter.

Group D

Beauval 41 d Frankfurt 34 - carnivores
San Diego 61 d St Louis 8 - birds
Beauval 63 d San Diego 21 - ungulates and elephants
St Louis 54 d Frankfurt 24 - ectotherms

Beauval 2 wins, 0 losses, 64.9%
San Diego 1 win, 1 loss, 56.7%
St Louis 1 win, 1 loss, 40.4%
Frankfurt 0 wins, 2 losses, 38.1%

I’m not going to lie, I didn’t see Beauval’s frolicking win over San Diego coming, though I’m not sure why: I’ve been to both zoos and it should have been self-evident that Beauval would be tough to beat.

Anyway, it’s blown this group right open, with primates and miscellaneous mammals still in play: there’s a Grzimek-sized obstacle in San Diego’s path to beating Frankfurt and advancing out of the group. A solid enough win for St Louis over Beauval and it might advance even if SD also wins, while Frankfurt has a narrow path that depends on stomping on San Diego and relying on Beauval to do the same to St Louis.

Group E

Cologne 54 d Denver 9 - miscellaneous mammals
Miami 63 d Pairi Daiza 18 - ungulates and elephants
Cologne 53 d Miami 19 - primates
Denver 44 d Pairi Daiza 43 - carnivores

Cologne 2 wins, 0 losses, 79.7%
Miami 1 win, 1 loss, 52.1%
Denver 1 win, 1 loss, 32.5%
Pairi Daiza 0 wins, 2 losses, 35.8%

One point. One lousy point, and now Pairi Daiza - a zoo that really should be contending to win the entire Cup, is on its way home instead.

With Denver and Miami both on one win each, the winner of their match advances, and I honestly don’t know enough about either zoo to speculate about which non-mammal category favours either one. Pairi Daiza, meanwhile, could whitewash Cologne and it still won’t do it any good: one lousy point has seen to that.

Group F

Bronx 64 d Antwerp 38 - primates
Zurich 65 d Leipzig 37 - ectotherms
Zurich 53 d Antwerp 40 - ungulates and elephants
Leipzig 53 d Bronx 52 - miscellaneous mammals

Zurich 2 win, 0 losses, 60.4%
Bronx 1 win, 1 loss, 56.1%
Leipzig 1 win, 1 loss, 43.4%
Antwerp 0 wins, 2 losses, 40.2%

Another one pointer that could have terrible consequences for a leading contender for Cup honours. The Leipzig-Bronx match wasn’t pretty, but it was certainly tight and it’s set my favourite group up for a fascinating final round of matches. The remaining categories are carnivores and birds, and I wouldn’t wish to predict which of Bronx or Zurich would come out ahead on either, whereas the category draw for Antwerp and Leipzig is probably more decisive. The lack of any real blowouts means all four zoos could either advance or crash out here.

Group G

Taronga 57 d Berlin Tierpark 27 - ectotherms
Burgers 41 v Woodland Park 22 - primates
Berlin Tierpark 73 d Burgers 26 - ungulates and elephants
Taronga 40 d Woodland Park 29 - birds

Taronga 2 wins, 0 losses, 63%
Berlin Tierpark 1 win, 1 loss, 52.9%
Burgers 1 win, 1 loss,45.7%
Woodland Park 0 wins, 2 losses, 38.9%

Don’t get me wrong, I love Taronga, which is the closest thing I have to a home zoo in the race, but I did not see this coming. With miscellaneous mammals and carnivores still to come, it might be only a platypus away from romping out of the first group stage undefeated. Who’d have thought? That same platypus has Burgers - one of the very best quality zoos in the world - at real risk of failing to advance, and Woodland Park is in with a real sniff too. Going into the Cup I thought this group would be easy pickings for European heavyweights. Perhaps not.

Group H

Chester 46 d Dallas 20 - birds
Omaha 46 d Prague 32 - ectotherms
Chester 55 d Omaha 32 - ungulates
Prague 68 d Dallas 25 - primates

Chester 2 wins, 0 losses, 66.5%
Prague 1 win, 1 loss, 57.1%
Omaha 1 win, 1 loss, 47.9%
Dallas 0 wins, 2 losses, 28.6%

Poor Dallas is a bit over-matched in this group of death: it probably needed to hit ungulates as a category and could only watch Chester and Omaha fight it out from beneath Prague’s boots, as the latter crushed it on primates. It has a mathematical chance if Chester knocks over Prague and it beats Omaha by a lot, but it needs almost everything to go right. The remaining categories are carnivores and miscellaneous mammals, and you have to assume Chester feels relatively good about its position either way.

We’ll start the deciding contests anon.
 
CGSwans said:
Rotterdam only needs a win, obviously, to advance out of the group undefeated. It would be very happy to face Plzen on ungulates, one suspects, and rather warier about the same match-up on birds.
Click to expand...

You might be surprised - Plzen does have a few ungulate aces of its own!
 
snowleopard said:
These past couple of matches have certainly been one-sided. As things stand right now, it is 62-25 in favour of North Carolina and in the other Group A match it is 48-30 in favour of Munich. In truth, I think that both of those matches could have been even more one-sided, with one zoo utterly dominating the other and deservedly so.

Perhaps we'll have some closely-fought contests in the next few days.
Click to expand...

I’m pulling this quote from the Vienna-North Carolina thread because it makes more sense to respond here, as it’s a house-keeping issue.

I’ve given a lot of thought to how often we get lopsided contests and tried various ways to reduce it, but I’ve realised it’s a design feature, not a bug. The logical outcome of a game designed to encourage advocacy and debate is an increased level of consensus: the games are lopsided because people are playing them well and convincing others of their argument. So I think we should savour the occasional nail-biter as the rare treat they are.

The good news is that the current format has changed the game in several ways:
  • There’s been plenty of matches, like that Vienna-NC one, where the overall outcome wasn’t in any great doubt even early on, but where debate has shifted to focus on whether a zoo deserves two points or three (or zero points or one, if you want to be glass-half-empty about it).
  • The three point scale has smoothed out the size, if not the frequency of lopsided contests. A consensus view that one zoo is consistently but not overwhelmingly stronger on a given topic will typically mean the results cluster around the winning zoo securing 60-70% of the vote, as opposed to 90-100% in previous tournaments. That means a late argument for people to change their vote can actually be more powerful than it was before.
  • The system of using percentages as tie-breakers gives an importance not only to the win-loss outcome, but the size of that outcome. You’re not actually allowed to change your vote based only on what it means for the round-robin standings, but that doesn’t mean you can’t be aware of it and use it as an incentive to argue your case for why you are voting the way you are. There will be groups where qualification is uncertain right up until the end, even if the win-loss outcomes aren’t themselves in doubt, because a shift of a couple of votes could decide who is in front on a percentage basis across the group.
I think all of the above has led to a much better system for operating the tournament, but it all functions well because we’re doing a round-robin group stage rather than pure knock-out. So I’m going to announce something now that I was planning to hold back a little longer.

We aren’t going to have a knock-out stage. Instead we’re going to have four rounds of group stages, with the field halving each time. The 16 zoos that qualify out of the first round will be divided up into four quarter-final groups of four, followed by two semi-final groups of four, and then a final group of four to decide on a winner.

Rankings within groups still matter: each group will consist of two winners and two runners-up from the previous group stage. A few zoos will encounter each other more than once, in which case they will be drawn into different categories each time. I intend to have different types of categories for each group stage, though I’m still tinkering with exactly how I will do that.

The winning zoo will ultimately have had to maintain a leading standard across 12 matches against (I think, if my maths is right) at least eight different opponents. It will have truly earned its unofficial crown as the best zoo in the world.
 
Brilliant idea !

Off. The Fifa World Cups 1978 and 1950, which had respectively Semifinal and Final groups, are known as one of the most dramatic in history. Especially the last match in 1950 on Maracana, when Brazil needed only one point, lost the game against Uruguay!
 
twilighter said:
Brilliant idea !

Off. The Fifa World Cups 1978 and 1950, which had respectively Semifinal and Final groups, are known as one of the most dramatic in history. Especially the last match in 1950 on Maracana, when Brazil needed only one point, lost the game against Uruguay!
Click to expand...

Interesting. As a devoted follower of the one true football code, I didn’t know that.

Maybe I could also come up with other ideas shared with FIFA, like VAR and massive corruption. :p
 
CGSwans said:
I’m pulling this quote from the Vienna-North Carolina thread because it makes more sense to respond here, as it’s a house-keeping issue.

I’ve given a lot of thought to how often we get lopsided contests and tried various ways to reduce it, but I’ve realised it’s a design feature, not a bug. The logical outcome of a game designed to encourage advocacy and debate is an increased level of consensus: the games are lopsided because people are playing them well and convincing others of their argument. So I think we should savour the occasional nail-biter as the rare treat they are.

The good news is that the current format has changed the game in several ways:
  • There’s been plenty of matches, like that Vienna-NC one, where the overall outcome wasn’t in any great doubt even early on, but where debate has shifted to focus on whether a zoo deserves two points or three (or zero points or one, if you want to be glass-half-empty about it).
  • The three point scale has smoothed out the size, if not the frequency of lopsided contests. A consensus view that one zoo is consistently but not overwhelmingly stronger on a given topic will typically mean the results cluster around the winning zoo securing 60-70% of the vote, as opposed to 90-100% in previous tournaments. That means a late argument for people to change their vote can actually be more powerful than it was before.
  • The system of using percentages as tie-breakers gives an importance not only to the win-loss outcome, but the size of that outcome. You’re not actually allowed to change your vote based only on what it means for the round-robin standings, but that doesn’t mean you can’t be aware of it and use it as an incentive to argue your case for why you are voting the way you are. There will be groups where qualification is uncertain right up until the end, even if the win-loss outcomes aren’t themselves in doubt, because a shift of a couple of votes could decide who is in front on a percentage basis across the group.
I think all of the above has led to a much better system for operating the tournament, but it all functions well because we’re doing a round-robin group stage rather than pure knock-out. So I’m going to announce something now that I was planning to hold back a little longer.

We aren’t going to have a knock-out stage. Instead we’re going to have four rounds of group stages, with the field halving each time. The 16 zoos that qualify out of the first round will be divided up into four quarter-final groups of four, followed by two semi-final groups of four, and then a final group of four to decide on a winner.

Rankings within groups still matter: each group will consist of two winners and two runners-up from the previous group stage. A few zoos will encounter each other more than once, in which case they will be drawn into different categories each time. I intend to have different types of categories for each group stage, though I’m still tinkering with exactly how I will do that.

The winning zoo will ultimately have had to maintain a leading standard across 12 matches against (I think, if my maths is right) at least eight different opponents. It will have truly earned its unofficial crown as the best zoo in the world.
Click to expand...
Really interesting idea! Can't wait to see it executed!
 
Just quoting this post here as well, as it probably qualifies as Important Cup Business.

CGSwans said:
My comment above, essentially urging people to move on from this thread, wasn’t directed at any one individual and I wasn’t assigning blame or picking a side: I simply don’t enjoy seeing good debates end in slanging matches. I really do try my best to make this game work and it’s morale-sapping to have it regularly devolve into finger-pointing. It’s even more morale-sapping to have the finger pointed at *me*, but I’ll leave it at that.

On the substantive issue, there’s comments I want to make strictly in relation to this match, and then there’s things that apply to Cup admin more broadly, and they don’t entirely overlap.

First, let me be clear that I consider this match’s result legitimate and final. There would be no basis for controversy had Ebirah’s vote been 2-1 for Berlin, in line with the consensus view (which I personally share) that this match was a difficult, line-ball decision. Had Ebirah done so this would have been a 1 point win for Berlin, not 3 points, but it would have still been a win for Berlin, and the impact on percentages is vanishingly small. I also share Vision’s philosophical view that no single vote should be seen as the ‘casting’ vote, anyway.

I am aware that to some extent the complaint in this match doesn’t strictly relate only to Cup threads, but to suggestions of wider patterns of behaviour across the site. I don’t know anything about the substance of those suggestions and I’m not going to make decisions based on things I don’t, and can’t, know enough about.

More broadly, I genuinely don’t believe that any previous matches in this Cup have yet been decided unfairly. I’ve gone looking for the pattern of voting behaviour alleged by Thylo above and simply haven’t found it. Unless the contention is that one person is operating multiple accounts, the implied cases of bad faith voting are by different people, and in past matches I’ve actually been satisfied that the evidence suggests people were indeed voting in good faith (go back and read them, I’m not prosecuting them again here). Do I think every one of the close to 1000 votes that have been cast so far have been strictly within the rules? That seems unlikely. But the evidence doesn’t bear out the claim that bad faith behaviour is deciding results.

However it *could*, in future, and as much as it strains my credulity that this is necessary, I’m going to outline a planned response.

I have said time and again that this game operates on the honour system. You have simple instructions for how to frame your vote: stay strictly within the given category and do not take into account the results of any other match. Judge each contest on its merits and remember that nobody in your favourite zoo gives a flying ferret. (Though if they *did* give a flying ferret it would surely help them win any match fought on carnivores).

The emphasis is on the honour system because I cannot claim to know what is in your mind, but also because the fewer constraints on decision-making the better the game works. It’s designed to tease out the differences between how people view what makes for quality in a zoo, and that requires that it be open to diverse and unorthodox opinions.

In one early thread based on carnivores, Giant Panda advanced the case for... I think it was Detroit, on the strength of its efforts to rescue and rehouse dogs and cats. I’m sure there were people who scoffed at the notion that domestics should count, but it was an original, out of the box idea that got me thinking, and that’s what the game is supposed to do. Had that match been decided by a point I’m sure there would be people who thought the ‘wrong’ result had been reached, but that’s just the way it goes: you won’t always agree with others’ logic, and that makes the game worth playing.

Obviously that’s open to abuse. As I said above, I think people wilfully voting against what they believe is the ‘right’ outcome is very rare, but it is possible and probably inevitable at some level, as much as I don’t understand the impulse. And though I want to be as hands-off as possible, it’s clear to me that this debate is going to keep flaring unless I do something. So I’m making clear now that I will, at my discretion, decide not to count votes where I consider that the available evidence suggests those votes are not made within the spirit of the rules.

This is a nuclear option, something that I’ve resisted even hinting at before and something I simply don’t want to do. Just stick to the rules, people, it’s more fun!

I’m reluctant to do it both because it feels heavy-handed and is itself potentially corrosive of trust in the game, and so it’s only in cases where I think the result may have been decisively shifted by bad faith voting that I will intervene. I hope I have your trust that I have absolutely no interest in the outcome other than that it generates discussion and remains fun: I don’t care who wins and I encourage you not to focus on it as well. But because that trust is important, whenever I have concerns about an outcome I will privately ask two moderators to consider the situation and reach consensus that a vote should be overturned - if neither one agrees with me, the result stands.

Because of the paramount importance of staying open to diverse views, no single vote will be rejected as untrustworthy in and of itself. Outlier votes are perfectly fine if there’s a reason for them, and so I will only be looking for patterns of behaviour: a habit of unexplained contrarian votes, perhaps, or a sudden burst of votes from new members. I will also listen to the two moderators about any indication they have of deliberate intentions to sow discord.

If you have a concern about a result, please contact me privately and try to keep the argument out of the match thread. Remember that I’m going to err on the side of *not* intervening except in compelling circumstances, and please don’t continue to argue the call once it’s made. I enjoy stretching my limited knowledge of soccer (yes - it’s called soccer) for FIFA similes, but I draw the line at being the poor sap referee trying to assess a player’s Oscar credentials while the other team swarms about gesticulating madly.

Now. Can we please just remember that this is supposed to be fun?
Click to expand...
 
Alright, let’s bring ourselves up to date.

Group A

Los Angeles 50 d North Carolina 19 - ectotherms
Vienna 34 d Munich 26 - primates
Munich 78 d North Carolina 3 - miscellaneous mammals
Vienna 56 d Los Angeles 19 - birds
North Carolina 63 d Vienna 27 - ungulates
Munich 51 d Los Angeles 30 - carnivores

Munich 2 wins, 1 loss, 67.5%
Vienna 2 wins, 1 loss, 53.8%
Los Angeles 1 win, 2 losses, 44.9%
North Carolina 1 win, 2 losses, 33.7%

With hindsight, this was clearly the most under-powered group and one that had me second-guessing the decision to randomly assign the groups. On the other hand, having a weak group helped give us a couple of genuine groups of death lower in the draw, and the epic matches that came from them, so I think that’s worth it overall.

Two classical old European city zoos advance, and two US underdogs depart - but not without each giving a good account for themselves. That’s about all there is to say about this one.

Group B

Detroit 58 d Berlin 53 - carnivores
Wroclaw 90 d San Diego 0 - miscellaneous mammals
Berlin 81 d San Diego 6 - primates
Wroclaw 61 d Detroit 17 - birds
Berlin 57 d Wroclaw 54 - ectotherms
San Diego 98 d Detroit 1 - ungulates

Wroclaw 2 wins, 1 loss, 75.6%
Berlin 2 wins, 1 loss, 64.1%
San Diego ZSP 1 win, 2 losses, 33.5%
Detroit 1 win, 2 losses, 21.4%

Wroclaw is developing a habit of narrowly losing cold-blooded battles, in somewhat controversial fashion. Luckily it matters not, because they cruised through in top spot anyway: given their only defeat was a nail-biter against the European champion on one of that champion’s best categories, Wroclaw could argue it has put in the best performance of the entire first group stage.

San Diego Zoo Safari Park saved face with a home-turf stomping of Detroit, but performed dismally until then. With hindsight they could probably *only* have advanced if they drew both ungulates and carnivores: one wasn’t nearly enough. I will keep this in mind when contemplating including zoos like it and North Carolina in any future tournament.

Berlin has had a wobbly start and was only a bad category draw from perhaps tumbling out of the competition: had Detroit drawn ectotherms, rather than ungulates against San Diego that final score line would have been reversed, and with it I think not even Berlin’s win over Wroclaw could have saved it.

Instead, Detroit departs last and with the second lowest average score of the entire competition, but it goes home with the upset of the tournament in the bag. They are the only zoo ever to defeat Berlin in a Cup match. Not too shabby.

Group C

Plzen 63 d Columbus 27 - miscellaneous mammals
Rotterdam 43 d Singapore 38 - ectotherms
Rotterdam 36 d Columbus 18 - primates
Singapore 36 d Plzen 18 - carnivores
Columbus 82 d Singapore 17 - birds
Rotterdam 59 d Plzen 55 - ungulates

Rotterdam 3 wins, 0 losses, 57.5%
Plzen 1 win, 2 losses, 50.5%
Columbus 1 wins, 2 losses, 48.7%
Singapore 1 win, 2 losses, 43.6%

I’m not *entirely* sure this one went the right way - there was a noticeable trend towards Singapore late in the deciding match against Columbus that came after a well-intentioned, but out of scope argument in Singapore’s favour. I can’t reliably estimate the impact of that, though, so the result goes in the book and Plzen, not Columbus advances. I’m a little sorry to have lost Columbus as I suspect the coming change in format might have helped it, but them’s the breaks. Plzen’s collection will always make it a danger against any opponent.

Singapore was probably always the weak link in this group, with some notable strengths - had it drawn primates it might well have advanced - but a glaring weakness on birds that it might just have resolved by the next time it appears in a Cup. The opening of Mandai bird park might just give us a new contender.

I don’t want to overlook Rotterdam, either: it quietly but efficiently got the job done three times. Going undefeated isn’t easy, and I think it’ll continue to be a surprise powerhouse in the second round.


Group D

Beauval 41 d Frankfurt 34 - carnivores
San Diego 61 d St Louis 8 - birds
Beauval 63 d San Diego 21 - ungulates
St Louis 54 d Frankfurt 24 - ectotherms
Beauval 59 d St Louis 22 - miscellaneous mammals
San Diego 52 d Frankfurt 26 - primates

Beauval 3 wins, 0 losses, 67.5%
San Diego 2 wins, 1 loss, 60%
St Louis 1 win, 2 losses, 37.8%
Frankfurt 0 wins, 3 losses, 36.5%

I admit to feeling sorry for Frankfurt, which doesn’t deserve to be exiting the tournament as one of just two zoos without a win. Indeed, it lost its only ever match in the European Cup, so it’s 0-4. It drew categories each time in which it had enviable strengths, but kept doing so against world-leading zoos in those categories. Just awful luck.

Neither San Diego or Beauval were terribly troubled in this one, with Beauval in particular cruising through a tough group. It might be a dark horse Cup contender.

Group E

Cologne 54 d Denver 9 - miscellaneous mammals
Miami 63 d Pairi Daiza 18 - ungulates
Cologne 53 d Miami 19 - primates
Denver 44 d Pairi Daiza 43 - carnivores
Pairi Daiza 48 d Cologne 45 - birds
Denver 44 d Miami 22 - ectotherms

Cologne 2 wins, 1 loss, 69.4%
Denver 2 wins, 1 loss, 43.9%
Miami 1 win, 2 losses, 45.8%
Pairi Daiza 1 win, 2 losses, 41.1%

One vote separated Denver from Pairi Daiza, and it was enough to topple a giant. With a heavy loss against Miami on the latter’s best category, an agonising defeat against group underdog and a surprisingly (to me, at least) tepid performance against Cologne on birds, Pairi Daiza gets my booby prize as the most disappointing performer in the entire Cup. I had it pegged pre-tournament as a top five contender: turns out it wasn’t.

Allowing for that narrow, dead-rubber loss to a big name zoo on the latter’s best category, Cologne dominated this group and made clear it should be taken seriously as a Cup threat. Denver rides that one point win into the second round as the 1000-1 outsider, but it won’t mind a bit.


Group F

Bronx 64 d Antwerp 38 - primates
Zurich 65 d Leipzig 37 - ectotherms
Zurich 53 d Antwerp 40 - ungulates
Leipzig 53 d Bronx 52 - miscellaneous mammals
Antwerp 54 d Leipzig 30 - birds
Zurich 47 d Bronx 46 - carnivores

Zurich 3 wins, 0 losses, 57.1%
Bronx 1 win, 2 losses, 53.9%
Antwerp 1 win, 2 losses, 48.2%
Leipzig 1 win, 2 losses, 40.7%

My favourite group, and you only need to look at the narrow spread in the percentages to see why: this was a tough four-way fight. Antwerp was the outsider but made a good account of itself in two losses and comfortably ended Leipzig’s hopes with a solid win on birds. Leipzig was a relatively weak performer, coming within one controversial three point vote of going without a win. It’s very likely a victim of the draw: had it drawn an ABC category rather than all three ‘diversity’ categories it might well have gone through.

Bronx advances despite being on the receiving end of not one, but two one point heartbreakers, and is probably a stronger contender than these results make it look. Zurich showed off its Cup claims by advancing out of the hardest group with three wins. The next group format features some categories where it will beat all comers, but some land mines as well.

Group G

Taronga 57 d Berlin Tierpark 27 - ectotherms
Burgers 41 v Woodland Park 22 - primates
Berlin Tierpark 73 d Burgers 26 - ungulates and allies
Taronga 40 d Woodland Park 29 - birds
Woodland Park 44 d Berlin Tierpark 43 - carnivores
Taronga 67 d Burgers 14 - miscellaneous mammals

Taronga 3 wins, 0 losses, 69.6%
Berlin Tierpark 1 win, 2 losses, 51.7%
Woodland Park 1 win, 2 losses, 42%%
Burgers 1 win, 1 loss, 36.2%

Oh dear. When I did the draw I looked at Group G and feared for my reputation: I only have one compatriot zoo in the tournament and it drew an open-ended straight, with all three categories on which it might be competitive and avoiding the three where it had big problems. I didn’t mean it, I swear! As it is it goes through with numerically the best figures of any zoo, but it has weaknesses that I fear are about to get shown up in the next round (and a couple of strengths, too).

The even bigger story here, though, is Burgers. It drew three categories in which it had significant strengths, but drew two of them against the worst possible zoos with which to draw those categories. A manatee, I am given to understand, is no match for a boring old platypus. This is a tragedy, frankly, because there are future formats in which Burgers would have been very interesting indeed. Alas, not to be.

Woodland Park was a bit of an underdog, if only because it must be one of the least-visited zoos in the field, but it put in a good fight and was only a handful of votes from snatching second spot from Berlin Tierpark.

Group H

Chester 46 d Dallas 20 - birds
Omaha 46 d Prague 32 - ectotherms
Chester 55 d Omaha 32 - ungulates
Prague 68 d Dallas 25 - primates
Chester 68 d Prague 67 - carnivores
Omaha 86 d Dallas 1 - miscellaneous mammals

Chester 3 wins, 0 losses, 61.1%
Omaha 2 wins, 1 loss, 64.9%
Prague 1 win, 2 losses, 54.6%
Dallas 0 wins, 3 losses, 19.5%

What. A. Match. As TeaLovingDave noted in-thread, Chester v Prague is the biggest one we’ve had, both by number of posts and number of votes. The former certainly holds true for all Cup editions, and I think the latter does too. But it doesn’t only stand out on quantity, but on quality too: it was a titanic see-sawing battle for three days, with both zoos getting out to small but significant leads only to have them slip away. With a few hours to go it was all tied up, before Chester snatched a one point win.

To be fair, it was clear earlier in the piece that a win for Prague wasn’t going to be quite enough for the European runner-up to make it out of the group, given Omaha’s near-perfect romp over Group H also-ran Dallas. But it can leave with its head held high, having come third in a race between three of the world’s best zoos and as the only first round departure with a positive average score. What might have been, had it snuck through? We won’t ever know.

Omaha flexed its muscles twice, and if it isn’t a top tier contender it’s only because its relative remoteness might hold it back. Dallas departs as the 32nd and last ranked zoo, but so might you if you’d come up against Real Madrid, the New England Patriots and New Zealand All-Blacks all in quick succession.

What next? Coming soon.
 
CGSwans said:
To be fair, it was clear earlier in the piece that a win for Prague wasn’t going to be quite enough for the European runner-up to make it out of the group, given Omaha’s near-perfect romp over Group H also-ran Dallas. But it can leave with its head held high, having come third in a race between three of the world’s best zoos and as the only first round departure with a positive average score. What might have been, had it snuck through? We won’t ever know.
Click to expand...

I reckon the only thing that would have saved Prague would have been a significantly lower turnout for the Dallas/Omaha match combined with more 2-1 votes - as it stands, the margin of victory in that match rather skewed the final percentages to an insurmountable degree!
 
A great recap @CGSwans and I enjoyed reading the group summaries. Thanks!

We are left with a single Aussie zoo (Taronga), 4 American zoos (San Diego, Omaha, Bronx, Denver) and then a whopping 11 European zoos: Berlin, Berlin Tierpark, Cologne, Munich, Vienna, Rotterdam, Plzen, Wroclaw, Zurich, Beauval and Chester.

The breakdown of 10 nations:

Germany - 4 zoos
USA - 4 zoos
Austria - 1
Australia - 1
Czech. Rep. - 1
England - 1
France - 1
Netherlands - 1
Poland - 1
Switzerland - 1
 
snowleopard said:
and then a whopping 11 European zoos: Berlin, Berlin Tierpark, Cologne, Munich, Vienna, Rotterdam, Plzen, Wroclaw, Zurich, Beauval and Chester.
Click to expand...

Which - with the caveat that I haven't visited Zurich, Vienna or Beauval and hence can only go by reputation for these - is probably a very good summary of the top 11 European zoos in my opinion, if one swaps Rotterdam out for the (very) unlucky Prague.
 
TeaLovingDave said:
I reckon the only thing that would have saved Prague would have been a significantly lower turnout for the Dallas/Omaha match combined with more 2-1 votes - as it stands, the margin of victory in that match rather skewed the final percentages to an insurmountable degree!
Click to expand...

I think the more likely path would have been for Prague to develop a decisive edge over Chester: something in the order of 75-60 would have done it, or 50-40 on a more ordinary turnout. Obviously it didn’t get terribly close, but it wasn’t *that* far away, either.
 
CGSwans said:
Singapore was probably always the weak link in this group, with some notable strengths - had it drawn primates it might well have advanced - but a glaring weakness on birds that it might just have resolved by the next time it appears in a Cup. The opening of Mandai bird park might just give us a new contender.
Click to expand...
I should think it will be unstoppable at that point. You may as well just call the Cups off completely.
 
Performance report: Team Czech Republic

So, after @CGSwans did a great recap of the whole first round, let's look in more detail at the performance of my team. :D

Two zoos were honored with a nomination to this prestigious cup - Plzen, with its (almost) legendary all-round collection and Prague, ready to prove being one of Europe's best. So let's look at how did they do:

Plzen: drawn to group C, together with Rotterdam, Columbus, and Singapore. So how did the group pan out?

Plzen 63 d Columbus 27 - miscellaneous mammals
Started with a bang, didn't we? First round and Plzen already got probably its second strongest category, accompanied by a bit of controversy (as it's often the case). That sparkled a great a relatively big discussion which ended up as 5th most commented match in the whole first round. the main talking point being obviously the sometimes not ideal husbandry level in Plzen, however, Plzen stood its ground and cruised to victory with a comfortable margin that proved to be very important.

Singapore 36 d Plzen 18 - carnivores
After being the dominant force in the first round, Plzen got the short end of the stick, while facing the worldwide heavyweight of Singapore in carnivore match-up which is arguably Plzen's weakest category together with primates. But apparently, carnivores are not strong suit of Singapore either, so the match ended up quite close.

Rotterdam 59 d Plzen 55 - ungulates
What a match this one was! Both zoos having good quality exhibits and a nice collection of species. Rotterdam's interesting architecture style against more of a natural or "classic zoo" style of Plzen in a match where every point mattered. Rotterdam eventually edged it because of its more interesting collection and general exhibit atmosphere, but Plzen managed to score enough points to go through.

All in all, Plzen can be satisfied with its performance in the first round even though going through looked likely on paper. Now when the competition gets tougher, it will be much harder for Plzen to overcome limits it has though.

Prague: got drawn in group H with Chester, Omaha and Dallas

Omaha 46 d Prague 32 - ectotherms
For some of us with not so intensive knowledge of zoos on the other side of the pond maybe a bit surprising result, showing everyone that Prague will have it much harder than expected in this group. One could argue that Prague's qualities weren't presented enough in the thread, but who knows if it would help its cause.

Prague 68 d Dallas 25 - primates
Battle of who sucks less in this specific category as it's pretty weak in both zoos. Slightly better collection and exhibit quality gave Prague a much-needed win.

Chester 68 d Prague 67 - carnivores
Enough as been said elsewhere. Battle of titans with an unfortunate result for Prague, that pushed her out of the competition.

Prague will certainly feel some disappointment from not advancing further, but that's how it sometimes is. Omaha put up a great fight and had a bit more luck as well. But Prague certainly showed that rightfully belongs to the top.


Final verdict: With a 50% advance rate and given the strong competition we faced, it's pretty much the result I expected, so I'm satisfied. Even though I thought Prague will go through and Plzen's issues will prevail more in the first round.

Possible candidates for the next editions of Zoochat Cup(if there'll be any):
Looking at the current developments, speculations and general going-on in other Czech zoos, The trio of Zlin, Ostrava and Dvur Kralove could all have a shout for being a Zoochat Cup addition, either displacing Plzen or zoo from a different country.

Zlin - very heavy bird-oriented collection. If future developments bring more balance, Zlin will have a strong shout to be added.

Ostrava - good all-round collection, maybe slightly weak in terms of ectotherms with hit-and-miss exhibit quality, but with many planned developments fixing this issue.

Dvur Kralove - average to good exhibits, some interesting developments happening... the question is how big of a handicap "Africa-only" policy is.
 
HOMIN96 said:
Zlin - very heavy bird-oriented collection. If future developments bring more balance, Zlin will have a strong shout to be added.

Ostrava - good all-round collection, maybe slightly weak in terms of ectotherms with hit-and-miss exhibit quality, but with many planned developments fixing this issue.

Dvur Kralove - average to good exhibits, some interesting developments happening... the question is how big of a handicap "Africa-only" policy is.
Click to expand...

What about Jihlava?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top