So how did we fare on the predictions front this year? For starters….
WHAT WE GOT RIGHT
SERBIA
We said: “Not only do we expect this to sail through the final, but we reckon it could even win the whole damn contest – if, that is, viewers can be persuaded to vote for a) a ballad and b) a song that (gasp!) isn’t in English.”
What happened: The viewers voted for a ballad that wasn’t in English. Cue Serbian victory. End of.
UKRAINE
We said: “It might sound like utter rubbish, but this is a deceptively catchy little number which we can’t help thinking will do rather well on the night.”
What happened: Verka and his foil-clad dancers were runners-up and came perilously close to winning at several points in the voting.
UNITED KINGDOM
We said: “Half of us… predicts yet another lower end of the scoreboard finish and yet more blaming our failures on political voting, Middle Eastern conflict etc. etc., while we sit back and say, ‘well perhaps if you wanted a better result you should have picked a better song’”.
What happened: Yet another lower end of the scoreboard finish, thus proving us well and truly right. We’re just sitting back and waiting for the political voting diatribes to kick off. Maybe if we picked a proper song next year, chaps?
ARMENIA
We said: “It’s far from our favourite, yet we have a funny feeling this might be one to watch.”
What happened: Eighth place for the Armenians, not exactly victory but enough to see them through to the final for a second consecutive year. Not bad going given they’ve only been in the contest since 2006!
CZECH REPUBLIC
We said: “There are of course two types of debutant country in Eurovision – those who come up with something brilliant on their first attempt and do very well, and those who come up with something utterly dreadful and finish nowhere.”
What happened: Un point. Even the UK did better than that.
And…..WHAT WE GOT WRONG
MALTA
We said: “Provided Olivia can….turn in a performance that does the song justice, then we envisage this one qualifying with ease – and potentially doing very well indeed in the final.”
What happened: Complete and utter disaster on the Maltese front – not only did they fail to get out of the semis but they were left floundering near the bottom of the semi-final scoreboard. To be fair though, Olivia didn’t exactly come up trumps on the performance front.
SWEDEN
We said: “With a twinkly, flamboyant performance a near certainty, another Swedish victory is a very real possibility.”
What happened: Humph.
SPAIN
We said: “Should provide the Spaniards with a considerably better result than their recent efforts.”
What happened: Well, to be fair, they did score more points than they have in recent years but they were still left mouldering in the bottom half of the scoreboard. So technically we got this one wrong.
SLOVENIA
We said: “As long as Alenka can keep the operatics in check and doesn’t screech like an out-of-tune cat on the night, then we think Slovenia could be in for their best Eurovision result yet.”
What happened: We have no idea, quite frankly, since a striking song and near perfect performance should have given this a far better result (even the non-Eurovision fans in the Team Eurovision party on the night rated this one). Still, we were so happy that they got through to the final in the first place that we’ll let this one go.
LATVIA
We said: “We wouldn’t rule out a finish near the top of the scoreboard.”
What happened: Waaaaaaaaaaaaa! (weeping accompanied by sound of investment rolling away and the realisation that we will never get our tenner back……)
Why Are We Not Surprised?
Posted by Caroline on May 28, 2007
After weeks of heated debate about ‘neighbourly’ voting at this year’s Eurovision, one website has taken matters into its own hands. The ever reliable ESCNation (that’s the one with the not-at-all-addictive Scoreboard Simulator) has come to the conclusion (actually they came to it two weeks ago but we’ve only just noticed – we have other things to think about now such as the imminent arrival of Big Brother 8, that kind of thing) that – shock horror! – that Western Eurovision participants voted for the East European nations too.
They’ve even managed to prove their earth-shattering theory by removing all the East European votes from the scoreboard and totting up only the votes from the 1993 participants (plus Andorra), which results in a victory for – wait for it – Serbia! Not only that, but Ukraine still finish in second place, while Turkey, Russia and Bulgaria complete the top five.
In fact, only Belarus and Moldova find themselves booted from the top ten, to be replaced by fellow East Europeans Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In other words, there were still no Western European countries in the top ten (had this been the final vote Sweden would have just missed out, finishing 11th). The UK, meanwhile, would still have been floundering around in 19th place.
Of course we’re left wondering – is this mere coincidence? Or is it just possible that – gasp! – the Western European nations did actually have some influence in the final result? Now we’re not saying that this disproves the existence of neighbourly voting – because it’s clear that it does exist – but since it now becomes clear that the Western nations were voting for the Eastern European songs as much as the East Europeans were, perhaps we should accept that the best song won?
And with that in mind, Team Eurovision wants to make it clear that this is the last time we’ll be mentioning this subject (unless of course political voting rears its head in Big Brother 8). Until next year that is, when the whole debate will doubtless kick off once again…..
Posted in Comment | 3 Comments »