Poland: Finalists Announced

polandPoland – Today the Polish broadcaster TVP have announced the nine shortlisted contestants that will compete for the right to represent Poland in Stockholm. Well known names have popped up including Poland’s first ever representative Edyta Górniak

The nine names and their songs are below…

Natalia Szroeder “Lustra”
Edyta Górniak “Greateful”
Taraka “In the Rain”
Aleksandra Gintrowska “Missing”
Michał Szpak “Color of Your Life”
Margaret “Cool Me Down”
Kaisia Moś “Addiction”
Dorota Osińka “Universal”
Napoli “My Universe” (Yes the very same that tried for Belarus this year)

The final will take place on March 5th and the winner will be chosen 100% on public vote. No jury required.

As mentioned earlier Edyta Górniak has represented Poland before, in their debit showing in 1994 with her song “To nie ja”. Napoli have been trying to represent Belarus for several years now and after finishing 2nd this year have tried for Poland. The songs are still to be revealed

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL5rmmpiHp8]

About jadeukesc

Top 5 Eurovision Songs so Far: #1 Netherlands #2 Czech Republic #3 Hungary #4 Serbia #5 Cyprus Worst 5 of Eurovision so far #39 Montenegro #40 Iceland #41 Germany #42 Spain #43 Estonia

Comment navigation

Newer Comments →

203 comments on “Poland: Finalists Announced

  1. Quick glance at last year’s results show that, if they were scored like this year’s contest would be (jury totals plus audience totals), Sweden would still win. Not sure how much this changes (I’m sure someone with more patience than me can calculate the totals and rankings), at least in terms of who wins.

    • Someone came up with this on PB:

      1 SWE 642
      2 ITA 550
      3 RUS 533
      4 BEL 382
      5 AUS 356
      6 LAT 349
      7 NOR 206
      8 EST 200
      9 ISR 184
      10 SER 120
      11 ALB 119
      12 GEO 113
      13 AZE 96
      14 ARM 95
      15 ROM 90
      16 MON 82
      17 LIT 75
      18 SLO 75
      19 ZYP 71
      20 GRE 53
      21 UNG 50
      22 POL 49
      23 AUT 40
      24 ESP 34
      25 DEU 29
      26 FRA 28
      27 GBR 19

      • So little changes. Germany and Austria got points, Cyprus moved up because it deserved a lot more, points-wise and UK is eventually last because it was the weakest song.

  2. I really, REALLY like the new change. We are going to get scores that may approach a thousand or so points but it will make the different impact of televoting and jury vote clear ! So exciting indeed !

    • Ok I first thought every spokesperson will announce seperate top 10s (or top 3s) and that seemed really time consuming but if I understood correctly spokespersons will only announce the jury results and at the end of the show televoting results will come in MF style ! So yeah it seems this time we are not going to know who the winner is, or who is 2nd, 3rd, last etc till the very final moments.

      This is definately exciting !

  3. And here is a full simulation for 2015. I think that you will understand even if you don’t speak German. Btw, if we had had this voting system in 2015, the Austrian hosts of the show would have started announcing the televoting points by saying “Austria 0 points” … LOL


  4. Natalia Szroeder? Wow that’s interesting, I’ve had her in my bank of songs for quite a long time now. Well hopefully she gets the chance to represent Poland as she is fantastic! :D

  5. I kinda dislike the new system that SVT have brought in. It benefits the presenters for sure but it takes away from the entertainment factor that is ESC. But Bjorkman always seems to want to radicalize everything… Oh well, it will probably turn out fine though, like it always does.

  6. Thank you EBU, tack SVT, pus och kram Christer!

  7. I think knowing the winner at the last minute is great…I can’t say I am upset with the change

  8. This is a horrible new system. All it does is hide geopolitical televoting. Cutting down to just reading out the 12 takes out all the suspense.

    I will never, ever, ever, vote for Sweden again, (exception may be granted if they ever send Danny Saucedo)

    Why can’t Sweden leave the format alone? Why is it whenever they host they have to radically alter the whole thing?

    The voting is one of the highlights (especially in 2015 when there wasn’t much to write about in the songs) predicting where all the points are going to go, convincing your politically unaware mates your psychic is part of the fun.

    Also, you won’t be able to compare Scores to previous years, as the current record is 387, but the winner this year, is almost certain to get a minimum of 450, likely much more around the 600 mark.

    • It is fairer though when it comes to the final ranking.

    • ”Also, you won’t be able to compare Scores to previous years, as the current record is 387, but the winner this year, is almost certain to get a minimum of 450, likely much more around the 600 mark.”

      Yes, but does it really matter?

  9. I’d rather vote for Azerbaijan

  10. So, for example the televoting of individual countries will not count?

  11. So we wll have double points… I don’t mind.
    My main concern is what happens when a country fails to deliver a televoting top 10 (f.e San Marino, Albania). Also in case of an overall tie after both jury and televoting points are delivered who prevails?

    • A. Only juries will vote.

      B. Good question though very unlikely. I believe the televoting winner will be crowned as the overall winner.

    • They have a very bad idea what to do if a country doesn’t have a televoting result atm. :(
      They plan to take the average of similar countries. F. e. if Albania failed to come up with a televote, they would take the televoting from Macedonia, Greece and Italy and cobble together a simulated Albanian televote. That sucks for sure. In that case, it would be better to count the jury vote as televote too imo. I hope that they’ll reconsider!

    • And what if a jury is disqualified like Georgia two years ago. No spokesperson from that country.

  12. The good thing is that the juries-ranking-all-songs system is gone since their top-10 is all that counts.A second big plus is that we’ll know right away if the final winner won both sets of votes.If this system was implemented this year,we’d know that Italy was only 6th with the juries but won the televoting by a landslide.

    • We will get to know everything shortly afterwards anyway. What is important now is that the televoting might cause a major upset (a single announcement) to the standings formed by the jury voting.

      • Yes,it could do that but with the exception of last year the televoting winner was the overall winner.The only upset would have happened back in 2011 when Italy won the jury vote by a landslide but was only 11th with televoting.And keep in mind,that only hardcore esc fans know the split results but with this new system everyone will know exactly how the juries have voted and whether or not there were big disagreements between them and televoters.

    • So, things are now more exciting and if the voting in both systems is tight the scoreboard might change dramatically once the televoting results are tallied.

    • I disagree with the first one but I can see why would someone consider it a plus but I don’t get why the 2nd is a plus. The winner will be one at the end anyway as last year – nobody except hardcore esc fans will care about the split results as always anyway.

      • Maybe they don’t care enough to search for the split results but now they’ll know them anyway.I disagree though that the esc tv audience won’t care for the split results.They didn’t care because they didn’t know how exactly the system works but now they’ll have all the results there served in their plate.They’ll start caring more.

        • And that will provide what ? More criticism on the juries ? Considering a winner “illegitimate” if they haven’t won televoting ? I still don’t get how that’s a plus, it will only make a bigger mess out of the contest and put much more pressure and criticism on the juries compared to televoting.

          The more I think about it, the more I fear this may be a bad idea after all and after my initial excitement. The contest needs to have one,clear winner. Not a “televoting” winner and a “jury” winner imo. This seems to dillute that on top of putting extra pressure to juries as their votes will be much more exposed compared to televoting’s.

          • I believe it’s only positive that all facts will be out in the open since it’s a contest we’re talking about.
            Also,since we have always disagreed on this i don’t think it’s strange i’m in favor of this change and you’re not. :P

            • “all facts will be out in the open since it’s a contest we’re talking about.”

              But that’s not the case imo. Televoting will be protected under the shield of collective presentation while the jury vote will be easy pray (already heavily attacked even if it is usually much more objective than televoting imo).
              It must be settled to the viewer that a jury winner who is not a televoting winner can be the legitimate and only actual winner. This move does not help towards that direction unfortunately :(
              Mans faced way too many attacks already for not winning the holy cow televoting is, we do not need more of that imo.

              No if they want to implement this system right, televoting must have equal exposure with jury vote. This is probably the most anti-jury measure taken by the EBU so far. I hope they reconsider the details.

            • But that would be time-consuming.It would practically require double time for the voting if every spokesperson had to announce 2 sets of votes and since they want to make it more exciting we would get the jury votes by the 43 spokespersons and then the hosts would have to announce another 43 sets of votes for televoting.That won’t happen,imo.

            • Of course it won’t it cannot happen in the timeframe television requires these days and the point was to reduce the running time anyway. That does not undo the imbalance that exists now between juries and televoting. Diaspora and neighbour voting will only have an enhanced impact once again – and the problem is the public won’t even know. To them televoting will be collective numbers. But the “bad” jurors who voted for x song over y song will be open to criticism. I am afraid if this measure stays like that, this may be the beginning of the end for jury vote in esc. And a return to the dark ages of the contest.

            • Lol!You’re being overdramatic,imo.We just go back to the 50-50 system which wasn’t in place for the last 2 years and was harming the contest.Having a televoting top-10 but a juries-ranking-all-songs system was wrong and unfair.

            • That was not the case in any way. Televoting made a ranking of the whole 27 or whatever songs as well with each of the public’s votes. And that’s not even the point here. Anyway, I know you are pro televoting so you avoid to address the issue I present (televoting immunity behind the collective vote shield and exposure of jury vote) but it’s a very real issue. Till now we had a combined result and only hardcore esc fans cared what’s going on behind that. The winner was one. Fairly balanced. Now the juries are at a major disadvantage. What we have now is profoundly wrong and unfair imo towards jury vote. I believe the only way to balance it, given that juries are already severely disadvantaged with the publication of the jurors names before the actual event, is to do the exact reverse thing. Televoting announced 1-12p from spokespersons and then the collective jury vote result added to that. It would be more balanced since it would provide a disadvantage to both voting systems – name exposure for the juries and diaspora/neighbour voting exposure for televoting. Now the juries are heavily disadvantaged and I wonder if the EBU is getting ready to show them the exit now..Which would be disastrous for the contest really.

            • I knew you’d prefer it the other way around but it wouldn’t be fairer anyway.The names of the jurors are announced but it’s only something the big esc fans care about and not even them most of the times.If the number of the jurors is increased to 10 and if EBU and each public broadcaster take the time and pick relevant people in the juries things will be much better.

            • The juries are doing an excellent job right now in my opinion (you probably know my opinion by now) so there is no need to fix what is not broken. If the number of jurors is increased to 10 we may as well go to 100 % jury vote finally.
              Right now I can see a return to the pre-2009 era and that’s something horrible for the contest. EBU has to take a pro-jury measure to balance it – either one of those I proposed or something that at least balances things. Or just do away with the juries if they so want to and live with the result of that (I would stop watching the contest in such a scenario personally). But this is totally unfair and disastrous for the contest.

        • Exactly. I remember posting the split results on my FB wall. Several of my FB friends that have been following the contest years now didn’t know about the national juries… The new system is great. Jurors are now being exposed for good. I hope Greek and Cypriot jurors got the message and vote unbiased this time.

  13. Actually now that I think about it this system is unfair to the jury vote. Since the jury vote is shown analytically, it is exposed to more criticism while all the televoting deficiencies are muffled under the single announcment thing. Not really that fair imo. It should be the reverse actually.

  14. On PB there is an interesting disussion atm: Peoople suggest to have national juries but a pan-European televote where 1 vote is 1 vote, no matter where it is cast. This would sort of balance the unfair advantage the BIG 5 have too, because f. e. 80 million people in Germany could vote for the Maltese song whereas only 400000 Maltese could vote for the German song.

    • On the other hand, televoting from small countries will virtually have limited or no impact. I don’t like this idea.

    • I would be against that. The new version already muffles the effects of diaspora voting, neighbour voting etc (not addressing them in any way but hiding them under the carpet). A pan-European televoting would only enhance that muffling. If the jury vote is exposed to criticism, so should be televote. Televote is currently immune to criticism under this system :(

    • You mean a paneuropean vote counting for 50% of the final result?And how would f.i the 12 pts be determined if 200.000 Germans and 3000 Maltese have voted for the song?Would the German vote have a bigger impact on the results than the Maltese one?

  15. The voting change I can live with, I think. It keeps it really exciting while still maintaining the traditional Eurovision feel of visiting each country for its jury scores – they just need to expand those juries beyond five members though.

    I guess, with it being ‘double points’, the chances of a country scoring ‘nul points’ is now practically… well… zero? For a song not to come in the top 10 of the televoting and jury from every country – that seems highly unlikely.

  16. I’m reading an interesting analysis on the new voting system atm by Daniel Gould of Sofabet: http://sofabet.com/2016/02/18/eurovision-2016-the-rule-change/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

  17. IMO, it is better to have the jury results being announced one by one since they are less predictable. And as Dimitris said for the first time viewers will get to realise when and how much jurors and televoters disagreed. Which is a good thing.

  18. So Montenegro will double its points coming from Serbia. 12 from Serbin jury AND 12 from Serbian televoting… This is actually more power to diaspora and political voting. No wonder how Albania would improve from 19th to 11th with new system.
    This is actually even worse from pre-2009 era…

    • Is it confirmed?

      • Yes ! Greece and Cyprus will begin with 24 points each too ! Same as Moldova and Romania. This sucks!
        Funniest part is to witness people rushing to suppport blindly SVT/EBU and then come to realise this new votting pattern sucks even more!

        • Overall I like this system but they should amend that decision asap.

          • Wait till Russia wins it BIG this time…
            10 at least countries awarding the Russian song maximum 24 points each!

            • It doesn’t mean it will happen…we know that televoting isn’t controlled by the individual broadcasters. National broadcasters could influence the jurors though. If that happens then it goes to prove that some countries are using in fact a bunch of morons. EBU should keep an eye on this and sanction broadcasters in case of suspicious behavior during the voting.

            • Will the Baltic juries,Georgia and Ukraine award top pts to Russia?I don’t think so.

            • Well no but Russian song will start with at least a televoting 12 from each neighbouring country and Israel. With previous system this 12 could drop to 6 with no jury support from ex Soviet countries (like Lithuania last year).

            • Israel?Did i miss something?I don’t think things will be that bad concerning Russia.

            • That’s what I say. 12 (at least) televoting points from Israel to Russia, just because many Russians live there. 12 points already make a big advantage compared to 6-8 with combined jury-televoting vote

            • I never realised Russia was so big with the Israeli televoting.In fact,i think most of the times,Israel gives 12 pts to the actual winner.

            • Those Russians you are talking about are Jewish-Russians by the way, not exactly Russian. Within Israel they have settled to the occupied areas of West Bank…not part of the discussion exactly but I felt the need to say so :p

        • The Cypriot jury had the very Cypriot Maria-Elena Kyriakou in 6th(?)place so i wouldn’t hold my breath about those 24 pts if i were you.

          • What about 24 for Moldova and Romania. Or Sebia and Montenegro. It does matter and we just can’t judge from last year only…Wait till countries realize that extra advantage…

            • Well,let’s see what kind of results we’ll get this year.I wouldn’t be too quick to discredit it.It’s 100 times better than the one that was implemented in 2014 and 2015!

            • I am keeping some doubts. This new voting pattern definitely gives room for extra boost regarding some countries’ points if they decide to play dirty (same as the previous one which gave extra power only to the jurors by specifically putting down specific entries…). We will have to wait and see. Already televoting from last year seemed fairly improved. that’s a good sign!

            • Televoting can never be dirty.It can be influenced by diaspora but it can’t be manipulated the way the jury voted can.if you refer to buying SIM cards etc,this fact won’t change under the new system.

            • Still you can’t deny that almost all countries which can rely on diaspora vote would rank slightly higher in 2015 if new voting method was implemented.
              Starting from Albania (+5 places boost) and Armenia/Romania (+2 boost) to Georgia, Lithuania and Poland (+1 boost).
              I agree though that the changes in the Final ranking are almost insignificant…

    • But looking how this new system would change last year’s top-10 it seems fairer and i can’t detect any bigger diaspora effect.

      • I have one word for you : Albania.

        • Nahh…The song wouldn’t have made it to the top-10 anyway.Can you find an entry in the 2015 top-10 that would get a big boost because of the new system?

          • You narrow your question down as much as possible in order to get a desirable answer I am afraid. Albania finished in the lower half of the scoreboard and would be skyrocketed to 11th place – this is a big difference already. That said I do recognize that Sweden would still be the undoubted winner of the new system – but that means nothing overall, one year of is not a good statistical basis to judge such a change. If someone was to emulate how this voting system would work in the whole 2009-2015 (or at the very least for 2014) era we may have had something to work with. In any case mathematics are clear on the side that diaspora would be enhanced even if we assume 100 % objective juries (as televoting would not be suppresed in anyway – and it should be imo) and juries are even more exposed to unbalanced criticism.

            • 100% objective juries cannot exist since every juror votes according to their very personal music taste and many of them have proven they’re ultra-biased(the Netherlands,Azerbaijan-Armenia etc).

            • I believe juries are as close to objective as possible, which is already light years ahead from televoting. The dutch jury never showed any bias imo – they have the right to downvote Armenia – if they couldn’t do that in fear they would be accused of doing it only to suppress diaspora then there would be no point. Yes Azerbaijan and Armenia have a problem with juries but it’s still a grain of sand in the desert of televoting really..
              And of course there are DQ rules for jury votes which already balances possible unfairness – DQ rules are needed for televoting as well.

            • *P.S. The assumption that jurors vote based on personal taste is entirely wrong imo and devaluates the people sitting in the juries – even if that was the case that would be an improvement compared to televoting really :P

  19. I am afraid the new system cannot function on any level, the imbalances introduced are huge. Either go back to the previous model or one of the following two things has to happen :

    1) Reversal. Televoting announced 1-12p and jury vote collectively.
    2) Put disqualification criteria on televoting as it is done with jury vote. For example if the top scores on televoting of a country go to countries towards which this certain country has given a lot of points in average, disqualify those votes. Added to that do away with the rule that says that the jurors names should be published prior to the event.

    I can’t see any other way out of this mess tbh. Yes the new method makes things more exciting but imo it is the first truly sneaky measure to do away with the juries. A lot of uneven burden has been put on them all these years with the DQ criteria and the name publishing and that makes it worse by literally immunizing televoting and its trends from any criticism.
    I am dissapointed at the reference group. They may be confident enough that televoting has improved its patterns and habits enough so that juries are no longer necessary but they are extremely wrong imo. Juries still keep the balances even if televoting has made some (small) progress the last few years in terms of objectivity. I did think that there was a long term plan to do away with the juries when a certain calibration has been achieved but it’s just too soon for something like that – and unfortunately with one extra burden on them now, they seem to be showing them the exit gradually (maybe bowing to public pressure as well and those shouting still about Italy 15 on social media etc).

    I don’t even want to imagine what will happen this year if the winner of the holy cow televoting is considered does not win the overall contest. It will probably be the last year of jury vote if something like that happens…oh gosh.

    • Oh and of course there is the 3rd alternative I will always propose : 100 % jury vote. But nobody on the reference group is brave enough to even suggest that I guess.

  20. Funny to read comments saying that the greek and cypriot juries should be intimidated to vote in an unbiased way…Remind me, for how long were the cypriot jurors dragged to the mud last year for reducing the greek entry’s score from a 12 in televoting to an overall 8 last year ?

  21. One thing relieves me though. We got rid of that manipulating “jury ranking all 26 entries” thing (cough Netherlands)

  22. And on social media 100 % televoting supporters are already celebrating – they can see what’s coming but for them it’s positive of course :(

  23. I do really like this new rule! I was expecting something really bad, like the stupid rule from 2013 with chosen running orders and such, but this is actually a nice change. It will indeed make a much more exciting voting. And this rule with the juries ranking all the songs disappeared after just three years, lol.

    The only problem I can see so far is that it might benefit neighbour / diaspora voting when they are now able to give a song 24 points instead of 12. That’s why it’s extra important to be more firm with the juries and make sure that all kinds of fishy votings disappear. It’s of course next to impossible in the long run, but always worth the try.

    The most important change though would be to enlarge the numbers of jurors. Five are way too few. 10-15 would be better, and they should also be musicians, or people working with music first and foremost (not coreographers or fashion bloggers as we’ve seen examples of). And also a broad spectrum of musicians, everything from pop to jazz and rap would be desirable.

    • I agree a lot with you. We are almost back to a 50-50 system now and you get to control some jurors better. As for your last paragraph I can’t agree more. It was something I have suggested some years ago. Juries in the pre-1998 era have been recruited following the requirements you have said. Those radio and TV producers we now have aren’t always credible . We already have this example from X-factor and other similar music realities…

    • “That’s why it’s extra important to be more firm with the juries and make sure that all kinds of fishy votings disappear.”

      Why everything firm has to be about the jury vote ? Why can’t we for once be firm with televoting ? Why shouldn’t there be disqualification criteria for televoting as well ? And if the televotes are disqualified they won’t be charged if that’s the point here. The televoting is the one making voting fishy 99 % of the time anyway. Juries are already scrutinized immensly (now being to the point of kicked out) – someone, at some point, has to be brave enough to scrutinize televoting imo ! Disqualify televoting results, expose them as much as the juries, look into multiple – SIM voting schemes. Why does it always has to be the jury scrutinized ?

      • Yes, cheating with SIM voting and such should be stopped as far as it can go. Apart from that, I think there is a difference between juries and televoters, in that that the jurors have been picked especially by EBU to vote as fair as possible. We don’t and can’t have the same criteria with ten thousands of televoters from each country, because it’s next to impossible to find a convincing proof there imo.

        As for your second comment, I wouldn’t mind 100% jury voting, but knowing that it’s like asking for only allowing songs in native languages, I didn’t comment that. ;)

        • It is easy to disqualify a set of televotes for regional bias as it is to disqualify jury votes for being too similar to each other. The excuse of “they just happened to like/appreciate/evaluate as better the same songs” works for both groups of people. I would actually say it makes more sense for jury votes to be more similar if they are voting based on the guidelines provided by EBU.

          As for the 100 % jury proposition its purely practical. Getting 15 people together from diverse music fields that fulfill the criteria set by EBU is no easy task and if they were to go through with it, there would be more than enough credibility to establish 100 % jury vote. For the impact jury vote currently has (the supposed 50 %) 5 people are good imo.

    • Also if the jury changes you propose are implemented then 100 % jury vote would be the only acceptable thing imo for going through all this trouble of finding that amount of people and with those backgrounds.

  24. ”According to the EBU, this change will not affect the duration of the show. Also, the final breakdown of the votes for each show will become available right after the end of the Final. Digame, the Dutch company which works as the voting partner of Eurovision the last couple of years will facilitate the broadcasters with the possibility to show the national televoting results on-screen.”

    During the live show? I don’t see the point but I welcome it.

  25. I thought Bulgaria would reveal their song today

Comment navigation

Newer Comments →

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: