I seem to be in a minority here, but I thought ITV's coverage was pretty good, the presenters' enthusiasm more than making up for a few rough edges. A great advance on C4's efforts.
Ballydoyle (17th March 2017)
Definitely superior to Ch4.
I agree, I hadn't really seen much of any of them before but have been pleasantly surprised by the coverage in general and have really enjoyed this week. I think they have quite a difficult task in trying to appeal to casual viewers as well as existing fans (not the right word maybe) and I do think they are making a reasonable job of it.
Didn't think the coverage was too bad on the whole, given the need to balance attracting the casual viewer with keeping the more informed happy.
Particularly enjoyed the Pipe/MCoy segments and thought the tribute to JT was sensitively done.
Can't warm to Chamberlain yet but maybe that will happen in time.
Fitz is terrible - they really should have kept Francome instead. Harvey is a buffoon.
Don't mind Chapman though I appreciate he's a 'marmite' character a bit like McCririck.
Pendleton is easy on the eye and at least knows about professional sport. I've a lot of respect for what she achieved as a jockey because it's not easy for someone with no experience to do what she did. She was a total pain after the Foxhunter though - you would've expected some insight given she rode the horse last year, but all we got was 'wow, that's so amazing.'
The weather lady is totally superfluous to requirements.
To be fair, I think most people involved with the horse probably couldn't have managed anything much more coherent than "wow that's so amazing" for a little while after
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#YourStorm
Mr Brightside
All posts are based on the following:
I know what I'm talking about/ I'm having a stab in the dark
I'm bored/ You're an idiot and I'm poking you with sticks
Coverage, though, still falls miles short of what the BBC would have done back in the day.
I've got all four days recorded and plan to go through it all over the next few weeks but on the occasions I caught an internet stream of the last two races on RUK I thought it was refreshing to hear Nick Luck again. Definitely better than Chamberlin.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Deal.
(I don't find Pendleton that attractive. She's not unattractive but given the choice I'd take the weathergirl first, preferably along with Carol Kirkwood.)
Illegitimi non carborundum
Illegitimi non carborundum
Specially for TheBear:
Illegitimi non carborundum
It's easy to get misty eyed about the BBC coverage but at the end it was fairly average -I know it wasn't the festival but I can remember the equivalent of the open meeting when Make A Stand ran in the Handicap Hurdle on Mackeson Day or whatever it was -Grandstand showed 3 races -1240 -115 and 150-going back to table tennis or whatever after each race.Forget BBC -racing coverage has never been as good.
Fair points, Luke.
But when they weren't sharing the day with other sports we got good paddock coverage and latterly we got big screen re-runs with analyses football-style. We also need wide-screen views of finishes to get a perspective on the distances and slow-mo runs-through on tight finishes all the way back through the field.
Illegitimi non carborundum
If I were speaking for myself Desert Orchid, i'd be lining up petty criticisms of people on TV, like you have done, and you have done on a regular basis on this thread. The fact you cannot see that some of the comments on here are from "half empty glass types" sort of tells me that its you who should be being taught how to read what is actually in black and white.
Its not myself that has a problem with ITV's coverage, its yourself and a few other petty snipers that seem to have an issue. The fact that you think the BBC coverage was better informs me that your level of judgement isn't too hot when it comes to TV racing coverage. Are you sure it was 35 years, or minutes?
If this isn't a petty pop at fellow forum contributors then what exactly is it?
You've already been outed for what you are. A troll. I'll say my piece and after that you're on ignore until you crawl back under the boulder from which you were inadvertently uncovered.
I started the thread for a reason. I'm a racing fan. I want the best possible coverage I can get. I don't want lazy presentation or analysis. I want quality and if I'm not getting it I'm entitled to offer my opinion. Am I to sit back and gladly accept a substandard service? Should I be grateful for the little mercies the broadcasting companies throw out way?
What exactly in 'black and white' am I missing that I should be reading? And perhaps you level criticisms at other people's reading skills once you learn to spell correctly.
Quality is in the eye of the beholder, to paraphrase a saying. I say it the BBC does this kind of thing better. You say different. Live with your preference. I'll live with mine.
Erm... what was that you were saying about petty?
You slag me off for criticising the TV coverage and then completely dismiss my entire career?
Very mature.
Anyway, go ahead and write all you like in reply. I'll be happy knowing you're wasting all your so precious time - time that could be better spent learning how to spell and construct sentences.
Cheers, Bud.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Phew, what an unpleasant precious person you are Desert Orchid. So much for new members being welcomed. They are welcomed as long as they tow some party line it appears. Bear in mind, I may be a new member, but I have read the forum for a long while. The accusation of being a troll just because you disagree with my view says more about you than I. You seem a pretty precious arrogant person, thats fine by me, I meet many similar types.
Don't get drawn in DO. He'll go away when he gets bored.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
you got it easy. I was accused by someone with 10K+ posts of not only being a troll(ignore the irony) but that I'm impersonating another user on here.. then it continued with lectures about some great horses and wiki quotes that were 90% written by me, so unwillingly they accused me on here with something I wrote on other places. Its the hazard of internet I presume but as far as @DO goes, he's a great poster but I think you were the one that started with the remarks that derailed the conversation into personal territory, namely: http://www.talkinghorses.co.uk/forum...l=1#post674573