TV coverage

[Barnestormer]

Following on from the cricket comparison do you think the ITV racing team do a screen test.
The reason I ask is that Stuart Broad has retired from Test cricket and has moved seamlessly into his role on the commentary team.
Yet on the ITV racing team we have to put up with the most annoying bunch of prats imaginable.

 

[Ian_Davies]

I think cricketers generally are brighter than people generally in racing, so there's never any shortage of potential articulate quality to turn pundit at the end of their playing careers.

I also think nepotism is more rife in racing - Clare Balding, Ian Balding's daughter, got her chance at the BBC after a Balding owner (who happened to be the monarch) put a word in and Francesca Cumani is Luca Cumani's daughter.

Oh and doesn't Meghan Nicholls's father train a few jumpers?

 

[Slim]

You don't need nepotism if you are black or gay. If you are both, you can skip the interview process.

 

[Ian_Davies]

The BBC have an odd take on positive discrimination.

They might argue that recruiting Clare Balding struck a blow for women - not women on your local council estate - but women nevertheless.

And I think I read the other day that Rishi Persad is from some well-connected wealthy family.

Having said that, Alex Scott grew up in a tower block near me (I lived in London Docklands at the time) in Poplar, so it's not all one-way socio-demographic traffic, or not quite, anyway.

 

[pawras]

You don't need nepotism if you are black or gay. If you are both, you can skip the interview process.

Have seen that plenty in industry

 

[pawras]

Works with overweight girls down on their luck in winter time too.

I have a mate who takes the view that he'll carve himself a honey....

 

[Desert Orchid]

Following on from the cricket comparison do you think the ITV racing team do a screen test.
The reason I ask is that Stuart Broad has retired from Test cricket and has moved seamlessly into his role on the commentary team.
Yet on the ITV racing team we have to put up with the most annoying bunch of prats imaginable.

Football punditry and analysis on TV is awful too. Just because some people were good players doesn't mean they'll be any good on TV.

Not enough of either is educational.

US punditry and analysis is light years ahead.

In mitigation, up here BBC Scotland are gradually moving in the right direction and the inclusion of retired women players and coaches is taking this forward. I suspect it's because women have had to be on a much steeper learning curve since most won't have been brought up, like we were, playing football every possible daylight moment, and even into dusk, so they probably had more intensive tactical coaching and I reckon that shows in their analyses.

 

[Slim]

Pundits are hard to listen to at the best of times, but female pundits in football have taken it to a new low. That’s not me being sexist—that’s me being honest.

 

[pawras]

I want the impossible, some actual form analysis at the level of detail you got in one of those old OU programs with the visual appeal of south american weather girls.

 

[Mr Whatoxo]

Over the last few days I have been switching between the Test match and ITV racing.
Changing channels just before race time and hitting the mute button.
I can honestly say that if I closed my eyes I could still enjoy the cricket.
If I did the same for the racing coverage I would be slitting .y wrists.

I haven't tried it, but I wouldn't recommend slitting wrists with eyes closed.

I agree your general point and with Cricket usually the pundits don't seem to feel the same need to be talking all of the time and telling you how wonderful what you are watching is. That said, overall I see the benefit to Racing of ITV coverage, so I am happy for a new deal to happen.

 

[Barnestormer]

I haven't tried it, but I wouldn't recommend slitting wrists with eyes closed.

I agree your general point and with Cricket usually the pundits don't seem to feel the same need to be talking all of the time and telling you how wonderful what you are watching is. That said, overall I see the benefit to Racing of ITV coverage, so I am happy for a new deal to happen.

During last years Royal Ascot coverage my wife asked me if racing had finished for the day. The conversation went something like this:
My wife: Has the racing finished?
Me: Well it has but the presenters all have a sing song after racing.
My wife: you're taking the piss right?
Me: No it's the highlight of the day for many of the armchair viewers.
My wife: Can any of them actually sing.
Me: No not really
The wife: F**k Off and stormed off upstairs.

 

[Mr Whatoxo]

During last years Royal Ascot coverage my wife asked me if racing had finished for the day. The conversation went something like this:
My wife: Has the racing finished?
Me: Well it has but the presenters all have a sing song after racing.
My wife: you're taking the piss right?
Me: No it's the highlight of the day for many of the armchair viewers.
My wife: Can any of them actually sing.
Me: No not really
The wife: F**k Off and stormed off upstairs.

So that’s why you went on a cruise during this year’s Royal Ascot?

 

[Barnestormer]

So that’s why you went on a cruise during this year’s Royal Ascot?

Yeah it was the wife's revenge for constantly taking the proverbial out of her.
She's planning a cruise for next year just watch it coincide with Cheltenham!!!!!

 

[Mr Whatoxo]

Yeah it was the wife's revenge for constantly taking the proverbial out of her.
She's planning a cruise for next year just watch it coincide with Cheltenham!!!!!

I’d be playing the seasickness card! Or taking the initiative and booking it myself for Shergar Cup or Beverley Bullet week.

 

[simmo]

The thing that is annoying me most about the TV coverage at present is the increasing use of "in" where "at" is the correct word.

As in " the last day in leopardstown"

It's at leopardstown FFS!!

And it's spreading. f$%^ing idiots.

 

[Slim]

The thing that is annoying me most about the TV coverage at present is the increasing use of "in" where "at" is the correct word.

As in " the last day in leopardstown"

It's at leopardstown FFS!!

And it's spreading. f$%^ing idiots.

I'll raise you "back of the last".

 

[Desert Orchid]

For me the one that trumps them all is the omission of the possessive adjective (his/her/its) along with [most often] ''debut".

Eg, finished second on debut...

 

[Dingo Bingo]

They do seem to wear the correct school tie. Would have been great to have someone like Sid Waddell from darts doing some commentary, you'd never get through a 5F sprint without laughing at least once.

 

[Dingo Bingo]

I'm also 110% with Pawras, even if I had to become fluent in Spanish.

 

[pawras]

I'm also 110% with Pawras, even if I had to become fluent in Spanish.

I dunno about learning Spanish but I would have her speaking in tongues given half a chance

 

[Ardross]

I'll raise you "back of the last".

That does not compare for annoyance rating the dreadful Americanism now used willy nilly by the crap minor presenters and Persad - " your favourite " "Your winner " etc - no its The favourite, or the winner - it might not be my favourite at all ! and sadly its very unlikely it will be my winner . Drives me mad .

You never hear Nick Luck or Lydia Hislop using it !

 

[Mr Whatoxo]

What about “should of”?

Even my spellchecker changed it to “should have” and I had to go back and amend it.

 

[simmo]

The difference between "take" and "bring" can be summarized as follows:

• Bring: Refers to movement toward a specific person or place. For example, "Please bring the book to me".
  
  2
• Take: Refers to movement away from a specific person or place. For example, "I will take the book to the library".
  
  2
• Context: "Bring" is often used when the speaker is the destination, while "take" is used when the speaker is not the destination.
  
  2
• Usage: Both words indicate a change in location, but they imply different directions of movement.
  
  2
• Definition: To "bring" is to convey something to a place, while to "take" is to transfer something from one place to another.
  
  1
  This distinction helps clarify when to use each verb correctly in conversation.

 

[Frankel]

Is this what is really triggering all the underlings. Dear God

That said, "Look, listen". Every fukcer seems to be saying it!

 

[Grey]

The difference between "take" and "bring" can be summarized as follows:

• Bring: Refers to movement toward a specific person or place. For example, "Please bring the book to me".
  
  2
• Take: Refers to movement away from a specific person or place. For example, "I will take the book to the library".
  
  2
• Context: "Bring" is often used when the speaker is the destination, while "take" is used when the speaker is not the destination.
  
  2
• Usage: Both words indicate a change in location, but they imply different directions of movement.
  
  2
• Definition: To "bring" is to convey something to a place, while to "take" is to transfer something from one place to another.
  
  1
  This distinction helps clarify when to use each verb correctly in conversation.

The difference between "take" and "bring" can be summarized as follows:

• Bring: Refers to movement toward a specific person or place. For example, "Please bring the book to me".
  
  2
• Take: Refers to movement away from a specific person or place. For example, "I will take the book to the library".
  
  2
• Context: "Bring" is often used when the speaker is the destination, while "take" is used when the speaker is not the destination.
  
  2
• Usage: Both words indicate a change in location, but they imply different directions of movement.
  
  2
• Definition: To "bring" is to convey something to a place, while to "take" is to transfer something from one place to another.
  
  1
  This distinction helps clarify when to use each verb correctly in conversation.

These distinctions don’t apply in English as spoken in Ireland, Simmo. Probably because in Gaeilge the same verb serves for both meanings.

But maybe I should pre-book a grammar course and go get some learnings.