Alice Plunkett, Classic

Thousands upon thousands of people have not achieved close to what Alice has in the saddle.

That said I agree that it doesn't necessarily make her a great presenter - there are better out there but equally far worse also. She isn't terrible - I would get rid of abominations like Lesley Graham long before I got rid of Alice.

My point with regards to Lydia was that I am sure she has not ridden in races, as someone claimed she had.
 
Lydia Hislop--RUK---does not seem to have the shape to be a rider.
I gave up on Ch 4 long before the insipid Lesley Graham became replaceable.
Alice does her job well---she is not asked to comment on form.

P.S. DT -- Ch 4--was allowed in to Leopardstown last Sunday. I had to reach for the emesis basin. :angy: :angy: :angy:
 
Originally posted by useful@Jan 30 2008, 04:30 PM
I think the point here is Alice Plunkett, whether you like her style or not, is unquestionably able to provide expert analysis on the confirmation of horses, and their general well being.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, she doesn't provide it in practice.

The L.Hislop who rides is not Lydia Hislop.
 
As a layman, unlike Shadow Leader, I value a presenter who can bring to the show something I do not already know. Shadow has educated me in the short time I have been on this forum, and Alice Plunkett does the same (as, for that matter, does John Francome, Willie Carson et al).

Basically people who have "been there done it" have an edge over the likes of Hisliop. Yes, she has a large fanbase in "forum land" and I have no problem with her personally. However she tells me nothing about the sport that I, as a Layman, do not already know.

She is famous for holding controversial and sometimes unpopular views, but they are based upon her opinions not her experience as a horsewoman. Give me a true expert anyday rather than someone who happens to have a way with words and a confident manner in front of a camera.
 
useful...can you give an example of Alice Plunkett furthering your education with something she's said on TV?
 
gus, don't you remember that tearful moment with Nicky just after his horse won the race named after Nicky's father?

Surely moments like that far outweigh any insight she might have, or have not, on the horse's ability??!!!
 
Basically people who have "been there done it" have an edge over the likes of Hisliop
Click to expand...

That edge is useless to them if they don't have the ability to communicate in an informative way, and provide some greater insight into their subject at the same time.

You just have to look at the ex-football-player-turned-pundit gravy train for proof of the horrors that await when it is assumed that experience is enough by itself.
 
Gus, I cannot recall sepcifics as I haven't watched C4 for ages (if you read my earlier posts). However I always remember her giving snippets about the conformation of horses, different types of tack etc. I think I am right in saying she has also done a number of specials on C4 focusing on equine issues in detail.

Former sports people are often not the best at holding a microphone and standing in front of a camera - but if you can forgive them this you will get far more valuable information from them than the "professional broadcasting" types who have Masters Degress in waffle and bulls*it.
 
Whether or not Ms Hislop has ridden in races or not, or indeed, whether she's ever sat on a horse in her life, she's a first class journalist who writes with a great deal of insight and passion on the sport.

I don't feel she's particularly "controversial", it's just that so many of them are bone idle and are quite content to have a pleasant life being paid to go racing, and don't want to rock the boat.

In sports journalism you need a mix of good writers/broadcasters as well as "people who have done it". There are good and bad in both categories. Few of them can match Hislop.
 
Originally posted by eric c@Jan 31 2008, 07:08 AM
Lydia Hislop--RUK---does not seem to have the shape to be a rider.
Click to expand...
Neither do I any more but that doesn't mean I wasn't a horsewoman in my younger days!!

Lydia is extremely intelligent and very well informed about racing politics as I said earlier. Her Times column is essential reading, on that sort of subject - just as Marcus Armytage's 'diary' in the DT is for Lambourn/W of England racing 'gossip'. It takes all kinds of journos to give us a full picture.

Channel 4 interviewer/presenters aren't there to teach you anything ffs - they employ eg Francome for that sort of thing. There are they to look good and to get the participants to talk. Alice does just fine
 
Venusian (happy belated birthday by the way!), I don't have an opinion on Hislop's journalistic prowess, as I don't read The Times. My only exposure to her is as a Presenter on RUK.

I feel she tends to talk in cliches and waffles a lot. She has her "favourite" horses which she follows but so do I!! It may well be the case that she is a "facilitator" on RUK whose job it is to extract the "expert analysis" out of the guest pundit. However, Plunkett's role is the very same on C4 and as such she brings a whole lot more to the role (in terms of expertise) than I feel Hislop does.
 
Don't get me wrong - I am not comparing Alice to Lydia; there is no point as they perform different roles anyway.

I was commenting on two separate issues in one post - far too confusing for most to fathom I realise!!!!
 
I hate "insiders" commenting on the sport...or any sport for that matter

Didnt Alice Plonker once come out with "whos cares what the punters think?".

WE PAY YOUR FCKING WAGES REMEMBER

As for inside/outside on commentators i will give you...

John Arlott... Ian Botham

Patrick Barclay.... Alan Shearer

Now Botham and Shearer were two players i admire immensely, but i would be happy to never hear another word from either. Couldnt care less if theyve "been there".

Lydia is in a different league to Alice Plunkett. I dont care if she has not ridden a horse in her life...if thats the criteria on commenting on a race then the vast majority on here would be gone
Click to expand...

Couldnt agree more
 
We need people who can communicate the game to the uninitiated - how would we have felt before we were into racing if those representing it were unfriendly and made it seem unapproachable?

I'm fed up of armchair racing experts critiscing those who try and sell the sport on terestrial tv.

Sam
 
Originally posted by Woppit@Jan 31 2008, 07:47 PM
We need people who can communicate the game to the uninitiated
Click to expand...
Indeed. It's a harsh truth but there's no role for Plunkett.
 
"We need people who can communicate the game to the uninitiated..............."

Do we?

They weren't around when I started getting interested in racing.

Peter O'Sullevan doing the commentary and Clive Graham doing the paddock watch and giving a cursory mention of the form, was all we had then. And I feel there are plenty from my generation still interested.

I sound a bit like a luddite here but I believe if people want to get interested in a sport they don't need to be spoon-fed, they will make mistakes and learn. Lessons learned from trying and getting things wrong make a lasting impression on your mind and they tend not to be forgotten..............just my opinion, of course.
 
I don't mean they need to be good teachers or whatever, but we need people who make it seem appealing or whatever - the bunch of dullards who often inhabit ATR/RUK studios would send many new watchers to sleep! Basically professional boradcasters - of which O'Sullivan was definately one, as are the current C4 crew, like them or not. Love him or hate him, you can't deny that Derek Thompson is an 'old pro'.

Sam
 
Back
Top