TV coverage

trudij said:
Doubtful - it's still dark at 5pm in march?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not quite, the last race used to be at 5.50pm, however if they left the CGC until last and then there was a hold up for an air ambulance or something, they would run the risk of it not being run at all so don't think it will happen.
 
I've come to the conclusion that Richard Hoiles is not much of a commentator, or at least not where big fields are concerned. If you miss the lead-up to races or don't know the colours of your horse you'd struggle to know where it is in the race going by his commentary.

He also got it quite wrong in saying Roi Des Francs was out of the race although he corrected himself quite quickly. Then he was calling Wonderful Charm in the race for the places from some way out, only correcting himself when he saw the replay.

I don't think One For Arthur got a single mention until about three out. I'll need to watch the race gain to check that but watching it with the family those of us who backed it were saying after the race they thought it must have exited early as they never heard it mentioned until it made its move into the chasing group.

Ian Bartlett and Stuart Machin are far better commentators and convey more drama through a race.

Chapman was awful on Saturday. He's just not getting any better and his forays into the crowds are embarrassing. At one point I was missing Derek Thomson.

The analysis re-run was very poor compared with what the BBC used to do. I didn't mind that they interrupted it to interview the rider of the runner-up but to then interrupt it later to interview one who was nowhere was totally pointless.

On Sunday I watched the race on the Jockey Club website - the RUK coverage - and thought it was much better. The camera angles were better in that ITV's cameras seemed to be low and looking into the sun so a lot of the runners were silhouetted (if that's a word) whereas RUK's view was from a different and higher angle and you could better see what was happening.

It was good to see that both coverages caught Becher's from the head-on angle. It remains the iconic angle for that fence, if not for racing in general.
 
Last edited:
I agree with a lot of that DO. I tipped One For Arthur to the people in my office and they all said that they'd thought he'd fallen due to lack of a mention. I was getting dogs abuse on What's App during the race until it appeared he'd jumped in with 2 fences to go. I was then the greatest thing since sliced bread!

I was in a pub myself so couldn't really hear the commentary but in their defence it's not often the winner comes from so far back (in fact I'm struggling to think of one) so it's highlighted the fact that they've not really got any further than half way down the field. The opportunity is usually after The Chair before they jump the 1st again but I couldn't hear who was commenting at that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Almost totally agree apart from the bit about missing Derek Thompson [emoji849]
It was embarrassing really that Hoiles didn't notice Roi des Francs getting back in the race and his lack of preparation is there for all to see
The sight of Matt Chapman telling us all he wanted Yanworth to win to wipe the smile off (Star Sports) Ben's face was rather unpleasant



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Always liked Hoiles but agree that he hasnt been great on ITV.

I think one of the factors though was the new zany camera angles chosen by the directors. Its the one race where you can accept that commentators will be using monitors rather than binoculars. There were several camera angles that weren't used before and crucially seemed to concentrate solely on the leaders/first group. Having played a few computer games in my time, they were very close to that sort of approach. Valentines from the far side, the chair from the inside, all window dressing. Its the one race in the year where you have newbies watching horses 3/4s of the way down the field and tracking their progress independently of the commentary. Not providing the camera angles to allow this, or the commentator the ability to inform meant that several horses just didnt get a mention. Lord Windermere was another given a quiet ride but not getting a mention until the melling road.

The rerun - worth a replay to see how many time Mick Fitz said 'it certainly does'. Absolutely no insight. 'They always go down too fast to the first' 'They will begin to start thinking about Bechers now' 'Watch them now pull wide to get an angle at the canal turn, can be the winning and losing of the race' etc etc

Especially when it was one of the great National rides in my opinion.
 
The Lord Windermere point says it all HW. Gold Cup winner with 10-10 looked to be swinging in behind and was effectively never called.
 
It was near-mayhem at the family party for the race so during the live action it was hard to know if it was all the 'emotion' of the domestic audience that was the problem (but also the fun!) and only on re-watching it several times have I realised just how poor the commentary is. I've maybe watched it six times now and am only getting a flavour of what happened. I plan to watch it several more times imagining I'd backed this or that to see how it was ridden or how unlucky it was.

But I might have to do so via the Jockey Club/RUK recording as the ITV one was so unhelpful.
 
Last edited:
Watched the ITV reply today as didn't see it live as was watching Damien Lewis have an affair with a goat........
commentary was terrible. So many horses didn't get a mention at all because Hoiles in particular, spent too much time padding in-between naming who was where. Consequently 4/5 horses named as they jumped/approached a fence......padding......next fence 4/5. Really poor generally and I usually don't mind RH.
 
He strikes me as someone with his own agenda.

I could agree with a lot of what he says but anyone who can suggest McCririck is good for the game doesn't deserve to be listened to.
 
Banks is a rabid self-publicist with a huge ego, and his motives need to be questioned, imo.

Firstly, C4R's viewing figures had been tanking for years, and there was no hope of this being arrested. He fails to address this.

Secondly, it is far, far too early to form a view about ITV's coverage one way or the other. The first Opening Show for Aintree was broadcast early-morning on a Thursday - which is assuredly not the time to make a determination about the success (or otherwise) of their output.

Thirdly, I can only assume he is too tight to have bothered upgrading his TV set in the last 10 years, if he thinks ITV4 is "difficult to find". Even if a viewer doesn't have a subscription to SKY or Virgin, it's next-to-impossible to buy a TV set these days, which doesn't come with ITV4 on some form of built-in Freeview package. He might be too thick to figure-out what the 'TV Guide' button is for, which is fair enough, but the great-unwashed generally have no problem with this simple concept.

If you transmit shite (which is the very-definition of C4Rs coverage for the last umpteen years) people won't watch it - even if it's broadcast on one of the major terrestrial channels. ITV's coverage looks fresh and - importantly, imo - vastly less 'clubby' than the C4R offerings over the last several years. They should be afforded the time to allow their product to evolve, and build their audience over time. They should not be dismissed within the first 3 months, by an idiot with an axe to grind, because his free-publicity has been snatched away from him.
 
Last edited:
He also lacks self awareness. He himself was truly awful and possibly the most cringeworthy pundit I have ever seen on a racing broadcast, which makes the fact that he's written this truly laughable. His fellow panellists had an obvious and sometimes blatant disregard for him, and as you said all he's doing here is seeking the limelight and pushing his own agenda.

ITV's coverage isn't perfect, but it's infinitely better than anything C4 served up in ten years. As for the viewing figures I'd suggest it's more representative of a general trend rather than the coverage. People are missing the very simple point that ATR and RUK offer an alternative, and that lifestyles and other sporting options such as the football clashing, and the many people who play sport themselves mean that millions of people aren't going to sit down between 2pm and 4pm every Saturday afternoon to tune in.
 
The mans a berk
Sounds like The Sun will be needing a new columnist, I reckon he'd be right at home there.
 
I find the new time of 10am really doesn't suit me and I never get to see it. Not sure if this is the general consensus? I used to always watch the morning line between 8-9. Then head out for the morning, usually for golf, then returning home for the live racing at 2pm. 10am for the opening show is just too late imo.
 
It's a personal taste thing DO which is why it's impossible to produce a racing programme that caters perfectly for a racing audience, or can balance the level of information for a casual viewer.

The bottom line for me is that racing stays on terrestrial TV and doesn't lose its pitch. BBC coverage of old was the best, but it was interspersed with other sports and wasn't dedicated as it has to be now. Whichever way you look at it both ITV and C4 have a lot of filling to do and I accept that for what it is.
 
Last edited:
Personal taste, obviously, and I can liken what's happening with ITV Racing with what's happening at the Racing Post website.

They think they know their 'audience' but clearly don't.

We're seeing equivalent things happen in the high streets and shopping centres all the time these days and especially since the recession. People get ideas about what makes a good shop so they take over an empty property and set up store only for it to fail within months, if not weeks, because nobody is interested in the shite they're offering or the prices they're asking. And then they can't understand why it didn't work.

Shite is not attractive and for that reason ITV racing dying on its feet, as is the RP website.
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
Personal taste, obviously, and I can liken what's happening with ITV Racing with what's happening at the Racing Post website.

They think they know their 'audience' but clearly don't.

We're seeing equivalent things happen in the high streets and shopping centres all the time these days and especially since the recession. People get ideas about what makes a good shop so they take over an empty property and set up store only for it to fail within months, if not weeks, because nobody is interested in the shite they're offering or the prices they're asking. And then they can't understand why it didn't work.

Shite is not attractive and for that reason ITV racing dying on its feet, as is the RP website.
Click to expand...

I have RUK but record the terrestial coverage to watch later.ITV did an excellent job with Cheltenham and Aintree -I wouldn't be a big fan of Mick Fitzgerald but overall it's superior to Ch 4 who had a betting expert who was regressing after 14 years doing the job and an anchor who cherry picked when she worked.
I would say it compares favourably to Ch4,RTE,Australian Network Coverage and even the BBC coverage from the 80's.
 
To be honest, I'm struggle to think of anything positive about it.

I've been prepared to give it a bit of time and am prepared to give it a bit more but so far I'm finding:

Chamberlin isn't in the same league as Luck for anchoring.

Oli Bell is lightweight.

Harvey strikes me as a nice person but not up to the job.

Chapman is simply awful. He is by far the worst of the lot. Is he trying too hard to be a personality?

Brian Gleason has never been any good. At anything.

Mick Fitz says nothing. Someone with his knowledge and CV should be blinding us with the brilliance of his insight. He can't even tell us when a horse looks fit. And I'm not in the least convinced he is qualified to comment on Flat racing. Even the Turnip did better when she was on recently. Setting aside her awful grammar, she was actually surprisingly good.

For Alice Plunkett it's all a junket.

Hoiles is a very poor commentator.

McCoy's contribution is also disappointingly lightweight.

The level of form analysis is pitiful and the parade ring coverage worse. I don't know if it's always been the case but it seems to me all they do is row along with Timeform but leave out any depth.

What McGrath and Cunningham offered was light years ahead of what we're getting. And it was disappointing.

I also recorded the Cheltenham and Aintree festivals and went back and watched them over. After watching it all the way through more than once I gave up and just fast-forwarded to the races.

I can't speak for RUK or ATR as I don't subscribe but have watched the occasional stream for a non-TV race and they both strike me as some way ahead of ITV in just about every respect.

As maruco says, though, it's down to personal taste. Maybe my expectations are too high. After all, I reckon Keira Knightly is a dog...
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
To be honest, I'm struggle to think of anything positive about it.

I've been prepared to give it a bit of time and am prepared to give it a bit more but so far I'm finding:

Chamberlin isn't in the same league as Luck for anchoring.
Click to expand...

Think Chamberlin has to be given time. It's his first outing fronting a terrestrial programme, and he has done a fair job so far, from what I've seen.

Oli Bell is lightweight.
Click to expand...

All things are relative. Alice Plunkett and Lesley Graham have both fronted the Morning Line previously, and he is in a different league to those muppets.

Harvey strikes me as a nice person but not up to the job.
Click to expand...

The man is a complete bufoon, imo.

Chapman is simply awful. He is by far the worst of the lot. Is he trying too hard to be a personality?
Click to expand...

He is an acquired taste, perhaps, but he gets more out of his interviews than anyone else that's tried the same thing.

Brian Gleason has never been any good. At anything.
Click to expand...

Agree. He isn't necessary.

Mick Fitz says nothing. Someone with his knowledge and CV should be blinding us with the brilliance of his insight. He can't even tell us when a horse looks fit. And I'm not in the least convinced he is qualified to comment on Flat racing. Even the Turnip did better when she was on recently. Setting aside her awful grammar, she was actually surprisingly good.
Click to expand...

Agree. Dull and unconvincing. Has zero insight.

For Alice Plunkett it's all a junket.
Click to expand...

Truly appalling.

Hoiles is a very poor commentator.
Click to expand...

Strongly disagree. Great at bringing a race to life, though may not have had his best day during the National.

McCoy's contribution is also disappointingly lightweight.
Click to expand...

Get the feeling his contribution would be much better post-watershed. Not convinced we need any ex-jockeys as regulars myself.

The level of form analysis is pitiful and the parade ring coverage worse. I don't know if it's always been the case but it seems to me all they do is row along with Timeform but leave out any depth.
Click to expand...

Agreed, though suspect they are slightly hamstrung by having to provide an 'education' to the casual-viewer.

What McGrath and Cunningham offered was light years ahead of what we're getting. And it was disappointing.
Click to expand...

Couldn't suffer Blinky's I-know-somehing-you-don't-know arrogance, and Cunningham was too dry for what is probably meant to be reasonably light-hearted.

I can't speak for RUK or ATR as I don't subscribe but have watched the occasional stream for a non-TV race and they both strike me as some way ahead of ITV in just about every respect.
Click to expand...

Both channels have their good and bad-points...much like ITV racing. Gary O'Brien is excellent on ATR, whereas Harvey remains a buffoon on that channel too. Angus MacNae and Peter Naughton are both awful on RUK. Mellish, Hislop and Neesom are all top-drawer.

As maruco says, though, it's down to personal taste. Maybe my expectations are too high. After all, I reckon Keira Knightly is a dog...
Click to expand...

Knightley is a pouty-bint with no tits whatsoever......though I probably wouldn't boot her out of my billet for eating toast.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top