TV coverage

Gleeson and Chappers nose to nose is a bit naff. Can't they just talk normally?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've thoroughly enjoyed the coverage this week. I haven't even minded the fashion bits as the two presenters are maybe the best there's been on these programmes. Such an improvement on that Go Wank.

Gleeson is a total waste of space. The only good thing about Chapman this week was Sam Thomas putting him in his place.

Most of the rest of the coverage has been very good. Turner has been excellent. Even her grammar is improving. Harvey the rabbit is best deployed down at the start. Let him stay there.
 
Last edited:
I think it's been superb. Short, sharp, slick and informative. And it looks like fun. If you had never been, you'd be thinking you'd like to be there next year. The inclusion of those from daytime TV works as they are talking about what a great day out they are having.
 
I only saw the coverage today, but you could tell from the absence of complaint on here that they must have been keeping people happy in the main.
 
Looks like ITV made a good job of their initial Royal Ascot coverage

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Viewing figures RA.JPG
    Viewing figures RA.JPG
    73.8 KB · Views: 151
Are there viewer/subscriber figures for RUK anyone ?
They got good press and Oli Bell even got rave reviews for his unscripted gallop onto the racecourse.
Interviewing the stable staff leading in the winner is a nice touch; one of the presentations early in the week had a winning stable staff being totally ignored once the presentation was made; bad manners by all concerned.
 
Overall, I thought they did a good job. Being the type of viewer/punter I am - probably quite different from the producers' target audience - I'll always want them to aspire to the best of the BBC coverage and hopefully one day improve on it.

I thought Chamberlin did a fairly good job of 'selling' it, just a wee bit OTT too often for my liking.

Bell remains unconvincing for me. It was like a five-day impersonation of Jiminy Cricket.

Cumani doesn't strike me as being as expert in her eye as Gina Bryce.

Any half-decent meteorologist could do Verasami's job so it's clear how she got the gig.

Turner was excellent her her 'impact sub' role. She's settling in extraordinarily fast to the job.

She and Weaver have been genuine successes from day 1 for me.

McCoy is a waffler, like Fitzgerald. Says nothing of any import. Murtagh is better but Hughes's minor contribution was negligible bar contradicting one of them at one stage.

Chapman is Marmite personified but I accept he will say things other won't. If only he could do so less theatrically.

What is the point of Gleason? He looks entirely out of his comfort zone - does he have one? - in front of a camera and offers no meaningful contribution.

We got a bit more in the way of paddock assessment than Saturday schedules afford and Cumani [in situ] and Weaver & co [studio] probably got as close to the BBC as any other channel has ever got.

I thought Luke Harvey did a fine job down at the start, keeping his voice and emotions in check appropriately and relaying enlightening information, but still not as observant as Gina Bryce in that regard.

I watched a couple of race replays elsewhere during the week and was struck by just how far ahead of his field Simon Holt is. Hoiles is over-rated. If you watch a race in which he's commentating, you'll struggle to identify any of the horses after the first three or four. His vocal inflection actually detracts from his commentary too. Mark Johnston (sp?) is still too fond of forced metaphors. Derek Thompson did a race commentary on a Saturday show not long ago and was better than either of these two.

The fashion presenters were the best I've ever seen. Best dressed and least affected. Did a brilliant job. And I hate the fashion bits usually.

I've always seen Nick Luck as the natural successor to Julian Wilson (who never looked comfortable in the role but who at least offered some gravitas). I hope they see their way to getting him back. We could also have done with Cunningham's sectional analysis. What other time-based televised sport does not give in-depth time analysis? It's as serious an omission from the programme as it is from the entire sport in this backwater of a country where bookmakers decide what the punters get.

I'm actually taking time out from watching the entire five days again to write this as it's what's come into my head so far. I reckon it won't be long before I start making more serious use of the FF button...
 
Last edited:
I appreciate matt isn't everybody's cup of tea but he know his onions and unlike most on horse racing channels speaks his mind. I find him hugely entertaining and you know when he is going ott, he has that twinkle in his eye. Carry on matt,the racing wouldn't be as good if he wasn't there.
 
Of course they are all too young to remember but I was slightly surprised and disappointed with the ATR coverage of the 2-y-o race at Windsor. There was a horse called Pheidippides running and in 1957 a horse with that name won the Gimcrack for Phil Bull. He ran in the following years Guineas (unplaced) and later in his career went to be trained by Michael Pope. He ran many races for that trainer and was still competing in his teens. The last race he won was a seller ridden by P.Eddery a seven pound claimer. Seems like yesterday.
 
I couldn't help notice that the [male] owners and trainers approached by Ms Cumani in the paddock seemed more than happy to talk with her for as long as she desired. I can't yet work out why this was so, but am following a definite line of inquiry.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • cumani.jpg
    cumani.jpg
    11.9 KB · Views: 138
Yes, I remember Pheidippides as an older horse, when he used to race at around 1 1/4 miles.

He'd been retired to stud at the end of his 3- or maybe 4-y-o season, but unfortunately suffered from a similar problem to Cigar in that he produced deformed sperm so couldn't impregnate his mares.
 
I prefer slim women but it has to look natural.

Ms Cumani fits the bill and she's far from ugly but something about her just doesn't do it for me.

And her voice does grate a bit.

But I am a really fussy bastert.
 
As for the coverage, the slo-mo re-run of the finish is a help but they really should have clearer pictures, as they do in cycling and athletics, and they should go right through the field. Even the ten-bob-each-way-just-on-this-occasion punter deserves to know where his/her horse finished.

They're not good enough at calling them home either. On one or two occasions the first two or three got mentioned crossing the line then nothing, just focusing on the winner. Either that or just a list of names with no meaningful context.

And the traditionalist in me wants the winning owner-trainer-jockey sequence resurrected.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who was watching Racing UK yesterday afternoon had the treat of seeing and hearing the lovely Tanya Stevenson cover the racing from Beverley. The poor man who shared the studio duties with her was Alex Stedman, I tweeted my sympathies to him.

How the hell do these bluffers get the gig????
 
Colin Phillips said:
Anyone who was watching Racing UK yesterday afternoon had the treat of seeing and hearing the lovely Tanya Stevenson cover the racing from Beverley. The poor man who shared the studio duties with her was Alex Stedman, I tweeted my sympathies to him.

How the hell do these bluffers get the gig????
Click to expand...

Agree entirely. It was painful viewing. Mercifully I'd had enough at that stage so wasn't subjected to Yates in the evening.
 
Back
Top