• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

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...


5 + 3 = ?
Back
Top