- This topic has 276 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Given the disasters over the last few days I will start a separate thread to document all the glaring errors / omissions, embarrassing mistakes ATR are making and it’s getting worse. I’m sure I won’t spot them all, so feel free to add to this list.
Thursday 11th July:
Yarmouth 2.10 – Shown with 2.40 graphic.
Yarmouth 2.40 – Shown with 4.40 graphic.
Worcester 6.10, 6.40, 7.10, 7.40, 8.10, 8.40, 9.10 – Only first circuit shown! So we didn’t see the finish of any of these races.
Looks like they calculated how much of each race they could squeeze in, then proceeded to show that amount, but from the start and not working back from the finish!
....and you've got to look a long way back for anything else.
You should get a letter published in the Racing Post and see if ATR can be shamed into admitting how bad their racing review coverage is.
The coverage by ATR is a shame. The quality of the pictures is awful compared to almost every other TV channel (maybe this is only the case for me, due to a poor signal, though?), all the ads are utterly annoying, even though I understand they need the advertising to survive. But then the graphics look outdated and ugly. What surprises me, as you would think in these times it is easy enough to produce as least a show/channel that looks nice to eyes. Isn’t ATR part of Sky? Then I’m wondering why can Sky Sports News produce top notch graphics but ATR can’t?
The reviews from the race meetings are a shame as well. While RUK does show every meeting in full lengths, replays it often enough so that you have every chance to watch them after work or at least record them, with ATR it’s the case that they are often too short, sometimes they only show parts of the races, sometimes they don’t even review whole meetings at all. It’s very sad because I do like a couple of the ATR presenters, in particular Matt Chapman. I really like the Sunday forum, and I like all the Hugh Taylor things But then, if you compare ATR with RUK – and as someone who is RUK subscriber I can compare every day – it’s just a huge difference in class. I don’t like all what RUK does, and think from time to time their coverage lacks the colour and is dull, but then it’s highly professional at least, the picture quality is superb and they don’t do too many mistakes I think.
ATR can be lucky that they have Irish racing and it looks they will retain it as negotiations going well from what I heard. And I think that is a positive. It wouldn’t be good to have all the racing on one channel. It would be too much for RUK to cover everything. But then it really is important that ATR makes changes, they have to up their game…
Wouldn’t it be better to just forward these issues directly to ATR?
I am sure there are many RUK/ATR threads which this could have been added to.
Just to try and redress the balance with what I don’t like about RUK:-
(1) The cost. I doubt any other sport would think it could milk its customers of £20+ to show part of a product.
(2) It has virtually no programme structure other than live racing and endless repeats. It even repeats during live action when it has on-course reporters. I suspect the few features it does produce have only been triggered out of embarassment at looking at its output compared to ATR.
(3) The presenters and experts. Willoughby, McNae, Neesom, Steadman, Cunningham, Machin, Hoiles, Dixon, Hannity, Bell, Persad, Richmond, Fremantle, Yates – apologies to anyone I have missed out. I don’t mind Hislop and Mellish and Morrison is easily their best paddock judge – he isn’t used often enough. Yes, ATR have plenty of absolute duffers as well but they tend not to take themselves as seriously as the RUK collection.ATR do an excellent job in presenting the Irish racing and thankfully will continue to do so. We are lucky to have two racing channels and I am not sure what all the negative comments about ATR are supposed to achieve? Having RUK as the only racing channel would be a disaster.
Wouldn’t it be better to just forward these issues directly to ATR?
No it wouldn’t, as they have never replied to any email or tweet.
Back to the point.
Friday 12th July
:
No obvious mistakes this morning and even played the review from Southwell on Tuesday to make up for the disaster on Wednesday morning. Would have preferred to see Uttoxeter, but let’s not be too picky.
....and you've got to look a long way back for anything else.
Saturday 13th July (Part 1)
:
Chepstow 8.40 SP and 9.10 Betting graphic shown in wrong order.
Cork 5.55, 6.30, 7.30, 8.00, 8.30, 9.00 – Only first circuit shown! So we didn’t see the finish of any of these races.
Cork 8.00 – SP graphic preceeded race, betting graphic followed race.
....and you've got to look a long way back for anything else.
Saturday 13th July (Part 1)
:
Cork 5.55, 6.30, 7.30, 8.00, 8.30, 9.00 – Only first circuit shown! So we didn’t see the finish of any of these races.
.
That twice now, following the Uttoxeter meeting.
Agree 100% pointless emailing them. They seem to have no desire to improve anything. They revamped the graphics and studio at huge cost but have failed to invest in people.Saturday 13th July (Part 1)
:
Cork 5.55, 6.30, 7.30, 8.00, 8.30, 9.00 – Only first circuit shown! So we didn’t see the finish of any of these races.
.
That twice now, following the Uttoxeter meeting.
Agree 100% pointless emailing them. They seem to have no desire to improve anything. They revamped the graphics and studio at huge cost but have failed to invest in people.Best thing was that they cut off half a mile out in the 7.30 and 2 furlongs out in the bumper and went straight to the head-on with that dreadful plodding musak.
Surely even a moron would know that the finish is the most critical bit of the race!
Sunday 14th July
:
No obvious mistakes this morning, but no Downpatrick either.
King/Queen for a Day is very watchable, but could this not have been shown at 12.15 without further cutting down the review slot?
....and you've got to look a long way back for anything else.
For what it’s worth I’ve complained about the ATR website replays when there’s been a problem (wrong race, start missing, end missing., won’t play) and on each occasion they have replied and then addressed the problem. Doesn’t make the situation any better in the short term possibly, but keep complaining to them.
Rob
Thursday 18th July
:
Has anyone seen the 7.25 from Worcester?
Well if you were hoping to see it in the review, forget it, it wasn’t shown.
....and you've got to look a long way back for anything else.
For what it’s worth I’ve complained about the ATR website replays when there’s been a problem (wrong race, start missing, end missing., won’t play) and on each occasion they have replied and then addressed the problem. Doesn’t make the situation any better in the short term possibly, but keep complaining to them.
Rob
Good grief, you got a reply out of them! How did you manage that? I’ve never heard a peep from all my complaints, both e-mails and letters.
They now have the 10.15 to 11.00 review as part of the video archive on the ipad app.
Like the Sunday Forum on there it’ll get cut off in its’ prime if over running though.
No obvious clangers in recent days.
It should, however, have come as no surprise to ATR that they would only have one six race card (Ascot) to review today.
So why, why, why did they have to squeeze all four meetings from Saturday into the review on Sunday? Again the available time slot was shortened to fit in another "Queen for a Day" resulting in most races having to be shortened.
Compare that to today when we get FOUR complete reviews of Ascot from Sunday.
Surely one or maybe even two of Saturday’s meetings could have been held over until Monday so we could have seen every race in full.
....and you've got to look a long way back for anything else.
Tuesday 27th August
:
Chepstow 6.05 – Newcastle 2.15 Betting graphic shown instead of Chepstow 6.05 SP graphic.
....and you've got to look a long way back for anything else.
Saturday 14th September:
Doncaster 2.40 – Head on shown was from the 2.40 the previous day.
....and you've got to look a long way back for anything else.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.