- This topic has 176 replies, 65 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I agree that the new…it is almost six months old..Channel 4 set-up remains a work in progress though I think Graham Cunningham’s incisive comments are a bonus. What would help was if we saw Clare Balding more often. She is supposedly the head honcho but her broadcasting talent, which is rightly being rewarded at the academy TV awards tonight, is spread too widely and with the BT channel even more so. Racing coverage needs to see its programme anchors regularly. The old C4 set-up was perfect from that point of view. When Clare is on duty there is an added gravitas to the show…and yes I believe she was right to ask that question after the Guineas. Had she avoided it, she and the programme would have been rightly criticised.
I’m glad some people think Clare Balding adds something to the mix, it proves that one man’s meat is another’s poison. I can’t agree that she adds Gravitas though, she comes across as quoting verbatim from something like the Racing Post or Timeform. The output is predictable and she has never said anything that helped me to find a winner. To be honest I watch most of Channel 4 Racing with the sound turned off. I study the races in great depth before I bet and most of what the presenters are saying is not news to me. I fully realise that many viewers are more casual in approach and may find what is being said interesting but for me it is often surplus to requirements.
It is not all bad though, I thought Jim McGrath, who I respect from the form perspective made two excellent observations that would have been rather more useful for the punter if he had made them much earlier than just before the off. On the 2000 Guineas front he warned that if Toronado had not made as much progress as it perhaps looked in The Craven, then he didn’t have a prayer of beating Dawn Approach. That proved to be very much the case. Then, before the 1000 Guineas he opined that, although everyone was assuming that Hot Snap would come on a ton for her first run of the season, sometimes the first race of the season can actually knock a horse back, and that some of Henry Cecil’s hadn’t progressed for their seasonal debuts. Again, those words were prophetic and would have been way more useful if flagged up much earlier.
Still, if it’s people poking microphones in rudely you want, Clare is definitely the kiddie for it.
ps Can anyone confirm or refute the urban legend that Clare once presented a marital aid to the Queen as a birthday present, with the words "May it please your Majesty"?
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
I think Graham Cunningham is getting better by the week [didn’t like him at first, I’m afraid]. What I’m not understanding, though is that so many people on here used to critiscise Ch4 coverage but now it seems to be a case of ‘it was better when…’I’m a bit confused by that.
What I’m not understanding, though is that so many people on here used to critiscise Ch4 coverage but now it seems to be a case of ‘it was better when…’I’m a bit confused by that.
Moe, I think many people have the point of view that the coverage went from bad (pre 2013) to worse.
- Total Posts 764
Always liked Cunningham and am glad they’re using him more, his points are nearly always well-made and well-thought out. He definitely does his research and isn’t afraid to voice his opinion on horses.
- Total Posts 764
Also like Nick Luck doing the interviews, think he’s much better at that than being the front man of the show.
Always liked Cunningham and am glad they’re using him more, his points are nearly always well-made and well-thought out. He definitely does his research and isn’t afraid to voice his opinion on horses.
He does like the sound of his own voice though. Repeatedly interrupts people.
I was delighted that Clare Balding asked the Sheikh that question. I thought HE was the one who was discourteous and rude by walking away from what was a perfectly reasonable question. She could hardly have done the interview without some reference to the drugs affair and he could hardly have expected to face an interview without having to face a question or two on the topic.
Graham Cunningham, on the other hand, is growing on me. The combination of him and McGrath is infinitely preferable to his awkward pairing with Mick Fitzgerald.
They do need to find a way to show the horses properly though, especially before a classic.
Agreed. Balding was being a good journalist.
The doping scandal has been hurried through to try to save racing’s already deeply tarnished rep from sinking futher in the eyes of a largely incredulous and contemptuous public.
Cunningham is good; knows his onions and stays off the claptrap in the main. Could do with some more red-blooded commentary on the gambling and some more mickey-taking of the game in general.
There`s been some good dry wit from Cunningham and Luck in recent days. The Team Tips feature certainly brightens my afternoons.
I can tolerate Fitz on ATR but not on C4 and he`s an incongruos choice for coverage of the flat. I do not miss Balding and hope she has other commitments more often than not.I like Claire Balding but I do agree that she hasn’t got much that is original to say about the actual horses or replays in the way that other anchors of C4 racing have done in the past……..but I like the way she gets in amongst it all in the paddock etc and tries to get connections to talk….and she seems to build a rapport with the vast majority of them and the way in which she was totally unfazed by a faux grumpy Richard Hannon on Guineas day is exactly what she is all about.
Graham Cunningham is very good and clearly knows his stuff and has a more likeable sense of humour than the smug Mr Luck.
The coverage is very poor. Balding and her paddock routine is both redundant and difficult to watch. Connections are discussing plans etc and having a random microphone jammed in can be quite rude. These interviews are largely useless too, with awkward questions and often even more laborious answers. It’s niether good TV or productive. Then we have even more useless interviews with random semi-famous people who happen to be at the event. Why do i care why they are here? Should i be interviewed when i’m eating lunch and inform people i am eating lunch because i am hungry?
Then we have Mr Luck. Balding has IMO very little interesting or insightful things to say regarding horse racing and likes to indulge in cliches and rhetoric, but Mr Luck takes it to such a new level that one could say he isn’t even speaking English anymore. The drivel and the cliches …. there are old people in the bank at 10.30AM on a Monday morning who offer more coherent and useful observations which are doured in less 19th century cliches. His voice always has this particular tone whereby it’s difficult to imagine him engaging in a normal conversation. How does he speak to his mother? Mr Luck may know his racing, but it is masked behind an eastern bloc of useless and romantic idioms. I also have an irrational hatred of his forehead/haircut, but alas i cannot particularly hold that against him.
Then we have Mr Fitgerald. During the replays of the grand national, i believe he said "he’s having a whale of a time" at least 4 times within one minute. That rather sums up his role in this merry gang. He’s Mr Luck, after they have beaten him up for 10 years, taken off the box suit, beaten away all form knowledge and ability to reason, and added an irish accent.
Cunningham and Mcgrath do IMO work quite well together. They offer well reasoned arguments and clearly know their stuff. Cunningham has offered an outlet that Francome didn’t for Mr Jim. He now has somebody to engage with, rather than asking an interesting question and having Francome come back with a joke. The only gripe i have with Cunningham is that he looks like a vampire when he smiles.
I’m afraid the coverage has patently leaned towards the BBC style coverage i so disliked. The coverage is regular and "free"/available however and i will gladly take it. After all, i watch horse racing for the races, and no matter how many times Mr Luck decides to tell us a modern day fairytale story, they cannot present an actual race.
I’ve decided to watch it on mute today, apart from when O’Brien and Gosden were being interviewed. It’s been far better without having to listen to the constant drivel from the presenters.
Tanya Stevenson Team Tips selections for Saturday 18th May both came LAST carrying a hypothetical £50 on the nose each. Think Tanya should be relieved of this and all the other duties she seems to find so onerous
The coverage is very poor. Balding and her paddock routine is both redundant and difficult to watch. Connections are discussing plans etc and having a random microphone jammed in can be quite rude. These interviews are largely useless too, with awkward questions and often even more laborious answers. It’s niether good TV or productive. Then we have even more useless interviews with random semi-famous people who happen to be at the event. Why do i care why they are here? Should i be interviewed when i’m eating lunch and inform people i am eating lunch because i am hungry?
Then we have Mr Luck. Balding has IMO very little interesting or insightful things to say regarding horse racing and likes to indulge in cliches and rhetoric, but Mr Luck takes it to such a new level that one could say he isn’t even speaking English anymore. The drivel and the cliches …. there are old people in the bank at 10.30AM on a Monday morning who offer more coherent and useful observations which are doured in less 19th century cliches. His voice always has this particular tone whereby it’s difficult to imagine him engaging in a normal conversation. How does he speak to his mother? Mr Luck may know his racing, but it is masked behind an eastern bloc of useless and romantic idioms. I also have an irrational hatred of his forehead/haircut, but alas i cannot particularly hold that against him.
Then we have Mr Fitgerald. During the replays of the grand national, i believe he said "he’s having a whale of a time" at least 4 times within one minute. That rather sums up his role in this merry gang. He’s Mr Luck, after they have beaten him up for 10 years, taken off the box suit, beaten away all form knowledge and ability to reason, and added an irish accent.
Cunningham and Mcgrath do IMO work quite well together. They offer well reasoned arguments and clearly know their stuff. Cunningham has offered an outlet that Francome didn’t for Mr Jim. He now has somebody to engage with, rather than asking an interesting question and having Francome come back with a joke. The only gripe i have with Cunningham is that he looks like a vampire when he smiles.
I’m afraid the coverage has patently leaned towards the BBC style coverage i so disliked. The coverage is regular and "free"/available however and i will gladly take it. After all, i watch horse racing for the races, and no matter how many times Mr Luck decides to tell us a modern day fairytale story, they cannot present an actual race.
I have to admit to finding this post hilarious and yet I completely agree with practically all of it. You have the likes of McGrath and Cunningham that do know their stuff but they are bright lights in an otherwise eclipse of a programme.
Mick Fitzgerald and Tom Lee – Come on please these two are that bad it is cringeworthy and you feel embarrassed for them. They are absolutely abysmal.
Tanya Stevenson Team Tips selections for Saturday 18th May both came LAST carrying a hypothetical £50 on the nose each. Think Tanya should be relieved of this and all the other duties she seems to find so onerous
Hypothetical? I thought these were charity bets. Good point though. I remember Tanya’s strong belief that Halcon Genelardais would win the 2008 Gold Cup.
The coverage is very poor. Balding and her paddock routine is both redundant and difficult to watch. Connections are discussing plans etc and having a random microphone jammed in can be quite rude. These interviews are largely useless too, with awkward questions and often even more laborious answers. It’s niether good TV or productive. Then we have even more useless interviews with random semi-famous people who happen to be at the event. Why do i care why they are here? Should i be interviewed when i’m eating lunch and inform people i am eating lunch because i am hungry?
Then we have Mr Luck. Balding has IMO very little interesting or insightful things to say regarding horse racing and likes to indulge in cliches and rhetoric, but Mr Luck takes it to such a new level that one could say he isn’t even speaking English anymore. The drivel and the cliches …. there are old people in the bank at 10.30AM on a Monday morning who offer more coherent and useful observations which are doured in less 19th century cliches. His voice always has this particular tone whereby it’s difficult to imagine him engaging in a normal conversation. How does he speak to his mother? Mr Luck may know his racing, but it is masked behind an eastern bloc of useless and romantic idioms. I also have an irrational hatred of his forehead/haircut, but alas i cannot particularly hold that against him.
Then we have Mr Fitgerald. During the replays of the grand national, i believe he said "he’s having a whale of a time" at least 4 times within one minute. That rather sums up his role in this merry gang. He’s Mr Luck, after they have beaten him up for 10 years, taken off the box suit, beaten away all form knowledge and ability to reason, and added an irish accent.
Cunningham and Mcgrath do IMO work quite well together. They offer well reasoned arguments and clearly know their stuff. Cunningham has offered an outlet that Francome didn’t for Mr Jim. He now has somebody to engage with, rather than asking an interesting question and having Francome come back with a joke. The only gripe i have with Cunningham is that he looks like a vampire when he smiles.
I’m afraid the coverage has patently leaned towards the BBC style coverage i so disliked. The coverage is regular and "free"/available however and i will gladly take it. After all, i watch horse racing for the races, and no matter how many times Mr Luck decides to tell us a modern day fairytale story, they cannot present an actual race.
A wonderful post and can’t disagree with any of it. I don’t particularly know what Clare Balding’s role is; the more I see Nick Luck the more I can’t stand his smug humourless persona; I’m beginning to turn the tv off or turn the sound down when Mick Fitzgerald speaks as he is absolutely useless and brings nothing to their coverage; I always wanted to defend Tanya but without John McCririck I can now see how useless she is; I used to comment that it was good to see Rishi Persad on Racing UK however I’ve now changed my mind and wish he would return to the BBC to cover the snooker and cricket so you don’t see or hear him much; I’m amazed that Tom Lee is still there as he is still totally useless and Emma Spencer cute but no thanks.
That leaves with Alice Plunkett who is a hark back to the old Channel 4 Racing and thank goodness for that, and Jim McGrath and Graham Cunningham who are an excellent double act who I’d love to hear more of if the rest of the show wasn’t so annoying.
One saving goodness though they don’t have Oli Bell who always makes me cringe when seeing him on Racing UK.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.