- This topic has 48 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
That is very harsh, Equitrack…
To accuse Eddie Fremantle of not offering a "constructive insight" into a race is almost an admission that you haven’t been listening properly I’m afraid.
I’m not saying he is above criticism; no-one is, but he definitely has an excellent knowledge of the sport and knows the formbook inside out.
- Total Posts 17716
I think they call it an opinion, TDK, though I could be wrong.
Believe me; his analysis of the Grand National is brilliant…gives 4 horses and usually has 2 or 3 placed….if the horse he tips to win doesn’t, it usually gets placed at a big price eg a couple of years ago his main tip was Slim Pickings.
Equitrack – if you can honestly sit through EF’s analysis all afternoon and say he doesn’t offer a contructive insight into a race, then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree…
…but P.S – you are wrong
Mellish is accomplished as a pundit but he is as decisive as suggested, fair enough Saturday was a busy day for the RUK pairing of Mellish/Luck but when asked by Luck to summarise a Newbury race literally in about 30 seconds, Mellish chose not to plug for one horse rather blustering though vague pointers for about five of the nine contenders, hardly insightful. He is worth listening to though, don’t get me wrong.
Freemantle is unusual looking for a racing expert and that is what is likeable about him, God knows whether he could write as the Observer is too leftie for me! But he knowshis stuff. Eddie and Lydia – the perfect pundit/presenter combo! Although Graeme (Cunningham) and Lydia has also proved very entertaining this year.
Personal opinion but I wouldn’t be too concerned if I didn’t see Freemantle, Cunningham and Willoughby on a television screen again. I find all three irritating. I could be wrong but I suspect given the choice Lydia would far sooner work with Mellish than the other three. Unlike the other three Mellish appears to realise he is there primarily as a pundit and not for dubious comedic value.
Personal opinion but I wouldn’t be too concerned if I didn’t see Freemantle, Cunningham and Willoughby on a television screen again. I find all three irritating. I could be wrong but I suspect given the choice Lydia would far sooner work with Mellish than the other three. Unlike the other three Mellish appears to realise he is there primarily as a pundit and not for dubious comedic value.
Good point stilvi and I think on balance you are right but I am too long in the tooth as a punter to allow a pundit to do the work for me therefore I prefer a Cunningham/Lydia combo to get me thro the meet rather than Mellish who is great if you are discussing the credentials the evening before over a jar but not so good on the day when all is said and done, Cunningham does the job as adequately with some asides in for the bargain.
A great shame he is leaving the Observer and the end of the line for Sunday racing coverage in the newspapers. I get a couple of Sunday’s and read the sports sections of others when I can…it took me a while to work out why Freemantle stood out among the Sunday writers but after a bit the penny dropped…he actually writes about horses.
Every other Sunday paper (when there is any racing coverage) sees it as a chance to write about trainers, jockeys, owners, groundsmen or even officials. Ed Freementle wrote mostly about horses and this radical approach put him head and shoulders above his colleagues.
For the benefit of all editors and journos out there…the clue is in the title…its Horse Racing.Good luck to Eddie.
- Total Posts 17716
Ah, Graham Cunningham, the equine world’s self-titled ‘bet maverick’. I don’t care for his presenting style in any way, shape or form (as you may have guessed there are few in the racing media I do have time for), but I have to admit that his latest venture captured my waining interest.
On his website he claims that ‘those who agree that a steady dividend is achievable through a lot of perspiration and a little inspiration might find something worthwhile here’, a statement he precedes with ‘those seeking life changing gambles are probably best advised to look elsewhere’.
I couldn’t agree with him more, with regard to the latter at least.
The fact that he seems to be betting ‘off the cuff’ aside (he recommends match bets, place bets, place lays, short odds each-way bets and odds-on bets, with little obvious consistency), how is it that a subscription fee of £45 per month makes sense? Assuming someone wants to bet across a 12 month period, which is generally how tipsters prefer to advertise their results, an outlay of £540 is required without a bet having been placed. That’s not the sort of amount anyone would be likely to want to spend if they were searching for ‘a steady dividend’. Nor, I should imagine, would they want to bet to Cunningham’s advised stakes of (generally) £40-80.
Too many members of the racing media avoid what should, by definition, be the very basis of their job in favour of creating a persona (this can go either way, as the extremes of Mark Winstanley and the utterly deplorable Peter Naughton prove) which they hope will endear them to the viewing public. Addressing the issues becomes secondary to a narcissistic desire to be adored.
The likes of Lydia Hislop and Steve Mellish (he’s a professional punter and doesn’t pretend to be anything else) are a far cry from the Cunninghams of this world, and I for one am thankful for their existence in defiance of the monotonous popularity contest horseracing ‘journalism’ has become.
Eddie Freemantle was given his nickname by southern on course bookmakers.
Just a way of bookmakers needing to know the shrewdies from the rest of us. Eddie has big feet so that was the nickname given to him.Very much the same way professional gambler Johnny Humbrell was known as ‘Lights’ as he used to run a fruit and veg market stall which was adorned with loads of electric lights.
It was just a way much like ‘tic tac’ for bookmakers to know amongst themselves what the ‘faces ‘ were backing.
Eddie had a good reputation as a decent punter incidentallywhich James Willoughby does not have.
To those that admit never to buy a copy of the Racing Post surely there is a need for the on line version to start charging for racecards and information.
Why should the ones that pay over a £1,000 a year a subsidise others that pay nothing.
How long would the newspaper last if everyone stopped buying the paper and just got everything from the website?
- Total Posts 17716
To those that admit never to buy a copy of the Racing Post surely there is a need for the on line version to start charging for racecards and information.
Why should the ones that pay over a £1,000 a year a subsidise others that pay nothing.
How long would the newspaper last if everyone stopped buying the paper and just got everything from the website?
Seagull
Many websites (The Sporting Life, notably) survive without either charges or a newspaper.
The RP’s ‘tipping line’ will either stand or fall by its success too, whether that be in producing profitable selections, or placing misleading adverts to rope in the unwary – much of the income which would be generated from their own newspaper, anyway?Ah, Graham Cunningham, the equine world’s self-titled ‘bet maverick’. I don’t care for his presenting style in any way, shape or form (as you may have guessed there are few in the racing media I do have time for), but I have to admit that his latest venture captured my waining interest.
Too many members of the racing media avoid what should, by definition, be the very basis of their job in favour of creating a persona (this can go either way, as the extremes of Mark Winstanley and the utterly deplorable Peter Naughton prove) which they hope will endear them to the viewing public. Addressing the issues becomes secondary to a narcissistic desire to be adored.
The likes of Lydia Hislop and Steve Mellish (he’s a professional punter and doesn’t pretend to be anything else) are a far cry from the Cunninghams of this world, and I for one am thankful for their existence in defiance of the monotonous popularity contest horseracing ‘journalism’ has become.
You make some good points Equi’ but I think with Cunningham you are well wide of the mark, in my view he speaks honestly about the issues and is often critical of established opinion and in his view (he’s right) inferior talent in journalism and presenting. He has on more than one occassion bit the hand that fed him to raise issues that needed raising and it was arguably this rather than the content or cost cutting that saw him lose his column and his job at the Racing Post. More recently he has been critical of the growing influence of bookmakers on RUK which is hardly a ‘safe’ approach given his employment status.
Anyway Equi’, surprised he is not your kind of bloke given that he has plenty to say, doesn’t suffer fools, has a nice turn of phrase, is insightful and often gives the impression he doesn’t like people very much
To those that admit never to buy a copy of the Racing Post surely there is a need for the on line version to start charging for racecards and information.
Why should the ones that pay over a £1,000 a year a subsidise others that pay nothing.
How long would the newspaper last if everyone stopped buying the paper and just got everything from the website?
hi seagull,
i’m missing something here.
the ABC site says the RP cover price is 1.60 on weekdays and 1.80 at the weekend. it puts the annual sub rate at GBP 649 or Euro 731 .
how do we get to the GBP 1,000 annual figure ?
best regards
wit
Ah, Graham Cunningham, the equine world’s self-titled ‘bet maverick’. I don’t care for his presenting style in any way, shape or form (as you may have guessed there are few in the racing media I do have time for)…
The likes of Lydia Hislop and Steve Mellish (he’s a professional punter and doesn’t pretend to be anything else) are a far cry from the Cunninghams of this world, and I for one am thankful for their existence in defiance of the monotonous popularity contest horseracing ‘journalism’ has become.
It sounds like you are trying way too hard to dislike members of the racing media. Graham Cunningham and Eddie Fremantle have as good an understanding of the sport as anyone else currently on our screens imo. I know this is a matter of opinion to an extent, but you simply can’t tar these guys with the same brush as some of the real frauds in the game – you are just making yourself look ridiculous.
The fact that he seems to be betting ‘off the cuff’ aside (he recommends match bets, place bets, place lays, short odds each-way bets and odds-on bets, with little obvious consistency), how is it that a subscription fee of £45 per month makes sense?
You seem to be suggesting that having a flexible approach to betting is a negative – does anyone in 2009 just get by with the win single?
The likes of Lydia Hislop and Steve Mellish (he’s a professional punter and doesn’t pretend to be anything else) are a far cry from the Cunninghams of this world, and I for one am thankful for their existence in defiance of the monotonous popularity contest horseracing ‘journalism’ has become.
Mellish is a top pundit and I have plenty of respect for his views, but he doesn’t strike me as someone who makes fortunes from punting – he rarely seems to have a bet and by his own admission, his stakes aren’t the highest.
Correct – he was discussing his betting behaviour on one of RUK’s Wednesday night shows earlier in the year, and the number of bets he said he has per annum (he keeps a record) is both pretty consistent and pretty small, not much into triple figures if memory serves.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.