- This topic has 979 replies, 136 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
My comments:
Ed Chamberlain – is improving, however not a notch on Racing UK’s excellent coverage
Francesca Cumani – don’t quite know why she was there, looked out of her depth with the jumps
Matt Chapman – continues to annoy the hell out of me, was so pleased that Brian Gleason was there instead.
Tony McCoy – has a more annoying voice than Mick Fitz, never relaxes enough in front of a microphoneAndrew Thornton was a great addition to Radio 5’s coverage, shame ITV can’t use him more
The interviewing of Russell after the RSA was one of the most cringeworthy bits of TV I’ve ever seen, as you say Greenasgrass.
You just don’t do that. The insensitivity of that towards Russell on live TV was shocking.
I’m an uncouth cockney, and it made me cringe…
My good lady is slowly being affected by the racing bug by yours truly. She had no interest whatsoever in the sport until we met, her slow conversion became more rapid this week as she took time off work to watch The Festival, the fact that the only two horses she backed all week were Penhill and Native River might have helped!
As someone new to racing she massively preferred the ITV coverage to Racing UK, which she found ‘boring’. I think ITV have got the mix just right for the general public. Racing UK is only really suitable for us anoraks.
Pleased to read that, Pants; the CH 4 coverage had become so boring; ITV might be a bit cheesy but we do need to get more people interested in racing, and not all of them want to study the form of every horse running in every race [something I could happily do all day and every day!].
Not a mention of the three horses that lost their lives in The Grand Annual yesterday on The Opening Show this morning, more interested in who won their £20 Challenge. I
For the lads and lasses who went home with empty horseboxes yesterday that is a huge disrespect. How could you possibly not want to pay a respect to the racehorses who make Cheltenham and the sport what it is.
To whitewash the race in this way is appalling, we all know it happened and it should have been acknowledged not hidden away in case it might upset those who do not follow the sport as ardently as we all do but also love horses and care about their welfare.
JacThings turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...The Cheltenham coverage was generally very good and Ed Chamberlin is becoming quite an accomplished host, although still a bit insipid and lacklustre at times.
The grinning and quaintly old-fashioned Francesca Cumani, with her hair up, was polished and competent as well as beautifully spoken. A bigger contrast with the downmarket Tanya Stevenson from Channel 4 days you could not have.
There were several mentions of “my father” from Francesca (the ghost of Clare Balding was evidently on hand) and there was a fawning mention from Ed that she was “racing royalty” during a hand-over to her.
It was a sad sign of the times that we had to endure the Social Station sections, hosted by Alan Partridge doing a passably goofy impression of Oli Bell. Who on earth is interested in what they are saying on Instagram? Why do we have to pander to these people?
Matt Chapman continued to do his poor man’s impression of McCririck with his ludicrous antics, not least when trying to badger a distinctly unimpressed J P McManus into letting his hair down.
Brian Gleeson tried to compete with him in the clowning about by pulling faces and leaning forward to the camera in the style of McCririck at his “Aren’t I funny?” worst.
Alice Plunkett did her C4 bit of being too matey, saying “Listen” and wearing her big Mad Hatter’s Tea Party hats, so no change there.
Sir Anthony McCoy, dubbed “Sir AP” in the captions, proved to be his usual gloomily lugubrious aid to a welcome afternoon sleep.
Veteran ITV presenter from the old days, Brough Scott, 75, was the wise old sage occupying the John Oaksey and Alastair Down role with his looks back.
Thankfully, there seemed to be a lack of his trademark Radio 2-style puns and links, but he looked positively tiny next to Ed and Francesca. I thought it was ventriloquist Ray Alan with his Lord Charles dummy at one point.
But the camera shots were good and the coverage overall was very watchable and efficiently run. ITV have proved the doubters wrong, I have to concede, and the programmes were a credit to them.
Who the hell was directing this afternoon’s coverage from Uttoxeter?
Camera shots changing every few seconds, close ups of the leaders when we need to see the whole field in the home straight.
ITV – that was pathetic.
....and you've got to look a long way back for anything else.
Has anyone else noticed how much better Chapman is when he is doing punditry on the Opening Show rather than when he is either being a show off idiot in the betting ring or embarrassingly inappropriate and over familiar with people who he is interviewing on the main show.
He loves the game,has an opinion and knows his stuff and as an Opening Show contributor this comes through in a way above average fashion,but can’t someone have a word about the rest of it because it is by far the worst thing about ITV Racing ….Chapman’s dumbed down crassness ,that and the fact that ITV can’t show any replays of races without sodding about with the pictures.
My opinion of the ITV presentation of Cheltenham:
The positive: Showing at length the excitement and joy of connections and especially the crowd, when the race winner is walking back to the stands. Interviewing the owners and grooms of any of the horses, because they show their happiness at the accomplishments of their pride and joy. A good advertisement for the excitement and enjoyment to be had at a racing event. Interviewing the jockeys and trainers, because they explain the technical insights about the horse and the race, and for them its a different sort of pleasure, a bit more professional pleasure at a job well done, and giving punters a bit more perspective about what it takes to win a race.
The negative: Having about fifteen presenters talking among themselves, when I would rather see more of the horses; videos from previous races or special visits to stables in the previous weeks, etc. TV is a visual medium after all, and the modern world is very data driven, so it seems bit of a waste to show a lot of pundits. exchanging verbals. I am still surprised that technology and presentation has not moved on for decades; no split screen, no split times, no data feeds from the betting ring, etc.
I am still surprised that technology and presentation has not moved on for decades; no split screen, no split times, no data feeds from the betting ring, etc.
I am really glad they don’t do this. I want to watch Native River and Might Bite locked in high definition battle and just enjoy the race rather than have the screen messied up with a whole load of annoying graphics. Split times might be quite nice as an optional overlay when watching replays but when I am watching the live race I just want to see how the horses travel and jump.
@espamdrid
Didn’t see the coverage today ESP, but this is a topic that has driven me mad for years. Why it hasn’t been sorted out before now is a total mystery.As far as I’m concerned, they can use as many fancy camera angles as they want, but these should only be used after the race. Why do so many people put up with this, and why do Racing Authorities continue to tolerate it. Seriously, I’d love to know someone with a bit of clout, and rant to them all day long about this.
The cameras are there to show the race, to let the audience see what’s happening. It’s not rocket surgery. Just show the action, as it happens, it’s that simple.
Picture The World Cup Final this year, the game kicks off, and suddenly, after 50 years of the tried and tested, camera in the main stand, this year the TV Audience, as a special treat, are going to be shown the action from a camera attached to the Corner Flag* instead. Don’t worry that you wont get a real flavour of the game, the pictures will be very stylish. The game wouldn’t be two minutes old, and the football fans would be looting in the street over it. The Internet would be in meltdown, and would have to be switched off.
This works for any sport I can think off. The odd arty shot here and there with the likes of Athletics, a ground level camera for the waterjump in the steeplechase is a particular favourite, but on the whole, the coverage for most sports is pretty straightforward.
We shouldn’t have to put up with it. To give you an example. Take a look at ITV’s coverage of the Grand National last year, then watch Racing UK’s coverage. Then pretend you have a bet on Thunder and Roses**.
If you’re watching ITV, Thunder and Roses jumps Valentines in the front rank, and he’s away well, no mention from the commentator, so all is well. But wait, the camera pans to the traditional mobile camera as they approach the 10th, and Thunder and Roses is nowhere to be seen. Oh hang on, there’s his jockey sitting on the deck at Valentines. How the **** did that happen?
Well, if you were watching RUK, who were using the tried and tested mobile camera (there is the option of the also tried and tested, elevated camera by the 12th), then you would clearly have seen Thunder and Roses knocked over by a loose horse, but no, not if you were watching ITV. Why not? Because ITV have got their Camera, for whatever reason, positioned on the other side of the ******* track, showing the horses taking off, but not landing, and their commentator would also appear to be doing his work off of this camera.
They are there to show the race, not for dramatic shots, but they’ve made a conscious decision not to properly show the race, and when you step back and think about what they are doing, it’s bloody ridiculous. How do they get away with it, and more importantly, why do the powers that be allow it? Crazy.
* I’ve used the corner flag analogy a few times, but I will continue use it, as it get’s my point across.
**I didn’t bet Thunder and Roses by the way.I agree with Greenasgrass on this. The split screens and digital on screen graphics are what put me off RUK and ATR coverage. I enjoy seeing the horses in HD and the pictures from ITV are probably the only real thing going for the coverage. I would just like to see more of the runners before the races and less of Mr Chapman. I suppose he is acting a clown role like John Mccriek, but he is an idiot on the screen, please can he go?
I’m also with Greenasgrass, no split screens unless used for analysis after the race.
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...With regards injuries to horses etc I think ITV are far better at keeping us informed when an accident happens and also show far more concern for everyone involved.
That fashion rubbish needs to go. Even your casual viewer isn’t really going to be interested
Cannot actually believe there is 49 pages discussion the terrestrial coverage of our great sport. Channel 4 is gone and ITV is here, we are lucky that racing is probably the sport with the most live coverage of any sport free to air. It is for the masses and if you don’t like it then you have the paid channels. I follow lots of sports and have never known coverage be scrutinised to this degree.
gman wrote:
“Cannot actually believe there is 49 pages discussion the terrestrial coverage of our great sport. Channel 4 is gone and ITV is here, we are lucky that racing is probably the sport with the most live coverage of any sport free to air. It is for the masses and if you don’t like it then you have the paid channels. I follow lots of sports and have never known coverage be scrutinised to this degree.”Perhaps its because a lot of racing fans are interested in the detail and have an opinion about it. But also, people post on here because it is seen as OK to disagree. I might like the opportunity to record TV coverage with multi screens, to see one panel which always has the whole field in view and another panel with the brilliant overhead coverage (drone-style these days), and another panel with a closer view of the action at the finish. All this is handy to review later to see all the detail again and see where I went wrong in my analysis. But I can easily accept that other people would find that annoying, tiresome and reprehensible and would wish to express that point of view.
Jac
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.