- This topic has 979 replies, 136 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
It wasn’t particularly my cup of tea but I think that overall they did quite well. Those who don’t like it can always watch ATR and RUK. To be honest I am just glad we still have terresrial coverage, not long ago that racing had to pay C4 to do the broadcast. Racing on terrestrial TV is very important if not essential to racing’s survival.
Some good points on both sides of debate and people are always going to be divided. Thought the original poster was unnecessarily condescending and nasty though. Luke Harvey may not have been the best jockey in the world but to say he was a failed jockey is ridiculous. He rode in one of the toughest sports going for 16 years and had big race success, suffering several bad injuries before retiring. Hardly a failure.
The show is aimed at, and indeed catered for, none of the types of people that are on a horse racing online forum.
Exactly this.
One thing I hear time and again from people not particularly interested in horse racing when they see it on TV is “it’s boring”. ITV are catering for casual viewers. Some of those “casuals” may become more interested but they will only do that if they understand and are entertained by ITV’s coverage.
I don’t watch terrestrial coverage but I thought I’d have a look at ITV’s first production just to see what it was like and I thought they did a good job, I certainly never thought “This is boring” which I did the last few times I tuned into C4 Racing.
There was no in depth analysis but there doesn’t need to be for the target audience. Chapman briefly explained betting odds and I think that was a good thing because there will have been viewers that don’t understand and if you don’t understand something you’re not likely to get involved in it.
ITV didn’t spend too much time on anything the show moved quite quickly, again that’s important to retain people’s interest.
Not a bad start. There will be things that need improving on but that’s perfectly natural after one show.
Think everyone criticising the programme realises it’s not aimed at us.
tbh I think it is a good idea to explain odds. They should spend at least five minutes explaining, not just a one liner. Matt even got that wrong, making it sound as if stakes are not included in returns; before putting himself right. Hoiles explained about the differences between race types, Grade 2, handicap etc. Again a good idea, but it needs longer – and No, am not talking about a teacher or lecturer – just a five minute explanation would surely help the casual viewer.
Frustratingly barely heard what the threesome were on about, laughter after every sentence – but may be that’s just my ears. Strangely, when we were all asked about our dream presenter team, I might have been the only one to mention Luke Harvey. Not that I particularly like his style, just think he could make racing more popular. But is he the form expert now?
Casual viewers are not the only viewers, do they want to throw everyone else away? Can understand them dumbing down by not having as much form analysis, but not (seemingly) getting rid of it altogether, even worse having form analysis from non-form experts. Again, five minutes of top class analysis before a race would surely keep at least some racing enthusiasts tuned in whilst not putting the casual viewer to sleep. Although an RUK subscriber, sure am not alone in preferring Channel 4, watching 6 races better than 14 or 21, especially if RUK has inferior racing intermingled. I’d still watch ITV if there’s something for me.Like most, enjoyed the recorded Jonjo feature, but the live broadcast – so far – leaves a lot to be desired. Probably far more women viewers than ever yesterday, yet ITV missed out in not making more of Lizzie Kelly’s victory. Women don’t compete with men in many sports, Lizzie beats the boys. OTT Chapman build up of the big race ceremony could’ve worked if the steps weren’t empty, no atmosphere – cringeworthy. So obvious ITV had a running order they weren’t going to drift from for anyone.
Value Is EverythingI thought Luke Harvey was very good, personally. I’ve never warmed to him on ATR as he just seems to want to be a clown all the time, but yesterday I really took to him. He spotted Jacob’s losing his irons, and he answered Chamberlin’s question about blinkers clearly and concisely so that a relative newcomer such as myself understood it. I think he could turn out to be a shrewd addition.
I have not watched terrestrially for many years save the actual race when it is not covered by RUK.
It’s personal preference of course but I think RUK provides the best coverage of any sport anywhere in the world and I am surprised at the number of forum members who criticise it.
There are a few programmes other than just the racing, there are no adverts as such, the profits go back into racing. RUK has a variety of outstanding presenters, pundits and commentators. When there is time there is unrivalled pre & post race analysis. When there is not time it is because they are showing (more) racing. The average level of quality of UK racing shown is higher than that on ATR.
In particular I would highlight Stewart Machin (who is by streets the most accurate & descriptive caller) and Jonathan Neesom both of whose knowledge is unsurpassed and whom together are on on a par with the halcyon days of Test Match Special. If your cup of tea is the pantomime of the likes of Chapman et al then fine but you will learn a lot less.
I would wholeheartedly recommend anyone thinking of subscribing to RUK to do so. It’s less than £1 per day and does not require a Sky or Virgin package – I watch from the online platform via an HDMI cable to the TV.
Think everyone criticising the programme realises it’s not aimed at us.
It doesn’t appear like that to me. You say that and the next moment you are banging on about form stuff yet again, so you for one don’t understand.
I have not watched terrestrially for many years save the actual race when it is not covered by RUK.
It’s personal preference of course but I think RUK provides the best coverage of any sport anywhere in the world and I am surprised at the number of forum members who criticise it.
There are a few programmes other than just the racing, there are no adverts as such, the profits go back into racing. RUK has a variety of outstanding presenters, pundits and commentators. When there is time there is unrivalled pre & post race analysis. When there is not time it is because they are showing (more) racing. The average level of quality of UK racing shown is higher than that on ATR.
In particular I would highlight Stewart Machin (who is by streets the most accurate & descriptive caller) and Jonathan Neesom both of whose knowledge is unsurpassed and whom together are on on a par with the halcyon days of Test Match Special. If your cup of tea is the pantomime of the likes of Chapman et al then fine but you will learn a lot less.
I would wholeheartedly recommend anyone thinking of subscribing to RUK to do so. It’s less than £1 per day and does not require a Sky or Virgin package – I watch from the online platform via an HDMI cable to the TV.
Racing UK is terrible, the presenters are boring especially Machin and Peter Norton, they continuely show the same advert after each race when they are not supposed to have adverts, which gets so annoying.
The best thing itv did was not employing Nick Luck so now he is behind a paywall and most of UK doesn’t have to see or hear him.
I whole heartedly recommend streaming racing UK and not wasting any money on this appalling channel.
I have not watched terrestrially for many years save the actual race when it is not covered by RUK.
It’s personal preference of course but I think RUK provides the best coverage of any sport anywhere in the world and I am surprised at the number of forum members who criticise it.
There are a few programmes other than just the racing, there are no adverts as such, the profits go back into racing. RUK has a variety of outstanding presenters, pundits and commentators. When there is time there is unrivalled pre & post race analysis. When there is not time it is because they are showing (more) racing. The average level of quality of UK racing shown is higher than that on ATR.
In particular I would highlight Stewart Machin (who is by streets the most accurate & descriptive caller) and Jonathan Neesom both of whose knowledge is unsurpassed and whom together are on on a par with the halcyon days of Test Match Special. If your cup of tea is the pantomime of the likes of Chapman et al then fine but you will learn a lot less.
I would wholeheartedly recommend anyone thinking of subscribing to RUK to do so. It’s less than £1 per day and does not require a Sky or Virgin package – I watch from the online platform via an HDMI cable to the TV.
Racing UK is terrible, the presenters are boring especially Machin and Peter Norton, they continuely show the same advert after each race when they are not supposed to have adverts, which gets so annoying.
The best thing itv did was not employing Nick Luck so now he is behind a paywall and most of UK doesn’t have to see or hear him.
I whole heartedly recommend streaming racing UK and not wasting any money on this appalling channel.
If you are going to criticise Peter Naughton you could at least get his name right.
Do you not find the repetitive non-racing adverts on other channels annoying?
Are you suggesting illegally streaming RUK and thus denying revenue to the sport?
For a first attempt I thought it was a pretty decent effort. Sure there are plenty of wrinkles to iron out, but they’ve got a good run on ITV4 before the big test that is the festival, so hopefully they can get it right.
Things didn’t get off to the greatest of starts with the soggy camera – if you’re gong to film in the pouring rain at least make sure that the camera is under some kind of cover so it stays relatively dry!
I think they’d be better of losing the table and let the anchor and his side kicks roam free around the paddock. Rooted to the spot as they were, they may as well have been in the studio.
There was the usual issue of too many presenters and not enough horses, but that seems to the same no matter what the channel. The stable cam and the horse weighing were interesting ideas to help with that.
Chamberlin will be fine once he’s found his feet. Harvey surprised me, as I’ve always found him a little irritating on ATR, but his relentless cheerfulness worked well as a counterpoint to McCoy’s Victor Meldrew impression. Chapman is a problem – some of the stuff from the betting ring was just cringeworthy. He’s trying way too hard and just needs to calm down (could also use a couple of minders to intercept the drunken idiots who want to “be on telly”)
Was surprised they didn’t do more with the winning connections. Apart from the jockey walk back interviews we had about 30 seconds Rebecca Curtis joining them at the table and that was it. Virtually no shots from the winners enclosure – who wouldn’t want proud, smiling connections on the TV? The National Hunt fraternity in particular seem a pretty accommodating and interesting lot, the likes of Nicholls, Henderson, Tizzard etc generally give good interview so step away from the table and talk to them.
I have not watched terrestrially for many years save the actual race when it is not covered by RUK.
It’s personal preference of course but I think RUK provides the best coverage of any sport anywhere in the world and I am surprised at the number of forum members who criticise it.
There are a few programmes other than just the racing, there are no adverts as such, the profits go back into racing. RUK has a variety of outstanding presenters, pundits and commentators. When there is time there is unrivalled pre & post race analysis. When there is not time it is because they are showing (more) racing. The average level of quality of UK racing shown is higher than that on ATR.
In particular I would highlight Stewart Machin (who is by streets the most accurate & descriptive caller) and Jonathan Neesom both of whose knowledge is unsurpassed and whom together are on on a par with the halcyon days of Test Match Special. If your cup of tea is the pantomime of the likes of Chapman et al then fine but you will learn a lot less.
I would wholeheartedly recommend anyone thinking of subscribing to RUK to do so. It’s less than £1 per day and does not require a Sky or Virgin package – I watch from the online platform via an HDMI cable to the TV.
I also subscribe to RUK and my opinion is the polar opposite. I would happily just take the pictures and not see any of their presenters.
Initially they provided nothing but racing and repeats of racing. It is only fairly recently that they have even tried to match ATR in the additional feature department. I must admit that Michael Shinners + RUK presenter in ‘Try To Be Hilarious’ was fantastic. Almost as good as buying a pair of pink cords.
There are adverts, just less than ATR. Personally, I would rather have more adverts and less fee, or better still no fee at all.
There isn’t an outstanding presenter/pundit in racing. RUK certainly don’t have any, perhaps you are becoming confused with outstanding ego’s?
I would like to highlight the two Dave’s, Nevison and Yates. Both are worse than appalling and literally stealing a living.
You mention Machin and Neesom. The punmeister has all the charisma of a dodgy used car salesman. I remember watching him on a panel a few years ago and all I can remember was the medallion. He added absolutely nothing to the evening. Neesom strikes me as a particularly nasty piece of work. The way he ‘helped’ Lorna Fowler in her short time at RUK was dreadful.
I can’t think of a single employee (and they have loads) who isn’t irritating. Some, in fact are off the scale. If only ITV had left Bell behind. Perhaps they can have a rethink?
Think everyone criticising the programme realises it’s not aimed at us.
It doesn’t appear like that to me. You say that and the next moment you are banging on about form stuff yet again, so you for one don’t understand.
Don’t I? Or is it you who doesn’t understand? Only a very small amount of my post was about “form stuff”, hardly “banging on”.
The “programme” is “not aimed at us”, Stilvi. Because of specialist channels they’ve got to aim the programme at new/casual viewers – and I have absolutely no problem with that. But I’d have thought in a programme of two and a half hours they could’ve had five minutes of worthwhile form analysis. If thinking they can generate enough interest amongst new/casual viewers to be able to totally alienate established racing fans, fair enough.
Why can you not aim a programme at the new/casual viewer whilst having five minutes within that programme for the established racing fan?
Value Is EverythingWas surprised they didn’t do more with the winning connections. Apart from the jockey walk back interviews we had about 30 seconds Rebecca Curtis joining them at the table and that was it. Virtually no shots from the winners enclosure – who wouldn’t want proud, smiling connections on the TV? The National Hunt fraternity in particular seem a pretty accommodating and interesting lot, the likes of Nicholls, Henderson, Tizzard etc generally give good interview so step away from the table and talk to them.
I think that will happen in future. At least they showed a presentation (unlike recent Channel 4) but unfortunately it was ruined by Chapman. I suspect Chapman will have had a little talking to before his next outing.
Think everyone criticising the programme realises it’s not aimed at us.
It doesn’t appear like that to me. You say that and the next moment you are banging on about form stuff yet again, so you for one don’t understand.
Don’t I? Or is it you who doesn’t understand? Only a very small amount of my post was about “form stuff”, hardly “banging on”.
The “programme” is “not aimed at us”, Stilvi. Because of specialist channels they’ve got to aim the programme at new/casual viewers – and I have absolutely no problem with that. But I’d have thought in a programme of two and a half hours they could’ve had five minutes of worthwhile form analysis. If thinking they can generate enough interest amongst new/casual viewers to be able to totally alienate established racing fans, fair enough.
Why can you not aim a programme at the new/casual viewer whilst having five minutes within that programme for the established racing fan?
As probably the only person on here who advocated giving the studio the boot (which is the major change) I think I know exactly where they are coming from.
Well if kicking the studio out is what you wanted, you’re easily pleased. Can’t see what that has to do with it, can do five minutes of analysis whether sat in a box or stood at a table.
Value Is EverythingWell if kicking the studio out is what you wanted, you’re easily pleased. Can’t see what that has to do with it, can do five minutes of analysis whether sat in a box or stood at a table.
You made the point that no form analysis = alienating the racing fan. I don’t believe that at all. As has already been stated earlier in the thread the racing fan can do that study themselves and if they want overkill they can tune into RUK – at a cost.
overnight ratings for the first show were 676k (5.4%)
How would that compare to a regular Sunday afternoon slot?
I’m a horse person rather than a betting person, I suspect the majority of the posters on this forum are in the latter category. However I have been following horse racing fairly consistently since I was about six or seven and have seen the programmes come and go. I remember John Rickman and the old BBC coverage with the music and with the sports in lenses and all in black and white.
Where the terrestrial channel has the edge is in the quality of the filming and the HD, I can only imagine that the most hardened & unaesthetic punters would prefer the pixilated shots that pass for RTA and RUK. For me seeing the horses close up and in detail in the races is important; I get to the races very infrequently as none of my friends have the slightest interest in the sport and many of them think it is cruel. For the reason of the images I have stuck with C4 and I will stick with ITV & ITV4, having upgraded my Virgin account to receive HD ITV4.
I actually found the images even with the rain on the lens, superior to the C4 ones. Will they have as many cameras when they move to ITV4 I wonder?I didn’t like Chapman at all, but I can always switch the sound off, I can’t improve RUK or ATR’s images.
It needs tweaking, the table needs destroying, they need to be less matey and laddish, but then as a woman I was always going to think that…..
I guess they’ll have sat in a room with a few whiskies analysing the footage and looking where improvement could be made. They need to show more of the horses and less of the presenters. Why can’t they talk over the images of the horses in the paddock and going down like they used to do in the old days? Is it the me, me, look at me culture? well Mr Chapman seems to be part of that.What came over to me was they were all trying a bit too hard. Hopefully they will bed in in the next few weeks.
Any way preferable with ex Timeform man shutting his eyes et al.
Casual viewers are not the only viewers, do they want to throw everyone else away? Can understand them dumbing down by not having as much form analysis, but not (seemingly) getting rid of it altogether, even worse having form analysis from non-form experts. Again, five minutes of top class analysis before a race would surely keep at least some racing enthusiasts tuned in whilst not putting the casual viewer to sleep. Although an RUK subscriber, sure am not alone in preferring Channel 4, watching 6 races better than 14 or 21, especially if RUK has inferior racing intermingled. I’d still watch ITV if there’s something for me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.