- This topic has 20 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Forgive me, I am a relative newcomer to the Forum, so you have probably had this debate several times before.
For a change, I have just had a pleasant afternoon in the pub, listening to Lydia Hyslop, whilst staring at Steve Mellish’s tits.
I am thinking of having my own satellite.
How does ATR compare?
- Total Posts 17716
ATR is full of old codgers who all have the same opinion as each other and they tend to always agree with each other then you got ChapMAN running the show the orange hypocrite.
RUK for me is the best channel, you have a variety of presenters who look at races in a different way, Melish and his form, Andy Konstantoplous with his speed ratings, Lydia likes to pick from paddock, Nevison with his odds and value. A great channel thats both got humour and serious discussions and worth every blummin penny
I think the ATR style is more akin to the general Sky Sports coverage – a bit more serious than RUK which can often get a bit "in jokey" espeically at more mundane weekday meetings. Having just read his book I will be paying more attention to Nevison in future, along with his "value mentor" Eddie Freemantle. Steve Mellish talks a good story, and his logic is often spot on. Willoughby is interesting with a lot of leftfield theories, which on rare occasions hit the bullseye – but he is entertaining to listen to all the same.
ATR come across more as the voice of the average punter whereas I can see how some people find RUK slightly condescending. The likes of Tony Ennis, Sean Boyce, Darrell Williams and Gareth O’Brien all, as far as I know, come from Bookmaking/SIS backgrounds, and so have the right tone to speak to the semi-serious punter who has grown up in the betting shop environment. RUK on the other hand seem to have more of a "journalistic"/timeform type of recruit, so you can see how the condescending tone might grate. I guess they do set themselves up for a fall a bit too, as if you are going to get scientific then if you appear to be tipping losers it can attract criticism.
Personally I favour ATR, though I am an RUK subscriber so can’t complain too much otherwise I wouldn;t be forking out £12.99 a month. Mind you, I guess the live coverage on its own is more than worth it because I can remember the pre-SIS days when you had to stand in the bookies listening to audio commentaries – how times have changed!
I’m an RUK subscriber but probably get more out of ATR to be honest.
The Irish angle is covered quite well.
Get On is a decent programme where the presenters, are, in general, knowledgable and probe well.
The FREE online video content is a fantastic resource, regardless of whatever faults the channel may/may not have.
I don’t care how often Gary O’Brien and Leon Blanche play footsie together, that content is golden !I subscribe to RUK ( with Setanta to get the rugby too ) and generally agree with most of the comrnents on here. You need both in order to get the best out of it. Get On is an excellent programme ,with interviews with trainers that we would have cut our right arms off years ago for.
The tits speak for themselves
ATR have the Get On programme and Racing News programme and the excellent Sunday Forum. RUK have nothing other than live racing (which I think they do better than ATR) and non stop replays.
I’d like to see RUK do other programmes like ATR do. There is so much scope.
I prefer ATR simply because of the other programmes they do. RUK needs to get its act together and give the viewer so much more than they do.
ruk always give the impression of being much more professional than atr however if you are into irish racing then atr will be your bag,but i do think for a subscription channel ruk really should be giving punters something like the morning line or sunday forum at least for big meetings.
I watch both channels when I am working from home, however I am only really interested in watching the live racing.
I only "half watch" the bits in between – generally if something controversial has happened in the race.
The only other program I tend to watch is the Racing News on ATR, usually the short 09:00 version.
I personally have little interest in programs like Get On and I only bet on my own opinions, therefore I have little personal interest in trainer and jockey interviews. Not least, what they say frequently has to be taken with a large chunk of salt.
I like the replay sequences because there are easier to flip through without all the chat in between, although it is a pain having to wait until the following morning for the ATR replays.
I just watch the replays on line.
ATR give you the race and that’s it.
RUK include a good post-race summary in their replays, making use of the head on camera for the closing stages, and I find the latter very helpful.
Rob
I have been a fierce critic of ATR for some time , and indeed thier bookie biased agenda , however if I am honest its a better channel for coverage of racing ,combined with their free video repalys and excellent website ,its a whole lot better that Ruk and some more besides
cheers
Ricky
RUK is a much more professional service with its various camera angles,anaysis,features and coverage of the more top quality racing, Ascot and Doncaster of course on ATR
ATR does have more in programming such as the Morning News,Get On,Sunday Forum,Evening USA service,
I do prefer RUK as they do a fine job but it would be good if they did a preview show in the morning or even an hour before the main coverage from the racecourse begins.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.