Horse Antepost
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Does anyone feel like me that TV coverage of horse racing needs a real kick up the backside? It's of no real use to me as it is, as a provider of information that can help me make a better judgement of how i should play a race. I can't remember the last time that I learned anything that either I didn't already know, told me stuff that I don't need to know or had talking heads who try and tell you what they think might win when they are clearly guessing just like everyone else.
So, I invite contributions from those with views on the subject which might help those producing the programs to have a deep think about what their output should be about.
I'll start it off by listing the things that I 'd like to see less of and those that I'd like to see more of.
LESS OF
1.All form analysis is plentiful and easy to find and if I don't have an opinion on the race and am relying on form analysts to provide answers then I shouldn't be playing. What do they have to say about the rank order of horses chances that isn't better contained in the betting show.
2 Given that no-one can accurately forecast the winner of any race, the opinion of any number of experts views on who might win is next to useless. Again, the betting show is of much greater help in that respect. If they were actually putting hard cash down and informing us of that and records were being kept, then that would at least be informative although deadly to credibility.
3. Commentators who merely list where the horses are in the race. I have eyes and can see colours and positions for myself. In fact, many times I prefer to watch with the sound turned off because that way I can think about what is actually happening in the race especially to the key horses. i can understand why commentators like to build excitement and I'm not against that but they should realise that less is more. Football commentators who specialise in merely telling you which player is involved are not as useful as the analysts who drop in observation about tactics and positional play. harder to do with racing, but in longer races the opportunity is there.
4. Bookmaker reps interviews which can be replaced with simple graphics explaining where the money is going.The old tote boards did that job much better as you could see where the money was going and how much of it was up there.Big bets in the ring can easily be flashed across the screen.
5. Clever camera angles when all you need is to keep it simple by showing the whole field in frame all the time whilst the race is being run. The time for different shots is post-race to assist analysis.
MORE OF
1. Paddock coverage with a horseman who knows what he/she is talking about when it comes to the make, shape, fitness and behaviour of each horse. The viewer is not at the course and the paddock view is the most important in that the TV viewer needs which we cannot get any other way. More time should be devoted to this with a good judges view on the relative fitness of the key horses made clear. I would include shots of horses going to post as also being vital.Seeing a hors'es action on the ground can make the difference between no bet and a bet. Jim McGrath needs more exposure in the paddock but the other channels need someone as good also.
2. I understand the cost implications of providing sectional times for all races but TV can help by establishing cameras at key points in the race, start, 4f pole, 2f pole for, finish, for example, so that those punters who understand the importance of pace and therefore the need for sectional times can at least handtime their own sectional reliably when post viewing. Racing UK do their best with the times immediately after the finish and providing the difference against standard and per furlong. If only the others would do so as well.
3. More trainer interviews. What the trainer has to say can be the most useful info that any individual can offer. Why do we have to find out after a race that winner was did a great gallop just last week? Interviewers should make every effort to prize stuff out. I commend Linda Hislop especially for being one of the best interviewers on TV. So, more Linda Hislop, less many others who I will not name.As with Champions league football, managers are obliged to be interviewed before matches, so should all trainers before Classics and all G1 races, at least.
Just a few thoughts to get the ball rolling.
So, I invite contributions from those with views on the subject which might help those producing the programs to have a deep think about what their output should be about.
I'll start it off by listing the things that I 'd like to see less of and those that I'd like to see more of.
LESS OF
1.All form analysis is plentiful and easy to find and if I don't have an opinion on the race and am relying on form analysts to provide answers then I shouldn't be playing. What do they have to say about the rank order of horses chances that isn't better contained in the betting show.
2 Given that no-one can accurately forecast the winner of any race, the opinion of any number of experts views on who might win is next to useless. Again, the betting show is of much greater help in that respect. If they were actually putting hard cash down and informing us of that and records were being kept, then that would at least be informative although deadly to credibility.
3. Commentators who merely list where the horses are in the race. I have eyes and can see colours and positions for myself. In fact, many times I prefer to watch with the sound turned off because that way I can think about what is actually happening in the race especially to the key horses. i can understand why commentators like to build excitement and I'm not against that but they should realise that less is more. Football commentators who specialise in merely telling you which player is involved are not as useful as the analysts who drop in observation about tactics and positional play. harder to do with racing, but in longer races the opportunity is there.
4. Bookmaker reps interviews which can be replaced with simple graphics explaining where the money is going.The old tote boards did that job much better as you could see where the money was going and how much of it was up there.Big bets in the ring can easily be flashed across the screen.
5. Clever camera angles when all you need is to keep it simple by showing the whole field in frame all the time whilst the race is being run. The time for different shots is post-race to assist analysis.
MORE OF
1. Paddock coverage with a horseman who knows what he/she is talking about when it comes to the make, shape, fitness and behaviour of each horse. The viewer is not at the course and the paddock view is the most important in that the TV viewer needs which we cannot get any other way. More time should be devoted to this with a good judges view on the relative fitness of the key horses made clear. I would include shots of horses going to post as also being vital.Seeing a hors'es action on the ground can make the difference between no bet and a bet. Jim McGrath needs more exposure in the paddock but the other channels need someone as good also.
2. I understand the cost implications of providing sectional times for all races but TV can help by establishing cameras at key points in the race, start, 4f pole, 2f pole for, finish, for example, so that those punters who understand the importance of pace and therefore the need for sectional times can at least handtime their own sectional reliably when post viewing. Racing UK do their best with the times immediately after the finish and providing the difference against standard and per furlong. If only the others would do so as well.
3. More trainer interviews. What the trainer has to say can be the most useful info that any individual can offer. Why do we have to find out after a race that winner was did a great gallop just last week? Interviewers should make every effort to prize stuff out. I commend Linda Hislop especially for being one of the best interviewers on TV. So, more Linda Hislop, less many others who I will not name.As with Champions league football, managers are obliged to be interviewed before matches, so should all trainers before Classics and all G1 races, at least.
Just a few thoughts to get the ball rolling.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 61
|
By:
Linda Hislop? Lydia of course. Senior moment.
|
|
By:
I have to say nowadays I very rarely watch tv racing coverage for anything other than the actual racing itself. I acknowledge this is partly due to inevitable jadedness on my part through years of following the game but it's also because of the way the sport is presented, which is at best insipid and sometimes even mind-numbingly tedious.
I agree with many of your points, Sandown, but as to a couple of points I think while they may suit the likes of us we have to be mindful of attracting newcomers to the game and keeping novices interested, so a balance needs to be struck. I remember in the early days I wanted to absorb everything I could about racing. Ultimately I found out much of this proved worthless but it was down to me to sort the good from the bad and I think more experienced viewers should make allowances that some information has to be targeted at the less experienced even if it's a total waste of time for the likes of us. As with Champions league football, managers are obliged to be interviewed before matches, so should all trainers before Classics and all G1 races, at least. This is a great point and one that should also be extended to include jockeys and most racing in general, not just Gp1s. The BHA have a duty to promote the sport and whether jockeys and trainers like it or not they should be included in this obligation. I remember not so long ago Steedman made some kind of comment criticising Luke Morris' whip action, quite correctly as his whip action often has broken the rules. Despite the harshness of the criticism bringing to mind Denis Healey's famous remark about Geoffrey Howe Morris reacted by spitting his dummy and saying he'd remember this next time Steedman required an interview. An utterly pathetic response and the BHA ought to get a grip of this situation. Presenters and pundits should not be treading on eggshells for fear of upsetting the fragile egos of jockeys and trainers. This is one of the main reasons why racing coverage is currently a turn off. |
|
By:
Figgis
It would certainly help if trainers were obliged to provide a view of every horse in every horse but of course on days when races go off every 10 minutes, and with large fields, it wouldn't be practical to do this live. That said, there is no reason why they can't pre-record prior to racing about all their runners that day as is done in football. The TV channel can then edit down to show in the immediately prior to the race. I'm not suggesting that every trainer with every horse for every race but should be the target, but the main contenders inm the main races of the day should be the bare minimum. I would also like the weight of each horse on the day be made available. This is never going to be possible through the print medium and TV is ideally placed to provide late news such as this. I watched the RUK coverage of a couple of races today and I thought that they did a good job. Admittedly, the only 2 races I was interested in, the 3.20 and 3.50 at Salisbury were easier to cover. There was only one other meeting for them and the 3.20 comprised just 4 runners. Nevertheless, it was a good example of how it should be done. They spent a good time in the paddock, the horse comments were useful, and they also covered going to post comments that were helpful. The betting comments were limited to just voice over but provided a useful view on market strength. The race coverage was good and the post race analysis immediate. All in all, very professional, as it should be for an audience which would comprise largely serious enthusiasts and regular players. In both races, the commentator used the prevailing m.o. of calling all the horses in position order, several times during the race and then narrowing it to the potential winners in the last 2f. Now, this approach was very suitable in the days when there was no TV coverage and many people had to rely on binoculars or the commentary. Its very good for people who have no TV but really on course that is rarely the case. I really think that they should experiment with a more analytical, broader approach. Listing the horses once is surely enough. Changes in position, horses making a move forward or losing position, horses who are running a different pace to their normal style, the pace of the race and who it might suit, these are all possibilities. I don't know if it would prove to be better or not for most people but I would like to see some experimentation. I understand that the terrestrial channels need to cater for a wider audience which is why I never watch Ch 4 and I don't suppose I will when ITV take over as I believe they will do. |
|
By:
More paddock time would (hopefully) be the most beneficial to me but it seems highly unlikely that would happen as it would only really concern a smaller audience. As to comments from connections I can only think of a few examples where they influenced my betting, the Tabor ones regarding Air Force Blue last year and the Dettori ones on Daylami that I mentioned in a previous thread. I know the Dettori interview was on ch4 but can't remember if Tabor was the same or RUK. Maybe there were also a few interviews that put me away but I've subconsciously buried them
 . If we get nothing else from the interviews we can at least make our own judgements about who is open and honest and who is an out and out dodgy bastard  . Whether we actually glean anything useful from them or not I still think trainers and jockeys should be obliged to be available for tv interviews, the presenters shouldn't have to kiss arse to get them on as it makes for mundane viewing and RUK are as bad as the others for that. The wishy washiness that passes for present tv racing coverage is never going to gain the interest of a younger audience, which isn't encouraging for the future. |
|
By:
More discussion of the hats and where did you buy it.
Seriously, how about a standard list of questions for each trainer: going; distance; will it contend. I don't want to know that he ate up, is well in himself, has come in his coat, his dam relished a trip, and all the non-answers. Interviews with jockeys and bookmaker reps are a waste of time. I wouldn't mind interviews with the trainer and owner together. No hiding then. |
|
By:
1. All available meetings covered via the red button. What this would offer is continuos coverage of every meeting in pictures only with maybe an educated expert offering voice over comments regarding behaviour in pre parade ring / paddock / going down.
2. Prices scrolled across the very bottom of the screen not across half of the page. 3, If someone is interviewed by an on site reporter then a small box in the top right would suffice keeping the main focus of broadcast on the horses. 4. More stall handlers in situ to ensure the loading process is as efficient and practical as possible. 5. Quality outriders on every course to enable a quick recovery of a rogue horse. 6. Efficient stop watch monitoring ( furlong per furlong ) during race as well as afterwards much as the American racing coverage provide. 7. Post race analysis provided for all meetings during a highlights programme. Indicating the best time performances, any ground variations from what was originally stated etc etc and an educated analyst explaining why etc. |
|
By:
point 5 raised by sandown is one of my biggest irks, focusing on on the winner which is 5 lengths clear and viewers unable to see whats running on for places. forecasts, ew betting, placepots are all fragments of punters portfolio .
just dont understand why directors do it, i take they have never had a bet. |
|
By:
One of the the aims of TV coverage must be surely to provide the viewer with that which (s)he cannot get as a result of not being on-course.To my mind, that puts the paddock/going to post observations right up there in importance.
First off, we need to know how fit the horse is. This is especially important after a lay-off or towards the end of a long season. You just cannot get this from reading the formbook, no matter how hard you try. You may infer that because in the past a horse has won/run well FTO that it might do so again, but its only an inference. An observation is of a higher order in importance than an inference. To the experienced trained eye, its possible to place a horse along a scale running from unfit through to fit, fit and ready and sharp. Paddock observations which are merely assessments of previous form, no matter how succinct, do not need to be made at that point. Yesterday, was a case in point. Lydia Hislop and Steve Mellish were on duty at Salisbury.To my mind, they are RUK's top team but Steve is not a paddock judge like say Jim McGrath is a paddock judge. Steve is more of a form man, and a very good one too, but his observations of the horses when going round the paddock were excellent and succinct form summaries, ideal for anyone who was not familiar with the form of each horse or who wanted reminding. But, they were not paddock observations. As an example, in the 4.20 race, the key horse was Massaat (SP 4/5) who had been off since the Derby where he ran down the field. He was coming back to a mile. On form, running to his level in the 2000 Gns,he should win the race being 5lbs clear on RPR from Master The World (11/2) and 6lbs in front of Tupi (33/1), both exposed horses and unlikely to find improvement. In that situation the fitness of Massaat was of great importance to the outcome of the race and assessing that fitness was THE key task. To that end, the trainer was interviewed but his comments were not definitive on that score.He explained that the horse was being tried again back at 8f as a start point and that could be taken to mean that the horse had later targets at a higher level and that therefore he might be less than 100% for his comeback. Given, too , that the ground was the fastest that the horse had faced, there was doubt on that score as well, so watching go to post wwith comments on his action would have been very informative. Second in the betting was Zonderland at 4/1, another 3yr old who might show further improvement. His record suggested that fast ground suited him (won on it at Sandown) and a he looked a miler on his record. He hadn't run for a month when he had been 8/9 in a G1 in France but the ground was soft that day. It's usually very hard to see on TV just how fit a horse is from a TV screen but yesterday there was a shot of him looking outstandingly fit and ready, both in his coat and from his body. His ribs were just showing and despite being a chestnut (harder to judge) he looked really up for it. So, despite being 10 lbs behind on RPR's he looked to be the one to take advantage should Maaasaat fail to run his race. None of this info was really conveyed, and it could so easily have been done. I say all this not as someone who played in the race, so my pocket isn't speaking, nor am I just using hindsight as I I placed a hypothetical bet on Zonderland at the start. This is the kind of coverage i would like to see. Reduce the race to the essential players, where possible and focus on them and spend the minimum time elsewhere. I know that the TV company likes to give every horse a mention both beforehand and during the race but it leads to a uniform mediocrity of analysis. The viewers of RUK must be enthusiasts at least, prepared to pay for coverage, so they at least must have more than just a bare minimum of knowledge and therefore RUK can up their game for their audience. Novices will learn faster as a result if they did so everyone gains. I'll deal with the commentary during a race for another post. |
|
By:
good read mr sandown, appreciated.
|
|
By:
I don't know whether RUK people look at this forum or not , maybe its a case of great minds think alike , but the output from York yesterday was much better, first class for this viewer. The paddock comments by Paul Morrison were excellent, concise and focused on the key animals, the trainer interviews were with trainers that mattered, the Trakus sectionals were on screen, the betting show was visible all the time beforehand, the analysis from Steve Mellish and Lydia Hislop was up to usual standard, Ollie bell has come on by leaps and bounds and Dave Nevison gave tight betting comments. Pre and post race analysis was exactly what an enthusiast/professional audience would want.
I still have a thing about commentary but accept that there is little time for embellishment in flat racing given the need to perform certain key tasks. Its not a job that I would care to undertake and the commentators can too easily be taken for granted, I guess. More of the same today lads and lasses, please. |
|
By:
Really professional again today on RUK with Paul Morrison the star with his paddock judgement showing exactly why this part of the TV coverage needs to be given more time. He was very nearly spot on in every race and his comments on Seventh Heaven especially reinforced my own opinion which resulted in a good win for me. Anyone who followed all his paddock picks would have made a good profit on the day. More please.
|
|
By:
ive said on numerous ocassions that the most important part that tv punters miss out on is the wellbeing of the horses in the now . ie parade ring ,going to post and loading . these are the key factors that can change the context of a race . the rest as you have put so well we can figure out for ourselves
|
|
By:
Watching ATR today I was reminded of how poor TV coverage can be. For the first race, very little form analysis beforehand, when the opportunity for paddock comments arose the presenter chose to talk to a bookmaker, then a break for the ads, returning to the race one minute before the off. No time for any close ups of the horses, a few comments praising the second fav and the race won by the 28.0 outsider of which there had been no mention whatsoever. POOR POOR POOR
Why can't RUK cover ALL racing! |
|
By:
Excellent read guys. Only just read the thread.
On dyno-layer’s points- 1. All available meetings covered via the red button .... continuous coverage of every meeting in pictures only.. pre parade ring / paddock / going down. This is an excellent idea as I use multiple computer screens for everything and would use multiple TV’s if this happened in the future. 3, If someone is interviewed by an on-site reporter then a small box in the top right would suffice keeping the main focus of broadcast on the horses. Astute point. As with Champions league football, managers are obliged to be interviewed before matches, so should all trainers before Classics and all G1 races, at least. I actually think it would make sense to get opinions of trainers who do not have a runner but could pass on their thoughts regarding their insight and expectations, especially the likes of the highly knowledgeable and witty Sir Mark Prescott. As regards to bookies reps from large firms that shaft punters, they should be banned immediately but on-course ones should given more opportunity to air their views, like track bookie Barry Dennis did in the past. Paddock judge Paul Morrison is excellent and should be given the job full time on ITV. The obvious ideas around sectional timing and horses weights would be incredibly advantageous but I think our offspring and their offspring will be long gone before this is normalised. |
|
By:
Classic. The Arc,the biggest ,most important Flat race in Europe.What do RUK do? They stick with Kelso. They get to Chantilly 5 minutes before the off! Has the be the worst decision ever!
|
|
By:
I actually think it would make sense to get opinions of trainers who do not have a runner but could pass on their thoughts regarding their insight and expectations, especially the likes of the highly knowledgeable and witty Sir Mark Prescott.
I doubt this would be of value. Something very like this is actually done, not for the classics but in the run-up to Cheltenham but I can't remember any great insight from trainers into other stables. Madhu and Sandown are right about the value of paddock inspection, but few pundits are much good at it. Too often, they end up judging the best turned out rather than the most likely to run well. |
|
By:
I know that the Arc coverage wasn't down to RUK so they weren't responsible for direction but the use of overhead shots during the race and and crucially coming into the straight was idiotic. And what about shots right on the rail as the horses pass in a blur? What's the point of that? Maybe RUK are contacted to show all the races from RUK courses but surely on Arc day and certainly prior to the Arc couldn't they have at least come to some agreement to concentrate on the Arc for just one hour beforehand?
And why couldn't they have sent someone to Chantilly to cover the paddock? And if you have a form analyst in the studio why have a young American girl with no real expertise on European racing and the Arc. Following the race the post-race analysis was severely limited and there were no post race interviews with other connections. They returned to Kelso about 10 minutes after the horses finished. Poor poor poor RUK. I hope someone from the channel follows this forum or at least gets the emails they deserve. |
|
By:
I enjoy the overhead shots and hope, now that drones are back on the menu, we get more of them. Particularly useful/interesting in the first furlong I find. I hope we get some more angles and different ways of showing a horse race as we seem to have been stuck in a rut since the 1940s.
|
|
By:
Personally, I would leave the drone overhead shots to the post race analysis where they would be of more use. They interfere with the free flow of the race and changing camera angles cause s confusion as it takes time to readjust. The rail shots are just useless.
|
|
By:
I just want to see the race - pre-race punditry from so called 'form experts', interviews with connections, paddock shots etc are of no interest at all.
|
|
By:
I just want to see the race - pre-race punditry from so called 'form experts', interviews with connections, paddock shots etc are of no interest at all.
Well, the question is, how can the tv station make those things that are of "no interest at all" more interesting? Because if they just showed the races, they'd need to have the test card up for the other 90 per cent of the time between races. And even during the races, there are questions about how they are shown -- number of cameras, zooming in on the leader, avoiding confusing changes of shot so horses seem to change direction, and so on. My own bugbear is price tickers at the bottom of the screen: put them at the top so they don't cover the horses' legs. |
|
By:
paddock shots etc are of no interest at all.
Then you have no interest in the one facet that you cannot get beforehand from anything else and the most important element that tells you whether your horse is fit and well or not, and with going to post, whether or not the horse handles the ground, and on physique/conformation/action whether it will be suited by the track. In short, you are depriving yourself of up to 50% maybe of what can help to determine who will or might not win.This is especially important when dealing with 2 yr olds and other lightly raced horses. its especially important at the start and end of a season to ascertain fitness. You might as well just own up and say you are a mug punter uncle. |
|
By:
I disagree Sandown, I don't want one broad shot of the race filmed from the top of the grandstand. We've been doing that for decades. Give me drones, give me tracking cameras, give me wire-cams and, yes, I want the rail shot with the field thundering past too. It gives the race a sense of urgency and speed. What I do not want and never have done is a **** director who's never had a bet in her life tightening in on the leader with 200yds to go. That should be outlawed; and every single punter/enthusiast I've ever met agrees, so why they do it only they know.
Out of interest does it really confuse you when the camera angles change or are you just being crotchety? It shouldn't really be that confusing if you're paying attention, which I'm sure you do! |
|
By:
headmaster
What I want is what I got when I was on course with a pair of good binoculars watching the race so the top of the grandstand is exactly where I want the cameras to be. The tracking shots from a vehicle or wirecam are a good addition because they are alongside and you can get closer (not close ups) shots which add but not detract. The drone shots help the analysis not the drama during the race imo and should be left to after the race. The close up shot from under the rail is puerile and good only for children or anyone with no real interest in the outcome of the race because it shows nothing other than a blur of hooves.No saddlecloth numbers or colours can be seen. Yes, I do find it confusing to change camera angles,. The switch to the drone shot in the Arc when at the 400 m pole was pathetic. If it is to be used during the race the start is the only place where it might add value.Anyway, as I understand it, it wont be used in the Uk as there were problems when it was used at Newmarket - the drone itself affected the horses apparently. |
|
By:
think they meant the drones of cattermole,ratpack,shouty,holty etc at newmarket,
|
|
By:
Drones are ok for GB, Sandown, so I fear the worst for you. I really enjoyed the drone overhead for the first part of the French Oaks, for example. It revealed a lot more than the 'traditional' angle and I didn't have a problem working out who was who or when the angle switched back.
|
|
By:
so I fear the worst for you.
Having lived through the 4 minute warning era , I'll survive drones head.  |
|
By:
Good man. Up and at 'em
 |
|
By:
I might be a mug punter but at least I'm not an odious, boring know-it-all who thinks he's better than everyone else despite all the evidence of your posts on here suggesting otherwise.
|
|
By:
Further proof -not that it was needed - of the standard of your contributions.Mug punter hit home, did it?
|
|
By:
You obviously didn't read my post - I freely admitted I am a mug punter, just a much more respected, successful and knowledgeable one then you will ever be,
|
|
By:
Just within the confines of your own front room Mug. And even then only by your dog, supposing you have one which is doubtful given your sub-normal intellect which would make your dog more intelligent. You are a waste of space so another added to my block list along with all the others like you.
|
|
By:
Looks like I hit a nerve.
|
|
By:
one of the more thoughtful threads on the forum.
My question would be as a punter do you want TV become an assistant to better punting. Let us say you have an excellent paddock edge through your own personal observations or maybe a paddock watching service that is not widely used. How would you feel if that edge was obliterated by an honest and good paddock watcher appearing on TV. Obliterated in the way Pricewise obliterates a price on a horse you like. On the other hand if TV is regularly putting punters away with their talking heads are you not better off ?. |
|
By:
That's a good point Olias and it's the reason that personally I'm not really bothered about the quality of the pundits regarding ability to find winners/value. I prefer to form my own opinions and like you say if they are successful then the usefulness of such info will just get swallowed by the markets. I'd just like the coverage to be interesting and entertaining, with presenters and pundits offering honest, critical and sometimes challenging viewpoints, instead of the mealy mouthed wishy washy drivel that usually gets served up.
|
|
By:
Any information carries with it the negative that it might erode an edge but following that logic would lead to no information being better than some. There was a time when trainers followed the line that only owners pay the training fees and only ownwners should hear the trainer's views.Media savvy trainers like Gosden are well aware of the importance of informing the public in todays world, if you want people to support horse racing.
Would anyone argue against the availability of previous races on video? Or past performence information? Paddock information is essential for some, not for others but leaving it out would be detrimental to TV coverage . Improving it would be a step forward.Likelwise, why not provide the weights of horses? It can be a good guide to fitness or to growwth Take sectional times for example. For those who use them the availability of this ionformation is invaluable. Others are not concerned. The simplest way to provide this information is to superimpose lines across the track which is done for the final 2 furlongs for big races like the Arc and for this mornings Melbourne Cup.Use it or don't use it, its your choice but at least you have the choice. I'm sure that the previewing of races needs a complete rethink. I don't think that the pseudo scientific technique of say James Willoughby is of interest to more than a small percentage of viewers but neither is the superficial opinions of some presenters who like to give an opinion oof the winner a few seconds before the race as though that is any use or interest whatsoever. The problem for the TV companies is that the audeience varies so much from professionals down to knowledgeable enthusiasts to recreational racegoers to casual viewers who have as much interest in fashion if not more so than horses. It will be interesting to see how ITV approach the issues. I see that they have signed up Luca Cumani's daughter who I have read does a good job in Australia. I can't see that ITV will be any better than Ch $ so I will stay with RUK whenever possible. |
|
By:
I can't see that ITV will be any better
Seeing that they've signed Fitz and Turner, neither can I, just more uncritical tosh. |
|
By:
I agree with all of the opening post and as a one time 3 or 4 day a week on course attender, I want TV to show me as much as possible of what I would see there. With modern technology, is there a case for a choice of feed along the lines of the BBC Olympic coverage? We could have (for example) one camera on the paddock from the time that horses start to appear, one on talking heads reviewing the form and another interviewing (willing) trainers and owners. Post race we could have a feed of the unsaddling enclosure with reaction from connections as alternative to coverage of a race at another meeting. With NH racing, 10 minutes does not leave much time between live racing for anything other than a rushed form analysis of the first few in the betting if all races are on RUK or ATR. I think that the coverage does a fair job of meeting the varied needs of its audience but some choice would help a lot.
|
|
By:
Just read the headmaster post about techie camera angles. A classic example of something that could be available on a red button as most racing fans want the standard coverage during a live race. Other angles might help post race analysis but are no use to in running players.
|