I received an email from the BBC complaints department stating:



...which is looking very strongly like he will be the lead commentator once again for the 2011 season.

In the company I worked for that type of statement was always a sign that they where about to make big changes

No, that's just the answer of someone in the complaints department who has no knowledge or even connection to the F1 broadcast.

Well stop whinging at us for not liking Legards commentary style when you don't like him either, what is your motivation for whinging about us not liking him slightly more than you?

None of the people playing devil's advocate are discussing anything about the BBC or that he must stay as lead commentator, you've all just changed it into an argument about semantics so you don't have to look stupid defending Legards commentary style.

Lisa Simpson: "You know, it's easy to criticise..."
Homer: "Fun too."

Who's defended his style?

Unless 'He doesn't bother me' = 'His style is perfect' all of a sudden.

I'm not playing devil's advocate, I'm saying that Legard doesn't annoy to me to the extent where I feel the need to moan about constantly about it (and it seriously is constant) or say its ruined the whole race, which would be an exaggeration (and I suspect it is for some of those who say it too).

Where did I indicate that I wanted to defend Legard's commentary style? I'm not trying to do that at all, so don't put words into my mouth.

The one thing that really annoys me is that it seems the man just can't win with some of you. I don't like his commentary style, but he clearly is not clueless about F1 despite what people like to claim. And I will defend that, not his commentary style. And I am willing to give credit for the good things that he does do, like discovering that Virgin fuel tank story. Some of the criticism of him on here loses all sense of perspective (its TV commentary, it isn't going to change your life) and worse than that, some of it crosses into personal stuff. His commentary style may deserve some criticism but he doesn't deserve some of the personal attacks that I've seen on this thread.

Moaning on this thread about him isn't going to change anything at the end of the day. You can complain to the BBC if you want, though I doubt thats doing much either. But thats life, deal with it.

But making irrelevant personal insults, never ever admitting you were wrong, and baiting other posters are the three staples of internet forum interaction. Take that away and what do we have?

I like the BBC coverage a whole lot more than the ITV coverage, and though I am not a particular fan of Legard, he is not so bad that he ruins it all for me.

@Legardj: To those of u who care, thanks for ur support, am on here for u. To all u haters...I jus don't give a f*** haha

Very good

Oh god. It's in text speak. Who does he think he is.

Lewis Hamilton?

Buttoneer's post is a joke

Not gangster enough, blood. Braap braap

Those were Lewis' actual "words" in the offending tweet that kicked off t'other thread.

I know

Unbelieveable, he even has to get a driver to write his tweets!

sorry

Maybe we should just not have a BBC F1 Coverage Thread next year? In all seriousness.

As you say, none of it is life-affecting so why not just remove the source of complaints?

And if people have enough to say, they can go directly to the BBC instead.

I like having a thread to discuss the BBC Coverage though. The problem is that all the posts about other things to do with the coverage get lost in the Legard stuff.

Well ignore the Legard posts then and let's stop mentioning him.

That was my whole point, people like KateLM aren't discussing the topic because they'd much rather just complain about people having slightly stronger opinions than their own.

Which seems futile when ultimately we most of us agree he hasn't been doing a good enough job once he gets in the commentary box.

He should be a compelling reason for us to tune in and watch a race, not someone who at most make us say Meh!

Wasn't aware you could read my mind. You're allowed your opinion, I'm allowed mine.

I have discussed what I think of Legard, but you seem to be focusing on the fact that I inexplicably can put up with his commentary (which itself is an opinion) rather than reading what I have actually said.

Yet people moaning about Legard on a public forum annoys them to the extent that they feel the need to constantly moan about it?!

Those moaning about Legard are vastly more justified than those moaning about those moaning about Legard. For a start - many of us thoroughly enjoy(ed) Martin Brundle, so consequently have nowhere else to go and must put up with Legard's uninformed blathering, and must vent spleen as a result.

The Internet is a very large place (at least the size of Cumbria), and public forums are easily set up and controlled where nobody can say a bad word about Jonathan Legard, Eddie Jordan, David Coulthard or anyone else on the planet (and the trees are made of candy, the rivers gush lemonade and the biscuit cows' udders ooze chocolate fudge brownie-flavoured Frijj™).

I'm really not bothered if people don't mind Legard. Vive la différence. But when those people's contributions amount to describing why they don't like the debate, and then describing their descriptions of why they don't like the debate... probably best to fashion your own forum out of marzipan and Cadbury's Fingers®.

People haven't just been moaning about others moaning about Legard, they've been giving their view as to why they don't mind the commentary as much too.

And as this is a discussion forum and we are all allowed our own views, the opinion that the moaning is exaggerated is just as justified as those moaning about him.

If I had an issue with debate, I wouldn't be discussing this would I?

Nobody has said ever you can't have your opinion, but when you're using phrases like "put up with his commentary" it's pretty clear you're not that enamoured with the guy yourself.

So to complain that the thread has been full of people who have stronger opinions on his commentary than your own that shouldn't for some reason be expressed in this thread seems pointless, we're all saying he has areas he needs to improve on.

I'm not enamoured with him, so what. It doesn't ruin my viewing as a whole and that is an opinion in itself. And it is also an opinion that a lot of his faults are blown out of proportion. And it is also an opinion that some of the people who have "stronger" opinions than myself have actually lost a sense of perspective.

Just because I am not fond of his commentary itself, it doesn't mean that I can't disagree with certain sentiments expressed on here. The world is not black and white and neither are opinions.

Seems to me people are now just having discussions about the strength of feeling. People who don't put too much emphasis on the commentary when watching F1 don't appreciate that others feel much stronger about what enters their ears for 90 minutes every fortnight, and vice versa.

If a large proportion of people feel strongly about point X and like talking about it, well that's the agenda whether others like it or not. Every opinion is valid as the next persons, but it gets very complicated when people start dissecting the validity of other people's opinions rather than just stating their own.

Interesting? it's the same thing that always happens when people dig into their respective trenches in an internet argument, endless circular tail chasing, pedantry and empty semantics. I don't see anything here except one group trying to parry an endless list of criticisims whilst the other group fine tune their definitions to make them stick, if your a 'debateophile' this might be your thing but for the rest it just stifles a lively thread.

There are interesting debates to be had here like, what should the forum be used for, no matter what your opinion is on that at least you'll be adding something to the thread but the legard thing is a dead end. You either like him or you don't, there is nothing to add or expand upon, there are no veiwpoints that alter your perception so the 'debate' essentially becomes page after page of "he's a tool" "no he isn't" "yes he is" "no he isn't" and after about 8 solid pages of it i think i can say we've covered it.

If you want to start a thread about Legard and fill it with this that's fine by me but this is a thread about the BBC's coverage and, as it stands, what was a diverse and interesting thread has turned into a really hard slog to read through.

I think your opinions are very reasonable.

Yes - until the validity of other people's opinion are berated of course.

"I think XYZ" is different from "I think XYZ and if you don't too you're not a passionate fan."

"I think XYZ but I can't understand why you don't either" is different, as long as it is accepted that others just happen to have a different view. Not everyone can understand others' opinions, but they should be accepted at the end of the day.

Yeah, they agreed this last week when they bumped into each other in Croydon.

More or less inevitable that was going to be the case, though, wasn't it? The things that the "serious" fans who inhabit this site would like (length, concentration on race action rather than commentary/"colour" features) might bore the casual viewer/fan who make up most of the actual audience. Wait for the DVD to come out, I guess

In New Zealand we have F1 on Sky. We get the world feed but we have the BBC commentary. The interesting thing is how much additional coverage the BBC add. There are numerous occasions where the on air discussuon relates to something that we aren't seeing. Which must mean that either the team are gouing way OT or that they are using their own footage. I suspect the latter.

We don't have a intro programme nor do we have a closing commentary. We get raw world feed and then after the race we just get the world feed audio. Which is pretty dull. But does mean that I get to hear Vettel do his post race comments in German.

The point is, you don't know what you've got until you lose it. I miss it a lot and have to just cope.

When on air during the race, the BBC use the world feed. Occasionally they will cut to a pit lane camera of their own, but very very rarely.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1...rama-right.html

That's almost a non-news story.

The BBC "have done nothing to dampen speculation," as opposed to what? Announcing he's got the gig for next year within the Daily Mail's reporting schedule?

Surely he's been fired already??????????? The man is incompetent, end of.

I really hope Crofty gets the gig... he is by far and away a much better commentator.

Eww, you looked at the Mail? What an utterly pointless waste of the worlds bandwidth, if he's going the Beeb will say so, no need to speculate about the lack of comment when there's nothing to comment on.

Anyone else feel like writing bernie a letter about the starts? Why do we get this groundhog view of the start staring at the wheel of a red bull or whatever.

Can we get a proper look please sir.

+1

I suppose it's the dramatic effect of the cars getting bigger that's the draw, hopeless for following the actual racing though. Those first few seconds are the most exciting of the weekend, if only we could see it!

No I don't, someone on DS said it was mentioned by Sale, so I went to find a link to post. I don't normally like at the Mail, given its mostly celebrity tosh.

If this is JA, it sounds like he's found his true niche.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhQY7J2d8WY

Yeah, it is Allen - he retweeted a tweet mentioning it a few days ago!

Sounds like a diabolical creation from contestants on The Apprentice.

99.99% certain the reason for it is so they can get the main sponsor's logo in shot at the start.

Well I don't know, at Silverstone Santander is more visible from the high camera shot than the low one. Though the big banner across the track does get in the way, as usual

my favourite cameras were always turn one entry at Magny Cours, they had a rear and front facing pair at the end of the straight which tha cars ran really close to. As the car zipped past they cut from one to the other showing it hoofing towards then away from you but because it was right beside the camera the sensation of speed was excellent.

+1

Some of the new angles of Eau Rouge for the last 2-3 years have been excellent. Really gave you a good sense of the speed and direction change. I've been waiting for years for better camera angles there.

I think FOM have really pulled their fingers out with novel angles. Apart, of course, from the crappy long shots at the start. (You never get a true sense of excitement and acceleration from a GP start, and haven't done for years).

Where would you want the camera at the start? Having it further back allows you to see the whole first corner action in one shot, without having to switch constantly between cameras at the vital start.