16/06/2012
NEWS STORY
 |
After the magnificent seven opening rounds of the 2012 season, we thought this would be as good a time as any to get your views on TV coverage of what some are calling the greatest start to a season in living memory.
Being a UK-based website, we are mainly concerned with how fans feel about this year's coverage and in particular the 'split' between Sky and BBC however, if you have any particular feelings about coverage where you are please feel free to contribute - after all, Pitpass is said to be Bernie Ecclestone's "pet website" so you know he'll get the message.
While Ecclestone has told Pitpass that F1 will not move entirely to pay-per-view, it is a fact that a precedent has been set and while some will remain free-to-air more and more coverage is likely to become subscription based. However, before you all rush to blame Mr E, let's remember that - other than the BBC's decision to change its original contract - the teams have made no secret of their desire to see the sport bring in more money from television.
Interestingly, while the BBC now issues viewing figures shortly after each race, the silence from Sky is deafening. Surely, one would have thought, had figures lived up to, or exceeded, expectations, Sky and Bernie would have been shouting it from the rooftops.
Judging by my mailbox and comments on our forum, other than the fact that it is only showing half the races live, the BBC's coverage is not suffering, indeed, under the circumstances viewing figures are extremely healthy. The team has survived the loss of several key members, most notably Martin Brundle and Ted Kravitz, while Ben Edwards is proving popular.
As for Sky, much of the 'stiffness' witnessed in the season preview in March has gone and with each race 'the team' seems a little more at ease with itself.
Brundle and Kravitz remain the main assets, while Natalie Pinkham appears to improve with every race having moved away from the (BBC) style which suggests the presenter is more important than the subject they're presenting.
Regular pundits, Damon Hill and Johnny Herbert - can he ever answer a question without beginning the response 'well....? - are good, while Jacques Villeneuve's contrary approach was much welcome in Canada. Also good to see that, unlike some, there is no one particular team, that Sky F1 is sucking up to.
Anthony Davidson does a good job, though the Sky Pad remains just a little too gimmicky, while the look on Georgie Thompson's face as he explains turn-in and DRS suggests he really is talking rocket science. Then again, her admission (in China?) that "the boys" had had to walk slowly through the paddock as she was having difficulty walking in her high heels lends some weight to those critics, mainly on newspaper forums, who want to know what is the point of her.
Simon Lazenby remains one of the weak spots; never convincing, always giving the impression that the questions he asks are being fed to him through an earpiece. That said, there is talk elsewhere that following his Monaco faux pas he will be moved quietly aside at season end.
Personally, my biggest criticism of Sky's coverage, and one which has - on more than a few occasions - had me seeking the remote, pondering whether to switch to the Beeb, has already been covered by Glen Crompton.
I can tolerate the mistakes, I can put up with the constant interruptions, but, in all honesty, at times David Croft's shouting has me screaming. He doesn't do it during the practice sessions, in fact, at the beginning (and end) of qualifying and the race you can actually hear him change gear as his lungs prepare for full on Mr Shouty mode, each syllable more annoying than the last. I would willingly pay to see the look on Martin's face when 'Crofty' gets into gear... it must be priceless.
However, this isn't about what I think, you're the fans. you are the one that must dig into their pockets and pay, or not. What do you think of Sky's coverage, what do you think of the BBC's, what do you think of the coverage where you are, is it good or does it leave a lot to be desired.
Please Note: This Talking Point is about the TV coverage, it is not about the rights and wrongs of Rupert Murdoch and his companies or anything else, it is about the actual coverage given to F1.
Chris Balfe
Editor
To send your thoughts, click here
Note: Please include your full name - without a full valid name we will not publish your entry.
Kevin Beasley
I have been an F1 fan since I was a little boy watching James Hunt, John Watson etc & the BBC's coverage, ie Jake Humphrey's is the most watchable ever. I thought when Martin Brundle etc left it would be flat, but that is not the case. Jake is the reason why the BBC's coverage is great. Sky's coverage is so scripted & not off the cuff & unenjoyable & for that reason it's not worth paying any money, would rather watch delayed BBc than Sky live.
Peter Mann - Cambridgeshire
I don't have a telly, but am fortunate enough to be invited round to a neighbour's to watch each race. He has access to both the BBC and Sky coverage - until Canada, we'd always watched the Beeb, partly because it was more convenient to hook into the BBC replays for the fly-away races and partly because my neighbour didn't think much to the style of the Sky presentation for qualifying.
Canada was my first Sky experience - I arrived just in time for the race and thought it was fine; unlike most, it seems, I like Crofty - he did a great job as the Radio 5 commentator and, arguably, an even better job during the practice sessions, especially with Anthony Davidson as his sidekick.
Where I fell out with Sky was post race - it was awful! As racers Johnny Herbert and Jacque Villeneuve were pretty good, but as TV people both came across as real prats. I had no idea who the Jake Humphrey equivalent was - zero personality seems to be his problem.
When I got home, I watched the race again on the Beeb's iPlayer. Same pictures, of course, but despite Sky having David Croft and Martin Brundle, I really thought that Ben Edwards and DC did a better commentary job. Certainly the post race stuff was far better on the Beeb - even though it was just DC and Lee McKenzie (no Jake, no Eddie): nicer voices, far better interview with Lewis and sensible analysis - all the Beeb needs to do is to get Ted Kravitz back - he's a million times better than Gary Anderson, who is so slow - then we'll be back to the golden era the BBC established when it took over from ITV... provided, of course, it covers all the races live!
Peter Gilbert
Pay Sky for anything NEVER.
Tweak to watch the race when it is not on the BBC live, is to watch it on RTL German satellite channel live and listen to the commentary on BBC Radio five live. The best alternative I know of.
The BBC team will only get better with time.
Mike Currie - Canada
Here in Canada we get the BBC coverage on TSN with David Coulthard and David Croft. I would have to rate their coverage as "adequate". When we used to get Martin Brundle I quite enjoyed his perspective. Coulthard may be a bit more current, but Brundle was more entertaining.
We haven't had the pleasure of seeing any Sky coverage, so I can't really comment on that.
Ben Johnston - Dublin, Ireland
So I had an extremely busy Sunday last weekend as the Canadian GrandPrix was on telly. I watched the race live on Sky Sports F1HD. The only thing that I like about their coverage is the commentary team of Martin Brundle and David Croft. Everything else about their coverage in my opinion is terrible for a couple of reasons firstly and the main reason is Simon Lazenby who is the presenter of Sky's F1 coverage. Now I don't know what his background is in but I feel that he REALLY needs to brush up on his F1 history.
When Sky Sports F1HD interviewed 1978 F1 champion Mario Andretti, who has just become the official ambassador for the 2012 United State's GrandPrix in Texas he was just introduced as a world champion.
Lazenby also asked the stupidest question in the world, Mario are you going to be at the GrandPrix in Texas? He's the circuit ambassador, of course he is going to be at the race, come on!!!!!!!!!
When you look at the BBC's coverage in comparison, it is far superior granted the BBC have been covering the sport for year's and it's the first year for SKY.
The BBC on the other hand did a fantastic job with their 'HIGHLIGHTS' coverage of the race with pitlane reporter Lee McKenzie taking the presenter reigns for the next few races as Jake is covering the Euros for BBC Sport. Lee was joined as usual by David Coulthard, there was no sign of EJ, however I assume that he will be back for the European GrandPrix next weekend. Lee is fantastic at doing to camera pieces and she is extremely knowledgeable about the sport and her and DC's conversations just flow and the banter back and forth between the two of them was great and it is the same when Eddie Jordan is there with Jake they have a great laugh.
I love watching the BBC's coverage of F1.I also feel that with the BBC when Eddie, Jake and DC are talking about the sport you get the sense that they are REAL fans of the sport whereas with Sky I feel that they just see it as a job. I also noticed that for the Canadian GrandPrix introduction on Sky they tried to have a funny introduction like the way the BBC do but it didn't really work out.
I only watch the live races on Sky because there is no other choice and when the BBC show the races lie I watch it with them.
It is going to be interesting to see this year if the BBC's F1 coverage gets nominated for a BAFTA as they have previously won awards. I would be delighted if they won another award.
When the BBC interview Christian Horner or Martin Whitmarsh it is brilliant because they always have something to say to Eddie about his sense of style or lack of style whereas there is none of that with Sky it's just purely about the racing.
Ed Byard - Oxford UK
I had a motorised satellite system installed (costs less than a Sky subscription) and now I can watch all F1 sessions on European FTA TV, mainly from Germany. Commentary is provided by BBC Radio 5 Live on a portable radio. It's fine enough for me.
I have watched some Sky coverage in a pub, and I'm not impressed. I like Martin Brundle a lot, mainly for his dry humour but it is clearly scripted by people who think F1 is like football, thus treating the viewers like moronic uneducated fans. For that reason alone, I won't get a Sky subscription. Ever.
As an aside, I think joining Sky was a shrewd move by Brudle & co. Sign a multi-year deal and when (not if) it goes pop, walk away with a big cheque. The viewing figures are as poor as the coverage, and sponsors can't be very happy with 0.8m watching on Sky - 10% of what the BBC get.
Adrian Foster
I've not seen Sky's F1 coverage so I really can't comment. Other than to say that last year's BBC F1 coverage was absolutely vintage, with Martin Brundle, David Coulthard et al doing what they do best. I also really enjoyed David Croft's practice coverage, which gave fascinating behing-the -scenes insight during the inevitable lulls.
For me, good though it is under straitened circumstance, the BBC's coverage of the 'highlights' weekends leaves me wanting. I do miss the coverage of practice, and the qualifying sessions seem hurried and lacking in depth and detail. In general, I tend to agree with you about Ben Edwards, although he sounds a bit like he's commentating a horse race when things get exciting.
Lastly, I do think that Lee McKenzie really rose to the occasion last week. She was authoritative, highly professional and well focussed; So, why isn't her mug shot alongside the t'ree musketeers on the BBC F1 web site? She fully deserves to be, IMHO, and outshines the 'eejit' who I feel is overrated.
Sam Laird - Edinburgh
Let's get things in perspective: the quality of written-word GP coverage - both online and in print - is generally incredibly high; by those standards, the TV coverage is lousy. If I thought the Sky show would be any good I'd phone a friend and try it out, but I have not heard or read anything to suggest that would be worth my while.
The BBC used to provide fair-to-middling live coverage of all the GP's. Now they provide fair-to-middling live coverage of half the races, but they still fly a crew to the other ten so they can produce an "edited" version of those. Sky flies another crew to all the same places, from which they present all the same race footage to the folks back home. From this, I understand they offer fair-to-middling live coverage of all the races to the proportion of the audience that is sufficiently impatient, immature and/or rich to need it at the moment it happens. So we have twice the cost, twice the effort, twice the hot air - and zero added value. While the costs spiral in a kind of mad double helix, the audience appears to be collapsing. It's not going to last, is it?
I wouldn't miss live coverage on the Beeb so much if the "edited highlights" weren't so awful: it seems that Ben and DC still bicker their way through a live race and then the techies chop bits out till it fits into the programming box - or rather into the bit of a 120-minute race coverage box they have decided to dedicate to a 100-minute race. Since no effort is made to provide continuity or to correct errors and omissions, this looks to me like cutting, not editing - and in my book they are two different things.
So the commentary keeps referring to things the lads don't know we haven't seen or heard. And - of course - they continue to miss things we see happening while they are trying to explain for the umpteenth time that the soft tyre is actually the hard one...
Random thoughts on the 2012 BBC TV effort:
Jake Humphrey (who has proved that you do not have to know much about the sport to make a professional contribution to the coverage) is clearly stepping off this rung on his career ladder. He has done an admirable job - especially in his control of the 'chemistry' between his pundits - and I am sure he has a bright future
Gary Anderson is a revelation - the most valuable member of the team by far
DC deserves credit for his disarming modesty about a distinguished racing career
If they've got a 2-hour slot for the delayed coverage, why don't we see the whole race?
WHY CAN'T THEY JUST SAY "PRIME" AND "OPTION"?!
Looking forward, with everyone in the world sharing the same race footage, the difference will be (a) a fabulous user interface for those who want to jump from car to car or play at being on the pit wall, and (b) a great commentary team for those who don't.
So, Bernie, when you and Mr Tata get round to streaming the coverage direct, sign up Charlie Cox and his choice of partner (Brundle? Coulthard? Parrish - why not?) for the English-language gig - pay them whatever they ask. Oh, and get Gary Anderson as well.
I feel better already!
Peter Hill - New Zealand
I cannot comment on the UK Sky coverage as we are fed the BBC coverage (with gaps of silence when someone forgets to turn a switch), in New Zealand.
The coverage in practice is poor when compared to the commentary we got last year from Crofty, Ant etc. Same for the race the coverage last year was excellent.
This year for the races we have Ben Edwards doing the the jabbering and David Coulthard sometimes getting a few words in.
I wonder if there is someone telling the lead commentator that they have to shout and scream at the "exciting points" of the race. The commentators all seem to feel the need to do this - even Brundle last year was prone to fits of enforced excitement Ben Edwards also seems to follow the Ledgard example of asking a question in five different ways before letting anyone else speak. He also loves to rattle on about things that have little relevance to the event.
I am thankful we didn't have a repeat of last years rain in Canada - I cannot imagine the commentary would have entertained anything like Martin and David last year.
Paul Sheather - Australia
In Australia, we get the Sky Commentators, so while it's a bonus to have Martin, I agree that David Croft can be annoying. The volume is an issue at times but it is the interuption of Martin that annoys me, especially if he is about to tell us something from behind the scenes or about one of the drivers that he's learned.
The rest of our coverage is run by our local channel (Channel 10) and their efforts have gone down hill this year, with the Australian Grand Prix the worst of all. It was just used as a promotional effort for all their other shows, with more interviews with D-Grade Aussie celebrities than F1 drivers or stories. Then there were the ad breaks. Let's just say an F1 Race broke out amongst the ads. The number of ads has continued and there are far too many, especially during the races. We've missed a lot of action this year because of that.
Kev Smith
Coverage here in the US leaves a lot to be desired. Two members of the commentary team (Bob Varsha and David Hobbs) manage to get drivers names or miscellaneous factiods wrong on a consistent basis. Steve Matchett is there to provide insight into the race from more of a team/engineering perspective, and by and large does a pretty good job of it. I still don't like Will Buxton, but he's not as downright sodding annoying as last season.
What is *tremendously* irritating is the sheer number of commercials. Generally speaking, there's about 5-6 laps of racing (during which time they may display an 'F1 Flashback' or other historical/stock footage - whilst the race is going on, mind you!), followed by a 3-4 minute commercial. Generally you can count on seeing 65-70% of the race, which, considering most races air on Speed - a channel that's only available on one of the more expensive cable packages here, so I'm already paying a premium for the privilege of watching the race - finally tipped me over the edge after the first few races this year. I used to love the feeling of watching races live, it just seemed to add an extra 'something' to the excitement. However, I now find that I prefer to wait several hours and obtain uninterrupted coverage from a buddy in the UK, who provides a mix of Sky and BBC coverage depending on a variety of factors. I've been watching F1 quasi-religiously since I was barely out of nappies (early 80's) and consider myself a bit of a die-hard fan, but I challenge anyone to sit through a season of "Meanwhile, while we were in break.... [insert race-defining moment of choice here]". It wound up completely detracting from the enjoyment of the racing, trying to second-guess the strategies and the general immersion because the overriding feeling was one of annoyance that I was missing so much.
I do find that I prefer the Sky race coverage, if only because of Brundle. The picture quality is also quantifiably better on the UK coverage, both Sky and BBC, than what we get here via cable, which is bewildering to me since the video data undergoes lossy compression before being sent. The UK commentators also don't talk over the driver to pit radio transmissions, which makes a refreshing change. The Speed team did get somewhat better about it last year, but still talked over most of them.
Be happy, UK viewers. Yes, the whole Sky-BBC thing seemed to be handled poorly, but you have two world-class sets of coverage to pick from. I caved and watched the Canadian GP live on Fox, otherwise it would have been midnight local time before I could have got around to it, and was promptly reminded why I quit in the first place.
Having said all that, the racing, the on-track dicing, the unreliability of some competitors and their cars, the sheer unpredictability of what will happen is making this, for me, one of the best seasons I've ever had the opportunity to watch. Long may this wonderful sport continue to generate excitement and passion in fans around the world.
Matthew Sinclair
Do I think Sky TV has better coverage as promised? Nope. More doesn't automatically result in better. Having an attractive female wearing form fitting clothing (while easy on the eyes she certainly is) does not make for BETTER coverage. I want to learn about the sport. Feel a part of it. BBC does that in spades. Having a louder commentator does not make him better. Brundle still does a stellar job, as always. Damon is alright.
Wish we still had Brundle teamed up with Coulthard. I loved that combo.
Rod Van Koughnet - New Zealand
Here in NZ, the only way to see F1 live (or at all as far as I can tell) is by subscription to Sky Sports. Ironically, we don't get the Sky coverage we keep hearing about from the UK. Instead, we get the full BBC coverage live on Sky, hearing all the bits edited out for the UK. Bet that news annoys the UK BBC fans! Overall, I really miss the team of Martin Brundle + DC. That was the best ever for me. I still like DC, but I am shocked to hear that Ben Edwards is "proving popular." He really annoys me. Like another said, he sounds like a horse race announcer. DC has to correct him almost as often as Martin Brundle used to have to correct Legard (who annoyed me way more than Edwards). So, not as good as last year, but still pretty good and from reading the other posts, it sounds like we have it better than UK-Sky viewers.
Ian Holder - Surrey, UK
The BBC highlights programmes, of the races not shown live, have been much better than I anticipated. The only issue is trying to ensure that I don't hear, see or read any news media prior to the screening of the highlights programme, so I can enjoy the race without knowing who won. Like many people, I was disappointed that Martin Brundle left the BBC, but after the first few races I realised that I did not miss him at all, mainly because the BBC has employed Gary Anderson who delivers great insights, knowledge and information in an articulate manner. For me, the inclusion of Gary Anderson in the commentary team has made the programmes on the BBC (despite not showing all of the races live) some of the best overall coverage of formula one on television since I started to follow formula one in 1970. The combination of Eddie Jordan (team owner perspective), Gary Anderson (engineering perspective) and David Coulthard (driver perspective) has made me realise that I had been seduced by the pictures shown on television in the recent years, and I had tended to ignore the words of the commentary team. The combined input of Eddie, Gary and David reminds me of the great journalism of the early 1970s, when the only way for most fans to "understand" what happened in a race was to read the detailed reports in the specialist press, for example Autosport, Motorsport and Motoring News.
With regard to watching formula one on television, I have a concern about the attitude of the teams, which have been vocal about increasing the revenue from television. I have followed formula one for over forty years, and I believe I have contributed a considerable amount to formula one through purchasing the products and services of the sponsors of formula one. While it is probably impossible to apportion the cost of sponsorship to an individual product, such as a litre of fuel, I feel that I, along with all of the other people (formula one fans or not) who buy the products and services of the sponsors of formula one, have contributed to the money given to the teams from their sponsors. We all know that sponsorship is another form of marketing, and there is nothing unethical about it, but I find it an insult when teams say the fans should pay more to watch the sport on television, when we have already paid for products and services which enable companies to provide sponsorship money to the teams.
Tim Goodchild - UK
I find this on going BBC vs. Sky F1 debate tiresome. We are royally spoilt for coverage in the UK and the envy of any F1 fan worldwide. I did sign up to Sky for the F1 a the beginning if this year, and I am happy to have it. I have nothing against the BBC, and for sure, I'd prefer to still see all races on the BBC but that isn't the case. I miss watching Jake and particularly EJ, but I believe Sky are erring towards a better all round product.
People need to get over themselves over, "I'm not paying anything to Murdoch" - please...the world is run by corrupt leaders. People still seem to watch football despite Blatt pulling the strings.
Anyway, Sky do a great job, as do the BBC. I now pay for Sky, and will watch that. They had a rough start, but give them a chance and evaluate them at the end of a season. From where I'm sitting, their red-button service, statistics, iPad app, weekly magazine show and great post-race content (Weekend in Pictures, Sounds, Highlights packages) are great. I am also a huge fan of David Croft as lead commentator (the excitable fan) with Martin Brundle as expert analyst. I've tried watching Ben Edwards/DC, and it just doesn't work with me.
Kudos must be given to Sky - a dedicated channel? How can any pure F1 fan say no to that?
Dave Kane - Scottsdale, AZ USA
We get SPEED Channel coverage in the States which is a paid cable service. In the future I expect the fee to go up. Right now BE is mostly your problem but he is headed our way too.
I do NOT wish BE good health; he has ruined F1. He is beyond greedy.
Tony Beckett
Brundle does a great job, but Croft's shouting and screaming technique along with getting drivers, teams, and facts wrong is embarrassing for sky and frustrating to watch. At times you have to turn the sound down to let him get over his yelling sessions.
Tyler Smith - USA
Being from America, I have been used to seeing the coverage of F1 being substandard at the best of times. And while I understand the frustration of British F1 fans being forced to pay a truck load of money just to watch Sky Sports F1, this is the way that we have had to do it in America for many years. What also doesn't help our coverage here is that the announcers here (Bob Varsha, David Hobbs & Steve Matchett) frankly are not good. A few years back they were good enough in my opinion but now today they get so many facts wrong and they say the same things over & over again.
And what also doesn't help is that outside of Will Buxton, they don't go to any of the races. Frankly, outside of the ABC sports IndyCar crew, this is the most inept set of announcers around. But despite that I did what I could to stick with them but after the 1st race of this season, I had enough of watching nothing but commercials and missing a lot of key points in the race due to the announcers just not watching the same race that we're watching that I started to watch Sky/BBC.
What I have discovered is frankly the best coverage of F1 that I have ever seen in the almost 20 years that I've been watching the sport. And don't get me wrong, I do find some shortcomings in Sky's coverage, but it is nothing in comparison to what we see in America on SPEED. But in all that, I do find the BBC to be better as the just let the event do the talking while Sky I think does try too hard in some areas. But even despite all of this, I'll gladly take both Sky/BBC any day of the week over SPEED.
Danny Colverson
Last years BBC coverage was absolutely fantastic, Coulthard and Brundle made for a classic team. All the pitlane commentary was great as well and the team was really funny and had a lot of character. I havnt watched any BBC coverage this year but the Sky coverage is pretty poor and im very dissapointed with it so far. Instead of the funny and well-informed Jake, Simon is annoying and sexist. Crofty is also extremely annoying and his banter and attempts at jokes are just plain bad.
Its a real shame but the whole set up just reeks of football and of being dumbed down. Its so patronising to football fans that Sky thinks that for them to get F1 it needs to be be watered down. F1 is so elitist and complex at the moment, some people will love it and some people wont get it, dont try and sell it to the masses by making the coverage idiot proof. I hope Martin and Ted return to the BBC. Damon and Johnny are ok but they're no Coulthard and Jordan.
Marc Wood - Wiltshire, UK
Firstly I was a huge fan of BBC F1 from 2009-2011. As a hardcore F1 fan it was great to be able to see all of the live sessions on TV, including the Practice sessions which we hadn't seen in the UK since 2002 with SKY's pay platform F1 Digital +. So I was gutted to hear about the deal for this year, I have SKY, but not the Sports channels and didn't want to pay any more.
I was very pleased to hear the SKYF1 channel would be free with SKY's HD pack as I have this and was happy it would have its own channel with lots of extra shows etc. The only real problem I have with SKY's coverage is that it attempts to copy the BBC's coverage, I was hoping for coverage as we saw in 2002 with F1 Digital +, which was very aimed at the hardcore follower. I want to hear and see drivers and team bosses etc talk about racing, not see drivers go to the circus! SKY send Brundle to Ferrari to drive some old F1 cars, and they show us 2 minutes of it and then they cut to something less interesting. They also fail to get the interviews after quali and the races sometimes.
Brundle is good, (although I thought his treatment of Legard at the BBC was very, very poor), Crofty is good, Ted's OK, Natalie needs to tone down the platitudes, Simon needs time but is ok, Hill has been great and I'm not a Hill fan, Not sure what Georgie brings though?
I would give the coverage 7 out of 10, I would like the interviews with bosses/drivers in full as per F1 digital + and not edited to 2 minutes. Less platitudes and fluff and it would be 10!
As for BBC's coverage this year, I think its been poor. I only watch SKY live but often watch some of the BBC's coverage on iplayer the following week, and its sad that they have turned the shows into a joke. Jake only tweets about what daft items they will be showing and what shirts they will be wearing, EJ has a lot of knowledge, but hardly ever turns up now. Ben Edwards is great with the comms, DC is ok, but the person I feel sorry for is Jake. He knows the show has become a joke, its what Top Gear is to a motoring show. I do like Gary's tech input though, SKY should have got him!
The radio covereage isnt great either, it was not possible to listen to for Canada because of other sports and Jaime A is quite dull and hard to understand. The thing that makes me most cross about the radio coverage is the BBC asked John Watson to take over from Ant, he agreed and then the BBC changed their mind in favour of Jamie A. He's a nice guy, but it was a poor choice.
Mike Gaston - Co Down
I felt bereft when the split coverage was announced. I took the decision not to switch to Sky and while I miss Martin Brundle, Ted Kravitz and Anthony Davidson (get well soon!) I now find 1'm not really missing a whole lot more. I've been using a mixture of 5 Live - (well done James Allen) and F1's Live Timing, when BBC TV is not covering live. For Canada I avoided news bulletins and just watched the highlights. What an outstanding race! I was particularly impressed by Lee McKenzie holding the fort for Jake and after initial misgivings on my part I'm loving Gary Anderson's acute insights! The bonus has been the extra daylight hours I get back at the weekends! Of course I'd love to turn the clock back and have live coverage for every Grand Prix weekend, but to coin a Kimi - ism - "it is what it is" and I won't be buying Sky.
William Alexander
I've been watching F1 on SpeedTV for about 10 years and consider myself a huge fan of the series, especially in the technical whiz-bang department. The problem I have with the Speed trio (Varsha, Hobbs and Matchett) is that they don't attend any of the races and the fourth member who does attend, Will Buxton, is given about 3 minutes of commentary for the entirety of each race.
Additionally, the three studio guys, while knowledgeable, are also past their expiration date; Matchett's technical know-how is from the mid-90s, David Hobbs hasn't driven a top flight race car in decades, and Varsha seems to be more at home drooling over Detroit muscle during Barett-Jackson auctions.
Not to mention the $850 USD I spend per year for premium cable, which I would certainly forgo if it wasn't the only way to get F1 coverage.
One redeeming characteristic for David Hobbs' is the smattering of British humor he colors each race with.
Rupert Musker
I purchased Sky, for one single reason… F1. Do I feel I get value for money… No, not really. Not yet any way.
There are significant benefits of sky over the BBC coverage. Recording, pausing and more importantly fast forward- through the adverts and some of the rather tedious interviews and pre-event time filling archive pieces that Sky broadcast. Oh, I NEARLY FORGOT… and live broadcasting.
The basic truth is that Sky have a lot of improvement to dial into their programme. I expect this will happen in time. When I say improvement, I am talking about the delivery of the whole package. At the moment the jigsaw that is an F1 weekend isn't working as it should for Sky.
There are too many sky presenters with little or no experience in F1, and this shows through in the programmes. Simon Lazenby and Nathalie Pinkham need to step up to the plate, or they should face the axe. Pinkham has little or no F1 experience, and Lazenby is very wooden in his approach as lead presenter. He has a long way to go to get close to the BBC's lead, Jake Humphrey- who clearly makes more effort in his approach to his work.
Martin Bundle, Ted Crivitz are strong, but they cannot make up for deficiencies in the presentation team. David Croft is a good commentator, but his race commentary this year has been too excited, and that comes across badly in the race and qualifying programmes. If he could adopt the same approach as he uses with Anthony Davidson during practice sessions, it would be much more consumable. Georgie Thompson has also been doing a good job in her role.
Anthony Davidson is in the wrong position on the sky team. He needs a role alongside Bundle and Lazenby at the track, not in the ridiculous 'sky pad' which is just a stupid 'sky' gimmick- something you would expect in a football programme. I have found Damon Hill a waste of space so far this year, but Jonny Herbert and Jacques Villeneuve have been good additions to race weekends. The idea of having a one off guest presenter/ expert pundit in this role is good- but Damon Hill is not the right person for this, and the guest presenter should change each weekend- to give the team some spice. Having the same expert give his opinion all the time is boring, and the opinion is usually the same, so you can pretty much predict what is going to be said.
What really lets Sky's coverage down, is the stupid adverts for F1 coverage at the start and finish of a commercial break. I have paid my subscription to Sky, and a handsome amount of cash it was too. I do not need to hear that sky F1 is available in HD and Dolby surround sound 5.1 every 9 or 10 minutes of the entire programme. Who do Sky think is watching? There needs to be a rapid education from the programme producers that F1 fans are not stupid. We don't want to hear adverts for a service we have already paid for over and over again. Why are there any adverts in the programme in the first place…? Was the subscription money not enough…?
This added to some of the rather poorly edited, time filling- pre prepared extracts that are inserted into the programme have me reaching for the remote to fast forward. The BBC set the standard here- Sky have a lot of catching up to do in this respect.
When Sky solve the issues with their presenters, solve the issues with the distinct lack of preparation for the feature shows- pre- qualifying and pre- race shows, and they sort out the issues with repetitive adverts for a service that has already been paid for, then, and ONLY then, will the F1 programme's become more digestible and watchable. At the moment I find myself switching on for the qualifying house, and then for the race- the rest is not very watchable…
7 races in, and I have only bothered to watch one live- Australia. As for the rest, well, thus far, I have needed to use the fast forward button 'TOO MUCH' for me to say I am getting 'value for money'. So far, Sky have not yet put a full F1 race programme together that leads me to watch for the entire programme- I find myself switching off as soon as the race is complete- as I know there will be more repeated adverts to follow and then a weak analysis of the race- which is better reviewed online- because the content and understanding is far superior.
Is the Sky coverage better than the BBC's? No- not yet. But it will be, I hope. Sky certainly have the right idea with a dedicated channel. For now they need to resolve the production and content issues for race weekend programmes. This needs to happen sooner rather than later- if the good fans of F1 in the UK are to continue to shell out £100's of pounds a year for something they can get within the price of a normal TV licence…
If you are thinking of getting Sky for the sole reason to watch F1, I would leave it for another year, and make do with the excellent job the BBC continue to do on their shoestring budget.
Brian Morrison
I've been thinking about the situation with F1 this season, coverage and racing, and these are my thoughts:
I have not watched any F1 coverage since Hungary last year, so perhaps what I will write is irrelevant to you, but I'll write it anyway. I was very happy with the BBC's F1 coverage for the immediate past, and indeed over much of the late 70s, 80s and 90s. ITV's intervening time was OK, but I really hate advert breaks.
I watched F1 whenever I could for the best part of 40 years, but when I found out in 2011 about the BBC's perfidy and that Sky were to have the lead coverage I immediately decided that I would only be following the sport via the web, and then only for the stories behind the racing.
I won't give money to Murdoch under any circumstances, and never have over 35 years. So Sky was out without any thought whatsoever. The BBC have let me down badly, I pay my compulsory licence fee and watch very little TV so being deprived of one of the only things I did rely on the BBC to show I then decided that I didn't want to benefit them with my eyeballs on the screen either.
But to be honest, having read a bit about the racing and seen the coverage about this season's Pirelli tyres, I can say that I just don't feel I'm missing anything. And that view is confirmed by so many winners in the first 7 races, they're not winning because of anything other than luck in getting the tyres to work and they have to drive below the limit for significant amounts of time. I can't see the point of that so I don't want to watch it. To my mind it isn't Formula 1, it's more like watching an Indy oval race with endless changes of position and driving round in circles for no benefit.
My hope for the future is that Sky lose interest because they don't get the revenue they expected from F1, and indeed I can't understand why anyone would pay for their service *and* have to watch adverts, and decide that they're not going to continue with it.
As for the F1 teams, well they're going to have to work awfully hard for me to buy their sponsors' products again after they acted with naked greed and took Murdoch's shilling. The only power I have over them is to deprive them of my money, so that's what I'm doing.
Henry Street - Cardiff
I have access to both the BBC and Sky's coverage and I have to say the BBC is by far the best everytime. The presenting team the Beeb have is just alot more natural and relaxed in comparison to their Sky counterparts. Brundle is by far the most appealing thing Sky have, but I have found myself to be enjoying the Coulthard/Edwards partnership alot more which is not something I was expecting at the start of the season. Anderson is a brilliant edition to the BBC with his extensive knowledge and ability to read the on track situations almost perfectly.
Apart from not having every racing lap, its hard to criticize anything about the Beeb this year in my opinion. I feel sorry for those fans who bought Sky subscriptions purely for the F1 because its just not in the same league as far as I am concerned and they are paying alot of money for inferior coverage. Sky are certainly trying but Lazenby, the SkyPad, Herbert, Hill, and Croft just make for some very frustrating, often dull and uncomfortable coverage.
If the races are live on both channels, then I go with the BBC every time without a second thought. If the races are Sky exclusive, I have watched most of them, but I always make time for the highlights later in the day on the Beeb. Formula One in the UK should be trying to reach out to as many viewers as possible and trying to bring as much coverage as is realistically available. Having Sky exclusive races just cuts down the viewership dramatically for the live event and also prevents the more casual fan having access to the sport and sponsors IMO. Casual viewers don't go hunting through the Sports Channels on Sky like a viewer would by turning onto BBC 1 for example. I think its time to admit they tried to bring the sport to satellite, but it is failing. You don't have to be a genius to see that and I am a Sky subscriber!
Ian Dudley - France
In common with many others, we would not dream of paying money to Murdoch. As we live in France we get BBC via satellite, with use of Sky's free channels, too. The 2011 season was vintage in terms of BBC coverage, with Martin Brundle and David Coulthard working supremely well together. DC has matured into his role, and provides Ben Edwards with just the right level of support. Ben himself is ok, but is sitting in a big seat, and needs time to grow in confidence, perhaps. Let me say that after the decades I spent hating Murray Walker, whose ludicrous delivery did motor racing a huge disservice, Ben Edwards is very acceptable. I also like Jake Humphrey, but wish he would not make constant references to football, as if that is the yardstick by which life itself is measured. Eddie Jordan adds virtually no value, and Gary Anderson is certainly no Ted Kravitz, despite his career as an F1 designer.
At the Le Mans Test Weekend I told Martin Brundle that his BBC audience are missing him, and he replied that he believes Sky are in F1 for the long haul, so he is obviously comfy there so far. Pity.
Kevin Fletcher
At first I wasn't happy about paying for HD on the Sky package however with other HD coverage I'm now coming to terms with that. The F1 coverage is introduced by the dire Simon Lazenby someone who appears to be in awe of the "stars" around him and constantly name drops about people around who he has no intention of getting to speak to or cannot get to speak to. Obviously Martin and Ted are the key to the broadcast and with Natalie doing an excellent job in the pits the team is fair. When the race has been live on BBC I'm afraid to say I have stuck with Sky. Georgie seems to have toned down her dress sense from the first couple of broadcasts to a more sedate style. Overall I'm afraid to say that with a couple of exceptions (I have to pay for HD programming and Simon) I'm happy with the broadcast. I am a little surprised at the commentary though as I'm sure I've heard Croft on other broadcasts and he wasn't as excitable!
Mike Burden
I regret the loss of live coverage on the BBC and refuse to watch the news before the highlights come on so as not to spoil my enjoyment. I do not have Sky and will not pay for a package from which I would only be interested in a small amount of the content. If coverage goes fully to Sky I will just stop watching.
Martin Feldwick
I cannot comment on Sky other than to say that I would not give a brass farthing to Rupert Murdoch and never have done. i have found a much better alternative though. The live timing on Formula1.com is far better than watching and listening to a load of media prattle even less paying for it. The essence of F1 is there in glorious colour and the microseconds ticking by tell a tale that TV cannot. There are no distractions. The drama is there before you in real time not at the whim of a TV producer. The gaps drop as a car is reeled in, his tyre wear converted to digital readout. Another car is clocking up the time to make a pit stop, a frantic lap or two before fate and a sticky rear wheel might collect the gained seconds back. Alonso's failure to make a pit stop appears in full detail before your eyes, a quick wonder why if I can see it the race manager cant, while another top drivers failure to make even a place up tells of deep woe and poor set up. Who needs a TV now. In future live timming is for me... until Bernie makes me pay for it... or Murdoch buys F1.
Chris Brown
I think we'll see reducing live coverage from the BBC over the next few years if not sooner - moving towards highlights only. Maybe we'll be lucky and get Silverstone an Monaco live. F1 on BBC has gone the same way as Golf and Football. Full live F1 coverage has gone for good from free to air TV.
I've read of Bernie saying Sky has 10 million customers compared to 6 million who watch on BBC. But Bernie, that's Sky customers not F1 viewers. But then if Sky can afford the £45 million or whatever for the live TV rights, who cares how few are watching? Maybe the sponsors will when they catch on that their mobile billboards aren't being as well seen. Someone's missing the bigger picture here...... Short term gain for those coming to retirement, but failure will follow in the longer term - similar to a classic boom and bust. Bernie must know this - he's very very smart.
As for the coverage, I think the BBC has fallen away at times - disheartened team? When the BBC team are on form though it's still the next best thing to being there. Sky is just corporately packaged glossy TV - nothing more. They may offer F1 through their internet TV service, NowTV, maybe on Pay per View - but it won't be cheap - they're wise (and greedy) enough to realise that most will only choose Sky when the BBC aren't live.
Sadly I expect that we're stuck with Sky if the BBC as I expect do wind things down further.
Bill Willems - USA
TV coverage here in the states comes from SPEED and the great boys who do the broadcasting. Bob, David, Steve and Will. They come on the air 30 minutes before the race so we get lots of pre-race interviews and facts. Unfortunately FOX Sports Network gets 4 races which are set on a 2 hour time frame. The broadcast starts as the lights go out and end at 2 hours. Sometimes no comments at the end or post race interviews. Terrible. Depending on the time of the race I may watch it live but most of the time it gets DVRd. If it went to pay-per-view I'd would not pay to watch. SPEED is the race network!!!
Savraj Dhalay
Having watch most of Sky's live broadcasts, I find their coverage rather sterile and dull. The BBC's coverage has set a high standard to match, and Sky has largely copied BBC's presentation and set-up - except for the most vital part; camaraderie. There is no sense of humour or banter between Lazenby and the rest of the team. Watching Sky F1 is like a PowerPoint presentation, awfully well organised and logical - but devoid of genuine interaction or amusement that makes TV appealing.
For all Eddie Jordan's errors and annoyances, him and DC bickering is actually entertaining to watch. They blend serious talk about Formula One and a light-hearted side very well. In comparison, Herbert and Hill are woefully dull - especially the latter. That in part is Lazenby's fault, who asks very gormless questions which are hard to provide meaningful answer's to.
In my opinion, Sky tried to have their own Jake Humphrey with Lazenby, which has failed miserably. This goes to the heart of Sky's coverage. There is no real innovation or fresh-thinking from Sky. A bit like Toyota in F1, waving the biggest cheque, with the biggest resources doesn't necessarily translate into success.
David Croft has steadily becoming more irritating. I've lost count of the number of times he says "just a touch". I also get the sense that he doesn't really know what he's talking about. Croft sounds like he loves football, but not suitable for commentating on motor racing.
Sky has also downsized their pre-race coverage, which reveals a lot itself. They had a two-hour build-up for the initial races, but they've now downsized to 90 minutes for pre-race coverage. Even 90 minutes is too much, especially considering how dreary their content is.
James Phillips
I've watched F1 since the the age of six in 1994 and subjected to the woeful ITV coverage and was delighted when the BBC got it very much perfect with Jake, DC, Eddie and Lee Mckenzie in 2011. Sky getting the majority of the rights was a real pain as I am a University student so I missed the first two races they covered as I simply cannot afford it. What I can say though is this: they are developing their coverage slowly but one thing does have to go and its been talked about so many times in this discussion: Simon Lazenby. When Georgie Thomson left Sky Sports News in the November she said she was going to research F1 history and she wasn't wrong she has really done her homework and is very knowledgeable. Simon sadly is not. He was tasked with an impossible job by trying to be the 'new Jake' and it hasn't worked. Mr Brundle is very clearly in control having taken his microphone away from him and leaving him standing there during interviews. Georgie when she is command of final practice oozes charisma and presence and really should take over from him next season and get away from that blasted Skypad. I agree on like others on here that Sky's build-up is very dreary and dull and with constant ad breaks a tad on the annoying side. Brundle is carrying their coverage with Ted and surprisingly in my opinion Georgie. I'd like to point out that you can get Sky Race control on the BBC, they have an identical package online. The F1 show though I find most weeks to be very informative, although that damn Skypad still makes an appearance!
The BBC have done the best they can and is still the best coverage by a mile, its informal rather than feeling very scripted. I'd rather watch Jake play pool with a Mclaren driver discussing the season ahead than watch glitzy diagrams being displayed or watching broadcasters embarrassingly fail to get access to a garage and or individual. Ben is a very good asset and although I feel like I'm watching one of his DVDs sometimes he is definitely the right man to replace Brundle, although I do miss him and DC in the commentary box. Allen is very passionate about F1, but even for radio he does not belong in a commentary box. He is a very good blogger and online analyst but please BBC get him out of there. Gary Anderson has been brilliant and deserves more airtime as he explains very complex parts of the cars and regulations in a simple and very informative way. The BBC even with the highlights package know what the fans are after and seem to be delivering week on week, I'm a avid forum watcher and prefer that to Sky's post race coverage which is wooden and full of Skypad replays.
To sum up: Sky need to develop their coverage more by shortening the build-up. The biggest though is give the channel more programming during the week! 7pm to midnight is appalling for a service that was plugged as a dedicated F1 channel. It has trailers for the rest of the time!! They need to give Georgie more airtime and not dumb the coverage down. Going to make a bold statement and say that 90% of F1 fans know the regulations and don't need tables (average pitstops for goodness sake?!) and a Skypad to show us detail, we have replays for that. Hill is a hit and miss and I'm warming to Herbert. They and Georgie are watchable. The BBC have done a good job with what they were left with, Lee Mckenzie is turning into a very good presenter in her own right and their build-up and overall analysis is better. When I can I prefer and watch the BBC. Sky need to really think about the style of coverage they are doing, to my mind it doesn't feel like a dedicated F1 channel yet, and the programming at times feels very corporate and wooden.
John M Edwards
I invested in the sky HD and The F1 option but I feel disappointed with what they present, the three presenters are sometimes like the grumpy old men and outside of Martin Brundell misinformed . The Anthony Davidson bit is completely irrelevant going on about how he missed the apex by 3mm etc[boring!]. The intro looks like it was knocked up in a fag break and the BBC always put on a piece before the race which is sometimes humorous or informative whereas sky is usually very dull and not worth watching.
Then there is the shouting on and on and on if I have to watch the sky presentation I turn the sound of and use the radio 5 commentary which is always excellent.
They way I work it is if BBC show is live watch that and record sky or if BBC is highlights record that and watch sky with radio 5 commentary. To be honest the 3 presenters on sky seem very disjointed whereas the BBC David very informative Jake very bright and chatty and Eddy full of humour and they work well together with all the right contacts with the teams. When you watch the sky presenters walking down pit road sometimes it is just waffle or they are floundering but so serous no humour.
The overall presentation from sky is pretty poor and they really need shake up.
Brian Davies
Sky Coverage is absolutely brilliant, yes there is the odd thing that needs to be improved but in my opinion there is no choice between Sky and BBC… give me SKY every time. Too much criticism of David Croft by others here… when watching BBC last year especially the practice sessions on the Red Button, every time I said "Why cant they get Crofty to do the race commentary"… good on Sky for giving him the opportunity.
Long may the Sky coverage continue… with one or 2 tweaks. BBC coverage RIP… perhaps BBC will even bring Clare Balding or Sue Barker soon!!!
Janet Stevenson
We do not subscribe to Sky, however several of our friends do, the comment from them is that if its covered on both they always watch the BBC as the coverage is so much more interesting and professional. Personally if we had to subscribe to F1 and had the option to do so on the BBC I wouldn't mind but nothing on Gods earth is worth paying a penny to Sky.
Why can't there just be an F1 channel manned by good presenters like David Jake and Eddie which had no adverts or affiliation to Sky, (who can't do sport properly in any shape or form) I would willingly pay to watch it. Or failing that why don't BBC and ITV share the coverage, ok we would have to put up with some adverts but at least the ITV can cover sport well on the whole. Incidentally Martin Brundle is no big loss to the program I always thought he was the weak link in the show anyway. As for Canada we ended up listening to it on the radio as the highlights were far too late for us poor working plebs.
Come on guys lets get the sport back where it belongs, perhaps if Bernie wasn't so hard up he wouldn't need to price the BBC out of the market. If its not his fault then maybe he can use his influence to get shot of the person who did cock it all up for us. I am someone who spent years trying not to fall asleep through the Ferrari era now we get to brilliant entertainment and half of it gets taken away from us, its not fair and my love of the sport will not ever make me subscribe to Sky so take the BBC out of the equation as I am sure will happen and there will be more fans lost to the sport.
Jonathan McDonnell
I am writing this not having read any of the other comments previously submitted.
From my perspective the BBC coverage of last year was second to none. No gimmicks, no questions for the 10 second attention span brigade, just good intelligent comments coming from people who actually know what they are talking about. The access to teams and drivers was great, and the chemistry with Brundle, Coultard, Jordan and Humphree was great. I just wish we could get it back…
Roll onto 2012 - I do not pay for Sky and will not pay for it but I have managed to catch a couple of the races on Sky that were not covered by the BBC. I find it too gimmicky overly padded and David Crofts ridiculous false excitement gets on my nerves. Strangely when he was on the BBC during the Friday sessions I thought he was fine…
What I do like is some of the other shows that you can see on Sky F1. The GP legends and of course some of the races from the past 20 years are of course always very interesting…
Robert Jonson
I won't pay for Sky. I pay my licence fee. If it could give me F1 before, why not now? Surely the ratings the BBC were getting for its F1 programming justified the expense. This year, I have to resort to delayed BBC highlights when applicable, or finding other, less "legal" means to watch. However, I was fortunate enough to be entertained by Sky Sports F1 at my friend's house during the Canadian Grand Prix, and it felt like 2011 all over again, except it wasn't.
The Sky Sports F1 broadcast feels like a dumbed-down, dry and humorless attempt to copy the BBC's award winning coverage from years gone by. Oh, in HD and 5.1 surround sound, in case you'd forgotten. Jesus! No idea who the bloke presenting was, but he was awful. Inane questions, and to me generally didn't convey a sense that he really knew his stuff. There was no "chemistry" between the presenters which you feel with on the BBC. And David Croft seemed to be so much more annoying than I remembered him to be on BBC Radio 5 Live.
I'm glad I didn't fork out the money for Sky's coverage. Not that I would want to prop up a company ultimately owned by the Devil himself - not that it needs propping up. But I still feel so cheated and upset at this rights deal initiated by the BBC. I thought I'd get over it with time; it's nearly July, and I still simmer about it every day.
This is from someone who has watched every race live since the 1996 Australian Grand Prix, when I was introduced to the sport as a young boy. That is, until the 2012 Australian Grand Prix. I've lost interest in a sport I loved to watch and to follow. Not really anymore. I'm only occasionally dabbing in and out of the BBC's (still pretty damn good) offerings. It's a total shame. A crying shame.
Ian Richardson
Like at lot of folk, possibly the majority, I took a deep breath and leap of faith before 'investing' £10 a month in Sky F1 HD. So has my 'investment' paid off? I would say it has with a very creditable 90% maybe even as high as 95%!
To be honest HD YES 5.1 Dolby NO, and that from someone whose career has been a professional sound mixer on TV drama and feature films! Yes it's nice to have the engine behind you when in car but stereo suffices for the rest!
I agree in general with the editor in his summary of the various strengths of the Sky presenters, reporters and commentators with this caveat, Simon Lazenby has improved, but his stilted delivery is a pain, repeating everything that comes into his earpiece almost verbatim, so unless he can overcome this I'm afraid his days are numbered. The likes of Jake Humphries, and his ability to take gallery guidance without showing it, is a scarce talent these days!
I was doubtful of Georgie Thompson, but her undoubted interest in the subject is showing through, and unlike Simon she can take gallery talkback without showing it! As for her eyes glazing over when at the Sky pad with Anthony Davidson, get well soon Ant, is a little far from the truth. Sky deserves some credit here for introducing a novel idea, yes it's gimmicky, but for those of us old enough to remember the stories of Fangio's preciseness in his driving appreciate Ant's observations. For those who don't recall the stories of Fangio, there is a true story of a commentator placing a coin in the hot tarmac at the apex of a corner and watching Fangio 'kissing' the coin lap after lap! Such was his precision in an era of brute force when driving those cars. So keep Ant's and Karun's analysis in please Sky F1 HD!
When Georgie has been allowed out of the pad, her on screen performance has been smooth and flowing, a real credit. It's been proved by the presence of Natalie and the BBC's Lee McKenzie that women can and do have a natural interest in F1 and their enthusiasm can enhance the interest of the audience. Where Natalie is good at getting the 'goods' in the pit lane, I can see Georgie replacing Simon and the package improving! OK she is a little on the short size, but couldn't Sky provide some comfortable raised shoes for her rather than those real heel breakers that she wears now? Peter Sellers along with Tom Cruse hardly rate as tall actors do they, so height shouldn't be a problem when presenting F1 on TV.
We now come to the editor's back sheep, namely David Croft! Sorry but I can't agree with almost anything you said re David's style of delivery! Have you forgotten a certain Murray Walker? Now David isn't a Murray, but his enthusiasm certainly is! I don't think Martin looks at David with distain but at a person who has a love of the sport from a pure journalists perspective and compliments Martin's amazing transformation from driver to commentator with ease. Anybody who trips over there words every now and again in an effort to get them all out is bound to happen. As much as I like Robert Preston,he could NEVER be a race commentator, we'd be on the last lap after he had summarised the first. So no, David Croft is an asset not a liability.
As you said both Damon Hill and Johnny Herbert compliment the coverage, but let's not forget they aren't professional TV folk so expect minor verbal inaccuracies. Not everybody has Eddie Jordan's gift of the gab!
Finally we come onto the real gems of the pack, Father Ted and Magnificent Martin! Ted and his undoubted geekiness is what F1 is all about! In the same way the Sky Pad analyses the drivers talents, so Ted compliments that with his analysis of the cars and teams. Where this could be improved is to assign a cameraman to Ted who understands, and listens to Ted's observations and musings. There have been some notable exceptions to this!
Lastly to Martin, and quite how he contained his pride after Le Mans I don't know. He has supported an ear to ear grin from Friday onwards. As a Dad he is obviously so proud of Alex, even bestowing the ultimate praise that Alex was faster than him! I don't know how much Martin has spent bank rolling Alex in his career, but it has been worth every single penny!
So, all in all, I'm happy I spent my hard earned money on my Sky HD subscription, sadly it doesn't cover Goodwood next weekend, but I suppose they have to draw the line somewhere.
Michael Christopher Scott
I am lucky (kinda) that I am living in NYC but I get watch the SkyF1 coverage. I love the post race show, the driver corral interviews.
You guys don't seem to understand; here in the US, we only get 22 minutes of pre-race, sometimes in post race, we get the world feed podium press conference. That is it.
Yea, there are the 'issues' with the gimmicky Skypad (they just need to use it better, like with the explanation of Maldonado not being able to steer as he went over the curb when he crashed Chicken Hammy out)
I agree that I am not sure what Georgie Thompson's role is; I would hate to say that I just like looking at her, but I am in NYC, girls like her are around every corner. She should try to specialise in something.
What I would love to see is a some real investigative work; something cool, something techno. So far I like most of Martin's pieces but that is because he is a racer. The Sky Team needs to pick up their game in FINDING stuff, researching it and presenting it to the public in manner that is intriguing. (not a tarted up Powerpoint... you know what I mean)
This is the age of the infographic; give us data. Show us stuff that is not regular; Sky you have access to everything, do something with it.
Come on, F1 is the deal. If you cannot find 20 (2 minute segments) in a year, then you shouldn't be on tv making heaps.
My 2p... Come on Sky, Go Big or Go Home.
Peter Barrett
No sky - can't comment.
BBC coverage of F1 is good when live, barely, but just adequate when not.
Where I work, barely 15% of the workers are willing to pay Sky for the football - F1, forget it.
So tell Berny and the teams, if F1 is not on free view... its only in the newspapers. How much sponsorship will that generate.