Archive: louise-goodman

The interactive forum

The BBC have a lot of great points to their coverage, but this is possibly the greatest innovation they have come up with. For an hour or so after the BBC One programme has finished, they continue analysing the race on the Red Button. This is something that simply would never have happened on ITV, so this is another great reason why the BBC is the right home for F1.

ITV’s post-race programme always felt like a rush job. The BBC’s probably would too if I stopped watching when BBC One stopped broadcasting it. But that extra hour feels just right. An extra hour to immerse myself in F1 news, interviews, analysis, footage, insight and knowledge. And there are a few viewer questions thrown in for good measure. Great stuff.

Red Button extras

Here is something else that you couldn’t have got on ITV — extra material on the red button. There are the rolling highlights, which I have personally never used and don’t really see the point of. It seems like a waste of a stream to me, but then again the BBC probably don’t have anything else to put on this stream (I understand that they are not allowed to broadcast the official timing screens).

But the on-board channel is a great addition to the coverage. I always have my laptop open with the on-board stream running. For one thing, it often catches incidents that are missed by the World Feed. It is notable that a lot of the BBC’s post-race analysis consists of footage from this channel — it is valuable stuff. During the German GP, they even interrupted the World Feed on BBC One to show a replay from the on-board channel! It is also interesting to watch the on-board channel during lulls in the race. I’m sure it will come in handy for Valencia.

The BBC also provide a handful of alternative audio options, though I never make use of them. I like Jonathan Legard and Martin Brundle is still interesting to listen to even if he grates more these days. But for those who haven’t taken to Legard, it is no surprise that the Radio 5 Live commentary option with David Croft and Anthony Davidson seems to have gone down a storm.

CBBC commentary seems less popular. I wonder if it is used very often. I can’t imagine I would have used it as a child. It’s like Newsround. No-one ever watches it because if you’re too young to be interested in the news, you simply don’t watch it. But if you’re old enough to be interested in the news, you watch the proper news, not the kiddy patronising version. CBBC commentary seems like a waste of an audio stream to me.

Pit lane reports

There are some very noticeable changes in the way the BBC deal with reports from the pitlane as opposed to ITV. On ITV, whenever there was a pitstop they would throw to Ted Kravitz who would then commentate on it. It wasn’t good. Usually he would just say, "yes, the fuel hose is in. And they have put new tyres on. And he’s away, good stop!" It felt pointless, although I guess it punctuated the commentary in a way. But I prefer it when Legard and Brundle commentate on pitstops, and for Ted Kravitz to be used when something genuinely interesting happens in the pitlane.

Meanwhile, Lee McKenzie is doing a fine job for her first season in F1 full time. She has plenty of experience in motorsport, so there are no real issues with her there. There have been one or two hairy interviews, particularly when she clearly got at Lewis Hamilton who responded tersely after being asked how it felt to be lapped by Button. But in a way that revealed a lot about Lewis Hamilton’s mindset.

In fact, Lee McKenzie seems quite good at that. Rubens Barrichello completely opened up in an unprecedented way after the German Grand Prix, all as a result of a simple but carefully-worded question: "It was going so well, what went wrong?" You could argue that it was never really going well for Barrichello, but the question obviously confirmed in Barrichello’s mind that he was on for a good result, hence his amazing rant.

On ITV, Louise Goodman often got some very interesting quotes out of drivers, but normally of the post-watershed variety. Not good when Webber is talking about kids fucking it up on breakfast television.

Louise Goodman was certainly good at finding drivers very quickly after they had retired. At the start of the season, it was noted by some that Lee McKenzie appeared to be much slower at tracking down the drivers. It transpires that the BBC are choosing to pre-record these interviews, probably to save money.

I also wonder if there is a different approach among F1 journalists in general this year. For the first time, drivers are mandated to conduct interviews after they have retired. Perhaps the BBC are going for the safe option, remaining in the designated area for a 100% chance of getting an interview, albeit one that is slightly late, rather than taking a gamble by going on a hunt to get a quicker interview at the risk of missing the driver completely.

It is noticeable that Lee McKenzie isn’t getting much airtime during the races though. This is probably because there are very few retirements in F1 these days. Given now that Ted Kravitz doesn’t have to do the whole "they’re putting fuel in his car!!!" schtick, I wonder if there is really a need for there to be two pitlane reporters. I wouldn’t know, but it seems as though they are doing less work than they did on ITV.

Something I would like to see from the pitlane reporters is more input in terms of analysing strategy. ITV were always good at this, because James Allen is a genius at working out strategies. Even if he wasn’t a great main commentator, he was always excellent as a pitlane reporter, and always had the edge when it came to reading the strategic elements of the race.

But reading strategy now appears to be the biggest weakness of the BBC’s coverage. I would like to see Ted Kravitz try and think about strategy more. Or, if Ted is not up to the task, bring James Allen on board as a strategy analyst.

ITV showed that when it mattered, they could cover an unfolding event properly. Even though it was a low point for Formula 1, the 2005 United States Grand Prix was a high point for ITV’s coverage. When it became clear that there was a chance that the race would go ahead without the Michelin runners, ITV ripped up the running order and covered the unfolding scenario almost as though it was a rolling news channel.

When the Michelin runners pulled in at the end of the formation lap, ITV could easily have chosen to dump the coverage. Apparently, some channels around the world did. But ITV, to their credit, stuck with the race which was in a prime-time slot, knowing that what was happening was a huge story for Formula 1. The coverage itself was superb, striking just the right balance and bringing across to the viewer just what a farce it had become.

As James Allen says:

Commentating on the ‘race’ was completely different from any other race, as the story was as much about how the situation had arisen, how the crowd was taking it and where the sport would go next as it was about race action.

And Ted Kravitz points out:

Open hostility amongst the teams, the drivers literally powerless, and us on ITV broadcasting a meaningless race with six cars and ripping into the product we were meant to be promoting: a business that had forgotten it should be a sport.

That edition was nominated for a Bafta, but it didn’t win. Instead, ITV won Baftas for its coverage of the first race wins for Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton. In both instances, the coverage was not particularly good for a host of reasons which I have outlined before.

ITV pulled off a master-stroke by selecting Martin Brundle has Murray Walker’s co-commentator. By all accounts, Brundle was a revelation as a television presenter, apparently leaving producers agog at his seemingly natural talent in front of the camera. It is all the more impressive when you consider the fact that Martin Brundle didn’t even want to be with ITV — he was still after a race seat!

Martin Brundle’s gridwalks have been one of the few must-see aspects of ITV’s pre-race coverage. However, over time it has become more and more farcical, as Brundle was increasingly asked by producers to interview irrelevant celebrities, and drivers continually give him the cold shoulder.

Mind you, the gridwalk has provided one of ITV’s finest comedy moments.

It wasn’t the only time a potty-mouthed driver let rip on live television. One of the most memorable was Mark Webber being interviewed after Sebastian Vettel crashed into him at Fuji last year. Live on British breakfast television, he explained, “It’s just kids. They do a good job, then they fuck it all up!”

And in Australia 2008, David Coulthard actually threatened to kick “three colours of shit out of the little bastard” Felipe Massa.

Meanwhile, Louise Goodman has said that this classic DC moment was her most memorable interview at ITV. Check out the professionalism of Jim Rosenthal!

In the background of that clip you can hear pundit Tony Jardine trying his hardest to stifle his laughter. The analyst was the only person other than Murray Walker to make the leap from the BBC to ITV in 1997, albeit in a different role (he was pitlane reporter at the Beeb). Tony Jardine remained with ITV until a few years ago. The decision to dispose of him in favour of Mark Blundell is one of the many questionable decisions that ITV have taken in recent years.

Simon Taylor used to work alongside Tony Jardine as pundit. He provided another comedy moment in 1997 when ITV inadvisedly presented the coverage for the Monaco Grand Prix from a yacht in the harbour. The boat bobbed up and down so much that Simon Taylor was unable to broadcast because he became seasick! I think a few viewers probably felt a bit seasick as well. ITV opted to present its Monaco coverage from a balcony in later years.

Simon Taylor was less engaging as a pundit and did not feature in ITV’s coverage for long. In fact, looking at the retrospective on ITV’s own website, it is as though Tony Jardine and Simon Taylor never existed.

All-in-all, I think the story of ITV’s coverage since 1997 is one that started off earnestly but dropped off over the years. The decision to hire experienced and respected analysts like Tony Jardine and Simon Taylor along with Murray Walker was the right move. It kept the F1 purists happy.

It certainly made up for the decision to employ Jim Rosenthal, someone who had no interest in F1 at the start, as the show’s anchor. I thought Jim Rosenthal did a very good job considering his inexperience of F1, and I think his understanding of the sport was very good by the time he left ITV-F1 a few years ago.

It was clear that ITV was proud that it had F1 coverage in 1997. I recall that in the run-up to their first race in Australia, ITV broadcast an entire evening of F1-based programming including a one-off chat show presented by Clive James and featuring several drivers, and a showing of the classic film Grand Prix.

And check out the original title sequence. It is dark, mysterious, and classy — a complete world away from the cheese-fest that ITV-F1 has become.

Looking at some of ITV’s programmes from the early years, which can be easily found on YouTube, the tone of the programme is surprisingly different. The pace is slower, as though the coverage is being given room to breathe — very different from the frenetic Hamilton worshipping of later years.

Over the years, the best aspects of ITV’s coverage were stripped away one-by-one. Murray Walker’s retirement was a big blow which I don’t think ITV ever quite recovered from. While in the early years ITV hauled a dedicated studio around the world to present its track-side coverage from, more recently the poor presenters have been left shouting above the noise of engines in the pitlane — completely pointless.

The decision along the line to ditch its respected analysts in favour of the more populist Mark Blundell was questionable. And the general focus on light features and Hamilton-hype in the later years left a sour taste.

Having said that, F1 coverage has undoubtedly come on leaps and bounds. Occasional technical features fronted by Martin Brundle were excellent. And it has to be said that the hour-long build up that ITV typically offered was a tremendous commitment, even if all too often the post-race analysis was hurriedly wrapped up if the race was longer than expected (i.e. any time it rained, or any grand prix shown in prime time).

And you have to feel sorry in a way for ITV. When they picked up the F1 rights in 1996, they will have been expecting F1 to be on the cusp of a Damon Hill era, thereby guaranteeing British bums on seats. Unfortunately, the Damon Hill era fizzled out even more quickly than it began, as Hill drove for the hopelessly uncompetitive Arrows team in 1997. Then ITV had to suffer the ignominy of covering the dull years of Schumacher dominance and Ferrari dirty scheming.

So it’s worth saying thank you to ITV and North One for the work they have put into bringing F1 to our homes for the past twelve seasons. We complained about the adverts and James Allen, but they also brought F1 coverage in the UK to a new level and the BBC have been given a tough act to follow.

Well I was absolutely overjoyed to see Fernando Alonso win a second race in a row after such a torrid season. The Singapore GP win must have been nice for him, but it can’t have been satisfying. That was down to luck and the ridiculous Safety Car rules.

This one, though, was a proper win, achieved completely on merit. Okay, so he benefited from the slightly clown-like snafus (yet again!) of McLaren and Ferrari. But he was able to get past the hard-working Robert Kubica and genuinely had a better race than probably any other driver in the field.

Part of this must undoubtedly be down to the improvements made by Renault towards the end of this season. What had been a nightmare of a season so far has been salvaged. From nowhere, all of a sudden Alonso has as many wins this season as the reigning World Champion. Good work.

Renault’s enhanced form is underlined by the fact that Nelsinho Piquet finished 4th. Not to do the Brazilian down, but I think we can safely say that a lot of the improved performance comes down to his car.

Renault’s resurgence also underlines the problem that Red Bull face. Beforehand they could just blame the engine. Now that Renault have won two races on the trot, that is beginning to look like a poor excuse. Of course, Red Bull could still be stuck with the old engines, but I would have thought Renault might be up for playing the great Red Bull engine comparison PR game as well as Ferrari have.

You have to hand it to Robert Kubica as well. With two races still to go, he is still in the championship. And as good as the BMW car is, I doubt many other drivers would have been able to achieve that.

After the Italian Grand Prix I wanted to write a post pondering if Kubica still had a chance to win the title, but I didn’t have the time. After the Singapore GP, I thought Kubica really had dropped out of the hunt, so I didn’t post it. Now it seems as though my gut instinct was correct. It is, of course, a slim chance. His deficit is twelve points. But, as is well recorded, Kimi Räikkönen came back from a 17 point deficit in the final two races of the season.

If Ferrari and McLaren keep on screwing it up, anything can happen. There is absolutely no doubt that Hamilton completely screwed up in Fuji. Even the arrogant one himself put his hands up and admitted that he had made a mistake. And I have to say, he looked rather upset with himself in the post-race interview with ITV’s Louise Goodman.

This is ominous for Lewis Hamilton fans. He was meant to have sorted himself out. He had got rid of the childish “win or nothing” mentality, and now had the composure to time his moves correctly. In short, he was supposed to have ditched his impatience.

So much for that then. He had a bad start and then appeared to totally panic, getting the first corner completely wrong. After a tap from Massa he ended up at the back of the field. What was perhaps most worrying about Hamilton’s performance in Fuji was that he completely failed to make any progress after reaching the back — possibly because of a rushed strategy call from McLaren.

McLaren’s Heikki Kovalainen also had a rare engine failure. It is worrying for reliability issues to appear at this stage of the season.

Felipe Massa found himself in a similar predicament to Hamilton. He is reputed to be bad at coming back through the field, but I actually think one of Massa’s strongest points is his ability to overtake. In 2007 he passed more cars than anyone else and he has produced my favourite move of the season so far in Canada.

The end result is that Massa salvaged two points from a disastrous race, while Hamilton got bogged down in the midfield. Hamilton should have made more of this race, and when you remember that he could have made do with a safe result in the points rather than a risky attempt for the win, this is not what his fans will want to see. Even more worrying is the fact that he promises to go all out for the win in China. This is not necessary. Did he not learn from last season?

Just like last year, it looks like it is beginning to all fall apart from Hamilton at the very end of the season. What should perhaps be worrying for Lewis Hamilton fans is that he appears to have hit the ‘self destruct’ button a whole race earlier than last season. Moreover, this year the gap to his nearest rival is just five points, and the gap to the outside bet is 12 points. Last year it was 17 points and he still lost.

Finally, spare a thought for Adrian Sutil. He had a storming first lap, avoiding the first corner carnage to hit the apex. He was running in an excellent 10th position when a puncture put paid to his race.

Well that’s blown it. The most exciting new talent to hit Formula 1 in a long time is about to find himself in the centre of the dreaded British tabloid hype. Jenson Button wilted under the spotlight. Lewis Hamilton might not cope much better, despite the nerves of steel he has shown in his career so far.

A few people are worried that he will catch the “Formula 1 disease” and lose his racing edge, opting for a safe 8 or 6 points instead of taking the sort of risky moves we have seen from him. More worryingly, Hamilton will have to take the chequered flag soon, otherwise the media will make him pay the price. The fact that Button took so long to win a race suffocated the man. Expectations were too high. The higher the expectations, the bigger the pressure and the worse the performance.

And as Clive James has pointed out, it could be even worse for Lewis Hamilton because he is black. So not only is he a sportsman who is expected to win. He is also expected to be a representative of an entire race.

But Hamilton, as a rookie, has had it relatively easy so far. His first three races happened in relative anonymity as far as the general public was concerned. Now, it seems, everybody knows about him. He has made history, being the first ever driver to finish on the podium in each of his first three races.

Yesterday morning Jackie Stewart moved the hype machine up a gear by saying that he could be the World Champion this year. He would be the first rookie to do so, apart from the very first World Champion back in 1950 (because they were all rookies).

In one sense, Jackie Stewart is absolutely right. What he said is really no more than a statement of fact. Lewis Hamilton could win the World Championship this year. I said so myself yesterday. But there is a difference between me and Jackie Stewart.

I am an arsehole with a blog. I have never raced a car in my life. The ultimate armchair enthuso-dick. Stewart, on the other hand, is one of the most respected observers of Formula 1 in the world, a triple World Champion who has seen decades of racing and knows what he is talking about.

As such, Jackie Stewart’s word is taken as gospel. And because he has said that Hamilton could win the championship this year (a statement of fact), people will now start to expect him to actually win the championship this year (a fanciful tabloid seller).

Jackie Stewart’s appearance on Today was just the first step, and by the end of the morning Matt Bishop, editor-in-chief of F1 Racing, was on Radio Five Live spouting the biggest load of crap I have ever heard about a driver who has only driven three grands prix.

F1 Racing is a good magazine, but it likes its hype and sensationalism. It’s a bit like the NME of motor racing publications. “Why Nico Rosberg will be world champion!” and “Robert Kubica is the best rookie since Alonso!” are two typical headlines you might see in F1 Racing. They said similar sorts of things about Fisichella and Trulli a decade ago.

This is made worse by the fact that Hamilton happens to be British, so everyone in the country will be interested. I can see the next cover in my head. “HAMILTON! The best driver the world has ever seen! And why he will be the first ever rookie champ!”

I can understand this sort of thing when it is designed to sell magazines. But Matt Bishop was there on Radio Five Live representing Formula 1. He is meant to be a level-headed expert. So what did he say?

He said that Hamilton has trounced his team-mate Alonso. Well, he beat Alonso in the last race, but was it a trouncing? It looked to me as though Alonso was just struggling on the soft tyres. He had a bad race in Bahrain. But in the other two races, Alonso beat Hamilton. At best, I would say Hamilton and Alonso look neck-and-neck.

But what Mr Bishop went on to say after that was even worse, almost unimaginable. He said that Hamilton is one of five or six drivers in Formula 1 history who have ever had this much talent. And then a minute later he even trotted out the names of people who Hamilton is meant to be as good as.

Lewis Hamilton is in the same chapter only as Juan Manuel Fangio, Jim Clark, Ayrton Senna, Michael Schumacher. And that’s it.

So, with a career that has lasted just three races, Lewis Hamilton is, according to Matt Bishop, at least the fifth-best driver the world has ever seen; the latest in a short list of Formula 1′s most legendary names. That is just an extraordinary thing to say. He hasn’t even won a race yet. Hamilton has looked impressive, but give him a chance! This is just going to create expectations that simply will not be met any time soon.

And, predictably, it just gets worse with ITV’s coverage. ITV have spent the past few years creaming their pants over the distinctly average Jenson Button. Now that a genuinely good British driver has arrived it is just one big Lewis Hamilton wank-fest.

As if the interviews with his brother (eh? What other sports give you interviews with a sportsperson’s brother?) weren’t bad enough, ITV even manage to spend their whole time talking about Lewis Hamilton even when they are interviewing other drivers.

Before the race at the weekend there was an interview with Robert Kubica where Louise Goodman actually said to him something along the lines of, “But you’re making the sort of mistakes that Lewis Hamilton should be making as a rookie — what do you think of him?”

And then after the race there was an interview with Alonso where the questions about Alonso’s race came across as a chore for Louise Goodman, who obviously couldn’t wait to say, “But Lewis Hamilton had a good race, didn’t he?” Alonso frowned and politely said “yes”, but if I was in his shoes I might have given her a punch.

And the British public will tune into the Spanish Grand Prix next month expecting to see something amazing. And Hamilton will now know what is expected. And he will be unable to deliver it.

Let us just remember the last time a rookie driver had such an impressive start to a career. Jacques Villeneuve came damn close to winning his first race in 1996. He came close to winning that championship. He went on to win the Championship in 1997. But after that, his career was so shoddy that it became just one big embarrassment to the entire concept of the 1997 World Drivers’ Championship.

Something tells me that the next issue of F1 Racing won’t have the headline, “LEWIS HAMILTON: The next Jacques Villeneuve!”