Martin Brundle & David Coulthard to be F1 commentators

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by jab

Read "The Mail"

I read that something awful had exploded.

Conflict of interests. Please Daily Mail look after me for I am an idiot. There is no issue here. I am grown up enough to think for myself. Apart from anything else they made a joke of it when DC said he thought Red Bull would win. And of course it was quite likely they would. It was an interesting aside for people who aren't thickos.

I'm not keen on this, but lets see how it pans out. It could work. I wasn't keen on Jake, but he's worked out very nicely.

[strider]

Obviously you don't have to read this if you don't want, but here are James Allen's thoughts about the new commentary pairing.

He makes a couple of points that are interesting and has been pretty objective in my view.

[Fox89]

Martin talks at the Autosport show. I love this bit:

I can do the shouty bits when I have to, and yes it is a different job so I will do it differently - but I won't pretend I won't know what I am talking about.
"I won't give him gormless questions like, 'oh that right rear tyre looks a bit odd doesn't it David'.

<Hint hint nudge nudge Jonathan!>

[strider]

I've looked at several of the interviews he gave, including one with Jody Scheckter. He was very eloquent, very candid and well up for the job in my opinion.

[ECW Dan Selby]

That dig at Jonathan was funny...

Selby

[Paradise City]

It's a legitimate question. If the wheel is slightly out of alignment you could ask that.

I think the idea of a lead commentator was to introduce the sport to the non-expert. The lead would then ask the expert on behalf of the confused public . I think often lead commentators take this way too far. Legard seemed to commentate [as per his radio habits] as if the public was so non-expert that they couldn't even see!

For the fans who take more than a trivial interest in the sport two commentators who know the sport inside out will be refreshing. Also Brundle will be sly enough to keep the non-expert onboard without giving the impression that we are all ten year olds while he's at it!

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

to be fair they (MB and DC) are both pundits disguised as proper journalists/reporters. as such all anyone should expect from them is personal opinion mixed in with some funny anecdotes.

What's a "proper journalist"? As a profession that runs politicians and lawyers pretty close in the popularity and integrity stakes, I think we can manage without proper journalists in F1. Let's just settle for knowledgable people who speak lucidly and intelligently. Like MB, for instance. Although I was not keen on their joint gridwalks, I think MB and DC will do a fine job in the commentary box.

Incidentally is there going to be a gridwalk in 2011? I've heard no mention of it. Obviously it won't be DC doing it because the Beeb have said he will be rushing up to the commentary box from the pitlane. It would be surprising if they are then going to have MB racing in at the last minute from a different direction. Maybe ther will be no gridwalk. To be honest, I think it was becoming a bit threadbare. It has become increasingly difficult for MB to get anything of interest out of most of the drivers (Jenson Button excepted) and the running battle with that German woman has become tiresome. Plus the one thing I dislike about MB's television technique has been his fawning interviewing of showbiz nonentities. (Why are they on the grid anyway?)

[Paradise City]

He was saying on one of the Autosport youtube videos that if the grid is near the box he'll walk the grid if the box isn't nearby he won't do it. I think he said he was tired of the gridwalk after 14 years shoving people out of the way.

I don't really mind too much. The interviews with celebs that are completely ignorant of the sport and just want to be snapped are irritating. The grid walk has had other cracking moments though. I just hope they don't put in Eddie Jordan as replacement. Maybe Brundle will split the gridwalk duties with Coulthard.

[kipper]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

Incidentally is there going to be a gridwalk in 2011?

From what I have read, I think the grid walks will continue in 2011 although Martin Brundle will only do those where the commentary box is in close proximity to the grid. On the occasions where it isn't, someone else will stand in (such as David Coulthard).

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Fox89

Martin talks at the Autosport show. I love this bit:

<Hint hint nudge nudge Jonathan!>

Originally Posted by ECW Dan Selby

That dig at Jonathan was funny...

Selby

I would go further than that.... it gave me a genuine 'out loud' one of these moments.

Dont seem to get enough 'out loud' moments these days. Even with the keyboard clean-up it was worthwhile.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by kipper

From what I have read, I think the grid walks will continue in 2011 although Martin Brundle will only do those where the commentary box is in close proximity to the grid. On the occasions where it isn't, someone else will stand in (such as David Coulthard).

I'm sure it was not my imagination, and it may have been at Brazil when DC assisted on the gridwalk, and made the comment re Mercedes shrouding the rear of their car in secrecy.... for DC to say 'as if anyone is interested in your developments' to the Merc guys, or words to that effect.

Maybe a trial run for future concepts should DC be (as he has now been) confirmed by the BBC as expanding his pundit role within the broadcasts.

[sizzle]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

It's a legitimate question. If the wheel is slightly out of alignment you could ask that.

Yes Jonathan you could

[tristancliffe]

Martin Brundle on Twitter:

"Jonathan Legard is a lovely bloke, we never had a 'personality clash' or a cross word. There's so much nonsense gets cut and pasted as fact"

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

What's a "proper journalist"?...

people who go to school to learn how to do it properly.

perhaps its more important for print journalist but F1 needs more not less people who know how to provide well researched, objective, and well written commentaries...or what we end up with is more sensationalist stories about what someone buys for their children.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by sizzle

Yes Jonathan you could

My real identity is Jeremy Paxman.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

people who go to school to learn how to do it properly.

All of them, or just the ones that learn journalism, but not life.

perhaps its more important for print journalist but F1 needs more not less people who know how to provide well researched, objective, and well written commentaries...or what we end up with is more sensationalist stories about what someone buys for their children.

Which is that an argument for? Since taught journalism has become more common place I wouldn't say standards have improved!

The best are people who aren't trained journalists, but have a grounding in other areas and then also have a way with words.

Just being taught a way with words, but having no experience is worthless.
Having experience, but being unable to articulate is also bad. It is a hard discipline to do well, but I wouldn't rate being schooled in it over experience.

[jab]

I say this because I want to be a journalist/writer in motorsport so I have a vested interest, but I'd say the sensationalism comes down to newspapers and websites hiring generic journalists on the cheap rather than someone who knows a lot about the subject. Technical skill seems to be prized more than knowledge, which to me isn't particularly fair or right. And it's not fair on the guys like Saward, James Allen and co who go to most/all of the races, have direct contacts, reliable sources and produce fair stories, but don't get the hits

Looking around the forums, I see plenty of people who could do a great job writing for said websites/papers, much better than some of the hacks that are getting paid to do it

[chillibowl]

ok maybe i was a little one sided in my last post and there are of course exceptions to every rule etc...so for sure a combination of education and experience is the ideal. i do think school is the place where you learn the fundamentals of a craft. sure that school can be on the job training but bottom line is you need an understanding of those fundamentals in order to excel at your craft regardless of your experience.

journalists like Saward appeal to me because a) it is clear he is very knowledgeable and b) because he clearly possess a very strong affinity to traditional journalistic ethics. his articles are well researched and well written. if he has an opinion he wants to share it is supported by hard facts. i am proud and confident if i repeat something from one of his articles it has his stamp that it is verified and truthful.

now i just dont get that feeling from the pundits, experts and insiders whose stories and opinions fill the vast majority of trade publications and websites. their anecdotes are there to provide entertainment which is great fun, but at the end of the day its just hearsay to me.

personally i like getting the facts and making up my own mind. doesnt mean i am ever right though and it doesnt mean i dont like entertainment...it just means i dont like my commentary team dressed up like journalists.

[Adam43]

I am interested in the perception that it is the "pundits, experts and insiders" that provide the entertainment that is just hearsay. I'm not trying to disagree here, but it is something I find odd. There are plenty of these people who just fill column inches, but the pointless hearsay seems to come from those without any previous experience. IMHO.

To me it isn't a requirement to be an ex-F1 driver here. I wouldn't have thought the MB/DC combo was a natural one. We'll see. However while I don't see the ex-driver (or team boss, EJ) giving you a natural ability here, neither do I like it when a professional journalist (simply and only) is that person trying to cover our sport.

Someone like Raymond Baxter is the man here. Not a F1 driver, but a man with a background. Not a journalist by schooling, but a man with experience.

How can you comment on other people's experiences if you have none of your own?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Adam43

How can you comment on other people's experiences if you have none of your own?

well its a forum and my my experience comes from having opinions. i have had them all my life and i form them pretty much the same as anyone else does on partial information and try to make the best of it as i can.

i dont pretend that it is fact. just a casual observer thats all. if i have a medium (public in this case) to express my opinions and its just as a fan. but according to your posts the very fact that i am capable of writing about something and have had experience in so much as i follow the sport somehow classifies me as a capable of being an F1 journalist (certainly not a good one but one nevertheless).

but maybe i need more experience. if i follow the circus around for a few more years and develop some contacts does that somehow make me a better at doing my job?

and really thats my point. you dont just get to be a journalist by reporting on things regardless of your level of experience. if you just have F1 related experience you are an "expert" or pundit. if you are a reporter then you are a journalist. and if you are both then yes i agree you are something both rare and special.

saying you need to have F1 experience to report on it is like saying a person need to have experience running a government before they have a right to report on it....after having just typed that maybe its true but having an education helps.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

well its a forum and my my experience comes from having opinions. i have had them all my life and i form them pretty much the same as anyone else does on partial information and try to make the best of it as i can.

I think that might be my point.

saying you need to have F1 experience to report on it...

This isn't what I am saying. As the example of Raymond Baxter shows.

...is like saying a person need to have experience running a government before they have a right to report on it....after having just typed that maybe its true but having an education helps.

I am saying that only having the education doesn't do it. I have education coming out of my ears and it helps, it really does. However the last bit, the bit that gives you the last tenth, comes from experience. Not necessarily the specific experience of what you are reporting on, but general experience.

The best, IMHO, do not have a background of only training. They did other things. They had broad experience. I think that if your experience is only education or only F1 then you won't be much cop.

[strider]

You know who I would choose if you want a Raymond Baxter equivalent.

I did hear, and I can't remember where which isn't very helpful, another reason why Martin Brundle might have wanted to change his job description.

Anthony Davidson has emerged as another, younger expert commentator with more recent F1 experience and a lighter touch. If there's stiff competition headed your way, sometimes it's best to move on.

The other factor is that as as early as mid-summer I heard that David Coulthard was looking to extend his role within the team and there was only one place to go for him to achieve that.

[jab]

Originally Posted by strider

I did hear, and I can't remember where which isn't very helpful

It was in Tony Dodgins' recent article, wasn't it?

[strider]

Yes, that's the one. I'm never sure how seriously to take him.

[Chiefy]

I look forward to the new line-up. I have been consistent in my view that the BBC should not be afraid to play around with the commentary team in order to get the best results for the viewers. Legard was agonisingly poor, too badly hung up on stock catchphrases that didn't mean anything. Coulthard has a bucketload of experience as a recent F1 driver and he's spent two years honing his broadcasting talents with Jake And EJit. I think his measured style will serve him - and us - well in commentary.

Brundle is good enough to lead. He quite effortlessly translates the technical intricacies of the racing into something rather more tactile that we can all understand. And he doesn't make us feel stupid and he doesn't make himself look stupid. "It's still a wing, isn't it?" is something we won't hear from him!