I still enjoy the programme but as always the brief, or rather the continual reference to it by the judge, spoils it.
This particular year is going to be especially irritating as a potentially inferior dish should not get more points just because the chef gives it a funny name or puts bells and whistles round the plate or brings it to the pass in drag dressed as a waitress or any other gimmick.
Putting that aside though it doesn't seem that failure to make any attempt to meet the brief is being reflected in the marks as Adam has done quite well. It's difficult to be too critical of marking without having tasted the food ourselves but I just get the feeling the chef judging the food has pretty much made up his mind who is going through before the week begins and it seems very difficult for a newcomer to beat established chefs. Then again maybe the more established chefs are just better.
One other theme to the marking in previous series though hasn't carried on this week. Previously I would say often the chef in third place would have been given a point more than the second placed chef to keep the competition alive and this wasn't the case this week.
A final observation - Corrigan seems less stern than he has been (or has acted) in previous series and seems more generous with his marks or is it just me that has that perception ?