But I think the judges´ personal preferences are a reflection of what people´s preferences are. They are four judges and 2 dislike the concept of Tiramisú, then surely that´s probably the kind of stats you would come across with the public, like 50 per cent can´t stand the dessert.
I hate it, I swear, tried so many, home-made, made it myself, supermarket ones, restaurants, fine dining establishments... and I just hated them all. Only once I liked and it was because it virtually had no coffee, or had Mocha instead which was more subtle and pleasant. I reckon that is what Colin should do, make it fit for everyone´s palate by toning down the coffee.
I understand exactly what it's like when you hate a particular dish or ingredient, but I can't agree that Colin should change his dish simply because some people don't like coffee!
In the first instance, two out of four judges disliking tiramisu is not a statistically relevant sample, so does not mean that 50% of the population don't like the dish.
Secondly, if we get to the point where some sort of poll has to be conducted to determine if a certain percentage of the population might not like a particular ingredient, we'd just end up with bland, insipid, "safe" dishes! There would certainly be a lot less of this "molecular gastronomy" as the majority of the public, if questioned, wouldn't want their food to be stuffed full of E-numbers!
Where would you draw the line? If personal taste preferences should taken into account, what about allergens?
Should Steph have avoided using hazelnuts in her main dish? Should shellfish no longer be an option for the fish course? Should wheat gluten be avoided?
Should pork and beef be off the menu because a significant number of people won't eat it for religious reasons?
Thankfully, the judges seemed to put aside their subjective views, and focused on the quality of the dishes. Even Matthew said that both chefs finished on "a spectacular high". That's the way it should be. They should assess the dishes as objectively as possible, otherwise they shouldn't be judging.
For that very reason, I had serious doubts about Jason Atherton's judging. He made a big deal about how he loved Japanese food so was really enthusiastic about Colin's fish dish even before he'd tasted it, and was talking about giving it a 9 or 10 ... despite the fact it had nothing to do with the brief ! What was all that about?
He than very clearly had a downer on foraged ingredients, clearly not realising that (a) berries, nuts, herbs, mushrooms etc are traditional "foraged" ingredients, and (b) he was supposed to be judging on the quality of the dish, not his own pet hates! :rolleyes:
The bottom line is that you're never going to cook a dish which everyone likes, and to be blunt, if some freeloader at the banquet doesn't like tiramisu, they have the option not to eat it!
But I think the judges´ personal preferences are a reflection of what people´s preferences are. They are four judges and 2 dislike the concept of Tiramisú, then surely that´s probably the kind of stats you would come across with the public, like 50 per cent can´t stand the dessert.
I hate it, I swear, tried so many, home-made, made it myself, supermarket ones, restaurants, fine dining establishments... and I just hated them all. Only once I liked and it was because it virtually had no coffee, or had Mocha instead which was more subtle and pleasant. I reckon that is what Colin should do, make it fit for everyone´s palate by toning down the coffee.
That's really not how statistics work. Two out of four people does not equal 50% of the population!
That's really not how statistics work. Two out of four people does not equal 50% of the population!
No, of course. i didn´t mean that anyway , I should have said that maybe it is an indicator of what the trend is out there, of course I may be wrong but I was drawing on the comments made on this board of people disliking Tiramisú aswell.
I understand exactly what it's like when you hate a particular dish or ingredient, but I can't agree that Colin should change his dish simply because some people don't like coffee!
In the first instance, two out of four judges disliking tiramisu is not a statistically relevant sample, so does not mean that 50% of the population don't like the dish.
Secondly, if we get to the point where some sort of poll has to be conducted to determine if a certain percentage of the population might not like a particular ingredient, we'd just end up with bland, insipid, "safe" dishes! There would certainly be a lot less of this "molecular gastronomy" as the majority of the public, if questioned, wouldn't want their food to be stuffed full of E-numbers!
Where would you draw the line? If personal taste preferences should taken into account, what about allergens?
Should Steph have avoided using hazelnuts in her main dish? Should shellfish no longer be an option for the fish course? Should wheat gluten be avoided?
Should pork and beef be off the menu because a significant number of people won't eat it for religious reasons?
Thankfully, the judges seemed to put aside their subjective views, and focused on the quality of the dishes. Even Matthew said that both chefs finished on "a spectacular high". That's the way it should be. They should assess the dishes as objectively as possible, otherwise they shouldn't be judging.
For that very reason, I had serious doubts about Jason Atherton's judging. He made a big deal about how he loved Japanese food so was really enthusiastic about Colin's fish dish even before he'd tasted it, and was talking about giving it a 9 or 10 ... despite the fact it had nothing to do with the brief ! What was all that about?
He than very clearly had a downer on foraged ingredients, clearly not realising that (a) berries, nuts, herbs, mushrooms etc are traditional "foraged" ingredients, and (b) he was supposed to be judging on the quality of the dish, not his own pet hates! :rolleyes:
The bottom line is that you're never going to cook a dish which everyone likes, and to be blunt, if some freeloader at the banquet doesn't like tiramisu, they have the option not to eat it!
I felt the same about Atherton. He seemed to be judging what he would have put on the plate instead of what was put infront of him.
Colin came to the decision to leave off the jelly in his main. I put that down to the complication and fuss of making them rather than how they added to the taste of the dish.
Atherton though said he was glad it was left off without even tasting it.
Plus there were other comments throughout the week where he seemed to show bias to really high end restaurant cooking over decent restaurant and gastropub offerings.
He didn't go overboard in the witty humour mantra as Corrican did but i'm not sure he himself could produce food for this brief.
Its the South West this week, with 3 new chefs. And Tom Kerridge is doing the judging.
Didn't instantly recognise the name Peter Sanchez-Iglesias but I did recognise the restaurant name Casamia.
It won Ramsay's Best Restaurant a few years back.
I can understand those who don't like tiramisu, the traditional Italian ones tend to be too strong.
I make my own and not much coffee is used tbh and you can hardly taste it. Tiramisu is meant to have marsala wine in but we make it without and we actually prefer it that way, it's more creamy.
The main issue if the tiramisu makes it is that it is a bit rich, so the dishes before might need to offset that a little.
Peter. Hm. It looks good but very late and doesn't care that he's putting others out.
Agree 100%.
Emily had every reason to be a bit pee'd off (no pun intended!) as she could have done with an extra 10 minutes to get her parfait to set. I loved her comment about Peter's dish when she asked the obvious question "What would it have been like if he'd served it on time?" :cool:
A BIG "hats off" to TK for penalising Peter for being late. I thought Phil Howard bottled it a couple of weeks ago when he didn't do that.
Hopefully Emily will be ok once her nerves settle, I liked the sound of her dish must more than the other two.
Doesn't look like TK is going to tolerate lateness or mistakes, could be some low marks coming. I get the feeling he's going to be looking for dishes that meet the brief more than some of the previous judges as well.
Comments
I understand exactly what it's like when you hate a particular dish or ingredient, but I can't agree that Colin should change his dish simply because some people don't like coffee!
In the first instance, two out of four judges disliking tiramisu is not a statistically relevant sample, so does not mean that 50% of the population don't like the dish.
Secondly, if we get to the point where some sort of poll has to be conducted to determine if a certain percentage of the population might not like a particular ingredient, we'd just end up with bland, insipid, "safe" dishes! There would certainly be a lot less of this "molecular gastronomy" as the majority of the public, if questioned, wouldn't want their food to be stuffed full of E-numbers!
Where would you draw the line? If personal taste preferences should taken into account, what about allergens?
Should Steph have avoided using hazelnuts in her main dish? Should shellfish no longer be an option for the fish course? Should wheat gluten be avoided?
Should pork and beef be off the menu because a significant number of people won't eat it for religious reasons?
Thankfully, the judges seemed to put aside their subjective views, and focused on the quality of the dishes. Even Matthew said that both chefs finished on "a spectacular high". That's the way it should be. They should assess the dishes as objectively as possible, otherwise they shouldn't be judging.
For that very reason, I had serious doubts about Jason Atherton's judging. He made a big deal about how he loved Japanese food so was really enthusiastic about Colin's fish dish even before he'd tasted it, and was talking about giving it a 9 or 10 ... despite the fact it had nothing to do with the brief ! What was all that about?
He than very clearly had a downer on foraged ingredients, clearly not realising that (a) berries, nuts, herbs, mushrooms etc are traditional "foraged" ingredients, and (b) he was supposed to be judging on the quality of the dish, not his own pet hates! :rolleyes:
The bottom line is that you're never going to cook a dish which everyone likes, and to be blunt, if some freeloader at the banquet doesn't like tiramisu, they have the option not to eat it!
That's really not how statistics work. Two out of four people does not equal 50% of the population!
No, of course. i didn´t mean that anyway
I agree, actually.
What "region" is it this week? Can only be better than last week. Let's face it, it can't get much worse...
Love coffee, hate tiramisu, you can gladly have mine.
No idea of the region, but lovely, lovely Tom Kerridge is the judge
Colin came to the decision to leave off the jelly in his main. I put that down to the complication and fuss of making them rather than how they added to the taste of the dish.
Atherton though said he was glad it was left off without even tasting it.
Plus there were other comments throughout the week where he seemed to show bias to really high end restaurant cooking over decent restaurant and gastropub offerings.
He didn't go overboard in the witty humour mantra as Corrican did but i'm not sure he himself could produce food for this brief.
It won Ramsay's Best Restaurant a few years back.
I make my own and not much coffee is used tbh and you can hardly taste it. Tiramisu is meant to have marsala wine in but we make it without and we actually prefer it that way, it's more creamy.
The main issue if the tiramisu makes it is that it is a bit rich, so the dishes before might need to offset that a little.
I just read the word Picnic on the chalkboards as Panic
I just said that out loud!
I'd order that if it was on a menu, comic relief or not
At this point i'd go with a greasy spoon ham, egg & chips
Peter. Hm. It looks good but very late and doesn't care that he's putting others out.
His comments went along with the marks and drew a line with the penalty point.
Phil is back tomorrow for the judging.
Good judging from TK and nice to see him make it clear early on that extreme lateness will be penalised.
I like that we have three new chefs, some of the previous rounds have been very predictable.
Agree 100%.
Emily had every reason to be a bit pee'd off (no pun intended!) as she could have done with an extra 10 minutes to get her parfait to set. I loved her comment about Peter's dish when she asked the obvious question "What would it have been like if he'd served it on time?" :cool:
A BIG "hats off" to TK for penalising Peter for being late. I thought Phil Howard bottled it a couple of weeks ago when he didn't do that.
Doesn't look like TK is going to tolerate lateness or mistakes, could be some low marks coming. I get the feeling he's going to be looking for dishes that meet the brief more than some of the previous judges as well.
I may have missed something, but why is Phil judging tomorrow, and why is TK judging in the part of the country he's from?