I agree with that comment. Some of his remarks about Will's first course seemed not just harsh but as if they were designed to humiliate. I thought it was because Will (on first showing) seemed to be rather cocky and he wanted to bring him down a peg or two. However from succeeding episodes, it is apparent that Will has been anything but cocky. In fact he has been very humble. After the first episode's harsh comments, the judge seemed to be trying to soften his attitude to Will, as if he knew he had gone too far. Perhaps he wanted to appear as Mr Nice. At any rate, he returned to the attack with the dessert course. No need to scorn Will's use of the concept of soldiers. If a piece of toast can be used as a soldier it's not that hard to see how a piece of something else can be used in a simular way. Yet he doesn't get it, as if that's Will's fault. Maybe Kerridge isn't all that bright. He's certainly not all that nice. Clearly he loves Ray's cooking, though.
No, I agree.
So used to lovely Tom being lovely Tom that it seemed dd and a bit personal.
I wonder if there is some history there?
No, I agree.
So used to lovely Tom being lovely Tom that it seemed dd and a bit personal.
I wonder if there is some history there?
No, it is Tom's thing. He's usually tougher, less diplomatic and more critical with new and lesser-known chefs. He tends to be more understanding, gushing, flexible and diplomatic with veteran and celebrity chefs.
He also had occasionally excused a veteran chef's mistake yet came down hard on a lesser-known chef for making the same mistake.
I noticed this about four years ago. It showed up every time since, which is probably why I'm not as keen on him as the others are. I was surprised that editors have made it quite obvious last night, though. It was usually a lot more subtle than that.
It's possible that Tom believes he's helping them out by putting them through a wringer, so that they wouldn't develop habitual mistakes.
Great result for me - thought Ray was an arrogant big head with the other two all week, and having gone on and about narrowly missing the banquet last year it was poetic justice to see him get the chop this time.
I've had several issues with Tom Kerridge's judging this week. The first, in common with other people, is that he was mean to Will in such a way that he seemed like a food Luddite - and this from a chef whose dishes on his own tv show sometimes reminded me more of offerings from Man vs Food rather than skillful and well-conceived cooking.
Also, I find it hard to accept the judgement of someone who's allergic to seafood when it comes to judging a fish course - he should have had Marcus Wareing in for all 4 courses to standardise the marking and I wasn't impressed at all by a man I remember getting some weird strawberry offering with fake soil and clay pots into an earlier series. It seems it was ok for him to experiment and have fun but not Will.
Finally, seems like his eulogising over Ray's dessert was to no avail when the four judges at the end agreed with Chris and Will that it was stodgy and horrible. I wonder if TK has a dodgy palate?
I have liked Tom up til now - but he really went down in my estimation this week with his overly harsh comments to Will.
I know we don't get to taste the food, but I didn't think his dishes and presentation were that much worse than Ray and Chris', and certainly didn't deserve to come third by such a margin..... The awful marks just were totally unfair - as was the over marking of Ray, especially for the dessert course which everyone apart from TK though was revolting, and he was barely penalised for forgetting an essential part of his main.
I thought all week that Chris' dishes were the best, and was really pleased to see the judges give him the nod.... Ray is good and clearly worked hard on his menu, but his attitude did him no favours with the viewers. maybe he should have learned from the guy he beat last last year - he was gracious in defeat despite having been the winner the year before, and hopefully Ray will have learnt a little humility.
Lovely Tom is no more, replaced this week by his evil mean minded twin. Will did not deserve those harsh comments and Tom has gone down in my estimation I'm sad to say.
Delighted Chris won but thought Ray was gracious in defeat, you could see how much it meant to him but he does himself no favours with his smug attitude and his game playing.
Hopefully if Ray is there next year he wont keep going on about "just missing out on the banquet" like he was this year!
He was trying to intimidate the others and while it worked to an extent with Will Chris was too old and too wily to be taken in by it. Eqach year is a new brief and a new set of contestants - and youre only as good as what you are producing now!
I've had several issues with Tom Kerridge's judging this week. The first, in common with other people, is that he was mean to Will in such a way that he seemed like a food Luddite - and this from a chef whose dishes on his own tv show sometimes reminded me more of offerings from Man vs Food rather than skillful and well-conceived cooking.
Also, I find it hard to accept the judgement of someone who's allergic to seafood when it comes to judging a fish course - he should have had Marcus Wareing in for all 4 courses to standardise the marking and I wasn't impressed at all by a man I remember getting some weird strawberry offering with fake soil and clay pots into an earlier series. It seems it was ok for him to experiment and have fun but not Will.
Finally, seems like his eulogising over Ray's dessert was to no avail when the four judges at the end agreed with Chris and Will that it was stodgy and horrible. I wonder if TK has a dodgy palate?
Tom has 2 Michelin stars. Just because he cooked like that on his tv programme doesn't mean he doesn't know how to cook.
I've had several issues with Tom Kerridge's judging this week. The first, in common with other people, is that he was mean to Will in such a way that he seemed like a food Luddite - and this from a chef whose dishes on his own tv show sometimes reminded me more of offerings from Man vs Food rather than skillful and well-conceived cooking.
Also, I find it hard to accept the judgement of someone who's allergic to seafood when it comes to judging a fish course - he should have had Marcus Wareing in for all 4 courses to standardise the marking and I wasn't impressed at all by a man I remember getting some weird strawberry offering with fake soil and clay pots into an earlier series. It seems it was ok for him to experiment and have fun but not Will.
Finally, seems like his eulogising over Ray's dessert was to no avail when the four judges at the end agreed with Chris and Will that it was stodgy and horrible. I wonder if TK has a dodgy palate?
Tom has 2 Michelin stars. Just because he cooked like that on his tv programme doesn't mean he doesn't know how to cook.
Indeed. Plus, to describe his food as reminiscent of 'offerings from Man vs Food' is so completely wide of the mark. His food is down-to-earth, yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't skillful and well-conceived. Skillful doesn't just equate to fiddling about with miniature pea-shoots and endless purees. And it would be quite an achievement to get two Michelin stars with a 'dodgy palate'!
Indeed. Plus, to describe his food as reminiscent of 'offerings from Man vs Food' is so completely wide of the mark. His food is down-to-earth, yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't skillful and well-conceived. Skillful doesn't just equate to fiddling about with miniature pea-shoots and endless purees. And it would be quite an achievement to get two Michelin stars with a 'dodgy palate'!
I don't have a problem with Tom's cooking ... have always liked the way his food looks.
I just didn't like the way he seemed so entrenched in his ways and marked down - and ridiculed - techniques he personally didn't like. The starter judging was bad enough but the way he was about the pudding was extremely uncomfortable - particuarly as there was no need for it. The lad was out, there was no need to go on quite so much!
As for Ray - when he was talking about 'just missing out' on the banquet last year - I can't have been the only one to loudly point out to the tele that he served up The Comedy Titanic and The Non-Erupting Volcano. He should have thought himself lucky.
Indeed. Plus, to describe his food as reminiscent of 'offerings from Man vs Food' is so completely wide of the mark. His food is down-to-earth, yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't skillful and well-conceived. Skillful doesn't just equate to fiddling about with miniature pea-shoots and endless purees. And it would be quite an achievement to get two Michelin stars with a 'dodgy palate'!
I agree to an extent - I'm not a Michelin judge so the food in his restaurant must be excellent to receive such accolades.
My point is that the food he prepared in his show often seemed very focused on big slabs of meat and sticky sauces - not to mention referring to the things he'd cooked as 'these bad boys' which drove me mad, but I digress. I know it's tough in the world of high-end cheffery but I was expecting balanced judgements from him. No matter how well he can cook, he shouldn't have made some of the dodgy comments he did - they were hardly constructive. There were a couple of unsuccessful offerings yesterday but Daniel Clifford was constructive and professional.
And okay, maybe Tom doesn't have a dodgy palate but he evidently was unable to distinguish a poor cake from a good one last week.
Comments
No, I agree.
So used to lovely Tom being lovely Tom that it seemed dd and a bit personal.
I wonder if there is some history there?
Personally I'd prefer Chris' menu
No, it is Tom's thing. He's usually tougher, less diplomatic and more critical with new and lesser-known chefs. He tends to be more understanding, gushing, flexible and diplomatic with veteran and celebrity chefs.
He also had occasionally excused a veteran chef's mistake yet came down hard on a lesser-known chef for making the same mistake.
I noticed this about four years ago. It showed up every time since, which is probably why I'm not as keen on him as the others are. I was surprised that editors have made it quite obvious last night, though. It was usually a lot more subtle than that.
It's possible that Tom believes he's helping them out by putting them through a wringer, so that they wouldn't develop habitual mistakes.
Pleased with tonight's result, can't see any of the dishes making it onto the final menu though.
Also, I find it hard to accept the judgement of someone who's allergic to seafood when it comes to judging a fish course - he should have had Marcus Wareing in for all 4 courses to standardise the marking and I wasn't impressed at all by a man I remember getting some weird strawberry offering with fake soil and clay pots into an earlier series. It seems it was ok for him to experiment and have fun but not Will.
Finally, seems like his eulogising over Ray's dessert was to no avail when the four judges at the end agreed with Chris and Will that it was stodgy and horrible. I wonder if TK has a dodgy palate?
I know we don't get to taste the food, but I didn't think his dishes and presentation were that much worse than Ray and Chris', and certainly didn't deserve to come third by such a margin..... The awful marks just were totally unfair - as was the over marking of Ray, especially for the dessert course which everyone apart from TK though was revolting, and he was barely penalised for forgetting an essential part of his main.
I thought all week that Chris' dishes were the best, and was really pleased to see the judges give him the nod.... Ray is good and clearly worked hard on his menu, but his attitude did him no favours with the viewers. maybe he should have learned from the guy he beat last last year - he was gracious in defeat despite having been the winner the year before, and hopefully Ray will have learnt a little humility.
Delighted Chris won but thought Ray was gracious in defeat, you could see how much it meant to him but he does himself no favours with his smug attitude and his game playing.
He was trying to intimidate the others and while it worked to an extent with Will Chris was too old and too wily to be taken in by it. Eqach year is a new brief and a new set of contestants - and youre only as good as what you are producing now!
But i hope you will all come next week to the non reality TV thread about Great British menu:
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1953049&highlight=great+british+menu
Or perhaps you could come here ....
Tom has 2 Michelin stars. Just because he cooked like that on his tv programme doesn't mean he doesn't know how to cook.
Indeed. Plus, to describe his food as reminiscent of 'offerings from Man vs Food' is so completely wide of the mark. His food is down-to-earth, yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't skillful and well-conceived. Skillful doesn't just equate to fiddling about with miniature pea-shoots and endless purees. And it would be quite an achievement to get two Michelin stars with a 'dodgy palate'!
I don't have a problem with Tom's cooking ... have always liked the way his food looks.
I just didn't like the way he seemed so entrenched in his ways and marked down - and ridiculed - techniques he personally didn't like. The starter judging was bad enough but the way he was about the pudding was extremely uncomfortable - particuarly as there was no need for it. The lad was out, there was no need to go on quite so much!
As for Ray - when he was talking about 'just missing out' on the banquet last year - I can't have been the only one to loudly point out to the tele that he served up The Comedy Titanic and The Non-Erupting Volcano. He should have thought himself lucky.
The egos on these chefs is laughable. There's another chef on now, Simon Rogan with an ego the size of a planet.
I can't, i'm protesting against admin categorising GBM as reality TV. And there's more people on the other thread!
Well...i'm checking both really
Happy it's Daniel Clifford this week, i like him.
The 'soil' thing is a bit old hat now, been done before by much better chefs.
I agree to an extent - I'm not a Michelin judge so the food in his restaurant must be excellent to receive such accolades.
My point is that the food he prepared in his show often seemed very focused on big slabs of meat and sticky sauces - not to mention referring to the things he'd cooked as 'these bad boys' which drove me mad, but I digress. I know it's tough in the world of high-end cheffery but I was expecting balanced judgements from him. No matter how well he can cook, he shouldn't have made some of the dodgy comments he did - they were hardly constructive. There were a couple of unsuccessful offerings yesterday but Daniel Clifford was constructive and professional.
And okay, maybe Tom doesn't have a dodgy palate but he evidently was unable to distinguish a poor cake from a good one last week.