I've just re-watched the last semi-final show and I'm now even more confused as to why anyone should be so up-in-arms about Saira going out in place of Larkin.
In that show (which as any MC fan should know by now is the only one worth sh*t in the final judgement according to those rules ), Saira was panned by the critics to a lesser or greater extent on every course. Her starters were either patchy or a complete disaster, her main was praised by one but condemned by the rest (and Greg said it disappointed on every level) and her pudding was either damned with faint praise or damned full stop.
Larkin's starter was generally well-liked, his main was admittedly mediocre but while his (sub-standard) pudding went floorwards, the others went down a storm. In any scoring system, Larkin was ahead of Saira on the final day and in MC terms, that's the only one that matters.
I still agree with Rowena. They constantly told her that her portions were too large, etc. etc. so changed what she is good at with the result that her food was not up to standard.
OK Larken was better with the last two challenges, but he made a total c**k up when he had to prepare food for Marcus Wareing, to the extent that Marcus wouldn't even eat it.
Despite what Greg keeps saying, this is not the best Masterchef ever, and these are not the best Masterchef contestants ever. Compared with some years, these 4 wouldn't even had made the quarter finals.
I've just re-watched the last semi-final show and I'm now even more confused as to why anyone should be so up-in-arms about Saira going out in place of Larkin.
In that show (which as any MC fan should know by now is the only one worth sh*t in the final judgement according to those rules ), Saira was panned by the critics to a lesser or greater extent on every course. Her starters were either patchy or a complete disaster, her main was praised by one but condemned by the rest (and Greg said it disappointed on every level) and her pudding was either damned with faint praise or damned full stop.
Larkin's starter was generally well-liked, his main was admittedly mediocre but while his (sub-standard) pudding went floorwards, the others went down a storm. In any scoring system, Larkin was ahead of Saira on the final day and in MC terms, that's the only one that matters.
So what was the point of the Marcus Wareing section? Larkin may have done better with the crtics but he made a complete idiot of himself in front of one of the top chefs in the country and openly embarressed John and Greg in front of him.
I've just re-watched the last semi-final show and I'm now even more confused as to why anyone should be so up-in-arms about Saira going out in place of Larkin.
In that show (which as any MC fan should know by now is the only one worth sh*t in the final judgement according to those rules ), Saira was panned by the critics to a lesser or greater extent on every course. Her starters were either patchy or a complete disaster, her main was praised by one but condemned by the rest (and Greg said it disappointed on every level) and her pudding was either damned with faint praise or damned full stop.
Larkin's starter was generally well-liked, his main was admittedly mediocre but while his (sub-standard) pudding went floorwards, the others went down a storm. In any scoring system, Larkin was ahead of Saira on the final day and in MC terms, that's the only one that matters.
The food critics themselves couldn't even agree on some of the dishes, one of them loved dale's dessert, whilst jay Rayner couldn't finish it and commented it was too rich and bitter with chocolate, so anyone that know their sh*t will know that the segment is a load of a cobblers.
Larkin can no longer be arsed, that much is clear, especially from the episode that the Bond girls appeared on. He's lazy and far too maverick and does not deserve to be on there. Saira was quite unfairly treated, told not pile food on the plate and do things so homely and then criticised for doing the opposite. I will repeat once again, Larkin has also stuck pretty tightly to oriental influenced cuisine but no one has called him a one trick pony. In any case, I think this series has been set up for Natalie to be the winner. But I do think it's been a very poor series and I wonder what happened in the initial selection stages.
So what was the point of the Marcus Wareing section? Larkin may have done better with the crtics but he made a complete idiot of himself in front of one of the top chefs in the country and openly embarressed John and Greg in front of him.
It was as if that part didn't matter.
Look at it as an exam.
Everything before the elimination is just class-work and the elimination is the actual test, which is 100% of the marks.
Masterchef doesn't take coursework into account or have continuous assessment.
The tasks before an elimination are supposed to be part of the opportunity to learn and hone their skills. The elimination is the time to show what they have learnt and that critiques have been taken on board - that is what is deemed important.
At the risk of sounding boring - anyone in any doubt should remember the final week of series 2, when one contestant missed 2 full days of non-elimination challenges and still went on to win.
The rounds today and tomorrow will be interesting but ultimately will make no difference to who wins.
Just caught up, am so shocked that Sairah went instead of Larkin. I feel like she was done a disservice in being continuously railed against for too big portions and undainty enough presentation, to the point where in the final couple of rounds she took it too far the other way, sacrificing what was so good about her food in the first place, and was put out as a result. Whereas Larkin has had as many total disasters as he has had plates of brilliance, and is generally wildly inconsistent. I like him, but he seems like a massive chancer. I think they just put him through for the novelty factor of his zany methods...
To be fair, the 'home cook' having to daintify their presentation is a pretty standard Masterchef storyline. I seem to remember it being the one Tommi was given, and Daksha, Hannah and even Nadia Swahala in the celeb version plus others who didn't make the final 3 (Dave from Newcastle who made the lovely suet cheese and onion pudding went out at the same stage as Saira for the same reason, I seem to remember )
It seems that a messy plate with good flavour will always tend to get the nod over a well presented plate with less oomph because it is easier to prettify things up. It's then up to the contestant to take that advice and adapt it. Saira seemed to be shown one way of plating and just run with it for almost everything else she cooked thereafter, whether it suited the dish or not and that was probably what did for her as much as anything.
The plate she did for the Bond girls looked about the nicest she produced. She should have taken John's heavy hints about the presentation and Nan's china. She could still have been there.
Larkin is the most talented chef on the show when he puts his mind to it. But I think he has struggled to balance the demands of Masterchef with his high pressure day job as a solicitor. Natalie by contrast has no other job to speak of, has been able to devote her time to the show and as a result she's shown the most progress. She'll win, and that's fair - dedication and commitment are just as important as raw talent.
As for Saira, I'm glad she went last week. A decent home cook with a very limited range who failed to progress and failed to adapt her food to a restaurant setting.
Larkin is the most talented chef on the show when he puts his mind to it. But I think he has struggled to balance the demands of Masterchef with his high pressure day job as a solicitor. Natalie by contrast has no other job to speak of, has been able to devote her time to the show and as a result she's shown the most progress. She'll win, and that's fair - dedication and commitment are just as important as raw talent.
As for Saira, I'm glad she went last week. A decent home cook with a very limited range who failed to progress and failed to adapt her food to a restaurant setting.
Agree with this - I'm really struggling to remember a similarly limited chef reaching such a late stage of Masterchef? Loads of chefs with more potential than her have fallen by the wayside earlier on.
Does anyone know if John and Gregg truly get the last say on who goes through? Some of the comments they made about Saira's food sounded as though they were reading from a script?
Also in the '7 from 12' round there was no real discussion on who should stay / go etc?
Larkin is the most talented chef on the show when he puts his mind to it. But I think he has struggled to balance the demands of Masterchef with his high pressure day job as a solicitor. Natalie by contrast has no other job to speak of, has been able to devote her time to the show and as a result she's shown the most progress. She'll win, and that's fair - dedication and commitment are just as important as raw talent.
As for Saira, I'm glad she went last week. A decent home cook with a very limited range who failed to progress and failed to adapt her food to a restaurant setting.
Don't think that's right? She works in something to do with finance (accounting maybe?) and is also a part-time DJ.
I'm now 2 episodes behind. I'm enjoying the series more now, mostly because there have been long stretches with absolutely no Gregg. I'm also finding Natalie such an endearing person and I hope regardless of the final result, she can get into a kitchen because she has that natural ability. I loved how Adam at Trinity helped coach her.
I know who goes in the critics round, but so far I was very surprised Rukmini was kicked out over Saira. Yes her meat was underdone but the concept, the dish on the whole, was that one thing away from perfection. Her skill set, her creativity, was surely greater than Saira's.
I'm not knocking Saira - her food is something I would order because I love a good curry, but there wasn't much skill on show to make her be seen as a viable contender for the win. That's why I think Larkin would have been chosen over her. Obviously I haven't seen his disasters yet, but he has flashes of absolute brilliance (the paella is the dish of the series still, no?) and you have to say that if he has a good day on the grand final, he's streets ahead in terms of creativity and flavour. Could Saira push the other 2 even remotely close to challenge? No, I don't think so.
But I'm in total agreement that the series on a whole needs to be looked at. Each round should have resonance. Like in MasterChef Australia, if you fart up one round, you should be into an elimination round the next show and cook to keep your place. It shouldn't be a week of irrelevance followed by an elimination episode - what's the point of the earlier challenges if they're not taken into consideration. It means that you can do what Larkin did and royally fudge it up, only to then produce a good dish to stay in, where someone who may have had a stellar week has messed it up in the elimination episode. But if the week counted, that contestant with the good week, wouldn't be facing elinination. Does that make sense?
I also wanted to add why I personally dislike Gregg. I find him hideous. He has food knowledge on a par with me. Limited. He's not likeable. He's creepy. His only contribution to the show is poor pronunication and lurking in the background shouting out times, and also leering at the pretty contestants. John seems to have come into his own this series (though I feel I may be the only person who loved him hosting Saturday Kitchen), I love his involvement and his attitude. Time to get John a new judge friend. Maybe two even.
Personally, I'd love to see a former winner in as a judge. And I do think there should be 3 judges. I'd like to see Shelina or James Nathan back permanently. But nothing will change and this tired format will be back next year and Shrek will be back to leer and perve his way through another series.
I think John has improved this series, too. Whether it's because he has been and had a couple of goes at guest judging Masterchef Australia and some of Gary and George have rubbed off on him :cool: or whether that's just me hoping because I love Gary and George and the way they mentor and judge - but he does seem to have taken more of a mentor role this series, that I've noticed.
I'd like to see the eliminations mixed up a bit more as well - so that each elimination doesn't rely on the contestants cooking their own food.
A couple of the eliminations from other Masterchefs - the palate test where each contestant has to take it in turns to name an ingredient from a pre-cooked pot of food, or the one where they have to fix a dish would sort the men/women out from the boys/girls.
So what was the point of the Marcus Wareing section? Larkin may have done better with the crtics but he made a complete idiot of himself in front of one of the top chefs in the country and openly embarressed John and Greg in front of him.
It was as if that part didn't matter.
This has annoyed me greatly in the past but in the end now it's working to my advantage... this series I have only been able to watch at weekends. So I have either skimmed completely or skim-viewed the non-elimination rounds/tasks because largely they count for nothing. In many cases they were not even referenced by J&G in their discussions on who should stay/go. Additionally it annoys the sh!t out of me when they do mass catering tasks implying that the world will implode if some firemen/actors/tv production crews/battle re-enacters don't get their lunch on time :sleep:
As the critics round was the elimination round, I think it was fair to send Saira home, even though on the balance of the other semi final tasks overall it seems she did better than Larkin. If they set it up this way and its clear to the contestants then thats fair enough.
I would love Natalie to win but Larkin would also be a suitable winner imo, and I think he'll produce the goods when it really matters. Maybe he has sussed the pattern/format too . When he produces his top-drawer stuff, it feels to me like he is in a different league to the others.
Larkin is the most talented chef on the show when he puts his mind to it. But I think he has struggled to balance the demands of Masterchef with his high pressure day job as a solicitor. Natalie by contrast has no other job to speak of, has been able to devote her time to the show and as a result she's shown the most progress. She'll win, and that's fair - dedication and commitment are just as important as raw talent.
As soon as I'd read that Nathalie dislikes chillies and celery; I've gone off her completely. I don't understand anyone can be a successful chef and have major problems with chillies.
No doubt she'll win, but if so, she'll be the least charismatic winner for me for the last few years. Not to mention the constant reminder that her nan and gran all like her "fancy" food, as if having "grand" tastes is a betrayal to her "working class" root.
The food critics themselves couldn't even agree on some of the dishes, one of them loved dale's dessert, whilst jay Rayner couldn't finish it and commented it was too rich and bitter with chocolate, so anyone that know their sh*t will know that the segment is a load of a cobblers.
Larkin can no longer be arsed, that much is clear, especially from the episode that the Bond girls appeared on. He's lazy and far too maverick and does not deserve to be on there. Saira was quite unfairly treated, told not pile food on the plate and do things so homely and then criticised for doing the opposite. I will repeat once again, Larkin has also stuck pretty tightly to oriental influenced cuisine but no one has called him a one trick pony. In any case, I think this series has been set up for Natalie to be the winner. But I do think it's been a very poor series and I wonder what happened in the initial selection stages.
I agree with some of that and I too wonder what happened in the initial selection stages - and even later ones. The suspicion has crossed my mind too that the series has been set up for someone to be the winner, though not necessarily for Natalie. Could Larkin have been the intended one, even if it hasn't run smoothly in the latter stages? [rhetorical question]
I think John has improved this series, too. Whether it's because he has been and had a couple of goes at guest judging Masterchef Australia and some of Gary and George have rubbed off on him :cool: or whether that's just me hoping because I love Gary and George and the way they mentor and judge - but he does seem to have taken more of a mentor role this series, that I've noticed.I'd like to see the eliminations mixed up a bit more as well - so that each elimination doesn't rely on the contestants cooking their own food.
A couple of the eliminations from other Masterchefs - the palate test where each contestant has to take it in turns to name an ingredient from a pre-cooked pot of food, or the one where they have to fix a dish would sort the men/women out from the boys/girls.
BIB - I completely agree. It's what I love about MCA - the judges will still be judges, they will still be honest (brutally so at times), but while the cooking is going on, they're mentors and there to encourage and support. I love that.
I also completely agree that there needs to be more skills tests in the UK Series. It shouldn't just be about cooking practised, rehearsed dishes. Give them a complex dish and a recipe and make them fix it. The palate test is a good idea but giving them all the ingredients is a cop out. Give them only what they identify. Otherwise you see your errors and rectify them. It's a palate test. Not a visual test.
BIB - I completely agree. It's what I love about MCA - the judges will still be judges, they will still be honest (brutally so at times), but while the cooking is going on, they're mentors and there to encourage and support. I love that.
I also completely agree that there needs to be more skills tests in the UK Series. It shouldn't just be about cooking practised, rehearsed dishes. Give them a complex dish and a recipe and make them fix it. The palate test is a good idea but giving them all the ingredients is a cop out. Give them only what they identify. Otherwise you see your errors and rectify them. It's a palate test. Not a visual test.
i like this idea too. I think they spend far too much time poncing around professional kitchens. Why? It just seems like it's an opportunity for some business to plug their wares.
Am loving seeing John earn his crust. Surely we should see Gregg doing something along the same lines. Or just get Monica in. In the Pro one why is it Gregg and not John? Is Gregg su pposed to be the audience's voice? If so, I'm all for it but agree with the person upthread who suggested three judges. Two can cook and then it's ok.
I have always believed in the past that when it is a split decision that John gets his preference (the casting vote as such) but I've not felt that this year. I just don't get the feeling that either of them is choosing.
when the contestants have done their dishes and are carrying them out to the judges (i.e previous Masterchef winners), why doesn't anybody hold the doors open for them ? :mad:
I always think 'what if they drop them whilst they're trying to open the doors with their arms ?
when the contestants have done their dishes and are carrying them out to the judges (i.e previous Masterchef winners), why doesn't anybody hold the doors open for them ? :mad:
I always think 'what if they drop them whilst they're trying to open the doors with their arms ?
I think the right decision was made on Friday. Larkin has much more wow factor than Saira. Yes, he isn't as consistently brilliant as he was during the earlier heats, but he is still a much more talented cook than Saira. Anytime she tries to think outside the box her food just doesn't really work. She's great when she's in her own comfort zone but she's not a potential chef in my opinion.
I really like Natalie and she has definitely improved the most throughout the series. Greg and John seem to have a soft spot for her and I think they'd really love her to win. Personally, I hope Larkin gets his act together this week because when he's at his best he's way ahead of the rest of them.
I agree, John is much better this series - helping the contestants and seeming genuinely engaged with their progress and upset when he has to kick someone out.
Oh and I agree re the professional kitchens - I wish they'd get rid of this element. It seems to play little or no part in the overall results and isn't terribly interesting to watch.
i like this idea too. I think they spend far too much time poncing around professional kitchens. Why? It just seems like it's an opportunity for some business to plug their wares.
Am loving seeing John earn his crust. Surely we should see Gregg doing something along the same lines. Or just get Monica in. In the Pro one why is it Gregg and not John? Is Gregg su pposed to be the audience's voice? If so, I'm all for it but agree with the person upthread who suggested three judges. Two can cook and then it's ok.
I have always believed in the past that when it is a split decision that John gets his preference (the casting vote as such) but I've not felt that this year. I just don't get the feeling that either of them is choosing.
It was me too who said the 3 judges. I think it should be 2 chefs and a former winner. I've liked seeing Shelina back, and James has the experience of being a former winner but also a pro chef.
I'd do away with Gregg all together. For me, he contributes nothing. He just seems to shout and gurn his way through this series and last pro series.
I did like it the series he cooked. I think it was celeb masterchef, and he cooked something that meant something to him.
Just caught up, am so shocked that Sairah went instead of Larkin. I feel like she was done a disservice in being continuously railed against for too big portions and undainty enough presentation, to the point where in the final couple of rounds she took it too far the other way, sacrificing what was so good about her food in the first place, and was put out as a result. Whereas Larkin has had as many total disasters as he has had plates of brilliance, and is generally wildly inconsistent. I like him, but he seems like a massive chancer. I think they just put him through for the novelty factor of his zany methods...
I absolutely agree with this. I think Saira was actually a great cook, but through trying hard to do what the judges said they wanted, she ended up in a mess. Such a shame really.
Oh and I agree re the professional kitchens - I wish they'd get rid of this element. It seems to play little or no part in the overall results and isn't terribly interesting to watch.
Comments
In that show (which as any MC fan should know by now is the only one worth sh*t in the final judgement according to those rules
Larkin's starter was generally well-liked, his main was admittedly mediocre but while his (sub-standard) pudding went floorwards, the others went down a storm. In any scoring system, Larkin was ahead of Saira on the final day and in MC terms, that's the only one that matters.
OK Larken was better with the last two challenges, but he made a total c**k up when he had to prepare food for Marcus Wareing, to the extent that Marcus wouldn't even eat it.
Despite what Greg keeps saying, this is not the best Masterchef ever, and these are not the best Masterchef contestants ever. Compared with some years, these 4 wouldn't even had made the quarter finals.
So what was the point of the Marcus Wareing section? Larkin may have done better with the crtics but he made a complete idiot of himself in front of one of the top chefs in the country and openly embarressed John and Greg in front of him.
It was as if that part didn't matter.
The food critics themselves couldn't even agree on some of the dishes, one of them loved dale's dessert, whilst jay Rayner couldn't finish it and commented it was too rich and bitter with chocolate, so anyone that know their sh*t will know that the segment is a load of a cobblers.
Larkin can no longer be arsed, that much is clear, especially from the episode that the Bond girls appeared on. He's lazy and far too maverick and does not deserve to be on there. Saira was quite unfairly treated, told not pile food on the plate and do things so homely and then criticised for doing the opposite. I will repeat once again, Larkin has also stuck pretty tightly to oriental influenced cuisine but no one has called him a one trick pony. In any case, I think this series has been set up for Natalie to be the winner. But I do think it's been a very poor series and I wonder what happened in the initial selection stages.
Look at it as an exam.
Everything before the elimination is just class-work and the elimination is the actual test, which is 100% of the marks.
Masterchef doesn't take coursework into account or have continuous assessment.
The tasks before an elimination are supposed to be part of the opportunity to learn and hone their skills. The elimination is the time to show what they have learnt and that critiques have been taken on board - that is what is deemed important.
At the risk of sounding boring
The rounds today and tomorrow will be interesting but ultimately will make no difference to who wins.
To be fair, the 'home cook' having to daintify their presentation is a pretty standard Masterchef storyline. I seem to remember it being the one Tommi was given, and Daksha, Hannah and even Nadia Swahala in the celeb version plus others who didn't make the final 3 (Dave from Newcastle who made the lovely suet cheese and onion pudding went out at the same stage as Saira for the same reason, I seem to remember
It seems that a messy plate with good flavour will always tend to get the nod over a well presented plate with less oomph because it is easier to prettify things up. It's then up to the contestant to take that advice and adapt it. Saira seemed to be shown one way of plating and just run with it for almost everything else she cooked thereafter, whether it suited the dish or not and that was probably what did for her as much as anything.
The plate she did for the Bond girls looked about the nicest she produced. She should have taken John's heavy hints about the presentation and Nan's china. She could still have been there.
As for Saira, I'm glad she went last week. A decent home cook with a very limited range who failed to progress and failed to adapt her food to a restaurant setting.
Agree with this - I'm really struggling to remember a similarly limited chef reaching such a late stage of Masterchef? Loads of chefs with more potential than her have fallen by the wayside earlier on.
Does anyone know if John and Gregg truly get the last say on who goes through? Some of the comments they made about Saira's food sounded as though they were reading from a script?
Also in the '7 from 12' round there was no real discussion on who should stay / go etc?
Don't think that's right? She works in something to do with finance (accounting maybe?) and is also a part-time DJ.
I know who goes in the critics round, but so far I was very surprised Rukmini was kicked out over Saira. Yes her meat was underdone but the concept, the dish on the whole, was that one thing away from perfection. Her skill set, her creativity, was surely greater than Saira's.
I'm not knocking Saira - her food is something I would order because I love a good curry, but there wasn't much skill on show to make her be seen as a viable contender for the win. That's why I think Larkin would have been chosen over her. Obviously I haven't seen his disasters yet, but he has flashes of absolute brilliance (the paella is the dish of the series still, no?) and you have to say that if he has a good day on the grand final, he's streets ahead in terms of creativity and flavour. Could Saira push the other 2 even remotely close to challenge? No, I don't think so.
But I'm in total agreement that the series on a whole needs to be looked at. Each round should have resonance. Like in MasterChef Australia, if you fart up one round, you should be into an elimination round the next show and cook to keep your place. It shouldn't be a week of irrelevance followed by an elimination episode - what's the point of the earlier challenges if they're not taken into consideration. It means that you can do what Larkin did and royally fudge it up, only to then produce a good dish to stay in, where someone who may have had a stellar week has messed it up in the elimination episode. But if the week counted, that contestant with the good week, wouldn't be facing elinination. Does that make sense?
I also wanted to add why I personally dislike Gregg. I find him hideous. He has food knowledge on a par with me. Limited. He's not likeable. He's creepy. His only contribution to the show is poor pronunication and lurking in the background shouting out times, and also leering at the pretty contestants. John seems to have come into his own this series (though I feel I may be the only person who loved him hosting Saturday Kitchen), I love his involvement and his attitude. Time to get John a new judge friend. Maybe two even.
Personally, I'd love to see a former winner in as a judge. And I do think there should be 3 judges. I'd like to see Shelina or James Nathan back permanently. But nothing will change and this tired format will be back next year and Shrek will be back to leer and perve his way through another series.
Apologies for the long post.
I'd like to see the eliminations mixed up a bit more as well - so that each elimination doesn't rely on the contestants cooking their own food.
A couple of the eliminations from other Masterchefs - the palate test where each contestant has to take it in turns to name an ingredient from a pre-cooked pot of food, or the one where they have to fix a dish would sort the men/women out from the boys/girls.
This has annoyed me greatly in the past but in the end now it's working to my advantage... this series I have only been able to watch at weekends. So I have either skimmed completely or skim-viewed the non-elimination rounds/tasks because largely they count for nothing. In many cases they were not even referenced by J&G in their discussions on who should stay/go. Additionally it annoys the sh!t out of me when they do mass catering tasks implying that the world will implode if some firemen/actors/tv production crews/battle re-enacters don't get their lunch on time :sleep:
As the critics round was the elimination round, I think it was fair to send Saira home, even though on the balance of the other semi final tasks overall it seems she did better than Larkin. If they set it up this way and its clear to the contestants then thats fair enough.
I would love Natalie to win but Larkin would also be a suitable winner imo, and I think he'll produce the goods when it really matters. Maybe he has sussed the pattern/format too
As soon as I'd read that Nathalie dislikes chillies and celery; I've gone off her completely. I don't understand anyone can be a successful chef and have major problems with chillies.
No doubt she'll win, but if so, she'll be the least charismatic winner for me for the last few years. Not to mention the constant reminder that her nan and gran all like her "fancy" food, as if having "grand" tastes is a betrayal to her "working class" root.
I agree with some of that and I too wonder what happened in the initial selection stages - and even later ones. The suspicion has crossed my mind too that the series has been set up for someone to be the winner, though not necessarily for Natalie. Could Larkin have been the intended one, even if it hasn't run smoothly in the latter stages? [rhetorical question]
BIB - I completely agree. It's what I love about MCA - the judges will still be judges, they will still be honest (brutally so at times), but while the cooking is going on, they're mentors and there to encourage and support. I love that.
I also completely agree that there needs to be more skills tests in the UK Series. It shouldn't just be about cooking practised, rehearsed dishes. Give them a complex dish and a recipe and make them fix it. The palate test is a good idea but giving them all the ingredients is a cop out. Give them only what they identify. Otherwise you see your errors and rectify them. It's a palate test. Not a visual test.
Am loving seeing John earn his crust. Surely we should see Gregg doing something along the same lines. Or just get Monica in. In the Pro one why is it Gregg and not John? Is Gregg su pposed to be the audience's voice? If so, I'm all for it but agree with the person upthread who suggested three judges. Two can cook and then it's ok.
I have always believed in the past that when it is a split decision that John gets his preference (the casting vote as such) but I've not felt that this year. I just don't get the feeling that either of them is choosing.
when the contestants have done their dishes and are carrying them out to the judges (i.e previous Masterchef winners), why doesn't anybody hold the doors open for them ? :mad:
I always think 'what if they drop them whilst they're trying to open the doors with their arms ?
Isn't that the hope?
I really like Natalie and she has definitely improved the most throughout the series. Greg and John seem to have a soft spot for her and I think they'd really love her to win. Personally, I hope Larkin gets his act together this week because when he's at his best he's way ahead of the rest of them.
I agree, John is much better this series - helping the contestants and seeming genuinely engaged with their progress and upset when he has to kick someone out.
It was me too who said the 3 judges. I think it should be 2 chefs and a former winner. I've liked seeing Shelina back, and James has the experience of being a former winner but also a pro chef.
I'd do away with Gregg all together. For me, he contributes nothing. He just seems to shout and gurn his way through this series and last pro series.
I did like it the series he cooked. I think it was celeb masterchef, and he cooked something that meant something to him.
I absolutely agree with this. I think Saira was actually a great cook, but through trying hard to do what the judges said they wanted, she ended up in a mess. Such a shame really.
i always wind that part on