She would have- she got the least amount of public votes that week- and was tied with Heather- Heather would have stayed because of more public votes

I think the problem has been of the judges own making- they pick out their favourites and big them up- and forget about the others. The public caught on to this and when the dance off in series 5 happened started voting tactically- the public wanted rid of Gabby- and the judges were fuming at that scenario

Yes, it's been said a number of times that there's a public vs judges power struggle happening on Strictly and it seems to be escalating with every series, which is a shame because it spoils the show.

Imo, the John Sergeant wasn't actually about John. Going by what a lot of people on various message boards and forums said at the time, most people were voting for him to spite the judges rather than voting because they liked him personally. It was all about the anti-judge vote and he was just the excuse. And that's what the BBC, the judges and the professionals who criticised him for walking just didn't seem to get.

The skate off works on Dancing on Ice for two reasons: (1) they've had it since series 1 and didn't introduce it later to try and give the judges more control; and (2) only two or three out of five judges comment on each performance so it limits how much the judges collectively appear to be ganging up on or favouring a particular contestant.

Strictly needs to scrap the dance off because the public hate it and the judges don't seem to be too thrilled about it either, tbh. I wonder if it might be better if the public vote were only between the contestants who get the lowest judges' scores? Starting off with the six contestants who have the lowest judges' scores and then after a few weeks reduce that number to four and then in the final weeks have the vote between all the remaining contestants.

Mind you, there's been a couple of interesting rumours about possible changes to the judging system:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/strictly...o-be-axed.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...e-Dancing.html

Sharon Osborne on SCD - I'll believe it when I see it.

Trouble was the judges seemed to want Rachel to win- and beacuse she didn't have much in the way of public support they had to big up the person who was the least supoorted- In effect get rid of the public favourites[/quote]

I don't think they did this but I agree they couldn't have made it look more like they were doing this if they'd actually tried. The problem is Lisa was actually quite good just not as good as the judges thought she was - and she was also hyped as the journeywoman candidate - something the public like to be the judges of.

I hate to admit this but I think Lisa did deserve to be saved over Cherie in their dance-off - she actually did a better performance.

I wasn't trying to imply she has been favoured in that sense, she has had her duds like anyone else, but I don't think she's top of the list to get a contender if we're talking fairness here. It's hard to argue Erin being knocked out in the quarters (after what was realistically a lacklustre week for Austin) implies she was shafted worse than say Kristina or Flavia, who both got outright duds from the word go. In fact the judges more or less came out and said in week two of series six that Erin and Camilla were dancing with the only male celebs who had any sort of potential. So with Camilla gone, on fairness alone doesn't that put Erin at the back of the queue now?

I personally don't think it is (or should be) decided on fairness in any case, otherwise you get the case where whichever pros put a lot of work and talent into training and choreographing for their celebs are basically punished for it the following year. Some of the pros are better at Strictly than others, and in ballroom Erin is one of the best with a talented celeb. I wouldn't put her with another celeb with potential in latin though, but that is a matter of personal taste.

You can't always see who has potential and who hasn't though. I don't think Flavia had an obvious dud this year - Phil wasn't an obvious ringer but as someone who wasn't that old (both Sarge and Don Warrington were older and were predicted for that reason to the first man out) and had run an marathon proving he was reasonably fit nor did he really deserve to go out first as he wasn't the worst performer and everyone forgets that because Sarge outstayed his welcome in terms of talent but he wasn't either ironically on the first night that honour belongs to Gary Rhodes who is not someone you would have thought would obviously suck (i.e he was driven, quite physically fit and known as a perfectionist). Overall you could make a case for Mark Foster on the grounds that he proved he sucked at both ballroom and latin whereas Gary Rhodes might have been ok to brilliant at the ballroom and he seemed more interested in it and Foster as a sportsman and a hottie looked like he had potential on paper - Andrew Castle wasn't much better either and ok he had the curse of GMTV going for him but as a former sportsman he looked like he might have had some potential. In a way I feel sorry for Castle and Foster as they worked very hard and were still both rubbish.

Not to be smug but I predicted from the start that Mark and Andrew would both suck at latin because of their height

I agree with you it's not possible to tell, especially with latin, but I was really responding to the suggestion that Erin should get a contender this year. IMO she should get someone who will suit her personality, location and choreography! But on the shaky assumption that you can decide in advance who will do well, and that those people should be allocated to pros who have had bad luck last serie, I don't see her at the front of the queue really.

On a side note I have just read Chart Throb, and now I seem to automatically assume that all these things are decided before anyone dances a step! It's not hard to imagine that half the time the judges got the winner they wanted in the first place!

But it should not be about who the judges want to win- and they had no right to push Lisa at us all the time- when she wasn't as good as Tom, Austin, Christine or Rachel

It became too much about who the judges wanted- they forgot about the public

Not always though - Craig was very vocal at the start of series four about not being happy Goughie won and I don't think the judges wanted Tom to win - they wanted Rachel. I agree though the judges certainly don't help themselves in creating the impression they are fixing things by over marking some people chronically and under marking others. Len says he goes by the impression someone creates rather than the technical perfection but then nitpicks at people when he feels like (Alesha's waltz in last year's final is a case in point).

I would query Christine being better than Lisa. I would say her latin wasn't any better than Lisa's but her jive was a lot better and her samba and salsa for that matter although the paso and cha cha cha were worse. That said I'm still a bit miffed that Christine was kept in by the public rather than Jodie because I really wanted to see Jodie's tango and could have predicted Christine's would have been rubbish - it didn't suit her personality, her style of dancing and she isn't an actress - her paso was bad too which was a harbringer of bad tango.

I actually think Darren winning and then Tom is the kind of thing that in Chart Throb would have been exactly what the judges wanted, and purposely created by overmarking Zoe/Lisa, making Colin/Rachel out to be boring.

I don't believe that this happened, I'm quite happy to believe that the judges are just stupid . The writing was on the wall that Zoe or Lisa couldn't win, the overmarking was just pointless.
Why would you want someone other than the best dancer to win? In Darren's case it changed the face of the programme and encouraged stronger male celebs to agree to appear (and got men to take up dancing, something that Len at least would appreciate for his dance school). In both cases the result got people talking much more than the best dancer winning would have done.

The essential joke in Chart Throb is that people always focus on the phone vote being rigged. In fact the phone vote doesn't need to be rigged, because the producers control the edit, choice of music, camera angles, judges' comments, and choice over who leaves out of the final bottom two. The public can be manipulated into voting for who the producers want, and if all else fails they can be saved in the dance-off.

I'm not a conspiracy-theorist as a rule, but it's hard to read a whole book of it and not start to see the whole show as a bit of a joke!

Oh god this rumour is gathering pace. I so hope its not true

I know she did, I read the leaks at the time. I may be wrong but I really can't help feeling that it MAY not have happened under the old system. But in any case, even if Rachbot had got the boot that's the way the cookie would have crumbled, though certainly I would have been very miffed especially with JS still there.

The problem as the points make again above is that the the last series and to a lesser degree Series5, degenerated into a power struggle between the panel and the public. The voting system should in theory provide a balance off between over rated and overmarked judges pets at the top and talentless public favourites at the bottom and when it all comes out in the wash you should get a fairly logical eviction order but because of the hyped obsession surrounding the dance off it hasn't worked, and is counter productive.

I really must be honest and say I've really got bored with it all, and if a completely obsessive anorak like me is bored than I'm not really sure what the average viewer is thinking. There's just way too much of the panel, not just during the show which is bad enough, but on the backstage bits, the results, between shows, it's all too much. They contradict themselves half the time and I don't see why series on series the producers have felt the need to give them the lead roles in the show when I'm basically just interested in the kupples. The 4 seem to think that it's a personal contest for them to judge and the public are a complete nuisance. If they want their opinions respected it'd be nice if they could afford licence payers with the same courtesy.

It shouldn't matter to them who's in the final. If the public's favourite kupples aren't in the final then it stands to reason that the public aren't going to be greatly interested in the final. Time to go back to basics as the old phrase says.

I've had a relook at a series4. That was when the first small cracks started to appear; that things weren't all well in Shepherds Bush. I think Brendan is a complete doughnut but I did back him totally at the time of the Big Row which at the time got us all appalled but now seems quite tame. Still that was when the first green shoots of dislike for the panel first sprouted: Len did let slip some of his true colours. Very disappointing. I have to smirk slightly now when he critiques. That dreadful film ITT dredges up every 2 years of him jiving shows that he wasn't necessarily all that.

I'd be of mind to make changes to the judges panel

I'd keep Craig- he tends to be sensible and doesn't have favourites.
Arlene can sling her hook- Her slobbering over male celebs just makes her a parody of herself. - Replace her with Camilla, someone who knows latin and ballroom

Len will always satay- he's fixtures and fittings

And I'd bin Bruno- and bring in Karen Hardy to replace him

Totally agree with that. I hate the focus the show seems to put on the judges, and the competition they all seem to have to be at times the most controversial, at times the most generous. I think different judges would have cut right down on the number of tens being handed out last series.

Bruno was out of order- his bias in favour of Lisa and Rachel was dreadful- remember the My Girls comment- he always tends to lose it if there is a young female pop star/soap actress as a celeb- irrespective of how they dance
And I think Len tends to go soft on people too-

Craig is only realistic and credible judge

I hate to contradict you but to La Bunton...'you know how I feel about you, I think you're terrific' and that was after a jive with a whopping mistake in the middle.

However I can sort of tolerate him more than the others.

Ooops I forgot about that

However Bruno isw orse when it comes to spotting mistakes- he overlooks certain peoples errors

Well the marking especially on the last shows was completely bloody ridiculous frankly. No way should that 80 have been given to Lisa, and in fact it prodded me to vote for Rachbot for the first and last time as I couldn't believe that she was actually second behind her after that rumba.

After all those 10s where can they go next series? The amount they dished out means that if they mark more realistically this year, it'll imply that the standard is rubbish is comparison. Talk about boxing themselves into a corner.

But the problem was that the judges were hell bent on getting a winner they wanted- not who the public wanted. And how the hell can that Cha Cha Cha by Lisa be judged better than Alesha's who has given the definitive Cha Cha- Lisa barely moved in that dance
And Rachel compared to Alesha which is what Arlene was doing- I don't think so. Alesha was a far better dancer- and she entertained as well- Rachel never had her spontinaity- I always felt that Rachel was dancing within herself

Two more names that could be possibles

Teddy Sheringham- 6ft - perhaps one for Erin
Alice Beer - 5ft 9 - perhaps one for Ian

Edit- Fern Brittain I think is now a non starter- has another show lined up

I agree. I know his criticisms can be quite harsh but I noticed in this last series that more often than not, Craig tried whenever possible to end his criticisms with positive comments. None of the others make a point of doing that.

And he is starting to do his critique with a bit more humour

I voted for both Rachel and Tom to be on the safe side - between the judges and Brendan's attitude it got to the stage where sad as it is I was literally praying for Lisa and Brendan not to win. The 40 shocked me and the only consolation is that as a Mavian at least something else caused more anger for being a given a 40 then their waltz last year. The fact that Lisa/Brendan got an 80 score where the first out of the final says that I wasn't the only one who thought like that and their travesty of a showdance (although it was worth for that feeling of self-justification of disliking that partnership and the knowledge that had Tom not made the final or enough people realised he couldn't avoid the dance-off and not vote for him to make his departure before the head to head of the final two that Lisa and Brendan's showdance would have handed the title to Rachel and Vincent not to mention the subsequent comedy gold of snarking it inspired as well as being hilarious in it's own right) justified our opinion not the judges - it was a perfect illustration of Brendan's hubris when weirdly enough I was expecting a showman like Brendan to come up with something great.

Don't know if there is any significance in this but Len Goodman was in the audience for Britain's Got Talent yesterday- and he was sitting next to David Coulthard

There has never been a former racing driver on Strictly has there

I could be interested in seeing Coultard compete. To come up with earlier comments - Len gets on my wick these days - he does occasionally do what he's supposed to and comment on the ballroom/latin technicalities but he's the worst offender for thinking he's the star of the show and has become a panderer to public opinion who tends to mark people according what mood he's in. I also can't believe what he said about Matt and Kate on the review of last year when not only did he support them at the time but he criticized the other judges for putting the boot into them quite strongly.