Sorry to backtrack , but where did people hear about Darcy being a stand-in judge, rather than a 5th judge near the end of the series?

I hadn't heard that, Buddy.

Maybe people are just speculating about her role?

I agree with that in principle but a neutral expert wouldn't say Matt was as dull as dishwater- partly because he wasn't and partly because that is your subjective opinion, not something a neutral expert would say. The judges, for all they are hardly neutral (or indeed experts, one might say), were never champions of Matt doing better than Emma. In spite of that he still scored almost exactly the same on average in ballroom as she did- 34.14 Emma to 34.00 Matt. And on highest ballroom scores, Matt held the record that series for the highest score in three different dances, and joint highest on another, whilst Emma was only joint highest on two dances. So there is actually a case for saying Matt's ballroom was as strong and more memorable than Emma's.

Yes his latin was weak for a finalist and that made Emma a stronger contestant overall, but in a popular vote it's hardly unusual for a couple of outstanding dances to take precedence over consistent technical strength. If anything my subjective opinion is that it was Emma who was dull, in spite of her strength as a dancer. Apart from her Tango, I can't remember a single thing about any of her dances.
(I tell a lie- that Paso face was unforgettable )

You're right that neutral experts wouldn't make a difference to the popular vote, but actually I don't think their role is to 'tell' the public who is strong or weak- not in the sense that the public are then expected to vote on that basis. The basis of the show is that the public are allowed their own vote, and there is only a point to that if there is the potential for the public to disagree. What would be the point of the public vote if people genuinely listened to the judges and voted based on what they said? The public vote would just mimic the judges' leaderboard, essentially a waste of time and money as it wouldn't alter the outcome. I think we've all had points where we've wished it wasn't possible, but the truth is that the point of the public voting is so that they can disagree with the judges. And if that means that Tom beats Rachel, so be it.

(I stand by this even after the JS debacle, which I found exceptionally annoying, and was completely a product of viewers voting against judges)

I think an "objective" judge would come on and do precisely what you did - this one is very good at that but fatally weak at that, this one is better at one thing and as good as anyone at the other, this one is brilliant at times but weak at others, this one has got much better and is now really good at one thing. The public gets that list of people and qualities to choose from. That doesn't though preclude the judge from saying someone is poor, is much weaker than the others and has no dancing case to win and shouldn't be on anyone's shortlist for winning a dancing show. They could also equally well say that from their professional perspective someone was as dull as dishwater or trying more than they were capable of or couldn't act for toffee -thats what any critic might say about a performance. If the judges are not there to look at the dancing skill and overall performance and advise who might be considered for being best and why and who isn't in the same league, there isn't much point having any judges.

I share the question about why they want any extra judge to come on near the end of the series. The only problem the show could have near the end of the series is that the "wrong" people on ability are heading to the final on votes. I don't see how any new expert turning up for the QF. SF or Final is going to convince all the people voting for the "wrong" people that they should now vote for the people who have been dancing better. It won't help. The new expert either agrees with the old judges and is ignored with them or undermines them or just finds reasons why someone won anyway.

It may be even sillier - that they just took on the idea of Alesha lacking expertise and then decided to add the expertise back by adding Darcey. Thats problematic because Darcey's expertise is more general too and it undermines their case for Alesha by suggesting both that she hasn't got the technical expertise and she needs someone with more judgement of the performance aspects too. They have added Arlene's equivalent back with Darcey (a dancer with lots of performance experience) after paying Alesha to sit in the chair. It doesn't solve their more significant problems earlier in the show either. By the time Darcey arrives to " tell it as it is" the voters will already have kicked out some potential semi-finalists for next year's JS and the voting blocks will have already formed behind anyone who is destined to win for some reason unrelated to whether they can dance. If they do want a new credible judge who can carry the voters with them they need them in week one not the QF week.

I very much doubt you'll be spared comments about mens arms - as a ballet dancer I would imagine she would be MORE likely to be looking for nice clean lines!

Personally I would rather Darcy replace Arlene than Alesha. At least she is a professional dancer, and she showed herself able to adapt to new styles of dance very well on her Viva la Diva tour. (Although I'd much rather have Arlene back than either of them, but heigh ho!)

Maybe - if not it would be good to have a link to the information about her role.

Just spotted this article also says Darcy will join the judges for the last three weeks of the show (I have definitely read it before then!).

Getting rid of Arlene was ageist and incompetent. Replacing her with someone who knows very very little about dance and the judging of the technicalities just compounded the error of judgement.

If I am correct, and Darcy Bussell is appearing in the latter part of the show, I sense that she is there to back up Alesha's complete lack of competence in judging the dancers later on in the show. With Alesha, they wanted younger and got younger/ignorant and had to back this up with someone older and more experienced - professional dancer Darcy.

They could have replaced Arlene with Karen (who is younger than Darcy Bussell I believe) but they chose not to. Even if they had done this, it would still have been a monumental error in sacking Arlene in the first place!

This has completely put me off watching the show.

I hate to disagree, but imho Darcy will be there for the last three shows to stop the judges forcing their choice through in the last two weeks as they did last year and to add a bit of glamour.

Anyone could fulfill that role though Buddy Karen, Camilla etc etc...I honestly think that the beeb wanted Alesha and Darcy in the show and have simply found roles for them. Nothing wrong with that, it's their perogative. Maybe their thinking is that Alesha is there to bring in the 'yoof' and Darcy to give the show more 'highbrow' appeal? I don't know...but Darcy is a ballet dancer and to have her over from Australia when perfectly good ballroom dancers are closer to hand baffles me tbh

I do know what you mean Stu, but I still wonder if they decided against a former contestant as a judge - stupid in some ways, but understandable in others.