I've been looking at last year's dances on YouTube and have decided that my favourite couple, Tom and Camilla, weren't actually the best dancers. Rachel and Vincent should have won I reckon, with Lisa and Brendon perhaps second. However these two couples weren't nearly so popular as Tom and Camilla and didn't get the votes.

In fact much was made of their unpopularity, especially Lisa's. Why was that? What was it that made us watch them and say "I don't care how good they are, I don't like them so I'm not going to vote for them."

Looking back on it now it all seems so irrational. It's a dance competition. Why do we vote on whether we like the couples or not. It hasn't mattered in previous series as the best couple has generally been well liked as well. Alesha, Jill and Mark Ramprakash leap to mind.

What do you think?

I think what it may have been with Lisa is that a few may have felt she was overmarked to keep her in the competition.

Look at her jive - Lisa barely removed her foot from the floor- and got marks of over 30

Contrast that with Jodie Kidd who did a better jove and was only given about 30points

That is why Lisa was unpopular - she was overmarked

Zoe should have won Series 3 IMO, but she didn't have the public vote. I know she wasn't popular on here, but Emma was statistically better than Mark (according to the judges). Tom only won because of his showdance; I really think Rachel would have won otherwise.

I think the problem was that Lisa was overmarked by the judges

She didn't ever really master latin- her jive where she barely removed her foot from the floor got marks of over 30- when 28 would have been a fairer mark.

Jodie Kidd's jive was far better

Tom had the public vote long before that- he had it in the bag- Rachel couldn't have beaten him

To be fair, it is a personal decision whether someone was "overmarked" or not. I think practically all of the celebs have been overmarked at some time.

I quite agree on that - but Lisa was certainly the beneficiary of the most generous judging

Contestants are popular for all sorts of reasons, because they are funny, good looking, try hard, a legend in their field, have a good relationship with their pro partner, produce a memorable dance, are the best dancer....

If you are giving a vote to the public then you can't always expect the *best* dancer to win, because most of us don't know how to quantify that. So we vote for who we like for whatever reason.

All of the Strictly finalists have been decent dancers (yes, even Julian Clary put in a good performance or two) and even if all of the eventual winners weren't technically the best, they all had a certain flair which set them apart.

I suppose voter's reasons for voting are as varied as the voters themselves, so it's difficult tot generalise on why someone isn't popular.

Tom had personality and flair as well as being a damn good dancer. That goes a long way with with me when I decide who to vote for

It seems to follow now that being a good technician is not enough to get you through the hetas let alone to win the title

For me they need to entertain and be good- Tom ticked both boxes there - and like Alesha and Mark I felt that the performance had a bit of spontineity about it- and you could see how much they loved doing strictly

Definately - he was underrated as a dancer against the two girls. The best all round package for me


That quickstep was brilliant- dare I say it he should have had a 10 or two for that

The trouble is that the judges soon find the partnerships THEY like and tend to overmark them to "protect" them from the public especially if the public aren't quite so keen on those the judges like.

Lisa started out quite average but there was something the public didn't take to with her, and by her 2nd or 3rd dance she was being marked up despite others who made almost identical errors being marked down.

A LOT (not all by any means) of the popularity vote (John Sergeant/ Kenny Logan/ Kate Garraway) would be eliminated if the judges marked more fairly. They are there to be objective and to "educate" the viewers (so Craig says) about what we are seeing on the floor. That goes out the window when they judge the couples to different standards. If one couple has a glaring error ignored - then others making the same error should be treated the same way. Len famously marked down Louisa and Vincent's rumba for being too posy and not enough rumba moves, then 10 mins later gave a much higher mark to Emma B & Darren for an almost identical routine with the excuse "that's the way its danced these days!" Sorry but if he was marking down one for being too posy and not enough moves the other one should have been clobbered too

I find that ALL of the panel bar Craig tend to mark the celebs too high too soon. Giving out 9s and 10s in week 1 gives them nowhere to go later on. I'd go so far as to say that the 9 & !0 paddles should be removed until at least week 6.

I think they also need to look at all the performances against the first one out (especially when lots of them are doing the same dances in the same week. Mark the first dancer objectively and then rate all the others against that one one - was it better or worse or pretty much the same standard.

As others have said - Tom and Camilla were the complete package last year. Tom was a pretty good dancer with a personality and his sheer enjoyment of the competition came through loud and clear, whilst Lisa was only an average dancer saved repeatedly by the judges and whilst Rachel could dance, she had the personality of a Barbie Doll.

I agree about the overmarking thing but I think that all the dancers are being overmarked now. There are far too many 10s being given out. There were contestants in last year's series wondering when their first 10 would appear, not whether they would get a good mark or not. In that respect, Craig though he can be cruel to a poor dancer is much more honest at the upper end of the scale. You have to be *very* good to get a 10 from him, and that is as it should be. Top scores become meaningless otherwise.

I loved Jodie Kidd. Not a winner, but great fun. I was glad she lasted as long as she did.

Lisa was also one dimensional - she could not do latin - and 40/40 for that cha cha in the final- come on judges it wasn't good enough for 36

And why did Bruno mark Tom's salsa down in the final - it was a 10

Jodie was a star - really liked her

Have to agree with footygirl about Lisa's jive and cha cha cha. I only know what I've picked up from watching Strictly, but even I could see those dances didn't deserve those marks.

(Don't agree about Tom's salsa deserving a 10, though.)

The first 10 last year didn't appear until week 7 for Austin's Quickstep (and then didn't appear in week 8 either)

The problem is emphatically not that there are too many high scores at the beginning, it's that there are too many at the end. All dances at every stage should be marked objectively - if a week 1 dance is worth 9 or 10, it should get 9 or 10. Grading on a curve results in rubbish like Lisa's 80/80 last year, because after 3 months, the curve has nowhere left to go.

(Interestingly enough the average score for wk1 dances Series 1? 24. The average score for wk1 dances series 6? 24. Given the insane mark inflation as a whole from series to series, I think that's rather telling...)

This is the only thing I would find to disagree with you on. I thought that Rachel could do more than merely dance. She and Vincent made a great couple. Yes, everybody went on about the Barbie Doll thing too, didn't they. She wasn't' a great speaker or particularly highly intelligent perhaps, but does that make her a bad person?Does it make her unworthy? Everyone takes the mick out of David Beckham's life and public speaking abilities, but no one denies his talent. Vincent and Rachel's Argentine Tango was just fantastic and Vincent made very little allowance for her inexperience in his choreography. I think she was a terrific dancer.

I voted for Tom too last year, but I wonder if being a "pretty good dancer" will be enough for me this year. I think I voted for Camilla rather than Tom, knowing it was going to be her last year. I'm going to try to be a bit more like Craig in my voting this year I think.

that is complete rubbish . jodie only got 30 because it was half decent compared to other tall peoples jives in previous series.

lisa imo on the final should have won because they were the best dancers. i dont feel they were ever overmarked undermarked in fact in

the salsa
rumba
paso doble
tango
and jive

Of course it doesn't make her a bad person or unworthy! It just didn't make her very interesting for me to watch or listen to. I can see that she was a very good dancer, but she showed no personality on or off the dancefloor, and personality is one of the things I look for in a contestant.

One of the things that Camilla did with Tom, and has done with her previous partners, is stand back and let them dance on their own. he genuinley looked liked he relished every moment on the dancefloor and his joy was infectious to me as a viewer (especially as I hated him at first and called him very rude names on here).

I like that the public have the final say.

OK, it didn't work out last year because I was supporting Rachel & Vincent, but if it was Tom and Camilla that the viewers wanted to see lift that glitter ball, then I accepted that.

If the show was based on talent alone, there'd be no point in half the celebs participating because some are clearly better than others.

one thing i didnt like about tom was the faces he pulled they were just silly lol

I agree.

I was re-watching Strictly 2008 on Watch and I tried to warm to Tom the second time around but he kept pulling these really strange, often cheesy, faces whilst dancing.

Very off-putting.

I don't know why Rachel and Lisa weren't popular, they were both quite showy weren't they, maybe we took against that, Brendan and Vincent are quite showy too, so maybe as couples they didn't come across all that well. Well before the final both girls had found themselves in the bottom two, whereas Tom never was, even the week when he was unsavable he came top of the public vote putting him in the final. I think once Austin went Tom was always going to win not matter what he did

From what I recall, Rachel was accused of being too bland and robotic whilst Lisa was criticised for coming across as too desperate and needy.

Both were thought to have been over-marked as well.

The combination of those factors put viewers off I think (not me though - I adored Rachel!).