Originally Posted by
whitewitch:
“You never know, stranger things have happened. Especially after last year when Tom Chambers won
”
He was worse than Rachel and possibly a couple of others but he did reach a pretty high average and he did have some justified high scores.
Nat or Chris winning would just be silly -no great story, low averages, no great highs and arguably dancing easier routines with less scope for damaging themselves. The winning dance would be we have survived and the camera would then pan to 4 better dancers half of them on crutches sitting in the front row.
Perhaps there is something to the training argument - its a bit much when Dancing proves more dangerous than ice skating on ITV.