Or, I just prefer the Strictly that happens in my head, then where Ian is 3 times the champion

PMPL!! In MY head, Brendan and Matthew alternate who wins and who is second every year

Anyone who was unpopular and also not the best dancer would not last long in the competition. So that scenario isn't really what people are talking about.

Nobody is suggesting that Strictly should be purely a popularity contest. But nor is it purely a dancing competition. It is a show where celebrities learn how to dance and we are invited, as viewers, to invest in them in the same way we'd invest in any 'personality' participating in reality television. So, inevitably, we form opinions on them both on and off the dancefloor. (If it was all about the dancing, there'd be no Tesspit, no shots of them in the corridor, no training footage personalised by visits from friends and family, etc).

The judges have an advantage over the public as they, via the producers, are made aware of the public's voting patterns and can amend their own scores accordingy to ensure their favourites' safety. We saw this in action last year where Lisa Snowdon was repeatedly placed in the dance-off by the public and, probably not coincidentally, overmarked by the judges for some very lacklustre Latin performances.

So I would dispute the public getting an 'overriding' vote - that is very unlikely. All the public can do is vote to save their favourite in the hope that they'll get through.

We have a similar situation to last year where there are two couples favoured by the judges, and two favoured by the public. This is why you will find concern among Chris and Laila's fans, who are, because of Strictly history, worried for their favourites. As other posters have noted, the judges appear to have made up their minds already who they want in the final.

I like the way your head works!

That's a very sweeping statement. Is it based on fact or speculation? Nothing I've seen on Strictly over the years suggests that the judges know any more than we the public do in regards to the voting. If they had 'insider knowledge' as it were, then the semi-final debacle last year wouldn't have occured. Lisa got to the final because she danced better in the dance off each time. Her Cha Cha probably didn't deserve the 10 from Bruno first time round, but the odd mark here or there wouldn't have made much difference.


As the judges are there to judge the dancing, is it any surprise that the better dancers are scoring higher? There's no conspiracy here.

I want chris & ola chops to win, the other two have zero personality despite being able to dance and the various love story's between them and their pros is nauseating because none of them are remotely interesting.

Imo chris improves each week, and doesn't come across as expecting and demanding good comments then pulling prissy faces if he doesn't get them like the other 2.

yes the other 2 can dance but they are so meh & boring. Its probably already decided whos going to win anyway and it wont be chris but one can wish.

Spot on

Anyway, I don't think the judges can fix it - they'd have to sacrifice either Ali or Ricky into the dance off to do so. Those two are too close in the public vote for the judges to know which will end up with the public's 2 or 3 pts. They could both end up with 6 and both go through - if one ends up on 7 though, the other will be in the dance off - if Chris definitely wins the public vote.

The semi-final debacle occurred last year because they hadn't thought through the consequences of a three-person semi where one contestant could not be saved. Even now, I think it is correct to say that, for the semi, there will always be a permutation where the lowest-scoring contestant on the judges' leader board will end up in the dance-off, even if they top the public vote. This rather rides roughshod over Tess urging viewers to vote 'to save your favourites from the dreaded dance-off'.

Lisa's survival relied less on the dance-off and more on the scores she was given beforehand - the commonly cited example is her jive, which would have been pulled apart if danced by the likes of Christine Bleakley but was 'sympathetically' scored by the judges.

Of course the judges will score technique highly - but then again we can also find examples where, even for them, entertainment value has superseded content (I'm thinking of Austin's showstopping paso, for one). The goalposts move all the time - hence we saw Ali and Brian's collision-tastic VW awarded a ten last week, 24 hours after Flavia said clearly collisions would be penalised.

Entirely up to you what you choose to believe. But please let's not pretend that the producers and judges don't have favourites they try and push. Bruno even said he overscored Emma Bunton because he knew she had less support from the public!

I would like a good dancer, whose personality shines through to win. Sadly, that hasn't happened since Alesha won. Chris is very personable and cute, but that aint enough to win my votes. Don't like any of the final four. They all have something lacking. I wish Jade hadn't got herself injured. I haven't voted since about week 5 or 6.

Perhaps that is because he knows the judges comments and scores don't matter when he has the popular vote. As witnessed by his fans going on about strategies to keep him in, judges unfairly marking those who can dance better more than their favourate, and all before he has even danced a step. He could obviously come out and fall flat on his face and gurn for a minute and the Cola cult followers would still vote like mad for him.

This.
Don't get me wrong... I LOVE Chris and Ola... and I think that their Charleston was inspired and he's been on the obligatory "journey"...

But I think the comp lacked something when Jade hopped out in agony... Ali-stunned-mullet and (I have to say... EYE CANDY) Ricky are great dancers... but ... I dunno... no journey, no love from me

You mean like Laila could come out and do half a dance on a sprained ankle and still go through? Like Matt di Angelo could screw up 2 dances in a row and still go through? Well, duh. Of course that could happen. The public are weird like that

Now that I do agree with you on. even I'm not stupid enough to believe that the judges don't have their favourites and might score them a little higher, but that doesn't suggest a deliberate conspiracy to me. Generally, the leaderboard positioning ends up about right which is the key thing.

However, on the production front, there is a definate angle from the VT footage and that could be construed as 'influencing' the watching hoardes so I would perhaps concede that. But hey, it seems to be working in the public's favour this year if, as we're led to believe, Chris is topping the vote.

Oh, I enjoyed C&O's Charleston, probably the best dance last Saturday, but still no spark overall for me.

I'm pondering on SCD too much as I have too much time on my hands as I'm recovering from anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructive surgery last week. I can sympathise with Jade as I also tore the medial collateral ligament a few years before tearing the anterior collateral one!! Still a few weeks off work, and what better time to recuperate than in the final throes of SCD!! Better get off this v uncomfortable computer chair and into my old lady recliner! Better still, get my OH to get me a laptop with WiFi, oh and a hard disk recorder for the spare room where I'm (mostly) confined to barracks! Then I could re-watch SCD in slo-mo and really get critical!

The judges claim to mark soley on the dancing but there is much evidence to the contrary. They allow certain celebs - Ricky Whittle - to get away with massive mistakes without marking them down but never allow Chris to get away with anything. The judges pick their faves early on then mark them high to try and prevent them from being in a surprise dance off. This ensures the celebs gets to at least the QF but, I think, it lessens that celebs popularity with the public. If the judges had marked Ricky fairly then I think he'd have had more of a 'journey' and be a tad more popular with the public.

Chris on the other hand is still improving, is saying all the right things ie on ITT last night reminded us of a comment Bruno made a couple of weeks ago thus ensuring we know he's never had the backing of all the judges at the same time. He's playing it brilliantly and if he wins then he'll deserve it. If he wins I hope he thanks the judges for the constant criticism that has helped create his huge fanbase.

I disagree and I'm not arguing for it to be scrapped at an aribitary point but at the two dance stage it should either be scrapped or done on the weakest dance when it means that someone can coast through it by just being good at one dance - Lisa did it last year IMO and I fear Laila might on Saturday. I do think the DO causes problems and the criteria by which someone is saved by the judges shifts according to how much of a favourite someone is and how injured they are but I do think it's better to have it there then run the risk of someone going who really shouldn't. When I think of some of the people who survived the DO I really wouldn't have liked to have seen some of them go.

These things are only ever a "fix" when someone's favourite doesn't go through.

If anyone other than Chris - the weakest dancer at the moment - went out tomorrow, there'd be no bawwing about fixes.

Yes he had a bad night but Lisa did one good dance and one dance that was either lousy or not as good depending on how generous towards her you feel and she got to do her good one in the DO meaning that Austin had no hope. Honestly what's the point of doing two dances apart from time filling if you can get away with just being good at one - it might not have saved Austin if she had to do the DO on the weakest dances but it would have felt fairer at least (well until they saved Lisa anyway because they seemed to be a tad biased towards her IMO). Also as far as I'm concerned the public vote is to save someone who is good but having a bad night for whatever reason and balance out any biases in the judges's vote (and yes they do have the favs despite what they say) and because without the public having a real say their involvement is pointless.

The DA might have saved John Barnes long enough to do a great salsa which probably wasn't worth the loss of Gaby but certainly was worth the loss of Willie Thorne and Dom Littlewood. It saved Matt DA, it saved Don Warrington long enough to do a pretty good tango, it saved Heather Small over people who were much worse than her, it saved Jodie Kidd in the first week. It's swings and roundabouts really if you can't say for definate whom would have gone without by public vote alone than you can't say for definate that Gaby, Zoe, Penny, Martina or anyone else that you felt deserved at least a few more weeks in wouldn't have gone without it.

And yet they do it - define the 'best' dancer - some of Lisa's routines contained obvious stumbles that someone else would have got marked down for - the fact that her AS which she stumbled in got the same marks as Tom's who did a flawless job was ridiculous. Ricky makes mistakes and doesn't get marked down as much as some - his salsa getting more marks than Jade's was stupid.

I dunno sometimes a great dance can sustain people through a few dodgy weeks - Ramps salsa helped him survive his rhumba and Matt's helped him survive his meltdown. The rhumba is the only dance she would have struggled with - she would have had the paso and AS this week and would have been ok probably with either of the dances last week (maybe the charleston might have been better than the rock n'roll).

I agree about Jodie - it was Christine supporters what did for her in the end not the judges.

That's still an arbitrary point. If the DO is 'right', why isn't it always 'right'?...including the two-dance stage...and the obvious solution to the legitimate point you make is to have both dances performed in the DO.

Anyone can see that the DO causes problems...but to have it for part of the series and then scrap it adds to those problems and looks like expediency.

Most of the time we don't know if the DO has saved someone or not. If the DO winner happens to be the couple who finished second bottom, they would have gone through without it.

What's more, if (or when) the judges rigorously apply the criteria they claim to use (i.e. judge on the DO alone), it follows that sometimes the DO is actually endangering a superior couple who would have survived without it.

I think determining the best technical dancer needs to take into account the difficulty of the routine alongside how well it is performed, so a very difficult routine performed very well but with the odd mistake should probably score higher than a simple one done without mistakes.
In a way that should be part of the skill of the pro, deciding how far they can push their celeb without tipping the balance into excessive mistakes.
I know the judges talk about taking marks off for mistakes and of course they do sometimes, but I think they don't allow a wide enough range of marks to reflect difficulty of routine.

And the public hasn't?