Well Bill Turnbull should have won then thanks to the breakfast TV slot. Somehow this thought is stuck in your head and you cannot seem to let it go.

Please don't give me nightmares

A worse thought Fiona or Kate Garroway

But all the breakfast presenters went further in SCD than they would have on merit alone because of the link between the shows. Every day they discuss SCD and every year there is a breakfast presenter on the show. They both mutually promote each other. And the fact that they are presenters mean that people know more about them as personalities than they do the other dancers.

Still that is reality and there is nothing wrong with it - once people acknowledge the advantage it gives some competitors. Its silly to claim Chris has more personality etc when people know his personality because he is on the TV daily as himself and it is his job to present himself.

Quote:
“Every day they discuss SCD and every year there is a breakfast presenter on the show.”

Ok Bill Turnbull in series 3 was it and Chris Hollins in series 7 so who were the other breakfast people that have been on the other series ?

I think the 'success' of Breakfast tv people, whether BBC or the other side, is more due to the fact that they are used to projecting their own personality in front of the camera in a relaxed way to make the audience feel good, rather than the chance to publicise their participation directly. Personally, never watching Breakfast tv I literally had no clue who Chris Hollins was at the start of SCD but he impresses me as being the most intelligent, articulate and relaxed of the remaining competitors by a long way. Whether true or not, he also seems to enjoy it more. In a year when I don't feel particularly passionate about any of the dancers, I am more kindly disposed to a good sport who appears not to take himself or the competition too seriously and whom I can identify with as a total beginner learning to dance while doing a full-time job.

Good post. I agree with you if Natalie was so disliked and Ricky did not connect with the public they would have been voted out long ago. I do think the Rock and Roll week the Charlstons were so much better more fun dances also Ricky and N had been told to slow it down etc. He was amazing in the dance off. Also being in the dance off this week when he had 95 points I think they were right in their interview that the public may well have thought they were safe and did not need votes and so voted to save the others.
Of course you could be right that his arrest unfortunately has had something to do with the two dance offs. I do agree though that had they been unpopular with the public they would have been voted out weeks ago.

I am also (whatever happens) valueing the opinion of the professions and Arlene in her column.

A high position with the judges can save those at the top when there are a lot of people in the competition - eg in week 3 the top couple would have got 14 from the judges and 1 from the public and stayed safe in the middle of the table with 15 - even if the public turned the leaderboard upside down and some of the less well known, less likeable and less able contestants can also be relied on to score low with the public as well in the early weeks.

The gulf starts showing when there are 5 or fewer contestants left. There are fewer points to play with, and a good score from both parts is needed to ensure safety. Ricky may have got 4 from the judges on Saturday, but in order to be in the dance off, he had to have come last or second last with the public giving him only 5 or at most 6 points overall.

I think the result on Saturday was this

Ricky 4 +1 (or 2) = 5 (or 6)
Ali 3+3 = 6
Chris 2+4 = 6
Laila 1 + 2 (or 1) = 3 (or 2)

With the 3 couples on 6 and the public vote counting for more - Chris and Ali went through as they got a higher public vote leaving Ricky to join Laila.

The first dance off appearance had nothing to do with the arrest - it had more to do with being only 3rd on the leaderboard, and the fact that there is no safety cushion available when there are only 5 couples, and two of those (Chris & I think Natalie up until that week) were very popular with the public.

The same thing happened on the latest Dancing with the Stars series in the US - Mya & Dimitry (their equivalent of Ricky & Natalie) were well ahead of the pack from week 1with the judges because they delivered technical perfection nearly every week. Their dancing was soulless and they had zero chemistry, and it was clear that the public had taken the less able but highly popular Donny Osmond and Kym Johnson (Chris & Ola) who clearly put his heart and soul into it and had great chemistry with Kym - even more so because he was continuing to perform his Vegas show throughout as well. Kelly Osbourne got to the the final over quite a few far more able dancers because she had the journey as well as a great partnership with Louis

It goes to show that it isn't just technical excellence that makes a winner - there more often than not has to be something else in the mix as well - and its not a situation unique to the UK programme.

I was just going to post the same.......Ricky and Natalie could have always been quite low down in the vote but it wouldnt show up in the earlier weeks because he was always top or second on the leaderboard and with a lot of couples still in it would mean he already had enough points to protect him even though he was lower in the public vote......Rock and Roll week put him 3rd on the board (was it ?? definately no higher) and that combined with a smaller number of couples was enough to land him in the dance off. The arrest may have lost him some votes but equally he could always have been polling a lower public vote, truth ....we will never know.

Will you please stop trying to tell me that my opinion is wrong.

I never said they weren't more qualified. I said I didn't agree. That is allowed, right? Well then, please stop.