ianswaiting, while I take on board what you say about it being difficult to be objective about the contestants when you have a favourite, I don't think this makes it impossible to spot bias. How else do we explain Scott getting 9s after a disastrous dance where Natalie had to drag him around 'cos he forgot so much of the routine?

Then, on Saturday, Craig admitted that he only had good things to say about Matt's samba, then still gave him a 9. Surely, if there are only good things to say that means there's nothing bad about it so what else is the number 10 for? Either the judges are biased or they aren't very accurate at scoring people.

The number 10 is for someone who is better than a number 9 and, in the case of SCD, an exceptional performance. The points awarded for the judges leaderboard aren't based on scores but on position and that is what is important. Matt was at a disadvantage going first as Craig needed to leave room in case either of the other two danced better so as to be able to denote that in his scores. He isn't Alesha doling out 10's like Smarties.

As for Scott's 9's, I would agree that they were generous but even Scott at his worst was better than, say, Gavin at his best. The problem with all the judges apart from Craig is that they start scoring the worst dancer at 5/6 so have nowhere to go when there are a lot of competitors left. Accordingly, if you have given Ann Widdecombe 5 and Scott comes along after having got 8's the week before and does a really bad performance in comparison such that you should mark him down to a 5 on the same scale, you can't because despite the bad performance he was still a million miles better than Ann. I don't agree with that approach but can you imagine what it would be like on these boards if all the judges were like Craig giving the worst dancers 1's, 2's and 3's!

Sorry, but I think you are missing the target of the judges' criticisms - and it wasn't Matt ...

All four judges were pretty complimentary, as far as I could see. If you listen to their comments, most of their problems lie with Aliona's choreography.

James was very clever with his choreography, tailoring it to both Pamela's strengths and to what he knew the judges would respond positively to. And it paid off.

Aliona was much more idiosyncratic - and, ultimately, put her own views of what was good over the feelings of her celeb partner. It's great to push boundaries - but not when it gets you and your by now exhausted partner grief from the judges, leaving him demoralised and obviously upset.

That salsa was a foolhardy and arrogant choice and, for me, symbolised everything she got wrong this series. Matt had tremendous potential at the start of the series and, had he been performing with the likes of Natalie, I suspect he would have been lifting the glitterball trophy.

The judges didn't 'dislike' Matt at all. They disliked some of the choreography choices Aliona made - and hopefully she might learn something from this experience.

I felt Alesha definately disliked Matt, even when she was praising him, she was very cold, it didn't look like she warmed to him. The judges didn't just criticise Aliona's choreography, they also said Matt danced too full on. After the quickstep I was astounded by the criticism I thought it was so thrilling, Len though it was manic. Pam I really liked, but in the end they gave her too many 10's and no negative feedback, like bacause she was an older woman they were protecting her. They went overboard with Scott too, that is why the public got tid of him and Pamela first.

Matt would have won if Kara went out first.
I believe more of Pam's votes transferred to Kara than Matt.
But in any event the best dancer won, not either of the more "popular"

Kara became the more accomplished dancer from day one, it can't be denied.
She continued to improve whereas Matt reached a peak a few programmes back and stayed there.

Matt had too many gymnastic elements to his performances from the word go. I got fed up with them.

Yes Kara had a few but she combined hers with grace.

She was a worthy winner and I've never voted for anyone.

I agree with almost everything you say, but I wish there was a better way. What I don't agree with is the last part of your post. I personally don't care about these boards and the eruptions which would ensue with the worst dancers being scored truthfully, 1, 2, or 3. Some offerings have been so dire they haven't deserved more than that. If a 7 was a cut above average, then 8 would be the score the contestants aimed for to feel good about themselves and what they've achieved that week. 9's and 10's should be for excellence instead of what they use them for.

I see where you're coming from, but if you were a celeb would you be encouraged to go on a show where your 4 days of hard work are rewarded with a 2? If this were a non-celeb contest I'm sure we'd see lower marks, but a lot of the 5s are given for effort. Craig's low scores and deadpan expression are often for effect anyway - he can be very generous at the other end of the scoreboard.

I wasn't condoning it, more illustrating it. I entirely agree with you. It may have been more accurate if I had said "can imagine any of the judges apart from Craig getting out of the studio alive if they had been giving Ann ones".

There is also this silly thing with the public that they feel that they have to react to a low score from the judges by moaning that it's unfair and voting for the underdog rather than accepting that perhaps they really were crap and voting accordingly. If it goes on too long this sort of thing can spoil the show because the rubbish ones hang around like a bad smell seemingly forever while decent dancers get eliminated. Len and co have got a bit wise to it which is why they don't score the bad ones appropriately but it then causes the multiple pile up at the top of the leaderboard and the perceived overscoring and hence the moaning that ensues from that instead.

There is a better way which is for the dancers to be placed by each of the judges in rank order from best to last after they have all danced. For dramatic effect it could be done like they do in real ballroom competitions on the continent where the couples are brought back onto the floor to receive their placement 'paddles' from the judges so we could all still boo and hiss whenever one of the judges shows his/her 'last place' paddle. It might also force some of them to stop sitting on the fence and tying everyone on the same score with the result that Craig's score becomes decisive in who ends up where on the leaderboard. I can't see it happening though

I don't think Craig's low scores are for effect, I think he does genuinely try to distinguish the celebs in rank order. It has made him the panto villain of the panel and he plays up to it but I still think he is right in his scoring most of the time.

As regards whether the celeb would be encouraged if they got a 2. Should that matter? Is it better that they are made to be delusional as to their own talents instead? If I were getting a 2 I would want to work even harder to get a 3.

I didn't say they were for effect all the time - he needs to keep up his pantomime villain role and while he gets it right a lot of the time, other times you can predict his low mark and the audience reaction just as you can predict the others. And he's not as consistent as people make him out to be.


I'd rather "bad" dancers got 5s than very low scores putting potential celebs off and the executive producer scraping the barrel for contestants as happened with series 7.