I know its a bit late but but from what I understand Baggs was actually quite good and performed well in tasks, he just had a rubbish personality and an even worse ego, but by no means a rubbish candidate in that sense.

Has anyone seen this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...andidates.html



The first three candidates are three of my all time favourite female candidates!

I'm guessing they meant memorable, not idiotic!

He was. People say it was ridiculous that he got to the point that he did. I agree that he should have been fired in Week 10 instead of Liz, but he was always going to get to Week 10, because he was only in the boardroom on two other occasions, when he was up against Dan and Melissa respectively, who had both performed considerably worse than him. He was a pretty good salesman, just very hard to work with.

The other one that people think of is Katie Hopkins. She was actually a very solid task performer. She messed up a couple of tasks, but on most of the others she worked very hard and achieved good results, especially when she was Project Manager. It's one of the things that I find frustrating about the name she has carved for herself - on the programme she proved that underneath her thoroughly unpleasant personality, she is actually very creative and a very good businesswoman. She could be really successful if she wanted to be, and I don't understand why she has made herself so unemployable. Just personal insecurities, I suppose.

It's interesting that I saw someone post on another thread that 'no one watches The Apprentice to see competent bores'. I find that interesting, because I don't think that a candidate's level of competency has a great deal of bearing on their entertainment value. I just gave two prime examples of candidates who have been thoroughly entertaining and also pretty decent on the tasks, more examples of which would be Luisa Zissman and Debra Barr, among others. Compare them with Alex Britez Cabral, who was both dull and seemingly incompetent. It's good to have people who are entertaining on the show, but to me that doesn't mean watching people screw up for the sake of screwing up without me caring about them - if that was what I wanted, I'd watch You've Been Framed! instead. If they can find entertaining people, that's great, and if they can perform well on the tasks so much the better. After all, it is supposed to be a show about business skills.

I think Stuart lucked out during his first spell as project manager - Sandeesh did a far better job of leading the opposing team than Stuart did of leading his, but made two fatal mistakes in overspending on DVDs and deciding to juggle around her sales and production staff at the last minute. Had Stuart lost, he would have been a goner for sure.

But yeah, he did improve a lot in Weeks 8 and 9, and that (along with the whole communications license thing) probably helped tip the balance toward him and against Liz in the last regular task.

Kurt Wilson (S9)

Really good looking but not as capable

Alex from series 6. He was just so crap and so unaware of how crap he was it was almost genius.

James from Series 5 was pretty rubbish really but was so likeable. He was nice to everyone, his heart was in the right place, and he had some amazing one-liners. My favourite Apprentice quote ever is James commenting that "if I lose this task, Sir Alan will kick me so hard up the arse I'll have his toes for teeth".

Lucinda from Series 4 again wasn't perfect, and admittedly is getting a bit of a sympathy vote because of the bullying from Jenny C, but she was a really warm, kind-hearted person who was surprisingly good at times and certainly had her proud moments. She went out with her head held high right at the end an outlasted almost all that doubted her. So I had a real liking for her, not to mention her quirky dress sense and her endearing poshness. She makes this thread though because at times she was just terrible and didn't help her reputation one bit.