Originally Posted by rwebster:
“I don't agree - but only because series 7 and 9 have been among the best, so I don't think it's lost any form to regain.
One thing I do think 10 has reinstated is candidates with very little self-awareness. There's been an increasing sense as you move from S1 to S9 that all the candidates know the drill, know what they're letting themselves in for, and are to an extent learning from the mistakes of former series. The candidates in S10, that's dialled way way down. James has got a brand of cluelessness we haven't really seen since Ben Clarke; the candidates are all rather earnest, again, and that feels refreshing.”
Ironically, while some are less self aware because they have little sense, more of them this year actually have been very successful. There's some people in there, just from looking a few up on twitter, or Linkedin, who have already won national awards.
The more damaging cluelessness has been to do with getting use to the mechanics and timetables of the show, plus an expanded first task that saw them, inevitably, run into time constraints, a dodgy second task that was unlikely to produce much of merit , and a third task that was constructed. with a flaw. We almost saw Katie get the strategy all right , and lose to people selling below cost- because the residual stock was not valued in the task rules. And , from that game design flaw , flowed much of the indecision about what price to aim for.