Personality & chemistry will usually win the day. And they have to love the whole strictly thing and learn something.

In the end, they do need to be able to follow a routine reliably & add personality.

Without no hesitation a bad dancer with personality.
You can be the greatest dancer ever but if you're dull as a dishwasher. ..or if you have no personality whatsoever. ...I'll find it extremely hard to root for you.

Natalie was supposedly the best dancer in 2013 but I couldn't warm up to her no matter how hard I tried.

Invariably the couple I want to win has to be in the top 3 or 4 on ability in my estimation.

As much as I liked Hollins, for example, I could never really root for him (even against the less endearing Mr Whittle) because he just wasn't good enough. And no amount of overmarking could disguise his limitations.

I would prefer to watch good dancing. The personality side can be taught - just think of Louis Smith, who clearly concentrated really hard to get his routines and technique correct, but seemed to lack personality until he suddenly came to life with his Charleston!

I feel Jay is similar. He is concentrating on getting his dances right, he hasn't yet managed to add performance. But I'm sure it will come when he gains a little more confidence.

But good or bad dancing alone will not win Strictly. The winner will also have to be likeable - few people will vote for someone they don't like, however good their dancing may be.

Early on in the show I prefer the bad dancers great personalities. I don't want to see week 2 dances that are amazing, I prefer to see dancers who learn and I can see it happen. After week 5 I do like to see more good dancing.

Thankgoodness it's not a binary choice as there are 16 contest as so it's not just one or the other.
I would say on average is a mix of likeability, chemistry and ability (be it technical or performance). I love Natalie G dancing, but couldn't warm up to her (and I don't watch Corrie), I loved SEB but her dancing was weakish and Brenda did not do any favours. That is why Abbey was my personal favourite because she had a bit of everything.

Well this thread took an awkward turn.

EDIT: Nevermind.

Never mind

I loved Alesha Dixon because she had both. Great personality and at the end, a cracking dancer (well to me anyway) plus she was gorgeous as was Matt...so it was a win win all the way.

She was my favourite winner for a long while, and yet I couldn't bear her as a judge.

A good dancer always! The comedy routines grate after a while. Ainsley is going to irritate me very soon I think.

I know what you mean. I think he is naturally full of beans. He is always moving, laughing and smiling.

Lisa Reilly was the worst of the ott "personalities". (for me)

I could have endured her if she knew her dance limitations, but her illusions, especially at the end really made me dislike her. The palavar about getting Blackpool with "her Bobby" was so ott.

Then the added insult of her witterings on ITT, as if she was a pro... ...well...

They should have both, but personality would tip the scales for me. I can watch much better dancers elsewhere outside Strictly (and I do regularly) as can anyone who has access to youtube. Strictly is about a celeb learning to dance.

Only proviso is that I do want them to be genuinely learning, even if they mess it up.

Yep, definitely agree with that but I couldn't watch a series of celebs who can't dance but have 'big personalities' like Spoony, Lisa Riley (she lasted way too long), Dave Myers, Russell Grant etc.....I'd rather go the other way and watch the likes of Rachel Stevens, Harry Judd, Ali Bastian etc. Not big on-screen personalities but they could entertain with decent dancing.

what about Chris Hollins?

he had a great personality and was an ok dancer (I think - he wasn't bad but he wasn't great)

was it his chemistry with Ola and how they danced together that led him to win or was it a combination of great personality, ok dancing and the chemistry with Ola?

I'm not sure as in the past I've supported both Chris Hollins who wasn't the best dancer but had a great partnership with Ola and Rachel Stevens who was the best dancer but didn't have a huge personality, although in some ways Vincent had enough for both of them. I also supported Louis Smith, Harry Judd and my all-time favourite Kara, all of whom I think had both, as I always found Louis and Harry quietly funny rather than dull. I think personality and great chemistry with your partner can make up for a lot dance-wise but, for me, great dancing doesn't make up for an off-putting personality. I was thinking last night, I had more of a smile on my face watching Jeremy and Ainslie, who have pretty bad technique but are clearly loving the whole experience and throw themselves into it entirely, than I did watching Helen who is a better dancer but looked slightly awkward and embarrassed throughout. If someone doesn't look totally comfortable with what they are doing I don't feel comfortable watching it.

I always thought that if Rachel Stevens had been more OTT she would have won.

Her dancing was sublime her loosing was (to me) an absolute travesty.

A showdance won it for Tom Chambers...

I see your point. I suppose there is limit! . i wasn't keen on any of those big personalities though. But I liked Julian Clary, say, and didn't begrudge him getting so far in the show.

Because you "liked him". It's all relative.

I agree I also liked Rachel and Harry, quieter personalities. So yes, how I react to someone's personality is very important.

So true Annx

Personality does seem to be important.
If a celebrity is seen as smug or fake or arrogant or desperate or needy or overly competitive or overly serious or trying too hard to be sincere then this is bad news for them.
If you are a celebrity who struggles dance wise then you need to counter it with entertainment value and a likeable, bubbly and genuine persona. Your reaction to every little thing will no doubt be analysed to the enth degree as well such as comments, scores and introductions.
If you come across well then I suspect your chances of picking up sympathy votes when you really need them are somewhat greater.

I know I know. Cynical............... but imo true .

Personality is in the eyes of the beholder - and shaped by editors. Judges often make silly comments that some voters actually believe. Regional votes tend to go for people who sound and act the same. People who like bad panto, tend to think people who are bad panto acts, have personality. Brash people like brash people, and can't understand quiet ones. Attractive males are deemed to have personality, while their female equivalents are often deemed suspect. People see whats not there, or in their imagination, ,and miss what is there. Drive and ambition to win are praised in some, and criticised in others. Subtlety is often missed. Lots of VTs, on a credible positive back story, means votes- a few Vts of training problems, becomes a reason not to vote. There's often zero relationship beween who has a successful career, based on personality, outside, and who gets votes for having one on the show. Some of the most popular people around failed to get a vote. There's also the Big Brother problem - that the people everyone involved likes, or function well. are often not the ones the voters vote for.

Anyone, to do well, has to be able to act, and to have musicality. There's also a question of whether the public should vote for people who play a role as themselves, or keep their vote for those who can play the roles required better. The history of the show is full though of cases of bad actors doing well, and good actors proving too subtle - or Len getting it wrong and missing whats there.

Rachel Stevens is probably the big case study. Len, in his wisdom, decided that the winner of the FHM all time sexiest female competition, lacked sex appeal, and kept on about it. The voters voted for a significantly worse dancer, who also happened to be the best trained contestant that year - probably because he was known on BBC 1 and had sex appeal. The showdance of course was something he had had an interest in working up for years - since drama school.

if she had sounded, or looked, like Jill Halfpenny, or/and had done a major soap, I suspect she would have done much better. If she had been more OTT or sexual, I ssupect the female vote would have been even less inclined to vote for her.

Good dancer all the way, I may laugh at the so called personalities, but I want to see good dancing.
However within that I like personality too.

I believe Natalie had lots of personality, both on and off the dance floor.
I think people were a bit mean towards her, one reason I believe is because of her character on corrie, people can sometimes take that too seriously in ways that they project that character onto the actor.