I'll join you.

That's what I think. And he could do it with Kat. Patrick is much under-rated.

As you wish, but I can't help noticing that so often your posts contain comments about the posters. I should know - I've been on the receiving end of enough of them!

Anyway, I don't mind so if it makes you happy, whatever! I just think it's bad form.

You are making it too simplistic. When you go to a restaurant, the food is the 'star' of the show, but the evening is made up of so much more. The same applies with SCD - we need the show to be good in the round, not just 'and now we have contestant number 8.'

It's rather ironic then that you have absolutely nothing to say about the rest of the content of my post... but prefer to focus on making comments about me instead.

When Bruce hosted he tried to make it all about him. Tess was very banal when it came to the after dance interviews. Now for me the balance is right. Straight forward introductions to the dancers, with a bit of levity and empathy whilst waiting for the scores.

A more in your face presenter would be the equivalent of a waiter constantly chivvying to take your order.

Disagree.

It's a ten million viewer show, tops the ratings they do a brilliant job, and the negativity on this forum is limited to a few. The show tops the ratings, it can be live for two hours twenty minutes with Radom events.

They do a fantastic job.

I like them. They're not perfect hosts by any means but they do a great job imo.

Sometimes I feel like the only one on DS that likes Tess

Claudia is not to everyone's taste understandably but I don't mind her (though having said that I find myself skipping her a lot on catchup).

I'd personally keep both for now.

We could have done with one of those yesterday whilst waiting for our usual Sunday lunch in a pub restaurant. Some appear to be so busy, but seemingly walk around with their eyes shut.

I like both of them. I don't want either of them to leave. They work well together on the show.

I stand corrected - it wasn't a poll (for once I hear you cry!!!) but a thread - see below:

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2185687

Claudia is funny that's debatable .........i find it quite it cringy at the best of times, thankfully i have a mute button - Don't mind Tess, however if a change was announced id be happy. I'm obviously minority too, thats cool i can cope with that.

I'm happy for them to stay as long as they continue at their present level which is more than good enough for Strictly and much better than the Brucie - Tess combo was in his last 5 years on the show.

Personal opinion. Likely to diverge form time to time.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again here since people are determined to open this can of worms again.


I am not a fan of Claudia Winkleman, I think that comes out quite often on here. But the fact of the matter is; Strictly is one of the highest rated shows on the BBC and both Tess and Claudia seem to be popular with the majority of the audience (if not on here), so why does anything have to be changed?

I tend to agree. It was enormously successful with Bruce Forsyth, too, and I couldn't stand him. Tess and Claudia are a vast improvement in my view. My favourite Strictly presenter, by some distance, is Zoe Ball, but I'm sure plenty of people can't stand her, either.

For what it's worth, I think Tess's blandness is rather a good foil to the excessive 'personality' of the judges, the often emotional performers and the increasingly loopy Claudia.

I think they have got lucky this year, Ed Balls is a one off phenomenon that has captured a lot of attention, they won't find another like that next year who can carry the whole series forward.

Good opportunity next year for a revamp, Goodman is going which is positive, why not Winkleman, possibly Daly too, stay ahead of the game because Cow will fight back, no question of that, Balls has held them off this year but no doubt without him a lot of questions would have been asked. When you go as low for fun as wrecking the terms and charges section it is clear a new direction is overdue.

You obviously have great problems with Tess and Claudia, but it's the BBC who decide who will front the show. They can't have got it too wrong with the number of viewers that tune in each week.

The two women do what's asked of anchors - present, introduce and link without making it all about them - unlike the previous presenter and unlike some of the suggestions that have been made, and they do it extremely well (my opinion). It's a family show that has to appeal to all ages from 5 to 95 not just the age group that any individual poster fits in to, but some seem unable to consider that, and want what they want regardless of what anyone else may think.

The Op's opening sentence:

"Surely the time has come for the BBC to change take, such a dormant dull pair of presenters no chemistry, no talent, no humour, just bland."

is just an opinion of Tess and Claudia and nothing else - an opinion - not fact.

It is an opinion but it can be fairly backed up neither of them have done anything else of note, despite being mid forties. When Winkleman has been put anywhere else that can't be strongly controlled she hasn't exactly pulled up any trees, a total disaster on the radio.

Yes the modern BBC way is stuff the peak programmes with rather anodyne presenters who are safe Daly and Winkleman are not the only ones Jones, Baker, Hollins, Walker are others but really for the TV Tax there should be better put on. These people will never get the status of the BBC light entertainment legends of the past too many people think they are crap and rightly so.

Plenty of other more talented options have been put forward on this thread and Ball for one has a better track record than either of these 2.

That's really naive. A "better" presenter would cost a lot more money.

"These two" provide links. That's all that's required. We like to have a moan about them, but not many would want them changed.

Few would want to return to the days of the old codger where he tried to make it "his show."
Any "big name" would do the same. We've had enough of that.

He'd be a funnier presenter than Claudia Winkleman who I cannot stand in this role. I like her on the other stuff she has done, but the moustache jokes, stupid one liners and so on are just not funny.

I agree. I don't like the implication that any big name presenter is more important than the show itself.

I'm actually put off by programmes which include the presenter's name in the title - unless it's an eponymous show such as the Graham Norton Show. I mean those sorts of things like "Penelope Keith's Whatever" or game shows in which the title includes the host's name. Same with those US sitcoms which rely on the name of the "star" in their title.

To me it implies that the content of the programme is so worthless that it needs the name of that presenter to be attached in order to persuade people to consider watching it.

You seem to be missing the point that she's poking fun at that sort of humour by persisting with it in that blindingly obvious manner. That's why the premise of each "joke" is deliberately stage managed so precisely. The humour is in its complete lack of spontaneity - not its content.

It's called irony.

I would tend to think she isn't capable of anything more ambitious, so they give her that role which the average 8 year old could pull off.