I actually thought Austin's salsa was quite good. I didn't notice Erin's hair extensions coming out, indeed never knew she had hair extensions! However, her hair or lack of it had no effect on the dance which was fine. Austin and Erin received good marks from the judges.

All that happened is that the other contestants were a little better on the night.

The problem is another kind of gapping. The REALITY gap.

The public have not voted for Lisa with any enthusiasm and yet she remains.

The judges (and lots of people here too) still seem to think the dancing is the top and bottom of it. It's not.

The dancing took 12 minutes of the programme on Saturday. I didn't even bother to watch Sunday.

If the competitors bore me in the "chat" sections then I just can't be bothered. And the back-story is the most interesting bit really. If it was all about grand circles and underarm passes then the original show would still exist. It does not.

What's farcicial is the notion that it's about dance.

Put two bland women in it like Lisa and Rachel and the public will vote with their remote!

At the end of the day it's about what you want from the show as a viewer.

Personally I want to be entertained as well as enjoy the dancing. If it was just about technically good dancing I would just watch the pros on Sunday.

One thing I was cross about was they did 'allow' for Lisa being tall and therefore the jive being difficult for her. A 9 is mad when you consider Jill Halfpenny's jive... Yet Austin was criticised constantly for the size of his arms preventing him getting them straight over his head for example and no 'allowance' was made for him having that physique for his sport.

If you just want dancing then Rachel and Lisa are fine. But I don't get the fun feeling from them as I did with Jill, Aleesha or Tom or Austin this year.

I don't recall any "constant" criticism of Austin. Tom was called smug by a judge in the first show, which could have torpedoed his chances with the viewing public; Rachel was attacked by another judge for having "dead" eyes - neither of which, to me, seem massively central to the dancing: unlike finding it difficult to raise your arms straight.
The fact is that they've all been criticised, and sometimes it's come across as a bit too harsh, but I certainly don't think Austin has been one of the worst treated in this regard.

I have been really disappointed with SCD6. It has nothing to do with my favourites being knocked out because tbh, I didn't have a favourite this year. Usually there is at least one couple I like but this year there has been no-one. I have found this series pretty lack-lustre even before the John Sargeant saga began. There is no fun, no personalities just a group of celebrities who were so driven and ultra competitive it took the fun out of watching. People were good from the start with no sense of progression or improvement. Everything is so serious.
I'd really like the BBC to think about the format for next year. Think about the number of weeks the show is on for, the celebrities who participate, the judges, the voting system and the elimination process - all of these I think have played a factor as to why I haven't enjoyed the show as much as I have done in the past. It's becoming a victim of its own success.
As a viewer I have felt detached from it, it just seems completely about the celebrity/celebrities without a thought for the public even to the point of when they ask the celebrities opinions on what they thought about the dances. Wouldn't it be nice to ask the general public who make up a majority of the audience? I couldn't give a stuff what Lionel Blair thinks about Rachel & Vincent, Lisa & Brendan et al wouldn't it be nice to hear what Joe Blogs in the audience thinks about the show?
I think the Beeb needs a reality check and to go back to the basics. Think about what made the show great in the first place and stick to that formula.

I think Tom has over the last few weeks developed a nice personality actually. Really enjoy seeing him dance and off the dancefoor as well. He and Camilla have suddenly become a team that was missing in the earlier weeks.

It has come up time and time again on It Takes Two - especially from Arlene. I just don't think they should make allowances for some contestants and not for others... There is just no way that jive was an 8/9. Not compared to others this series and especially saying it was one mark away from Jill Halfpenny is silly.
Just my opinion though.

Maybe they can't afford Green and Blacks.

Well Lisa still finished in the dance off - so what difference did it make?

Perhaps we're now seeing the side of Tom that the other celebs and pros saw from the beginning. He always seemed to be popular with them.

Still not keen on Camilla.

I'm not Camilla's biggest fan either but I thought she choreographed a wonderful Foxtrot for Tom.

I thought it was telling how the other three celebs all said how Tom was a sweetie. I felt he was so humble in his reaction to the judges' comments on his Foxtrot - a true gent

Because if Lisa had finished bottom of the leaderboard Austin may not have been in the dance off.... So it makes quite a difference.

Don't you think comparing a dance competition to bear baiting and public hangings is slightly going to extremes?

I've put the following in a spoiler as some may not wish to know the possible public vote result from Saturday.

A spoiler posted suggests that...

But equally 36 points for Austin's Salsa was ridiculous (compare that to Karen and Mark Ramprakash's brilliant effort)

I think they have all been overmarked on more than one occasion.

Such a shame that Austin's AS wasn't better - a good AS can make a waltz look very dull and would have been much better in a dance off.

Hypothetical though - and tbh bottom of the leaderboard was where he deserved to be on Saturday.

Sad - because although I won't pretend I was ever a fan, I'll readily admit his opening performances were very good. I simply didn't see a lot of improvement - and last Saturday, when he really needed to turn it on, it just didn't happen.

Well let's say it's someone's theory, and maybe they are right. Whatever the truth, it just goes to show that, however popular you are, if you deliver two lacklustre performances in the quarter finals, you're out. Presumably all the people so upset about Austin's departure really wanted John Sargeant to win - he was, after all, rumoured to be the public's first choice.

The argument though applies logically next week too and it strips down to the claim that two most popular people ought to be in the final.

Thats been tried and found to end up in uncompetitive finals with the best people watching. Its not a situation that any other talent show allows (even X factor has total control of the who gets what song , sings when, who gets impressive staging or not and it spins far more) It turns SCD into a purely personality show heavily biased to the males. It also doesn't produce a less predetermined final - Tom may always have been going to beat Austin.

There's also no point in having a QF or SF or even final if popularity decides who goes further and wins. Its exactly the same as having the Premiership and just voting to put Man United and Arsenal in every final regardless of the scores or who won anything.

Only if you assume every other bit of the equation fell Austin's way - he has to beat Tom if last and Lisa has to beat Rachel if he is last and Lisa has to beat Rachel if he is third with the judges. Even the supposed latest leak has him failing at stage one and most other polls and perms suggest he also failed stage two.

Well next Saturday all three couples will have to dance their socks off. It is going to be so close. Very exciting.

And then knock Len's socks off.
Going to be a bad night if you're a sock next Saturday.

Great post.
The current system is a compromise. It's not perfect but I haven't seen any better suggestions.

A couple of points.
Firstly, in X-Factor this year there was a sing-off between two talented singers. One of them had been in the bottom two twice ( like Lisa ) and Simon said that he could not possibly save her again. Another point with that comparison, the X-Factor contestants are allowed to select their own song for the sing-off..thus making the judges view a different performance entirely.
Secondly, your analogy with the Premiership. That is decided on a level playing field, and hopefully the best team ends up with the title ( as long as its not Man U )..in the head to head dance-off on SCD they are performing different dances with different degrees of difficulty. In that respect its more like the FA Cup..Lisa drew a mid table Championship side ( the waltz ) and Austin had to play another Premiership side ( the salsa )

How do we know where Austin was in the public vote Saturday night?


There is no good evidence that "the vast majority" (or any majority) didn't want them there.

Even if we knew the voting numbers, they wouldn't show that.

The SCD voting system does not allow people to say who they don't want there. At most, people can try to approximate saying that with tactical voting; but then the vote numbers are ambiguous. (How many of the votes for X were real and how many were tactical? There's no way to tell.)

Austin could have had an American Smooth against the Waltz if he'd danced it better; and as someone points out above:

That does not follow at all.

At most, being in the dance-off would show she was entertaining the public less than some others; it would not show she was not entertaining them.

People tend to vote only for their favourite, or at least to vote more times for their favourite; it doesn't mean they aren't entertained by the others as well.

Not only that. Many viewers (probably most) don't even vote.


What is the evidence that "the public on the whole" has any such view?