Farewell Croc - Five Years Too Late

It isn’t very often it can be said a single individual  has had a major impact in their chosen profession, but it is something Aussie Jim McGrath, aka The Croc,  can justifiably claim.

Back in 1984 British racecourse commentaries were generally bland affairs, usually delivered by plummy voiced ex-military types and heaven forbid any emotion or passion be shown in the delivery.

Then, at that year’s Ebor meeting, a “guest” commentator called a few races. A young thirty something Australian who had made a name for himself in Hong Kong was invited to call a few races.

No plummy received pronunciation here but an Australian twang and a lively, more passionate style of delivery. Ears were pricked and the calls of Jim McGrath attracted the attention of many followers of the sport as many realised the sport could be made to sound exciting and enthralling.

Commentators could be passionate in their calling.

Needless to say he was soon picking up more and more gigs. His arrival also led to the introduction of a new style of commentator, gone were days of plummy majors and it was a case of hello to regional accents as younger, more passionate voices, were introduced to the commentary rota.

It’s quite likely the racing commentary style in the UK would have eventually changed without McGrath’s arrival but he was undoubtedly the catalyst for change and the timing of his arrival ensured we now have the likes of Simon Holt and Richard Hoiles gracing our commentary boxes.

It was no surprise McGrath became the heir apparent to the doyen of commentators, Peter O’Sullevan and when Sir Peter, as he was shortly to become, retired in 1997 McGrath was his obvious and rightful successor.

Unfortunately race commentating is a job which requires a sharp mind an immense concentration and as time moves inexorably on it becomes more difficult.

A combination of advancing years and lifestyle meant McGrath wasn’t, in recent years, as sharp as he once was and sadly his standard of commentating declined. He could still pull off the occasional brilliant commentary but he began making mistakes.

I recall a couple of meetings in 2012 where he was calling. One, at Plumpton, involved a six runner contest where he still managed to completely mess up the order of the runners. The other, at Warwick, where he managed to completely miss a fast finishing runner. Only picking the horse up in the dying strides.

McGrath was one of the five commentators placed under review by the Commentators Committee in 2012 and, arguably, was the only one to genuinely justify being under review.

Instead of taking the strong hint he may be past his best, McGrath started throwing his toys very publicly out of his pram and began threatening legal action – contrast that with the quiet dignity, shown in public , of fellow reviewees   Iain MacKenzie and Darren Owen, who got on doing their jobs and showing they were more than capable of doing their jobs well.

I’m not sure if it is ego but there seems to be a tendency of those in the public eye to carry on longer than they should.

It’s true of many politicians. In the world of show business someone like Bruce Forsyth is a prime example.

Of course McGrath isn’t the first caller to hang in longer than he should. Even the great O’Sullevan arguably went on a few years longer than he should, although for me the worse example was the great Peter Bromley.

Bromley was BBC Radios racing commentator for over 40 years and was as iconic as O’Sullevan.   

He did wind his commentary work down towards the end and it is said he wanted to retire in 1999, his 40^th anniversary with BBC Radio and his 70^th birthday but he was persuaded to stay on a couple of years by the BBC so he could call 200 classics.

He should have stuck with his original plan.

In those days I had a “real” job and I couldn’t always get Cheltenham Week off so I had to listen to commentary on the radio.

Listening to Bromley’s final Festival in 2001 almost had me in tears – it was clear he had lost his talent and ability and it was heart wrenching to hear him struggling to produce a coherent commentary.

The trouble is when talented professionals stay on past their peak they become remembered as much for their decline as for their prime performances.

McGrath was, by and large, an excellent commentator and he is still an excellent writer. Like or loath his commentary style he changed British racing commentary for the better.

I wish him well in the future, I will think back to his halcyon days but will still wish his final call had been five years ago when he was nearer the top of his game, rather than yesterday at Ascot.

The expression “always leave them wanting more” is variously attributed to PT Barnum and Walt Disney,  it doesn’t matter who first said it, however it is an expression those in the public eye, including commentators, should take heed of.        

You Are The Weakest Link .......

It isn’t very often the world of racecourse commentating makes the Racing Post news pages, usually it happens on one of those very rare occasions when some poor caller mis-identifies a runner and some mug in-running punter burns his fingers.

However the 2012 commentator’s rota seems to be steeped in controversy.

First of all it was announced all three of the 2011 “trainees” would have 15 days commentating in the first half of 2012, as a trial.

Now that does seem to be a departure with tradition as normally a yes / no decision is made at the end of the year.

Of the 2010 trainees, only the exceptionally good David Fitzgerald was given a place on the rota in 2011, despite there being three” vacancies” following the death of Doug Fraser and the “retirements” of Dave Smith and Graham Goode.   

However even more surprising is the news that four of the existing commentators are going to be on a six month reviews in the first half of 2012.

Now it’s clear the powers that be wanted to keep this news quiet but they did not count on veteran commentator Jim McGrath venting his spleen on the pages of the Racing Post.

With Jim blowing the gaff, as it were, it was inevitable the names of the other three would come to light and soon the names of Darren Owen, Iain MacKenzie and Derek Thompson were in the public domain.

Now those who have made this decision about reviewing the commentators have obviously had their cages rattled as it has been reported that they have warned any commentator talking to the press about the matter will have his contract terminated immediately. That seems rather Stalinist and it strikes me as being a tacit admission they have screwed up, which indeed they have.

Mindful of the threat of instant termination for the commentators concerned I am going to have to be circumspect in what I write here.

However it is my belief, and the belief of many of my press room colleagues, that the four commentators have been treated appallingly.

The manner and timing of their notification beggars belief. They were warned by letter they may be reviewed and were told they would be notified of the final decision by phone, just before Christmas as well. Merry Christmas lads!!!

They have been told their performance is being reviewed yet they have not been told what they have supposedly doing wrong or are not doing correctly or what is required to achieve the right standard. That surely cannot be right?

They are effectively saying, "We don't like what you are doing but we won't tell you what you are doing wrong."

All four are long serving members of the commentary team and for them to be treated in this way is an absolute disgrace, whether their performance justifies monitoring or not.

   

Jim McGrath as well as being a racecourse commentator is  BBC televisions lead commentator and I believe that role may not have helped his cause. I think it is universally accepted that when he came to the UK in the mid-eighties he was a breath of fresh air and his commentaries were excellent and refreshing.

He joined the BBC in 1993 as No 2 to the legendry Sir Peter O’Sullevan and it was no surprise he replaced Sir Peter as the senior BBC commentator.

However upon taking up the BBC role he stopped doing on-course commentating. Initially this wasn’t a major problem but as the BBC racing coverage diminished he was increasingly missing out on “match practice” as it were and eventually re-joined the  rota. However since his return he has never had the same edge to his calling as he had previously and, arguably, he has paid the price for not continually commentating over that period.

Derek Thompson is very much a Marmite ™ character yet he is very popular with the courses, especially when they hold family days. He is a standing dish at Newmarket’s Friday evening music race nights and is a regular caller at Yarmouth, Fakenham and Musselburgh amongst others.

He was summed up by Musselburgh chief executive Bill Farnworth, who told the Racing Post “Just as you have horses for courses you have commentators for courses and Tommo definitely has a place among the commentating team.

“Musselburgh and Derek have a close relationship and he seems to go down well with the crowd. He might not be the right person to call the Derby but for many of our days he is spot on."

Should Tommo be dropped from the commentators rota I have no doubt many courses will still use him as their on-course commentator to the exclusion of the "official" Racetech caller.

Indeed the courses may well be happier with that approach as Tommo would not be constrained by the Racetech rules (which he does already ignore on occasion and could possibly be the reason for him being "reviewed" - although that is just conjecture on my part.)

Before turning to Iain MacKenzie I should perhaps “declare an interest”.

It is no secret in the press room that Mr MacKenzie and I are not the best of buddies and are certainly not on one another’s Christmas Card list. I’m still not totally sure how the animosity started and it is unfortunate, but it’s one of those things.    

However, I have to say, whatever differences we may have had in the past his inclusion on the review list is as manifestly wrong as it is in the other cases.

He restricts his commentating to National Hunt only but I cannot think that is a reason for including him in the review.

He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the National Hunt scene and I don’t think there is another person with a greater knowledge of the point-to-point scene.  (He also, apparently, totally dislikes Christmas – so there is, at least, one thing we have in common).

I cannot recall any major cock-ups in his commentaries recently, although the term cock-up may possibly be a reason for his inclusion.  At a meeting at Folkestone earlier this year an unfortunate rider pulled up a circuit too soon and MacKenzie actually referred to it as a “cock-up” during commentary.

Personally I though it to be an honest summation but I wonder if that got him a black mark with the powers that be?

The fourth member of the list is the most bemusing to me.

The inclusion of Darren Owen has to be one of the most perverse decisions I have heard in a long time, even the BHA could not make such a crass, stupid decision.

Darren is a perfectly capable, technically competent, good, what I would call "safe" commentator. That his performance should be under any sort of review absolutely beggars belief.  

So why has this happened?

I think there is a big clue in the fixtures being allocated to the three new commentators. All three are being given commentary slots at ATR courses.

A strange decision but it underlines something I have heard through the grapevine that there is a great deal of political (no pun intended) horse trading going on between the ATR / SIS and RUK / Turf TV camps on the committee which appoints commentators.

I have been told RUK/Turf TV are unhappy with what they seen as a strong bias towards “ATR people” on the commentary rota.

If this is true and I have no reason to doubt my multiple sources, then it is a disgrace that Messer’s McGrath, Thompson, MacKenzie and Owen are being used as pawns in this particularly nasty “game”.       

Bans, Commentators and Colours

There may have been many sharp intakes of breath when it was announced that Peterjon Carberry had been handed a 40 day ban by the BHH for dropping his hands and losing first and second place on Monty’s Moon at Uttoxeter at the end of April.

Before I go any further allow me to declare an interest and state I had backed Montys Moon to win the race and it really was my getting out stakes following a bad afternoon. However I would have written the same had I not had an investment on the day.

Many say the ban is too long, I happen to think the ban was spot on.

The apologists will say he is young, he made a mistake and everybody mistakes and, to a point I agree, yes everybody does make mistakes. Most people, however, learn from their mistakes.

In the days when I had people working for me I was very pragmatic when people made mistakes, I may have expressed disappointment if I thought the mistake was a silly, avoidable one but I certainly wouldn’t go into one.

The only time I ever did “go into one” as it were was if somebody repeated the same, avoidable, mistake and that is precisely what Carberry has done.

Least anybody forget the reason Carberry was referred to the BHA in the first place was this was his second offence in 12 months. He had failed to ride out a finish at Sandown last November, an offence for which he picked up a ten day ban.

Clearly he has not learned from that mistake so he clearly needs a stronger punishment to focus the mind, as it were, hopefully the 40 days will fully focus his mind

It also needs to be remembered this was his first ride at Uttoxeter. There are some who offer this up as a mitigating factor, I would argue the opposite. If a jockey is riding a course for the first time surely it is incumbent upon him to walk the course, note the characteristics and know where the finishing line. It is palpably clear Carberry did not do this otherwise he would have seen the course marker which he mistook for the winning post.

- - - - - - -

Racing For Change has been something of a curates egg, good in places. Some of their simple changes, like large number cloths, free race days have been a success.

Some of their grander ideas have been very credible in their concept, although at times it could be argued the actual execution could be better. The Champion’s Series and Champions Day are two of the most blindingly obvious  examples.

Both are theoretically good ideas but are at risk of being undermined due to poor execution. The Champions Series is now underway but you would not think so.

There have been some excellent videos made to accompany the series but when shown, without introduction, on racecourse big screens and CCTV they have been ignored.

There is also a brilliant video about Frankel – but where is it being shown. On the racing channels – is that not preaching to the converted? Should that video not be pushed in non-racing TV programs, even paying for it to be shown as a TV advertisement.

I have similar worries about Champions Day . . . as a concept it is great, my only concern is its proximity to the Arc weekend at Longchamp may well dilute, what for me, is already the best weekends racing in Europe throughout the year.

I am also interested and concerned as to how Champions Day will be marketed to attract a wider audience – watch this space.

Amongst the better ideas from RfC there are also some idiotic ideas and two are running currently.

The first is The Filly Factor, setting out with the aim of finding a female racing commentator – the politest way of describing it is patronising and offensive.

It is patronising to women in that it assumes there is some untapped wealth of potential female commentators out there already. I don’t believe there is. There is currently nothing preventing a female to apply to be a commentator, yet Racetech who source the commentators have said they have never even received a test tape from a female.

When I mentioned this matter elsewhere somebody commentated “women will not apply because they feel it is a mans world and they feel intimidated.”

Sorry that is absolute tosh, if a woman really wanted to break into the world of commentary then she would fight to get the role – if they could be put off that easily I would actually question their desire to do the job in the first place.

Certainly the men currently on the rosta have had to fight hard to get there and to reach the exacting standards  required. Last year there were three “trainees” who wanted to be commentators – only one of the three made it and one of the two who didn’t make it is, in my opinion very good.

The competition is also offensive in that it makes light of what a difficult job racing commentary is. To bring it down to the X-Factor level is totally wrong. The existing commentators, with one (possibly two) exceptions are all excellent and near faultless in their work.

To have a competition which turns commentary into a gimmick is wrong.

The only good thing to come out of the competition is it will show just how good the commentators we already have are. If you think I am mistaken have a look at the entries so far.

None are anywhere near the standard which would be acceptable on a racecourse and bear in mind the entrants have had a chance to preview the race and to practice – if they cannot produce a polished performance having seen the race and having had the chance to practice then how can they be expected to produce a polished performance “live”.

Now I am not criticising the ladies who have entered, who can blame them for attempting to bag a £2,500 first prize. The blame should sit fairly and squarely with the organisers who are devaluing a very difficult job.

I began this musing talking about not learning from mistakes and it links in with my next observation.

One of the most stupid ideas in racing in not only the last year but arguably in my lifetime was the introduction of team colours for last year’s Shergar Cup. Not only were the designs too similar even the colours, especially the blue and green, were almost impossible to differentiate in the murk on the round course.

When the colours were introduced was there any discussion with commentators or race readers. You will not a lack of question mar there as it is a rhetorical question – of course there wasn’t.

Tinkering with colours is a no-no.Colours need to be clear, concise and unambiguous and the current system, with its limited range of designs and shapes actually works very well.

Ask any commentator how they cope with big fields and they will tell you it is because they know the colours which have become familiar to them over the years and they can quickly associate them with owners and colours.

So what do our friend at RfC do – they have a competition to let art students design new sets of colours. There is nothing in the rules of the competition which stipulate designs have to be restricted to the standard shapes and designs.

The result some certainly very arty but actually wholly impractical sets of colours – there was even one set which looked like a Donald Duck – can you picture Fallon or McCoy in those colours?

So I have one final suggestion for RfC why not have the winning colours used in just one race – why not the race that is called by the winner of The Filly Factor – somehow the winner of that competition calling home a winning rider dressed as Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse seems most appropriate.