[Gazeboss]

I'll take your points one at a time:

So, 9 races in, almost halfway, lets compare BBC v Sky.

Ok then

First of all I must say it is absolutely fantastic that we have TWO channels with F1 here in the UK. I have Sky so it didn’t affect me as much as some others when the deal was announced last year. I agree, competition usually drives up standards. I already had Sky but had knocked the HD pack on the head, but I reinstated it (at a hefty discount!) to get the F1 channel.

Picture/Sound quality (HD): Sky > BBC. As Dave B has alluded to in another thread, the Silverstone roar was much more audible on Sky (and I was at the GP, it was loud!) whereas BBC you couldn’t quite hear it. As you'd expect, I agree. Sky knocks the Beeb's quality out of the park, although the BBC have recently made some small improvements to their picture quality ready for the Olympics. The interactive features on Sky are head and shoulders above the BBC's, which in turn were far better than anything ITV ever attempted.

Special features: BBC > Sky. Quite a close one, but the BBC’s relaxed manner wins out, my fave being Jenson & Lewis trying to do their jobs! I tend to agree. Sky's build-ups, while massively long, often contain a lot of filler. The Beeb's experience in this - and programme making in general - shows.

Overall channel/additional input: Sky > BBC. A dedicated channel has been a godsend. Old races, season reviews, special features, support races, legends interviews, additional coverage and multiple chances to watch highlights give Sky a big thumbs up. The F1 forum is excellent and the BBC do a good job with what they have, but with the resources of a dedicated channel, Sky wins out. Again agreed. That said the BBC's Silverstone forum was simply phenomenal.


On to the teams:

Humphrey vs Lazenby: BBC > Sky. Jake has a comfortable edge, Lazenby at times is cringeworthy such as in Barcelona when the pit fire happened, he was just reeling off speculative events “we’ve just heard that a man came out with his legs on fire” is something that should be not be said by a sports presenter. Decent effort from Sky, but Lazenby needs to improve. Or indeed his poor attempt at a Princess Grace joke in Monaco, or the panic in his eyes when they go off-plan. Jake is one of the best presenters the BBC has got, full stop, and his experience with live telly (including kids') is an obvious asset.

DC/EJ vs DH/JH: BBC > Sky. Quite comfortably DC & EJ as the analysers to Jake, Damon is not bad but Johnny Herbert is poor and reminds me too much of Blundell. If I was Sky, I would work hard to persuade Jacques Villeneuve to come on permanently, as he is the “says what he thinks” character they need. I disagree on that one, I think that while Coulthard has relaxed into the job EJ is becoming more of a knobhead. Hill was wooden as the New Forest when he started but now has a natural rhythm on camera, and guests like Herbert or Allan McNish have proven inspired choices.

Croft vs Edwards Sky > BBC. I am surprised by this as I didn’t like Croft prior to this seasn, but he sounds more natural as lead commentator of F1 to me, Ben a close second, vast improvement over Legard /Allen! I worshiped Ben's touring car commentary but for me he doesn't seem to have brought that quiet confidence with him to F1. I know he's called it before, but there seem to be a few too many basic errors and he does occasionally get a bit flustered during busy periods such as the start. He's still phenomenally good, a country mile better than Legard, but Croft just about edges it for me.

Brundle vs Coulthard. Sky > BBC. Brundle makes me watch the Sky coverage during the race, he is still fantastic at his job. DC isn’t bad, but he just isn’t quick enough to read a race like Brundle does, with his dry wit along the way. Agreed again. DC has really stepped up but Brundle is authoritative, precise, and notices tiny details that many others miss.

McKenzie vs Pinkham. BBC > Sky. Quite easily McKenzie. I like to see women in F1, but they need to not play up to a stereotype of “flirty attitude” towards F1 drivers. Lee McKenzie is fantastic at not doing that while still getting the information out of the drivers. Pinkham flirts uncomfortably, especially with Paul di Resta. Pinkham is simply awful. I keep expecting questions like "what's your star sign" and "what's your favourite colour". It appears from what we see on screen that the drivers repect McKenzie a lot more - she's been a motorsport journo for years and has earned her stripes in less glamorous formulae, meeting many of the drivers on the way.

Anderson vs Kravitz. BBC > Sky. A close one, Kravtiz hasn’t done much wrong, but Anderson’s technical knowledge is second to none. Apples and oranges. Kravitz is superb at analysis and tactics, Anderson is superb at technical detail. It's a shame we can't merge them and make one supernerd!

Georgie Thompson/Anthony Davidson – not real point in them being there, they do not add anything to the coverage. Davidson, along with McNish and Chandhok, represents a dedicedly average F1 driver judging much better drivers. I like Ant, but the whole SkyPad idea is a little daft. They'd be better off getting the paddock guys to talk about the action rather than relying on gimmickry. That said, some of the "Hawkeye" style views give a good insight into incidents. Thompson herself adds nothing of value to any programme she's ever been on, and to be honest it jars a little that they've given the F1 gig to someone still serving a ban for drink-driving.

Overall then

BBC 5 Sky 4 - A very close call!

What does everybody else think? I think you've pretty much nailed it except that I'd put the scores the other way round with Sky marginally ahead of the BBC.