For me, I would have chosen Crofty or Maurice Hamilton to commentate alongside Brundle. Crofty can get a bit overexcited at times, but he's usually accurate and honest.
Giblet wrote:Coz he writes good succinct articles that have relevance and meaning?
Yes, but then there was the "A3 paper sized" Ferarri diffuser that never happened and such like. It's just the taking on of his writing as gospel that urks me. It can be same with Scarbs as well. It's just an opinion built on the opinion of others. Its not infallible. I'm not trying to say that this sort of journalism is bad, by no means, but when I say "cult", it seems that some people are too willing to believe anything they read without thinking about it first.
feynman wrote:Just back from the boozers I take it?
A long day at the office, actually, but I take your point. I apologise for the "untechnical" nature of this thread.