JULIE MOST IMPROVED PRESENTER.

Julie has become a regular face on the racing channel and she has progressed from the maidens to the top division,as a presenter,her interviews and eye balling are top class as she oozes with confidence, keep it up Lassie.

Couldnt agree less.

I agree with Zoro - The title does say most improved. Julie seems to get caught up in the moment some time. Having had quite a bit of public speaking experience myself, I know how easy it is to let the mind move faster than the mouth. I notice the "last and final" has been dropped though.

She is by far the most prepared presenter and also the nicest to watch. Tellytrack are lucky to have her working for them as from what Ive seen they are certainly not the most supportive of cos.

I must give all due credit to the posters on this particular board, because in the United States, the conversation would immediately have gravitated to the size and quality of her upper appendages.

Julie does make mistakes but she is doing a very good job. I think she is becoming very confident,and with that we will see rapid improvement.

I also think that Cecil Mthembu is very good.

must be april fools day today with this thread

JULIE HAS MADE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO IMPROVE AND I THINK SHE HAS DONE JUST THAT,SHE LOVES WHAT SHE DOES AND THAT IS VISABLE FOR ALL TO SEE.WELL DONE JULIE!NOT AN EASY JOB WHEN YOUR AUDIENCE ALL SPEAK FROM THEIR POCKETS ,LIKE WE ALL DO AS PUNTERS.

Barry - Julie's upper appendages were dealt with in detail some time ago!

Zoro - happily the topic is 'Most Improved' as opposed to 'Good'. Julie remains largely diabolical. Given the fact that she has been inflicted on us for a number of years the 'improvement' has been startlingly slow.

Pirates - cheers,mate. I think this IS an early April's Fools posting.

The fact that many of the posters score Julie 'acceptable - good' goes some way to explaining why so much of our 'game' is medicore. We get what we deserve or are prepared to put up with.

You only have to compare our in-studio presenters with Timeform/Betfair radio to realise just how bad the quality is. With the exception of Shaheen Shaw and (sometimes) Nic Kritsiosis you can literally hear the rest bumbling about. They appear to come to studio TOTALLY unprepared and then try to wing it through the programme. When we get the Laurel & Hardy duo acts they seem to find it appropriate to be regaling us with THEIR unsuccessful bets - which are usually total guesswork and devoid of any concrete research.

I fear they are merely reflecting their Master's Voices - we'll take your money but don't expect any added value through meaningful research.

Guys, I must say that I find Julie ok - why so many blast her is beyond me.

She tries her best, is plesant and respectful in what is a hard job - you try and speak into a microphone, be informative, interesting and make no mistakes - it ain't easy!

All the best Julie, Jim.

Have to agree with Garrick.Nice to look at Julie BUT try not looking and just listening and just how BAD she really is becomes PRETTY obvious. Just Julie maybe - Dr Julie, NOPE ! She ain't a rookie and should have improved much more than she has !

Julie - if you are reading this I wouldn't worry to much there are worse presenters in sport - "...On the other hand Darren...." would not rate with the worlds best and Supersport have kept him for years.

Dont hear to many people attacking him or other crappy presenters. Have to compare apples ith apples boys and I dont think that the candidates are beating Tellytracks doors down for the job.