Masterchef?
Posted: Wed 22 March, 2006 Filed under: Thoughts 5 Comments »Out of interest, is there anyone who thinks that the guy who won MasterChef actually deserved to do so, above the other two?
(On doing some further reading, I notice that the BBC has even had to explain their decision on the website)
Erm… okay. That’s nice.
Nope. Dean should have won.
The one thing they constantly stated, throughout the series, was how they could take a good cook and hone them into a Master Chef. Peter is already a good cook, but didn’t cope well in high pressure situations… neither did Daksha. I’ve not doubt that, due to their experience, Peter and Daksha are better cooks than Dean at the moment but surely he would have become a better Master Chef than Peter??
As the Q&A thing says at the end, Dean would have been a better TV winner, a better story. But regardless of that I do believe, on the evidence broadcast, that Dean would have been a better choice. The mistake they mention about the steamer was because he’d never used one before!!
Umm… anyway… yes, this still irks quite a bit.
I take it your comment can be filed under “Don’t Know, Don’t Care”, Tom?
*grin*
We came to the conclusion that it was inverse ageism.
Dean was robbed, but, Dean will still make it, whereas Peter probably wouldn’t have, otherwise.
Peter’s *food* at the end of the day was the most accomplished – but he’s had a lifetime of advertising industry freebies to learn from!!!! I think Raymond Blanc’s opinion probably made a lot of difference too.
i think peter was pretending to be ill on the QE2
he was over awed on arrival on the ship and i immediately thought he was pretending to be ill No credit was given to Dak and Dean for cramming in the extra work on QE2. Peters undtidy handwriting for his recipes was not easy. No one said it would be easy. but no one praised them for the desserts and soup. it was all “Peter’s wonderful recipes”.