The Bias Box?
- David Segal
- Jul 24
- 8 min read
As Lando Norris made his bid for the 2025 World Driver’s Championship and Oscar Piastri stumbled – disturbingly reminiscent of his manager Mark Webber’s own unsuccessful title bid in 2010 – there were howls of protest from Australian fans at the perceived bias of Sky Sport’s Formula 1 coverage.
Race caller David Croft was widely seen as the chief protagonist of this, and such was the disquiet among Aussie Oscar fans that Fox Sport took the unprecedented step of offering an ‘Alternate Commentary’ coverage of the Grand Prix races, alongside Sky Sport.
That may not have been an official acknowledgement of Croft’s perceived bias, but it was most certainly borne of Fox’s desire to keep its audience happy.
This ‘Alternative Commentary’ came from Formula 1’s own official TV coverage of the events, featuring commentators Alex Jacques, former (for a millisecond) Renault F1 driver Jolyon Palmer and the credentialled Grand Prix winner David Coulthard.
Ironically, these race calls, which are done straight down the line with no editorial embellishment or apparent bias, only served to highlight that the Sky F1 commentators were indeed giving Lando a disproportionate and emotionally high level of support on Sky Sports.
But, if you think about it, surely that’s no surprise?
British driver, British broadcaster, British commentator(s) … even if unintentional (I am being kind), there is such a thing as ‘unconscious bias’, and that was certainly in evidence as the 2025 championship worked to its climax.
Sky Sports isn’t stupid – although some of its commentary appointments over recent years might suggest otherwise – and needed to look after its primary audience, its own British fans.
Just as Fox Sports ultimately did so here as well, by offering us the ‘Alternate Commentary’, which, pleasingly, has continued this season.
Commentary selection is an interesting thing.
We’ve seen Supercars make major changes here in recent times (more on that shortly) and Sky F1 has certainly indulged in plenty of that over the past few years.
After a long period of stability, ‘cheeky chappie’ Johnny Herbert was axed, followed a year or so later by former World Champion Damon Hill.
In the wake of the enormous global success of ‘Drive to Survive’, Sky openly admitted it wanted (needed?) to chase a younger (less F1 educated?) audience, and so these veterans were shown the door.
Today, its ‘host’ personalities are solid … Natalie Pinkham is excellent, and Simon Lazenby is fine in a ‘lads in it together kind of way’.
Pit reporter Ted Kraviz, though is a ‘Marmite’ figure … you either love him or hate him.
He’s certainly knowledgeable and long on experience, and his off-beat sense of humour can sometimes be entertaining.
But his interviews with the fans on site at the races are difficult to watch, as most have no clue. And as F1 enthusiasts, we don’t care what the fans at the track think, anyway.
Looking deeper, in my opinion, interviewer Craig Slater is sometimes (often?) too hard to understand to an Aussie ear, and doesn’t seem to me to bring anything that the other Sky Sport experts don’t already bring to the table.
Race caller David Croft is hugely experienced but is long on rhetoric, jingoistic, has a lame sense of humour, and shouts a lot … usually for no good reason. The ‘Alternate Commentary’ is a refreshing (and quieter) change.
Then there’s Sky’s team of ‘expert’ pundits … and that’s a real mixed bag.
Former driver Martin Brundle is the mainstay of these, as both a ‘special comments race caller’, co-host, and of course does his now infamous ‘grid walk’.
Some love the ‘grid walk’ … personally I don’t see the value in interviewing a driver for the umpteenth time that weekend, just before he gets into the car … pointless.
And don’t start me on interviewing the celebrities …
Brundle continues to do a fine job overall, supported by the likes of former strategist Bernie Collins (particularly good on, no surprise, race strategy), and former driver Karun Chandhok (also good at reading the play).
The standout for me, though, is Ant Davidson.
His work as a Mercedes simulator driver keeps him very current (and yet there is never any bias evident in his commentary) and his ability to read what’s going on in a practice session or a race, and explain it, is fantastic. His analysis on the ‘Sky Pad’, and the speed he delivers it after an incident, is amazing.
Not so impressive for me are the other ‘guest’ drivers brought into support this cast of commentators and pundits.
Jacques Villeneuve’s greatest claim to fame is that he’s the son of one of the sport’s greatest drivers of all time (Gilles Villeneuve, for the youngster at home), but his comments and acerbic analysis seem designed purely to create controversy.
Nico Rosberg seems a nice enough bloke, but he views everything through the prism of his own personal experiences – fair enough to an extent but his baseline for comparison is now 10 years ago – and that colours his response to on-track incidents and performances.
He also still carries scars of his years as Lewis Hamilton’s teammate, of whom he is clearly no fan.
Meanwhile, Jenson Button is amenable and likeable, and hugely experienced, if a little bland.
American former IndyCar and NASCAR racer, Danica Patrick, the most successful female driver of the last 50 years, was dropped by Sky F1 this year, which I think is a big mistake.
I thought Danica was outstanding … she cut to the chase, she made valid observations about what was going on, she asked the difficult questions many of her colleagues were too polite (or scared) to ask, and used her experience to give context to what was going on.
But there were plenty of fans who didn’t like her, many claiming she didn’t have any understanding of Formula 1, a ludicrous accusation which, I think, was born from snobbishness because she didn’t come from European racing.
The Sky coverage is poorer for her absence.
That can be said too, for the recently departed Rachael Brookes.
A long-time member of the Sky F1 team, Brookes was fully immersed in the sport, highly regarded, and could present, commentate and interview to an exceptionally high standard.
Her sudden departure a month or so ago was mysterious, unexpected and remains unexplained.
Sky’s loss, no doubt.
Contrast that with Naomi Schiff. As a host/presenter she’s okay, and if Sky presented her solely in that role – like Natallie Pinkum and Simon Lazenby – there’d be no issue.
But Sky keeps presenting her as a “former driver”, with an expert driver’s opinion.
Please. Compared to Danica Patrick, she doesn’t get off the grid. Sky is insulting our intelligence.
In stark contrast to that, there’s the newest recruit, Jamie Chadwick.
She’s a real racing driver with a significant – current – WEC career, and she’s improving as an expert commentator/F1 pundit with every outing.
Happily, too, Chadwick fits nicely into the younger demographic Sky is chasing.
Bias in commentary has long been a hot topic here in Australia too.
I can’t count the number of times I read on the fan forums that Mark Skaife had a bias towards Triple Eight, for example.
Can’t say I ever saw it myself. I think he simply recognised that Triple Eight was, then, the best team on the grid, as it continued to be for 20 seasons or so.
More recently, the announcement that the long-time, now ousted Supercars commentator Neil Crompton had been appointed as a ‘ambassador’ for Brad Jones Racing, made me smile.
This was just making official what was unofficial for so years!
‘Unconscious bias’ again.
Brad is Neil’s great mate, and Neil would talk up Brad’s team and its drivers, at every race, at every opportunity, way in excess of what was warranted by the team’s performances.
Don’t get me wrong, Neil is a lovely bloke and a friend, and Brad is likewise good company, and among the most media friendly of a not very media friendly group of team owners.
But if on-track success were the criteria for getting coverage, the Albury team wouldn’t get much.
Conversely, Mark Larkham has always been up front about his Ford bias – he openly admits he’s a Ford fan, even on the Supercars coverage – and this seems to be universally accepted.
You certainly can’t fault Larko’s enthusiasm for the sport and that certainly comes across in his presenting style, as does his mechanical knowledge, which is very evident in his on-camera vignettes.
But surely every time he professes his love for the Blue Oval, he’s getting the Chevy and Toyota fans off-side?
The way Supercars approached 2026 with its new commentary team has certainly changed the look and feel of it, which I guess was the point.
I do like the proposed idea of having a ‘team’ of experts that rotate through the commentary box, like they do on the cricket coverage – this will be especially refreshing at events like Bathurst – but they need to be careful who they choose.
Garth Tander is an outstanding ‘expert’ caller, as is the newly anointed main anchorman/commentator, Richard Craill.
Long time ‘supports’ caller Matt Nulty did a surprisingly good job in the big seat prior to Craill’s ultimate appointment, and is certainly a good backup, and excellent calling the support races.
Chad Neylon is technically very good, very professional, if lacking the in-call ‘excitement’ factor of Craill and Nulty.
Mark Winterbottom has been the surprise.
In his first few outings he was a bit stilted – and sometimes nervous, I thought – but he’s come on in leaps and bounds in recent races, and now contributes significantly to the coverage. He’s excellent to listen to, and offers valuable insight.
Riana Crehan has long been the star of pitlane, roaming it throughout events, and bringing us news or what was happening in the races in an easily digestible, professional way.
Recently Supercars has added Molly Taylor to the telecast, but I am not sure why.
Molly certainly has the credentials to be there – she’s a driving superstar – and she does a good job behind the microphone. But with Larko, Riana and Chad already in pitlane, do we really need another talking head?
I note that Erebus junior driver Jarrod Hughes has recently started doing pieces to camera and interviews for the Porsche Michelin Cup coverage, and he’s doing an excellent job. He presents well, is likeable, knowledgeable, and asks the right questions.
I think he has a real future behind the microphone if he doesn’t make it behind the steering wheel.
Equally, there’s no question Craig Lowndes* is being wasted on the Supercar telecasts, and long has it been so.
Lowndes is still the biggest name in the sport in this country and its most recognised face outside the sport, and while he mightn’t be the best race caller or commentator around, there’s no question he should be much more front and centre on the telecast.
With the likeable personality and recognition, at the very least he should be on the ‘desk’ with Jess Yates, if not making special comments as the third voice in the commentary box, during the Supercar races.
Craig continues to have a higher public profile than any other driver, active or not, and as a (former) marketer, it makes sense to me to have him up front, as the identifiable face of the sport, if only for the more casual viewer.
And I am sure the fan base would like to see it too.
But, the big question is, why isn’t he being used that way? What’s the agenda in the background? It makes no sense to me.
[* Disclosure: I was Craig Lowndes’ Manager for 17 years so I may be biased, conscious or not]
Pics: Sky Sports F1 / Supercars / Instagram
Comments