Graham Holmes

The show is confused about its aims. Titled The Great British Menu, yet it repeatedly ensures that top scoring dishes in each region never even get to the Judges table simply because that chef failed to achieve the highest aggregate scores. So the judges are often not even chosing from the best dishes available for that course from each regional heat. Currently the heats are clearly trying to select the best chefs from the regions, (the ones with the highest aggregate scores even though one or more of their individual dishes wmay have been judged inferior to others that were eliminated. So why call the show The Great British Menu? Clearly it is not. It could just about pass with a title of the Great British Chef. My preference would be to hold the 8 regional heats with the best DISH from each course, (Starter, Fish, Main and Dessert) from each region going forward to be judged at Judges Table. That way they are judging the best MENU. That would be a total of 36 episodes per season; 8 regions x 4 courses and 4 judges tables,1 for each course. To make it really fair, there should be one veteran Chef to judge all starters from each region, another to judge all fish courses and so on. I think it would be more interesting, exciting and the emphasis would be on Chefs winning rather than avoiding losing.