As with any popular reality show, MasterChef Australia has received its fair share of criticism over the years. From complaints about lax hygiene standards to what the judges wear and everything in between, viewers don’t hold back with their critiques of the series.
Among the laundry list of notes, one thing fans have started saying in recent years is that they believe the judges are too “sugary sweet” and don’t give the contestants enough “constructive criticism,” or even argue with one another enough. However, two former contestants tell WHO that this couldn’t be further from the truth.
Speaking about the current judging panel, which consists of former MasterChef winner Andy Allen, former runner-up Poh Ling Yeow, food and travel writer Sofia Levin and Michelin-starred French chef Jean-Christophe Novelli, one annoyed fan wrote on Reddit: “They should set harder challenges and give constructive criticism instead of screaming ‘Fantastic!’, ‘Magnificent!’ over and over again,” . “It got annoying after the first two times. And the four judge panel feels like a crowd.”
Another said that the show used to teach both the contestants and the viewers something every week, but said that now it feels like “everyone’s just vibing in the kitchen”.
“And the judging? Man… it’s gone soft,” they continued. “They taste a handful of dishes, hype them up, and move on. Where’s the real critique? Where’s the ‘this didn’t work and here’s why’? It’s all surface-level praise or super safe comments. No strong opinions, no real breakdowns, nothing that actually helps contestants (or viewers) level up.
“It just feels like constructive criticism got thrown out completely. Everyone’s ‘amazing,’ everything is ‘beautiful,’ and somehow no one ever really gets called out. But that’s what made the show good before – the honesty.”
MasterChef contestants defend the judges
Former contestant Jamie Fleming, who most recently appeared in season 17 and season six before that, told WHO that he believes the “judges really are there to help”.
“I think this new panel does a good job of keeping everything positive, but they definitely tell you when something is off,” he said. “At the end of the day, there might be a good 10 minutes of chat when you have a dish tasted, but there is only so much time to allocate in each episode, so sometimes the nuanced answers get missed.
“I feel the boys back in the day [Matt Preston, Gary Mehigan, and George Calombaris] were probably a little more open to dressing you down on camera. Each have their benefits, I guess.”
Juan De La Cruz, who competed on the show’s 16th season, agrees with Jamie, telling us, “I actually think the judges strike a pretty good balance. People only see a small part of the feedback on TV – there’s a lot more discussion and mentoring happening behind the scenes than what makes the final edit.
“They can be tough when they need to be, especially when they know someone has more to give, but the feedback is usually constructive. At the end of the day, the pressure of the competition itself is already pretty intense, so the judges don’t really need to ‘play harsh’ for the sake of it.
MasterChef fans slam lack of ‘constructive criticism’
However, fans still aren’t convinced that the judges are doing enough to help contestants improve, and they have made that very clear online.
One viewer wrote, “I’m probably one of the few people who misses Matt, Gary and George as hosts. I was rewatching past seasons, and you see them give way more critiques on the food, push them to be more creative, etc., and it’s not to be mean but to make them better.”
“I felt it’s always been a problem bumping up to four judges and then all four commenting on every single dish,” wrote another. “It gets really old when all the criticism/praise is the same across the board.”
Related stories
Native ad body.
Native ad body.
Native ad body.
