There are few things I dislike more than pre-announcements. If you have something to say to us, please just say it. If not, don't bother telling us that you don't have anything to say.
But one of the few things that I do dislike more than just pre-announcements are vague pre-announcements. Such as, just to give a completely random example, "we're going to announce the new Doctor directly after the Men's final at Wimbledon" - an event that might take anywhere between 2 and 24 hours to complete. So, effectively, you're telling us that you don't have anything to tell us, but that you will have something to tell us at some indeterminate time in the future... and you can't tell us that, either.
Anyway, as it happens I don't mind watching the Wimbledon final, or at least the last bit - usually, it's a pretty good match between two superb athletes at the top of their game. Granted, it wasn't so good this year, as poor Marin Cilic was carrying an injury that meant he couldn't perform to his best. A real shame, but nothing can be done about it.
So Federer won, and well done to him - he's perhaps the single greatest tennis player in history, he's still one of the very best, and he's a fine champion.
And that, right there, is about all there really is to say about the match. Because it wasn't a classic for good, albeit sad, reasons, but Federer is a fine champion. Right, on to the announcement, yes?
Alas, no. Because the BBC felt the need to then spend 30 minutes giving us a content-free analysis of the match, of Federer's legacy, and other endless waffle about nothing. And, I'm sorry, but it was waffle about nothing - basically, everything they said about Federer was something they'd already said about Federer last time he won Wimbledon, as has happened plenty of times - he's just that good.
(I particularly enjoyed Tim Henman's analysis of why Cilic went wrong - his argument being that the emotions just got on top of him. Um, okay. The small problem being that that wasn't why Cilic lost. Shockingly, he lost because he was carrying an injury while playing the best player there has ever been.)
The upshot of all of this is that by the time the BBC finally got around to passing on their big news I just didn't care any more. Which I'm assuming wasn't what they were shooting for. (I'm guessing they'll probably put that down to the emotions getting on top of their trailer-making team. Since it was obviously that, and not their endless waffle about nothing, that caused the problem. Or something.)
Oh, as for the announcement itself: I'm sure Jodie Whittaker will do a fine job in the role. I'm not conscious of having actually seen her in anything - I haven't seen "Broadchurch", and although I have seen most of "St Trinians" I'm not sure she stood out (plus, I'm not convinced "St Trinians" will be at the top of anyone's list of top roles). But then, I wasn't really conscious of having seen David Tennant or Matt Smith in anything prior to DW, and they both did exceptionally well.
So, that's that. Fine news rather marred by inept handling. Well done, BBC.
#34: "Bearers of the Black Staff", by Terry Brooks