He’s been in the job for just a few episodes – can Matt Smith be better than his Doctor Who predecessor David Tennant? That’s certainly the message today from one broadsheet newspaper…

Michael Deacon of the Telegraph (who are giving away Doctor Who BBC Audiobooks all this week) reckons that Matt Smith is already better than David Tennant, although how much of this is due to personal preference rather than a balanced appraisal is difficult to judge.

Says Deacon:

I would go further than any of the reviewers I’ve read to date. Indeed, I’m prepared to utter what I gather is an unpardonable heresy in the world of Whovians. Because I’d say Matt Smith is already quite a lot better as the Time Lord than David Tennant was.

All that mugging and gasping and gaping. All that sub-Frankie-Howerd squawking and groaning. All that try-hard eccentricity…He looks like Harry Potter’s camp uncle.

Which is pretty contentious stuff, I think you’ll agree. Love him or hate him, the majority of fans adored the Tenth Doctor (rightly or wrongly) but this is a considerable dismissal of 4 years of Doctor Who.

Personally, I think they’re both great, and very different. Comparing them is like comparing Tom Baker to Jon Pertwee – in 1974 Pertwee was the most popular Doctor Who to date, but this soon changed…

So far the comments to the offending article have been limited to “You mind if I rip those audiobooks to mp3 and stick them on the internet?” although we expect this to change once the post becomes better known throughout fandom…