"Wine critics' advice is unchallenged bunk"?

Quite an interesting piece from the Guardian today. In summary, they are saying a lot of wine critics advice is useless because people have different palates. Which is a fair point. We know it's true in food. Some people think something like moroccan lamb with apricots is a delicious match but I know a few people who just really don't get the concept of sweet fruit in savoury dishes and just think it's terrible. Why would matching food and wine be any different?

I definitely think it's the same with wine. You're definitely going to have more success enjoying wine and a meal if you pick something you like than something you don't like, no matter how well it supposedly goes. But there are probably some principles about the wine that will make it a better match. How full bodied it is, how sweet it is, how acidic it is etc.

I did the flavour profile test the article mentions (the link is broken in the actual article at the moment) and this was my result:

SENSITIVE: Members of the SENSITIVE TASTERS COMMUNITY are the most open to diversity and range of styles. Whilst you’ll tend to avoid sweet wines (except possibly for dessert) and are not too keen on heavy oak or over-the-top intensity of reds, you like a broad spectrum of rich, smooth flavoured red and whites.

Which is kind of right, although I do like huge reds as well. And among the recommendations are a few things I've been enjoying lately including

• Pinotage from South Africa
• Zinfandel from the U.S - not too high in alcohol or oak.
• Modern French Reds especially Southern Rhone

So dunno, might be more useful the less you know? Does how you like your tea/coffee really tell you enough to know what wines you might like? It seemed to get the closest match for me from their four categories.