While we are complaining.... GJ's commentary...

[ron]

...doesn't seem to be as good as it was when it was a solo effort. Too often now notably after an attack, there follows a conversational interlude which lasts until the ball is at the other end of the park, and sometimes after Betts has made a save, with GJ and Sean shouting "Oh, NO!". then a time lag before we get to hear what happened.

We poor folk who are destined to follow this agonising experience and who rely on the commentary if not at the game at least deserve to hear what's actuallyhappening rather than the waffle about the missed shot, etc.

Don't we?

[HatterDon]

I agree. I really enjoy Sean's insights and expert knowledge, but I tune in for a play-by-play NOT a conversation between two supporters. Taht's ok if the match is on TV, but not "radio."

[Neil D]

He also has tendency to shout 'goal' (when we've 'scored')  and then decides to check out the linesman and sees it's been disallowed.  That is really infuriating.  Check first and then shout.

[Blanco]

I'm not a fan of Sean Davis for co-commentator. He's knowledgeable and that but he's no commentator. Jim alone is much better.

[Nick Bateman]

Two is better IMO.  They just need to work on describing what is going on better.

[Hurby]

I find this double act much livelier than the monotony of one person speaking. Also, from their dialogue I think I got a better idea of how the match was progressing and what they think of the performance of the team. I also found Sean Davis very courteous and as unbiased as it can be for a non-neutral reporter. I for one will repeat tuning into these match commentaries as frequently as I can.