Mike Tomolaris doesn't usually bother me too much. Unfortunately, he doesn't really exude much passion for cycling, and always looks like he wishes he was elsewhere (out of the sun/rain/wind etc).
As much as I don't love his work, I did feel a little for him yesterday (early this morning). Straight after the Champs-Elysee sprint, Tomo and Scott Sunderland had an awful lot of dead air time to fill. Tomo lined up some interviews with the Aussies in the tour, who were still on their bikes. They were clearly exhausted and not really in a talkative mood.
Anyway, all was smooth sailing until Tomo offered Matt Goss commiserations for a tour "without success". Goss was completely miffed by this statement and looked extremely p*ssed off for a few seconds. Tomo, realizing his error (don't tell somehow who just sprinted their heart out in the most important race on the calendar they are not a success), tried to clarify that he meant, "without that elusive stage win". I was worried for a second that Goss was just going to ride away, but a credit to him he continued. I don't blame Goss for his reaction, and I also don't blame Tomo for the way he framed the question. However, a former-pro or passionate cycling fan would know better than to say something like this, especially when the inevitable disappointment of coming up just short was no doubt still painfully fresh in his mind.
Tomo also found himself in a bit of trouble with Rupert Guinness (who is not particularly charismatic on screen). Guinness contended that people might view Sky's win as "an ugly win". Tomo suggested Sky's win was sterile, methodical, etc. Guinness then hit back with a bit of, "that's what I meant, ugly" (you idiot, it seemed like he wanted to say).
It's true Tomo is no match for hardcore cycling analysts, but he does a commendable job of keeping the coverage rolling along. As easy as it seems to fill minutes of air with cohesive chatter, it's quite an art, and his sidekicks would be out of their depths without Tomo as anchor.