Yesterday I watched the Vuelta final stage and GP Montréal on british Eurosport streams. It was different commentators but both teams I found pretty bad.
The two that did the Vuelta were inexplicably fascinated with the combativity price and who was to receive it and who received it last year and who should have received it and who might receive it; as well as riders having to slow down when going around corners and then having to speed up again so that the riders at the back of the peloton would still be going slow around the corner while the ones at the front were already accelerating. This they pointed out pretty much every time that the peloton went around a corner, which was the case a lot since it was a city circuit.
I give them slight credit though because it was naturally a boring race and it's not always easy to find things to talk about in those situations.
Then the ones that did GP Montréal were incredibly condescending towards North American cycling fans, saying those sprint challenges are necessary for those stupid North Americans with their short attention span, who can only take about 1 minute of action before they need a commercial break. Plus regular cycling is too complicated for them to understand, it is impossible to explain to them all the tactics involved. For instance, when people see a breakaway they automatically think the race is over and the peloton has given up (sic). So the sprint challenges are easier for them to understand, because it is very clear in that the person who wins their round goes on to the next round, and so on.
Then they were talking about teams for next year and one of them said that he thinks Cancellara might have signed with Trek, but he wasn't sure. Where have you been the last couple of months?! Have you not consulted a single cycling-related media in a long time?! I thought that was part of the job description when you want to be a cycling commentator.