In fairness Kirby has a good speaking voice and a whimsical manner that I dont mind and also does come up with some very good quips on occasion. He also injects passion into cycling
But these do not make up for his flaws..most of which are based on deceit
He does not follow the race well nor name the riders well....he is more interested in overly discussing his latest obsession to the point that he ignores everything else...these obsessions like Simon Clarke wining MSR are based on some non logic event and rather than acknowledge that they are a hope and not a real possibility Kirby goes on and on as if his predition WILL happen...Its like a child with a toy. Meanwhile fans who know the sport are driven to distraction as the race is changing before our eyes and we dont know what is happening as he doesnt call it
Another deceit is he calls the race incorrectly, names a rider wrong, etc ...but rather than correct himself he spends ages telling us why he was right to say what he said
He also pretends to have insider knowledge by saying things that riders are thinking or saying that he cannot know and in the most part are ridiculous. He treats the viewer like an idiot
He is plainly biased towards some riders and anti others....I expect many pundits are but they hide it and do not bring it to their job. He says the most outlandish things about his favourites ...ie descending low on the stem is known as a "Froomy" ? He decided this is what it wll be called from now on .....but was happening long before Froome. He also says the most ridiculous plaudits about his favourites that transcends their cycling..."What a man what courage what blah blah.... " about Froome ...em he won the Tour ...not developed a cure for cancer
But he can be vindictive about those he does not like or takes against ...he said TJ V Garderen was dreadful in his team and dreadful to work with and Nibali was petty , etc .....yet he gave no evidenc to back up his claims....he is now going back on what he said about Van Garderen because I would not be surprised if the team complained.... His words influence people and he needs to be careful with what is evidence and what are his petty preferences. Some of his comments about some riders, teams and local architecture can be mean spirited
He does not translate many interviews correctly and makes up what he thinks the riders are saying... I complained to him about this and he basically said I had no sense of humour ????
It is fine in my book that he does not know everything about cycling the deceit is he pretends he does ...He even argues with the experts as to his superior knowledge....
I call him pompous as he is full of his own superior knowledge , his 'magnificant' skills at commentary (backed up by some ridiculous site that lists his comments) so rather than talk plain english he insists on ridiculous phrases that he thinks make him look erudite and brilliant but have the opposite effect for anyone with half a brain
Call the race, talk about all the riders, forget the 'old world' inappropriate terms, stop talking rubbish when the race is on (save it for earlier in the stage) , dont make any claims you cannot backup with evidence, stop being biased and translate what the riders say....not difficult and what is required