Phil Neville (as he is currently) is the classic example of someone who should always be the expert summariser and never the commentator. If you could actually listen to his comments, they were really quite good and highlighted the issues England had. He actually called a lot of the Rooney-Baines issue before it really became a problem. But he just doesn’t have the presenter’s natural ability to fill or talk things up. It’s a bit like Alec Stewart and cricket commentary. He is very good in a tactical sense (ball by ball), but has no natural charisma.
I dread to say it, but sometimes in sports commentary there is more to it than just knowing what you are on about.
Jonathan Pearce on the other hand has no idea what he is on about, nor any charisma. Robot wars remains the zenith of his career.