Hope so as it was evident that at the time she was involved, her knowledge of our game was from what she was fed by a BBC Researcher.

For me it weren’t her knowledge per se, it was her presenting style that won people over. Mark Chapman for example now, I don’t think he has a history with the game at all but his knowledge and presenting style are brilliant and for me for exceed those on Sky. I don’t particularly feel the lead presenter must have a deep knowledge of the game as an expectation.

I agree with the OP about Eddie and Stevo. I haven't really watched that many classic games but when I have it's reminded me just how bad their commentary was. They were basically a caricature. Their commentary was reminiscent of the awful commentary you'd get in video games. Basically, just a collection of repeated phrases and cliches, with a glitch every so often where the words would bear no resemblance to what was taking place in front of your eyes.

Despite their flaws, Eddie and Stevo did have some personality (even if it was incredibly grating after several decades). That's something that the commentators who have followed seem unable to present. It does make a difference too. The best RL commentator I've heard is definitely Andrew Voss. He brings some personality to his commentary, and while I'm sure that's a turn off for some, he also backs it up with some very astute and knowledgeable commentary.

Of the RL commentators around at the moment Dave Woods is probably the best. What I like about Dave Woods is that he doesn't try to dominate. When he was commentating on the early stages of the Challenge Cup with Jamie Jones-Buchanan they worked together really well. He would defer to JJB's knowledge, would ask questions rather than make assumptions. He commentates, and has an analyst or two alongside him and he sticks to that role well. At times there was an arrogance from the old Sky team, but particularly Stevo, where he seemed to assume he knew everything; every correct or incorrect player decision, every referee decision, what every player was trying to do, what the rules should or shouldn't be.

The best thing about the Sky team is Brian Carney. Not only does he work well as a presenter, he's a knowledgeable analyst but really shines when he has to confront ignorance (or to give him his full name, Phil Clarke). Jon Wells is good but not the most interesting person to listen to. Barrie and Terry are a bit tedious but Phil Clarke is the worst. Nothing wrong with someone having a contrary view but Clarke seems to do it for no reason.

Watching back all the old games and I just miss Ray French.