Agree that Cahill is probably the best. He is concise, has an interesting voice, obviously very knowledgeable, etc. I could go down the list as you have done and pick and choose who I like best and for what reasons, etc. But as I have said before in this email chain, I would take a mediocre commentator who says very little, over a solid commentator who never stops talking, any day of the week. I have watched matches where there are three or four commentators calling the match! In my opinion there is no need for more than two, and I would love to see some brave network try it with just one. I think this is the root of the problem, that there are just too many commentators commenting, each feels a need to say something, and as a result we have to listen to nonstop babble that for the most part has very little to do with the match itself. Good writers know that it is a mistake to tell the reader too much. Good commentators also know when to keep quiet. Overall, in my opinion, the Brits know how to do this the best. But in general, if I had to choose, I would rather listen to someone who actually knows something about the sport, who played the sport at a high level, like a McEnroe, than someone like Bret Haber or Mary Carillo, or worst of the worst, Chris Fowler (not that these three names comes close to exhausting the list of incompetent commentators). And unfortunately, although she was a great player, Lindsay Davenport should not be allowed in the broadcasting booth: she just has no talent for it. To kind of sum up my view, I just want to watch the match and enjoy it, and some commentary that is relevant to the match is okay, but too much emphasis is spent on filling up every microsecond of air time with babble. And one more step: I could care less how many unforced forehand errors, or how many aces, or how many double-faults a player has made. Stay in the moment and call the match and maybe at the end of a set show the stats, but not at every turn. Thanks God for the mute button.