I consider that it is better to have good presenting skills, with a reasonable knowledge of the subject, rather than having an excellent knowledge, but poor presentation skills; John Wilson had both (but such an irritating laugh, at times).
I thought John Bailey was excellent most of the time, on 'Crabtree'; my only reservation was that, at times, he was too prominent, instead of the 'Peters'. I thought that he should have handed over the rod more to them, to enable them to feel the fight.
My current bugbear with presenters is that because some are 'famous' (when really they are not) in their own field, they are considered competent to be presenters (when, MOST DEFINITELY, they are not).
My classic example occurred during the Olympic Cycling Road race: Dame Kelly Holmes and John McEnroe were 'presenting'. They are certainly legends in athletics, and tennis, respectively, and can talk about their sports with authority, but they were totally clueless about cycling. During 'Strictly come Dancing' I would like to know what moron thinks it is effective when announcing the results; the unnecessary (egregious) delay does not raise any anticipation - it merely installs, in me at least, two statements "Oh dear, Old Brucie has fallen asleep - wake the old fellow up", or "Blonde Dimbo (that is a blonde who is a dense bimbo) read the auto cue which is in front, now, please".
Ben Fogle is a good presenter, except he over-magnifies the situation sometimes: "This descent is very tricky, and dangerous" - but he is filmed from below, with the poor cameraman having descended much lower, and earlier, but there are no remarks about risks and danger to him (or possibly, her)!!
The mark of an excellent presenter is when people say "That looked very easy to do, I could do that". I am old enough to remember Jack Hargreaves, and he indeed was a master of country-lore, and activities, and presenting.