There are a few parties that don't realize that their choices took away from the viewer experience. Brojos should write an open letter to someone, anyone, who has a stake in creating the viewer's experience.
The director is not the network person who chooses commentators (more on that later), but the person who chooses which images to broadcast, how long an interview should go, and how the images are formatted with things like split screen, displayed statistics in metric or Imperial, or scrolling splits. Major moments were missed during interviews or cuts to side stories, and while there were good replays of those key moments, live is better. There are only lead cameras during the race, when we could easily get more. Even if that is not an option, helicopter images are available. Even though it isn't great detail, it does change the perspective and give a chance to see the race and positions in bigger scale.
The network producers are the ones in charge of how their station delivered the images sent to them. They dob't have a choice regarding what images are sent. They do choose commercial breaks, hirethe commentators and provide them with background information and statistics. I don't know how every broadcaster did it, and I'm sure there were positives and negatives for each. Worth discussing here.
I suppose the race director plays a part too. They're in charge of how many bikes are on the course. I don't think its absurd to think there could be three camera bikes for each race: leaders, chasers, and top US. Cycling races feature several videographers on bikes, in addition to the photographers on bikes. Stationary cameras further out than just the finish line would be good too, just as a change from the perspective.
What do you think the directors, producers and RDs need to hear to improve their production? Who needs to be told what?