Do they? Or is that just your perception of what you think accounts for their popularity? I've never thought that for a minute since successful and enduring presenting takes an awful lot of skill and hard work. Engaging an audience is the only real remit of a presenter. A brilliant script is only as good as those delivering it. A&D deliver.
There has been a lot of TV where they have been compared to M&W as a great double act. They ARE a great double act - i get the feeling a lot of what they do has had some M&W influence, but they aren't comedians. A lot of the writing (especially IAC) is treading on line of them being a comedy double act.
Why so reluctant to credit them with a skill they've very successfully honed? It seems like you almost resent them being seen as funny?
I certainly don't resent them, i like their act very much. I'm just making the distinction they are presenters with, as you say, funny delivery. Totally credit their skill and talent there. But if you take away that most of the lines are given to them i'm just not so sure they would have had the same level of success. Lets see i acknowledge some very talented people behind the scenes who have helped make them what they are too.