I would rather everything in duplicate than allow any kind of ambiguity to exist w.r.t. clearances to enter runways/change flight levels etc.
Of course as I understand your point, if everybody's R/T was as good as yours, brainfade(
), then there'd be no need to clarify or reinforce instructions or clearances. I agree. But in an analogy with motoring, just because my driving is perfect (which it is), doesn't mean I am safe from the guy who isn't paying attention on the motorway, or who doesn't give way where he should. So I drive defensively, and apply the same technique to everything (not just R/T) I do at work (I am a B737 Captain).
Correct R/T technique is not necessarily synonymous with as 'good' R/T - it's a means to an end. Unambiguous communication of information and instructions is the ultimate goal and sometimes, whether through distraction, fatigue, or inexperience, that may require a bit more airtime than the ideal, just to reassure us all that the correct instruction was indeed received as intended.
Brevity is great, blah is not. However ensuring elimination of any ambiguity, even it it uses 2 seconds more R/T, is not, IMHO, blah. See Tenerife N, 1977, amongst others.
Blah is things like: (my bugbears)
"Request descent
when available "
So if it's not available, you're not requesting it?
"Request direct CF30 at CWL
if possible "
Again, if it's not possible (seeing as you're over SW France, quite likely), you're
not requesting it???
I do have more....!