Going on the first he is unlikely to last long and is unlikely to reform the Curia - especially since he emanates from it. This is almost certainly a bad thing unless the idea of sexually repessed control freaks trying to micromanage the live of 1 billion people makes sense to you.
Going on the second he's not going to make the clappy-happy crowd very clappy happy. Sex is still streng verbotenexcept between priest and altarboy, every sperm is sacred, condoms are the work of the devil, women can't be priests etc. This is probably a fairly bad thing too - especially in the light of the above micromanagement issue.
Going on the third (and on his public appearances) he has the charisma and personal appeal of a bucket of sauerkraut. This is probably not a good thing.
Sounds like John Paul II only 6 years younger minus the parkinsons and the sense of humour. This is called ducking the issues. If you think the Catholic church should have an influence in world affairs then this pope is unlikely to be much use. If you think he should limit himself to dealing with the faithful then he may be OK but I suspect he isn't going to be quite as inspirational as he predecessor either and thus the number of faithful may decline.
As someone disagreed with almost every position of the previous pope - from condoms to the death penalty via Iraq - this is not a good thing except that I suspect it will make the pope less important in human affairs. Would the news media like to please leave Rome and head south and visit Darfur or Zimbabwe. And would the pundits like to consider the China question the way the blogosphere is? The acts of the rulers of China are, IMO, a far greater cause for concern that those of a ruler of a couple of acres in Rome.