I now (after a tortuous route) have a GW 2000B analogue and a GW 9000A Mudman Dig (the latter is in Malta for a month lean't to a friend who is out there training for a triathlon - the mad fool!).
And here is the difference in readibility in my view. The Muddie I have to hold up and 'read' the display as it is quite small (although not bad from what I have seen on a few other Casios) whereas the GW 2000 is a hold up and glance operation.
Not much in it objectively I guess but it just feels much quicker to read the analogue watch.
Maybe a combination of a bigger time 'image' on the analogue and the fact that I find the analogue format more intuitive as that is all there was in my formative years.
Maybe not explained myself well but hey-ho.