Tuesday, December 11, 2007


When you watch a game and see a team or a individual player make a mistake, the color commetator will add his or her thoughts on what should have happened. The commentator, of course, is a former player and/or coach who has been through the rigors of competing in the sport. Where the play-by-play announcer gives you the rhythm of the game by calling each movement, the color commentator fills in with anecdotes about how the game is played by these athletes and how it used to be played.

The one thing about commentators that people cling to is their critiques of game play and the players themselves. It's not necessarily about calling someone out or heaping praise, but most of the critiques are spontaneous observations of what just transpired. It's in the nature of their job. They are supposed to tell you that the play should have been run this way or if the team needs to kick up the defense a notch or two. Yet, what's funny about this part of the job description is that these comments come from a "shoulda, coulda, woulda" or even a rather condescending tone. After all, none of these talkies have ever played perfectly in their lives.

So, with the boost in readership as of late - many, many thanks - I want to hear from everyone who runs into this page. Who are the color commentators that seem believable in your eyes? What are those anectodes during the game that you know full well don't truly match his or her style as a player (such as Charles Barkley talking about defense)? And finally, did you notice what Mike Tirico (who did the play-by-play with Bill Walton) says at the :33 mark of this clip?

No comments: