There is this notion that to have insight, you must have experienced the game at the highest level in order to discuss/commentate/analyse it. It is true that being an elite player will make you understand the game in some aspects better than if you don't. The problem with the assumption lies entirely within the ability of the individual to communicate, which is an entirely different skill. Communicate as a player or communicating as a coach is far different to speaking for a broadcast.
It's obvious that ex-players are trained how to commentate but don't really expand on that training in more nuanced ways. An example is the throw - ie passing the commentating to another person for comment. These below are what I call a "hard throw", where it's obvious the next person needs to say something and then pass it along.
"Gee, I like the way Hodge went about that Lingy"
"Spot on Richo, Hodgey will never shirk a contest, as hard as the come in the sport BT"
"Too right Lingy, and he went CRACK into Kennedy there..."
Comment, throw.
Receive, reinforcement of comment, throw
Receive, play-by-play comment...
These are "cliche" ways these commentators talk, but they are their trained/safe phrases they use to pass the commentating around. They have been taught that this is a safe option to ensure flow in the commentary. They would have also been taught to keep their points concise, baring in mind the timings of commercial television with advertisements too. This all limits their ability to provide real analysis within live commentary.
