The standard for sports presentation these days seem to have a play by play and color commentator. I don’t watch a lot of sports but it seems ubiquitous for sports that have commentary. For example, tennis I noticed has no commentary at all.
So:
1 - Is that pretty true? Is it a North America thing or is this pretty typical elsewhere in the world? What sports with commentary do not have play by play and color commentary?
2 - When, why how did this format of commentary start (even if it isn’t as ubiquitous as I think)?
Color commentators were added to the mix of regular commentator and play-by-play. The color commentator is usually a former athlete and there for pure entertainment. I can’t tell you much about the history but the 3 man team was very successful on Monday Night Football in the 70s and 80s. The commentary was essential in the days of radio and still adds a lot to games with a stop-and-go format like baseball and football. Some specialty sports have relied heavily on commentators to make the sport interesting. Without them rodeos, traditional pro wrestling, drag racing, roller derby, and others wouldn’t draw flies.
The article doesn’t give much info about what sports do and do not have commentators, but there are a lot of linked articles that might have more info. I didn’t follow the links.
I used to listen to baseball games a lot in the late 40s and the 50s and one guy did it all–announcing the game, doing the commercials, comments if any. What he did if he had to pee, I don’t know. Not only that, but if the A’s played the Yankees in the afternoon and the Phillies played in NY in the evening he would do the first live and the second by telegraphic reconstruction in the evening.
By about 1950, they were also doing away games live and there were two announcers and two different stations one for each team And let me note that the two stations were at 990 and 950 and if the games were at the same time, I could tune the radio to 970 and listen to both at the same time.
By the time I moved to Montreal in 1968, having a color man was standard. Our first was Jackie Robinson and then Duke Snider.
When you look here, you find the cricket commentators are mostly going to be in the opinionated expert colour sort,as most of them were former players.
There are a few which might be simple voices, saying what they see, but if they played at the level of representing their country, they would most likely have opinions to add. Commentating cricket usually includes an opinion on why a change to the field or bowler is being made, and usually doesn’t require an opinion of emotion or politics related to the players.
I like to contrast TV tennis commentary with radio.
TV commentary is fairly unobtrusive. During the play, they don’t say much, because the action is both obvious and so fast that real time commentary struggles to keep up. In the space between points, they fill the dead air with value-adding personal details about the players and technical stuff you couldn’t know unless you were a former pro.
Radio, on the other hand, can’t have dead air during the points, so they fill it with commentary whose information content is at the level of useless gibberish ("Forehand to Nadal! Backhand to Federer! Repeat ad nauseam.). The emotional content, however, is pitched to create the impression of constant pants-wetting excitement. You are essentially listening to a guy being excited on your behalf, and getting a vicarious thrill from his enrapturement.
I remember when we lived near Milwaukee in the early 90s Bob Uecker would at least part of the time handle the Brewers radio broadcasts solo. Lots of quiet spots (even with Uecker behind the mike) with just the hum of the crowd in the background. Very enjoyable broadcasts to listen to.
