Maybe my statement was ambigious. I meant: He is a sound analyst (his stron point), but his running commentary is not that great, hence the reason why he would be a good complement to a commentator who calls the game well, but lacks strong analysis.
Okay... I see your point and agree. I think he more suited to the analyst position (color commentary if you will), than actually calling the match (play by play) itself.
Being a good commentator takes alot of preparation...was watching a show wid John Motson today where he was talking about some of the notes he prepares before each game on every single player...it was extremely thorough....much of what a good commentator says will appear to be off the cuff insight but in reality will have been researched and committed to memory beforehand...iz only in Trinidad where Dave Lamy could come on TV and say whatever $hit comes into his head lol.
Agree as well... it's definitely a whole lot more than just showing up. My comments were more towards the qualifications to be an analyst (the "acumen") rather than targeting specifically what would make a good/great analyst in practice. I can't think of exactly who the analyst was, but I've read similar accounts before in terms of preparation before the game/match/event. The research into each player, traits and tendencies, background info on the teams that might be of relevance, trends from prior meetings etc.