By Mark Renneson
I've been noticing some discussion online lately about pickleball commentary during live-streamed matches. It seems that most people agree that they like having broadcasters include play-by-play. But people are also particular about what it sounds like. I’m no expert, but I thought this might be a chance to offer my perspective on what makes for good commentary and what causes it to fall off the rails.
I think it is important to differentiate between colour commentary and play-by-play. The role of the latter is to describe the action in front of the viewer -- to put words to actions as they take place. Colour commentary, on the other hand, has a different objective. Its aim is to enhance the viewing experience in some way, not just describe the action as it unfolds but to help an audience make sense of it in ways that they might not be able to on their own.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of play-by-play in pickleball. This isn't based on some grand principle, but more on the idea that I can see where the ball's been hit, I don't need to be told about it. I prefer a broadcaster to speak only if it is giving me something I can't get otherwise. And to be told that a player is running to the kitchen or returning serve with their forehand doesn't really give me that. Some people may feel differently. But if you've ever heard me call a match, I rarely talk about the shots as they are happening.
The enhancement offered by a colour commentator isn't in their ability to describe the action, but to make sense of it. This can be through analysis, explanation, observation, or anecdote; and it frequently includes all four. I try to draw the audience's attention to something I think they might appreciate but don't necessarily notice. This is frequently related to a team's strategy or tactics but could include unpacking a decision-making process or trying to anticipate adjustments that players might make as a match unfolds.
I think of the job as a mixture of explaining what has happened and predicting what will happen (although I tend to give more weight to analysis rather than fortune-telling). But there are some risks that come with the effort to add to the action. Generally speaking, when people complain about commentary their criticism usually takes these forms:
The commentators were off-topic.
They didn't give proper attention to big points.
Their discussion was irrelevant to the action.
Really, these all boil down to the viewer saying: this isn't improving my experience of the match. And that's usually when they hit the mute button. So what’s going on? Why does this happen? I’m going to try to give my view of how things can fall off track
First off, let me start by saying that if I’m leading the commentary side of the production, I take full responsibility for any announcing-related problems that go down in the booth. If we miss a cue or drone on too long, that’s on me. And if I have a guest who is joining the broadcast, my job is to help them shine. If they don’t, that’s my failure, not theirs. Ok. So how do things turn south?
Too Broad a Focus. In some cases, the announcer thinks about the forest rather than the trees. Sure, they are watching this particular match, but it almost always exists in the context of a bigger story — a tournament. Broadcasters will sometimes still have other parts of that story in mind even though they — and the viewer — should be focused on a very narrow part of it; the match in front of them. This can be especially tempting if there have been some exciting stories from earlier in the event and if the match they should be focused on is, ahem, a little less captivating.
A Little Too Friendly. When broadcasters are working as a team they are bound to develop some kind of relationship. And a certain level of comfort and chemistry is good. But if you aren’t careful, that easy-going attitude can slip into ‘friend mode’ which can make the broadcast seem like it’s a couple of buddies hanging out on the sidelines rather than broadcasters doing a job.
Being a Good Host. I really enjoy inviting people into the booth. I make an effort to find people who I think will offer useful insights and who viewers will appreciate hearing from. And I’m always grateful when people take time out of their schedule to join me. What becomes tricky is the balance between giving that person space to be themselves, but also keeping the focus on the match we are watching. It’s kind of like inviting people to a dinner party — you want everyone to feel comfortable, important and valued. You want to hear what each person has to say. But if you pay too much attention to one person and their thoughts, it can cause the party to go sideways. When broadcasting, I have to think about the person in the booth, the people watching at home, as well as respect the people playing the match. It’s a delicate balance that I know I don’t always get right — often because viewers tell me!
Again, when this happens and I’m running the show, it is always my mistake — never the guests. My job is to guide the guest and to get the most out of them I can for the viewer without overshadowing the players. It’s true that it is hard. But it is also true that it is a pleasure to be part of a process that when done right, provides something enjoyable and valuable to pickleball fans.
