Should people who’ve never played sports at a high level be able to cover them? I guess we should tell both Van Gundy brothers their coaching careers meant nothing because they never played Division I sports or beyond.
Critical analysis does not solely require physical expertise. It takes critical thinking and observation. It’s how people can tell a movie stinks without having been a professional actor or director. If you know what to look for, you can make an accurate assessment of players, teams, and plays. These "nerds" use data, observation, and knowledge; that's all anyone needs to make a compelling point.
Is it frustrating to have people who have never played a sport at your level criticize everything you do? Absolutely, but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong or don’t have enough knowledge to make a judgment. A lot of sports journalists love sports more than the professional athletes they cover but didn’t win the genetic lottery to play at a high level.
These “nerds” have every right to cover sports.
Why do pros always say this? U don't have to have played sports or played at a high level to know sports and cover it well.
Lou Williams may have been a little crass in his wording, but he’s not wrong. A lot of these journalists love to go after athletes’ performances without really understanding the intricacies of the sport. Sometimes, the people covering the sports don’t know why a player counts to two before rolling on a screen, or the positioning of a safety on a particular play. All they know is numbers, and when those numbers aren’t good, journalists criticize the athlete.
There are a lot of subtleties of sports that elude most people, and you wouldn’t understand why unless you really played the game. These nerd journalists will never understand the little folds where they can cover the game accurately.
Save the analysis for people who actually played.
I mean it has to feel like a smack in their face that all these dudes who never played are telling them what they're good or not good at