After reading some of the comments on the TennisWeek.com message boards concerning television commentary from the ATP Masters 1000 Series tournament in Montreal, I would like to offer a few observations about the current team and the commentary business in general from the perspective of someone lucky enough to have been there and done it.

First of all, I think it is time to recognize that Darren Cahill, one-time US Open semifinalist and coach to Lleyton Hewitt and Andre Agassi, is the game’s new star as a television analyst. Not since John McEnroe started bringing his sharp tennis intellect to bear from behind the microphone have we had someone as shrewd, succinct and illuminating to tell us what is going on.

And, unlike radio where everything from the color of the sky to the number of people in the stands needs to be detailed, telling us what is happening on television means revealing those details that are not immediately obvious to the viewer.

Cahill came up with a classic example of this when he began explaining why Andy Murray, one of best returners of serve the game has seen in recent years, was having so much trouble returning Juan Martin del Potro’s serve on the  forehand side.

“It’s his grip,” said Cahill. “He’s been expecting del Potro to serve to his backhand all afternoon so he gets set with his backhand grip for the two hander and isn’t able to switch fast enough when del Potro surprises him by going the other way. Del Potro is just serving too big and too fast.”

Now, I would guess that 90 percent of the audience hadn’t noticed that. Or simply didn’t have a clue that a grip change was even required. But Cahill was simply doing what an analyst is supposed to do — telling the viewers something they didn’t know.

I recognize that many knowledgeable viewers get hugely frustrated by commentators telling them stuff they do know while generally talking too much. And there is no question that some American commentators are guilty of this. But, like the new generation of bloggers, many of who seem to think they are suddenly journalistic experts without ever having had to meet a deadline, the technical business of commentating is not easy. As ever, criticizing from the depths of one’s couch is a pretty lazy game to play.

I grew up in the commentary box alongside such legends as Dan Maskell, who was Fred Perry’s Davis Cup coach before becoming the voice of tennis on the BBC television and Max Robertson, the fastest talker BBC Radio ever employed. Before succeeding Robertson and Gerald Williams on radio, I worked a little with Maskell on TV at Wimbledon and the French Open and he certainly taught one about economy of words. Jack Kramer who formed a great partnership with gentle Dan in the 1960’s at Wimbledon, will tell you that it was one of the most pleasurable experiences of his life. They made a great pair because of the contrast of their voices and terminology but Kramer, being the great pro he is, quickly adapted to the BBC style and became far less voluble than he was when commentating in America.  John McEnroe has made a big effort to do the same.

The BBC rule is strict. Never talk during a point and wait for the umpire to call the score before you comment on what you have just seen. I agree totally with the first point but always found the second frustrating because some umpires take an age — in this instance five seconds is an age — to call the score, thus dampening any spontaneous reaction you may have to a great winner.

Jason Goodall, a former British No. 2, and Robbie Koenig, a top doubles player of quite recent vintage, do a good job of bridging the considerable distance between the BBC and US styles and can be heard frequently now on Tennis Channel and various world feeds that can be picked up on the web. The hours they work can be extremely tiring and, while not as physically exhausting as long stints doing radio play-by-play, the concentration required is considerable.

I am not going to get into the business of rating today’s commentators because I don’t want to lose too many friends but I did like the ESPN team in  Montreal (yes, Cliff, you guys did a good job with the women in Cincinnati, too!) I think Chris Fowler is one of the best non-player commentators because of his pleasant speaking voice and, more importantly, because he does his homework. And the Cahill-Brad Gilbert partnership works well too, not least because you immediately know who’s talking — Cahill with his Aussie accent and Gilbert because no one else talks like Brad. They are both experts and it shows. Gilbert stuck to his guns over making Murray clear favorite to beat del Potro, largely on the grounds of the Argentine’s physical condition, and was vindicated. However, I must admit I was not always as confident of the outcome, having seen the increasingly impressive del Potro outlast Andy Roddick on the first really hot day in Washington DC in the Legg Mason final. But we all knew that Murray’s rigorous training sessions at Miami University under Jez Green’s demanding eye would pay off at some crucial moment and Sunday’s performance by the young, muscular Scot proved to be it.

Finally, a word of explanation for the uninitiated on things Australian. Cahill’s nickname is Killer because, when he first appeared on the tour he looked about ten and had a sweet smile. To help you understand the way the Aussie mind works, Ken Rosewall was called Muscles because he didn’t have any. Fred Stolle was not exactly combustible but they called him Fiery. One name that did fit was Bob “Nailbags” Carmichael. Before become a pro tennis player, he had been a carpenter in Melbourne. And the funny thing is that, once a name sticks, it becomes permanently adopted by the man himself.

I used to get phone calls from my old friend which began, “Huh, Nailbags here.” No further identification needed. It’s an Aussie thing.