Unsure what you mean, and probably now irrelevant, but most importantly: I know you're not having a go at me.
Reminds me of the first time my (pre)hubbster took me to see a Dons (AFC) match in the Richard Donald Stand. Our seats were upper-mid-section, and I was able to see the whole 'game' like a big canvas beneath me.
He was mightily impressed by how I was able to point out strategy.
Then we shared a greasy Pittodrie pie and Bovril. That sealed the deal right there.
Things like that.
Some of the best analysts, pundits and coaches were pretty crap at the sport or never even played it. When people laugh down others for pointing things out, questioning what their job is and if they've ever won a Slam, etc it's downright ignorant and quire frankly irrelevant. Even your average armchair fan can be quite knowledgable about tactics, strategy and players' games, strengths and weaknesses. It's a myth that those who played the game professionally are always right and those who didn't know nothing.
Thinking more football than tennis, but there are plenty of ex-players who played at the top of game who were spectacular failures as managers, whilst many who played the game to an even lower level than someone like me go on to becomes great managers. The current Southampton manager who gained back-to-back promotions used to be a physio after playing in the lower leagues, whilst a physio with no experience in the game whatsoever took over from John Barnes to steer Tranmere to safety (they were rock bottom under Barnes). In summary, you don't need to have been a pro to be able to analyse a sport, although having played the sport at some point in your life would obviously help (not essential though - see Tranmere physio). Going back to tennis I dare say many journalists who watch the sport week in, out would make far better pundits than the likes of Andrew Castle.
Anyway, you touched upon a sore point of mine and I shall shut up now.