Dunno. As an example, probably 50% of visual artists (largely the ones who didn't go through fancier fine art university courses where they're taught to think 'conceptually' and write inscrutable essays as well as going into the minutiae of movements and composition) find it difficult to describe 'what' or 'why' they do what they do: people without 1/4 of their talent but who've studied the textbooks, can write better art criticism or even teach the subject better than they can. Even very good poets find Masters courses in Creative Writing difficult at times because of the theory , despite using the same language.
Gazza had a high footballing IQ: not the most illuminating pundit, and not just because of the booze. Lots of footballers see pictures of the game and can respond to some level of pre-match game-plan along with individual instructions described to them, but asking them to put why a player does what they do into words on the spot, rather than reacting kinetically, is different. I wouldn't be surprised if Mitten, as a long-standing football journalist ( just like Jonathan Wilson or Kuper or other people who've never played the game professionally but have written extensively on it) genuinely does have a better understanding of 'what and why' when it comes to tactics than Scholes, with the latter having had managers do most of his tactical thinking for him and just 'problem-solved'' relating to discrete game moments - very well, of course - there and then...