This was a great article and prompted me to finally become a paid subscriber. Waking up this morning in the US and hearing murmurs about this Ben Shelton interview, I was so pleased that you had brought the entire chain of events together in one place, presented with a thoughtful take, and sent it to my inbox. So grateful in the age of ChatGPT and a focus on dramatic headlines to be able to read quality and in-depth tennis journalism written by a human. Thank you
This is a good topic but it’s pretty straightforward. Interviewing is a skill, just like everything else. There is no reason to think that a former tennis player would be good at it. John Fitzgerald is particularly bad at it. You could pick any random person out of the crowd and they would likely do better. Jim Courier, for whatever reason (though my guess is that he worked hard at it), is good. But we shouldn’t expect former players to be good at it. Nick McCarvel and Blair Henley are good because they have journalism experience. The only thing mildly surprising here is that Courier is good at it. The rest is just what we should expect.
Courier’s dive into the Yarra river after winning in 1992 became part of sporting lore here, and I imagine that may have helped a bit in establishing his commentary / interview roles with Channel 7 initially (and now C9) but he’s grown that into something that’s become an expected / looked forward to part of the whole broadcast - I know I’m much more likely to watch a post match interview if he’s conducting it.
And yes, agree with the folks complimenting you on your work here. You’re clearly doing a lot of shoe-leather reporting and research, and hopefully there’s an audience for it.
The on court interviews are mostly cringe worthy. Isn't everyone pretty sick of Brad Gilbert calling every player his "buddy." Or using the same stock ending phrase of "Kick back your feet." Then there is the standard "you're into your 1st (enter late round of a major). How does it feel?" Brilliant. A few, like Courier, draw out players regarding specific moments in the match and a few players, like Novak, have come to use the interviews to project their personalities and display humor and insight. I know we are stuck with these but one senses that many high school journalists could ask more penetrating questions than the so-called experts we see from the networks.
The world spun around quite nicely before on-court interviews. We probably can't kill them at this point, because people in the stadium probably expect them. And there is probably some value in having the winner say a few words right then and there, for the actual paying customers to hear. But very few interviewers -- maybe it's just Courier, because I'm struggling to come up with someone else -- and very few players can actually produce something genuinely interesting when the questions and answers are about the match played and perhaps the next match.
So there's pressure on the interviewers to turn the interview into something that grabs attention and goes viral. They try too hard to come up with weird or wacky or off-the-wall questions, and that too often leads to cringing all around. (And have some sympathy for the players, many of whom are being asked to respond to those wacky questions in what is not their first language.)
A final thought: These post-match on-court interviews are still better than the pointless pre-match interviews.
This was a great article and prompted me to finally become a paid subscriber. Waking up this morning in the US and hearing murmurs about this Ben Shelton interview, I was so pleased that you had brought the entire chain of events together in one place, presented with a thoughtful take, and sent it to my inbox. So grateful in the age of ChatGPT and a focus on dramatic headlines to be able to read quality and in-depth tennis journalism written by a human. Thank you
Thanks Shannon!!
This is a good topic but it’s pretty straightforward. Interviewing is a skill, just like everything else. There is no reason to think that a former tennis player would be good at it. John Fitzgerald is particularly bad at it. You could pick any random person out of the crowd and they would likely do better. Jim Courier, for whatever reason (though my guess is that he worked hard at it), is good. But we shouldn’t expect former players to be good at it. Nick McCarvel and Blair Henley are good because they have journalism experience. The only thing mildly surprising here is that Courier is good at it. The rest is just what we should expect.
Courier’s dive into the Yarra river after winning in 1992 became part of sporting lore here, and I imagine that may have helped a bit in establishing his commentary / interview roles with Channel 7 initially (and now C9) but he’s grown that into something that’s become an expected / looked forward to part of the whole broadcast - I know I’m much more likely to watch a post match interview if he’s conducting it.
And yes, agree with the folks complimenting you on your work here. You’re clearly doing a lot of shoe-leather reporting and research, and hopefully there’s an audience for it.
Thanks Ian!
Hit the nail on the head with the last paragraph, trying for comedy in weird and uncomfortable spots and its emphatically falling flat.
The on court interviews are mostly cringe worthy. Isn't everyone pretty sick of Brad Gilbert calling every player his "buddy." Or using the same stock ending phrase of "Kick back your feet." Then there is the standard "you're into your 1st (enter late round of a major). How does it feel?" Brilliant. A few, like Courier, draw out players regarding specific moments in the match and a few players, like Novak, have come to use the interviews to project their personalities and display humor and insight. I know we are stuck with these but one senses that many high school journalists could ask more penetrating questions than the so-called experts we see from the networks.
The world spun around quite nicely before on-court interviews. We probably can't kill them at this point, because people in the stadium probably expect them. And there is probably some value in having the winner say a few words right then and there, for the actual paying customers to hear. But very few interviewers -- maybe it's just Courier, because I'm struggling to come up with someone else -- and very few players can actually produce something genuinely interesting when the questions and answers are about the match played and perhaps the next match.
So there's pressure on the interviewers to turn the interview into something that grabs attention and goes viral. They try too hard to come up with weird or wacky or off-the-wall questions, and that too often leads to cringing all around. (And have some sympathy for the players, many of whom are being asked to respond to those wacky questions in what is not their first language.)
A final thought: These post-match on-court interviews are still better than the pointless pre-match interviews.
Jim, Jelena, and Todd Woodbridge are the only on court interviewers that consistently do a good job for Channel 9.