1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Jane Dough

The Post-Game Interview: Awkward, Painful, and Unintentionally Great TV

» 7 comments

katie-bakes-iiOverlooked amid the adulation of Roger Federer after his record-breaking 15th career Grand Slam title at Wimbledon on Sunday was a painful post-game exchange between him and Andy Roddick that was broadcast live to both televised viewers and the crowd at the All England Club.

“Don’t be too sad,” Federer counseled a choked-up Roddick, whom he outlasted in a grueling five-set marathon. “I went through the rough ones as well, even one on this court last year, but I came back and won.”

He was referring to last year’s epic Final, another five-setter, in which he was defeated by his nemesis Rafael Nadal. But the comparison was lost on Roddick. “Yeah, you’d already won it five times,” he muttered. Loudly. Federer cheerfully rambled on, but the tension in the air (and over the airwaves) was thick.

Federer, unfailingly polite, clearly meant no harm with his poorly-phrased comments. But it is easy to understand why his opponent was so on edge. Roddick made a splash back in 2003 at age 21 with a US Open victory and the world’s No. 1 ranking, but has advanced to a relatively disappointing four Grand Slam finals since. He has lost each time, always to Federer.

And then, each time, he has had to immediately endure the most uncomfortable tradition in all of tennis: the live on-court interview, even of the loser, with its pitying ovations and its mandatory gratitude and its groaner queries. Like this one, from this year: “Andy, you certainly played your heart out, and after a match like that I just think this sport is so cruel sometimes.” What could be crueler than that non-”question”?

For his part, Roddick endured as well as could be expected despite his damp red eyes and the anguish tugging at his features. (If this sounds like a description of one giving a eulogy, it’s not far off: Roddick had to be mourning that pivotal second set.) But watching the almost instantaneous rollout of a gold-embroidered “15″ jacket and the celebratory commercials fêteing Federer’s historic record — Nike quickly ran a spot called “Love 15″ featuring Pete Sampras, Serena Williams, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, and John McEnroe all congratulating the champ, while Gilette somehow clipped footage from the just-completed match itself — it was crazy to recall that it was only a few months ago that the mighty Federer himself was the one dissolving, weeping, barely able to address the crowd after a crushing loss to Nadal in the Australian Open finals.

“Have we become such a voyeuristic society that we need a great champion to be reduced to rubble before our eyes?” wrote the London Times’ Neil Harman in the wake of Federer’s tearful display. “We don’t mind a few words with the winners but the losers don’t want to be forced to stand there and have to say how wonderful some sun-cream manufacturer is.”

Certainly all losing athletes have to face the media sometime, but only in tennis must they do so with such public immediacy. (In other sports, the defeated at least have the luxury of smashing chairs around the locker room in private for a few minutes before having to slouch in front of a room of bored beat reporters.) Still, the networks’ continued reliance on the intrusive — and usually attractive, and also mainly useless — reporters roving the sidelines of NBA and NFL games has ensured that there is no shortage of face-smacking footage for our YouTubing pleasure.

The blame is not one-sided. Athletes are notorious for their bland “just gotta take it one game at a time” maxims and their “they just out-hustled us” excuses. David Foster Wallace may have referred to Federer’s play as a religious experience, but he also wrote in his essay “How Tracy Austin Broke My Heart” that elite sports figures “usually turn out to be stunningly inarticulate about just those qualities and experiences that constitute their fascination.”

On the other hand, eloquence can’t put spin on a tennis ball. And it’s hard to blame the athletes when their interviewers are mailing it in too, blurting out little more than “tough loss tonight” before thrusting mic to face. While working the sidelines for NBC, Ahmad Rashad lobbed nothing but fawning softballs at Jordan — much to the discontent of this Knicks lover — and earlier this year Kentucky’s former head basketball coach Billy Gillispie gave many fed-up fans a chuckle when he dismissed ESPN’s Jeanine Edwards with a blunt “that’s really a bad question.” (The blog Awful Announcing went with more constructive criticism: “Good job by Edwards though to plow ahead with an even hackier sideline reporter question following the dig.”)

Sometimes the questions are creative, but baffling. McEnroe, in a one-on-one interview with Federer outside the locker room, made the curious decision to ask the newly-minted winningest Grand Slam champion of all time … whether he would consider throwing a bone, and the match, to Roddick next time. (Such irreverence is not unusual for Mac, but one couldn’t help but think that dear Bud Collins might have come up with something better.)

A few hours after the Wimbledon Final on Sunday, Tiger Woods was scheduled to appear on the opposite side of the microphone than per usual. As the host of the AT&T National, Woods would be presenting the trophy, along with a couple of mild questions, to the tournament’s eventual champion.

As it turned out, Tiger won. “As host i’ve always wanted to do this, so just bear with me,” he said, standing at the microphone with a grin.

He hopped to one side of the podium. “So, Tiger, how did you play today?” he asked himself. He hopped to the other. “Oh you know, it was a tough day…”

The crowd howled. It was the best postgame interview in quite some time.

Katie Baker has contributed to Gawker, the Yale Daily News, Young Manhattanite, and US College Hockey Online. Her blog can be found here. She also has a day job.

Follow us on Twitter.

Sign up for Mediaite's daily newsletter.

Email Twitter Facebook Digg Reddit Stumble Upon Yahoo Buzz LinkedIn Tumblr Delicious
  • fosterkamer

    But WERE YOU PAID FOR THIS?

    Also, I think this is the first comment left on this site. YAY FIRST!!!111!!!!

  • fosterkamer

    also, does this obligate you to a media ranking? you’re number one in our book, no matter what these guys say. yay, katie!

  • http://www.ronsrhinestones.com RonNYC

    The match between Andy and Roger was amazing.
    Too bad Andy screwed up the second set. He definitely would have won.
    I find Roger to be pompous and I resent him coming onto the court in a blazer.
    It’s as if he thinks he is The King.
    Over the years, Roger has come to bore me. He is humorless and seldom acts human.
    Andy played the best tennis of his life on Sunday. It was amazing that the match lasted so long.
    I think if the sun was not in his eyes at the end, he probably would have come out better.
    In any event, it is a match I will never forget.
    And if Roger is as great as everyone loves to say, the match clearly would not have gone on so long.

    Andy’s match with Andy Murray the other day was also fantastic. I hope Roddick can have some big wins soon. I feel bad for him losing to Roger 19-2 over time.

  • courtney

    Pretty sure that there is no possible way that you could be more wrong on this. I’m guessing that you do not play tennis and have no clue about post-championship traditions and interviews.

    You completely missed the humor in Roddick’s comment. There was nothing “painful” or “awkward” about it – and the comment was INTENTIONALLY funny. There was nothing unintentional about it. Notice the laughter from the fans AND from Federer. Roddick’s comment was absolutely hilarious and was intended to be funny. I am not a Roddick fan – but I am willing to recognize that he had a funny moment.

    Second – you may not have noticed this either – but Roger Federer is from Switzerland – not America. He speaks pretty good English, but it is not his first language.

    Third – he is an athlete – not a public speaker. I’m guessing you wouldn’t be interested in watching a Wimbledon final between your favorite comedians or public speakers. Get off the guy’s back for not being a keynote speaker after a 4 1/2 hour match.

    And finally – to Ron – Federer didn’t go to the local tailor shop to have his warm-ups made. He is a Nike player and they have people who make his clothes for him. What he wore was a tribute to the traditions of Wimbledon and grass court tennis. People used to play entire matches dressed that way – WITH ties – and without tennis shoes. If you don’t know the guy – don’t make comments about the his personality.

    The interview-ER may be incredibly lame and ask dumb questions – but the post match interviews have been around for ages.

  • fosterkamer

    so have asshole commenters. sigh.

  • http://soupsoup.tumblr.com Anthony De Rosa

    Aww, look at Foster sticking up for Katie. So cute!!

  • katiebakes

    Courtney,

    Thanks for your comment, apologies that I am just now seeing it!

    I do play tennis, and I grew up in a household where tennis was on TV all weekend long (my father is a tennis pro) so I’m pretty familiar with the post game interview. And I stand by my argument that it is painful. It was painful back in my childhood, when Jimmy Connors could barely hide his contempt, and it’s painful now.

    Did you see the look on Roddick’s face? He was seething! I took the laughter to be nervous laughter, but if you found it to be a happy-go-lucky gut-chuckle then we’ll have to agree to disagree. And I am well aware that Federer a) is not a native English speaker (In the DFW essay I linked to he makes a great observation about Federer’s “you know” verbal tics – it’s worth reading if you have not already) and b) should not have to deliver a rousing ode to the audience after playing the longest fifth set in history.

    I think perhaps you missed that point — it’s why I wrote the line “eloquence does not put spin on a tennis ball” and it’s also why I think it’s unfair to subject the loser to such a public, and immediate, microphone-in-face.

    Re-reading what I wrote, I think it’s hardly critical of Federer and more so critical of the interview (and, usually, interviewER) itself. At any rate, I look forward to more squirmy moments, because they’re way more interesting to write about.

© 2012 Mediaite, LLC | About Us | Advertise | Self-Serve Advertising | Newsletter | Jobs | Privacy | User Agreement | Disclaimer | Power Grid FAQ | Contact | Archives | RSS RSS
Dan Abrams, Founder | Power Grid by Sound Strategies | Hosting by Datagram