How I'd tweak the Australian Open post-match interview

If I was asked to work with the television on-court post-match interviewers, this is how I’d go about it.

You’ll have seen plenty of headlines this Australian Open about the questionable quality of Channel 9’s (the host TV broadcaster) interactions with the tennis players. It ignited when their veteran sports reporter Tony Jones, while attempting humour, suggested the game’s greatest player—and 10-time winner of this tournament—Novak Djokovic, was “overrated, a has-been, (and to) kick him out”. Djokovic was offended and demanded an apology. Days later, during a press conference, rising American star Ben Shelton pinpointed numerous examples where he felt on-court interviewing had been below par. Debate ignited over the extent to which this was true or whether spoiled players were overreacting. I think the conversation missed the mark. Instead of criticism, we should stop and analyse what these interviews are attempting to do; and whether they are succeeding at it. And if not, how might they be improved? I’ll attempt to tackle these questions here.

On a top level, the interviewers appear to be attempting to give some general insights into the player and match, while keeping the conversation broad enough (read, don’t talk so much about tennis) so that all audiences can engage with the content. More importantly, it seems they operate under the instruction to make the interview fun or funny, because let’s not forget, the Australian Open is the “happy slam”.

The crime

The offending interview at the heart of the matter is John Fitzgerald’s 3 am back and forth with 19-year-old qualifier Leaner Tien following his 4-hour and 49-minute upset of world number 5 superstar Daniil Medvedev. The interview is not the total train wreck that the media are making out, but his questions included the following:

"19-year-olds are not meant to be that good.”

“I used to live in Newport Beach so I know where you live by the way. Congratulations, that was an exceptional effort. It’s the first time a five-setter has gone to a super tiebreak this year.”

“You should be proud of yourself and so should your family.”

The primary issue is that these are not questions; they’re statements. And after close to five hours of tennis, the job of the interviewer is to help this player be great on camera and ace the interview. In this instance, it was left to Tien to try and entertain rather than answer a quality question and converse easily.

But one has to watch almost any interview to see similar patterns. I’ve seen far more cringe worthy moments than this over the last two weeks, particularly when the interviewer is focused on trying to be funny or make the themselves the focus.

“You have lots of tattoos, will you get a kangaroo if you win here? We’ll hold you to it…”

“You just got engaged…”

“Monfils is old enough to be your dad…”

Any question about Melbourne coffee. Or Vegemite!

It’s not all bad

The gold standard is Jim Courier. Take your pick of his interviews, they’re consistently strong. I grabbed the ones he did with Jannik Sinner from his quarter-final and semi-final matches. If you have time to only watch one, the semi-final is tighter. If you watch both, watch them in order and you can see the relationship progress.

Semi-final interview

Quarter-final interview

Courier has roughly five minutes for the interview and usually asks four questions.

I’m going to use his template to highlight what a a high-level post-match interview can look like.

Adjust the aim

Overall, I’d tweak the aim of the interview to understand the experience these players have just undertaken through questions that encourage vulnerability (showing humility, weakness, honesty despite the perceived judgement), authenticity (dropping the protective facade and being themselves) and playfulness. These are keys to interesting, memorable interactions. I also think Channel 9 is right: humour is paramount. But encourage the talent be funny, rather than as the interviewer feeling the need to be.

Know that the tennis crowd are a generous one. After a gruelling or entertaining match, it’s a treat to hear how the player feels about it. The live audience is keen to laugh and enjoy the interaction, so creating an environment where the player can be honest, genuine or cheeky—ultimately relaxed in the interviewers presence—is vital.

1. Question one is about the match that just unfolded

JC: Jannik, it wasn’t easy, that first set he was playing some incredible tennis. He had some set points, you were able to turn that around, how did you do that to win that opening set? (watch)

This question works because it goes directly into the headspace of the player and encourages vulnerability. By asking the interviewee to take us into their head, they can explain what it feels like to be in their shoes. We’ve all just watched the match, we know what we’ve seen, so now’s the chance to learn about what we can’t see. Interviewers might be tempted to unpack techniques or tactics, and these details are interesting, but really we’re most interested in the emotions. Understanding the emotions of trying to do this thing we just witnessed. For example:

Was there a point where you thought you were going to lose? How’d you work through that?

When did you know you had the win?

Courier’s question also shows he’s paid attention to the match and has picked a moment to unpack, demonstrating to the interviewee his interest in the detail. But pick your moment well. Surprise them with your attention to detail or ask about the elephant in the room. This demonstrate to them through your question that you watched and now you want to understand a key detail.

You’re a set down, you’re 40-0 down on serve mid-way through the second set, what goes through your head?

2. Question two, the one we all want to know the answer to.

JC: You had the physio on the court, you looked like at times you had some discomfort in your body, what were you dealing with? (watch)

I’m not sure of Courier’s intention, but I see this question as the one we’re all sitting at home wanting to know the answer to—whether it be about an injury time out, a controversial call, an outburst of emotion or coming into the game feeling below their best.

I’ve spent a large chunk of my career asking the awkward or uncomfotable questions. The key to asking them is to do so with the energy of understanding rather than to create a gotcha moment or controversy. Often a simple way to ask a question like this is to put a stereotype or misunderstanding to the interviewee and ask them the truth behind it.

To Djokovic, rather than ask about his age and when he’s going to retire, help us understand his greatness:

On behalf of all us old people, how do you beat someone who’s supposedly younger and fitter and more hungry?

To someone younger:

You’re playing someone with vastly more experience, how do you drop the voice in your head that tells you you can’t win this?

Questions like these allow the interviewee to correct you, perhaps offer some wisdom or simply a chance to understand how they work.

3. A pre-prepared well-crafted question.

JC: I remember about three years ago you lost in the quarter finals and then you changed your coaching team. Since then it’s been an amazing progress you’ve won two majors and you reached number one in the world. I want to know what that team has meant to you? What’s that relationship been like? (watch)

Here’s the chance to unpack something larger—in this instance, Courier asks about the coaching team Sinner left behind and the coaching team that replaced them.

It’s also a question where natural humour starts to unfold.

As the interviewer, you must not take the focus away from the interviewee by attempting to be the one the crowd thinks about afterwards. Your role is to help the interviewee shine. Help them be funny, cheeky and a hit with the crowd. This results in two wins: the interview is better because it’s more entertaining, and the interviewee comes away looking good and ultimately feeling good. It has the final advantage of priming the interviewee to be further relaxed and do even better interviews next time. It’s clear Sinner relaxes more and more each time Courier interacts with him. .

So rather than write jokes or funny questions, ask questions and create an environment that allows a relaxed response and natural humour will unfold. Let the interviewee know when they’ve said something funny, help them get a laugh. Sinner is not the best interviewee, but in both interviews above, he gets a laugh out of suggesting Courier is old—Jim lightly ribs him for this in case the audience miss the joke—and in the second interview he gets a laugh making a faux pas comment about his coaching team—again, Jim acknowledges the joke by telling him, “Dig yourself out of the hole young man”.

Courier’s energy during the interaction shifted from being interested in the response to being warm and playful as the answer unfolded.

4. The final question looks to the future. In this instance, the next match.

JC: What’s coming is another final. The number one seed, that’s you, versus the number two seed Zverev. You guys have had some big battles in the past. It’s going to be huge. What are you looking forward to in the final? (watch)

In his question he mentions Zverev, their previous big battles and “another final,” giving Sinner a few areas to springboard off. It’s a nice neat way to end: a chance to preview and hear Sinner’s methods to tackling what’s next and, if Courier’s lucky, some genuine fresh insight that can make the news cycle.

---

Final thoughts

Follow-up questions

Even though the interviewer will be keenly aware of the limited interview time, that doesn’t disqualify follow-up questions. Across four questions in a five-minute interview, there should be time for one or two follow-ups. So choose them wisely. A follow-up question could be one asking for clarity, particularly if the player is talking too inside tennis, or the follow-up could be a comment, like the example above (acknowledging the joke), which encourages the interviewee to keep talking or elaborate.

Four types of questions

It’s worth thinking about what each of your questions is getting at. I’ll unpack this futher in a future newsletter, but overall there are only four types of questions. Ones that ask for an anecdote, a fact, an emotion or wisdom. Over four questions you want to be aware of what each question is asking for—are you getting a mix of styles of questions?

Make your questions different

If you only have three or four questions to work with, make them different. You want three or four distinct ideas from them. You may only succeed with one, but at least you walked away from the interview with something that was worth getting. And chances are that’s what the audience will remember.

Thanks for reading everyone. I look forward to unpacking lots of ideas this year.

Kirk

---

Kirk Docker is the co-creator and director of award-winning TV show You Can’t Ask That, and now I Was Actually There. When it comes to the content he creates, no subject is off-topic. Kirk’s interviewees range from ex-politicians to ice users to sexual assault survivors. He has a deep curiosity, compassion and playfulness that elicits honesty from his participants, many of whom have never sat in front of a camera before.

Find out more about Kirk at kirkdocker.com. Connect with him on LinkedIn.