Miriambee wrote:

---

Absolutely, John Inverdale had the cheek ( an insult really to the likes of Colin Fleming and Jonny Marray, not mention juniors) to say after Heather's match,  that's all British interest in RG gone now!

---

To think that this man plays a big role in the BBC's coverage of Wimbledon

Is it really too much to ask for our national broadcaster to have people covering tennis who both care about the sport and have some level of knowledge?

Im not a fan of John Inverdale as a tennis presenter. He seems like a nice guy and a good general broadcaster, but I would much rather have a tennis focused presenter take the lead in this coverage.

murray_2k9 wrote:

---

Im not a fan of John Inverdale as a tennis presenter. He seems like a nice guy and a good general broadcaster, but I would much rather have a tennis focused presenter take the lead in this coverage.

---

I know, he's a good broadcaster when he's on a subject he's really interested in, but he gives a good impression of turning up for the odd slam and taking not the slightest bit of interest in tennis for the rest of the year. Apparently he described John Peers as "American" more than once today during and after his doubles match with Jamie too.

I guess the problem is, those who appoint him probably don't care enough about tennis themselves to realise that.

RJA wrote:

---

Is it really too much to ask for our national broadcaster to have people covering tennis who both care about the sport and have some level of knowledge?

---

I'd say so, yes.

The BBC could put up anyone, short of Dan Maskell re-incarnated, and people will be as quick as possible to criticise them simply for political reasons.

As for ITV and other outlets, I think we're getting too precious about this because we are the 50 or so people who care about it.

Inverdale made a mistake, yes, fine. He's a safe pair of hands though, and gives most of the non-specialist audience what they want - an easy way into the action, which should be good for the game.

It is of great sorrow to me personally that the days of dry factual informational presentation seem to be gone forever I liked this more than modern gloss. For example, for years, 'The Sky At Night' was steadfastly old-fashioned, Reithian even, in it's presentation. The end result? You always got almost more information than you knew what to do with, you learned. They also stayed resolutely on topic with no fillier or flash production techniques trying to hide a lack of material. Only acknowledged experts or expert amateurs ever were on the panels. You also got about 50 viewers (not helped by the natural time slots, granted). Only the specialists, the already converted & passionate  few tuned in every month. Especially on commercial channels, that simply means one thing - you don't pick up the option next season.

Same applies to any sport, especially minority ones. And tennis, though perhaps not the most minor of minority sports, is not football, and so in the UK, at least, it's still a minority sport.

Broadcasters therefore have to ensure the viability of the coverage by appealing to the widest possible base, and a dry technical fact laden approach just puts people off, it seems elitist and non-inclusive to the casual viewer. I doubt that even on football that sort of approach would work.

So, instead of a specialist you get an informal generalist someone who most viewers feel comfortable in the presence of, if they are professional enough, it doesn't matter to the vast majority of the audience about technicalities, they just want to watch a bit of action with a bit of chat - again a great sorrow to me. If they are not professional enough, well, you get the debacle Channel 4 found itself in when they tried to get creative with their World Athletics Championships coverage.

Was Inverdale strictly and technically wrong? Yes, though most will have understood that he was talking about singles. And, yes, he should not have said it without qualification. Is it an insult? Well, anything is an insult if you find it insulting, and that's very easy to do; but no, not really, and certainly not said or meant as an insult with any direct disrespect aimed directly at the doubles players by Inverdale.

Anyway, let's pretend that a fiercely passionate specialist could be found that is also massively engaging with both die-hard fans and casual viewers alike can be found.

Who do you (the collective you) suggest fits this role?

Well, if we want another Dan Maskell (yes please!) we look for a former player perhaps?

I've seen considerable criticism of Sue Barker, Virginia Wade, Andrew Castle and Annabel Croft, Barry Cowan, Mark Petchey and others on these pages - all former British players to turn their hand to tennis presenting, all who should, logically, know about the game, but you don't find these suitable. Fine, so former players seem to be out.

The Newspaper guys (sadly in Tennis it is mostly guys)?

I have to be a bit careful, as I know Steven is somewhat friendly by acquaintance with quite a few of them. Barry Flatman, David Laws, Mike Dickson and others - all have done reasonably regular punditry for R5L or R5SX and they are all interminable bores live. Also crucially, they don't know their stuff, in a live context. If it's say, Heather versus Voegele in Memphis, they start off by saying "well I don't know much about her opponent", and fixate on one small aspect, clinging to it as though it actually proved they had original prescient thought about the game, as opposed to just a thought that fills some time, about the game.

They also constantly couch things in the vaguest terms to cover up the fact that they have no detail - like Alan Shearer on MoTD.

What they know is quite a lot about the few top male players - If you ask them about most of the players in the WTA top 100, they don't have a clue and certainly have never watched them play. The same is true to a lesser degree of the ATP.

When in pundit mode this seems to reduce to lots of stories about Roger, Rafa, Andy & Nole - the marquee name players that they like to associate themselves to by proximity because it does well for their egos. They've seen all those big matches and written about them at length, but I'd hardly call it good all round knowledge of the professional game as a whole. Given the space and time of their columns some fare somewhat better.

So who's left?

Sam Smith. Not bad, but seems much happier as a second fiddle than as the lead.

I like, personally, Jonathan Overend on R5L, but he is untested outside of radio, and is stepping down as the BBC Tennis correspondent soon anyway. Also he, like the journalists, is only really good on the biggest names and Brits.

Jim Courier? John McEnroe, Lindsay Davenport etc? Would you really accept a foreigner? Would the wider audience, especially for Wimbledon? I think not. Sadly, for silly reasons I think there would be very unfavourable reaction to such an appointment. 

So, who do you suggest, who has the knowledge and passion for the game of the people on this board or similar, and is proven as a consummate broadcaster able to appeal to hardcore fan and casual alike?

Erm? That's a tough question.

Much easier just to give John Inverdale a call as the least bad fit.

Unless Steven wants to throw his hat in to the ring?

Anyway, back on topic. The last 10 first round matches are scheduled to be played tomorrow and as of yet there have been no withdrawals so Jamie Delgado's trip to Paris may have been a wasted one.

It was the constant referring to John Peers as American that was really getting on my nerves, Inverdale must have said it at least 3 times. Even if he had never heard of Peers before (understandable, although he has been with Jamie for quite a while now) the graphic on the screen clearly had 'AUS' after his name so all he had to do was read!

ITV's coverage on the whole is really good though, the addition of Courier and decision not to hire either Andrew Castle or John Lloyd is a massive plus.

I think it's a fair criticism of Inverdale, particularly because there are actually very good 'general' presenters or trained journalists working right now who do an excellent job of covering sports they don't have a background in - think Clare Balding at the Olympics, Jake Humphrey (who started at Newsround!) covering F1 or even Michelle Hussain who did a pretty good job on the breakfast leg of the Olympics too.

It's not like we're asking Inverdale to speak in great detail about a British opponents career - acknowledging that we have entrants in the doubles and juniors and getting the nationalities right of their partners, isn't too much to ask.