SIDELINE REPORTING LACKS RELEVANCE

Last week’s Wimbledon final got me riled up. Why? You’re probably expecting me to make an entrance like: Rafael Nadal took Roger Federer to his first Grand Slam five-setter, but in the end Fed closed it out with his punishing Wimbledon will.

Not a chance.

If you've watched enough of the Swiss star, then you know he always comes through in the clutch (just not at the French Open -- yet). So I spent most of the back-and-forth four hours lying comfortably on my couch, expecting a Jordanesque ending, which is exactly what happened. Although, I must say I got pretty wound up watching Rafa's ridiculous shot placements and then seeing Federer freeze in his momentous tracks and shake his head in losing disbelief. At one point, Nadal was running toward the center hash mark on the baseline when Federer hit a laser forehand in the direction he was coming from, but Nadal stopped on a dime, kneeled down and a hit a backhand-winner crosscourt. Unreal.

So, then, what made me unravel from my sedated state? NBC's poor post-match sideline coverage.

After Federer received his championship trophy and waved and kissed to the crowd, he walked over to a waiting NBC female sideline reporter. Seconds into the interview, I just snapped! This is a guy who had entered the tournament set to climb the tennis record books, and for two weeks long he was asked the same big-picture questions: How does it feel to be going for your fifth straight Wimbledon championship? Will this win mean more to you than the others? What will it mean for you to tie Bjorn Borg for most Wimbledon titles?

Therefore, when the reporter blurted out these same basic three questions -- only difference, in the past tense –- I was heated. I had finally reached my boiling point with sideline reporters, and this is why I’m writing this piece.

The root of it is this: Sideline reporters are failing in their essential role –- reporting.

When the reporter spoke to Federer, she was asking general questions -– she was not reporting based on what she had witnessed during the match. Reporting consists of digging through the layers to find out why and how something important happened. She didn’t do that. There were several key storylines that were overlooked, such as Federer’s clutch serve in the fifth set and Nadal’s commanding backhand and knee injury, which a good reporter would have addressed. One of the best in my opinion is TNT's NBA sideline reporter David Aldridge. Not only is he extremely well-versed in the sport, but he also has incredible investigative skills. On game days, you can always count on him to break a story or get an athlete to disclose personal information. But hey, those are only his fundamental responsibilities.

If you happened to see the NBC interview, Federer’s responses proved that the reporter was not doing her job correctly. For instance, when she asked him, “Did you feel any pressure with Bjorn Borg in attendance?” Federer said, “Of course, there’s always pressure.” Then she asked him, “Did this win mean any more to you than the others?” and Federer said, “They all mean a lot.” Reading between the lines, Federer was indirectly putting down her questions and his manner was appropriate because they lacked substance. Good for him -- but not good for the network to have one of their own fall short in getting Federer to open up with at least a thorough attempt. The interview makes you wonder if the reporter even watched the match or just showed up for the celebration. If the latter is true, then she should not be called a sideline reporter, but simply a sideline interviewer.

As sports fans, we love to criticize athletes for their standoffish and lower school-level behavior, but let’s put ourselves in their shoes for once. How would you like to be asked the same questions over and over again pertaining to a particular event –- sometimes having a dozen mikes thrown in your face while you’re nearly naked in front of your locker? I would start to get annoyed too, and I would probably come across as a jerk and someone who sounds like an idiot with a broken education (some actually are, don’t get me wrong).

Casual fans might not have a problem with the depth of sideline reporting –- perhaps the sight of just seeing a star athlete on TV is enough. That’s because they are defined as fans who watch sports leisurely on occasion, mostly keeping their eye on the ball during games and focusing on who scores. Fortunately, they don’t have the pleasure of hearing athletes getting asked repetitive questions all the time from the sidelines. But television broadcasts are presented generally in this context, catering to the casual fan.

Even with that said, there is a major difference between Reporting 101 and Reporting 301. All you have to be is an observant individual -- whether you’re casual or serious about sports -- to understand this elementary principle and realize that most sideline reporters are just starting their freshman year of journalism school. TV executives need to back off from hiring beautiful robotic interviewers (such as ESPN's Erin Andrews, above) who are always asking things like: What do you think about your team’s chemistry going into this game? Are you feeling any pressure being down in the series? They seem to always be about pressure and chemistry for some reason, like it’s some top-secret mystery that players need chemistry to win together or they never experience pressure in any situation. Come on. It’s time for sideline reporters to step up their game.