The quality of the average tennis broadcast has skyrocketed in recent years. Analysts assume far more curiosity and intelligence on the viewer’s part than I can ever remember, and they're no longer limited to tropes and cliches, recycled set after set. Instead the television audience receives tasty morsels of granular observation. Sure, you might still have to deal with a certain American legend entering the booth and freshly learning about the existence of any player ranked below No. 12, but a lot of bright minds are on the mic now, working hard to elucidate the game. Recently retired players like Andrea Petkovic and Chris Eubanks mesh wit with analysis, and former greats Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick get shockingly nitty-gritty about stroke production and point patterns. I feel heartened that some sizable audience cares about this stuff, and that networks like ESPN, TNT, and Tennis Channel have decided it’s worth investing in.
My current favorite commentator is Jim Courier, the former world No. 1 and four-time major champ, whose stateside employers are Tennis Channel and TNT, where he is especially adept at interpreting the interplay of variables in every tennis match: conditions, technique, tactics, fitness. You'll learn something new every time you hear him on the call. This past Monday at the Open, I sat down with Courier to talk about how he sees tennis, in hopes that it would help other fans see it better. Our conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
What does your prep look like? Do you have any rituals before you're about to call a match?
I keep notes on all the players, so I organize the notes of the two players that are going to play the match. Then I have thoughts about what I'm expecting in the match. I've got things prepared in my head if it goes the way I expect it to—which, most of the time, it doesn't. One of the things I enjoy most about doing the job the way that I do is I consider myself a puzzle solver. I'm coming in, trying to figure out why things are happening, and trying to be the eyes and ears for fans at home to help them see things they might not notice themselves.
When you call a match, what are the main details you're most attentive to?
The main detail is why this thing [we're watching] is happening, for the most part. That's assuming I'm working with a play-by-play partner that is going to be telling the stories of the athletes. Again, it depends on how the match is going. If a match starts off with two breaks of serve, you have to dive right into the actual action. If things start slowly, generally speaking, the way that I've learned to do it over the years by watching and working with people like Mary Carillo and Ted Robinson and all the greats, you set the stage and then later in the set allow the action to speak a little bit more for itself.
In what ways do you watch differently as a player versus commentator? Is there anything that only clicked for you when you did have a little more remove from the game?
As a player, specifically: How would I deal with this player with my skills? You have to be much more of a generalist as a broadcaster. You're trying to say, Well, how would some other player deal with it with their specific skillset? You have to step out of your body and need to be more 10,000-feet, looking down on it and saying, OK, this is what this player can do. How does someone else counteract that? It's more observational and less myopic.
Let's take the average tennis fan. What would be a few details where, if they were more attentive to those, the game would suddenly start to clarify?
Patterns. Looking for patterns, understanding where the play is moving to. It's a little bit like watching things happening off the ball in other sports, and seeing where the open space is developing, and how it's being utilized. A lot of it is basically teaching people not necessarily to just watch the ball move, but to watch the other players, and what they're doing without the ball.
I like the off-ball analogy there. One of my favorite things about your commentary is you are excited to talk about the interplay between techniques and tactics. Was that always intuitive to you as a player?
Limitations technically can impact your choices, for sure. I've grown a real fondness for technique in recent years that I didn't have as a player. I was a very natural tennis player. I would say I was a competitor as a tennis player: someone who just used what I had but wasn't necessarily able to, or interested in, evolving my technique. And I was stubborn, as most tennis players are, but as an observer, I've been able to really learn a lot from a lot of smart people in the sport, and it's opened up my eyes to a whole new way of thinking about how these matches develop. Especially when the game is as fast as it is right now, technique has never mattered more. I hope you have better technique than I do. You don't have the limitations.
I got plenty. Is there a colleague or a coach along the way who viewed tennis in an idiosyncratic way that unlocked something for you, and allowed you to see a new layer to it?
[My coaches] José Higueras and Brad Stine opened up the other side of the court for me. I was focused as a young player on what was happening on my court, and I was less aware of what could happen on the other side of the court if I let them play. I was more interested in trying not to let them play and hit winners, kind of an American early '80s, '90s mindset of domination. As opposed to collaborating: Let me help you lose. So that's changed over time for me, and those guys were the first ones to unlock that.
Whose game on tour right now do you most enjoy unpacking?
[Daniil] Medvedev is a fascinating creature. He has so many idiosyncrasies. Even the way that, in the immediate aftermath of a point, no one does what he does. He stays square to his opponent immediately, squares his shoulders up. He doesn't turn and hide. It's incredible to watch when he's returning. When he's serving, he obviously has to get the ball from the ball crew. When he's returning, he never does, and no one else does it, and it's just kind of amazing. I'm fascinated with many things with him, but that's one thing that always clicks in my brain: Oh yeah, this is a Medvedev match.
What players on tour right now—and maybe it's the same answer to the question—do you think are the sharpest analysts of the game?
I think Medvedev is certainly a sharp analyst. Who else is great? Intuitively, the players like Learner Tien who have less weaponry have to be more aware of what's going on on the other side of the net, and they're breakdown artists and takedown artists. Learner's very good at that. I think Gilles Simon was kind of amazing at it. There have been so many over the years, but I'm really fascinated with Learner coming into the space right now that he's in with Michael [Chang, his coach], who's another amazing mind. It's going to be fun to watch what they do together. It already has been.
The other day—I don't know if you saw it—there was a clip of Michael working with him on the practice court, with his spacing on the backhand. It was interesting because Michael thought that he was going too straight to the ball and getting alligator-armed, and he was like, "No, you need to come at it from this angle, so you have the proper spacing." And then Michael is just feeding him balls, and Learner is just going two [down the] line, one cross[court], two line, one cross, and Michael's in that cross corner, so he's just working on change of direction. It's fascinating.
I also love that your commentary is informed by these anecdotal details. Does that go into your notes as well? Things you pick up, videos, clips circulating.
Yeah, and Tennis Channel—which is apart from TNT, those are my two employers in the United States—they're incredible at allowing us to make those suggestions, and the production team is willing to do whatever. They'll find those clips and they'll have them within one minute. If it comes into our head and we go, Oh, you know what, that shot he just hit, that's a byproduct of that work, we've got this guy Jordan Lieske, in graphics, who might be the smartest person I've ever met, and it takes him no time to get it to air. He's just amazing. He's like a robot.
That actually connects to one of my questions: If you could change anything about the tennis broadcast to make it more illuminating to a viewer, what would you do?
The only thing that I think could make it better is if we use the lower camera, so you can see the shape of the shots. The issue with that, because I've talked to our directors about it, is you can only do it when the returners on the far side, because the returners are standing so deep right now that the camera has to move too much if you're doing it when they're returning. But I do love that view.
Another part of that is the commercial aspect of it. The sponsors feel like they don't get as much bang for their buck if the back signage is not as visible. I've heard also our directors and producers talk about [how] people feel like they can't see whether the serve is in or out, because the net strap sometimes blocks it. But we get the electronic line calling, so it doesn't matter anymore for me. I feel like there's so much value to that [court-level camera], but there are commercial reasons why that's not done all the time, and practical reasons as well. I'm more curious of what you would change, because I'm probably too deep in the weeds.
Same for me. The court-level view is one of those things, when I show a more casual tennis fan for the first time, they're just like, Wow. The flight of the ball is something that gets compressed on the overhead view, and [the court-level view] actually shows you more of the idiosyncrasies between players than that overhead view, like if you see Medvedev's ball flying three inches above the net every time.
[Jess] Pegula's as well, amazing.
Are there any commentators or writers—doesn't have to be within tennis, doesn't have to be within sports—that you look to as a model for how to communicate and interpret the game?
There are great communicators everywhere, but I've always loved listening to Darren Cahill. He's so concise with his information, and obviously his playing background and his coaching background inform that. The fact that his dad is an iconic [Australian rules football] coach, he just has it in his blood. He's a great communicator and a leader, and he doesn't overdo it. I'm missing not hearing him right now, but there's so many amazing people that work within our sport and outside of our sport.
This is a little more general: How would you characterize the dominant style of play on tour right now, and how do you see it evolving in the next few years?
The dominant style of play is power baseline, equipment-driven, with the poly strings and lighter rackets.
What do you make of all the past discourse around the ball being dead in the last few seasons?
I like that the tours have moved to seasonal balls. The Wilson ball was all summer long here. That's great for the players. That ball, I'm not hearing players complain that it's dead—I'm hearing them say [in Canada] that the ball's actually losing fuzz, instead of the fuzz fluffing up, so it's getting almost faster. It's going to be interesting to see how the game does evolve. The courts are starting to get faster again. That's been lost in the discourse, but I know you follow all the stuff online that Matt Willis does—the court speed website that he put together is just phenomenal.
It's hard to imagine, if we don't put any regulations around the equipment, that we won't continue to have this type of—for the most part—baseline exchange play. But we do see someone like Carlos [Alcaraz] who can finish at the net, and so can Ben Shelton. There are lots of people that can, but it's just so difficult to have an advantage before you come to the net these days, because everyone's so good on the stretch.
Of all the tennis truisms that tend to come up on broadcasts, are there any that you disagree with and would add nuance to?
Give me an example. What's a tennis truism?
I mean, to take a really crude one: He wanted it more. She wanted it more. I find that often sands away all the—
I love Boris [Becker]. You know, Boris is a peer. He's a friend. We text all the time. He's a great guy, but Boris is famous for saying that fifth sets are all about heart. If you think that someone's in a fifth set and ready to quit, yeah, you've never been on that court before. I mean, Boris knows that as much as anybody. A heart is a part of it, but that's a commodity. You still need tactics. You still need strategy. You need fitness, and you need guts. Yeah, it's all still there. So to boil it down to This is just about heart, a.k.a. who wants it more or who's going to step up, I've never bought into that, because I know it's far more complicated than that.
I think people are finally starting to see what full package [of athleticism] you need to have to play this sport.
You get athletes that are undeniably going to be great in any sport they pick up, like Carlos, if he was a soccer player. Shelton, he could just put on a helmet and go be a strong safety or running back, whatever. You know he's got the physicality, and you see him bringing it to bear out here. I think that breaks through. Someone who looked more like me back in the day, if you put them in street clothes, you might not notice they're an athlete.
Has there been a match nuance or technical or tactical story that you told this week that was particularly fun to break down?
The biggest story this week is the impact of Alcaraz's wrist on his game. Everyone can notice his serve isn't there right now, and no one's really asked him about what I would ask him if I was given the opportunity: What shot hurts your wrist? Why hasn't anyone asked him? Does it hurt if you do this [flexion], or does it hurt if you do this [extension]? Because this is a forehand; this is a serve. No one's asked him that question. Maybe you can. That one's an interesting one, but that's a physical issue, not a technical or tactical one.
I'm on Tien-Khachanov today. I'm excited about that one. I want to see how Khachanov brings his hammer versus the scalpel of Learner.
What are the patterns you'll be looking for? How would you prepare to call that one?
[Karen] Khachanov is an interesting one, because he's a big powerhouse guy, but his technique is limited on the stretch. On his forehand, he has a bent arm when he makes contact, so when he's on the full stretch with the bent elbow, he's less effective than a lot of players. Then on the backhand, if you notice the way that he holds the racket, he chokes up on it, so he doesn't get a lot of power on his backhand because he doesn't use the full length of the racket, and that hurts him on the stretch there.
Spread the court if you're Tien. I'm interested to see if he's able to redirect the shots, the power coming from the hammer of Khachanov. If he could stretch him, Khachanov's very vulnerable. Khachanov's owning the center of the court. He's going to be a problem. If I'm thinking about how I would approach it if I'm Learner, I'd want to spread the court with my serve to just open up the court early and be able to exploit his lack of wingspan coverage relative to a guy who's that tall. You'd think [Khachanov] would be able to cover the corners because it's not like he doesn't move well—just the technique is a little limiting, and an inch here, an inch there, those add up over the course of three out of five sets.
[Khachanov nudged past Tien in a five-set thriller that evening.]
Let's end on Learner, because he's such a fun player to analyze. What do you see as his upside from here, and what do you think are the limitations, whether technical or physical, that he will work on overcoming?
He's made progress in adding speed to his shots, although he's had the elbow trouble this summer. I'll be curious to see if his serve speeds can hold, because in Canada they were really low. Still succeeded anyway, but that's starting at a handicap if you're losing 8-10 miles an hour off first serve. When he's in the top 10, I don't know, but it's going to be fairly soon, he's on the verge of it now, and he looks to me like a [David] Ferrer-type career is almost a certainty.
Can he lift beyond that with these gatekeepers [Sinner and Alcaraz] in front of him? Still remains to be seen, and I think he has the mindset to do it. It's just a question of whether he'll have the shot-making to do it too, because those guys have the same mindset he has, and they're just bigger.
