FTA-TV Open Mike

Remove this Banner Ad

Procrastinator35 said:
If only Mike could learn how to interview.

Idea & conception 9/10....Execution & delivery: 1/10
Click to expand...
Yep. I don't respect Robert Craddock as a sports journo but he does a much better job on the cricket interview equivalent of Sheahan's show.

Even the 'Grumpy Old Men' show from the first Fox Footy in the mid-00s could do better interviews than Mike does.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Dogs Rule said:
He’ll focus on the glasses for 25 minutes then talk about how much he got paid.

“Boom...badum boom....this has been a Fox Footy production”.
Click to expand...

Close. He's spent the first 5 mins on how much he got paid, 5 mins on the glasses, 5 mins on the '68 Granny, 2 mins on a boring anecdote on his 100th goal....aaaand I'm not sure how the last 10 mins is going to get filled.
 
XhazzafootyX said:
The guests he brings in sometimes aren’t great either. Open mike has the capacity to be a great show, but I continually get let down by it.
Click to expand...

It does, it just needs to be a different interviewer. I don't have the answer as to who that should be FWIW, i'm not sure it necessarily needs to be a footy person to really get a good interview if its someone willing to do the work and research their subject.
 
Due to Sheahan's poor interviewing style, the show lives and dies on the quality of the guest. If they have a story to tell, or if they are naturally charismatic, or if they hold a strong gravitas in their football life the show is usually very good. Sheahan can, and does, sit back and hand the show over to the guest.

When the guest doesn't fall into any of these categories, Sheahan lacks the skill or will to adequately prompt, probe and needle the guest to get something out of them and the show becomes straight out boring. Last night's show was a case in point. Blethyn seemed like a good bloke and had an interesting career, but didn't have the personality, the story or the standing in the game to fill half an hour, and Sheahan never pushed him to. Example:

Sheahan: The WA State team would have had some fair characters in it?
Blethyn: Yes they did.

That was it. Who were the characters? What did they do? How did you relate to them? Why was this question left in the cut if it didn't go anywhere?

Not sure if Sheahan chooses the guests himself, but he seems to do no research and have no plan for what he wants his guests to say and how he'll getthem to say it. And I understand the "fireside chat" feel of the show - it's not an inquisition. But too often lately the show feels like "Let's get someone on and fill 30 minutes of Fox Footy's schedule."
 
Marstermind said:
Due to Sheahan's poor interviewing style, the show lives and dies on the quality of the guest. If they have a story to tell, or if they are naturally charismatic, or if they hold a strong gravitas in their football life the show is usually very good. Sheahan can, and does, sit back and hand the show over to the guest.

When the guest doesn't fall into any of these categories, Sheahan lacks the skill or will to adequately prompt, probe and needle the guest to get something out of them and the show becomes straight out boring. Last night's show was a case in point. Blethyn seemed like a good bloke and had an interesting career, but didn't have the personality, the story or the standing in the game to fill half an hour, and Sheahan never pushed him to. Example:

Sheahan: The WA State team would have had some fair characters in it?
Blethyn: Yes they did.

That was it. Who were the characters? What did they do? How did you relate to them? Why was this question left in the cut if it didn't go anywhere?

Not sure if Sheahan chooses the guests himself, but he seems to do no research and have no plan for what he wants his guests to say and how he'll getthem to say it. And I understand the "fireside chat" feel of the show - it's not an inquisition. But too often lately the show feels like "Let's get someone on and fill 30 minutes of Fox Footy's schedule."
Click to expand...

I’m no Sheahan fan, but to be fair, Blethyn was like getting blood out of a stone.

Some of his contemporaries could take a lesson from his humility...but I suspect he has more to tell...in the right environment.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Can’t remember exact detail but early on Blethyn is explaining something and less than a minute later Sheehan asks him a question that contradicts what Blethyn just said...it’s as of Sheehan didn’t listen.

Also he could have delved further into what after leaving Essendon at 21 for a good job in WA why or what made him change his mind and go back to Essendon just 4 years later.
 
windyhill said:
Mick Gayfer next up.
Click to expand...
Thought Gayfer was alright. Wasn't aware he was let go twice by Pagan and Kennedy at North before he made it at Collingwood.

Pretty stiff how he got the arse from Collingwood. Was told by coach Lethal he was in their plans for the next year, did the full pre-season, then told after it that he wasn't up to it and got cut just before the season started. Harsh.
 
Really enjoyed the Ian Stewart one.

Just love finding out stuff about the person that you know the name in football but do not really know much about them if well before your time.

Gave great insight into whom he was at what made him tick.

He was coach of Carlton for a virtual five minutes and it was infamous in what I understood but hearing him talk about it, got a much greater understanding of what went on back then.
 
footyfan1978 said:
Really enjoyed the Ian Stewart one.

Just love finding out stuff about the person that you know the name in football but do not really know much about them if well before your time.

Gave great insight into whom he was at what made him tick.

He was coach of Carlton for a virtual five minutes and it was infamous in what I understood but hearing him talk about it, got a much greater understanding of what went on back then.
Click to expand...
The only thing I would have liked to hear more about was the brownlow years and flags

Didnt he also have a sort of chequered past? Barely touched on.

Mike has a good show, but just asks the wrong questions
 
TheLoungeLizard said:
The only thing I would have liked to hear more about was the brownlow years and flags
Click to expand...
I think he covered everything that is of most interest to someone wanting to know more about Ian Stewart the football person.
I knew he was a brownlow medallist. He talked about the Saints flag and effect on their supporters etc. I wanted to know about his interesting story before and after those as he always seemed an intriguing person and mystery about. Mike asked a lot of questions I wanted to know about. Did a great job imo. I loved it.
 
Yeah didn't mind Stewart. I'd never really heard or seen much about him before last night. I didn't realise he also played for Richmond. Only ever knew of him as a Saint.
I like how he was totally remorseful about his decision to agree with the axing of Walls as captain after Stewart had only just got to Carlton. Wallsy was pretty dirty about it on his show 8 years ago:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top