You're overeacting a little. The interview is quit good.
I'm not overreacting at all. And no, it is not good. Your expectation is so low because it's Francessa, so maybe it doesn't seem that bad to you, but according to reasonable media interview standards it's vague, uninformed, and clearly sub-par.
So what he admits he doesn't know anything about the sport, at least he's having him on.
Everyone always complains about no coverage, well here's some. It's a decent interview for someone who knows nothing.
It's a waste of time, that's the problem. If he doesn't know anything about the sport, he shouldn't be interviewing one of its marquee players. He had a great opportunity to talk to a guy like Lundquist, and he asked ******** questions that were uninteresting and overly vague
I'd rather have no hockey coverage from Francessa than have to listen to him **** around like this. Like another poster said, let one of the WFAN guys that knows something about hockey handle this type of interview.
I'm not overreacting at all. And no, it is not good. Your expectation is so low because it's Francessa, so maybe it doesn't seem that bad to you, but according to reasonable media interview standards it's vague, uninformed, and clearly sub-par.
Mike is admittedly not a hockey fan. Instead of a lame generic interview he got Hank involved with some good questions and showed some interest. Whether these questions were his or not is besides the point. He made it look like he was interested. My expectations are not low at all.
It's a waste of time, that's the problem. If he doesn't know anything about the sport, he shouldn't be interviewing one of its marquee players. He had a great opportunity to talk to a guy like Lundquist, and he asked ******** questions that were uninteresting and overly vague
I'd rather have no hockey coverage from Francessa than have to listen to him **** around like this. Like another poster said, let one of the WFAN guys that knows something about hockey handle this type of interview.
I thought the questions where Hank took us through the penalty shot and explained some things about it was very interesting.
Before you go and tell me that it wasn't interesting or my expectations are low. Don't bother going there, i liked it. My opinion. You have yours, no problem at all.
__________________
"Trust me I'm an expert, I watched 13 rangers games on NHL center Ice this year through streaming." -Starburst
"I don't even understand what the point of all this arguing is. Are you guys hoping that the other side is going to have an epiphany and go 'Oh, OH! You're right, we ARE going to lose this series!'" -Crease
I actually enjoyed the interview. Francesca, for all his flaws, can do a good interview. And, Henke is just awesome.
You people blow my mind. He did the interview equivalent of ************ an essay. No real insight from the questions, painfully vague questions (did the guys get pumped?), a clear lack of knowledge about the sport, not knowing anything about any of the players.
Francessa has set the bar so low that some of you seem to think that him not ******** on the mic while talking to Henke is a solid interview. Calling that a good interview is insulting to the journalists who can actually give an insightful interview with informed questions. I guess I'm alone on this, but that was so painful to listen to.
AGrossRecord Andrew Gross
Some job by Francesa, talking about Rangers Stanley Cup win in "1941." It was only a freakin' chant for 54 years. Do the math. Do some HW.
You people blow my mind. He did the interview equivalent of ************ an essay. No real insight from the questions, painfully vague questions (did the guys get pumped?), a clear lack of knowledge about the sport, not knowing anything about any of the players.
Francessa has set the bar so low that some of you seem to think that him not ******** on the mic while talking to Henke is a solid interview. Calling that a good interview is insulting to the journalists who can actually give an insightful interview with informed questions. I guess I'm alone on this, but that was so painful to listen to.
I agree that the start of the interview was bad no question. It got a lot better towards the end. I thoroughly enjoyed the part about the penalty shot. As well as the question about the parity in the league and what it takes to make it in the playoffs.
You have to remember not everyone is a hardcore fan like you and me. They also have to cater to an audience that is not so used to hockey. I thought they did a solid job of it.
I thought the questions where Hank took us through the penalty shot and explained some things about it was very interesting.
Before you go and tell me that it wasn't interesting or my expectations are low. Don't bother going there, i liked it. My opinion. You have yours, no problem at all.
The way that Francessa asked and setup that question was terrible. Was hearing that Henke didn't want to make the first move really a surprising insight? I didn't hear any new/interesting/suprising insight coming from that question at all.
And I will go there, despite your patronizing ***** warning not to: if you thought that was a good/solid interview, your expectations have become quite low.
You have to remember not everyone is a hardcore fan like you and me. They also have to cater to an audience that is not so used to hockey. I thought they did a solid job of it.
I understand that's your opinion, but I thought it sounded like they catered it purely to the neanderthals who have never watched a game of hockey in their life. There was nothing substantial in that interview for people who, you know, actually follow the team. That lack of preparation and concern, coming from a relatively major sports figure, is embarassing.
The way that Francessa asked and setup that question was terrible. Was hearing that Henke didn't want to make the first move really a surprising insight? I didn't hear any new/interesting/suprising insight coming from that question at all.
And I will go there, despite your patronizing ***** warning not to: if you thought that was a good/solid interview, your expectations have become quite low.
Again. Not everyone is as familiar with hockey as we are. WFAN is catering to a more casual audience. You want hardcore hockey talk? NHL network is your address. And my pointer wasn't a warning nor was it patronizing Mr. Joe Hardrock.
I understand that's your opinion, but I thought it sounded like they catered it purely to the neanderthals who have never watched a game of hockey in their life. There was nothing substantial in that interview for people who, you know, actually follow the team. That lack of preparation and concern, coming from a relatively major sports figure, is embarassing.
I totally agree. But the listeners of the station are mostly non hockey people. If something like this gets more people interested, than i think that's good. I think the interview was probably interesting to the casual listener.
Again. Not everyone is as familiar with hockey as we are. WFAN is catering to a more casual audience. You want hardcore hockey talk? NHL network is your address. And my pointer wasn't a warning nor was it patronizing Mr. Joe Hardrock.
It absolutely was patronizing. I'm sorry you can't see that, or aren't aware of what the word means. I'm also sorry you feel the need to defend a ****** interview given by a guy who has zero interest or respect for the sport.
It absolutely was patronizing. I'm sorry you can't see that, or aren't aware of what the word means. I'm also sorry you feel the need to defend a ****** interview given by a guy who has zero interest or respect for the sport.
Ok, last comment by me on this since you're getting pretty angry over nothing. You're opinion about the interview is heavily influenced by your opinion of the host as your quoted post shows. If you had no idea who the host was you may be less harsh on the interview. Possible?
