emmsie69 wrote:

---

Andy Parker wrote:

---

Some players find interviews cathartic and others embrace themselves as role models, but lots don't, and would like to be sad and down on their own after losing, and not have the scrutiny of journalists, who sometimes just want to wind them up and get a great quote from someone who is distressed and up tight.

Age is a factor on how players handle interviews, but so is how the player is mentally. Katie S has talked about her mental struggles to simply go out on court and feel she is an OK human being, and others have really struggled with the mental side of things - I think for those of us who are older, we should remember back to when we were in our teenage years and ask how we would feel if some dumb ass journalist asks how we are feeling when we have been thrashed, or for those with kids or grandkids, how would you feel if your teenage son or daughter was subjected to a media grilling after a heavy defeat.

I know that people love to watch the pain of others in defeat - to see the anguish and misery as as players try to explain why it all went wrong, but for the player it is sometimes a very harsh experience; a punishment on top of losing, and no media training will really change that reality.

---

 I work on the Railway, when control cancels a train I'd rather be anywhere else but on the platform surrounded by angry passengers yelling and occasionally abusing me, when I see someone at the end of the platform and a fast train is coming through or I get a call from control asking me to approach someone standing on a bridge , I really don't want to have that conversation but that's my job, I don't whine about it, I just do it, every job has aspects that we don't like and most of us are getting paid a hell of a lot less for far more stress.

---

Kudos to you, emmsie.

Andy P makes good points but, like you, I feel that it is part of the job.

As you said, if a lot of players claimed the current system is detrimental to their health, that's one thing. But if it's just Naomi, and one or two others, and nothing has been raised previously, at the players' council, or elsewhere, then the fact that she doesn't like it, or indeed that it affects her mental health, is not a reason to change it for everyone.

(And, yes, Andy, I might be a little older but I have kids, and they are not super achievers, with iron mental strength, and I say the same to them). 

DF wrote:

---

Is there a curfew here?

---

 No curfew at RG - it is 22.10 pm and Dodin v Keys are warming up for their match.

On the above debate, it has been a very interesting and high quality debate; respect to everyone for sharing their views and respect to Emmsie for having to do a difficult job. It can't be easy talking to suicidal people and as you say, even worse to clear up the mess. I also see it from the other side, as someone who has struggled with bad stuff that has happened to me from a long time past and took me to two very real suicide attempts. I am still here, so clearly I am as bad at suicide as many other things.

I won't ever claim to be through the other side, because if you have had bad stuff happen, you will always be scarred from it and the scariest thing for me is that it makes new sets of crises more difficult to deal with, had you not been scarred from before.

Anyway I guess it has given me a sympathy to those who are mentally fragile and I feel the pain of players who are badly treated by authorities, family etc - tennis has a rich array of people who have been very scarred by stuff that has happened to them, and I feel wanting to be good at a sport does not necessarily mean that you sign up to some pact to open your heart up to journalists when you have just lost or are going through tough times.

I am glad that there have been no Justin Fashanu type suicides in tennis, but no-one in the sport should be complacent to what media scrutiny does to some people. I do wonder how Naomi is feeling right now, with all the negative coverage and the possibility that she will be thrown out of the French Open.

Andy Parker wrote:

---

After such a damning vote count from fans against Jo Ko, I can't wait to see how she gets on - my guess is that ITV4 should show Heather, followed by Cam and then Jo Ko, so fingers crossed all our Brits do well.

---

 At moment the votes are  Cirstea 56 Jo 5. 

indiana wrote:

---

I am not sure it's so damning. Cirstea is the not unreasonable betting favourite ( bet 365: Cirstea 4/7, Konta 11/8 ):and thus I would expect most folk to opt for the fairly clear favourite, well out of proportion to the betting odds. Some folk seem to want to create the impression of some general agenda against Jo, whereas if it exists at all I think it is much more in a very small minority. By far, I would imagine most folk will simply be voting that they don't think Jo will win a tennis match based on the players' relative lead up and form. 

I too would opt for Cirstea as the more likely winner but I don't discount Jo and I certainly hope she can get the win.

---

Jo obviously has her proper passionate fans on here who like to defend her regarding (lack of) media and what not, and while I don't always agree, as a regular poster on TF for a good few years, I personally think it's fairly clear that she doesn't have a great rep over there generally. Loads of talk about 'mechanical', 'robotic', 'whiny', 'hysterical'. A lot of Aussie posters too, due to the switch. A number of pages and smilies after a poor loss, but not as much traction if she wins - just my impression.

Doing a very quick google search of 'Konta' 'TennisForum' 'robotic' brought up this example (link no doubt won't work as I'm quoting) - https://www.tennisforum.com/threads/do-you-guys-think-kontas-game-is-funny.1375765/. It may well a case of 93% just think Cirstea will win the match (I voted for her in 2 sets), but I personally think some of those votes could be due to other reasons.