telstar wrote:

---

Andy Parker wrote:

---

I think it is ridiculous to force any player to do post match conferences, especially if they have lost. The players have the upper hand here - they can just sit there, give monosyllabic answers and then they will have fulfilled the tick box for having been in attendance.

Lots of sports interview the winners, and in a final both winner and loser are rightly interviewed in recognition that it is an achievement to have reached a final, and in the hope that they will say something nice about their opponent; normally with the crowd watching how the interviewer handles the situation, the interviewer is kind and on their best behaviour to whoever has lost.

Outside of finals though, the losing players should have the chance to lick their wounds, assess what has gone wrong and then go public if they want, at a time of their choosing.

The pre-match interviews are a joke - no player wants to reveal their game plan or state of mind, and nor should they have to - and normally you learn nothing from them, other than that the players really hate being asked intrusive questions about what they intend to do in a match.

Going forward I would like to see the mandatory interviews purely restricted to winners. Journalists can play their part by asking open and intelligent questions when asking those who have agreed to be interviewed after losing - asking a player how they feel having lost is likely to simply elicit some version of them feeling down or rubbish, and it is far better to ask an open ended question to a player as to why they feel they came off worse on the day, and then the player can talk about what went wrong in their strategy or right for their opponents.

Anyway I am right behind Naomi on this one - I don't think most players are traumatised from post-match defeat interviews, but on the other hand I am sure lots regret saying things afterward and wish they had had time to reflect and come up with more measured answers, and sometimes it feels like the interviewer is simply enjoying wallowing in someone else's pain and distress..

-- Edited by Andy Parker on Sunday 30th of May 2021 04:11:17 PM

---

 100 per cent agree with Andy. I hope Naomi now attends these stupid events and answers 'No comment' to every question!

---

 Andy you make some good points but I'm going to disagree.

Right now the rules are that a player must attend a post match interview. We can argue if these rules are stupid but that is another argument. If she really wants to change this then there are better, more constructive and more positive ways of approaching this.

I think the way she has apporached this stinks a bit. If she really has mental health issues then I'm sorry for her but if that is really the case then she should take some time out of the game and get some professional help. As someone very close to me tried to end their own life a few years ago and who does truly suffer from mental health issue I find her tagging this issue alongside this argument to be potentially quite offensive.

We now have her sister's statement which again, if correct and accurate, paint the whole thing in  a much clearer but equally less positive light. If I interpret her sister's words correctly and if they represent Naomi's true thoughts then she appears to be using this as a roundabout way of gaining a competitive edge over other players.

Right now if you sign up to a pro tennis player as your job, your job description requires you to take part in these press conferences. If you are happy to take the huge profits financially from the sport then I'm afraid you also, currently, have to do aspects of the work you find less enjoyable. It seems to me than Miss Osaka is happy to parade around in fashionable clothes and to be seen and photographed promoting them and other goods , presumably in return for a good deal of money through endorsement deals (?), but this approach now makes her appear, to many, less keen to help promote the game which has allowed her to get there in the first place.

Do there need to be changes? For me yes. I hate the immediate post match interviews and the turn off before the next cringe worthy Sue Barker post defeat interview at the Wimbledon finals. Should there be more time between matches ending and post match interviews? probably. Should young players be accompanied by their coach or an official? Probably be a good idea up to a certain age.

The statement from the Grand Slams is strong. Whether they really carry out their threats is a completely different matter altogether.

Ace Ventura wrote:

---

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.

 

-- Edited by Ace Ventura on Sunday 30th of May 2021 11:25:19 PM

---

 I concur with Indiana on this. For me the match is on Cirstea's racket. If she blows hot then Jo is in for a very difficult time but Cirstea can be loose and off it sometimes too. On current form and combined with lack of matches this year for Jo it is hard, but far from impossible, to make a case for Jo so you can easily see why people would vote they way they have done.

As to TF, I'm afraid it contains a lot of so-called trolls who just say stupid and sometimes offensive stuff to get a reaction. Though "robotic" is in some ways a good description of her style of play and I don't mean that in a negative way. She herself talks about the process and she clearly follows this process through each match. For me her great achievement is in being able to harness her talents, which I think are far fewer than many more naturally talented players, and compress them into a highly effective game which made her a top 5 player. For that she deserves a huge amount of credit.

It is good to see her off court life in such a happy place. I wonder how crucial the next few weeks will be for her tennis plans. She has a lot of points to defend, isn't in the best of form and some early defeats could see her ranking slip quite badly.

Fingers crossed for a win today.

My interest in tennis is watching the skill of the various players, the post match interviews are a real turn off, a lot of inane questions followed by inane answers. It is simply embarrassing. If Osaka's stance leads to less of these embarrassing periods so much the better. I have seen the same in other sports, Steve Ovett walked off instead of taking part in an interview saying his running on the track said all he wanted to say. Steve Davis was incoherent at an interview after losing a snooker final. Why can't we just watch and be amazed at the skill of the relevant players whether on the track, table or court it says far more than the rubbish interviews.

Peter too wrote:

---

My interest in tennis is watching the skill of the various players, the post match interviews are a real turn off, a lot of inane questions followed by inane answers. It is simply embarrassing. If Osaka's stance leads to less of these embarrassing periods so much the better. I have seen the same in other sports, Steve Ovett walked off instead of taking part in an interview saying his running on the track said all he wanted to say. Steve Davis was incoherent at an interview after losing a snooker final. Why can't we just watch and be amazed at the skill of the relevant players whether on the track, table or court it says far more than the rubbish interviews.

---

 I agree with this.

DF wrote:

---

Peter too wrote:

---

My interest in tennis is watching the skill of the various players, the post match interviews are a real turn off, a lot of inane questions followed by inane answers. It is simply embarrassing. If Osaka's stance leads to less of these embarrassing periods so much the better. I have seen the same in other sports, Steve Ovett walked off instead of taking part in an interview saying his running on the track said all he wanted to say. Steve Davis was incoherent at an interview after losing a snooker final. Why can't we just watch and be amazed at the skill of the relevant players whether on the track, table or court it says far more than the rubbish interviews.

---

 I agree with this.

---

 And my interest is in the whole. Firstly most certainly the tennis itself or whatever other sport but also the chat around it ( such as in this fine place ) and indeed interviews or other programmes / events that give us more of an insight into the person. Of course some questions and whole interviews are crap and do nothing for such insight, but for me very far from enough to stop them, apart from again possibly not have some immediately post match. Anyway, whatever people's differing thoughts on all this, for now Naomi is in the wrong in how she has approached things.

indiana wrote:

---

Yes, TF appears to be very strong and definitely OTT by some although as HarryGem says some of the adjectives used re Jo are arguably not unreasonable. And there was some recogniton of her achievements in spite of perceived limitations. 

However net net I can see some clear general attitudes to Jo contributing to that 91-9. Alrhough again when betting odds are 4/7 vs 11/8, fairly tight but still a clear favourite, I would expect a vote to be much more clearcut than the betting odds. As Ace indeed acknowledges this is simply a vote as to the likely winner rather than the closeness and even where no agenda / bias in place, it is likely to be quite a bit more clearcut than the 62/38 betting odds proportions. Again, I do though yes accept 91-9 is rarher extreme and accept there may be agenda reasons for that. But say a 75 to 80% vote would not raise my eyebrows against a betting 62% proportion.

---

 Absolutely. Betting odds are not about if you think someone will win but about risk-reward i.e. how much you're being paid for the chance that the person who should win doesn't.

If you're well rewarded for that risk, then you bet (because either you might take if off in the course of the match, when that person does better than expected, even if they then lose) or you get the unexpected result and you win big. 

So, of course, way more people will think that, overall, JoKo will lose than the betting odds indicate. I don't think that's personal. (They should do polls for other players and see how that compares - that would be more telling)  

Of course, in some cases you'll have to have an account, and actually vote to see the result, but some towards the top of the page:

So Sabalenka-Konjuh 63-37 (as GAMEOVER referenced above)
Podorsoka-Bencic 80/20 - Pod is actually the betting favourite, but that's perhaps a similar example to Jo
Azarenka-Kuz 60-40
Andreescu vs Zidansek is less clear cut because of other variables, but generally 56-44 Bianca.
Serena-Begu 70-30

 

Edit - a few more:

Muguruza-Kostyuk 83-17, Swiatek-Juvan 83-17, Osaka-Tig 60-40, Ka Pliskova-Vekic 73-27

-- Edited by Ace Ventura on Monday 31st of May 2021 10:37:33 AM