The "contrived" question is the soft-ball that is does not even provide opportunity for meaningful answer.
Actually whether introspection gives you insight into your soul is a completely unfounded idea. Futhermore, the only way to be privy to a person's introspection is by asking him good/deep questions. You can't have "thoughtful analysis" of a person's soul without them. Actually, I think most people will agree that "knee-jerk" reactions are actually often more revealing of both the character and human-nature of the person far more than prepared statements given long after the fact. Such statements are far more prone to presentation bias.
But then, you're not really interested, you simply hope that by providing illogical jibes at my post, while simultaneously questioning my logic (poorly....goodness...you need to at least have some meat to your bait), that you'll lure me into replying. Nice one troll boy!
First of all, I'd like to congratulate you for writing a full post without resorting to capitalizing for emphasize like a teenager on AOL Instant Messenger or Kayne West. Well done.
Now, as to your reply to my post, if I may be frank, it's quite unsatisfactory. I've rarely heard a "good/deep" question asked of a player right after a tennis match. Furthermore, it's even rarer that I've heard a player give a "good/deep" response. In fact, tennis ceremonies and on-court interviews are all pretty similar in that the winner expresses sympathy for the loser and acts overly modest while the loser congratulates the winner and vows to compete harder next contest. There is something very contrived and preordained about them.
Personally, if I'm to form some type of opinion on a person's character, I learn more from hearing a player talk about his or her career in retrospect (such as in a book, years later, when they don't have to maintain a competitive edge) and then to weigh his or her comments with my own impressions of the player from his or her “glory days.”
In any event, insight into someone's "soul" through a 30 second television interview is pretty hard to acquire, no?
Besides, you're missing the main point, which is that Collins frequently comes off as a buffoon and is very self-centered in his interviews with players. There’s a fine line between asking a “tough” question and asking an inappropriate question. Look at when Federer declined an interview with him at Wimbledon and Collins proceeded to foam at the mouth to Rafa: “Roger refused the interview for the first time ever, that just goes to show how bad he felt. You made him feel very bad, congratulations, Rafa!” Did you see Nadal’s reaction? It It was decidedly ungraceful by Collins and about his own ego more than anything else. It was poor journalism.
Another example is Johnny Mac trying to get Sampras and Borg to admit that Federer is the GOAT at Wimbledon while Laver was standing right next to the group. It simply wasn’t classy.
One final note: it's very amusing that you call me a troll and babble on about how I need to provide more "meat" for you to respond, when you are in the
very act of responding to two of my posts! Also, I've read your other exchanges with TT posters and quite frankly, you're not particularly pleasant.
