Jo Konta complains about questioning

sredna42

Hall of Fame
Reporters should have enough to write about without the players being forcibly led out to be subjected to provocative, idiotic, and loaded questions to which there is no safe answer as they'll be quoted out of context no matter what they say.

It is the mandatory nature of them that irritates me the most though. The media think they are integral to tennis, but they're just parasites making a living at tennis' expense.
 

reaper

Legend
I didn't hear anything disrespectful from the journalist. She seemed fine until he mentioned learning from the loss to possibly win a Slam, which is oddly when she decided to take offense.

There are journalists who go about their work to provoke, but on the other hand most of them probably ask fair questions only to be met with personalities like Nick Kyrgios.
He hit a nerve. She was criticized for imploding in the FO semi, probably spent the month since "learning" from that loss, then imploded again at Wimbledon. It's very difficult to just learn how not to choke.
 

reaper

Legend
Reporters should have enough to write about without the players being forcibly led out to be subjected to provocative, idiotic, and loaded questions to which there is no safe answer as they'll be quoted out of context no matter what they say.

It is the mandatory nature of them that irritates me the most though. The media think they are integral to tennis, but they're just parasites making a living at tennis' expense.
Yes tennis would be far more lucrative if nobody reported on it.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Sports stars don't hold public office, and so curly questions are a bit beside the point.

Yes but part of that entertainment is watching someone who's just been paid about 10 times the average annual salary to lose at tennis project that they're a victim in some way. A curly question assists the process.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
And so why would you think a curly question from a journalist would either set her straight or do anything other than provoke a defensive response? Questioning and commentary are different. He crossed that line.

He hit a nerve. She was criticized for imploding in the FO semi, probably spent the month since "learning" from that loss, then imploded again at Wimbledon. It's very difficult to just learn how not to choke.
 

reaper

Legend
And so why would you think a curly question from a journalist would either set her straight or do anything other than provoke a defensive response? Questioning and commentary are different. He crossed that line.
A curly question might get a response that's defensive, but it might also get a response that's illuminating. Elite female tennis players must be pretty close to the most cosseted people on earth, yet many of them seem to approach their professional life as though bearing a crown of thorns. Konta could have simply said she has a history of imploding in big matches but doesn't quite know how to address it. A problem shared can be a problem halved.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Konta's defensive response was awkward for her because it's the kind of testy response that makes for journalistic copy, so she lost that round. Journalists don't want illumination. They want polemics, as Nadal would say.

A curly question might get a response that's defensive, but it might also get a response that's illuminating. Elite female tennis players must be pretty close to the most cosseted people on earth, yet many of them seem to approach their professional life as though bearing a crown of thorns. Konta could have simply said she has a history of imploding in big matches but doesn't quite know how to address it. A problem shared can be a problem halved.
 

Raiden

Hall of Fame
Konta's on and offcourt action guaranteed there will be red meat for the red tops. She probably knew it was coming anyway, which is why she let herself go on them (pre-emptive strike).

 
Last edited:

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
I just can't feel sorry for Konta even in situations like this. She's always whining about something and I listened to the relevant reporter question and he was out of line and of course the media is going to act like it's a big deal but this isn't the first time she plays the victim card and it won't be the last.

Reporters do need to lay off these days tho with the Djokovic one then the Nadal one. They're getting more and more pushy looking for a sound bite and professional tennis plays shouldn't have to put up with it. They should refuse to answer loaded questions.
 

roundiesee

Hall of Fame
. .That was uncomfortable ---- felt bad for Konta who comes across as a very approachable, pleasant individual.

. .The reporter meanwhile could've broached the subject in a more tactfully-phrased manner ---- the guy came off sounding like an entitled clod.
.
Agree with this. Imo Konta was right to react the way she did. The person asking the question had basically not thought out his question or the phrasing of it well at all unfortunately. :(
 

Zardoz7/12

Hall of Fame
If I were asking Jo questions or asking anyone sport wise questions I'd do it in the most respectful manner, there has to be an amount of professionalism between both sides, if it's not reciprocated on both sides it gets ugly.

The usual question tennis players hate is "How do you feel?" LOL
 

reaper

Legend
There isn't actually a problem in all this. Is anyone seriously bothered if a professional tennis player who got paid $500k for spraying 34 unforced errors in 2 sets finds a line of inquiry on that to be impertinent?
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Konta already answered the question, but the reporter decided to provide some commentary to suggest she was the problem and not her opponent.

A reporter here is about asking questions of a very simple and short nature. They are not conducting lines of inquiry or debating the cogency of the answers given.
 

Badabing888

Hall of Fame
Good on Konta for socking it to that Journalist. It's been a good week for players in press conferences against the journalists after Rafa's put down. I read Roger also put an Italian journalist in his place after he disparaged Matteo for losing to Roger so comprehensively.
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
Idk who's side I'm on, but I think the way we treat players in this particular situation is unfair. If Zverev goes out and says something like, "Tsitsipas didnt actually play that well, I was just bad," we rip Zverev for being a spoiled little punk who refuses to give his opponent credit. If Konta says something like, "Strycova just played really well, she played at a high level," then she's not taking sufficient accountability for her poor performance. Ya can't really win either way.
Snowflake rationale in a nutshell, thank you.

What about being candid? The journalist did not turn up to her front door, insisting on details of a long-past affair, this is a post-match press conference and the public IS interested in honest appraisals. Why should we tolerate dishonesty? There are intelligent ways of parrying uncomfortable questions. In Konta's case , though, she has mastered neither those, nor the game.
 

tex123

Hall of Fame
Konta, who is hardly the most clutch player there's ever been, got prickly when a reporter suggested she didn't play the big points well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/48930260

Is Konta right here? Or was the reporter just doing their job? Are reporters generally fair when questioning players?
Whilst British journalists are known for their hard questions, Konta is no saint. She was quite agitated on Jonathan Ross show as well a few months ago. The journalists asked the question she should be asking herself. Maybe that's why she got so angry.

If you look at her performance, she bottled it. She knows it. Way too many unforced errors and Barbora did not even had to try. Maybe that sort of question should've come from the coach and not the reporter but you can't argue with the fact that she blew it big time. And it is not the first time as well.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
You do all realise that there are snowflake politicians in high office who don't even have press conferences and use one-way forms of social media and block any irritating comments?

Is Konta really supposed to be grilled after a loss for her diplomatic stance of congratulating her opponent for good play? Being candid aka spilling your guts is not what public communication is about.
 

tex123

Hall of Fame
Here's the excerpt from Jonathan Ross show I was referring to above. I find him pretty goofy and it is hard to believe he upsets people.

Viewers of Saturday night’s Jonathan Ross Show might be left squirming during the episode when guest Johanna Konta tells Jonathan that his questions are ‘boring’. And after he gave his verdict of her semi-final match at the Australian Open, she interrupted to ask: ‘Is this your professional opinion by the way?’ Ouch! ‘Jonathan handled things very well but Johanna seemed really frosty,’ a member of the audience told The Mirror. ‘It wasn’t very comfortable to watch at all.’


Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2016/02/19/is-t...t-awkward-interview-ever-5705628/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton usually schmooze every visiting Hollywood celebrity and no one really complains because they know the show is 'light entertainment'.

They also know if they grill them no one will turn up on their shows and they'll die on the vine. It would be interesting to know exactly what were his remarks to Konta, but they obviously weren't complimentary.

And speaking of complimentary. I've never seen either of these two tell a guest that the latest film they are promoting is a steaming pile of excrement, which is indeed the case nine times out of ten.

Here's the excerpt from Jonathan Ross show I was referring to above. I find him pretty goofy and it is hard to believe he upsets people.
 

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
I couldn't watch BBC Wimbledon this tournament without having to watch/hear about Konta every other day. Commentators drooling about how great she was...until she lost of course.

It used to be like this with Murray every year, and it got very tedious, but at least Murray deserved some of the hype.

Hopefully I can now watch other tennis aside from the Konta matches.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Nationalism and sport go together like peas in a pod. It helps also that the more the home side wins, the better the ratings. And that's probably because the audience for sport is abnormally nationalistic.
 

Badabing888

Hall of Fame
Whilst British journalists are known for their hard questions, Konta is no saint. She was quite agitated on Jonathan Ross show as well a few months ago. The journalists asked the question she should be asking herself. Maybe that's why she got so angry.

If you look at her performance, she bottled it. She knows it. Way too many unforced errors and Barbora did not even had to try. Maybe that sort of question should've come from the coach and not the reporter but you can't argue with the fact that she blew it big time. And it is not the first time as well.
Jonathan Ross is a twat though and one of the worst hosts on British TV. He always makes it about him and not the guest he's questionning.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
She probably knows full well the pressure the British public throws on her shoulders at Wimbledon. She's the best female hope they have had in years and the hometown crowd wants a champion bad. Murray did it for the boys so now Konta is getting the heat for the ladies. Its a lot of pressure and shes probably a little frustrated by everyone expecting what they do of her. She's actually had a pretty good year rebounding for a horrible slump in form. Finals of Rome, SF at the French, QF at Wimbledon....thats not horrible and yet people want to act like she should be doing more. Granted losing to Strycova isn't great...but still. She's probably sick of it all.
 

Lebsta

Rookie
There was nothing wrong with Konta's response. Of course reporters have to ask certain questions but still have to learn about respecting the people they ask and how to be tactful without being pandering at the same time. Players are human after all and answering the same questions after a loss is the last thing they want to do.

Now does she have an issue with seeing matches through and handling pressure points? Yes. This is something she does need to address and it's possibly cost her at least a Roland Garros title.
 

a12345

Professional
The stats say 34 unforced errors.

The observation from the reporter is valid. Whether she agrees or disagrees with the observation is up to her, but its not "picking on her" by raising the issue.
 

a12345

Professional
Rolland Garros Semi final. Konta lost 7-5, 7-6.

41 unforced errors vs 22 from her opponent.

Is it better to be nice to her and gloss over the issue, or recognise it might be an issue, point it out, and therefore she can address it?
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Journalists are not there to make observations. He should do that in his review of the match.

Press conferences of defeated players are not intellectual jousts. They are there for the player to make a few simple and usually formulaic statements. And they all do it, no?

The stats say 34 unforced errors.

The observation from the reporter is valid. Whether she agrees or disagrees with the observation is up to her, but its not "picking on her" by raising the issue.
 

a12345

Professional
Journalists are not there to make observations. He should do that in his review of the match.

Press conferences of defeated players are not intellectual jousts. They are there for the player to make a few simple and usually formulaic statements. And they all do it, no?
Thats exactly their job, shes there to answer them. She can say no its not the problem if she wants.

Its a post match press conference.
 

ttbrowne

Hall of Fame
Oh good grief...it's not firing squad....it's people asking questions.
Her first answer was lame. "Because there's another person on the other side" . Brilliant!!
Konta froze up in that match..pure and simple. That's why it's so hard to answer questions.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
They are there to ask questions. Not to provide a commentary that the player must respond to. So you have got their job description wrong.

In any event, she told him to mind his own business as he is not a tennis professional and the moderator moved off that journalist.

But there is a clear boundary between asking a questions and making statements or comments from the floor of the press room. This journalist did the latter and he was cut off.

Thats exactly their job, shes there to answer them. She can say no its not the problem if she wants.

Its a post match press conference.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
No more lame that any other formulaic answer that has been given by almost everyone.

I'll tell you what the problem here is in a nutshell. The British press think the punters will back them if they try to take down a British player who so visibly fails.

It's a blood sport and they want Konta's blood in the water. You only have to look at the various scandals that are endemic to the British press to realise what a rat pack they are.

Oh good grief...it's not firing squad....it's people asking questions.
Her first answer was lame. "Because there's another person on the other side" . Brilliant!!
Konta froze up in that match..pure and simple. That's why it's so hard to answer questions.
 

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
It fair enough question. I remember Federer being asked something similar in an on court post match interview at AO when he was God. Memory fuzzy but think it was Courier asking why he loses so many break points. Fair enough question in my book.
Personally I don't think losers should be interviewed, it's not conducive to good answers and they're out so what's the point.
 

graycrait

Hall of Fame
Longtime pro tennis fan here from the 60's. If the player interviewed has a white board and details winning or losing techniques, skill sets or strategies about their planning and execution within the narrow confines of their professional sport I will listen to the post match interview. They never do that so I never listen to post match interviews. Who needs to slog through banal questions or interminable platitudes?

I do enjoy reading TT comments though, much more entertaining than post match interviews.
 

a12345

Professional
To be frank when you look at the whole post match interview that question was the only one talking about the actual game. You know, the one she just played in.

He said "looking at the match stats you had 33 unforced errors, you had a smash at the net which you hit straight to her, towards the end of the 3rd set you hit a double fault, and then missed a drive volley."

This is an actual question about the game, instead of frivolous stuff like the rest of the questions. More questions should be like this, not less.

In post match football interviews they usually talk about moments in the game, missed chances, mistakes, missed tackles, goalkeeping errors etc..

So the idea that when you analyse key moments and call that "picking on her" is absurd.

Meanwhile none of the other questions tell you much about anything that happened in the match, its all generic stuff, how do you feel, whats social media going to be like after this etc..

How about more questions like you missed this shot here, you failed to capitalise on a break point here etc.. these are moments in a game that should be discussed like in other sports, because that would tell you a players opinion on what happened in the actual match.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
This is true. Ex athletes get anchor jobs like nothing while people who have the education and experience in that field are passed over. Sad world.
That’s true but I think it’s sadder how “real sports journalists” (thinking about the NBA mostly) can report stuff without disclosing sources, people actually involved in the situation say the report is totally wrong, journalist's report is then proven to be totally wrong, and the journalist goes on their merry way citing more anonymous sources.

If a player has fallen apart in a match, why would a journalist not ask about it? They should avoid the salient issue to be "respectful?"
I didn't hear anything disrespectful from the journalist. She seemed fine until he mentioned learning from the loss to possibly win a Slam, which is oddly when she decided to take offense.
To be frank when you look at the whole post match interview that question was the only one talking about the actual game. You know, the one she just played in.
Y'all have probably already done this, I would hope, but in my opinion it was the manner in which he spoke. He sounds like a dad explaining something to a child, while bringing no tennis IQ to the question whatsoever: Hey you had a lot of errors, including at key points..don't you think you'll have to stop doing that in order to be more successful? bloody brilliant!
 

Badabing888

Hall of Fame
That's not the point. He is unlikely to have upset any of the guests. Mostly goofy. Konta appears a bit thin skinned.
The point is Jonathan Ross is not a good questioner and most people tune into watch Graham Norton instead. And you say he is unlikely to have upset any of his guests? This is guy who was banned because of his disgraceful treatment with that other idiot Russell Brand of the late Andrew Sachs . It’s not surprising to me that he upset Joanna.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Football is called a team sport and there is no attribution of individual failure. And the harsh questions are usually answered by the people who get paid to do it; namely, the coach and captain. And they are usually not mansplaining:



In post match football interviews they usually talk about moments in the game, missed chances, mistakes, missed tackles, goalkeeping errors etc..

So the idea that when you analyse key moments and call that "picking on her" is absurd.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster


Y'all have probably already done this, I would hope, but in my opinion it was the manner in which he spoke. He sounds like a dad explaining something to a child, while bringing no tennis IQ to the question whatsoever: Hey you had a lot of errors, including at key points..don't you think you'll have to stop doing that in order to be more successful? bloody brilliant!
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Yes, well, Krygios stayed up past a 'curfew' and the media decided that the whole world must know that he was in a pub at 11pm rather than tucked up in bed getting enough sleep to beat Nadal.
 

a12345

Professional
So when the same person says the same thing to a male is that still mansplaining? you think guys dont talk to each other like that journalist did?

A guy says something in a certain tone to another guy - no one bats an eyelid.
A guy says something in that same tone to a woman - mansplaining...
 
Top