This thread about a players ability to accurately describe in a succinct few words in their interviews post win or loss a match, its ebbs and flows, or those tactics/ shots that brought the result. They are not overly deferential or falsely modest, nor do they brag, and boast so that the entire interview seems self absorbed, but they are willing to actually say something more meaningful than clichés like, 'I just gave it 100%' and 'played my game'.
Its also about the players who get their analysis wrong, play to the crowd or an image, or otherwise are more cringeworthy than insightful.
You can say it diplomatically and get your point in, rudely or bluntly, or not say it at all.
I must say that I find most players these days give the crappiest match interviews. Every response feels pre-prepared, and practiced , and I rarely gain any insight from either the winner or the loser, but I am regularly embarrassed by the quality of the questions and the banality of the answers. I almost always wish I had not hung around to listen.
Being entertaining or witty is of course a nifty trait and makes an interview fun, but I am also looking for a objective or clinical view of how they played, how their opponent played and what were the deciding factors and moments.
Its also worth noting unfortunately, that this will often measure language proficiency. Not really a players fault if they don't fully understand the nuanced connotations and subtext a specific English word or phrase begats in a native ear, when they are not native speakers. Foreign speakers can't help sounding clumsy and sometimes we forget that when assessing. Players like Hana, Martina, Mecir, and Lendl may do a hell of a lot better than we think, when the interviewer and audience is Czech. It also worth noting that players will grow either more or less candid, with time, and more or less confident over a decade.
Any opinions about this skill set?
Its also about the players who get their analysis wrong, play to the crowd or an image, or otherwise are more cringeworthy than insightful.
You can say it diplomatically and get your point in, rudely or bluntly, or not say it at all.
I must say that I find most players these days give the crappiest match interviews. Every response feels pre-prepared, and practiced , and I rarely gain any insight from either the winner or the loser, but I am regularly embarrassed by the quality of the questions and the banality of the answers. I almost always wish I had not hung around to listen.
Being entertaining or witty is of course a nifty trait and makes an interview fun, but I am also looking for a objective or clinical view of how they played, how their opponent played and what were the deciding factors and moments.
Its also worth noting unfortunately, that this will often measure language proficiency. Not really a players fault if they don't fully understand the nuanced connotations and subtext a specific English word or phrase begats in a native ear, when they are not native speakers. Foreign speakers can't help sounding clumsy and sometimes we forget that when assessing. Players like Hana, Martina, Mecir, and Lendl may do a hell of a lot better than we think, when the interviewer and audience is Czech. It also worth noting that players will grow either more or less candid, with time, and more or less confident over a decade.
Any opinions about this skill set?
Last edited:
