PDA

View Full Version : Speech or Interview on the Court? Which do you prefer?


baleineau
Jul 7th, 2008, 11:00 PM
Notice that until about 2000, Wimbledon never asked their champions to give an interview or make a speech during the ceremony. Now they have Sue Barker doing a quick on-court interview. This still differs from the other three slams where the players go up on a podium and then make their own speeches. Roland Garros play the relevant National Anthem (does the US and Aus??). Which approach do you prefer out of the Slams, particularly bearing in mind the big difference at Wimbledon?

Personally I prefer the players to say their own words rather than have BBC-hack Sue Barker asking profound questions like "How does it feel to win"? and "You must be happy with how you played today".

I would say I like the Roland Garros presentation the most, and it's always better to present the runner-up first and have a good pause before the winner. And then I liked the old Wimbledon where you had to try to overhear and lip-read what the Duchess said, and then had to wait in suspense to hear the full interview an hour later.

I also don;t like the interviews that happen 20 secs after leaving the court, and those 1 minute before going on court.

I guess I like mystique. I don;t like to see the locker rooms either. Let me imagine....

lynxy
Jul 8th, 2008, 12:40 AM
Speeches can be terribly boring.
Let's do away with pre-match interviews. The players are too focused in on what is to come and distracted to do them. It isn't fair. Serena doesn't really agree with it and doesn't try to encourage the conversation. Perhaps she should speak out against them...

baleineau
Jul 8th, 2008, 10:24 PM
i definitely agree regarding the pre-match interviews. and i still don't like the obvious questions that are asked in these immediate post-match interviews. i doubt the players like having to answer such questions straight after losing. and it's though you are cornered by the interviewer. what more, the players are sweating, may not be happy to look how they do, may need the loo etc. etc.

sfselesfan
Jul 8th, 2008, 10:51 PM
Old Wimbledon. One of the traditions they should have kept. There's always the off court interview to follow. Let the players have peace after a trying tournament and match.

SF

Tennisballova
Jul 8th, 2008, 11:04 PM
I don't like the pre-match interviews either. I don't see the necessity or added value of that.

I think a combination of an on-court interview and a speech would be o.k.

jonny84
Jul 8th, 2008, 11:06 PM
I like to hear something after the winner wins. Its quite good to hear the winner but unfortunate for the loser.

Wiggly
Jul 8th, 2008, 11:22 PM
Interview on the courts. After the match. :lol:

Speeches are always "Thanks Mommy, thanks Daddy, thanks to my sponsors, thanks to all the ball kids, umpires and thanks to the fans", see ou next year".

Coffee&TV
Jul 8th, 2008, 11:42 PM
Interview on the courts. After the match. :lol:

Speeches are always "Thanks Mommy, thanks Daddy, thanks to my sponsors, thanks to all the ball kids, umpires and thanks to the fans", see ou next year".

Speeches are :yawn: I prefer on-court/post-match interview.

raquel
Jul 8th, 2008, 11:51 PM
I like the Sue Barker interviews and little moments like Andy Roddick telling Sue he has a crush on her and Venus complimenting Sue's shoes before talking :D It wouldn't be the same though if it was Andrew Castle or John Inverdale interviewing. The interviews would lose all charm right away ;)

Max565
Jul 8th, 2008, 11:54 PM
Both post-match interviews AND speeches! :p Maybe I'm greedy.

But the crowd and viewers at home definitely need to hear the player speak. Most of them don't know any personal information about the player or even how they speak sometimes... and with new players, it's a great way to introduce yourself to the public - the crowds, the viewers - not just die-hard tennis fans who probably know everything about you. It's good if the public form an emotional bond with the player and maybe a heartfelt speech can do that?

I also quite like the Aussie Open - how they interview the victor after the match on-court on the main show courts. They're a fairly good way to show some personality from players.

Lyndle_BE
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:47 AM
I might be a bit biased being an Aussie, but for me it is the Aussie Open. I like a bit of direction with the speech, that is a posed question, but then I like for the players to talk about what they want as well - guess I'm greedy also :p

Dave.
Jul 9th, 2008, 08:58 AM
Pre-match interviews a minute before going on court are the worst things ever. Some players are nice enough to smile but others you can just tell it annoys them.

My favourite are the Aussie Open ceremonies. I'd rather the players give a speech than be interviewed because it's more from themselves. Some of the speeches in Melbourne over the years have been great. Interviews just go something like "How does it feel to win?" - "I played very well today and I'd like to thank my coach" blah. :yawn:

But I voted for the first option too because I love Sue Barker. :)

Chance
Jul 9th, 2008, 09:02 AM
I hate the pre-match interviews! I really don't think it's fair a minute before a match a player has to answer those lame questions...
One thing I do like about the Wimbledon and French Open trophy presentationsis that it's short and sweet and and we get to hear from the players quite quickly. Unlike Aus Open and US Open where some man in a suit goes on and on...

mal
Jul 9th, 2008, 09:17 AM
i definitely agree regarding the pre-match interviews. and i still don't like the obvious questions that are asked in these immediate post-match interviews. i doubt the players like having to answer such questions straight after losing. and it's though you are cornered by the interviewer. what more, the players are sweating, may not be happy to look how they do, may need the loo etc. etc.
I'm not so sure you are right about that. While a pre-match interview is interesting, they aren't going to say much. A post-match interview, while the are still steaming might only be" well I prepare slowly, and pass three miss one set, and there is another match in one month so, well. It doesn't tell us a lot.
One thing if the tell us right away what they had to do to win, it is going to inspire the younger players to do the same, and we shouldn't be upset by that.
What I find most irritating is when an interviewer asks a question, the player answers it, and the interviewer asks the exact same question a second time, as though they don't understand the answer. Most irritating. The thing about it is you must put up with it. If something is irritating you, you move away, but when it is you doing it to yourself, you cannot.