Tennis Random, Random (On Court)

[the Moz]

I support Naomi on this one. The fact this 'row' is over the actions of players after a match I think is a discussion that is fair game. I support player's speaking out about the various dimensions of their sport. Yes, rules are rules. But rules can change. And journalists need to ask better questions. They need to do their job better. If you feel something isn't right then you should speak up and do something about it. Nothing will change otherwise.

p.s. the FFT statement last night in support of Naomi was hollow and the guy they sent out to read it didn't even take questions afterward. C'est riche, no?

[ponchi101]

Has she been diagnosed as clinically depressed? Or any other related condition?
Serious question.

[mmmm8]

Has she been diagnosed as clinically depressed? Or any other related condition?
Serious question.

While she can choose to disclose that information (she hasn't although she noted she's had bouts of depression, that might be self-diagnosed), it is not our place to demand that information and it would be illegal for the slams to ask for it since they do not directly employ her. Since the WTA is a US-based organization, they/her employment/contracting would have to adhere to HIPAA laws, which protect patient privacy.

[mmmm8]

I've come around to Naomi's side on this. This is essentially akin to an employee asking for accommodations for a disability, which is something employers are required to provide by law in many/most countries including, usually, for mental health issues (although, typically, a medical diagnosis would be required). At the core, it's a reasonable request and she is right that accommodations should be made available to all those who need them.

I think it's ok to say she HAS handled sub-optimally. I don't care if she's "only 23"- I work with plenty of 23-year-old professionals who are not treated differently from older colleagues, plus she has a team of seasoned professionals around to advise her. She hasn't done anything outrageous, so doesn't deserve some of the vitriol she's getting, but she could have made her stance better.

The Grand Slams are also run by adults who have handled this more than sub-optimally. I understand their annoyance, but the statement put out was petty and is backfiring. They should have quietly fined her and then worked with her management for Wimbledon and this might have gone away. Now they look like the bad guys just by following existing rules.

Finally, while tennis journalist questions can be awful and boring/obnoxious (the tweets upthread from Enrico Riva were very accurate to my experience in pressers), I don't know if "asking better questions" would solve this problem. Better questions would likely lead to even more player introspection, create even more pressure and cause further anxiety to players prone to it.

[Suliso]

@4m8: I think you have made a good argument. Albeit in corporate world this is done by arranging it quietly with the direct manager and HR not by putting them on the spot by announcing it at say the department meeting.

Of course I take it all back if we later learn that RG was contacted and refused to even consider.

[the Moz]

Yes, the media asking better questions won't solve the problem. But as they are part of the problem, they need to be part of the solution. So for me their status quo doesn't cut it. They can do better and should.

[Suliso]

What exactly is the media fault in this particular case?

[ponchi101]

How would you decide what "better questions" are? Remember years ago when Wozniacki went to a Novak interview and asked a bunch of crazy questions, just to prove that most of the questions asked by the press were boring? That they are inane?
You just beat somebody 3 & 4, in a humdrum second round match. What "interesting" questions can be asked, about the match?
Then you have the "dumb" questions. Last year at the USO, Naomi was wearing her face masks with the names of victims. The on court interviewer asked her what "name" she would wear the next time, as if the entire exercise were some game show episode. Naomi actually handled that brilliantly, explaining that it was precisely not a vain exercise. She was, if I recall well, eloquent and very thorough in her response.
In the end, sports journalism is as deep as fashion journalism. Grown up men and women playing games. Very difficult to ask "better questions" when the subject at hand is literally a game. The only time when a "better question" can be asked is when an athlete steps out of those boundaries and becomes socially engaged, like Lebron has done for the last two/three years, or Kaepernick before that, or even Ali back in the day.
And in those cases, it is the athlete that had decided to use his/her platform to talk about something of more relevance, not the press that has asked inappropriate, non-sport questions. Imagine is Kaepernick had taken a knee and at the press conference nobody would have asked him about it. Or Ali refusing to be drafted and that not being talked about. Or, last year, Naomi wearing her masks and having something to say about the serious issues in the country, but nobody from the press asking her for her message.
The press will ask you as much as you want to answer. Remember Andy Murray: from very early on he and his family made it clear that he would not talk about the Dunblane shooting. As far as I can tell, the press has always honored that request, as they should.

[the Moz]

What exactly is the media fault in this particular case?

Naomi Osaka posted to her Twitter on 26 May that she would not be doing any press during RG and a conversation started...

[the Moz]

The press will ask you as much as you want to answer

I think we know where Naomi stands on this ATM.

[Suliso]

What exactly is the media fault in this particular case?

Naomi Osaka posted to her Twitter on 26 May that she would not be doing any press during RG and a conversation started...

So? What did you expect? That the press would keep quiet about it?

[ponchi101]

@ Moz.
Sure. Which is the point. She is not the only actor here. She is one, the press are another, tournaments too. Disparate people are giving opinions, as varied as BJK, fellow players, and journalists that now have no access to her (Wertheim has been interviewed by SI.COM and that is posted on line).
Heck, there might even be a board somewhere where people are talking about the subject. It would be strange but it might be happening.
And yes, the press will ask you as much as you want to answer, and if you meant that they will not stop there, then you are right. And plenty of interviewees have said "I am not going to answer that one". A simple statement that works well. You don't get fined for not answering questions.

[the Moz]

Naomi is looking like she wants to be an agent for change. I welcome that

[ponchi101]

Again, sure. If she wants to introduce a conversation about changing how interviews are held, so sure, she can say so. But that is not what she originally was talking about. The key words in her original statement were about mental health, which is the crux of her particular stand.
For example, and these are just things that we have spoken here at TAT2.0: Deuce believes that players should NOT be forced to go to the interviews; they should not be compulsory. I would get rid of any on court interview BEFORE or AFTER a match. Either the player is about to go on court and needs to focus, or has not been able to collect his thoughts after a win. Silly answers could be uttered which then are picked by social media and turned into memes.
You can have other proposals: should the number of questions be limited? Should the time? Should they be submitted prior to the interview? All changes that could be talked about.
But she has not talked about that. She said it was affecting players' mental health, for which there is no evidence. Most players that have voiced an opinion say that they see it as part of the job. No other player has joined her, saying they feel the same way.
If she is being affected, then, as M8 says, privately come to an arrangement with the tours. If she really is suffering mental issues due to the interviews, or these are exacerbating these issues, she can be excused from them after an arrangement with all governing bodies, but it has to be justifiable (unless Deuce's idea of non-compulsory interviews come to fruition).
But Suliso and I asked two specific question: how was the press responsible for the issue (Suliso) and how could you ask "better questions" (I). I would love to hear your answer.
And there is something else: what if the rest of the players do not want to change the system? What if everybody wants to keep it? Andujar's interview after beating Thiem was a gem, and I am sure (and hope) he might get a little money from it, by perhaps a new endorsement or a TV show appearance. If he can, and wants to, please, go ahead.
In the Roland Garros topic you saw the funny reply that Medvedev gave to a question. The sport is better for those kinds of occasions. You cannot get rid of an entire system because one player does not like it, if everybody else agrees with it.

[MJ2004]

If a person is suffering from depression and find it affects them negatively when attending unpleasant work meetings with annoying colleagues that ask stupid questions, is it ok for them to say they are going to continue to do the enjoyable parts of the job only, while planning to skip the work meetings?

I think in this scenario most reasonable people would first privately address this concern with their manager to see what solution could be arranged, and not first publicly send out an email to the global organization stating that they would no longer attend work meetings because they negatively impact the person's mental health.

Then, if the meetings are deemed integral to the job and no other solution can be arranged, the person should expect to take time off from their job to recover before returning to all aspects of work, even the parts that are more difficult to deal with.

I feel for Naomi if she is truly suffering from depression, anyone who has been watching her over the years should not be surprised by yesterday's admission. But she has not handled this well at all, and being "only" 23 is not an excuse. Hopefully some time off will give her a chance to address issues and work towards recovery.