Showing posts with label journalist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journalist. Show all posts

If tennis's big four are boring, what's the solution?

Ernests Gulbis might not have lasted very long at this year’s Roland Garros but his declaration to L’Equipe that Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic are ‘boring’ ignited a debate that looks set to rumble on all summer.

In the aftermath, Murray and Federer both admitted that they try to avoid controversy if they can, because the resulting brouhaha can prove to be a distraction. Media revels in conflict. Frankly, speaking as an ex-journalist, it makes the job a lot easier if there is a good row going on. You can simply cover the initial outburst and then spend the days that follow chasing up reactions and counter-claims - which is exactly what happened with the Gulbis story.

It’s hard to conceive just how all-consuming the business of trying to win tennis matches is until you spend time around athletes in competition and, personally, it took me leaving the press room to really appreciate it. While working with athletes, we’ve seen first hand how much a negative story or a controversy surrounding a player can weigh on a player’s mind and distract them, their coach and those around them. Not only does it cause anxiety in the camp and the sort of hassle which can effect performance, but it makes the player wary of doing interviews for fear of making things worse. A gun-shy player is, in turn, far more likely to give ‘boring’ answers and long-term that helps no-one.

The solution is for players to find a way of being themselves without being censored in a way which robs them of any charisma or sense of edgy competitiveness. Getting the right advice helps and that should be a good deal more detailed and nuanced than the oft-repeated: “Don’t say anything which might get you into trouble.” It should include guidance on getting your point across without being disrespectful to opponents or making yourself look bitter or like a moaner. And yes, players do have accept that if they express an opinion then some people will disagree with it. That means those advising them need to help them maintain a sense of perspective about what people write, say, think and tweet about them.

Federer put his finger on one of the biggest issues at play here, namely an overly formal and exhaustive cycle of press conferences, which leads to a saturation of quotes from the same small group of players. Press conference exchanges, involving large groups of journalists addressing a player usually sat behind an imposing desk and in the glare of TV lights, do not allow for much creative questioning or quirky answers.

"I understand it, our interviews are not always the most exciting. But that's not just our fault, that's the machine. After each match, we have to give press conferences,” Federer told Swiss reporters at Roland Garros. "But also you cannot say anything you do not like about something to someone without being totally criticised by many people. Therefore, everyone is very careful."

Of course some press conferences are necessary but tennis needs to explore other types of media interaction which allow players’ personalities to come across more. Murray in particular has suffered from the majority of his media, particularly early in his career, being conducted in the press conference format. He has grown more comfortable with them over the years but it is still clear from Murray’s body language and general demeanor that he does not particularly enjoy press conferences. With the TV camera focused on him alone, the Murray the public sees often appears grumpy and awkward. This is a shame given that, in small group interviews, Murray can be funny, eloquent, humble and engaging.

The ATP, which runs the men’s Tour, has recently been experimenting with the kind of mixed zones common at the Olympics. This could present a way forward, at least in the early rounds of tournaments, with press conferences brought in as additional access from, say, the quarter-finals onwards. Since players enter a mixed zone immediately post-match, it would free up players’ time and mean that media would not have to wait half an hour or longer to speak to a player.
With fewer press conferences to do, players could then be asked to do more individual or small group interviews which would encourage creative questions and allow players to express themselves more freely and help us all learn a little bit more about them.






Armstrong underestimates the opposition


Sportspeople as experienced as Lance Armstrong should never underestimate the opposition, yet the disgraced American cyclist and his advisors did just that ahead of last week’s sensational interview with Oprah Winfrey.


Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised, for Armstrong has made something of a habit of it. Even after being exposed, Armstrong showed scant respect for those who doggedly pursued him and refused to accept his repeated denials of doping. Instead he attempted to destroy them, allegedly labeling the whistle-blowing wife of a team-mate a “whore” and issuing threats and lawsuits as he went. 

The Sunday Times’ sportswriter David Walsh was Armstrong’s most ardent and relentless accuser, and deserves to be celebrated by every journalist on the planet for the way he stood up for his story, all the while standing up to one of the biggest names in world sport. Armstrong presented himself as a hero to cancer sufferers as well as an athlete beyond reproach, yet his defensiveness in interviews, aggressive answers to awkward questions and name-calling (“troll” was his favoured word for Walsh, usually accompanied by profanity) were not the responses of an innocent man. 

One of The Emilia Group’s areas of expertise is crisis communications and although it’s an area that corporations tend to focus more on than athletes and sports organisations, those with sponsorships, funding and reputations to lose in sport would do well to look at Armstrong as a reminder that preparing for the worst is always sensible - especially if you have something very big to hide.

It’s not clear what Armstrong thought he was going to gain from the Oprah interview, given that the damage to his reputation became largely irrepairable the moment USANA’s mind-blowing report on his (and his team’s) doping landed on newsdesks around the world. Having committed to the questionable PR tactic of talking to Oprah -  presumably in the hope that he win the public over or gain some sympathy for his plight - Armstrong then prepared poorly and showed little obvious sign of remorse or contrition.

An example of this was when Winfrey asked him if he felt he ought to apologise to Walsh, whom he had villified both professionally and personally (according to Walsh, Armstrong stooped as low as to openly criticise Walsh’s reaction to losing his 12-year-old son). “Do you owe David Walsh an apology, who for 13 years has pursued this story, who wrote for The Sunday Times, who has now written books about your story and about this entire process?” asked Winfrey. There was a long pause before Armstrong said, somewhat unconvincingly, “I’d apologise to David.” Not “Yes of course”; not even the word “sorry”, just a hypothetical and therefore non-committal “I would...”


It’s not clear what Armstrong was expecting from Winfrey - perhaps a teary cuddle and some soft-balled questions - but what he got was a world class grilling that often left him looking flustered and bounced into evasive answers. In Winfrey’s words, she prepared “like I was studying for a test” and, like Walsh before her, undid Armstrong through persistence and attention to detail.

Harry J Enten recently cited some interesting research in his Guardian blog which bears out the suspicion that Armstrong has only managed to hurt his own standing even more by opting to do the interview. In October 2012, at the height of the revelations about Armstrong, 48% of Americans told pollsters that he should not get credit for any of his career accomplishments - including a bronze Olympic medal and seven Tour de France winner’s medals. By early January 2012, pre-Oprah that figure had fallen to 37% showing that the public were easing up slightly.  However the first post-Oprah polls showed that only 21% of Americans polled thought Armstrong could restore his reputation. 

In a further poll, again unearthed by Enten, only 17% of those polled thought that Armstrong was being truthful in his answers to Oprah. That cynicism will only increase as the news cycle rumbles on and more and more people around the world become familiar with both his crimes against sport and the way Armstrong behaved to those who defied him while he denied.

For a man who loved winning so much that he was willing to set aside morality, fairness, honesty and decency, Armstrong sure looks like a loser now.