Did they change the rules just to punish her? Last I heard, the policy was that missing interviews incurs a fine, which Osaka decided she could handle. If so, this starts to look a little villainous. I guess they're afraid other players will follow suit.
I have to say, I'm sympathetic to Osaka, and to all the other athletes who have to endure the media circus so soon after a loss. Thirty minutes to recover after a loss is nothing -- especially when the questions you're set to face all boil down to some variation on "That was a tough loss: tell us, how emotionally destroyed are you by your failure?" If what we want as viewers is an eloquent, insightful response that cuts to the heart of the reason for the loss, we should demand a longer delay, to give athletes time to compose themselves. I bet Osaka (and other players) would find a one day lag time more acceptable. Perhaps they could start there.
I mostly agreed with this point of view until I saw Rafael Nadal’s (post match ha) interview on the subject. Ultimately these press conferences are another avenue to put a spotlight on the sport and it’s the popularity of these top players that bring in fans that write checks for the top ~500 players in the world (plus all the staff around players and tournaments). If a player doesn’t want to participate it only hurts the sport which will eventually hurt you if you want the sport to grow/survive.
Honestly, if they didn’t change the rules because of her, it would eventually happen due to other players following in her footsteps. I’m sure nobody really wants to talk to the press, even after a win (especially when there is another match the next day). I’ve seen so many good moments in those interviews and even the salty people that lost usually have great gems that add something to the sport and make you interested in the next tournament.
Storylines are what make sports interesting in the first place. If there are no stories, a sport is doomed to die IMO.
I don't watch sports nearly as much as many other people in my life, though I am interested enough to watch with them when I'm spending time with them.
Serious question for sports fans: do you find the athlete interviews before and after the game all that compelling? Many athletes don't seem interested in doing them and often times they offer a nothingburger response that allows them to get through the interview without having to say too much or expend much emotional energy.
I support Naomi and her decision to call B.S. on this.
No, they've just fined her for now and said that if she keeps missing interviews it will (sensibly) count as repeat violations. It is the (supposed) repeated violations which carry the possibility of a forced default.
A one day time lag would mean the media couldn't get a quote for the match until the day after, an impossible long time to wait before reporting the outcome of the match. So most media would just cut the time they spend on tennis, and spend the liberated cash when reporting on other sports instead.
I suppose some really niche tennis journos would go the other way and start agressively pestering the big players for a quote to put along with their match report as all such same-day quotes are now elevated to the status of "scoop".
She said expecting players to answer questions after a defeat amounted to "kicking a person while they're down".
"I've often felt that people have no regard for athletes' mental health and this rings true whenever I see a press conference or partake in one," she said in the statement, which she posted on social media.
"We're often sat there and asked questions that we've been asked multiple times before or asked questions that bring doubt into our minds and I'm just not going to subject myself to people that doubt me."
An athlete's job is to be the best at their sport. It's a bonus for their career and sports entertainment when they also have great media presence, but that's absolutely not required.
Good for her for risking her career to improve mental health for all athletes.
> An athlete's job is to be the best at their sport.
No. Like anyone else in the entertainment business their job is to keep the customers entertained.
There are different paths, some of which involve more, or less publicity. But athletic skill is merely part of the question, and probably not the most important.
> An athlete's job is to be the best at their sport.
I disagree. Sport has always been part athleticism and part showmanship. At the end of the day, it's a business, and showmanship increases the bottom line. Partaking in interviews is also contractually mandatory (kind of like if you're a movie star). I think she's hijacking a hot-button issue in the zeitgeist (mental health) just because she doesn't want to do the post-game interviews after a loss (which I'm sure is not fun).
And either way -- even if it were genuinely a mental health issue -- her, of all people, would quite literally have all the resources in the world to deal with it. Just do your job. You already make an absolutely obscene amount of money, anyway.
I'm sure that's what many ahtletes wish were the case, but the ones who we care about being interviewed are paid an enormous amount of money because of their entertainment value to fans.
Of course we'd all love it if perks were all we took from our jobs, but the reality is the perks and duties are a negotiation and you won't get off with only perks. It will be interesting to watch this negotiation play out.
It's literally in her contract that she has to do this.
Should it be? I dunno, but you can't say her job is just 'to be the best at [her] sport' when the contract includes talking to the media after the matches.
That's definitionally part of her job at that point.
> An athlete's job is to be the best at their sport.
ATP's job is to nurture the game to be of broad appeal to the public. Tennis stars command much higher pay than athletes playing other racquet sports like squash, racquetball, badminton, and pickleball because of its public appeal.
Media interactions of stars is part of generating and maintaining that appeal. The athletic goals should be seen within this context.
I understand her struggle to talk publicly and answer the same questions again and again, it could be a sign of being in the spectrum of authism, but what I don't understand is that she said multiple times that interviews and press conferences are trying to the mental health of athletes (but is it true?) and we know it because she said it to the press! So there are topics she shares with the media after all...
Moreover, by refusing to engage with the media, the media are now focusing even more on the fact that she refuses to talk to the press and will probably ask even more about it, instead of talking about her tennis skills.
Also: it's required by the contract the players sign to be part of the WTA.
I empathize with this because not much thought is put into it, but it is really humans being traded
I explain financial assets and derivatives pricing payout expectations to people using analogies of trading athletes versus trading merchandise. A franchise might make 30% on the athlete's value when they trade them out in the future, while a basketball signed by the athlete goes up 1000% in value. The basketball value being derived from the athlete's own value.
I do this for emphasis to provide introspection and inspiration, the lack of consideration of them as an asset can definitely be improved.
Even better - he answered “I’m just here so I won’t get fined” to every question at his Superbowl press conference. Osaka included video of that in her post announcing her press policy for this event, so clearly she’s thinking along the same lines.
In a way it's not too dissimilar an approach; different people have different tolerances for -- and reactions to -- conflict though (in all walks of life). What works well for one sportsperson and their composure might not work so well for another.
I really hope they kick her out. I also hope another player does the same and gets kicked out. Then another, and another, until we get only mediocre players winning the Grand Slams.
Then all these players will go play in a different tournament where they can be appreciated for their skill, not for doing interviews to please media and the masses that feed on the "emotion".
as a former mediocre tennis player, you should not be a douche when you literally receive millions to play a sport that you love.
talking to the media is part of the job, you don't have to please the media, you can go and say "media suck!" and still get the millions because you got the skills.
What do you think sport is ? A fair competition of disciplined skills ? It's a business whose ONLY value is the emotions it triggers in people...
We don't care about a poor girl running around with a tennis racket, we care about the story, where she comes from, which population she represent when we beat her or she beats us.
A league of serious sportpeople seriously competing without any storybuilding... Look at how you even feel emotions at her being the David vs the Goliath of sport lol, that's what it's always been about.
As a professional player, she already knows that the tournament rulebook requires the players to meet with the press regardless of win or lose. That's what she knowingly signed up for as a condition to participate in the tournament.
The relevant excerpt from a 2020 Grand Slam rulebook pdf[1] :
H. MEDIA CONFERENCE
Unless injured and physically unable to appear, a player or team must attend the
post-match media conference(s) organised immediately or within thirty (30) minutes
after the conclusion of each match, including walkovers, whether the player or team
was the winner or loser, unless such time is extended or otherwise modified by the
Referee for good cause. In addition, all Main Draw players must participate, if
requested, in a pre-event press conference to be arranged during the two days before
the start of the Main Draw. All media obligations include, but are not limited to,
interviews with the host and player’s national broadcaster.
Violation of this Section shall subject a player to a fine up to $20,000.
(Although that section only mentions $20k fine and doesn't spell out penalty of disqualification or ban from other tournaments, it looks the rulebook's other sections on "Unsportsmanlike conduct" and "Aggravated Behavior" can be interpreted by officials to kick her out of the tournament.)
Top athletes are very well paid because there is public interest in what they do. Being available for interviews is part of the job. If athletes can bail out as they wish there will be less money for them in the long run. This will perhaps affect the next generation more than the current but I think it is selfish to not fulfill their commitments.
This isn't about keeping up public interest, this is about sports "reporters" protecting what is left of their control over the narrative. Athletes already generate way more public interest in their sport by engaging directly with fans. They don't need traditional outlets like Sports Illustrated or ESPN in order to build a brand / promote their sport, so they don't feel like they need to put up with the bullshit aspects of sports media... like post game interviews where everyone is just trying to bait them into a juicy quote.
And honestly as a fan, good riddance. Most of these "reporters" are doing little more than trying to manufacture controversy.
This was certainly true in the past, but I'm not sure it is true anymore. Athletes and their fans can now form direct connections through social media and other platforms that were previously purely controlled by the media. I wouldn't say sports media is irrelevant or anything that extreme, but their role as a middleman between athletes and fans isn't needed as much anymore.
I've seen reporters ask really invasive questions, or repeat them over and over, with slightly different words.
I've seen Steve Kerr or Greg Popovich handle these types of situations with grace, but they are far older than Osaka. They have had years to hone their responses and they are very accomplished in their fields. For Osaka, I can totally empathize with her. It's demeaning, sometimes, and when they see you are vulnerable they push even harder.
Like other commenters have noted, I agree that making media appearances is part of the job, especially when being paid what top athletes get paid.
That said, these interviews immediately after a tournament, especially when a competitor loses, are compelling only to the point that they make me want to punch the interviewer: "So, you've trained for this your whole life, but wow you really biffed it at the last moment, doesn't that make you just want to cry and maybe just a little bit want to commit suicide?" Of course I'm exaggerating, but not by much - these "reporters" are looking for the visual equivalent of clickbait, which is why their questions are so vacuous and seem designed to do nothing but enrage.
At a minimum, I feel like maybe 3% of all fans identify as 'speaking to the media' as the insane crucible grind that it often is, and Naomi's stand should help put a spotlight on that.
I would like to at least go the route of something more humane like if you lose, you get at least the night off, and if you continue to win you get at least one night off, etc.
And I don't know if tennis lets fans get away w the same insane racist isht that the NBA lets fans get away with, but things like that could qualify a player for extra time away.
I think it is pretty lame to try and say it is a mental health issue to talk to the media after a loss. You get paid millions of dollars to play sports, talking to the media is a part of that. I'm not saying that rich people can never complain about anything, but if the worst part of your job is talking to the media after losing a tennis game, I don't have much sympathy. If you don't want to talk to the media, don't sign up for a job that is based around performing and being a public figure.
A large contingent of modern sports journalists are predatory in that they aim primarily to get an out of context outrage-bait quote or soundbyte to drive engagement with no concern whatsoever for resulting fallout or hate directed towards the competitors.
Applaud Osaka for this move and hope it opens a dialogue about the relationship between media and competitors and the harms of gotcha journalism to drive engaging headlines as it relates to mental health, especially for younger competitors.
This exact situation has been something I have wondered about for a while (what would happen if a professional athlete just flat out refused to engage with the media) and I think it's fascinating that an athlete is being punished because they won't take part in the media sideshow.
I'm fully aware that by the rules of the tournament, they are expected to, and I have no real interest in tennis, but from my perspective this feels punitive against an athlete as though the media have this attitude of "how dare she not subject herself to our dissections".
Fully acknowledging that the media are the main source of revenue for these sports and subsequently these athletes, it is still such a strange relationship the athletes and the media have whereby an athlete not only needs to be amongst the best in the world at their chosen sport, but also need to be skilled in PR and be willing to dance to the whims of the media.
I love watching sports. (US football, basketball etc.)
I don't need the see post game interviews. It's nice to watch them, but don't need them. I can see how tough it is for athletes to have to talk to reporters about losses. It's hard enough being an professional sports athlete.
Leave the game on the court not the locker room.
If that isn't hard enough, then they have to deal with social media. Where everybody is a critic.
The demand for these post game interviews comes from the same gross, exploitive, emotionally cheap place that demands hour-long biopics of every player with a dead sibling and full-screen closeups of losing athletes on the verge of tears. Sports coverage would be better without any them. We can tell stories of adversity without reducing people to their most painful moment.
Post Match interviews are utterly inane. Naomi Osaka is doing more to promote the French open and tennis via this controversy by refusing to do them.
If they need the inanity to feed hundreds of third rate Sports writers they should be able to send anyone from their entourage who attended in the players' box.
Edit: String Theory [1] which i read in a "Year's best Sports writing" compilation is the best tennis journalism I've read. The author went on to literary super-stardom for other reasons. Tragedy is involved. I really don't know anything about any of it, haven't read it, I'm not such a literary person. The tennis article is great. I don't recall press conferences being crucial to its success.
Enforcing this feels like an immense own-goal for the tennis establishment. I have every sympathy for someone who doesn’t want to talk to the media, and I’m sure the weight of public opinion will be on her side too.
The audience wants to watch good tennis and likes to think the sport and the players come first in the organizing body’s priorities. Sending a stark reminder that money and sponsorship ranks higher is not going to end well.
First strike could be losing any prize money or qualifying comp from the tournament. Media and sponsors are paying for all of it after all. It’s not like media is just there covering athletes doing their thing and should be lucky to get a word. Simply put, media and sponsors pay athletes to perform a show which includes (among other things) sports and interviews.
Everyone should be able to occasionally skip it, and media should be sensitive here too. But systematically dodging media can’t be a thing.
I'm curious - if some mystery player was objectively the best at some sport (say, tennis). Could they get away with this?
I imagine someone who could defeat any tennis player, man or woman, but simply decided to never discuss the battle after winning would be able to do whatever they want.
Would people really accept not letting such an individual participate in some tournament when everyone knows they're the best?
Do fans actually get anything out of these interviews? If so, what is it? I'm generally quite an empathetic person, but for the life of me I can't figure out what possible pleasure anyone can get out of players stringing together platitudes. If they actually have any interesting thoughts on their game they'd keep it to themselves because they wouldn't want to give it away.
For example, Andrew Agassi claims he could read Boris Becker's serve by looking at his tongue, to the point where he'd deliberately get it wrong so Becker didn't know he had a tell: https://twitter.com/TennisTV/status/1387758939534675972 There's no way you'd say anything interesting, and therefore useful to your opponents, in interviews.
[+] [-] throwawaw|4 years ago|reply
I have to say, I'm sympathetic to Osaka, and to all the other athletes who have to endure the media circus so soon after a loss. Thirty minutes to recover after a loss is nothing -- especially when the questions you're set to face all boil down to some variation on "That was a tough loss: tell us, how emotionally destroyed are you by your failure?" If what we want as viewers is an eloquent, insightful response that cuts to the heart of the reason for the loss, we should demand a longer delay, to give athletes time to compose themselves. I bet Osaka (and other players) would find a one day lag time more acceptable. Perhaps they could start there.
[+] [-] uselesstech|4 years ago|reply
Honestly, if they didn’t change the rules because of her, it would eventually happen due to other players following in her footsteps. I’m sure nobody really wants to talk to the press, even after a win (especially when there is another match the next day). I’ve seen so many good moments in those interviews and even the salty people that lost usually have great gems that add something to the sport and make you interested in the next tournament.
Storylines are what make sports interesting in the first place. If there are no stories, a sport is doomed to die IMO.
[+] [-] chitowneats|4 years ago|reply
Serious question for sports fans: do you find the athlete interviews before and after the game all that compelling? Many athletes don't seem interested in doing them and often times they offer a nothingburger response that allows them to get through the interview without having to say too much or expend much emotional energy.
I support Naomi and her decision to call B.S. on this.
[+] [-] SiempreViernes|4 years ago|reply
A one day time lag would mean the media couldn't get a quote for the match until the day after, an impossible long time to wait before reporting the outcome of the match. So most media would just cut the time they spend on tennis, and spend the liberated cash when reporting on other sports instead.
I suppose some really niche tennis journos would go the other way and start agressively pestering the big players for a quote to put along with their match report as all such same-day quotes are now elevated to the status of "scoop".
[+] [-] tomhoward|4 years ago|reply
I’m sure we would/will hear an outcry if that happened.
It’s pretty normal that penalties escalate after repeat infractions.
[+] [-] mLuby|4 years ago|reply
Good for her for risking her career to improve mental health for all athletes.
[+] [-] gumby|4 years ago|reply
No. Like anyone else in the entertainment business their job is to keep the customers entertained.
There are different paths, some of which involve more, or less publicity. But athletic skill is merely part of the question, and probably not the most important.
[+] [-] dvt|4 years ago|reply
I disagree. Sport has always been part athleticism and part showmanship. At the end of the day, it's a business, and showmanship increases the bottom line. Partaking in interviews is also contractually mandatory (kind of like if you're a movie star). I think she's hijacking a hot-button issue in the zeitgeist (mental health) just because she doesn't want to do the post-game interviews after a loss (which I'm sure is not fun).
And either way -- even if it were genuinely a mental health issue -- her, of all people, would quite literally have all the resources in the world to deal with it. Just do your job. You already make an absolutely obscene amount of money, anyway.
[+] [-] ellyagg|4 years ago|reply
Of course we'd all love it if perks were all we took from our jobs, but the reality is the perks and duties are a negotiation and you won't get off with only perks. It will be interesting to watch this negotiation play out.
[+] [-] samatman|4 years ago|reply
Should it be? I dunno, but you can't say her job is just 'to be the best at [her] sport' when the contract includes talking to the media after the matches.
That's definitionally part of her job at that point.
[+] [-] mavelikara|4 years ago|reply
ATP's job is to nurture the game to be of broad appeal to the public. Tennis stars command much higher pay than athletes playing other racquet sports like squash, racquetball, badminton, and pickleball because of its public appeal.
Media interactions of stars is part of generating and maintaining that appeal. The athletic goals should be seen within this context.
[+] [-] tootie|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peoplefromibiza|4 years ago|reply
Moreover, by refusing to engage with the media, the media are now focusing even more on the fact that she refuses to talk to the press and will probably ask even more about it, instead of talking about her tennis skills.
Also: it's required by the contract the players sign to be part of the WTA.
[+] [-] jgalt212|4 years ago|reply
Yes, but she and all other professional athletes are not really athletes, but some amalgum of athlete and entertainer.
[+] [-] golemotron|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kaladin_1|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kaczordon|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vmception|4 years ago|reply
I explain financial assets and derivatives pricing payout expectations to people using analogies of trading athletes versus trading merchandise. A franchise might make 30% on the athlete's value when they trade them out in the future, while a basketball signed by the athlete goes up 1000% in value. The basketball value being derived from the athlete's own value.
I do this for emphasis to provide introspection and inspiration, the lack of consideration of them as an asset can definitely be improved.
[+] [-] kingaillas|4 years ago|reply
That would fulfill her media obligations.
[+] [-] kristjansson|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elliekelly|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jka|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karaokeyoga|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bserge|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redleader55|4 years ago|reply
Then all these players will go play in a different tournament where they can be appreciated for their skill, not for doing interviews to please media and the masses that feed on the "emotion".
[+] [-] peoplefromibiza|4 years ago|reply
talking to the media is part of the job, you don't have to please the media, you can go and say "media suck!" and still get the millions because you got the skills.
[+] [-] anonymoushn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdoms|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lurker3901|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] xwolfi|4 years ago|reply
We don't care about a poor girl running around with a tennis racket, we care about the story, where she comes from, which population she represent when we beat her or she beats us.
A league of serious sportpeople seriously competing without any storybuilding... Look at how you even feel emotions at her being the David vs the Goliath of sport lol, that's what it's always been about.
[+] [-] jasode|4 years ago|reply
An example tweet mentioning Article III Section H from the rulebook: https://twitter.com/tumcarayol/status/1399017968432992260
The relevant excerpt from a 2020 Grand Slam rulebook pdf[1] :
H. MEDIA CONFERENCE Unless injured and physically unable to appear, a player or team must attend the post-match media conference(s) organised immediately or within thirty (30) minutes after the conclusion of each match, including walkovers, whether the player or team was the winner or loser, unless such time is extended or otherwise modified by the Referee for good cause. In addition, all Main Draw players must participate, if requested, in a pre-event press conference to be arranged during the two days before the start of the Main Draw. All media obligations include, but are not limited to, interviews with the host and player’s national broadcaster. Violation of this Section shall subject a player to a fine up to $20,000.
(Although that section only mentions $20k fine and doesn't spell out penalty of disqualification or ban from other tournaments, it looks the rulebook's other sections on "Unsportsmanlike conduct" and "Aggravated Behavior" can be interpreted by officials to kick her out of the tournament.)
[1] https://www.itftennis.com/media/2495/grand-slam-rulebook-202...
[+] [-] klyrs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mongol|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tqi|4 years ago|reply
And honestly as a fan, good riddance. Most of these "reporters" are doing little more than trying to manufacture controversy.
[+] [-] slg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e40|4 years ago|reply
I've seen Steve Kerr or Greg Popovich handle these types of situations with grace, but they are far older than Osaka. They have had years to hone their responses and they are very accomplished in their fields. For Osaka, I can totally empathize with her. It's demeaning, sometimes, and when they see you are vulnerable they push even harder.
[+] [-] hn_throwaway_99|4 years ago|reply
That said, these interviews immediately after a tournament, especially when a competitor loses, are compelling only to the point that they make me want to punch the interviewer: "So, you've trained for this your whole life, but wow you really biffed it at the last moment, doesn't that make you just want to cry and maybe just a little bit want to commit suicide?" Of course I'm exaggerating, but not by much - these "reporters" are looking for the visual equivalent of clickbait, which is why their questions are so vacuous and seem designed to do nothing but enrage.
[+] [-] readonthegoapp|4 years ago|reply
At a minimum, I feel like maybe 3% of all fans identify as 'speaking to the media' as the insane crucible grind that it often is, and Naomi's stand should help put a spotlight on that.
I would like to at least go the route of something more humane like if you lose, you get at least the night off, and if you continue to win you get at least one night off, etc.
And I don't know if tennis lets fans get away w the same insane racist isht that the NBA lets fans get away with, but things like that could qualify a player for extra time away.
[+] [-] GhostVII|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedahan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sbagel|4 years ago|reply
Applaud Osaka for this move and hope it opens a dialogue about the relationship between media and competitors and the harms of gotcha journalism to drive engaging headlines as it relates to mental health, especially for younger competitors.
[+] [-] shruubi|4 years ago|reply
I'm fully aware that by the rules of the tournament, they are expected to, and I have no real interest in tennis, but from my perspective this feels punitive against an athlete as though the media have this attitude of "how dare she not subject herself to our dissections".
Fully acknowledging that the media are the main source of revenue for these sports and subsequently these athletes, it is still such a strange relationship the athletes and the media have whereby an athlete not only needs to be amongst the best in the world at their chosen sport, but also need to be skilled in PR and be willing to dance to the whims of the media.
[+] [-] chad_strategic|4 years ago|reply
I don't need the see post game interviews. It's nice to watch them, but don't need them. I can see how tough it is for athletes to have to talk to reporters about losses. It's hard enough being an professional sports athlete.
Leave the game on the court not the locker room.
If that isn't hard enough, then they have to deal with social media. Where everybody is a critic.
Good for Naomi.
Also Marshawn Lynch really lead the way.
[+] [-] kristjansson|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] harry8|4 years ago|reply
If they need the inanity to feed hundreds of third rate Sports writers they should be able to send anyone from their entourage who attended in the players' box.
Edit: String Theory [1] which i read in a "Year's best Sports writing" compilation is the best tennis journalism I've read. The author went on to literary super-stardom for other reasons. Tragedy is involved. I really don't know anything about any of it, haven't read it, I'm not such a literary person. The tennis article is great. I don't recall press conferences being crucial to its success.
[1] https://www.esquire.com/sports/a5151/the-string-theory-david...
[+] [-] jl6|4 years ago|reply
The audience wants to watch good tennis and likes to think the sport and the players come first in the organizing body’s priorities. Sending a stark reminder that money and sponsorship ranks higher is not going to end well.
[+] [-] alkonaut|4 years ago|reply
Everyone should be able to occasionally skip it, and media should be sensitive here too. But systematically dodging media can’t be a thing.
[+] [-] endisneigh|4 years ago|reply
I imagine someone who could defeat any tennis player, man or woman, but simply decided to never discuss the battle after winning would be able to do whatever they want.
Would people really accept not letting such an individual participate in some tournament when everyone knows they're the best?
[+] [-] frereubu|4 years ago|reply
For example, Andrew Agassi claims he could read Boris Becker's serve by looking at his tongue, to the point where he'd deliberately get it wrong so Becker didn't know he had a tell: https://twitter.com/TennisTV/status/1387758939534675972 There's no way you'd say anything interesting, and therefore useful to your opponents, in interviews.