[Action Jackson]

I will add a poll a bit later in the posts when I have some suggestions, because this question is a hard one to word in the right way.

Bascially, we are all different and like different things for variable reasons. At the same time there are lot of players that are image conscious and just have give stock, standard answers without saying too much. Sometimes it's boring and for some that comes across as classy behaviour.

Then there is the other side, were guys who don't really give a shit about their image and answer questions honestly and they get bagged for that because they say what they think instead of hiding behind niceties.

An example of the second group is Haas who told Courier that "he had his tongue up Federer's arse". Berdych, Davydenko, Stepanek and Söderling are players who tend not to sugarcoat anything.

Rios, Muster and Kafelnikov were old school masters of it. I will provide examples later.

Then there are the ones who let the facade slip now and then, but they tend to be forgiven, while with the blunt ones the opposite tends to happen? The media are funny they criticise cause they say there are no characters, then someone says something out of the norm, they call them arrogant. 99% of pro sportspeople are arrogant in some form.

So what is the preference for the bland and nice stuff or for the ones who say how it is they are feeling at that time and don't give a crap?

 

[LeChuck]

I definately prefer the second option, when players give honest answers and couldn't care less about whether people like/dislike what they are saying.

 

[Action Jackson]

It's funny though cause most people would say the second, when it comes down to popularity the guys mentioned would never win those contests.

Classic Rios.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/wimbledon_98/latest_news/119265.stm

Defeated Rios ridicules Wimbledon

Marcelo Rios leads the list of seeds defeated on the third day at Wimbledon and has dismissed playing on grass as "not tennis".

The men's second seed was defeated in his first round match for the second time in three years going out 3-6, 6-3, 5-7, 6-3, 3-6 against Francisco Clavet.

Rios' dislike of grass courts is well known and at last year's Wimbledon he joked that "grass is for cows".

There was also no love lost this year when at a news conference after his defeat he agreed Wimbledon was "over-rated".

He went on to criticise the standards of umpiring, organisation and transportation and added: "Grass is not a surface to watch tennis on or to play tennis - it's really boring.

"I don't take Wimbledon, playing on grass, like an important thing. Playing on grass is not tennis."

In a final slight to the tournament he said he would be watching World Cup soccer next week instead of Wimbledon.

 

[krystlel]

I agree about there being nothing wrong with top players being arrogant. If I was one, I probably would be, if not more so. It's a pain reading Federer's interviews because it's like honesty mixed in with niceties, or the other way around.

I don't like reading interviews when players probably don't even mean what they say and are just making standard, dull compliments of other players. There are also a number of interviews where players speak for a long time about nothing at all. I guess that seems good in a press conference but it looks terrible in a transcript.

Davydenko's interviews are my favourite, but I don't think many people could pull off speaking bluntly without intending to be rude like he does.

 

[bittertea]

The second option for sure.

I value honesty and sincerity over a faux facade every time.

 

[steffis]

I like Nadal's answering style, no?

 

[scarecrows]

a bit of both I'd say, I like honest answers but without the need to be vulgar or rude

 

[Allstar]

Much prefer the second option provided what they say is correct

 

[Puschkin]

Unfortuntely (or luckily) the world is not black and white only, there are many shadows of grey which can be very appropriate at occasions.

 

[Action Jackson]

Unfortuntely (or luckily) the world is not black and white only, there are many shadows of grey which can be very appropriate at occasions.

Good non-answer there.

 

[DhammaTiger]

I prefer the second option myself. The media and pr people abhor individuality because they can't deal with it, they prefer manufactured automatons.

 

[Puschkin]

Good non-answer there.

Maybe, but I seriously think it depends on the occasion, i.e the type of question, the mood the player is in, his overall character.

Besides, I wonder what all those defenders of brutal honesty will think when they get to know the players' "honest" reaction to fans. Some unpleasant surprises seem guaranteed.

 

[Action Jackson]

Maybe, but I seriously think it depends on the occasion, i.e the type of question, the mood the player is in, his overall character.

Besides, I wonder what all those defenders of brutal honesty will think when they get to know the players' "honest" reaction to fans. Some unpleasant surprises seem guaranteed.

It was a non-answer. There is a reason media darlings can get away with things, sure it would be good if people weren't influenced by the media, but this happens to an extent.

Some players like fans and others don't, then it goes back to the image that media creates. Perfect examples are Rios, Muster and Kafelnikov they have negative images, so fans would be apprehensive about approaching them, the experiences would vary.

Another one is Jeff Tarango, I have seen him personally being decent to people and other times he has come across an arrogant clown and what do they remember. It's not the first one is it.

 

[VolandriFan]

Half of you people would run away crying if faced with a true tactless, honest personality.

 

[Puschkin]

There is a reason media darlings can get away with things, sure it would be good if people weren't influenced by the media, but this happens to an extent.

Of course we are influenced by the media, and even if we are aware of it, we can hardly avoid it. But I still would differentiate on the original question. I think a player is perfectly allowed to be evasive about personal issues, while I would wish them to be honest about tennis. But one doesn't always get what one wants.

 

[Action Jackson]

Of course we are influenced by the media, and even if we are aware of it, we can hardly avoid it. But I still would differentiate on the original question. I think a player is perfectly allowed to be evasive about personal issues, while I would wish them to be honest about tennis. But one doesn't always get what one wants.

Who is mentioning personal issues? They can do what they want as long it doesn't harm anyone or animals.

Scarecrows and dharmatiger pretty much got it right, there is a way of being honest about these things and not come across as rude, but VolandriFan is right in his comments as well.

 

[shotgun]

I definitely tend to prefer the second group, but being honest alone is not enough to make me become a fan. I also think the content of the answers is important, as well as the timing. I'd take Ljubicic as a personal example, he's very blunt and honest, but the timing he chooses to state his opinions is usually bad, and he says a lot of stuff I don't agree with.

 

[natasha_nana]

I prefer honesty but within limits. I definitely don't appreciate outright rudeness or sore loser-ish comments. I mean sure you're entitled to feel that way, but as a sportsperson I don't think it's particularly appropriate to so blatantly be suffering from a case of sour grapes.

I find especially those who keep dissing wimbledon just because they can't play on grass, to be in really poor taste. I would think the same if non-clay specialists said things like that about Roland Garros. I mean seriously...

 

[RonE]

I like Nadal's answering style, no?

No.

 

[Adler]

I like being honest, so I prefer the second group you mentioned. But "being honest" is not the same as "speaking like a clown" and there lies the subtle difference