Pointless post match interviews?
In the past week or so Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson has been charged by the Football Association for comments he made regarding referee Martin Atkinson following his club’s 2-1 defeat to the reigning champions and refused to speak to any media rights holders after the 3-1 humiliation at the hands of Liverpool on Sunday at Anfield. He didn’t speak to Sky Sports, TalkRadio and even the club’s own channel, MUTV.
Ferguson, of course, is not the only manager to fall foul of the FA when speaking openly and honestly (and very much in the heat of the moment, it has to be said) in a post match interview. It’s just when he does it, it is highlighted that much more. This, of course, is his own fault. The Scot’s relationship with the media has always been a rocky one. Many print journalists have been banned from Old Trafford press conferences over the years, he still refuses to talk to the BBC at all and woe betide any interviewer who asks a slightly difficult question or casts doubts over Ferguson’s decision making or squad members.
That aside though, you do begin to wonder if it’s all worth it.
Ferguson, or indeed any manager, is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t and it raises the question of the worth of these post match interviews by managers. If a manager isn’t free to express his true feelings during these interviews because of the threat of a fine or suspension, what’s the point in interviewing him in the first place? Where’s the value to the watching audience if what is said is censored so much it no longer has any relevance?
I’m not saying managers should be free to rip into referees as they see fit, that would be unfair. But surely when they make mistakes that cost teams managers should be free to point it out and say how they feel about it? Using Ferguson as an example, what he said about Atkinson’s performance after the Chelsea game wasn’t a personal attack, it was an honest opinion on how well he thought the ref had handled the game – not well, basically.
An assessment like that is fair enough. When a manager gets personal or casts suspicion over a referee’s impartiality, that’s where the line is crossed for me. At the moment though, the FA does not want anyone to criticise a referee for anything, not even in a cold and analytical manner. Well, why not? Refs are now paid professionals and so should be as open to criticism as much as the players and managers themselves are.
No manager I know of has ever been hit with a fine for criticising a tackle by a player, so why should he for criticising the performance of a referee? I’m not naive enough to think that the FA will ever backtrack on their current rules, however, so I return to the worth of the post match interview and frankly, I don’t see any.
I don’t want to listen to a manager or player trot out the same old lines after a match every week and that, bar the odd outburst from our top flight managers, is exactly what is happening. The exception that proves the rule, of course, is Ian Holloway at Blackpool, who can give an entertaining (if occasionally unfathomable) interview following a 1-0 win or a 6-0 defeat.
The likes of Ferguson, Wenger and Ancelotti can’t do this though, so they either trot out some clichés or get in trouble for speaking their minds. Sod that, I’ve already changed channel.
What do you think? Is the post match interview utterly pointless if the interviewee can’t at least be honest about how he feels or do you still enjoy them, even as censored as they have become?
