Coach and player interviews before games are meaningless

IT IS time to cut out, or down, coach and player interviews before contests. As I am in the media, that might seem hypocritical because, after all, it is media demand that floods us with them. But let’s be honest, it’s getting ridiculous.

Do we really need a Springbok announcement live on TV and banal comments after it every single time?

Okay, it gives the sponsor’s logo airtime but, apart from that, what does it achieve? They certainly are not entertaining or, in any way, informative.

When did you last hear anything that was really of interest? When did you hear a player reveal that he wasn’t over the moon to be there, not eagerly looking forward to the game, or, basically, in rubbish form?

Luke Watson shook things up with his vomit comment but, remember, that was made in a private speech that he thought was off the record.

Had he done it in a television interview before a game that would have made us sit up and think, wouldn’t it?

When did you last hear a coach admit that he was taking a chance in selection, was gambling with tactics and or that he was scared stiff of the opposition?

Similarly, when did you last hear that the coming opponents were believed to be second rate and not worth their place in the competition?

All we get are platitudes and puff, and it’s not really worth the effort.

With the disrepute clause in operation in contracts, no player can even attempt to be honest on a serious issue, so why bother? I would rather watch sailing at the Olympics.

Rather let the journalists, ex-players and pundits loose before games. That is more fun, especially if they are made to get off the fence.

Let them predict in detail rather than in broad brushstrokes, and let their comments be recorded.

It is easy during or after a game to sound informed and strident. It is not so easy to do so, under pressure, beforehand because your homework will be marked in public later.

It also means that jingoism, the scourge of sports coverage, will be avoided.

If your reputation is really on the line you know that just blindly supporting the local side can look silly afterwards, so you will up your game, regardless of the demand for gush from local fans. It would also motivate the team.

Imagine the Boks watching a show on television in which the hated journalists and experts are really dissecting their strengths and weaknesses in public.

Players love praise and hate criticism at the best of times, so imagine the fire to prove people wrong being stoked in criticised players.

Let only the experts talk before and the coaches and players after games, and let’s do away with the disrepute clause in contracts. That would lift the ratings.

With the Olympics going on it has been a build-up to the rugby less intense than usual. After the rather lucky series win against Ireland, the public are in a demanding mood.

The All Blacks are way ahead of the rest but we must see signs that the Boks are competitive against them.

In the absence of victories, however, it is crucial that we see evidence that the modern, fast, expansive way of play, proven successful by New Zealand, and, in a way, the Lions, is emerging as a Springbok trait.

Yes, the traditional strengths are welcome. Set pieces and physical effort will always be a part of the game but, in the absence of a more expansive and fast template for play, they, in isolation, look outdated.

The core ingredient of the Lions’ blueprint has been included in the side, with the eight-nine-ten axis crucial. However, against Ireland the rhythm was all wrong.

Is an acceleration planned? Let’s hope that the wonderful last quarter of the second Irish Test, that spell of relentless and rapid attack by the Boks, forward and back, is seen as the desired style for the future.

If it is and if it is developed today we will win easily. If not, expect a grinding contest against a tough, physical opponent.

The optimist in me predicts the former.