Naomi Osaka is a very successful female tennis player on the court which has made her multi millions every year, from advertising and prize money in the last 3 or 4 years.
She is also an introverted person who suffers with anxiety and depression off the court.
A compromise should have been reached whereby her coach or a good friend could be at the press conference with her. Total lack of understanding by the Grand slams and French open organisers.
While I completely agree with this point, it's also fair to point out that her own approach made a compromise much harder - refusing to do the conference and then walking away completely.
Her reasons and feelings for this are 100% understandable but it makes it an all or nothing situation. She's either there and doing press or she's left completely.
While the organisers are getting lambasted, we don't know if they would have been willing to compromise if they'd actually been given the chance.
You claim I don’t have any enforcement experience but you claim people don’t ever face trial because of mental health problems, so I’m going to assume you have even less experience than I do, because that claim is complete rubbish.
Still waiting on any evidence to back up your claim it’s on the rise, by the way.
I didn't claim anything, I suggested it by saying 'I take it' you didn't. I strongly doubt you have less enforcement experience otherwise you would not be so unaware. Oh yes, I am really going to gibe details all the cases I have dealt with where subjects have claimed mental health problems then admitted the lied - not! The most recent was only a few weeks ago. One agency fell for it but we did not and he eventually told the truth.
Going off topic but nonetheless rather important; before, when I agreed some things might only affect a very small minority, but could still be concerning there are links between terrorism and MH issues - some interesting links (and before you leap to any ridiculous conclusions again I am not suggesting any link to the vast majority with MH conditions!):
You seem not to understand the difference between claiming something and suggesting something or saying it appears or seems to be.
I have already cited 2 examples in the public domain, so that is not never.
I do appreciate it is very difficult, if not impossible, to assess how much, if at all an MH condition affects someone's behaviour or performance. I have worked with a number of colleagues who had various conditions who would not accept a single (constructive) criticism/development need/area for improvement was ever down to a personal shortcoming as everything was the result of one condition or another - of course much of it may have been (I reiterate it is difficult to assess), but I doubt they would have been perfect otherwise as we all have areas to work on. And I had a friend the same, nothing was ever her not being able to do something.
I myself have an MH issue but despite my friend advising me in the past to attribute everything negative in my appraisal to it and refusing that anything was down to me not being very good at/needing to improve a few if things, I have to admit my 'areas for development'.
Naomi Osaka is a very successful female tennis player on the court which has made her multi millions every year, from advertising and prize money in the last 3 or 4 years.
She is also an introverted person who suffers with anxiety and depression off the court.
A compromise should have been reached whereby her coach or a good friend could be at the press conference with her. Total lack of understanding by the Grand slams and French open organisers.
While I completely agree with this point, it's also fair to point out that her own approach made a compromise much harder - refusing to do the conference and then walking away completely.
Her reasons and feelings for this are 100% understandable but it makes it an all or nothing situation. She's either there and doing press or she's left completely.
While the organisers are getting lambasted, we don't know if they would have been willing to compromise if they'd actually been given the chance.
I don't understand why everyone is so critical of the organisers without knowing the full story. Players have to take their share of responsibility as well.
The idea that because a minority of people claim mental health issues as a justification for poor performance/behaviour should in any way invalidate the experiences of the vast majority of those who need belief and support is abhorrent.
There are a few who do try and use this as an excuse or a "Get out free" card, this is true. In my job I come across such people fairly regularly. But I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of people with mental health problems want nothing more than the help they need to overcome those problems.
Making the perfect the enemy of the good is actively harmful when it means the actions of a few are used to cast doubt and scepticism over the many who deserve to be fully believed and supported.
Naomi Osaka is a very successful female tennis player on the court which has made her multi millions every year, from advertising and prize money in the last 3 or 4 years.
She is also an introverted person who suffers with anxiety and depression off the court.
A compromise should have been reached whereby her coach or a good friend could be at the press conference with her. Total lack of understanding by the Grand slams and French open organisers.
While I completely agree with this point, it's also fair to point out that her own approach made a compromise much harder - refusing to do the conference and then walking away completely.
Her reasons and feelings for this are 100% understandable but it makes it an all or nothing situation. She's either there and doing press or she's left completely.
While the organisers are getting lambasted, we don't know if they would have been willing to compromise if they'd actually been given the chance.
Agree, it takes two to tango. I meant Compromise on the part of both sides and the entourage around Naomi, from Coach, parents to her PR team that has represented her and made her so marketable in the USA, Japan and globally.
When Serena Williams did her hissy fit in Naomi Osaka first grand slam victory, the anxiety on Naomi's face was palpable. She has always looked like a rabbit in the headlights since when meeting the press after a match.
Let's hope the statement put out by the four grand slams were not just a reaction to some negative press of their own and they really understand about social anxiety which is heighten when the adrenaline has been flowing after long or short tennis matches.
Naomi Osaka is a very successful female tennis player on the court which has made her multi millions every year, from advertising and prize money in the last 3 or 4 years.
She is also an introverted person who suffers with anxiety and depression off the court.
A compromise should have been reached whereby her coach or a good friend could be at the press conference with her. Total lack of understanding by the Grand slams and French open organisers.
While I completely agree with this point, it's also fair to point out that her own approach made a compromise much harder - refusing to do the conference and then walking away completely.
Her reasons and feelings for this are 100% understandable but it makes it an all or nothing situation. She's either there and doing press or she's left completely.
While the organisers are getting lambasted, we don't know if they would have been willing to compromise if they'd actually been given the chance.
Agree, it takes two to tango. I meant Compromise on the part of both sides and the entourage around Naomi, from Coach, parents to her PR team that has represented her and made her so marketable in the USA, Japan and globally.
When Serena Williams did her hissy fit in Naomi Osaka first grand slam victory, the anxiety on Naomi's face was palpable. She has always looked like a rabbit in the headlights since when meeting the press after a match.
Let's hope the statement put out by the four grand slams were not just a reaction to some negative press of their own and they really understand about social anxiety which is heighten when the adrenaline has been flowing after long or short tennis matches.
If the players have a medical condition then they need to work with the authorities - I have no idea what has happened in this case?
Playing it out on social media doesn't seem a very wise thing to do.
The four Grand Slams say they want to "create meaningful improvements" in supporting players after Naomi Osaka's withdrawal from the French Open.
The Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open have offered their "support and assistance" to her.
"We commend Naomi for sharing in her own words the pressures and anxieties she is feeling," they said.
"We empathise with the unique pressures tennis players may face."
Nice words. Let's see what that actually means in practical terms next though.
Not sure what you're expecting? If players have a medical issue they need to communicate it. None of us have any idea of the full circumstances.
Playing stuff out on social media isn't really the best solution.
Not expecting anything as such. I'm sincerely saying that it is genuinely positive they are acknowledging the issue but until we know exactly what will happen to change it in the future it's hard to judge either way.
The four Grand Slams say they want to "create meaningful improvements" in supporting players after Naomi Osaka's withdrawal from the French Open.
The Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open have offered their "support and assistance" to her.
"We commend Naomi for sharing in her own words the pressures and anxieties she is feeling," they said.
"We empathise with the unique pressures tennis players may face."
Nice words. Let's see what that actually means in practical terms next though.
Not sure what you're expecting? If players have a medical issue they need to communicate it. None of us have any idea of the full circumstances.
Playing stuff out on social media isn't really the best solution.
Not expecting anything as such. I'm sincerely saying that it is genuinely positive they are acknowledging the issue but until we know exactly what will happen to change it in the future it's hard to judge either way.
It also doesn't make sense as some on here have done to keep criticising the authorities without knowing the full facts. I certainly don't know what communication has gone on.
If she has a diagnosed condition which she has communicated to the tennis authorities directly to request an exemption from press interviews and they've ignored it then obviously they deserve criticism.
My worry is this all gets played out via social media which won't help communication.
I hope the two parties have a meaningful dialogue so that things move forward. It doesn't appear that communication has been good up to now.
The idea that because a minority of people claim mental health issues as a justification for poor performance/behaviour should in any way invalidate the experiences of the vast majority of those who need belief and support is abhorrent.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't think that is really a fair statement of argument, or at least it should not be. It is more that with the growing understanding of the very real importance of mental health leads to a tremendous amount of self-diagnosing, which would not be supported in any other branch of medicine.
People are just not very good at differentiating between what they really do not like and what they honestly consider to be damaging.
Most people's work will involve stress that can easily be self-diagnosed as damaging, but issues of fairness arise if you are taking that stress away from some members of staff and leaving it with others. It may not even be helpful for the individual involved in some circumstances.
In this case, if post-game interviews are a stressful event for everyone, then the fairness issue arises if, for example, she alone can send her coach instead, without some pretty substantial medical evidence to support that decision.
I do appreciate that you can certainly take this argument too far - I do, for example, hate it when losing players are interviewed immediately after a match; to me, that seems unnecessary.
But there is also an argument, as I heard an NFL coach say once, 'he is not a millionaire because he can catch a football, he is a millionaire because he can catch a football in front of a lot of people', the media and coverage are not a side part of professional sport if you want to play for big money, in prestigious venues, and in front of large crowds.
The idea that because a minority of people claim mental health issues as a justification for poor performance/behaviour should in any way invalidate the experiences of the vast majority of those who need belief and support is abhorrent.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't think that is really a fair statement of argument, or at least it should not be. It is more that with the growing understanding of the very real importance of mental health leads to a tremendous amount of self-diagnosing, which would not be supported in any other branch of medicine.
People are just not very good at differentiating between what they really do not like and what they honestly consider to be damaging.
Most people's work will involve stress that can easily be self-diagnosed as damaging, but issues of fairness arise if you are taking that stress away from some members of staff and leaving it with others. It may not even be helpful for the individual involved in some circumstances.
In this case, if post-game interviews are a stressful event for everyone, then the fairness issue arises if, for example, she alone can send her coach instead, without some pretty substantial medical evidence to support that decision.
I do appreciate that you can certainly take this argument too far - I do, for example, hate it when losing players are interviewed immediately after a match; to me, that seems unnecessary.
But there is also an argument, as I heard an NFL coach say once, 'he is not a millionaire because he can catch a football, he is a millionaire because he can catch a football in front of a lot of people', the media and coverage are not a side part of professional sport if you want to play for big money, in prestigious venues, and in front of large crowds.
All players need to be treated equally as you say which is why the authorities need a coherent policy. This is what would happen In any workplace and sport is no different.
The fundamental issue with mental health and related matters is that you need to treat people differently in order to treat them the same, as paradoxical as it sounds.
Certain people do have needs and problems that means they need extra help or to do things differently to "normal." And part of that is acknowledging that because someone can play football or tennis etc in front of cameras they might not ALSO be comfortable answering questions. It's different skills and circumstances.
That's certainly true, but I suspect the problem is more that nobody is really comfortable answering the questions but then giving people exemptions entirely on the basis of self-diagnosis.
And I strongly suspect that, in the ultra-competitive world of professional sport, that this runs the other way, with some people do things that really are damaging to them because they feel they have to and no diagnosis is available.
I suspect there would be less of an issue if it was a lower ranked player, but the fans are more interested in hearing what the best players in the World have to say.
The idea that because a minority of people claim mental health issues as a justification for poor performance/behaviour should in any way invalidate the experiences of the vast majority of those who need belief and support is abhorrent.
There are a few who do try and use this as an excuse or a "Get out free" card, this is true. In my job I come across such people fairly regularly. But I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of people with mental health problems want nothing more than the help they need to overcome those problems.
Making the perfect the enemy of the good is actively harmful when it means the actions of a few are used to cast doubt and scepticism over the many who deserve to be fully believed and supported.
I wasn't invalidating the the experiences of the vast majority though. I agree about the vast majority too
I have to say I have felt suspicious of a number of celebs who have played the mental health angle and it doesn't always ring true to me.
It does seem to be becoming the 'get out of jail card' now but some of the cases will be genuine, so as with so many things, those using it as an excuse undermine the genuine ones. Whilst many may have experienced genuine trauma, is the PTSD some celebrities say they are suffering from really comparable to that of service personnel, emergency services etc? Maybe there are different degrees of PTSD, but I do question the severity and in some cases wonder if they are undermining the severe cases?
Several MPs have cited MH issues to avoid trials and wasn't the Martin Bashir situation delayed because if it?
Scepticism is understandable but I have to say that the idea of "qualifying" PTSD or any other mental health issue is one I utterly loathe. Trying to tell someone that their suffering isn't as bad as someone else's is a horrendously slippery slope to start on.
Agreed, but I still think the diagnosis is being abused/exaggerated, undermining the truly genuine cases which means some genuine cases may be doubted
But in the case of mental health it's always better to treat all cases as genuine and accept some are not rather than risk minimizing or missing a genuine case mistakenly thought to be false.
Yes, but how appalling to misuse it when genuine people ate suffering.
There is no treatment of anything if someone knows they don't have the condition just say to others they have to avoid things, get attention or whatever. The concerning thing is people are using it so they won't be challenged. And we might not know how much there has been a genuine increase in MH problems. Whilst many people appreciate it is better to respect a person as being genuine, not everyone will do there will have a negative affect on those genuine suffering
But what is the alternative? Saying to someone "Sorry, no help for you, we don't think you are suffering enough."
There should be more done to treat fraudulent/false claims in the right circumstances but that's a totally different conversation to not giving the care in the first place.
I never suggested no treatment for anyone.
Definitely more done to determine fraudulent/false claims
Then what exactly ARE you suggesting? Genuine question as I am confused. I'm not saying that every case is genuine. I'm saying that treating every case as genuine and then working on weeding out the fraudsters and fakers is definitely a better approach than needing any level of proof before treatment starts.
No it is NOT what I suggested and I agreed with you.
Maybe there is confused over the words 'treatment' and 'treated and in how someone is 'treated' by others e.g. the press and public and being 'treated' by MH professionals?
Also, some people who are claiming to have MH conditions to avoid scrutiny and action don't need any professional consideration or treatment because they aren't actually suffering from anything or even pretending to, just saying they are.
I'd hazard a guess that the number of people doing that are tiny, and so the initial thought of "oh maybe they're faking it" is ridiculous.
It doesn't matter the number it is the consequences of those that are doing it that does matter. And it is on the rise. And yes, some a claiming things that aren't true to avoid justice
Avoiding justice is a whole different ball game to what we have here. As previously suggested, I suspect the number of people "faking it" in sport is miniscule.
In criminal cases, it is the number one thing to do to avoid going to trial. Because of that, Judges are all to aware of the prospects of someone trying to pull a fast one. An example: an eminent psychiatrist paid by the defence provided expert opinion that his client was not fit to stand trial. The eminent psychiatrist paid for by the prosecution said he was malingering (legal definition). But it is by no means straightforward to determine who is right and who is wrong. (In this matter, the prosecution's shrink cunningly used some text from their guy's book on the subject. The key question being "what colour is grass?". It seems having a mental illness does not mean you can't answer this question correctly. And saying "oh, my head, my head, I'm dying, you are killing me" is the wrong answer.)
I'd hazard a guess that the number of people doing that are tiny, and so the initial thought of "oh maybe they're faking it" is ridiculous.
It doesn't matter the number it is the consequences of those that are doing it that does matter. And it is on the rise. And yes, some a claiming things that aren't true to avoid justice
Avoiding justice is a whole different ball game to what we have here. As previously suggested, I suspect the number of people "faking it" in sport is miniscule.
In criminal cases, it is the number one thing to do to avoid going to trial. Because of that, Judges are all to aware of the prospects of someone trying to pull a fast one. An example: an eminent psychiatrist paid by the defence provided expert opinion that his client was not fit to stand trial. The eminent psychiatrist paid for by the prosecution said he was malingering (legal definition). But it is by no means straightforward to determine who is right and who is wrong. (In this matter, the prosecution's shrink cunningly used some text from their guy's book on the subject. The key question being "what colour is grass?". It seems having a mental illness does not mean you can't answer this question correctly. And saying "oh, my head, my head, I'm dying, you are killing me" is the wrong answer.)
Of course the number doing it and may be doing it are a small majority and very difficult in many cases to determine fairly. But they can undermine the genuine ones. In the case of Dr Christian Jessen, I only know what is open source, but from what I have read, the majority commenting don't believe him. Which of course could be detrimental to him if he is genuine.
There was a case recently when the experts on both sides couldn't come to an agreement. I can't find the case but will keep trying to find it. The defendant did get caught out in the end but it too a lot of time and money
I suppose that is for the sport and sponsors to decide rather than you or me, but I am not against them trying to.
I think there's definitely something that needs to be done. While I am sympathetic to her, I am still very aware that sponsors and organisers etc do have certain expectations and obligations to keep as well and her unilateral decision to just announce she just wasn't going to do questions was a bit heavy handed and perhaps naive.
They did handle it badly but she didn't give them much to work with in terms of compromise or even discussion.
They threatened to kick her out of the tournament so she pre-empted them.
Re-work the whole prize money side of things. Have a two tiered system. One whereby you have the prize money that the tournament would put forward. A statutory one, if you like, minus any financial additions generated by the media/broadcasting rights etc.
Then have a second prize pot that includes the top-ups from sponsors and all the media/broadcasters that pay for the rights and hugely increase the prize pot, on the proviso that they get their pound of flesh after completed matches.
Players can then state at the start of each tournament which prize pool they will be playing towards.
One will include media duties to be undertaken and the other wont. One prize pool will be greater than the other, naturally.
Players will be able to safeguard their mental health whilst also still earning prize money.
I suppose that is for the sport and sponsors to decide rather than you or me, but I am not against them trying to.
I think there's definitely something that needs to be done. While I am sympathetic to her, I am still very aware that sponsors and organisers etc do have certain expectations and obligations to keep as well and her unilateral decision to just announce she just wasn't going to do questions was a bit heavy handed and perhaps naive.
They did handle it badly but she didn't give them much to work with in terms of compromise or even discussion.
They threatened to kick her out of the tournament so she pre-empted them.
Yes, which is why I am saying neither party handled the initial incident very well. If she had started by saying she struggled with the interviews and asked if there was anything they could do to help then maybe there could have been a discussion.
Instead both of them ended up in the position that it's either play and do all the interviews or don't play at all. Which isn't ideal. No room for compromise.
Re-work the whole prize money side of things. Have a two tiered system. One whereby you have the prize money that the tournament would put forward. A statutory one, if you like, minus any financial additions generated by the media/broadcasting rights etc.
Then have a second prize pot that includes the top-ups from sponsors and all the media/broadcasters that pay for the rights and hugely increase the prize pot, on the proviso that they get their pound of flesh after completed matches.
Players can then state at the start of each tournament which prize pool they will be playing towards.
One will include media duties to be undertaken and the other wont. One prize pool will be greater than the other, naturally.
Players will be able to safeguard their mental health whilst also still earning prize money.
I think this is an option - although I suspect that players would need to Opt in/out far further in advance than just the start of the tournament. The Opt in/out would surely need to be known way in advance to keep sponsors in the loop and to ultimately decide any prize pots.
I suppose that is for the sport and sponsors to decide rather than you or me, but I am not against them trying to.
I think there's definitely something that needs to be done. While I am sympathetic to her, I am still very aware that sponsors and organisers etc do have certain expectations and obligations to keep as well and her unilateral decision to just announce she just wasn't going to do questions was a bit heavy handed and perhaps naive.
They did handle it badly but she didn't give them much to work with in terms of compromise or even discussion.
They threatened to kick her out of the tournament so she pre-empted them.
Yes, which is why I am saying neither party handled the initial incident very well. If she had started by saying she struggled with the interviews and asked if there was anything they could do to help then maybe there could have been a discussion.
Instead both of them ended up in the position that it's either play and do all the interviews or don't play at all. Which isn't ideal. No room for compromise.
But she was responding to a threat to kick her out. Someone with mental health problems doesn't need the aggro, in my opinion, so she took the authorities at their word and resolved the issue in her own mind.
I suppose that is for the sport and sponsors to decide rather than you or me, but I am not against them trying to.
I think there's definitely something that needs to be done. While I am sympathetic to her, I am still very aware that sponsors and organisers etc do have certain expectations and obligations to keep as well and her unilateral decision to just announce she just wasn't going to do questions was a bit heavy handed and perhaps naive.
They did handle it badly but she didn't give them much to work with in terms of compromise or even discussion.
They threatened to kick her out of the tournament so she pre-empted them.
Yes, which is why I am saying neither party handled the initial incident very well. If she had started by saying she struggled with the interviews and asked if there was anything they could do to help then maybe there could have been a discussion.
Instead both of them ended up in the position that it's either play and do all the interviews or don't play at all. Which isn't ideal. No room for compromise.
But she was responding to a threat to kick her out. Someone with mental health problems doesn't need the aggro, in my opinion, so she took the authorities at their word and resolved the issue in her own mind.
I totally get that - but she must have known that there would be 'aggro' when she suddenly declares on the eve of the tournament that she's not doing press conferences?
As has been said by myself and others on this thread....I think that this could and should have been handled better by all parties.
I suppose that is for the sport and sponsors to decide rather than you or me, but I am not against them trying to.
I think there's definitely something that needs to be done. While I am sympathetic to her, I am still very aware that sponsors and organisers etc do have certain expectations and obligations to keep as well and her unilateral decision to just announce she just wasn't going to do questions was a bit heavy handed and perhaps naive.
They did handle it badly but she didn't give them much to work with in terms of compromise or even discussion.
They threatened to kick her out of the tournament so she pre-empted them.
Yes, which is why I am saying neither party handled the initial incident very well. If she had started by saying she struggled with the interviews and asked if there was anything they could do to help then maybe there could have been a discussion.
Instead both of them ended up in the position that it's either play and do all the interviews or don't play at all. Which isn't ideal. No room for compromise.
But she was responding to a threat to kick her out. Someone with mental health problems doesn't need the aggro, in my opinion, so she took the authorities at their word and resolved the issue in her own mind.
Because the position she just went straight to was "I am not doing any interviews at all, full stop." (Which apparently she didn't say or discuss at all before even entering the tournament either.)
Her motives for doing so are understandable and I sympathise with them but her approach was at least part of why there was "aggro." Again, I can see why she did it that way but it caught everyone out and made it hard for anyone to find a conciliatory position that meant she didn't have to leave - voluntarily or otherwise.
Comments
Her reasons and feelings for this are 100% understandable but it makes it an all or nothing situation. She's either there and doing press or she's left completely.
While the organisers are getting lambasted, we don't know if they would have been willing to compromise if they'd actually been given the chance.
Going off topic but nonetheless rather important; before, when I agreed some things might only affect a very small minority, but could still be concerning there are links between terrorism and MH issues - some interesting links (and before you leap to any ridiculous conclusions again I am not suggesting any link to the vast majority with MH conditions!):
https://crestresearch.ac.uk/resources/the-relationship-between-mental-health-problems-and-terrorism/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14552462/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nikitamalik/2019/01/03/mental-health-and-terrorism-what-are-the-links/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bjpsych-advances/article/terrorism-and-mental-illness-a-pragmatic-approach-for-the-clinician/8F03C2D3274BA17CD54A8133967B9A8D
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19434472.2019.1703782
You seem not to understand the difference between claiming something and suggesting something or saying it appears or seems to be.
I have already cited 2 examples in the public domain, so that is not never.
I do appreciate it is very difficult, if not impossible, to assess how much, if at all an MH condition affects someone's behaviour or performance. I have worked with a number of colleagues who had various conditions who would not accept a single (constructive) criticism/development need/area for improvement was ever down to a personal shortcoming as everything was the result of one condition or another - of course much of it may have been (I reiterate it is difficult to assess), but I doubt they would have been perfect otherwise as we all have areas to work on. And I had a friend the same, nothing was ever her not being able to do something.
I myself have an MH issue but despite my friend advising me in the past to attribute everything negative in my appraisal to it and refusing that anything was down to me not being very good at/needing to improve a few if things, I have to admit my 'areas for development'.
There are a few who do try and use this as an excuse or a "Get out free" card, this is true. In my job I come across such people fairly regularly. But I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of people with mental health problems want nothing more than the help they need to overcome those problems.
Making the perfect the enemy of the good is actively harmful when it means the actions of a few are used to cast doubt and scepticism over the many who deserve to be fully believed and supported.
You’re in complete denial, he very obviously has a problem with powerful women of colour.
The four Grand Slams say they want to "create meaningful improvements" in supporting players after Naomi Osaka's withdrawal from the French Open.
The Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open have offered their "support and assistance" to her.
"We commend Naomi for sharing in her own words the pressures and anxieties she is feeling," they said.
"We empathise with the unique pressures tennis players may face."
Playing stuff out on social media isn't really the best solution.
Agree, it takes two to tango.
I meant Compromise on the part of both sides and the entourage around Naomi, from Coach, parents to her PR team that has represented her and made her so marketable in the USA, Japan and globally.
When Serena Williams did her hissy fit in Naomi Osaka first grand slam victory, the anxiety on Naomi's face was palpable. She has always looked like a rabbit in the headlights since when meeting the press after a match.
Let's hope the statement put out by the four grand slams were not just a reaction to some negative press of their own and they really understand about social anxiety which is heighten when the adrenaline has been flowing after long or short tennis matches.
Playing it out on social media doesn't seem a very wise thing to do.
If she has a diagnosed condition which she has communicated to the tennis authorities directly to request an exemption from press interviews and they've ignored it then obviously they deserve criticism.
My worry is this all gets played out via social media which won't help communication.
I hope the two parties have a meaningful dialogue so that things move forward. It doesn't appear that communication has been good up to now.
Certain people do have needs and problems that means they need extra help or to do things differently to "normal." And part of that is acknowledging that because someone can play football or tennis etc in front of cameras they might not ALSO be comfortable answering questions. It's different skills and circumstances.
In criminal cases, it is the number one thing to do to avoid going to trial. Because of that, Judges are all to aware of the prospects of someone trying to pull a fast one. An example: an eminent psychiatrist paid by the defence provided expert opinion that his client was not fit to stand trial. The eminent psychiatrist paid for by the prosecution said he was malingering (legal definition). But it is by no means straightforward to determine who is right and who is wrong. (In this matter, the prosecution's shrink cunningly used some text from their guy's book on the subject. The key question being "what colour is grass?". It seems having a mental illness does not mean you can't answer this question correctly. And saying "oh, my head, my head, I'm dying, you are killing me" is the wrong answer.)
There was a case recently when the experts on both sides couldn't come to an agreement. I can't find the case but will keep trying to find it. The defendant did get caught out in the end but it too a lot of time and money
Then have a second prize pot that includes the top-ups from sponsors and all the media/broadcasters that pay for the rights and hugely increase the prize pot, on the proviso that they get their pound of flesh after completed matches.
Players can then state at the start of each tournament which prize pool they will be playing towards.
One will include media duties to be undertaken and the other wont. One prize pool will be greater than the other, naturally.
Players will be able to safeguard their mental health whilst also still earning prize money.
Instead both of them ended up in the position that it's either play and do all the interviews or don't play at all. Which isn't ideal. No room for compromise.
As has been said by myself and others on this thread....I think that this could and should have been handled better by all parties.
Her motives for doing so are understandable and I sympathise with them but her approach was at least part of why there was "aggro." Again, I can see why she did it that way but it caught everyone out and made it hard for anyone to find a conciliatory position that meant she didn't have to leave - voluntarily or otherwise.