Should Post-Match interviews be made redundant?

[mybodyisready 155]

Just a quick point, you can see that most managers don't like the post-match interviews. It's either the interviewer being a cunt (geoff......) or the managers complaining. And it's always in the heat of the moment so people are emotional. This isn't about today but I've been wondering about this for a while. I'm sure managers would rather be in the dressing room than giving stupid answers to stupid questions.

Thoughts?

[YouNameIt 1,511]

First of all, when they dont like it its usually when the game didnt go as they wanted. And who gives a shit if they dont like them interviews? They are paid silly ammounts of money and some things you just have to do.

But they could at least make sure that the interviewers are not complete idiots.

[The only place to be 11,313]

No. Geoff Shreeves should be made redundant.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

I've watched a lot of sports in my life and this is obvious: most athletes and managers and even commentators have nothing whatsoever interesting or insightful to say. You can predict 99% of what they will say which is usually some variation on "I thought we played well today but we could also work on some things". Like any movie star or singer, people think that these interviews, by virtue of the fame and celebrity of the interviewee, will be interesting. They aren't. Of course, the questions are almost always idiotic as well, either set up for easy answers or asking pointless questions. I never watch press conferences. I never watch post-match interviews. It's about as interesting as watching people try to hawk jewelry on a shopping channel. (the only exception is after a trophy when the point is not to hear what they are saying but to see the, celebrate.)