I’m Not Fond of It, But I See the Reasoning

[CliftonMagpie]

When Notts loses, we fans don’t get to hear from the players, which prevents us from gaining a clear understanding of a player’s thoughts. I realise this is mostly done to protect the players, but for a club that claims to want an open dialogue with the fans and encourages players to connect with the fans, I’m not keen on the club avoiding player interviews just because we lost a match.

Negative comments will appear on social media regardless, and I can’t help but think they could be handled more effectively if done.

[liampie]

i am not a fan of it either, it could be that people cant be bothered too or both.

i think it would be useful to hear what the players have to say, maybe not always but to miss them simply because notts loses i think its a poor show of hands. i do think there is only so many questions and times you can ask them what went wrong but if there are good talking points a player should be spoken to regardless if we lose or not.

[NottsTastic]

I agree, at times it’s necessary for the players to express their thoughts, hoping it resonates not only with the media but also with us, the fans. Despite our poor form, no one should shy away or feel disheartened from speaking out simply because we lost a match.

[The Heff]

I agree, it's a poor showing on the club's part and it can't be explained by anything else other than the fact that we have lost games. It becomes even more disappointing when we win, to see the player interviews encouraged, especially after having had silence. We are in this together, and the club shouldn't fail to deliver post-match reactions after losing as it gives a sense of accountability. I understand why Notts doesn't interview players after every defeat, but they shouldn't overlook defeats as a chance for the player being interviewed to give an honest response as to what happened.

[ExiledPie]

I get it, but as an outsider, I don’t think protecting the players from defeats is necessary. It might be something Luke Williams prefers, I’m not sure, but it does affect the information coming from the club. Every player can provide a unique perspective, even in defeat.

[Joshua]

I’ve noticed this isn’t the first time it’s happened, and I wish the club would ensure that two post-match responses are never missed in a row. I don’t mind losing, but when the club doesn’t allow the player giving a post-match response to answer direct questions that may arise, it seems like excessive protection. It’s more about the club not wanting the players to admit we’ve lost or are performing poorly.

[Chris]

I think sometimes it could simply be down to time and the fact we lost, I don't think it's something the club wouldn't focus on solely due to losing. Yes, it can be seen as a means to protect the players but when many use social media, then it becomes quite pointless because if they post that will draw much of the same reaction an interview after a game would gain.

Hopefully whatever the outcome is tomorrow, the club will put out a player interview.

It can be a good way to get fans onside if used right, we know the players care and want to win. Yet they can gently remind people a bit more excited that they are working towards goals.

[KingMaynard]

It’s frustrating when they opt not to interview the manager. Notable Premier League managers like Alex Ferguson have faced repercussions for skipping these, highlighting their significance. I’m not suggesting that Luke Williams has declined or been unwilling to participate. I suspect the club is trying to mitigate the fallout from losses, but it seems to convey the wrong impression. It’s reminiscent of the media team’s silence after defeats or their excessive posts about sponsors.

[JustLikeJuve]

Did anyone catch if any players were interviewed on Radio Nottingham last night? I couldn’t listen in, but I’m hoping they spoke to someone other than Luke Williams.

[DangerousSausage]

I've seen LW interviewed after the last two games and Macauley Langstaff did a pre-match interview. I like to hear from the manager but apart from that I'm really not that fussed by it all. They should do their talking on the pitch.

It might not be such a great idea to interview frustrated players after a defeat in case they say something stupid in the heat of the moment. My team in Germany is really struggling, and after yet another defeat the captain said that they weren't creating chances because most of the players aren't good enough. He won praise for a very honest and passionate interview, but I'm not convinced it went down that well in the dressing room. So perhaps players are kept away from the media to keep everything harmonious behind the scenes.

[JohnTheBost]

Post-match interviews are part of football, players can do their talking on the pitch. Macaulay Langstaff did this himself after his pre-match comments, but to only do them when we win, I can understand why more people are against them not being done. You have to trust professional players would do the right thing, and since it's been the players failing to apply themselves it would be nice to listen to their thoughts. It can paint a different picture, but stopping during a bad spell isn't good or respectful to the fans.

[upthepies]

They’ll return once we begin winning. If the club is avoiding them solely due to losses, then that’s poor on their part. The players provide a different viewpoint than just the manager. While I enjoy Luke Williams, I believe having different players adds variety and makes things more engaging. Losses shouldn’t result in no interviews being conducted.

[Robbie]

For me I've always been one for the players to do their talking on the pitch. The Manager/ Head Coach is obligated to face the media of course. Always good to get their thoughts and feedback. That's fine.

Players are under enough pressure to perform week after week without having to worry about having to face the media for post match interviews.

 

 

 

 

 

[Countyman]

I believe that if interviews are conducted after victories, they should also be done after challenging results. To cease them due to a rough patch seems contrary to the message the club has been trying to convey and reminds me of a media blackout. I wouldn’t say it’s always necessary to interview a player, but to stop due to poor form is a poor reflection on the club at a time when we’re supposed to be united.

[Fozzy]

I’m with @Robbie__64on this, I don’t really want to hear from a player when he will be quite clearly down, the last thing he wants to hear is criticism. They are normally quizzed about it on the midweek interviews anyway, when they’ve had chance to digest and analyse the defeat.

Managers are always the only important voice after a defeat anyway and will quite clearly state (unless they’re Phil Parkinson) what went wrong or just how good the opposition played.

[Robbie]

Good points there @Fozzy i agree with you