Brian Moore: Saracens coach Brendan Venter's bizarre post-match interview was unprofessional and pointless
If MGM have plans to remake Barry Levinson's award-winning film Rain Man, they will have to contend with the fact that one of the original leads, Dustin Hoffman, is now in his early seventies.
They should not worry, though, because in the unlikely figure of Brendan Venter, head coach of Saracens, they have a perfect replacement for the role of Raymond Babbitt.
Following his team's 24-21 defeat to Racing Metro at Vicarage Road, Venter conducted an interview with a Sky Sports reporter that at times was a facsimile of Hoffman's character. The South African was deliberately obstructive, dead-batting every question put to him and refusing to offer an opinion.
How you interpret Venter's behaviour rests largely on whether you agree with his claim that both he and Saracens have been treated unfairly by referees generally and by European Rugby Cup particularly. So preternatural was Venter's performance that it could evidence numerous things; the only common verdict being that it was, by any yardstick, unusual to the point of disturbing.
Depending from where you begin your diagnosis, any of the following could be mooted as a reason for Venter's exposition – mental illness; the influence of mind-altering substances; autism; incivility; arrogance; childishness; an ill-judged attempt at humour; an appalling lack of appreciation of his position or defiance towards ERC and the disciplinary measures visited on him for previous comments made post-match.
People who know him were sufficiently concerned about his behaviour to state that something was not right with him and you have to wonder what Venter, who is also a doctor, would have made of a person exhibiting symptoms similar to those captured on camera. If Venter is not ill, then none of the alternative explanations is acceptable for a man holding his position in what purports to be a professional outfit.
The first point is Venter was asked no more than the usual quota of closed questions so beloved of sports interviewers and the fact that more than half of the inquiries were short and required more than a single word answer means that you cannot blame the substance of the interview.
Additionally, Venter and Saracens are reliant for their livelihoods in rugby on the huge sums paid by the broadcaster for TV rights, which include post-match interviews. If they don't like it, don't compete in the competition and give the money back.
If Venter wants to conduct public interviews from a personal perspective he should do so outside the post-match arena; when he is interviewed as his club's representative his personal issues are irrelevant. He has to carry the image of his employers and the wider interests of their sponsors and supporters, none of whom should have been happy with his approach.
Unfortunately the sarcastic statement of Saracens chief executive Edward Griffiths, that they were very hopeful the interview would not result in further a disciplinary hearing, went on to categorise Venter's words as an "ERC-style interview".
Griffiths must have a similar level of disconnect to Venter if he thinks this situation acceptable. His failure to see things from any other perspective than that afforded from a bunker somewhere in Watford demonstrates a lack of perception that probably explains why his club remain serial underachievers.
Venter may feel victimised but that is inside his own head and few outside that increasingly bizarre topography see him as a martyr, even if they have some sympathy with him. Further, he is the author of whatever treatment comes his way and how he thinks this was helpful or gives him any victory over his 'tormentors' is difficult for anyone to delineate.
It has been said that his are the comments of a passionate ex-player, angry at opaque administrators, but you doubt whether another former professional centre at Saracens, Andy Farrell, would ever conduct himself similarly.
Venter is a bright man and could easily have deconstructed any interview that contained unfair or loaded questions. Perhaps he was disappointed that his interlocutor did not pose these and that he was
forced to focus on inconvenient matters like why Saracens did not have the answers to the fairly facile problems posed by their opponents; why they, yet again, look unlikely to make a significant impact in the European stage.
If this was an ironic performance whose comedy has been lost on us, then the failure of recognition can only be explained by Venter's nationality because here, in what is considered to be the world capital of subtle humour, it didn't play like that.
In the end the one thing that undermines Venter fatally in the eyes of all but the Fez-heads (Saracens' supporters) is the fact that invariably this seems to happen when his side lose.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...terview-was-unprofessional-and-pointless.html
