Naomi Osaka, Elise Mertens, Laura Robson and Mary Carillo: US Open Commentary Draws Criticism

Watching the Naomi Osaka and Elise Mertens match at the US Open was unbearable—not because of the tennis, but because of what I felt was deeply uncomfortable commentary from Laura Robson and Mary Carillo.

Throughout the match, the commentary came across as unnecessarily critical of Osaka. At times, it seemed less like analysis of a professional athlete competing at the highest level and more like a lecture directed at someone who needed to be scolded for showing emotion.

Carillo spent a significant amount of time discussing Osaka’s mental health history, while Robson’s commentary often came across as though she was reprimanding Osaka for her reactions on the court. For viewers, the discussion raised an uncomfortable question: Why was so much attention being placed on Osaka’s emotions and mental health while she was simply competing intensely in a major tournament?

Professional tennis players are emotional. They celebrate, yell, show frustration, pump themselves up and wear their emotions on their sleeves. Osaka is certainly not the only player who does this.

So why did the commentary make her passion seem unusual?

Osaka has been open about difficult experiences in her career and her struggles with mental health, but that does not mean every emotional reaction she displays during a tennis match should automatically be interpreted through that lens. An athlete can be passionate, frustrated, determined and emotional without those behaviors being treated as evidence of a problem.

What made the broadcast even more frustrating, from my perspective, was the feeling that Robson and Carillo did not appear particularly enthusiastic about Osaka’s performance. When Osaka ultimately won, the commentary seemed noticeably quieter.

That raises another question: Would the same kind of commentary be used if another top player displayed the exact same level of passion and emotion?

There is a difference between analyzing a player’s behavior and constantly framing that behavior as something that needs to be explained, corrected or managed.

Osaka was playing tennis.

She was competing. She was emotional. She wanted to win.

And there is nothing unusual about that.

Commentators have every right to analyze a player’s performance, strategy and on-court behavior. But when commentary repeatedly focuses on an athlete’s mental health or portrays normal competitive emotions as something abnormal, viewers are justified in questioning whether the coverage has crossed a line.

The US Open is supposed to be about the competition. In this match, the tennis was compelling—but for me, the commentary became the most distracting part of the experience.