I guess its a personal preference then. I just think its unneccessary. Why not give the guy 5 mins to recover before shoving a microphone in his face and asking a stock question that effectively answers itself, or has if you had been watching the game anyway. For example...
"So Sam, you showed greater urgency at the breakdown and had possession and the line-breaks but couldnt turn it into points. How did you find the game?"
Sigh. At least the rugby TV coverage has been excellent. Push the mute button, turn into the ARC and all the world seems brighter! And join me and change the chanel or turn back to your beer as soon as the final whistle goes :)

Hmmmm Sorry i think perhaps I have confused some people.
My point is not that it was Warburton who had to do the interview. My point is why he had to do the interview at all. Obliged by whom? I'm a rugby fan and I demand no obligation.
I have never seen any value in these hurried, made-for-media, post game cliche grabs. Why not give the guy a chance to reflect on whats happened and give some considered responses? It seems every journo is out there trying to get the next "...i'm absolutely buggered" soundbite, but would happily settle for a swearword to slam across the next morning's headline, or some exhaustion induced referee-slander tabloid fodder.
And melodramatic? I guess you weren't at the game watching Warburton stand there in the freezing cold for 10 minutes.