PDA

View Full Version : If you retire from a match, should you be banned from playing the next week?


dsanders06
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:05 AM
I think the WTA should bring in a rule where, if you retire from a match due to a physical injury, you're not allowed to play a tournament the next week. As I was saying in the other thread, it looks SOMEWHAT suspicious that, everytime Azarenka has retired from a match this year, she's been back playing matches seemingly miraculously healed from the injury in barely a week. Interestingly, the WTA already has a rule along this train of thought - anyone who retires from a match is banned from playing any qualifying rounds for another event that week.

The way Azarenka keeps retiring - as well as, in the past, Bartoli and perhaps at times Jankovic, and Djokovic in the men's game - makes the sport look like a joke. Why is it that everyone apart from this select few understands that you ONLY retire if you're absolutely physically incapable of carrying on 'til the end of the match? Federer has NEVER retired from a match. On the one occasion Nadal has retired in the past 3 years (in his AO10 QF vs Murray), it was only for an injury so serious that he didn't play again after that for 6 weeks. Sharapova even completed a match right before she went on a 10-month layoff for her shoulder injury. Yet Azarenka retires due to minor groin strains, blisters and slight twinges in the shoulder - minor injuries that most other players are professional and mentally tough enough to play through.

If the rule I suggest was brought in, I don't see how players can complain - if they need to take such an exceptional step that they have to retire from a match because they're physically incapable of finishing, then the injury should be serious that there should be no way they'd be ready to play another tournament within a few days. And I'm pretty sure we'd suddenly see the amount of matches Azarenka retires from drop drastically. Had the rule been in place today, I suspect Azarenka would've suddenly found she could've survived another 4 games against Bartoli without her body disintegrating. And she'd've still showed up at Wimbledon on Monday/Tuesday nice and healthy.

Thoughts?

DownInAHole
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:14 AM
I disagree. I do not think any player should be put in a position where they might play with an injury just so they can compete in a week. There are situations where it is frustrating to see players retiring but I think if you implemented that rule that some "innocent" players with legitimate injuries would suffer because of it.

Stonerpova
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:21 AM
I feel like that rule would be detrimental to the tour. For one, it would encourage tanking, and two, it would encourage injured players to continue in matches they should be retiring in, risking further injury.

dsanders06
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:22 AM
I disagree. I do not think any player should be put in a position where they might play with an injury just so they can compete in a week. There are situations where it is frustrating to see players retiring but I think if you implemented that rule that some "innocent" players with legitimate injuries would suffer because of it.

No innocent player would suffer, because if a retirement is legitimate (i.e. a player is absolutely physically incapable of playing the match), then the injury would be so serious that they'd be out for much more than a week anyway. :shrug: I mean these players know their bodies, they'll usually know if it's something really serious or something minor. I mean, Azarenka retired from a semifinal in Montreal last year because of BLISTERS - that's not wanting to prevent further injury, that's her not being mentally tough enough to play through the pain even though she would be more than physically capable of it.

dsanders06
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:24 AM
I feel like that rule would be detrimental to the tour. For one, it would encourage tanking, and two, it would encourage injured players to continue in matches they should be retiring in, risking further injury.

Again, I disagree. If a player is very seriously injured, then they'd know they'd be out of the game for a while so would have no qualms about retiring and being banned for a week. And if it was something minor like most of Azarenka's injuries, there would be no serious injury to worsen. :shrug:

Kworb
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:25 AM
Yes. These people are getting paid big money to play a match. You can't just retire due to a little ache. There should be consequences.

JCTennisFan
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:26 AM
Sounds good to me, or at the least give them a relatively high fine for retiring then competing the next week in another tournie. this, along with the growing issues of in-game coaching are the biggest issues that need to be addressed currently. Well aside from the obvious shortening of the schedule which would largely solve this problem in an of itself, but they wouldnt do that now would they? :shrug:

Uranus
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:27 AM
Uhm, no.

I feel like that rule would be detrimental to the tour. For one, it would encourage tanking, and two, it would encourage injured players to continue in matches they should be retiring in, risking further injury.
Indeed. Plus all injuries are not serious, yet they prevent you from ending a match - unless you want to aggravate it. Illness doesn't often last very long.

Ralph214
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:27 AM
I disagree. For example, what if Anna Chak faints on court and had to retire? That doesn't mean she is not healthy enough to play next week :shrug:

DownInAHole
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:30 AM
No innocent player would suffer, because if a retirement is legitimate (i.e. a player is absolutely physically incapable of playing the match), then the injury would be so serious that they'd be out for much more than a week anyway. :shrug: I mean these players know their bodies, they'll usually know if it's something really serious or something minor. I mean, Azarenka retired from a semifinal in Montreal last year because of BLISTERS - that's not wanting to prevent further injury, that's her not being mentally tough enough to play through the pain even though she would be more than physically capable of it.

I don't think it is as simple as that. There are some injuries that a player can have that will not get worse if they keep playing but there are some that can get much worse if they keep playing. You would be putting the players in a position where a minor injury could turn into a major injury, I don't think that is a good idea.

dsanders06
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:35 AM
I disagree. For example, what if Anna Chak faints on court and had to retire? That doesn't mean she is not healthy enough to play next week :shrug:

I'd maybe make an exception for illness, including the concussion that made Azarenka herself retire from the US Open last year - it is feasible that an illness would prevent you from completing a match, but could clear quite quickly. But injuries are pretty black-and-white: either you're completely incapable of completing the match, and so the injury is so serious you'll be out for a while; or, if the injury is so minor that you're back on the court within a few days, then you were capable of finishing the match.

dsanders06
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:37 AM
I don't think it is as simple as that. There are some injuries that a player can have that will not get worse if they keep playing but there are some that can get much worse if they keep playing. You would be putting the players in a position where a minor injury could turn into a major injury, I don't think that is a good idea.

It's virtually physically impossible for a minor, two-day injury to turn into a major, three-month-layoff injury, just from an extra hour of playing. I've never heard of such a case (and there's a pretty big sample size - as mentioned, most of the top players in history have only retired for extremely serious injuries that have kept them out of the game for some time).

JCTennisFan
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:43 AM
And whats the problem with tanking? Id rather someone tank a match and be called a poor sport than someone who retires all the time. But yeah if someone faints then there is a problem, but you have to remember what usually causes someone to faint. You arent just gonna randomly faint unless you have something truely seriously wrong with you that is undiagnosed or there is an excessive amount of heat on court, which in that case the players should of been taken off the court way before the point that fainting would happen due to heat rules.

Marlene
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:50 AM
No.

gc-spurs
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:55 AM
No. What if you think an injury is bad so you stop, and assessment tells you its fine for next week?

pedropt
Jun 17th, 2011, 01:10 AM
:facepalm:

Graftard
Jun 17th, 2011, 01:13 AM
Retirerenka shouldn't be allowed to play Wimby or she'll waste people's money again retiring when a set and a break down :o

DownInAHole
Jun 17th, 2011, 01:43 AM
Retirerenka shouldn't be allowed to play Wimby or she'll waste people's money again retiring when a set and a break down :o

To be fair to Viktoria of her four retirements this year in two of them she had won the first set. One of them she was down a break but it was very early in the first set. Today's retirement against Marion was the first time this year that she retired after losing the first set.

In The Zone
Jun 17th, 2011, 02:20 AM
Yes. These people are getting paid big money to play a match. You can't just retire due to a little ache. There should be consequences.

Why?

In The Zone
Jun 17th, 2011, 02:21 AM
Retirerenka shouldn't be allowed to play Wimby or she'll waste people's money again retiring when a set and a break down :o

Barring Azarenka collapsing to the floor, she won't retire in a slam. Besides, a sick Azarenka is still top 20.

networthy
Jun 17th, 2011, 02:36 AM
I agree.

Graftard
Jun 17th, 2011, 02:55 AM
Barring Azarenka collapsing to the floor, she won't retire in a slam. Besides, a sick Azarenka is still top 20.

She retired in AO 2010 and USO 2010.

I'm sorry but, her excuses for retiring are lame. 10 retirements in last 1 1/2 years shows she has no respect for the game.

WeiWei
Jun 17th, 2011, 07:03 AM
The rule will absolutely influence innocent players. After all, players like Azarenka are just exceptions.

lynxy
Jun 17th, 2011, 09:11 AM
Yes. For the sake of their health the little mites should also be given hot, therapeutic baths for a week. Together. On the webcam.

Wert.
Jun 17th, 2011, 09:12 AM
BIG AGREE :bowdown:

Vartan
Jun 17th, 2011, 09:13 AM
You can make a small injury that can take 3-5 days to heal worse by continuing playing.

Shepster
Jun 17th, 2011, 09:31 AM
The way Azarenka keeps retiring - as well as, in the past, Bartoli and perhaps at times Jankovic, and Djokovic in the men's game - makes the sport look like a joke.
...
Had the rule been in place today, I suspect Azarenka would've suddenly found she could've survived another 4 games against Bartoli without her body disintegrating. And she'd've still showed up at Wimbledon on Monday/Tuesday nice and healthy.

Thoughts?
I've seen Bartoli play out a match instead of retiring a few years ago at Brum. It annoyed the hell out of me afterwards because I'd been cheering for her even though it was pointless. If you can't be competitive physically, don't make people continue with the charade. And staying with your examples Azarenka last year at Eastbourne, what on earth was the point in that? You're just watching a car crash if you make injured players stand there for 4 games and tank a match just for the sake of "not retiring".

Andreas
Jun 17th, 2011, 09:36 AM
What an absolutely embarrassing suggestion from the OP :lol: Why risk worsening a minor injury the week before a Grand Slam? There is so much talk here about how these 4 tournaments should be the main focus of a player's schedule, and now you say that it would be a good idea to get injured right before them? :facepalm:

DownInAHole
Jun 17th, 2011, 10:23 AM
I've seen Bartoli play out a match instead of retiring a few years ago at Brum. It annoyed the hell out of me afterwards because I'd been cheering for her even though it was pointless. If you can't be competitive physically, don't make people continue with the charade. And staying with your examples Azarenka last year at Eastbourne, what on earth was the point in that? You're just watching a car crash if you make injured players stand there for 4 games and tank a match just for the sake of "not retiring".

True. Anyone that watched Sharapova and Azarenka at Rome had to have noticed how weak Viktoria's forehand became after the injury. If she had kept playing it would have been pathetically one-sided with Maria hitting endless winners off of Viktoria's extremely weak shots.

I'm fairly neutral about Viktoria but in the two retirements I witnessed this year she was legitimately injured. Against Caroline Wozniacki at Indian Wells her movement was noticeably compromised after she hurt her knee.

I do agree that it is odd that after she retired against Caroline she won Miami the next week and when she retired against Julia Goerges in Stuttgart she went on to win Madrid but I don't think she is faking or retiring with minor injuries, at least in the matches I have watched.

Maria rocks
Jun 17th, 2011, 10:24 AM
I think it depends. If they are proper injured they wouldn't be able to play the following week anyway!!!

Just Do It
Jun 17th, 2011, 11:57 AM
Yes, but only for Azarenka.

mandy7
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:11 PM
Of course not.
When i call in sick on a wednesday, does that mean i'm not capable of working again on monday?
Nope.
(i wish though)

But that'd be ridiculous!

markdelaney
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:17 PM
If a player retires from a final qualifying round match for a tournament, they should not be allowed to get a LL into the main draw. Their participation in that tournament's singles event, should end with their retirement.

dsanders06
Jun 17th, 2011, 12:17 PM
Of course not.
When i call in sick on a wednesday, does that mean i'm not capable of working again on monday?
Nope.
(i wish though)

But that'd be ridiculous!

That's illness. A physical injury by its very nature is either so serious that it will take a few weeks atleast to recover from, or if it's so minor that you can play again in a few days, then it wasn't necessary to retire in the first place.


You can make a small injury that can take 3-5 days to heal worse by continuing playing.

Examples of this? Like I said earlier, I've never heard of a player who turned a minor, two-day injury (like blisters or a sore groin - some examples of Azarenka's retirements), into a major injury which required a long layoff, just from playing another hour of tennis. It's virtually impossible. I'm not denying these minor injuries that Azarenka suffers are painful, but unlike the likes of Federer/Nadal/Williams sisters/Sharapova, she is too wimpy to play through the pain / doesn't want to lose properly.

pov
Jun 17th, 2011, 03:36 PM
- There are injuries where you just can't play anymore that day that do heal to a playable level in the next couple days. Do you play any sports? I ask because that happens in any sport I can think of.

- The fact that it's only a few people who retire a lot means it doesn't make the tours look bad. Djokovic stood out because he was #3 in the world.

open your eyes
Jun 17th, 2011, 08:36 PM
Ridiculous.

Those should be banned, who constantly escape playing anything apart 4 events a year. Names are known. Those should be banned who doesn't feel like playing preparatory events.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jun 17th, 2011, 08:46 PM
people who are seriously injured don't even play the next week anyways... if it's bad enough to prevent you on the day from giving your best effort, and/or could get worse by playing with it, then you retire/withdraw.... a slight strain could turn into a tear or worse and lead to months out...


you don't go to the doctor and think because he says you're fine accept it when you know you don't...:shrug:

JCTennisFan
Jun 17th, 2011, 08:59 PM
You also have to realize that some players are just simply better or worse at covering up if they are injured. And also some players appear to have better tolerance for the pain than others. In azarenka's case I believe she has honestly appeared injured then miraculously healed soon after because she is making a hissy fit out of injuries that in reality arent all that serious. Sure she appeared to have hampered movement, because she is, whether she knows it or not, overreacting to the injury and purposfully cuttng down her movement. Or in the match against Sharapova, she more than likely intentionally cut out most her power because she was overreacting to the minor injury she sustained.

I think we all know some people are more "dramatic" than others, and the same injury can appear really serious by the reaction one person gives or not too serious at all by another.

miffedmax
Jun 17th, 2011, 08:59 PM
Yes. By all means force players to turn minor injuries into major ones that will take months to heal. Because having a player like Vika drop out of a match is so much more frustrating for fans that going 5 months without Venus playing.

Everybody's tolerance for pain and ability to recover from injury is different. I tried to be a Mr. Macho back in high school during a soccer game and my back is still fucked up whereas if I'd just come of the pitch and taken a few weeks off I'd have avoided a lifetime of expensive problems. And I don't depend on my body for my living (thank God).

I'm not sure sitting on your couch eating chips qualifies you as much of a medical expert on sports injuries. At least I've suffered a few, as well as nursed my kids through any number of bruises, strains, and other minor injuries.

Elisse
Jun 17th, 2011, 09:13 PM
For me the more important one is, if a player retires 'injured' from a singles match...then they shouldn't be allowed to play in the doubles of the same tourney.

So many times, including at RG this year...players retire 'injured' from singles, then 'magically' make a recovery and can play doubles with no sign of any injury at all....I seriously think that should be banned...

GoofyDuck
Jun 17th, 2011, 09:18 PM
In Azarenka's case i support this!

FORZA SARITA
Jun 17th, 2011, 09:20 PM
For me the more important one is, if a player retires 'injured' from a singles match...then they shouldn't be allowed to play in the doubles of the same tourney.

So many times, including at RG this year...players retire 'injured' from singles, then 'magically' make a recovery and can play doubles with no sign of any injury at all....I seriously think that should be banned...

Petrova is the Queen in this :weirdo: she's a disgrace.

open your eyes
Jun 17th, 2011, 09:22 PM
If the really normal rule was implemented - the rule that didn't allow a player skip all the tourneys apart slams - then the Williams sisters and Clijsters would have been banned for life. Rightfully so.

Kim's_fan_4ever
Jun 17th, 2011, 09:30 PM
If the really normal rule was implemented - the rule that didn't allow a player skip all the tourneys apart slams - then the Williams sisters and Clijsters would have been banned for life. Rightfully so.

That's not tea. Tea loved Clijsters :(

dsanders06
Jun 17th, 2011, 10:26 PM
ou also have to realize that some players are just simply better or worse at covering up if they are injured. And also some players appear to have better tolerance for the pain than others. In azarenka's case I believe she has honestly appeared injured then miraculously healed soon after because she is making a hissy fit out of injuries that in reality arent all that serious. Sure she appeared to have hampered movement, because she is, whether she knows it or not, overreacting to the injury and purposfully cuttng down her movement. Or in the match against Sharapova, she more than likely intentionally cut out most her power because she was overreacting to the minor injury she sustained.

Yeah, absolutely, this is what I mean. I'm not saying Azarenka is a liar and that she completely invents these injuries - in fact, any player who's averaging 15 matches a month and said they DIDN'T pick up a few minor injuries would probably be lying. But I am saying that, most of the time, the injuries she has are nowhere near serious enough to warrant a retirement. Like you say, she is generally a drama queen and rather mentally brittle, so she just lets the injury massively get into her head, she blows it massively out of proportion in her own mind, and it stops her playing well. Also, whereas a Serena or Sharapova would always stay out on court while they're injured purely because they'd believe they could still win and/or their opponent might choke, Azarenka doesn't have that same belief, she thinks she can't pull out a win if she's not 100%, so she thinks why should she bother.


Yes. By all means force players to turn minor injuries into major ones that will take months to heal. Because having a player like Vika drop out of a match is so much more frustrating for fans that going 5 months without Venus playing.

Everybody's tolerance for pain and ability to recover from injury is different. I tried to be a Mr. Macho back in high school during a soccer game and my back is still fucked up whereas if I'd just come of the pitch and taken a few weeks off I'd have avoided a lifetime of expensive problems. And I don't depend on my body for my living (thank God).

Absolutely - a few weeks' off. If it's a very serious injury that would require a lengthy layoff, then of course they should retire - and a player wouldn't resist doing it under my proposed rule, because they'd know they wouldn't be playing the next week anyway so the ban would be meaningless. But would your back have been completely recovered the following week? Would you have been able to get back to playing six football ( :p ) matches within a week against the top teams in your league immediately? If so, it would be the first I'd heard of such a case (a very short term injury that would have been 'fixed' of its own accord within a few days, turned into a lifetime injury just from an hour or so of playing on it).

And even if general retirements are kosher - do you really think quitting a match because of blisters, like Azarenka did in Montreal last year, is an acceptable excuse? Would she really have done long-term damage by playing on blisters?

Volcana
Jun 17th, 2011, 11:47 PM
That's illness. A physical injury by its very nature is either so serious that it will take a few weeks atleast to recover from, or if it's so minor that you can play again in a few days, then it wasn't necessary to retire in the first place.You/ve made that arguement several times, and it's wrong.

I myself had what felt like a minor muscle pull, but as a precaution, had it wrapped and kept playing. During a hard sprint a half hour later, I had to stop fast, and I ripped my hamstring so bad I couldn't even drive, much less play. That whole arguement on your part makes absolutely no sense, unless you're a total couch potato who never plays sports at max effort.

As for the other problems with the idea, you're punishing next week's tournament, by depriving it of a player they may have spent significant money advertising. You're punishing the fans who might have bought tickets to the tournament just to see that player. And be sire, the fans won;t blame the player, because she'll be on twtitter telling all her fans that she's fine, but the WTA won't let her play. As for lost income, she just go for a wild card further up the year. The players can make up lost income. The tournaments can't. That won't matter to the slams, but you could easily kill an Internationale. Suppose Sharapova retires from a match. Who's ranked high enough right now that you could compell them to take the tournament in her place, who would draw near the attention? Both Williams sisters are outside the top twenty right now. Which means, if I have the rules right, that they can't be the guaranteed top ten, or top twenty players at tournaments.

Your solution is to tell Sharapova's next scheduled tournament, which may have committed significant monies in marketing to her presence, 'tough luck'.

The structure of professional tennis makes your concept unworkable. And in any event, it's mean spirited. You want injured players to risk further injury for your entertainment. There's a famous recent example of that. Venus Williams player the 2003 Wimbledon final with an ab injury 'not serious enough to keep her from playing'.

After which, she was out half a year, and literally was never the same player again. Before that match, she'd made 5 out of 6 slams finals. She's only made four slam finals in the ensuing twenty-two slams.

Players who retire are ALREADY penalized. They don't get the money that WINNING would have earned them.

Marlene
Jun 17th, 2011, 11:52 PM
And even if general retirements are kosher - do you really think quitting a match because of blisters, like Azarenka did in Montreal last year, is an acceptable excuse? Would she really have done long-term damage by playing on blisters?


The difference between retiring with a smallish blister and playing on for another 30 minutes or more could very well be a couple of days off vs 3 weeks of immobilisation with an infected foot/hand.

dsanders06
Jun 18th, 2011, 12:04 AM
You/ve made that arguement several times, and it's wrong.

I myself had what felt like a minor muscle pull, but as a precaution, had it wrapped and kept playing. During a hard sprint a half hour later, I had to stop fast, and I ripped my hamstring so bad I couldn't even drive, much less play. That whole arguement on your part makes absolutely no sense, unless you're a total couch potato who never plays sports at max effort.

How bad was the muscle pull in the first place, and how long did the hamstring take to heal?

As for the other problems with th idea, you're punishing next week's tournament, by depriving it of a player they may have spent significant money advertising. You're punishing the fans who might have bought tickets to the tournament just to see that player

And what about the spectators who've bought a ticket to see the match where someone retired? That has far more repercussions on support for the sport than a top player withdrawing before the tournament starts - people would rather see two people complete a full match even if they're nonentities, than see a top player play a set then throw in the towel because of blisters or a pulled muscle. Not to mention the fact that it sends out a message the sport is corrupt, or that it's a joke that somone can get to world #4 despite having such low pain thresholds.

Suppose Sharapova retires from a match. Who's ranked high enough right now that you could compell them to take the tournament in her place, who would draw near the attention? Both Williams sisters are outside the top twenty right now. Which means, if I have the rules right, that they can't be the guaranteed top ten, or top twenty players at tournaments.

Your solution is to tell Sharapova's next scheduled tournament, which may have committed significant monies in marketing to her presence, 'tough luck'.

But this scenario would very rarely arise, because Sharapova and most other elite players (male and female) NEVER retire unless it's such a serious injury that they're out for weeks afterwards. Remember that Azarenka is one of the few exceptions. Find me one time that Sharapova, Serena, Venus, Clijsters, Federer, Nadal, Murray or even the recent Djokovic retired from a match tehn played another tournament within two weeks.

In any case, even for Azarenka, this rule in effect probably wouldn't even result in her having to withdraw from tournaments, because, because of the threat of getting a ban, she'd complete her matches despite her blisters, lose, and then show up to her next tournament fine.

Players who retire are ALREADY penalized. They don;t get the money that WINNING would have earned them.

Azarenka only retires when she's resigned herself to losing.

Shepster
Jun 18th, 2011, 12:12 AM
Azarenka only retires when she's resigned herself to losing.
3 of her last 5 retirements were when she was a set up :shrug:

Soliloque
Jun 18th, 2011, 12:14 AM
If the really normal rule was implemented - the rule that didn't allow a player skip all the tourneys apart slams - then the Williams sisters and Clijsters would have been banned for life. Rightfully so.

Let them alone. Keep your hands away from your keyboard and never come back here.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbixbxQdpK1qe0eclo1_500.gif

dsanders06
Jun 18th, 2011, 12:16 AM
3 of her last 5 retirements were when she was a set up :shrug:

Yeah, but like JCapFan was saying before, she doesn't have the mental toughness or self-belief like a Serena or Sharapova to believe she can win a match without being 100%, or to play through the pain. Like I say, I don't deny that she's always injured when she retires - I'm just saying her injuries aren't serious enough for her to retire.

KournikovaFan91
Jun 18th, 2011, 12:46 AM
I can't imagine the following week's tournament would be too happy that say a major player would not be permitted to play just because they retired the week before.

Volcana
Jun 18th, 2011, 12:53 AM
How bad was the muscle pull in the first place, and how long did the hamstring take to heal?The pull was bad enough that I had it wrapped, and the hamstring took six weeks to heal. And remember, while I'm a pretty good athlete, I can't run nearly as fast as these players. They put a LOT more stress on their muscles.
And what about the spectators who've bought a ticket to see the match where someone retired? That has far more repercussions on support for the sport than a top player withdrawing before the tournament startsThat's pure speculation.
In virtually all sports, people get injured and can't play. It doesn't hurt the National Football League. And NFL players play a MUCH more violent sport, suffer much worse injuries, and come back to play the next week.
But this scenario would very rarely arise, because Sharapova and most other elite players (male and female) NEVER retire unless it's such a serious injury that they're out for weeks afterwards. Remember that Azarenka is one of the few exceptions.
Making a rule to penalize Azarenka is absurd. She's already penalizing herself. I get it pisses you off, but Azarenka's career is it's own reward.

brickhousesupporter
Jun 18th, 2011, 01:02 AM
As someone qualified to say.......the original posters point of view is complete shit.

Shepster
Jun 18th, 2011, 01:27 AM
Yeah, but like JCapFan was saying before, she doesn't have the mental toughness or self-belief like a Serena or Sharapova to believe she can win a match without being 100%, or to play through the pain. Like I say, I don't deny that she's always injured when she retires - I'm just saying her injuries aren't serious enough for her to retire.
Well given what happened in the Eastbourne final last year, frankly I don't blame her for not believing she can win when injured. If ever she was going to, that was it, and it was a joke Vika even made it close. Having seen an injured player play out a match in person, here's my take on it: there are times when a player can physically finish the match by standing at the other end and net 8/12/16 times to lose the last 2/3/4 games, but really, truly, what is the point? I definitely felt more cheated as a paying fan watching a player error her way to the finish (not deliberately, but because of the injury) and finding out afterwards she was just going through the motions and it wasn't actually a contest. If it's going to be that, then I'd *rather* they retire.

Marlene
Jun 18th, 2011, 02:42 AM
Well given what happened in the Eastbourne final last year, frankly I don't blame her for not believing she can win when injured. If ever she was going to, that was it, and it was a joke Vika even made it close. Having seen an injured player play out a match in person, here's my take on it: there are times when a player can physically finish the match by standing at the other end and net 8/12/16 times to lose the last 2/3/4 games, but really, truly, what is the point? I definitely felt more cheated as a paying fan watching a player error her way to the finish (not deliberately, but because of the injury) and finding out afterwards she was just going through the motions and it wasn't actually a contest. If it's going to be that, then I'd *rather* they retire.

Agree. Even if it's something like blisters - if the player can't hold/control the racquet properly because of blisters, what's the point in continuing?

Volcana
Jun 18th, 2011, 04:14 AM
Like I say, I don't deny that she's always injured when she retires - I'm just saying her injuries aren't serious enough for her to retire.How are you in any position to say what's 'serious'?


Pain is subjective. I worked with dancers who were a leaf on the wind on stage, who we had to CARRY to their entrance, they were so badly injured. And I know people who can't get out of bed when they have a misquito bite. Really brilliant people who are great at their jobs.

orka_irl
Jun 18th, 2011, 04:49 AM
As for the other problems with the idea, you're punishing next week's tournamentYou are also punishing tournaments in the weeks before big events, particularly grand slams - would Azarenka even have turned up at Eastbourne if there was even the slightest possibility she might be banned from playing Wimbledon the following week? Would ANY player want to put themselves in a situation where they might be banned from a grand slam, or Miami? Why would they when they can plan their schedule differently and run no risk. Even the most conscientious players get injured and have to retire - but they can often be put back together enough for a grand slam where there's a match every second day and they might not start until Tuesday.