Should Nick Kyrgios have played out Set 2 in Dubai?

[britbox]

So NK retires at 0-3 down in the second set... had medical help at numerous stages to help with the back.

Regardless of this, should he have gone through the motions and just played out the match even if was likely to be an inevitable bagel?

 

[Denis]

No point really. He gets injured a lot already.

 

[Moxie]

No, it was a QF, and he had a whole set to get through. I'm not in favor of players retiring out of a final, if it can at all be avoided. (I'll be honest, I always thought it was poor form of Djoker to bail on the Cincy final v. Murray with only 3 games to go.) He was having back trouble in the match v. Berdy, too, so there's no sense in making it any worse. I guess he won't be playing DC next week.

 

[Billie]

What would be the point? So that we can see him double faulting and smashing the ball into the net for 3 more games? I understand players trying to give it a go, but once it turns ugly, it is better to just quit, otherwise they are really asking for trouble. Can we really fault them for wanting to save themselves from creating bigger issues?

I actually did see this match, just before I went to work, and Nick did look stiff and tired. They are professionals, yes, but they are also human.

Frankly I like it less when they don't even try to play or skip one match and then they play another week as if nothing happened previously. Stuff happens.

 

[Moxie]

What would be the point? So that we can see him double faulting and smashing the ball into the net for 3 more games? I understand players trying to give it a go, but once it turns ugly, it is better to just quit, otherwise they are really asking for trouble. Can we really fault them for wanting to save themselves from creating bigger issues?

I actually did see this match, just before I went to work, and Nick did look stiff and tired. They are professionals, yes, but they are also human.

Frankly I like it less when they don't even try to play or skip one match and then they play another week as if nothing happened previously. Stuff happens.

If you're referring to the Djokovic/Murray final (i.e., "3 more games,") I think there is a sportsmanship issue and a dignity that should be afforded a final, and to one's opponent. Novak went on to win the USO just a few weeks later, so he wasn't that crippled. I understand that he was protecting his USO, but he was in a final, and he should have played it out, IMO. Injuries are complicated things for professional athletes, but I do think sometimes they should suck it up. If you can't play at all, it's one thing. If you show up and are getting beaten, with a short run to go to the finish then, yes, I think you should see it through.

 

[Billie]

No Moxie, I was talking about this match that the topic is about. Nick was down 0:3 and Stan needed only 3 more games.

As for that match that you refer to, Nole's shoulder problems started in Montreal, additionally the rain was about to pour and interrupt that final in Cincy anyway. He also had problems in that USO final but was lucky to finish the match, and we don't know but maybe him retiring and not coming back to play after the rain did save him to finish the USO campaign. Only 6 days later during that DC tie, he tore the muscle in the shoulder and was sidelined for a couple of months.

Besides who remembers how that match finished, Andy is a deserving champion!

I guess you will remember it for forever.:spank2:

 

[Moxie]

No Moxie, I was talking about this match that the topic is about. Nick was down 0:3 and Stan needed only 3 more games.

As for that match that you refer to, Nole's shoulder problems started in Montreal, additionally the rain was about to pour and interrupt that final in Cincy anyway. He also had problems in that USO final but was lucky to finish the match, and we don't know but maybe him retiring and not coming back to play after the rain did save him to finish the USO campaign. Only 6 days later during that DC tie, he tore the muscle in the shoulder and was sidelined for a couple of months.

Besides who remembers how that match finished, Andy is a deserving champion!

I guess you will remember it for forever.:spank2:

I did think Nick had the whole set to play. But bowing out of a QF is not the same as bailing on a F. And I do remember that Novak was having shoulder issues in that period. I don't dispute that. I still think that bailing on a final with 3 games to play is rather paltry. And I remember it because it's notable, as it doesn't happen that often. You're having fun with the emoticons, I see. :lulz2:

 

[Billie]

Absolutely. There is only one poster who uses them more than I do.

Nick was down 4:6 0:3

Not playing a final completely without being injured is even worse, but it's all in the past.

 

[Moxie]

Absolutely. There is only one poster who uses them more than I do.

Nick was down 4:6 0:3

Not playing a final completely without being injured is even worse, but it's all in the past.

Gotcha. I'll never mention it again. However, not playing a final without being injured is not something I've ever heard of, I don't think. I suspect you're giving the side-eye to Roger at the YEC? Not injured? I'd like to hear your case for whomever has has skipped a final uninjured.

 

[Billie]

^^ Yeah, that is the most recent case. I've never had problems with retirements, real injuries or just hurt egos, whatever the reasons may be. Not even skipping matches completely. What's the point, really. There will always be people who will find something unethical in a retirement of one player and not other. The same as "weak era" competition. It can go around and around in circles forever.:scratch:

I wonder why @britbox started this topic? Do you think that because it was against Wawrinka, Nick didn't want to finish the match deliberately? Even if that is the case it is hard to prove, and not an issue for me. Wawrinka did retire against Nick the last time before they played today.

 

[Moxie]

^^ Yeah, that is the most recent case. I've never had problems with retirements, real injuries or just hurt egos, whatever the reasons may be. Not even skipping matches completely. What's the point, really. There will always be people who will find something unethical in a retirement of one player and not other. The same as "weak era" competition. It can go around and around in circles forever.:scratch:

I wonder why @britbox started this topic? Do you think that because it was against Wawrinka, Nick didn't want to finish the match deliberately? Even if that is the case it is hard to prove, and not an issue for me. Wawrinka did retire against Nick the last time before they played today.

"Most recent case," compared to what? Federer was suffering with his back, and it was clear in his first DC match a few days later. I'd be interested if you have other examples of people retiring before a final, though I'm sure there are some. Understandable if you don't have a problem with retirements or real injuries, fair enough, though I'm not sure at all what you mean about "hurt egos." ??

I was actually curious as to why BB went after NK for retiring. Fairly inconsequential moment. I don't think it has anything to do with anything except Nick's back.

 

[britbox]

I didn't go after him for retiring but when they are close to the finish line I prefer they just finish the match off... it's a bit more respectful to the other player. Stan only needed 3 more games.

 

[Moxie]

I had thought there was more of the 2nd set to play than that, but still, I do think a player gets to pull the rip-cord sometimes to prevent further injury, such as the QF of a 500. Plus, as Billie said, Stan retired in their last meeting, with only 2 games for Nick to win, (which is worse,) so Stan kind of "owed" him one. I think retiring out of any final should be avoided if at all possible, but sometimes, yes, you're going to protect the body from further injury and shake hands early.

 

[Ricardo]

Good point, if Stan retired last time with 2 game for Nick to win then why can't Nick?

The bad boys should just cop it no?

 

[Billie]

I had thought there was more of the 2nd set to play than that, but still, I do think a player gets to pull the rip-cord sometimes to prevent further injury, such as the QF of a 500. Plus, as Billie said, Stan retired in their last meeting, with only 2 games for Nick to win, (which is worse,) so Stan kind of "owed" him one. I think retiring out of any final should be avoided if at all possible, but sometimes, yes, you're going to protect the body from further injury and shake hands early.

Well nobody (except the player himself/herself only) knows if he or she could have finished the match. I don't want to speculate if somebody could or couldn't have, they lose so it is the same to me. I read some posts that said: oh he retired because he wanted to taint the other player's win. I was shaking my head as if I couldn't believe it. A win is a win, it is not necessary for me to play a doctor and decide that yes, he could finish (shame on him that he didn't) or no, he couldn't finish. I never cared if a player retired against Nole, nor wondered if they could have finished the match.

I think before that WTF walkover, Gonzales had a walkover in a final of Vina del Mar in 2008 over Monaco (an ankle injury prevented him to play it). Weren't there 2 walkovers in semi final of Miami 1000 Masters tournament a couple of years back? I think Nishikori didn't even play Nole and Rafa also got a walkover but I can't remember who it was. That was bad, no matches at all.

 

[Moxie]

Well nobody (except the player himself/herself only) knows if he or she could have finished the match. I don't want to speculate if somebody could or couldn't have, they lose so it is the same to me. I read some posts that said: oh he retired because he wanted to taint the other player's win. I was shaking my head as if I couldn't believe it. A win is a win, it is not necessary for me to play a doctor and decide that yes, he could finish (shame on him that he didn't) or no, he couldn't finish. I never cared if a player retired against Nole, nor wondered if they could have finished the match.

I think before that WTF walkover, Gonzales had a walkover in a final of Vina del Mar in 2008 over Monaco (an ankle injury prevented him to play it). Weren't there 2 walkovers in semi final of Miami 1000 Masters tournament a couple of years back? I think Nishikori didn't even play Nole and Rafa also got a walkover but I can't remember who it was. That was bad, no matches at all.

So, on the one hand you're saying that retirements are fine, because no one knows how complicated it is for a player to continue, but that walkovers are bad for the crowd, or tennis? Let's think about it this way: the difference between a walkover and a retirement is when the player decides they are unfit to either play at all, or to continue the match. Both are personal decisions about their own health and fitness. Personally, I can respect those positions, and my only caveat is: if you walk on court ready to play a final, you should endeavor to see it out.

 

[Billie]

Nah, it doesn't matter to me. You don't play, you start and quit, you don't win in any case. Except when you don't even start, you don't get a loss in your record. So it is really better to not start at all, regardless if you can or cannot. And do you really know that they couldn't have played that match at all? You know it because they don't even show up for the match or they tell us they couldn't play? But you know that they could have finished a set or 3 more games without jeopardising their health further?

It doesn't make sense (to me) to even contemplate this.

I don't think that respect is the first thing that comes to mind when talking about matches between these two, not yet.

 

[Moxie]

I really don't think that players calculate whether they get a L or not when they decide to bail on a match. In general, that can't be an easy decision. At this level, they're huge competitors, and it can't be easy to back off, especially without making the effort. There are moments that do surprise. One is when Roger bailed on the WTF v. Djokovic in 2014, due to his back. There was a strong feeling that he was protecting his Davis Cup final. TBH, it was clear in his first match in that tie that his back was messed up, though he pulled it out in the end. Would Roger have bailed on the final of a Major, with no DC looming? I would doubt that. A lot of calculations go into these decisions, I'll give you that. I do think they should honor their commitments and the spirit of the sport.