Heavily booed Tipsarevic retiring from Bercy was patethic

[GoodVibrations]

Originally Posted by Torres

Different people have different attitudes to this. Clearly, its something that bothers you, but I don't see why it should. With the exception of a final, the only match that has any relevance to me is the last match that I play in the particular tournament. Fully completing a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round match means as little to me as if my opponent retires at 0-4 in the second set. If an opponent is on his way out and wants to retire, they so be it. There's nothing I gain from from completing it. It would be like playing a 3.5 - you go through the motions but don't gain anything from it. I'd rather save my energy for the next round. Maybe you're just a young buck, but I don't like adding mileage to my body with meaningless matches if I don't have to, because the wear starts accumulating by the time you're 30+.

I appreciate you explaining this rationale but I don't think it really applies here. I doubt Janowicz winning five more points would have really put too much more use and abuse on his body.

[Zildite]

Originally Posted by Roger Wawrinka

Isn't he already at the Ferrer/Berdych/Tsonga level

He has never made a singles final above a 250, so not really.

[Torres]

Originally Posted by GoodVibrations

I appreciate you explaining this rationale but I don't think it really applies here. I doubt Janowicz winning five more points would have really put too much more use and abuse on his body.

No, but sometimes you've just had enough. Some days you're on, some days you're not. Don't get me wrong - as a courtesy Tipsarevic should have seen it through particularly when there's a paying crowd - but if he retires, he retires. Its not like 5 points is going make a difference or result in him staging a comeback (though we're really talking about 3 games, since you'd expect Tipsarevic to hold). The match is already lost and Tipsarevic has already switched off. Again, not that I agree with Tipsarevic's approach but it is a small tournament which he's using to prepare for the O2, so I'm not sure that he deserves the ire given to him by the OP. Would people rather he do a Tomic and just tank the rest of the match?

[sundaypunch]

Tank or retire without a valid reason - it is all the same to me. Either way you are a quitter.

[Torres]

^ Who cares?

You're always going to lose to somebody and you're always going to have your off days. Stringing out a loss when you're having an off-day is pointless.

[tacou]

Jeez. Even less excited for this guy to be in at the WTF. What a strange, embarrassing record

[diggler]

Originally Posted by Fugazi

Man, what planet do you live on? Mauresmo-Henin at the AO final is an example. Personally I once experienced a guy pulling out as I was leading 12-7 in the 5th (in squash), and it was somewhat of a cheap shot even though the guy indeed looked injured. He could've tried outright winners for 3-4 points and take it like a man. I once pulled out of a squash match in which I had won the 1st two games, but that's a different story (couldn't run anymore, the match was still young and there was risk of making my injury worse).

As I said before, I was very grateful when an opponent gave up against me. You wanted a guy who was injured to "take it like a man". We are obviously on different planets.

If I won a grand slam final and the opponent retired on the brink of defeat, would I feel empty? Not one bit.

Having said all that, I still think Tipsy owes it to the fans to have a go, as long as he is not injured.

[Tennisguy3000]

Lame, finish your match like a man Loser!

[Candide]

It would be good to be able to punish obvious tanking (Tomic?) with a hefty fine but I guess it'd be too hard to police. "Ooh, ooh, crampy cramp!"

[skraggle]

This proposal just does not hold up:

Originally Posted by nereis

This is an interesting thread.

While it is easy to label Tipsarevic all sorts of nasty names, if we are to make a normative claim that he should have finished the match we have to address the very legitimate counterclaims to that position.

For example, his premises may be as follows:

1. As a professional player I must maximise my earnings over my career

Rebuttal: Winner of match makes more than loser of match.

2. Injury and fatigue will impede me from progressing through tournaments.

Rebuttal: This is true of ALL players. Yet the tough ones fight on.

3. As a journeyman, I am unlikely to get significant endorsement income.

Rebuttal: The number #9 ranked player in the world is not a journeyman. In addition, he is sponsored by Oakley, Tecnifbre and Fila.

4. All the money I earn will come from prize money.

Rebuttal: Top players routinely get appearance money to play in certain tournaments. As a top ten player, he will get these offers. He also plays in exhibition matches where he is compensated (like the upcoming Clash of Champions).

5. I will maximise prize money by maximising the number of rounds I go through over my career.

Rebuttal: You make more by winning later rounds than retiring early.

6. I am unlikely to succeed in making a comeback in this match.

Rebuttal: Classic quitter's mentality. You will never see this from someone like David Ferrer and other players with heart.

7. Retiring will allow me to recover marginally quicker and prepare for the next tournament.

Rebuttal: Yes, and playing one point of your opening round match and then quitting will make you even fresher.

C: Retiring from this match at this point will allow me to yield a higher return over my career than continuing.

Rebuttal: This might be true, but it pales in comparison to the label you earn as being soft and a quitter. Djokovic was thought of this way earlier in his career, and now he's the toughest out in tennis.

In order to posit that he has made the wrong choice, we would have to establish that he has an objectively good reason to continue. Remember the legacy of Hume, and that we have to refute Hume in order to claim that there are objective moral truths (as has been implicitly claimed by some people in this thread).

[sundaypunch]

Originally Posted by Torres

^ Who cares?

You're always going to lose to somebody and you're always going to have your off days. Stringing out a loss when you're having an off-day is pointless.

Obviously you have no problem with being a quitter. With that being the case, there is no point in explaining it any further.

[Paullaconte1]

Nadal kept on playing the AO 2011 with David Ferrer in the quarters when he was completely unable to compete.

He lost 6-4 6-2 6-3 and even if it was clear that he wasn't playing even at his 20% he finished the match and he did many compliments to Ferrer.

That's sportsmanship, that's tennis!

[skraggle]

Originally Posted by Paullaconte1

Nadal kept on playing the AO 2011 with David Ferrer in the quarters when he was completely unable to compete.

He lost 6-4 6-2 6-3 and even if it was clear that he wasn't playing even at his 20% he finished the match and he did many compliments to Ferrer.

That's sportsmanship, that's tennis!

Great example. Though some in this thread would argue that such a display of courage and determination has no value...

[diggler]

Very interesting thread.

Quitter is being used as a derogatory word here. That is because people have a particular mind set. Why is it so bad to quit? I assume it is ok for a boxer who is getting his head punched in to quit or maybe he is going to be labelled a quitter too.

You have a job that sucks so you quit. Are you going to bag him out too?

I raised chess before. Is it ok to quit from a hopeless position or are we going to criticize chess players too?

[GoodVibrations]

This Twitter is hilarious (no, I didn't make it):

https://twitter.com/suddenfatigue

[diggler]

Originally Posted by Paullaconte1

Nadal kept on playing the AO 2011 with David Ferrer in the quarters when he was completely unable to compete.

He lost 6-4 6-2 6-3 and even if it was clear that he wasn't playing even at his 20% he finished the match and he did many compliments to Ferrer.

That's sportsmanship, that's tennis!

This is a fascinating post. What is sportsmanship? We all have different interpretations. Yesterday I admitted that a ball struck by an opponent touched me before going out. I call that sportsmanship.

re the Nadal example quoted above, that may be your definition of sportsmanship. It is very different from mine.

We all have different value systems. I'm not criticizing you or Nadal.

[sundaypunch]

The irony is that Janko has been outspoken about how the male players deserve more money than the female players. One of his arguments is that the men have to play best of 5 at the slams. They should make more money because they have to play longer, yet he has no problem short-changing the fans with a bogus retirement. If everyone retired when they were down a set and a break sponsorship money would all but disappear.

Unfortunately I'm not surprised that there are people that think it's perfectly fine to quit when there is a bit of adversity. They have been probably taught that and will continue to pass it down.

[Tennisguy3000]

Foe anyone that missed the match... highlights here: http://youtu.be/_5qiUxuqvXU?t=3m9s

[Paullaconte1]

Originally Posted by GoodVibrations

This Twitter is hilarious (no, I didn't make it):

https://twitter.com/suddenfatigue

Love it! Especially the tweet saying that there are tickets avaible to see Tipsarevic - Federer... at least for few games

[jamesblakefan#1]

Originally Posted by Zildite

He has never made a singles final above a 250, so not really.

Not only that, but the guy's only made 2 career slam QFs in 35 slam appearances.

Originally Posted by sundaypunch

The irony is that Janko has been outspoken about how the male players deserve more money than the female players. One of his arguments is that the men have to play best of 5 at the slams. They should make more money because they have to play longer, yet he has no problem short-changing the fans with a bogus retirement. If everyone retired when they were down a set and a break sponsorship money would all but disappear.

Basically, as noted above, Janko's just not good enough to make the deeper parts of slams consistently, so instead of working to get better to earn more, he wants to blame it on the women, some of whom obviously DO work harder than him since they have more success.