Federer and Isner call for change after both male matches on centre court result in retirement

[Aussie Darcy]

"Centre Court suffered consecutive blows on day two as Martin Klizan called it quits against Novak Djokovic after 40 minutes before Alexandr Dolgopolov threw in the towel after 43 minutes against Federer.

Klizan and Dolgopolov, among others who retired in the first round, pocketed $59,000 for their efforts.

Fans were furious after paying nearly $100 for Centre Court tickets, with Federer and Djokovic almost playing a practice set to give the crowd something in return.

"When I went out, I felt like there was a bit of a let-down from the crowd. They couldn't believe that it happened again, exactly the same situation," Federer said.

"When I walked up, the chairman said 'you guys should go and play for another set and a half.' I said: 'Yeah, let me go try to find Novak.' I found him in the locker room. I told him, Maybe we should go out and play another set.

"It's not going to happen. I feel for the crowd. They're there to watch good tennis, proper tennis. At least they see the two of us who gave it all they had. They saw other players that tried at least."

The organisers moved former world No.1 Caroline Wozniacki's clash with Timea Babos to the stadium instead.

Federer was open to the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open considering following the ATP's rule change that lets a player pull out injured before a tour match but still receive first-round prize money.

A lucky loser from qualifying then takes their place and competes for prize money from the second round onwards.

"Maybe the grand slams should adopt some of that," Federer said, a stance also held by Djokovic.

The ATP tour has seen an uptick in pre-match withdrawals and fewer mid-match retirements as a result of the change.

Federer questioned players' decisions in starting games they know they are not prepared to play just to collect a cheque.

“A player should not go on court if he knows he should not finish," he said.

"The question is, did they truly believe they were going to finish? If they did, I think it's okay that they walk on court. Otherwise, I feel they should give up the spot.”

The No.23 seed Isner, who progressed to the second round with a straight-sets win over countryman Taylor Fritz, also criticised players for ignoring the fans.

"I know the Wimbledon Centre Court didn't get their money's worth today, that's for sure," he said.

"If it's just excruciating pain, okay, you can't play. If something is tweaked here or there and you feel like you can give it a decent go without hurting yourself, I think they should stay out there and I think you owe it to the fans."

But Dolgopolov and Janko Tipsarevic, who retired after just 15 minutes in his first-round match, defended themselves and others for retiring after playing injured.

Said Dolgopolov: "For most of the draw, it's significant money for the guys to pay their coaches and keep on playing."

Tipsarevic added that richer players and fans need to understand the situation for struggling players.

"You have a lot of players here who fought their way to be in the Wimbledon main draw by playing in Challengers," he said.

"So if a guy who all his life is playing Challengers suddenly has the chance to play in the Wimbledon main draw, where a first-round loss is £35,000, I don't think anybody has the right to judge him.""

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/tennis/...derer-slams-injured-players-calls-for-change/


I can see both sides of the story. Some of these tennis players earned their way into the draw and therefore deserve the big big pay day. Don't think i'd find many people willing to turn down $50,000.

But, it's a cop out to fans who've paid money for the big matches only to have these awful retirements. We saw 3 retirements in the 1R of the mens draw on Tuesday and 4 on Wednesday (Plus you could add the Tomic's match as a retirement, might as well have been)

Do you think the ATP/ITF should pay the players the prize money even if players withdraw and therefore a lucky loser gets their place and a shot at playing in the main draw? Or should we keep going the way we are going and have several retirements?

 

[Krish872007]

One of tennis's biggest questions at the moment. In these situations I would always advocate withdrawing before the match starts - LL replaces you and plays out the match. But the pay incentive is too great to ignore, so maybe slash that by at least 50% and see what happens

 

[Aussie Darcy]

While the attention has been on Tomic and his stupid comments about a lack of effort and playing simply for the $$$, we've overlooked that a bunch of other male players retired and simply collected the check. Tomic was just the only one honest about it.

Tipsarevic, Dolgopolov, Klizan, Kyrgios, Istomin, Troicki and Feliciano Lopez all retired during their 1R match.

 

[Zebrev]

Pay less for round 1 and more for round 2. If they are genuinely injured, they will back out and the LL can replace them.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

One of tennis's biggest questions at the moment. In these situations I would always advocate withdrawing before the match starts - LL replaces you and plays out the match. But the pay incentive is too great to ignore, so maybe slash that by at least 50% and see what happens

I think the ATP's current method at non slam events is that they pay the 1R prize money to the player who withdraws whilst the lucky loser doesn't get the 1R prize money. BUT if they manage to win the match then they'd get the 2R prize money or wherever they'd lose.

So it's a bonus for them, you get to play the main draw after losing and also get to play for money and rankings. That way, a random lucky loser doesn't just get this huge pay check while other players who could've been the lucky loser miss out. It's almost like the lottery in that way. Between you and someone else who gets to be a lucky loser, one person gets the money while one doesn't. Simple luck of the draw.

I think change would be perfect.

 

[big ted]

i think with all the players there they could have put some type of exhibition up... even with a senior/legend..
btw it sounds like federer asked djokovic in the locker room if he wanted to play a set & he said no?

 

[deBroglie]

I think they should split the prize money; 50% to the player who pulls out, 50% to the lucky loser. If not 50-50, some other agreeable proportion should be used.

i think with all the players there they could have put some type of exhibition up... even with a senior/legend..
btw it sounds like federer asked djokovic in the locker room if he wanted to play a set & he said no?

I don't believe that was what happened; instead, the organizers decided to put Wozniacki on Centre Court.

 

[reaper]

Perhaps just allows players one first round default in their career. A second and there's no prize money or a suspension from the tour. So many of these defaults happen as soon as the player goes down a break in the second set. They know they're not going to win, suddenly a faint niggle develops, which they've recovered from 2 weeks later to play again.

 

[clayqueen]

Federer has no room to talk having waited until the last minute before lift off at the O2, with spectators all in their hard earned seats, to walk onto court in his civvies (non-tennis kit) to hand the title to Djokovic citing back injury then went straight off to play in the DC. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Rafa goes well beyond the call of duty not to disappoint spectators by actually going through a match injured, like the AO 2014, because he puts the spectators first.

 

[LETitBE]

Federer has no room to talk having waited until the last minute before lift off at the O2, with spectators all in their hard earned seats, to walk onto court in his civvies (non-tennis kit) to hand the title to Djokovic citing back injury then went straight off to play in the DC. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Rafa goes well beyond the call of duty not to disappoint spectators by actually going through a match injured, like the AO 2014, because he puts the spectators first.

BWAHAHAHAA BWAAAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

 

[deBroglie]

Federer has no room to talk having waited until the last minute before lift off at the O2, with spectators all in their hard earned seats, to walk onto court in his civvies (non-tennis kit) to hand the title to Djokovic citing back injury then went straight off to play in the DC. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Rafa goes well beyond the call of duty not to disappoint spectators by actually going through a match injured, like the AO 2014, because he puts the spectators first.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, and I'm pretty sure it's a false equivalency. Federer had a backache that day after playing vs. Wawrinka and had to pull out. He didn't take painkillers and go on the court; he took painkillers and still couldn't play. He informed the organizers sufficiently early enough in order for them to contact Andy Murray who came out to play a practice set. I also believe there was a Legends' Doubles match that day too. It would have been similar if Federer got on the court, went down 5-0, and then retired, but that's not what happened (never in Federer's career). What Rafa did was more for his self interests (playing a slam final), but nevertheless he still played on and gave the crowd a decent Slam Final. The issue here is with the first round.

 

[albertobra]

Federer has no room to talk having waited until the last minute before lift off at the O2, with spectators all in their hard earned seats, to walk onto court in his civvies (non-tennis kit) to hand the title to Djokovic citing back injury then went straight off to play in the DC. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Rafa goes well beyond the call of duty not to disappoint spectators by actually going through a match injured, like the AO 2014, because he puts the spectators first.

Clayqueen, with all respect, that is a different situation. Federer in O2 had went through the whole torurnament, and for no other reaon than inhury, he gave up the final. We are talking here about first rounders that do know they cannot play, but go on court anyway for the check. My opinion is that this MUST be controlled so that it does not happen anymore.

I could also think about as a possibility of a ITF/ATP doctor that analizes situation of injured player, and it is up to the doctor to allow or not a player to enter court on first round.
This happens on horse races. The vet can prohibit a horce to run, if he judges that the horse is injured to the point to be dangerous for the horse to run.
Of course this happens because the horse cannot talk .

 

[MasturB]

Tournament organizers should offer compensation to those who knowingly are injured and are likely candidates to retire during a match. Offer them a fair pay for qualifying. The guys who grinded on the challenger or all the tune ups to get in should be rewarded fair compensation.

Give the spot to a lucky loser. If the tournament doesn't wanna go that route then they should offer partial refunds to paying customers. That's just the cost of doing business.

Fans get to see Nole or Rog thrash some lucky loser for 3 sets. Injured player who withdrew gets fair pay and extra rest for next tournament. And some lucky loser gets a chance of playing on centre something they most likely will never get another chance at.

 

[MasturB]

This is also a biproduct of the game getting older. Dog is 28. Klizan turning 28 in a week.

These dudes are playing week in and week out carrying injuries. They grind on the lower tournaments to get a chance for a first round paycheck.

If they could opt out and still receive fair compensation for qualifying you could give that spot to a teenager or another lucky loser that is younger and likely to not pull the retirement card.

 

[clayqueen]

I'm not sure what you're saying here, and I'm pretty sure it's a false equivalency. Federer had a backache that day after playing vs. Wawrinka and had to pull out. He didn't take painkillers and go on the court; he took painkillers and still couldn't play. He informed the organizers sufficiently early enough in order for them to contact Andy Murray who came out to play a practice set. I also believe there was a Legends' Doubles match that day too. It would have been similar if Federer got on the court, went down 5-0, and then retired, but that's not what happened (never in Federer's career). What Rafa did was more for his self interests (playing a slam final), but nevertheless he still played on and gave the crowd a decent Slam Final. The issue here is with the first round.

If you excuse Fed because you claim to know his particular circumstances, then you can't accuse others because you don't know their particular circumstances. As for Rafa playing because he wants to play in a final, that's laughable for someone who had played in umpteen slam finals. When he played with a hamstring injury against Ferrer in the QF in AO 2011, that wasn't a final. He started the match knowing he would lose but still gave the crowd something to watch.

 

[clayqueen]

Clayqueen, with all respect, that is a different situation. Federer in O2 had went through the whole torurnament, and for no other reaon than inhury, he gave up the final. We are talking here about first rounders that do know they cannot play, but go on court anyway for the check. My opinion is that this MUST be controlled so that it does not happen anymore.

I could also think about as a possibility of a ITF/ATP doctor that analizes situation of injured player, and it is up to the doctor to allow or not a player to enter court on first round.
This happens on horse races. The vet can prohibit a horce to run, if he judges that the horse is injured to the point to be dangerous for the horse to run.
Of course this happens because the horse cannot talk .

It doesn't matter which round. Federer was able to go off and play DC straight after.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Of course Clayqueen managed to turn this thread into something negative about Federer. Can we get back to the original topic?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

If you excuse Fed because you claim to know his particular circumstances, then you can't accuse others because you don't know their particular circumstances. As for Rafa playing because he wants to play in a final, that's laughable for someone who had played in umpteen slam finals. When he played with a hamstring injury against Ferrer in the QF in AO 2011, that wasn't a final. He started the match knowing he would lose but still gave the crowd something to watch.

Federer has never pulled out of a match midway in his whole career. If he has started a match, he has done his absolute best to finish it, whether he was injured or not, whether it was a slam or not. You are just looking for a fight here.

The issue being discussed is about trying to get as many healthy players at the start of the tournament as possible. It has nothing to do with players getting injured as the tournament progress, since injuries happen all the time. This is about getting the best start possible to a slam, with more healthy players. I can see it both ways, I understand the point of view of Federer and Isner, but also understand what players like Tipsa and Dolgo are saying.

 

[70後]

"When I walked up, the chairman said 'you guys should go and play for another set and a half.' I said: 'Yeah, let me go try to find Novak.' I found him in the locker room. I told him, Maybe we should go out and play another set.

I like that. At heart, I think Roger isn't too bad a chap.

Maybe it wasn't too realistic for him and Djokovic to do it in practical terms but at least he was up for it and wanted to make up to the crowd. This makes me like him more than any 18 or 20 slams.

 

[KINGROGER]

It doesn't matter which round. Federer was able to go off and play DC straight after.

Wasn't that like 8 days later though? If he played the final of the WTF he could have aggravated his back.

 

[noobforehand20]

thats a good idea about the retire and stil collect the cheque and have a LL replace you, everyone "wins", at least more than right now

 

[Bukmeikara]

Alongside Wimbledon we have the Recanati Chalenger going on. The first prize in that event is 6.5k euro or 1/5 from the first round at All England Club! The only fair solution is that ATP starts paying the players who couldnt play because of injuries but have the right to enter the draw + paying to the guys who play instead of them. Its some extra cash but in the end per Slam you would have 5 to 10 women/man that are absent or aroun 350 000 - 400 000 euro. Its not that much considering the money that the Tour makes these days

 

[sportmac]

This is a tough one.

I read that Dog had an ankle problem. Did he turn it? If so then that sounds legit - can't play tennis if you're hobbling. Or was it something else?

Klizan has had a left calf injury for months and it was obvious early on he couldn't play. So the question is was it feeling good enough in practice and he re-injured it during the match or did he know he was more than likely not going to be able to complete the match?

I like the rule that if they pull out injured they still get paid, but then that opens up for someone like Tomic to travel there, practice for a bit, then pull out claiming injury without walking on the court. He doesn't even have to go through the motions of faking it.

 

[albertobra]

This is a tough one.

I read that Dog had an ankle problem. Did he turn it? If so then that sounds legit - can't play tennis if you're hobbling. Or was it something else?

Klizan has had a left calf injury for months and it was obvious early on he couldn't play. So the question is was it feeling good enough in practice and he re-injured it during the match or did he know he was more than likely not going to be able to complete the match?

I like the rule that if they pull out injured they still get paid, but then that opens up for someone like Tomic to travel there, practice for a bit, then pull out claiming injury without walking on the court. He doesn't even have to go through the motions of faking it.

Agreed. The most simple solution is injured player cannot play. Staying healthy is part of the game.
Player has a suspect of injury? OK. If player gets on court and pulls out he gets the check, but will be prohibited to play the next 4 GS in a row.
How about this as a form of making injured player think if it worth or not playng?

 

[MasturB]

This is a tough one.

I read that Dog had an ankle problem. Did he turn it? If so then that sounds legit - can't play tennis if you're hobbling. Or was it something else?

Klizan has had a left calf injury for months and it was obvious early on he couldn't play. So the question is was it feeling good enough in practice and he re-injured it during the match or did he know he was more than likely not going to be able to complete the match?

I like the rule that if they pull out injured they still get paid, but then that opens up for someone like Tomic to travel there, practice for a bit, then pull out claiming injury without walking on the court. He doesn't even have to go through the motions of faking it.

Agreed on the latter.

Money is the bottom line here.

Tipsy and Dog already said straight up that extra first round money goes a long way to pay their coaches and team. That's a luxury for them whereas the top dogs it's not.

You take away some of their pay for retiring they're just gonna tank even more the next 1.5 sets yesterday.

The tomic scenario you brought up would be more Bernie just being Bernie. I'm not sure it would be as abused as the scenario you lined out.

Even then. You can give some compensation to guys that qualified but are injured and had to withdraw. You don't have to pay the wild cards you gave out. For instance Haas is old and injured. He was given a wild card. He's playing with house money. If he pulls out that's on him.

 

[Terenigma]

It's a difficult decision to make because if you punish players for retiring then you could be punishing the possibility that they are genuinely injured and got injured during the match. However with that said, some of the retirements were so obvious that something needs to be done. I mentioned in the other topic that i knew Dolgopolov was injured before the match and predicted he would retire in the match thread. So the fact "I" knew it would happen should show you that some of them are abusing the system.

There are a couple of ways i think you could solve it but they have pros and cons:

1) If you start a match but don't finish it then you are only entitled to 1/4 of the money for playing. If you withdraw before the match in time for a LL to replace you then you get the full ammount. Pros being it benefits the crowd and LL players. Cons being it would cost the tournament more money to pay both players.

2) If you start a match but don't finish it or withdraw too close for a replacement then you are not entitled to any of the R1 money. Pros being it would discourage "sudden injurys" but the cons being it would hurt people who get genuinely injured trying to play.

3) Retirements before the 3rd set in a grand slam do not get paid. Retirements after a 3rd set get the full pay. This means you are forced to be out there to lose in straight sets or if you manage to win a set and retire, you get the full pay. Pros being it would seperate genuine injurys and abusers. Cons being genuinely injured players stay out there coz they need the money and get more injured in the process.

 

[FudgeMyn]

Going to have to agree with dog and tipsy. The majority of these guys are pretty much poor especially coming off the challenger tour which doesn't pay much at all. they really need the prize money . Not like the ATP is offering these guys any kind of financial support with hotels and planet tickets.

 

[sportmac]

Agreed on the latter.

Money is the bottom line here.

Tipsy and Dog already said straight up that extra first round money goes a long way to pay their coaches and team. That's a luxury for them whereas the top dogs it's not.

You take away some of their pay for retiring they're just gonna tank even more the next 1.5 sets yesterday.

The tomic scenario you brought up would be more Bernie just being Bernie. I'm not sure it would be as abused as the scenario you lined out.

Even then. You can give some compensation to guys that qualified but are injured and had to withdraw. You don't have to pay the wild cards you gave out. For instance Haas is old and injured. He was given a wild card. He's playing with house money. If he pulls out that's on him.

Tipsy talks about it. Interesting read as he argues that some of these guy play for years struggling in the lower tiers and the chance for a big payday is huge for them so they shouldn't be judged.

http://sport360.com/article/tennis/...ed-for-playing-injured-to-pick-up-a-paycheck/

Yeah, Tomic would be Tomic but if that option was there it would be interesting to see how often it's used.

I could see the same questions being raised. 8 people have retired so far. If the rule was in place and 8 people withdrew before the match wouldn't that raise the same questions? When did they know they were injured? Did they show up injured knowing they were going to withdraw just for the paycheck?

You're right that taking some of their pay would only make it worse. Someone with a valid injury might well stand out there just to get the full pay check. Then it becomes a different issue altogether. Would the ATP then fine them for tanking?

 

[MasturB]

Tipsy talks about it. Interesting read as he argues that some of these guy play for years struggling in the lower tiers and the chance for a big payday is huge for them so they shouldn't be judged.

http://sport360.com/article/tennis/...ed-for-playing-injured-to-pick-up-a-paycheck/

Yeah, Tomic would be Tomic but if that option was there it would be interesting to see how often it's used.

I could see the same questions being raised. 8 people have retired so far. If the rule was in place and 8 people withdrew before the match wouldn't that raise the same questions? When did they know they were injured? Did they show up injured knowing they were going to withdraw just for the paycheck?

You're right that taking some of their pay would only make it worse. Someone with a valid injury might well stand out there just to get the full pay check. Then it becomes a different issue altogether. Would the ATP then fine them for tanking?

Remember that a first round loss at a slam is more pay than what they'd get for winning challengers.

The guys that grind on challenger circuit just to get that financial security of being in main draw.

That's why I agree it's tricky.

 

[The Green Mile]

Courtesy of MTF here, but someone noticed Tursunov has played, thanks to his protected ranking, five tournaments in the last year or so. RG 16, Wimbledon 16, Toronto 16, AO 17 and Wimbledon 17. No challengers. Supposedly, he doesn't really even train anymore. Obviously, the easy paycheck is on his mind.

 

[MatsPhilander]

Dop-6.3 million career earnings, Tipsarevic 8 million career earnings-the paying your coach bs doesn't wash. Perhaps they should get a dose of the real world where you cannot punch the clock at your minimum wage job & then check out 40 minutes later because you don't feel well & get paid. The average person will not see probably a million in their life, certainly not 2 million-these aren't struggling guys on tour.

 

[deBroglie]

Dop-6.3 million career earnings, Tipsarevic 8 million career earnings-the paying your coach bs doesn't wash. Perhaps they should get a dose of the real world where you cannot punch the clock at your minimum wage job & then check out 40 minutes later because you don't feel well & get paid. The average person will not see probably a million in their life, certainly not 2 million-these aren't struggling guys on tour.

It's not just paying the coaches; they have to pay for air travel and hotels as well, among other expenses. Of course, they're not at the "will work for food" stage, and we can probably call them upper-middle class - rich. However, we need to note that these guys have both made it to the top 20 in the world, with Tipsarevic spending time in the top 10. At this point, neither of the two are at their best, and they're both struggling to return from injury. The life they're living right now is the life of an average player on the lower rung of the ATP tour / Challenger player. They can probably sympathize with all the other players struggling right now.

For example, someone like Evgeny Donskoy has made only $1.6 million in his entire career. I'm sure a lot of that has been spent on coaching, equipment, travel, etc. I also recall that Ivan Dodig saying that he used to sleep under bridges so he could afford to play more tournaments.

The solution wouldn't be to completely cut out the money for someone retiring.

 

[MatsPhilander]

Sure-they should get expenses covered so they are not out of pocket, if they come in with injuries before the slam & retire in the first round they should be forced to forfeit the 35k. These two cannot have burned through 6 & 8 million plus & that is not including what they have made from endorsements etc unless they have been living way beyond their insane means. To make out they need the money or are fighting for the young kids rather than looking after themselves is disingenuous.

It needs what Barry Hearn has done to Snooker-you win on results, so you don't get all the no talents, has-beens & can't be arsed people hanging around year after year. The system needs to be there to help the kids coming up who are genuinely struggling & if they perform then the riches will follow, not guys like this.

Evgeny Donskoy has been around for a decade & has been a total mediocrity, patently he isn't good enough & any money spent on coaching has been a waste. Good for him if he has been able to make a living out of it, but Tennis owes him nothing.

 

[MajesticMoose]

If a player needs to withdraw from the 1st RD of a slam in particular:

1. they need to withdraw and not even start the match.
2. they earn 50% of the normal prize money for that round.
3. the LL that goes in his/her place earns the other 50%.

 

[Sartorius]

Federer has no room to talk having waited until the last minute before lift off at the O2, with spectators all in their hard earned seats, to walk onto court in his civvies (non-tennis kit) to hand the title to Djokovic citing back injury then went straight off to play in the DC. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Rafa goes well beyond the call of duty not to disappoint spectators by actually going through a match injured, like the AO 2014, because he puts the spectators first.

If you excuse Fed because you claim to know his particular circumstances, then you can't accuse others because you don't know their particular circumstances. As for Rafa playing because he wants to play in a final, that's laughable for someone who had played in umpteen slam finals. When he played with a hamstring injury against Ferrer in the QF in AO 2011, that wasn't a final. He started the match knowing he would lose but still gave the crowd something to watch.

Others have responded adequately already, but it needs to be restated how a glaring false equivalency that is, with Fed currently sitting in his house with a "Zero Retirements" sign on it, having been fully active for nearly every calendar year in his career.

Federer is not even "throwing stones" at anyone, he actually went on to say these situations are difficult to asses as there are many things to consider.

He played the DC "straight after" which was of course a whole week later, practicing like a duck before event, going down in a hurry against Monfils, finding some form the next day in doubles, and only playing great against Gasquet in the final day.

Oh and let's throw "knowing the particular circumstances" out there, put Federer in a glass house, and act as if someone had a sit-down with team Nadal in AO 2011 and they went "he started the match knowing he would lose, but the crowd... =( ". In reality it looked and Nadal actually went on to say that he had the problem at the begining of the match, which then he indeed refused to retire and gave it a good try, at one time shouting to his box suggesting him to retire "this is AO quarterfinals, I won't retire or screw this up." A painful sight when someone uses the wrong example for the wrong reasons, and even get the example wrong.

.

 

[slice bh compliment]

Dop-6.3 million career earnings, Tipsarevic 8 million career earnings-the paying your coach bs doesn't wash. Perhaps they should get a dose of the real world where you cannot punch the clock at your minimum wage job & then check out 40 minutes later because you don't feel well & get paid. The average person will not see probably a million in their life, certainly not 2 million-these aren't struggling guys on tour.

I agree, but they were smartly citing most players when defending their actions. They were just making a case for not changing the current rule.

The LL idea is good. That said, will the LL hang around? When there is a Challenger to go to? Does the tournament pay to retain a potential LL? the atp yr end masters does this with two alternates.

Lastly, djokovic said he and Roger joked about a practice set in the lockerroom. Roger said he suggested it. Could have been cool! But i just cannot see it happening. Two rivals in the same half. Taking up a court for an hour, is less the problem. Commentators would enjoy this, but would they cite the result when they square off in the semi ... unless it was left in a tie? Mojo at stake. They would have to have an agreement, like hold to two all, then first break to you. Second one to me, then we play to six all and an honest tiebreak, which goes to nine all... then we give our racquets to two ballboys who finish the breaker.

Both Crocovic and RF possess the ball control and the acting skills to pull this off (see the atp is fake 2 thread).
Would make for a good story.

 

[MatsPhilander]

I agree, but they were smartly citing most players when defending their actions. They were just making a case for not changing the current rule.

The LL idea is good. That said, will the LL hang around? When there is a Challenger to go to? Does the tournament pay to retain a potential LL? the atp yr end masters does this with two alternates.

Lastly, djokovic said he and Roger joked about a practice set in the lockerroom. Roger said he suggested it. Could have been cool! But i just cannot see it happening. Two rivals in the same half. Taking up a court for an hour, is less the problem. Commentators would enjoy this, but would they cite the result when they square off in the semi ... unless it was left in a tie? Mojo at stake. They would have to have an agreement, like hold to two all, then first break to you. Second one to me, then we play to six all and an honest tiebreak, which goes to nine all... then we give our racquets to two ballboys who finish the breaker.

The rule needs to be changed, it is unacceptable turning up just to & collect 10 grand more or thereabouts of the UK average yearly wage & quit after forty minutes. If there was no financial incentive for these guys to turn up then they would declare all injuries prior to the tournament & allow those guys to step in.

 

[Gazelle]

While the attention has been on Tomic and his stupid comments about a lack of effort and playing simply for the $$$, we've overlooked that a bunch of other male players retired and simply collected the check. Tomic was just the only one honest about it.

Tipsarevic, Dolgopolov, Klizan, Kyrgios, Istomin, Troicki and Feliciano Lopez all retired during their 1R match.

Except Tomic didn't seem injured like those others? No, he was simply 'bored', lol.

 

[Gazelle]

If a player needs to withdraw from the 1st RD of a slam in particular:

1. they need to withdraw and not even start the match.
2. they earn 50% of the normal prize money for that round.
3. the LL that goes in his/her place earns the other 50%.

But they will want the full pay check and won't retire, losing 6-2 6-1 6-1 in a halve-arsed effort. Ain't that much better of a showing than retiring.

 

[guanzishou]

Lol at least Tomic didn't retire and played full 3 sets.

 

[reaper]

This might be difficult in a practical sense because they're run by different organisations, but one option would be to halve the amount of prizemoney for losing first round at slams. Currently the 64 first round losers are getting about $50 000 each 4 times per year. Pay them $25 000 each, and that "saves" $6 million per year. Then allocate that $6 million across challenger tournaments. If there are 150 challenger tournaments per year, that's an additional $40K per tournament, or about $1500 per player in a 28 player draw. The money still feeds down to players ranked 70 to 200 where it's supposed to go, but not in such a distorted manner where a first round GS loss involving no effort is worth more than a challenger tournament win.

 

[racquetreligion]

Klizan, Kyrgios, Dog giving up while stilll being able to walk and Tomic in Tank mode doesnt get worse than that for spectators
Prize money and points should be cut given and given to fund lower ranked player accommodation vouchers.

Its only going to get worse with these selfies coming through like one hit pop songs then vanishing too slowly for fans sake

 

[MatsPhilander]

Wimbledon should be getting matches on there in the case of this happening-Ferrer vs Gasquet was on court 12 or something which is silly. They could have got Lorenzi vs Zeballos on there & they wouldn't be finishing today.

 

[tennisaddict]

Federer has no room to talk having waited until the last minute before lift off at the O2, with spectators all in their hard earned seats, to walk onto court in his civvies (non-tennis kit) to hand the title to Djokovic citing back injury then went straight off to play in the DC. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Rafa goes well beyond the call of duty not to disappoint spectators by actually going through a match injured, like the AO 2014, because he puts the spectators first.

As usual you derail a thread with your nonsense. Do you realize Rafa withdrew from RG midway through a tournament ? Was someone else able to take his place ? NO. So please think before you post

 

[icedevil0289]

yeah yesterday was nagl. i don't really know what can be done in the practical sense. ideally most players should have a sense of how bad their injury is and whether they can play before hand and in that case, yes they should withdraw, but sometimes its nearly as clear cut. I am going to assume what is being talked about is those who are injured before hand and not those who injure themselves during a match because that really can't be helped. however, what are they supposed to do, round up every single person and analyze their injuries and see whether or not they can play and if they are deemed too injured, force them to withdraw? i def agree something should be done though. i do feel like every player should operate under "can i sustain this injury for 5 long sets?"