AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
If one feels unwell before a match to the effect that there is a legitimate a reason to think that they may possibly be unable to complete it, is it better to give a walkover or rather go on court and play as much as they can before retiring?
---
Djokovic's recent retirement caused quite a bit of idle talk on the forums, as did Federer's WTF F walkover back then when it happened. So, I thought to ask, since opinions are divided, and there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. (If similar threads have been opened before, my apologies. I've not been here for long so I might be just repeating the old tracks.)
The primary argument for mid-match retirements, as I get it, is, one, the player may still count on being able to finish the match (shouldn't give up, as a professional), and two, that way s/he gives the fans and the opponent at least some of the match and some fight and lets the opponent enjoy an actual victory, even if not complete, rather than handing them the win matter-of-factly and robbing fans of partial enjoyment at least. It may feel like a cop out to some.
The primary argument for walkover, as I think of it, is that, one, as a professional you should not put your health in danger if it some condition or injury that could very well worsen during your attempts to play and actually force you to miss more tournaments later, and two, an incomplete match may well be actually less enjoyable than a cancelled one if the player is unable to show good level and ends up playing awful and getting owned because of it, which is embarassing for the loser, the winner [either you're destroying an injured opponent, and that doesn't feel nice, or there is actually some fight if the opponent isn't that impaired, and then it abruptly stops on retirement when you felt you were on course to a victory, and that doesn't feel like a proper ending] and the viewers if they feel empathy. (I remember watching that V.Williams-Petkovic ToC match where Petkovic played despite getting injured and got promptly double-bagelled and feeling sorry and embarrassed for her.)
It must be obvious by now that I'm in favour of walkover, but that's not simply because my fave thinks the same.
I've no inclination to diss Novak, since given the relatively mild condition (as opposed to a body injury), it is understandable if he genuinely thought he might be able to play through it and finish the match. I think it's somewhat careless, though, and it was silly when Lopez heard the news and looked quite surprised. Personally, I would have preferred Djokovic to give a walkover citing eye infection and say the standard apology (then he would be a perfect gentleman - who (other than the ubiquitous haters, to hell with them) could have faulted him? it's not his fault he was unlucky to develop an eyesore while staying in Dubai), rather than play a mediocre set (despite a few great points here and there) and then have to run away to nurse the sore eye and put on sunglasses. It's a minor match, anyway, only those with acid grudges make much of it.
And while we are at it, I totally back up Fed's 2014 walkover, because it would have been just embarrassing if he went out there to get double-bagelled like Petkovic. What is the purpose? It wouldn't be good tennis worthy of a final. Not much to enjoy except for those who would like to see Federer owned like that, i.e. haters, and there is no reason to give them what they want.
In the end, if the player has a good reason to doubt beforehand whether s/he would be able to complete the match, I'd support giving a walkover. Obviously, this has no relevance to the case of an injury happening during the match itself.
---
Djokovic's recent retirement caused quite a bit of idle talk on the forums, as did Federer's WTF F walkover back then when it happened. So, I thought to ask, since opinions are divided, and there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. (If similar threads have been opened before, my apologies. I've not been here for long so I might be just repeating the old tracks.)
The primary argument for mid-match retirements, as I get it, is, one, the player may still count on being able to finish the match (shouldn't give up, as a professional), and two, that way s/he gives the fans and the opponent at least some of the match and some fight and lets the opponent enjoy an actual victory, even if not complete, rather than handing them the win matter-of-factly and robbing fans of partial enjoyment at least. It may feel like a cop out to some.
The primary argument for walkover, as I think of it, is that, one, as a professional you should not put your health in danger if it some condition or injury that could very well worsen during your attempts to play and actually force you to miss more tournaments later, and two, an incomplete match may well be actually less enjoyable than a cancelled one if the player is unable to show good level and ends up playing awful and getting owned because of it, which is embarassing for the loser, the winner [either you're destroying an injured opponent, and that doesn't feel nice, or there is actually some fight if the opponent isn't that impaired, and then it abruptly stops on retirement when you felt you were on course to a victory, and that doesn't feel like a proper ending] and the viewers if they feel empathy. (I remember watching that V.Williams-Petkovic ToC match where Petkovic played despite getting injured and got promptly double-bagelled and feeling sorry and embarrassed for her.)
It must be obvious by now that I'm in favour of walkover, but that's not simply because my fave thinks the same.
I've no inclination to diss Novak, since given the relatively mild condition (as opposed to a body injury), it is understandable if he genuinely thought he might be able to play through it and finish the match. I think it's somewhat careless, though, and it was silly when Lopez heard the news and looked quite surprised. Personally, I would have preferred Djokovic to give a walkover citing eye infection and say the standard apology (then he would be a perfect gentleman - who (other than the ubiquitous haters, to hell with them) could have faulted him? it's not his fault he was unlucky to develop an eyesore while staying in Dubai), rather than play a mediocre set (despite a few great points here and there) and then have to run away to nurse the sore eye and put on sunglasses. It's a minor match, anyway, only those with acid grudges make much of it.
And while we are at it, I totally back up Fed's 2014 walkover, because it would have been just embarrassing if he went out there to get double-bagelled like Petkovic. What is the purpose? It wouldn't be good tennis worthy of a final. Not much to enjoy except for those who would like to see Federer owned like that, i.e. haters, and there is no reason to give them what they want.
In the end, if the player has a good reason to doubt beforehand whether s/he would be able to complete the match, I'd support giving a walkover. Obviously, this has no relevance to the case of an injury happening during the match itself.
Can't stand Dany sitting on the throne. 
