Player retirements are a problem. How do you stop them?
Novak Djokovic retired from Sunday's final at the Western & Southern Open down 0-3 in the second set because of a shoulder injury. He didn't seem concerned that the ailment would hurt his chances at next week's U.S. Open.
It was the latest in a rash of mid-match retirements from players with injuries of questionable severity. Tennis.com's Peter Bodo thinks it's becoming an epidemic:
Time was, a player retired during a match not because he didn't want to go on, but because he couldn't go on. Or, in trying to continue, he or she ran risk of incurring a serious, career-ending injury. There's a certain amount of gray area when it comes to determining just how grave or threatening an injury is, but there's little indication that fear of incurring serious damage played much of a role in the decisions by Tsonga [who retired in Montreal to come back fine days later in Cincinnati] and Djokovic. Tsonga would play—and win—just a few days later. Djokovic didn't seem to fret over the state of his shoulder.
The two men set a really unwise precedent with their actions. Invariably, some of you will jump up and say that the pro tennis player's first—and only—obligation is to himself, and that anything he chooses to do (within the rules) to advance his chances at a Grand Slam is not only fair game, but intelligent career management. In some ways, that's the sacred dogma in a sport driven by naked self-interest and played by fiercely mercenary privateers.
I don't buy that. By entering into what we'll call the ATP system and culture, a player assumes certain obligations and responsibilities, and reaps certain rewards. One of those obligations is to give a full and honest effort every time he or she sets foot on a court. The players have a contractual obligation to give the ticket-buying public its money's worth, in terms of effort expended if not necessarily time spent. And they also owe their opponents the right to get a win that ends with a numeral, not the abbreviation "RET."
For every questionable retirement there are a number of injured fighters continuing to play through pain. Andrea Petkovic, for instance, came out in her semifinal match in Cincinnati with a torn MCL and a leg wrapped so tight it could have been mummified. She played the first set tight and lost in a tiebreaker. When the second set began it was clear Petkovic was done, physically and mentally. She gave it her all for a set and when she didn't prevail, she knew there was no way she could play and win two more sets. Yet she stayed on the court, fighting through pain. Petkovic would lose the second set to Jelena Jankovic 6-0.
What's better, retiring down 0-3 or coasting through the next three games to make it 0-6? Is there really that much of a difference?
Bodo thinks so and I happen to agree. Petkovic may have given up, but she didn't surrender. Djokovic and Tsonga did.
If the ATP and WTA want to fix this problem, they'll need to take action. If a player retires in the middle of the match, no matter how severe the injury, their rankings points and pay for the tournament goes back to the last round. If you quit in the semis, you get points and pay for making the quarters.
It's not a perfect system by any means. Still, it's far better than giving players something for nothing.
