For example, Rybarikova retiring against Azarenka means what?
Did she quit?
How often does a player "retire" and why do they retire?
Did she quit?
How often does a player "retire" and why do they retire?
-
-
Retirements happen quite often - in fact you'll see a thread about Azarenka's retirements just a bit further down
They're either injured; losing and can't be assed to keep going; don't want to embarrass themselves by recording a loss; protecting themselves against potential injury; or have fixed a match.
I think that about covers it
Comment -
Wait a minute...so if a player "retires," it doesn't count as a loss. Wow! Seems to me that you shouldn't be rewarded for quitting.Originally posted by shari91Retirements happen quite often - in fact you'll see a thread about Azarenka's retirements just a bit further down They're either injured; losing and can't be assed to keep going; don't want to embarrass themselves by recording a loss; protecting themselves against potential injury; or have fixed a match. I think that about covers it Comment -
In a grand slam it's rare, only for serious shit like injury or like severe dehydration.. Outside of grandslams some people retire for more little stuff like Azarenka did in Eastbourne cause its right before wimbledon..
Here though Rybarikova twisted her knee and was clearly limping.. Rybarikova actually told the trainer she wanted to play and the trainer was like absolutely not... so this was legit shitComment -
of course it counts as a loss...Comment -
I think Shari means like when Tipsarevic retired 3 points away from Seppi winning the title in Eastbourne, he just didn't want to give him the joy of winning that lost point and the loss of actually losing those last 3 pointsComment -
You're not rewarded for quitting but the result is recorded as a retirement. So if you look at a player's results, you'll see "retired due to fatigue" or whatever as opposed to just a straight loss. Baggy was a perfect example of this at the Aussie Open this year. Instead of just finishing off the match where he just had to sit there and receive serves, he'd rather have an asterisked match in his results and get booed by the crowd as he was leaving the court. Tennis is full of egotistical headcases. Perpetrator #1 Azarenka herself.Originally posted by NickDiaz209Comment -
In wagering, retirements matter, but as far as the actual sport goes, retirements are no different than losing. Rankings are based on how far you get in a tournament, so if you lose or retire it will have the same effect on your standing. Win/loss records are interesting to look at and can be a good indicator of how a player is doing (of course), but for the most part they are irrelevant within the sport itself.
Take for instance Novak at the French. His quarterfinal match was a walkover, meaning his opponent didn't even take the court. As far as Novak's points in the rankings are concerned, that is no different than if he had played the match and won. In other words, he got the points without getting a win added to his column. Likewise, a player can either retire or lose 80-78 in the 5th set, and in the end it doesn't matter.
I know they don't want players to play hurt and risk all kinds of bad things happening, but I would like to see some sort of penalty for retirements to prevent some of this nonsense. Perhaps making the points revert to the previous round.Comment -
Thanks for the info...I had a 5 match parlay and desperately needed Azarenka to pull through. I doubt I will ever bet on her again though.Originally posted by shari91Comment
