If he can't get more than 4 games against a player on one leg than I'm not sure he deserves a chance.
Everyone knows he's not a great player, hence why he did deserve a chance. He needs the points, prize money, etc... far more than Murray does. Not to mention it'd have been better to see him play Milos than Raonic having a walkover.
No doubt the weather situation contributed--may have had to play two matches in a day.
"A tacit rhetorical assumption here is that you have very probably never heard of Michael Joyce of Brentwood, L.A... Nor of Vince Spadea nor Jonathan Stark...--all ranked in the world’s top one hundred at one point in 1995. Nor of Jeff Tarango, sixty-eight in the world, unless you remember his unfortunate psychotic breakdown in full public view during last year’s Wimbledon.
You are invited to try to imagine what it would be like to be among the hundred best in the world at something. At anything. I have tried to imagine; it’s hard."
You just sound bitter. He didn't schedule the mandatory tournaments.
Because you know if I like Murray or not? Actually I rather like than dislike him. He's a very talented player and has far more variety than Nadalovic have. I just stated that it wasn't the best decision to play here and it's not like he would have been the only one to withdraw. Ferrer, Fed & Co. did also.