Haas leads top ATP players in retirements while losing [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Haas leads top ATP players in retirements while losing

Margy
03-21-2007, 03:11 AM
Interesting research and article "The Retiring Type" by Gavin Versi of Tennis.com which compiles the stats on which top 20 players tend to retire when they are losing and which ones will play on so that their opponents can count a legitimate win. As the thread title shows, Haas leads the ATP group. Click on the link for the whole list and the article which talks about the logic of whether to play or not to play.

article
http://www.tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=70254

stats
http://www.tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=70246

Deboogle!.
03-21-2007, 03:20 AM
Those stats are pretty suspect to me. Matches where a player was less than 2 games behind not counted. in best of 5, only matches where a player was 2 sets down was counted.

Seems pretty suspect. It also doesn't take into account the different kinds of retirement (aka, where a player came into a match with an injury already, where a player started having physical or breathing problems during the match, where a player had a sudden injury like badly twisting an ankle/knee and were told by the trainer to retire), etc. It also doesn't take into account where a player got hurt during a match and tried to play on for a few games and only retired after realizing that was not going to be possible.

I mean, too many variables for me to make those stats meaningful. I can think of several players who have gotten hurt really badly in a match - to expect them to play on would be ridiculous - and some of those same players have completed matches while hurt not as badly. I know that Andy's 'threshold' so to speak is if the trainer tells him it would get worse by continuing to play. If yes, he doesn't risk it - if no, he risks it.

Maybe those who haven't retired much are lucky enough to never have injured themselves that badly during a match. I mean, I don't remember ever seeing Fed or Blake fall and twist an ankle mid-match. Also you have guys who are simply injury prone, have certain types of physical problems etc., and continuing to play would actually put their health and career in danger.

Rommella
03-21-2007, 04:43 AM
:hatoff: Players with the best records for not retiring when losing include those who are generally well-regarded for their competitive fairness and sportsmanship. Among the men, Roger Federer and James Blake have never quit while behind in a match.

“I’m not surprised that Federer and Blake have never retired,” said Lloyd. “It’s kind of an old school mentality – you don’t ‘deef’ [default]. I think it’s the champion’s mentality. You’ve got to be a champion enough to know that you take it like a man and give the player the satisfaction that they beat you, whether you were injured or not.”

nobama
03-21-2007, 04:50 AM
If you're not injured there's no reason to retire is there? :confused: When's the last time Fed or Blake played with injury? Fed in Shanghai maybe, but he didn't get injured during a match. He was coming off injury going into the tournament and he made the choice to play.

Deboogle!.
03-21-2007, 05:07 AM
If you're not injured there's no reason to retire is there? :confused: When's the last time Fed or Blake played with injury? Fed in Shanghai maybe, but he didn't get injured during a match. He was coming off injury going into the tournament and he made the choice to play.That's what I was trying to say. For all the times someone like Haas may have retired with injury, those "stats" fail to mention how many times he kept playing with injury? Still flawed, but a somewhat more telling stat would at least be a comparison of how many times a player has played through an injury and retired? I mean you just have some guys that are more injury-prone (Haas being one of them for that matter), so they are going to get hurt mid-match more. I mean, I guess the only player I really follow closely enough is Andy, but the times he has played through injury even when he maybe shouldn't have by far outweighs his retirements. And I would guess Haas's might too.

You also have a thing like Haas had a major major injury. I can see that he would be more apprehensive to keep playing than maybe someone who hasn't had that experience.

I dunno, something about this whole thing just really bothers me. They're passing this stuff off as important and relevant and leaving out so many important factors. And moreover, they're using it to suggest judgments about how fair or how classy a competitor a player is. Since they chided Haas about his # being the highest, I will merely point out that all you had to do is see how he reacted when Murray got hurt last week and you can't possibly question the kind of sportsman Haas is, regardless of how many times he has retired while losing :rolleyes:

atheneglaukopis
03-21-2007, 05:11 AM
That's what I was trying to say. For all the times someone like Haas may have retired with injury, those "stats" fail to mention how many times he kept playing with injury? Still flawed, but a somewhat more telling stat would at least be a comparison of how many times a player has played through an injury and retired? I mean you just have some guys that are more injury-prone (Haas being one of them for that matter), so they are going to get hurt mid-match more. I mean, I guess the only player I really follow closely enough is Andy, but the times he has played through injury even when he maybe shouldn't have by far outweighs his retirements. And I would guess Haas's might too.

You also have a thing like Haas had a major major injury. I can see that he would be more apprehensive to keep playing than maybe someone who hasn't had that experience.

I dunno, something about this whole thing just really bothers me. They're passing this stuff off as important and relevant and leaving out so many important factors. And moreover, they're using it to suggest judgments about how fair or how classy a competitor a player is. Since they chided Haas about his # being the highest, I will merely point out that all you had to do is see how he reacted when Murray got hurt last week and you can't possibly question the kind of sportsman Haas is, regardless of how many times he has retired while losing :rolleyes:Thank you, Deb. Haas once kept playing through shoulder pain and ended up needing two sugeries and a lengthy injury timeout, and now he tends to err on the side of "OMG a hangnail, must be careful! :scared:" And yes, Haas is prone to freak injuries like coming down on stray tennis balls while serving.

Lee
03-21-2007, 05:18 AM
Add that Haas injured his ankle while warming up in Wimbledon and his ankle was swollen like a tennis ball but he still tried to play and retired at 2-6 1-2. This tells how good the above stats are. :p

And yes, according to the criteria, that match is included in the stat.

Deboogle!.
03-21-2007, 05:20 AM
Thank you, Deb. Haas once kept playing through shoulder pain and ended up needing two sugeries and a lengthy injury timeout, and now he tends to err on the side of "OMG a hangnail, must be careful! :scared:" And yes, Haas is prone to freak injuries like coming down on stray tennis balls while serving.Exactly, and you can't blame him. I think if you talk to most of these guys, they will say that it depends on what the trainer says. If the trainer says they won't make it worse, they'll keep playing. But if a guy falls and sprains his ankle and continuing to play might make a week or two injury turn into a thing that could require months off or surgery, the guy would have to be nuts to keep going. i can think of so many times when Andy alone continued to play through an injury, and several times even won, that it's impossible not to question the value of those #s

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 05:25 AM
Interesting stats. Neely had a Retirement Statistics thread recently. I asked Neely exactly this question (which is what leads me to believe that Neely=Gavin Versi) :)

Kitty de Sade
03-21-2007, 05:32 AM
Add that Haas injured his ankle while warming up in Wimbledon and his ankle was swollen like a tennis ball but he still tried to play and retired at 2-6 1-2. This tells how good the above stats are. :p

And yes, according to the criteria, that match is included in the stat.

We were lucky enough to see the footage of that during IW. :eek:

Poor Tommy's swollen ankle and Sampras hurling during the USO are destined to be shown again and again...

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 05:32 AM
Add that Haas injured his ankle while warming up in Wimbledon and his ankle was swollen like a tennis ball but he still tried to play and retired at 2-6 1-2.

Seems pretty suspect. It also doesn't take into account the different kinds of retirement (aka, where a player came into a match with an injury already, where a player started having physical or breathing problems during the match, where a player had a sudden injury like badly twisting an ankle/knee and were told by the trainer to retire), etc. .

Why would a player who came into a match with injury be found to retire consistently when behind? If it is always due to injury, or injury-proneness, then you should see that it happens to a player as much when he is ahead as when is behind. Sure, you can argue that the injury aggravates during a match he is behind in, so that he has to retire. It can happen, 3, 4, 5 times (Haas in Wimbledon is surely one). But when it happens 11 times that you retire when you are behind, there seems really nothing suspect about the data to me.

You have an injury, you had a few chances to win despite it but weren't able to capitalize. And now you have like 2 games before the match is over in which to equalize and overtake the opponent. What should a reasonable player who does not want to risk aggravation with no benefit in sight (of getting ahead, winning the match) do? Only those with supreme belief about neutralizing their possible injury, and reversing a 1-6 1-5 deficit might continue.

atheneglaukopis
03-21-2007, 05:36 AM
Why would a player who came into a match with injury be found to retire consistently when behind? If it is always due to injury, or injury-proneness, then you should see that it happens to a player as much when he is ahead as when is behind.Just for the sake of argument, if you come into a match with an injury, you're more likely to fall behind than otherwise. If you are both losing and risking further damage to your body, there's little incentive to continue, while if you stand to gain points and prize money while risking further damage, you're more likely to play through it, wisely or unwisely.

Deboogle!.
03-21-2007, 05:40 AM
Why would a player who came into a match with injury be found to retire consistently when behind? If it is always due to injury, or injury-proneness, then you should see that it happens to a player as much when he is ahead as when is behind. Sure, you can argue that the injury aggravates during a match he is behind in, so that he has to retire. It can happen, 3, 4, 5 times. But when it happens 11 times that you retire when you are behind, there seems really nothing suspect about the data to me.

You have an injury, you had a few chances to win despite it but weren't able to capitalize. And now you have like 2 games before the match is over in which to equalize and overtake the opponent. What should a reasonable player who does not want to risk aggravation with no benefit in sight (of getting ahead) do?Because these guys are competitive, they want to play if they at all can, so they might play a match, like Ljubicic did against Nalby, just in case they might be able to win. And then at the point they get far down, that's when they realize they can't, or maybe it's coincidental that that's when they aggravate the injury? Like Ljubicic said, if he had gone down a break in the 2nd, he would have retired, but he felt like as long as he could keep hanging on that he'd continue to play. He managed to win. I know that Andy has done the same thing (when he beat Ferrer saving MPs in Paris a couple years ago comes to mind)

I just have a problem with the fact that they are lumping all these kinds of retirements together to make generalizations about it. A guy who comes into the match with a perhaps healing-but-not-quite-completely-healed injury who retires down 1-5 in the first when he realizes that the ankle is not going to make it through the end of the match is going to be lumped into the same category as a guy who retires down 1-6 1-4, at least that's how it seems from the explanation... and i have a problem with that.

Just for an example of one i can think of at the top of my head. You have Andy who hurt his ankle badly at Dusseldorf. he does everything in his power to try to play RG, but he goes down 2 sets and a break and can barely move and sits down talking to the trainer crying, and decides to retire. Do you really think he retired b/c he's a bad sport, or because the trainer tells him he could injure his ankle even further and he knows damn well there's no way he can't come back to win with a bum ankle (mind you, he reinjured it late in the year and DID finish the match where he reinjured it, but was out the next 2 weeks :shrug: ).

It's the generalizations and ignoring so many relevant facts that bother me.

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 05:47 AM
Just for the sake of argument, if you come into a match with an injury, you're more likely to fall behind than otherwise. If you are both losing and risking further damage to your body, there's little incentive to continue, while if you stand to gain points and prize money while risking further damage, you're more likely to play through it, wisely or unwisely.

Isn't that the author's point? :confused:
I think that's precisely the author's point -- retiring while within a whisper of losing, because you have little incentive to continue for points or for aggravating an injury or for whatever other reason.

These same players have shown that they are man enough to lose with breadsticks and bagels. So that is not at issue here. They know that 1 more game and the match is over 6-1 6-0 instead of 6-1 5-0 ret. They can not run, they can serve slow, they can do a lot of things to close out the match without contest if it is really that close. Not always --sometimes the injury is debilitating. But often the retiree walks off court with minor problems.

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 05:55 AM
Sure, you can argue that the injury aggravates during a match he is behind in, so that he has to retire. It can happen, 3, 4, 5 times (Haas in Wimbledon is surely one). But when it happens 11 times that you retire when you are behind, there seems really nothing suspect about the data to me.



Just for an example of one i can think of at the top of my head. You have Andy who hurt his ankle badly at Dusseldorf. he does everything in his power to try to play RG, but he goes down 2 sets and a break and can barely move and sits down talking to the trainer crying, and decides to retire. Do you really think he retired b/c he's a bad sport, or because the trainer tells him he could injure his ankle even further and he knows damn well there's no way he can't come back to win with a bum ankle (mind you, he reinjured it late in the year and DID finish the match where he reinjured it, but was out the next 2 weeks :shrug: ).

It's the generalizations and ignoring so many relevant facts that bother me.


As I said, retirements while losing and truly injured to the point where you have to be wheelchaired out of the stadium do happen. On the opposite end is Mathieu, up 2 sets and ahead in the third set TB within 2 points of winning in Melbourne. Surely no one thinks that he feigned his injury because he was too shy to contest the next round.

How can you separate that in the data from retirements consistently when down? Retirements truly due to debilitating injury or high risk of aggravation happens a lot, and Haas maybe 4, 5 times has experienced it. But 11 times out of 12 when he is down? In some instances within a game of completing a proper loss --well, as the author points out, you have to read between the lines.

Was it truly not possible for Haas, losing 4-6, 0-5 to complete one more game, serve under arm, not run perhaps? Maybe in some cases like at Wimbledon it truly was not. But when there is a wealth of other data which suggest a pattern it is hard not to see it.

This does not make him less of a player btw in my view, it is his prerogative. But as a fan of tennis, as a viewer, and often as a paying spectator, it would be nice to be assured that retirements are truly because the player is not resting his ankle in case of injury before next week's Slam.

Sjengster
03-21-2007, 05:55 AM
The thing about Haas' retirements last year in Masters Series (Hamburg and Paris) was that both of them were rather strange ailments; breathing problems in the former case, I believe, and either the same thing or else blurred vision in the latter instance. I reckon they're manifestations of how wound up and tense he gets on court, considering his up-tight demeanour, but one can understand if not excuse the booing he received from the crowd both times since there was no clearly visible injury. And no, I also don't like stats that seem to be used as another way to bash the players of today.

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 06:07 AM
And by having the foresight to do so, perhaps they can avoid major problems. :shrug:

Edit--

Is there (consistently) some added foresight at 0-6 0-5 that you don't have at 6-0 1-6 4-0?

atheneglaukopis
03-21-2007, 06:13 AM
Since 2004, Haas has retired with 5, 4, 8, 3, and 10 games to go at a minimum. He's probably been overcautious, for reasons given, but I have no way of knowing how much he or anyone has played through injury/illness, or how he was feeling at the time.

Deboogle!.
03-21-2007, 06:14 AM
oh definitely, a couple of Haas's retirements have been suspect (I remember the "allergies" one last year and was especially perplexed about it). I never said they weren't. that doesn't mean all 11 were, and it doesn't mean that he is the type who would try to "rob" his opponent of a win.

My point is that Bodo's piece, including the quotes from Lloyd and others, attempt suggest that Blake and Federer are somehow better sportsman simply because they've never retired. All I'm saying is that I disagree with that, because there is much more to it than the simple numbers. A player who gets legitimately hurt more frequently and makes the decision to retire will have a high # on that list, when it might actually mean nothing. :shrug:

Edit:

Now I also have a problem with the accuracy of their stats. I looked up Andy's just because I'm more familiar with when he's retired, and by their own definitions, they have his wrong (or if I have misunderstood, someone please tell me where I went wrong); it was only 3 when he arguably "retired while losing" - and in two of those three, he had lost a first set TB before getting hurt and was on serve in the following set when he decided he couldn't continue. So in my opinion even though they count that as 4 (although it should be 3 based on my reading of their criteria), only one of them was truly a situation of him being in an obviously losing position and deciding to retire, and the other two were situations where the injury happened suddenly during the match when there was no way he could continue (I remember the Verdasco match and he couldn't hold his racquet anymore :shrug: ). And I have a feeling that if someone did the research for Haas, that they would find a similar result, that actually delving deeper would reveal a much different story than the number 11 out of 13 initially suggests.

2001
RG R32 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 6 7-6(6) 4-6 2-2 RET [shouldn't be included b/c not 2 sets down]
Hong Kong R32 Sa, Andre (BRA) 109 3-6 6-4 3-3 RET [shouldn't be included b/c not 2 games down in final set]
2002
AO R64 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) 37 6-7(11) 2-3 RET [shouldn't be counted b/c not 2 sets down]
2003
Delray Beach R32 Fish, Mardy (USA) 66 6-7(4) 3-4 RET [rolled ankle mid-match, still on serve in 2nd]
2005
Miami R64 Verdasco, Fernando (ESP) 45 6-7(11) 3-4 RET [sprained wrist late in first set, retired when still on serve in 2nd]
2006
RG R128 Martin, Alberto (ESP) 68 4-6 5-7 0-1 RET [came in with ankle injury]

My only point in posting all this (besides being bored) is that the #s just don't tell the whole story and extrapolating from the simple # would be short-sighted.

ChinoRios4Ever
03-21-2007, 06:40 AM
i remember Pavel d. Haas 64 52 ret. in Montreal TMS 01 SF...

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 06:48 AM
Since 2004, Haas has retired with 5, 4, 8, 3, and 10 games to go at a minimum. He's probably been overcautious, for reasons given, but I have no way of knowing how much he or anyone has played through injury/illness, or how he was feeling at the time.

Yes it is certainly impossible to tell, which is sort of synonymous with why retirements are within the rules of the game. There are cases which are almost certainly genuine, like Haas in Wimbledon, Mathieu, Roddick, others, and there are suspicious cases. There is no waying of knowing with certainty. So all the author can do is present the data and infer from there.

Myself, I think that with some minor changes to how he did the exclusions, I generally agree with the author's sentiment. And I think it is par for the course. Why wouldn't a player retire if he knows his chances for reversing the likely outcome are tiny, and he perhaps has a niggling injury or a bad one that he risks injuring? It is consistent with all the things the players strive for --points, self preservation, best health for Slams, etc. The spectators are unlikely to remember and condemn you for it except if it is a slam final (only 2% of all matches with top players ever ended in a retirement, who even remembers most of them?!)

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 06:55 AM
I could not see where the author states he will discount matches where someone is 2 sets down?

The criteria are: not in the first set of the match, and in a decider not within two games of the leader (which excludes the Sa match)

2001
RG R32 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 6 7-6(6) 4-6 2-2 RET [shouldn't be included b/c not 2 sets down]
Hong Kong R32 Sa, Andre (BRA) 109 3-6 6-4 3-3 RET [shouldn't be included b/c not 2 games down in final set]
2002
AO R64 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) 37 6-7(11) 2-3 RET [shouldn't be counted b/c not 2 sets down]2003
My only point in posting all this (besides being bored) is that the #s just don't tell the whole story and extrapolating from the simple # would be short-sighted.

Deboogle!.
03-21-2007, 06:55 AM
So all the author can do is present the data and infer from there. But the author did more than infer, he judged - by suggesting that there was a correlation between Blake and Federer's reputation on tour and the fact that they haven't retired blatantly suggests that someone like Haas is somehow less of a sportsman because he has retired a lot. By doing so without analyzing further to see the injuries, exact circumstances, etc., it becomes quite lazy reporting in my opinion.

Deboogle!.
03-21-2007, 06:56 AM
I could not see where the author states he will discount matches where someone is 2 sets down?

The criteria are: not in the first set of the match, and in a decider not within two games of the leader (which excludes the Sa match)http://www.tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=70246

"in best-of-five matches, only matches were (sic) a player was at least two sets down were counted"

he was not "at least two sets down" in either of those two slam matches, thus they shouldn't be counted as "retirements while losing" for this data.

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 07:00 AM
But the author did more than infer, he judged - by suggesting that there was a correlation between Blake and Federer's reputation on tour and the fact that they haven't retired blatantly suggests that someone like Haas is somehow less of a sportsman because he has retired a lot. By doing so without analyzing further to see the injuries, exact circumstances, etc., it becomes quite lazy reporting in my opinion.

No, I think that is what you are reading into it. He is more inferential. For example:

Some pros are more prone to on-court injuries than others and there is no suggestion that any were not injured when they retired, but the statistics seem to speak volumes about the attitude of various players

He quotes John Lloyd, btw, about Federer and Blake, he does not have any of his own judgement. He also says uses words like "likely", "generally"

Players with the best records for not retiring when losing include those who are generally well-regarded for their competitive fairness and sportsmanship.

And about Haas:

On the one hand, he deserves credit for even starting some of those matches if he was already injured

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 07:13 AM
http://www.tennis.com/features/general/features.aspx?id=70246

"in best-of-five matches, only matches were (sic) a player was at least two sets down were counted"

he was not "at least two sets down" in either of those two slam matches, thus they shouldn't be counted as "retirements while losing" for this data.

That is correct. What you are misinterpreting is that he will discount matches where the eventual RETIREE is two sets down. That is not correct.
He will discount matches where A player is two sets down. I did some quick looks at other players, and I'm quite sure that is correct. It says "...A PLAYER was at least two sets down". Those two matches of Roddick's are correctly entered.

The reasoning for this is quite simple, and it is similar to the logic of discarding 3-set matches where only a single set was played.

Deboogle!.
03-21-2007, 07:14 AM
He quotes John Lloyd, btw, about Federer and Blake, he does not have any of his own judgement. He also says uses words like "likely", "generally"Call me cynical (and I won't deny it if you do), but using those quotes, and yet neither addressing the other side nor presenting any quotes about the other side, shows the author's intent/opinion without him having to actually state it himself.That is correct. What you are misinterpreting is that he will discount matches where the eventual RETIREE is two sets down. That is not correct.
He will discount matches where A player is two sets down. I did some quick looks at other players, and I'm quite sure that is correct.

The reasoning for this is quite simple, and it is similar to the logic of discarding 3-set matches where only a single set was played.Well that wasn't clear to me at all; the criteria should be more clearly explained. But thanks for clarifying.

Moreover, something I haven't mentioned is that a lot of retirements occur immediately after an injury (I'm referring mainly ankle/knee type things here). An injury occurs, the trainer comes out and tells the player that it could get worse if he/she continues (or the injury is so bad that it's quite obvious a player couldn't possibly continue), and the player retires instantly. I don't think those matches should count at all because the player is almost certainly relying on the trainer's opinion/advice. Anyone who continues to play after being point-blank told they could risk further damage is just plain stupid in my opinion.

edit: I wrote to them and I see they have already edited the criteria :lol:

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 07:22 AM
Call me cynical (and I won't deny it if you do), but using those quotes, and yet neither addressing the other side nor presenting any quotes about the other side, shows the author's intent/opinion without him having to actually state it himself.

Not really, I would not say cynic. I think the author wants to make his position clear without stating it as fact. I think that's what you are also doing on this thread. You have a position on these retirements and what you can or cannot infer from the stats, and he does too.

And yes, authors routinely lean on the heavyweights to lend credibility to their opinions. Since you are more familiar with Roddick, take a tennis article out of 2003 and journalists weighing in on his trajectory for the next 3-5 years, and you'll see they quote John McEnroe and Courier and Sampras and other greats and what their opinion on the matter was. This is quite routine. It is done for the same reason-- to add weight to their opinion on his position for the next few years.

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 07:24 AM
edit: I wrote to them and I see they have already edited the criteria :lol:

What about Sa? There is no explanation for that they can get away with as far as I can tell (unless you were counting it as part of his 4 rets while losing and it is included in their data as part of the 6 rets where he was neither losing nor winning)

Deboogle!.
03-21-2007, 07:27 AM
Not really, I would not say cynic. I think the author wants to make his position clear without stating it as fact. I think that's what you are also doing on this thread. You have a position on these retirements and what you can or cannot infer from the stats, and he does too. Huh? I've only commented on the circumstances of the retirements that I am familiar with. I have no idea why Andy retired to Sa, hence I didn't say anything about it. I said I had a feeling that if someone delved deeper into all of Tommy's retirements that it might tell a different story, but I was quite clear that it was my opinion.

As for the author, I don't have a problem that he's stating his opinion or that he's using quotes of a heavyweight to do so, I have a problem with the fact that he's using (in my opinion) stats that have very questionable validity and relevance to do so. I don't think comparing it to people who were just obviously making predictions about the unknown future is relevant at all to someone who extrapolates data to mean something it very arguably does not mean.What about Sa? There is no explanation for that they can get away with as far as I can tell (unless you were counting it as part of his 4 rets while losing and it is included in their data as part of the 6 rets where he was neither losing nor winning)I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. That one obviously shouldn't be counted per their criteria - it was one set all and tied in the third, so he wasn't 2 games down in the final set. Like I said, I don't know why he retired from that match. But what you quoted - what I was referring to is that they have changed the data page, it no longer has the best-of-5 bit.

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 07:29 AM
Anyone who continues to play after being point-blank told they could risk further damage is just plain stupid in my opinion.

Leading 6-4 6-2 5-3 in a slam final, serving for it, told he is injured. What kind of injury do you have in mind, or how bad would it have to be for him to be stupid to try and stay in it?

Deboogle!.
03-21-2007, 07:33 AM
Leading 6-4 6-2 5-3 in a slam final, serving for it, told he is injured. What kind of injury do you have in mind, or how bad would it have to be for him to be stupid to try and stay in it?That's a ridiculously improbable situation. I can't imagine an ATP player who would retire at that point in a Grand Slam final with some injury short of something that would require being carried off on a stretcher or in a wheelchair, and even then I think almost every player (and certainly one good enough to be in a slam final in the first place because to get there would require having some level of competitive nature) would try to serve it out. Because in that situation if the player can hold that one time, even if they are out for ages or make the injury worse, they have just won a slam, and I think the vast majority of players would take that slam over almost anything and say having to be out for maybe months or a year or whatever would be worth it. I don't think you can compare it to any situation that has actually occurred because a slam final can't be compared to anything else.

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 07:35 AM
That one obviously shouldn't be counted per their criteria - it was one set all and tied in the third, so he wasn't 2 games down in the final set. Like I said, I don't know why he retired from that match. But what you quoted - what I was referring to is that they have changed the data page, it no longer has the best-of-5 bit.

The Sa match --- Neither player is winning or losing. It is dead even. Thus, they can count it as part of the Total Career Retirements (third column), and not count it as "Retirements While Losing" for Roddick.

In your post above you list that as a match which should not be counted. So I asked -- are you counting it as part of the 4 Rets while losing, or part of the 6 Total Career rets? And so I asked -- what was their explanation for why the Sa match is included.

Deboogle!.
03-21-2007, 07:40 AM
The Sa match --- Neither player is winning or losing. It is dead even. Thus, they can count it as part of the Total Career Retirements (third column), and not count it as "Retirements While Losing" for Roddick.

In your post above you list that as a match which should not be counted. So I asked -- are you counting it as part of the 4 Rets while losing, or part of the 6 Total Career rets? And so I asked -- what was their explanation for why the Sa match is included.I'm sorry, I guess i'm still not understanding. He has retired a total of 6 times in his career. That chart is counting 4 of those 6 as 'retirements while losing' - by their own criteria, the two of the 6 that shouldn't be considered 'retirements while losing' are the Sa and Hewitt matches because they were both locked at one set all. I'm not giving my opinion on the Sa match, because their criteria are quite clear where that one is concerned (well now that they have edited the best-of-5 thing, they are clear overall). What I was saying before you clarified and they edited the best-of-5 part was that perhaps the Ljubicic AO match should ALSO not be counted as a 'retirement while losing' - but now they have removed that part and so by their criteria it should indeed be counted.

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 07:40 AM
That's a ridiculously improbable situation. I can't imagine an ATP player who would retire at that point in a Grand Slam final with some injury short of something that would require being carried off on a stretcher or in a wheelchair, and even then I think almost every player (and certainly one good enough to be in a slam final in the first place because to get there would require having some level of competitive nature) would try to serve it out. Because in that situation if the player can hold that one time, even if they are out for ages or make the injury worse, they have just won a slam, and I think the vast majority of players would take that slam over almost anything and say having to be out for maybe months or a year or whatever would be worth it. I don't think you can compare it to any situation that has actually occurred because a slam final can't be compared to anything else.

Well, Coria in the French Final was in that position (could not move legs). It is not an improbable situation, this did happen. He stayed on despite all, and guess what, he actually attained mp.

A slam final is not the only thing --it is useful just to make the point that this ist not always stupid. A TMS final, a slam semi, a Davis Cup deciding tie, and in other cases like Sampras-Corretja you have the histrionics in other places as well. In slams in general, not just the final, contenders will try to stay in it beyond where they would stay otherwise.

Deboogle!.
03-21-2007, 07:45 AM
Well, Coria in the French Final was in that position (could not move legs). It is not an improbable situation, this did happen. He stayed on despite all, and guess what, he actually attained mp.

A slam final is not the only thing --it is useful just to make the point that this ist not always stupid. A TMS final, a slam semi, a Davis Cup deciding tie, and in other cases like Sampras-Corretja you have the histrionics in other places as well. In slams in general, not just the final, contenders will try to stay in it beyond where they would stay otherwise.when I said that continuing would be 'stupid' i was not considering the point of a slam final because of how improbable the situation is. That's what I was trying to say. After you posed this improbable scenario, i said that of course a player would want to finish because a slam final is too important a situation to consider. If you can finish with a win, in that case I think most players would feel it would be worth the risk.

I don't think Coria's match is really that relevant, though, because it was basically cramps. It's not like he fell and broke his ankle. Same with Sampras-Corretja. For me, a TMS final or a slam semi are not the same, but regardless, in the case of a TMS final, if a player is THAT close to winning a big title, he would probably go on even in the face of extreme risk. I'm not sure how I would feel about putting a DC deciding match (if it were the final) in the same category as a slam final, but I know that a lot of player would so for the sake of argument, I would say the same if it were the DC final deciding match.

My point was merely that in situations other than these extreme and unsual ones, no judgments should be made about a player's sportsmanship or anything else when he/she retires immediately after injury at the trainer's advice.

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 07:46 AM
I'm sorry, I guess i'm still not understanding. He has retired a total of 6 times in his career. That chart is counting 4 of those 6 as 'retirements while losing' - by their own criteria, the two of the 6 that shouldn't be considered 'retirements while losing' are the Sa and Hewitt matches because they were both locked at one set all. I'm not giving my opinion on the Sa match, because their criteria are quite clear where that one is concerned (well now that they have edited the best-of-5 thing, they are clear overall). What I was saying before you clarified and they edited the best-of-5 part was that perhaps the Ljubicic AO match should ALSO not be counted as a 'retirement while losing' - but now they have removed that part and so by their criteria it should indeed be counted.

I don't know Roddick's stats very much, or at all, but as far as I can see, the Ljubicic, Fish, Verdasco and the last one should all be counted.

Their criteria seemed clear to me all along, but I guess others can misinterpret.

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 07:49 AM
The score was Fish def. Roddick 7-6(4) 4-3 RET

That is Fish is leading. I don't think "on serve" is taken as an indicator of the evenness of a score in the calculations, because players break and players don't hold. A game is up for grabs, regardless of who is serving and who is receiving. At the point of retiring, Fish had won 4 of the game to 3 for Roddick.



AO R64 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) 37 6-7(11) 2-3 RET
Delray Beach R32 Fish, Mardy (USA) 66 6-7(4) 3-4 RET [rolled ankle mid-match, still on serve in 2nd]
2005
Miami R64 Verdasco, Fernando (ESP) 45 6-7(11) 3-4 RET [sprained wrist late in first set, retired when still on serve in 2nd]
2006
RG R128 Martin, Alberto (ESP) 68 4-6 5-7 0-1 RET [came in with ankle injury]

almouchie
03-21-2007, 09:01 AM
it is only relevant & important if u chose to see it that way
its like saying how many first rounds a young player has lost, u have to see who he lost to as well
in any case, its relative

Kolya
03-21-2007, 09:13 AM
Wow... Kolya has retired a lot...

Margy
03-21-2007, 04:09 PM
Wow... Kolya has retired a lot...

Yes, he has. And so has Haas. I found that really interesting to see the percentage of their total losses as retirements. Haas has 13 retirements out of 191 career losses, that's 7% of all his losses. Davydenko is worse at 8% (14 out of 177). When you are giving up close to 1 out of every 10 losses due to a retirement, that certainly says you have some kind of problem. Granted some, as Deb and others have pointed out, were freak accidents and illnesses; but some have to be suspect as to their true necessity. And if not, to be forced to legitimately retire that many times then says something like these guys are just in horrible shape as far as pro athletes go to find themselves in these situations so often and should be doing something majorly defferent in their training to be able to be better prepared to compete on a pro circuit.

Deboogle!.
03-21-2007, 07:20 PM
I don't know Roddick's stats very much, or at all, but as far as I can see, the Ljubicic, Fish, Verdasco and the last one should all be counted.

Their criteria seemed clear to me all along, but I guess others can misinterpret.as i said multiple times, I did not understand the best-of-5, so I didn't think the Ljubicic match should be counted. I see that they edited that after I wrote to them, so under the criteria it should be counted. I never said the others shouldn't be counted. The score was Fish def. Roddick 7-6(4) 4-3 RET

That is Fish is leading. I don't think "on serve" is taken as an indicator of the evenness of a score in the calculations, because players break and players don't hold. A game is up for grabs, regardless of who is serving and who is receiving. At the point of retiring, Fish had won 4 of the game to 3 for Roddick. Again, maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I never said this match shouldn't have been counted under THEIR criteria for "retirement while losing" - however, it is MY opinion that if a guy gets hurt suddenly in a match, sees the trainer, and retires immediately, that this should NOT be considered in the same analysis as someone who retired down 1-6 1-4 with allergies or cramps or something. I hope I have made myself more clear now.

The only reason matches like Ljubicic and Fish ones are counted as "retirements while losing" is because Andy happened to lose the first sets in a TB (before he got hurt). If he had managed to win those sets in the TBs (and one would have to assume in a 13-11 TB Andy had his chances to at least win that one), and THEN twisted his ankle and had to retire immediately, they wouldn't be counted as "retirements while losing" because he would have been winning. And that's why I find some of the stats so troubling and arbitrary. They're analyzing matches where a player just happened to lose the first set before getting hurt exactly the same as where a player was nearly losing and just decided to stop playing under suspect circumstances. And for me, those are two completely different situations and should not be lumped together.

Add that to the fact that they fail to research when the players kept playing through injury (which would demonstrate that a particular player has a threshold of injury - whether it's the pain he feels, what the trainer tells him, whatever, but some way to address that for all these players, sometimes they play and sometimes they don't and there must be a reason why sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, and also, do they keep playing more than they retire? i.e., I know that in Andy's case he has completed matches while injured many more times than he's retired.) and then they make judgments about it, I still feel it's a pretty irresponsible piece that only presents a small fraction of the story.
it is only relevant & important if u chose to see it that way
its like saying how many first rounds a young player has lost, u have to see who he lost to as well
in any case, its relativeexactly.
Granted some, as Deb and others have pointed out, were freak accidents and illnesses; but some have to be suspect as to their true necessity. And if not, to be forced to legitimately retire that many times then says something like these guys are just in horrible shape as far as pro athletes go to find themselves in these situations so often and should be doing something majorly defferent in their training to be able to be better prepared to compete on a pro circuit.All I was trying to say is that the two kinds of retirements - freak accidents/sudden things where a player retires immediately (or after trying to play a couple more games or something) and the ones that are truly suspect should not be lumped together and analyzed as if they were one.

As for the out of shape stuff, I don't agree. Some people are just injury-prone. Andy twists his ankles a lot and 3 of his 6 retirements have been ankle injuries. But he's not out of shape. Tommy is also not out of shape. The match where he stepped on the ball and it blew up like a balloon but he decided to try to play anyway was counted, just to name one. Davydenko is a very fit guy, but has had injury problems. I remember when he retired in the AO QF a couple years ago due to very severe breathing problems - again not a lack of fitness. Etc. etc. etc.

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 07:45 PM
I don't think anyone, including the author, thinks that all retirements are alike. There is no way to separate them in the data, however. In some cases it's a visible injury like Haas at Wimbledon, and in other cases it is possible that pretty serious ankle injuries don't show up as balloons. In fact, that is why the author does not state any of his inferences as "fact", because each retirement is unique to the circumstances. Mathieu is a shining example of a retirement that no one will dispute follows a severe injury, only points away from a straight sets win, in a Slam.

How does one know if Roddick, or someone else, has got suddenly injured in a match, rather than carry a slight form of injury into the match and retire subsequently after falling behind? Except for extremely obvious circumstances like Haas at Wimbledon, this is impossible to tell. Is it not possible that week in week out of training could wear down his ankle and make it less than 100% fit to start with? If it were so simple to tell, there would be plenty of fines imposed on players for falsely claiming injury.

So, treating ALL players alike, all anyone can do is see if there is a pattern in retirements, such as retirements when behind. If you know of a way in which the author can separate out the True Injury retirements from the False Injury retirements, you could suggest it. The only way I am able to suggest a weak test of this, is look at the injured player the following week. Playing? Haas following Wimbledon did not, for weeks after. Roddick played at IW the week after the ankle injury you are talking about.

however, it is MY opinion that if a guy gets hurt suddenly in a match, sees the trainer, and retires immediately, that this should NOT be considered in the same analysis as someone who retired down 1-6 1-4 with allergies or cramps or something. I hope I have made myself more clear now.

All I was trying to say is that the two kinds of retirements - freak accidents/sudden things where a player retires immediately (or after trying to play a couple more games or something) and the ones that are truly suspect should not be lumped together and analyzed as if they were one.

Bilbo
03-21-2007, 07:46 PM
this is typical haas :o

R.Federer
03-21-2007, 07:49 PM
I think a more interesting stat would be players who won while injured, e.g. Murray vs Haas at Indian Wells would be a good example.

There would be certainly less controversy about that, except that it is not always possible to tell when a player is injured. Asking for injury timeouts during a match, well we know that that is also abused unfortunately.

Retirements when AHEAD is a good stat to look at. Barring RR :lol: and desire to help countrymen and friends from the circuit, there should be no controversy at all about that.

Margy
03-21-2007, 08:29 PM
As for the out of shape stuff, I don't agree. Some people are just injury-prone. Andy twists his ankles a lot and 3 of his 6 retirements have been ankle injuries. But he's not out of shape. Tommy is also not out of shape. The match where he stepped on the ball and it blew up like a balloon but he decided to try to play anyway was counted, just to name one. Davydenko is a very fit guy, but has had injury problems. I remember when he retired in the AO QF a couple years ago due to very severe breathing problems - again not a lack of fitness. Etc. etc. etc.

Yes, "out of shape" was a poor choice of words on my part. I didn't mean necessarily poor overall fitness but rather something lacking in match preparedness that makes them more susceptible to "accidents" than everyone else. For example they may not train properly or long enough on the specific court surface to get used to the feel for quick turns or slides. Or maybe they just don't warm-up sufficiently prematch. But except for the freak events like Haas in Wimbleton, most accidents are caused by overextending oneselve or misjudging something. People in everyday life who are "injury prone" tend to be more careless than others in paying attention to their surroundings. I think the same thing has to apply to players. Those who play within their limits and are properly prepared on the court surface will not have the need for excessive numbers of injury retirements. Those who do have high retirement numbers should maybe try to analyze what they may be doing (or not doing) compared to others that don't seem to get injured.