Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,037 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Let me preface this with the statement that I hate De Bakker and think his horrible attitude and lack of caring is something that is bad for tennis. I watched him in Indian Wells qualifying this year and he is literally a joke in terms of dedication to the game.

But with that said, how can anybody get upset that he retired from that match against Diez? He obviously got the word that he was going to get in as a lucky loser, and retired in order to save as much energy as he can. Why blow your energy in a match that literally means absolutely zero when you can save it for a winnable main draw match worth far more money and potential ranking points? If I was given the option to take a shortcut that harms nobody and leads to potential advancement in my career field with financial benefit, I would do it every single time. Wouldn't you? I am just failing to see that logic in being upset with his actions. It isn't his fault the rules allow him to execute a (smart) tactic for his personal benefit. He still sucks though.

Discuss:wavey:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,469 Posts
Re: Why do people have a problem with De Bakker retirement?

I actually think it was quite nice of him; he essentially handed Diez a spot in the MD.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
Re: Why do people have a problem with De Bakker retirement?

chowdahead25 said:
But with that said, how can anybody get upset that he retired from that match against Diez?

I actually think it was quite nice of him; he essentially handed Diez a spot in the MD.
So if De Bakker had won, who would have been the LL instead of him? Unless it was Diez, someone got screwed.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,064 Posts
Re: Why do people have a problem with De Bakker retirement?

At first I thought it was not right, but at the same time, due to the LL rules of the ATP Tour he could've been in the Main Draw if not for the late withdrawals, and I agree he kind of gave Diez a chance for a shot at MD (when if he was against other Qualifiers he might have a problem).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,156 Posts
Re: Why do people have a problem with De Bakker retirement?

I can see some people having trouble with this. Those who bet on it. Im not sure how the rules are about LL. But to know even if you loose you get in is not fair or just.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
449 Posts
Re: Why do people have a problem with De Bakker retirement?

Am not aiming this at the player but LL slots should only be filled by those who fought it out. Retiree's/walkovers should be considered injured and not have a main draw spot given to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,133 Posts
Re: Why do people have a problem with De Bakker retirement?

So if De Bakker had won, who would have been the LL instead of him? Unless it was Diez, someone got screwed.
It would have been Steven Diez anyway. Only if Kevin King had beaten John-Patrick Smith, then Smith would have been the third lucky loser instead of Diez.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,370 Posts
Re: Why do people have a problem with De Bakker retirement?

If retiring is not allowed for a LL, then players who are guaranteed of a LL spot will tank their match.

It doesn't solve the fundamental problem, which is that players know before the match that they don't need to win to be in the main draw.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,899 Posts
Re: Why do people have a problem with De Bakker retirement?

It's really more of a problem with the rules than anything...Should be if you retire in Qualifying, you can't be a LL. I don't really blame the players for conserving the energy, it's in their best interest. Also, not really sure there is much of a crowd for a qualifying day at a 250 to worry about.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
15,649 Posts
Re: Why do people have a problem with De Bakker retirement?

The rule needs to become:

- randomize between the best (LL spots + 2) ranked players losing in the final round(s).

There's a problem though. If there happens that 3 LL spots become available, one of the LL in the rule above could be chosen from a previous round to the final round, which is even more unfair, not to mention 4 LL spots becoming available. The reason why this is different in ATP is because the final qualifying round usually consists of 4 winners and 4 losers, while Grand Slams have 16 losers in the final round.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
14,824 Posts
Re: Why do people have a problem with De Bakker retirement?

The rule needs to become:

- randomize between the best (LL spots + 2) ranked players losing in the final round(s).

There's a problem though. If there happens that 3 LL spots become available, one of the LL in the rule above could be chosen from a previous round to the final round, which is even more unfair, not to mention 4 LL spots becoming available. The reason why this is different in ATP is because the final qualifying round usually consists of 4 winners and 4 losers, while Grand Slams have 16 losers in the final round.
The issue does come up if there are 4 or more LL spots in a case like this. What I would suggest, rather then N+2, is draw from ALL of the losers in final qualifying to fill the LL spots, if it so happens there are 4, then the final round of qualifying is pretty much a wash, but if there is only one and this is the rule. de Bakker then likely finishes the match.

I also think that retiring should void your entry in the LL drawing. Players who retire don't get to advance.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
73,573 Posts
Re: Why do people have a problem with De Bakker retirement?

Could you change the thread title a bit? I thought you meant he was going to retire from tennis!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,469 Posts
de Bakker was interviewed just now before his match and he said his neck was a bit stiff and he had already known he was through, so he retired :shrug:
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top