Retirement - The bringer of uncertain reactions

First topic message reminder :

When a tennis player decides he or she has had enough and knows that mentally and physically that facing the prospect of training and matches and flying and driving, retirement is the only escape from such a life. Some can do it willingly, others not so willingly. When players retire, it is only then that natural reflection of their accomplishments in the game and much about what they have contributed to the game becomes the centre of focus. Greatness can be defined or simply a care-free sentence as 'Geee wasn't he good, could've done better'

Once the decision is made and retirement is officially on the cards, we wonder, 'How are they going to do it?'

Fairytale ending - Pete Sampras at the US Open in 2002 chose to end his career in the most amazing way possible. Sign off as a champion. Win one last title. Go for the big one. Prove doubters wrong, like a certain Greg Rusedski who before the tournament said that Pete couldn't win another tournament and Greg was dispatched un-mercifully by the man himself. For me only Federer has the ability to end his career in such a way.

Emotional ending - The last hurrah. Jimmy Connors made that amazing run at the US Open in 1991 at the age of 39 reaching the Semi Finals and everyone thought Jimbo was going to do it. Emotions run high. Storybook stuff. No-one told that to Jim Courier who ended his amazing run during that tournament. Andre Agassi at the US Open 2005 lost to a Roger Federer, who to this day recognises his performance as one that he played his 'best' tennis. I thought Andre would retire on a high, but decided he had a last chance in him. He reached the final and he could do it again and even go one better. At the US Open in 2006, Unfortunately he lost in the 3rd round to Benjamin Becker. What then followed was pure and utter emotion and outpour for a guy that was one of the people. Who gave his all, despite the hatred for the game that lurked inside of him. Gustavo Kuerten retired after the French Open 2008 after vowing to only play tournaments that had sentimental value to him. 15,000 people watched him go down to Paul-Henri Mathieu.

I can't fight on anymore ending - Bjorn Borg was one of the first players to speak out against the 'brutal' schedule at the time. The Australian Open at the time was held in December and many top players decided to skip the tournament to recover. In 1981 at Wimbledon he lost to John McEnroe and stormed off before the presentations. He then lost to Big Mac again at the US Open that year in the final and announced his retirement at the age of 26. He made an attempted comeback, but I shall remember him like so many at his peak. Boris Becker decided not to play Wimbledon again after his 1997 Quarter Final defeat to Sampras. He retired in 1999.

Injury ending - So many players have succumb to retiring through injury. Ivan Lendl, Steffi Graff, Justine Henin, Carlos Moya, Mario Ancic, Monica Seles. It is not one through choice and is one that is not pleasent.

Forgotten ending - Marat Safin made it no secret of his desire to retire from the game at the age of 29. Disillusioned with his game and how he was eliminated from tournaments symbolised that he no longer enjoyed the game. His last match was during the Paris Masters when he lost to US Open champion Juan Martin Del Potro.

Disgraced ending - Martina Hingis a 9 time Slam Champion achieving the Career Grand Slam ended her career in disgrace when she tested positive for Cocaine in 2007 after her third round exit at Wimbledon. She retired declaring she had never taken drugs, though she made no fight to clear her name.

How would you like to see your favourite player retire?

Again, where's your evidence that drug usage will hit the roof if you legalize? You got zero evidence it will. All the evidence we got show the opposite.

Go find some evidence instead of saying human nature means it will. That's not evidence and if it was true, it would be proven in Portugal, and it isn't. The only reason drugs are banned is because of supposed harm, it's been proven by actual scientists that these claims are flawed. Many illegal drugs cause very little harm, so why are they banned? That was the entire reason for banning them, if they cause no harm, there's no case for banning them.

Except in the case of r a p e your not causing physical harm to another person. Drug takers or addicts don't necessarily cause harm to others, that's the point. They are not the same, one must involve someone else to cause the harm, the other doesn't at all. Desiring to harm someone else for your own benefit is not the same as desiring to get high for your own benefit. Getting high doesn't mean you will harm others, ra-pe does.

Tenez wrote:

* Having laws on drink driving isn't "treating people like children" because it involves harm. There isn't a law against drinking, just driving while you do it. There shouldn't be a law against drugs, just doing irresponsible stuff while you're doing them. That's consistent.

Why is it different? We could educate people not to drink and drive instead of making it illegal? but we simply apply a rule cause we know some will still do it so we have a way to penalise them, those who don't behave like "adults". I don;t drink and drive because it's dangerous....not because of the law and that is what adults should do. For the same reasons I don't abuse drugs. Laws are there to regulate when a "critical mass" of incidents forces a law upon us all.

* The laugh about prohibition is it doesn't work. I'd understand (but still disagree) if it was a choice between legal drugs and a society without drugs achieved by prohibition, but it's actually a choice between legal drugs without criminality and illegal drugs funding international organised crime. I mean, didn't anyone pay attention to 1930's America and what happened then?.

It's not perfect but I think it the better of 2 evils. The 1930s Acohol prohobition is a very good example cause yes, we tried to deprive people of alcohol despite teh fact it was part of their culture for centuries if not millenium. Also the fact a large part of teh population can drink moderately. Drugs are in a different category as it is not part of the western culture and most people can;t handle it...or at least a big enough number to cast a law on it.

I woudl not put a law on teh south american tribe smoking opium or else to connect with their ancestors... clearly that is part of their culture and have been doing so for centuries.

ER.... drink/driving is the combination of alcohol consumption and a dangerous activity. You're just deciding that taking drugs carries the same risk to others, which is doesn't. Sitting in a room sniffling coke doesn't cause children to die, driving when your doing it, that's crazy.

And as for justification of alcohol over drugs, it makes no sense. I have no culture going back centuries, I was only born last century.

And as for justification of alcohol over drugs, it makes no sense. I have no culture going back centuries, I was only born last century---------------------

Alcohol has been part of the western culture for centuries, certainy the case for americans and Europeans. We even have a gene that can break alcohol molecules that some asian groups don't have. SO it's clearly part of our inherited culture.

Tenez wrote: Raping is not a basic requirement no more than drug taking is but in both cases, they are basic instinct requirements which somewhen, somewhere have broken loose and control the man more than the man controls them.

I think you need to read more about the act of raping. You seem to be relating to it as a basic requirement for s*x gone wrong. That is not correct at all. Raping is an act of violence, while sexual attraction may be influential, power, control and anger are the primary motives, not the need for s*x. Indeed most rapists already have access to a sexual partner, their gratification comes from gaining power and control and discharging anger. This gratification is only temporary, so the naughty person seeks another victim. Its not about a basic sex instinct broken loose.

Wow, how did this thread get so sociological and deep, I will have to catch up. You guys are getting after some serious issues. Tenez, is actually a lot brighter when he decides to post on things other than tennis he makes more sense that way.

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote: Raping is not a basic requirement no more than drug taking is but in both cases, they are basic instinct requirements which somewhen, somewhere have broken loose and control the man more than the man controls them.

I think you need to read more about the act of raping. You seem to be relating to it as a basic requirement for s*x gone wrong. That is not correct at all. Raping is an act of violence, while sexual attraction may be influential, power, control and anger are the primary motives, not the need for s*x. Indeed most rapists already have access to a sexual partner, their gratification comes from gaining power and control and discharging anger. This gratification is only temporary, so the naughty person seeks another victim. Its not about a basic sex instinct broken loose.

You don't know what you are talking about once again trying to bring your pseudo science into it. You are taking a parallel I made to a vast and complex subject that's beyond you, even if you were a rap-ist yuo coudl not explain all the motives for other rapists...and I am not intersted in it anyway. There could be many motives for getting into raping. Violence is just one facet of raping but what links all the motives for rapes is the sexual act. And that is what I was talking about. It's a sexual desir gone wrong. End of story.

Yikes, this debate is finished, it's getting way too personal now!

Read more socal and you'll find there isn't much presented by way of evidence. Enjoy the read.

Tenez, keep it un-personal, ok?
Yes, the discussion was SO hard to follow for a pseudo-scientist such as myself.

Whoever's in control of this thread should be deleting the off topic posts

It's a struggle to find posts concerning players' retirement

Tennis players are bounty hunters, they will always have a shelf life unfortunately. I imagine when smug Soderling retires he will be forever reminding his Swedish broadcasters that he was the first person to defeat Nadull at the RG, and Rodduck will be the new face of Rubberduckzilla!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl9CQuAWhLM

Josiah Maiestas

You mean Roddick: USO 2003 Champ, 2007 Davis Cup winner, former world No1, top ten player for nearly a decade and winner of 30 events and counting ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1VG8hPDcdQ&feature=related

lydian wrote:

I think you need to read more about the act of raping. You seem to be relating to it as a basic requirement for s*x gone wrong. That is not correct at all. Raping is an act of violence, while sexual attraction may be influential, power, control and anger are the primary motives, not the need for s*x. Indeed most rapists already have access to a sexual partner, their gratification comes from gaining power and control and discharging anger. This gratification is only temporary, so the naughty person seeks another victim. Its not about a basic sex instinct broken loose.

Well, if it's only like that, I think my dog tick all the boxes......