I just double checked. Roger has never retired in the middle of a match in his entire career that spans more than 1500 matches. I believe he considers it a sportsmanship thing. If you are fit enough to enter a match, you should at least try to complete the match and give the opponent a sense of satisfaction of defeat over yourself even if you are injured. He does this not only against important players, but even against no name players.
I am not saying that this rule should be literally followed by everybody in every circumstance. But one should try to do so except in extreme circumstances. If it is obvious that you are going to hurt yourself, you should retire. On the other hand, I have seen players (don't want to mention names) retiring when the score is 2-5 in the final set and things like that. Even if you are badly injured (actually these people were not), I am sure you can stand in the court for 3 more minutes and let the opponent serve four aces and give him the satisfaction of a completed victory.
Roger might have been concerned about his ability to complete the next match @RG also. It is possible that this may have played a role in his withdrawal from the tournament. I am not saying this is the case; just that it is possible.
Man, you have been very busy trying to justify Roger's withdrawal from RG. If Rogelio withdrew from the tournament because he was protecting his record of never retiring during a match, that's lame. But that isn't why he did it. It was patently obvious why he did it. The very fact that he only entered Geneva and RG made it fairly obvious that he wasn't really expecting to win at RG, but he needed to play some tennis. He could have given the match v. Berrettini a go, but he didn't want to risk it, due to what he has/had at stake on grass.
If not entering a tournament is morally superior to quitting it in the middle, then so is not playing a match than quitting the match in the middle.
The latter one is even more so, as it is more easily predictable being over a short period of time.
Speaking of poor quality of arguments...
I am all ears. Please explain.
For your information, here are the stats:
| # of matches involved in | # of withdrawals before start. | # of reitrments during the match |
| Ralph | 1235 | 7 | 9 |
| Roger | 1521 | 4 | 0 |
Rafa's withdrawals and retirements were due to injury. Rogelio's withdrawal from RG this year, (and the YEC one in 2014, possibly,) were not due to injury, but due to saving himself for something else. And look at their histories of injury and compare.
In 2014, when he withdrew in the ATP finals against Novak also he did not have any real injuries. He actually came out and announced about an hour before the match saying unfortunately he cannot play as he is not match fit after the draining match with Stan the previous night. Some even bothered to accuse him of saving himself for the Davis Cup that was scheduled to run the following week. Why would DC be more important than ATP finals, even though he has never won DC.
But, I get the real reason for all this drama. If dog bites man, it is not news. If man bites dog, it is. Given that Roger's withdrawals happen once in a blue moon, it becomes a big news and people float lot of conspiracy theories around it.
These are not conspiracy theories. He's being straight-up accused of dissing the tournament...by many, including ex-players and TV commentators who had a big problem with it. I have said, I'm not one that cares that much. But no amount of excuse-making or comparing his withdrawal to those of others is going to change what some think of this particular choice, and I don't just mean partizans on this forum. As to the YEC finals withdrawal, he did cite his back, though ESPN, for example, did wonder in print if it was more about DC. But, hey, he couldn't play the day after the SF with Stan, but was better by the following weekend. Fair enough.
I read it as sarcasm that he was fine a week later so apologies if I'm misinterpreted.
