[ad_1]
The tennis world was left disappointed on Friday morning when Rafael Nadal pulled out of his Wimbledon semi-final against Aussie Nick Kyrgios.
The decision hands Kyrgios a walkover and his first grand slam final where he will face Novak Djokovic.
Watch Tennis Live with beIN SPORTS on Kayo. Live Coverage of ATP + WTA Tour Tournaments including Every Finals Match. New to Kayo? Start your free trial now >
The moment Nadal announced he was not continuing in the tournament after suffering a 7mm tear to his abdominal muscle, the debate raged whether Kyrgios should have gone straight through to the final or whether he should have played the “lucky loser” Taylor Fritz.
The American No. 11 seed lost an epic 3-6 7-5 3-6 7-5 7-6 match to Nadal on Thursday ending his deepest run at a grand slam.
But as the discussion turned to whether Fritz should have played against Kyrgios to deliver a semi-final, the man himself weighed in.
Replying to a comment which said the tournament “should have let you go forward”, Fritz shut down the debate.
“Nah not looking for handouts, if I couldn’t beat him then I don’t deserve to be in the semis … simple as that,” the American stated.
At just 24, Fritz has a long career ahead of him. But it didn’t mean the loss hurt any less as Nadal survived the gruelling four hour clash but could go no further.
“The closer you come, the harder you work, the more it hurts in the end to lose. I left it all out there, gave it everything I had, but still needed a little more,” he wrote.
“Thank you for all the love and support. ️ It’s an honour to battle against a childhood idol @rafaelnadal on centre court at @wimbledon. Back to work. This is just the beginning.”
However, it hasn’t stopped commentators calling for a change to the rules to ensure fans get their money’s worth.
The New York Times’ Christopher Clarey tweeted that in the rare event a player pulled out this late in a major, the person who lost to the withdrawing player should take the place in the next round.
They already have the “lucky loser” rule in place for players who have lost during qualifying or the opening round of a tournament to come back in the draw, should another star pull out with injury.
“It happens so rarely, but I still think it’s worth exploring. When a player withdraws this late in a Grand Slam or before a major tour final, the beaten player should be able to take the slot,” Clarey tweeted.
“In this case Fritz would play Kyrgios as a ‘lucky loser’. The show must go on.”
Tennis broadcaster and journalist Simon Cambers agreed with Clarey. He replied to his tweet: “Yep. And I think that given everyone knew Nadal was hurt, they could have asked Fritz to wait. Tickets for Friday are at least £200 ($A350) on Centre — that is a lot for one match.”
Former tennis star turned broadcaster and pundit Pam Shriver also weighed in. “I feel for Taylor Fritz. Should tennis re-examine the lucky loser rule’s scope?” she tweeted.
Commentator Nick McCarvel added: “This was a topic of convo a couple of years ago, but truly, tennis should fully consider ‘lucky losers’ mid-tourney.
“What does #Wimbledon gain with Nadal winning his QF and not being able to play the semi? Nothing. In fact the sport loses one of its marquee matches of the year.”
However there were plenty of dissenting voices as well.
Former world No. 15 and former Aussie Davis Cup captain Wally Masur simply said “no” when asked if Fritz should be able to play.
“You shake hands … Fritz probably collected his prizemoney and is on the private jet back home,” Masur told Stan.
Tennis writer Matthew Willis said there was no need to consider the “lucky loser” format this late in a tournament.
“I’m still confused about the logic behind it,” he wrote, in response to Clarey’s position. “How does it not degrade the competitive spirit of the event? And it’s sufficiently rare that it seems like a solution without a meaningful problem.”
Respected Sports Illustrated tennis journalist Jon Wertheim tweeted: “I get the temptation but I don’t know how you take a player who’s lost outright and let him back in the draw. Apart from the unfairness, there’s a real temptation for corruption/arbitrage?”
American sports reporter Dan Wolken tweeted: “The problem is, let’s say Fritz goes back into the semi-final as a lucky loser and then somehow wins the tournament. We all saw him lose. Then the tournament itself becomes illegitimate.”
[ad_2]
