There's an article in today's Sunday Times entitled 'Did Andre stay too long?' It says that the legendary Andre Agassi 'ends career on low note by playing on despite age and injury'.
The article says that he should have left the stage 'on a high', i.e. when he was still winnng Slams. It points out that in the past two years, he has just had one 'sole' win (not a Slam). In comparison, others such as Pete Sampras and Agassi's wife Steffi Graf retired while they held Grand Slam titles. The writer says Steffi 'knew when to call it quits'.
I find the article rather disturbing. Why does winning have to be the end-all? Why does a sportsman have to end his career on a 'high'? Why can't he play for however long he wants to, even when he's never going to be #1 again?
I'm sure that in these last couple of years or so, Agassi and (most of) his fans were not deluded enough to think that he was going to win another Grand Slam. Yet, he continued on the tour. I can think of some possible reasons why he did that. However, why should we even be asking why? If he wanted to continue playing, why shouldn't he have continued playing?
And I really don't think his career ended on a low note. Instead, I think his last matches were respectable and dignified. His opponents gave him due respect, he gave them due credit. Most importantly, he obviously loves tennis. Isn't that what counts?
The article says that he should have left the stage 'on a high', i.e. when he was still winnng Slams. It points out that in the past two years, he has just had one 'sole' win (not a Slam). In comparison, others such as Pete Sampras and Agassi's wife Steffi Graf retired while they held Grand Slam titles. The writer says Steffi 'knew when to call it quits'.
I find the article rather disturbing. Why does winning have to be the end-all? Why does a sportsman have to end his career on a 'high'? Why can't he play for however long he wants to, even when he's never going to be #1 again?
I'm sure that in these last couple of years or so, Agassi and (most of) his fans were not deluded enough to think that he was going to win another Grand Slam. Yet, he continued on the tour. I can think of some possible reasons why he did that. However, why should we even be asking why? If he wanted to continue playing, why shouldn't he have continued playing?
And I really don't think his career ended on a low note. Instead, I think his last matches were respectable and dignified. His opponents gave him due respect, he gave them due credit. Most importantly, he obviously loves tennis. Isn't that what counts?
Comments
dee