Tennis experts are split in half over a contentious issue that has given Nick Kyrgios a free pass into his first ever grand slam final.
The tennis world is divided about Nick Kyrgios’ place in the Wimbledon final after Rafael Nadal sensationally pulled out of the tournament because of injury.
Nadal announced at a press conference on Friday morning (AEST) he would not be able to face Kyrgios in tonight’s semi-final because of a serious abdominal tear, gifting the Aussie a walkover start in Sunday night’s decider.
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 >
Kyrgios will face the winner of the other semi-final between Novak Djokovic and Cameron Norrie but some pundits believe the 27-year-old shouldn’t be granted an automatic passage into the last match of the tournament.
Nadal defeated American Taylor Fritz in the quarter-finals, coming out on top in a gruelling five-setter in which it was clear the Spaniard was struggling massively with his injury — to the point where members of his own team begged the 36-year-old to retire from the match.
The 22-time grand slam champion ignored the pleas from those closest to him and carried on to win, but that’s where his Wimbledon campaign ended.
Tennis commentators are now wondering whether Fritz should be allowed to remain in the draw and play Kyrgios for a place in the final. It’s being asked whether it’s fair Kyrgios receives a walkover, and if tennis should consider implementing its “lucky loser” policy deeper into grand slams than usual.
The “lucky loser” rule allows 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. In this instance, it would give Fritz the chance to play Kyrgios in the semi-finals, even after his loss to Nadal in the quarters.
It doesn’t happen this late in a grand slam, but some are questioning whether this year’s unique situation at the All England Club should convince tennis bosses to consider extending when the “lucky loser” guidelines can apply.
‘Not fair to anyone’: The case for
Veteran New York Times tennis reporter Christopher Clarey was among those to ask if Fritz should be allowed to stay on and play Kyrgios in the semis.
“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 ($AUD350) 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.
“If major events like the WTA and ATP Finals have tournament champions who have had losses in the event — with the round-robin format — why can’t that be acceptable in regular draws, including the Grand Slams?
“It’s worth the discussion #Wimbledon.”
Blogger Lee Abbamonte said: “The #Nadal withdrawal at #Wimbledon is unfortunate but also annoying. #Tennis needs a lucky loser scenario for things like this.
“Fans, networks, advertisers all out money + a match. Plus one guy now has three days rest before the final. It’s a tough situation and not fair to anyone.”
‘The tournament becomes illegitimate’: The case against
However, there were plenty of voices who don’t believe a player should be rewarded after losing in a grand slam.
Although a reconsideration of when the “lucky loser” rule could be implemented would help Fritz in this instance, the man himself admitted he doesn’t deserve to carry on after already losing to Nadal.
Responding to an Instagram user who suggested he should be advancing to the semi-finals against Kyrgios in Nadal’s place, Fritz replied: “Nah not looking for handouts. If I couldn’t beat him (Nadal) then I don’t deserve to be in the semis … simple as that.”
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.”
Fellow tennis writer Ricky Dimon added: “Please tell me we aren’t starting this mid-tournament lucky loser discussion again️,” with a face palm emoji.
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.”
Adding another element into the complex debate were questions about whether Nadal should have chosen to retire against Fritz if he knew his injury was so bad there would be no way he could possibly recover in time for the semi-final.
However, Nadal has made miraculous recoveries before and most fans said he had every right to try and defeat Fritz, in the hope he would heal sufficiently to play Kyrgios.
Nadal won the Australian Open in January and the French Open last month, but his withdrawal from Wimbledon means he’s no longer a chance of completing the prestigious calendar Grand Slam — when a player wins all four majors in the same year.
He remains on 22 grand slam singles titles — two ahead of Djokovic and Roger Federer on the all-time list of men’s major winners.
Djokovic can cut that lead back to one if he defeats Norrie in his semi-final on Friday night, then overcomes Kyrgios in Sunday night’s decider.
Originally published as Debate erupts over Nick Kyrgios’ place in Wimbledon final after Rafael Nadal bombshell
For all the latest Sports News Click Here
For the latest news and updates, follow us on Google News.
