Sachin Tendulkar, much beloved and record-setting cricketer, recently played his last match (probably). It was hoped that he’d be able to make yet another century (scoring 100 runs/“points” for his team) to cap off his career, but in the end managed just 74.
Getting that last century would have been a great accomplishment - a worthy accomplishment for someone who’s done extraordinary things in his sport. It’s fairytale, movie ending to wrap everything up in a bow. But of course in the end it’s still just two teams competing against each other to win a particular game.
My gut instinct is that for the other side to go easy on a player in their retirement match/series/season isn’t right, though I can’t really put into words why that is. Likewise, though, I wouldn’t have any problem with that first bowler not putting his full effort in in order to ensure he got at least some runs in, but I can’t really justify that, either.
How should an opposing team/sportsperson approach a retiring player’s last go at it? And why?
At that, if both sides are okay with one of 'em going easy, what’s the point of going? Why not just declare the retirement and agree to chalk up ‘100’ without bothering to play? It’s not an actual competition at that point, so it’d be a real shame to risk someone (a) getting injured, or (b) taking it seriously.
No way would I want that. People can tell when a team is letting up. How would you like to have people coming up to you for the rest of your life saying “You know they gave you that, right?”
There a possibly apocryphal story about Carl Yaztremski’s last at bat in the majors. Reportedly, when he was on his way to the plate, the umpire told the catcher, “It’s his last at bat ever. If he doesn’t swing at it, it’s a ball.”
Yes, there’s a sense that a premiere athlete would want to go full tilt up until the end. But there’s also players wanting to honor another great player at the end of his career. That sort of sense can lead to great moments. Two of my favorites from baseball:
Yankees vs White Sox. Deion Sanders hits a pop fly and doesn’t even try to run. Carlton Fisk bounces up from his catcher’s crouch and yells at Sanders that he’s not playing the game right and he should fucking run!
All star game, Cal Ripken’s likely last one. Ripken at third and ARod at short. ARod insisting the Rip play short instead.
So play the game hard, but I can’t really get mad if other athletes want to give honor and show respect to a great player who is on his way out. It may not be in the best competition, but it is sentimental and kind.
You can play hard, while at the same time show respect and “take it easy”
I’d say it should be played “hard and honest” without intimidation or doing any of the less savoury, but still legal, things that can be done.
And at the same time - if you have the opportunity for an “easy out” for something that is not the retiring players fault, or the result of a mix-up (this can also happen in cricket) - you can “flub it”
It’s kind of like the “running up the score” issue. You can play competitively without being a dick about it. It’s a guys last ever at bat, you don’t need to groove in an 88mph fastball, but don’t throw a bunch of unhittable garbage either.
That said, in many sports, football, basketball, soccer, hockey, it’s hard for me to think of a way for the opponent to give a retiring player any kind of meaningful consideration, while still playing the game right.
As the OP used cricket as the example, should Donald Bradman have been given an easy ball in his last test innings so he could hit the four runs needed to give him a lifetime test batting average of 100? (I don’t even know if it was known at that time that it would be his last test innings).
He was bowled for a duck (zero), thereby ending his career with an average of 99.94 (second on the all-time list has an average of 60.97).
I’m on the side of those who think no favor should be offered.
In Mickey Mantle’s last season, Denny McClain, pitching for Detroit, (which was several runs ahead of New York in the last innings), grooved one down the center to Mantle on the grounds that it was going to be Mantle’s last chance to ever hit a homer in Tiger Stadium.
McClain did not give Mantle any gifts in the early innings until the game was pretty well sewn up, but let him have one final blast before he retired. I don’t really have a problem with that. In fact, while I am not a serious baseball fan, I remember that all the baseball nuts from Detroit with whom I was going to school agreed that it was a nice gesture on McClain’s part.
Ripken played the majority of his career at shortstop. Towards the end, he moved to third base. By this time, ARod had supplanted him as the premier shortshop in the AL. But in Ripken’s last AS Game, he got to play short one last time.
Fisk’s point was that Sanders should have run even if it was almost certain the ball would be caught. Every once in a while an easy pop up is dropped or two fielders collide and the runner makes it to first.
Even though he was on the opposing team, Fisk didn’t like to see Sanders not playing all-out.
However, this doesn’t seem to fit with the idea of going easy on a retiring opponent. I would assume that Sanders was being lazy rather than deliberately conceding the out to the White Sox.
I hate the idea of going easy on someone. It’s a competition, and it doesn’t mean much if someone isn’t putting in an honest effort. Sure, you might say, that a guy is a great and is retiring, so take it easy on him. But what made him great was that people competed against him for his whole career and he still came out on top. It’s great to go out on a high note, but how high is it really if it’s artificial?
That said, there is a difference between being competitive and running up the score. But even there, that’s as much to protect yourself as it is to not shame your opponent. If you have an insurmountable lead, you put in your backups to give them some experience and to keep your starters from getting injured, which also keeps you from being a jerk to your opponents and running up the score.
Worst of all, though, is when it comes to records. If one person worked hard to earn a record, and the person who beats him out got handed the record with an easy pitch or a free sack or whatever, the record means less. People hate the PEDs in the homerun races and how that illegitimizes their records, but it’s just the same as through an easy pitch right down the middle to give a guy the record either. Then again, it also bugs me that people gun for records at all, because what I think makes them interesting is precisely when we just catch a fluke in a game or a season, rather than people adjusting how they play to get them.
And, really, in the end, as much as a storybook ending might be nice, a great will, and should, be remembered for his career. So, I say, treat the great with respect by giving him your honest best.
I’m no athlete, but if I were one, the sight of my opponents going easy on me in my last contest would be a sign that I had hung on for one game too long.
It was by no means a given that it was Bradman’s last innings given that it was Australia’s first in the match; however, it did come when England had just been bowled out for a paltry score and there was every chance that Australia would need to bat only once to win it.
Had Australia needed to bat again, Bradman would have needed to make four or more and be not out, or score 104 or more, to average 100. As it turned out, they did not.
Bill O’Reilley (the Australian bowler, not the other guy) almost choked laughing at Bradman’s dismissal - though they had been team-mates, they had not always seen eye to eye, and he for one was perfectly happy for the cards to fall as they might.
I asked a buddy of mine about this very thing once (he was in the NFL in the 70s and the HOF today). If he knew the QB/RB/whoever was playing in his last game, his goal was to force an early retirement.
