Now that Andy has followed up his withdrawal from the Davis Cup by winning his next event, does that make you feel all the more betrayed or does it justify his decision.
It seems pretty clear that he didnt drop out with an injury he simply thought he'd be more likely to pick up an injury if he played. Given Baker's subsequent win over Calleri, you could argue that Andy's W/d cost us the tie, though I accept that its' stretching the point a bit.
Still bitterly disappointed and I agree that in a way it makes it worse because Andy clearly wasn't injured if he's capable of taking an ATP title the very next week.
However, I think he does feel bad about it and given his guarantee that he will play in subsequent Davis Cup ties I'm willing to let this one go and give Andy my full support.
__________________
Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive.... those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience
i never believed he was truely was injured, also you wonder if jamie would have still beaten Calleri if it was a 5th live rubber? it may have made the tie more exciting, tho, with it going into that match.
__________________
Count Zero - Creator of the Statistical Tennis Extrapolation & Verification ENtity or, as we like to call him, that steven.
My only quibble with the whole situation was how badly it was handled and Andy has to take some responsibility for that. If he didn't want to play because he feared aggravating a weakness in his knee, he should have had the guts to come clean and say so. He certainly shouldn't have left it to the last minute. He's not the most charismatic of characters and put some people's backs up by his thoughtlessness. It won't stop me supporting him, goodness knows there's not many of his potential in the Brit ranks. I'm pleased he won in Marseille but my pleasure is tempered by what went before.
But I feel Andy should focus his attentions on doing what is necessary to give himself a decent chance of winning a Slam. If that means no Davis Cup then fair enough.
Tennis players have a limited amount of energy and need to plan their schedule carefully. I didn't approve of Mark Petchey's approach of running Andy into the ground playing tournament after tournament.
While I enjoy watching Davis Cup matches, I think they are far more of a priority for Jamie than they are for Andy.
I think I have already made my opinion of this clear. Andy never said he was too injured to play at all, he said that switching surfaces could cause problems to the knee condition he already has.
In view of the fact that he had 285 points to defend last week and this, I find that very understandable. When you think of the injury problems he had last year I can see why he is a little paranoid about possible injuries.Granted he should not have left the decision so late but it was probably a very difficult decision for him and he probably didn't make up his own mind until the last minute.
With regard to Jamie's win over Calleri - no, I don't think it would have happened in a live rubber. I'm sure Calleri didn't want to lose but from what I have read the Argentine team were celebrating heavily the night before, so Calleri was more than likely a bit hung over. If it had been live that wouldn't have happened.
Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive.... those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience
other for me: I was bitterly disappointed, and very skeptical about how injured Andy was/how much damage it would really do but really the thing that bothered me was the way it was handled, not the decision itself.
__________________
To look at a thing is quite different from seeing a thing and one does not see anything until one sees its beauty
Still bitterly disappointed and I agree that in a way it makes it worse because Andy clearly wasn't injured if he's capable of taking an ATP title the very next week.
However, I think he does feel bad about it and given his guarantee that he will play in subsequent Davis Cup ties I'm willing to let this one go and give Andy my full support.
It's an interesting point John. How much do people think that players that utilise the resouces of their country have an 'obligation' to play Davis Cup.
Would you support him less if he never played another Davis Cup match, would it make it worthwhile if he then went on and won wimbledon.
Personally I have never been as bothered about Davis Cup as I have about the tour but I think I may be in a minority. Not saying that it isnt of interest, simply that it isnt a big priority.
I wouldnt be at all suprised given our paucity of talent and Andy's apparent fraility if he didnt say sooner rather than later, "that's me packing up Davis Cup".
He seemed to make a fairly pointed remark that: 'Jamie doesn't know what it's like to play three five set matches in three days' and I wonder if he is long term considering his position regarding Davis Cup.
I can't see him showing much interest in euro africa zone 1 matches if he is spending the rest of his time at the show and then has to go and play morocco away to save us from relegation.
So a slight variation on the original question, 'would andy quitting davis cup affect how you felt about him/ much you supported him?'
Boris Becker has dismissed Andy Murray's triumph in the Marseille Open as a sideshow and said he should not have body-swerved Britain's Davis Cup tie in Argentina.