Open Mic: Allow Players to Retire When They're Ready

Having been asked to write about Brett Favre’s retirement, I must admit I don’t know who he is. From the little bit of research I did, I found that Favre is a quality quarterback who’s played for years and years, breaking records and winning a Superbowl.

Therefore, it surprised me to learn of the anger at him taking such a long time to hang up his boots when he should be his team’s fans’ hero.  

Why should people get angry because Favre wanted to play the game he loves for as long as possible? Players have the right to chose when they retire, it shouldn’t matter whether or not it is early/late or an "acceptable" time.

How is this acceptable/proper time measured, though? How do players know the correct time to go? Is there a proper time? I don’t think anyone can really give an answer to that except the individual, and every individual is different in their views.

I think the key to the proper time in the eyes of the public is a getting a balance between having provided enough but leaving everyone with a sense of wanting a little bit more. If you go too early, you haven’t delivered enough, but if you go too late, people have had enough, (ie. Favre).  

There are examples of both ways. I think the best example of leaving too early is in women’s tennis. Three of the biggest names have retired in the last year or two. Justine Henin was ranked world No. 1 at 25-years old when she went with a good collection of grand slams.

Martina Hingis went, for the second time, seemingly because she had lost lust for the game and couldn’t be bothered contesting her drugs allegations. Kim Cleijsters went at 24.

These women were barely halfway through a normal-length career, so why leave us wanting so much more?

The state of women’s tennis would be in fantastic shape if they were all still there, but instead is short of big name players. I think the only thing to say about these players is that they left at the top of their game which is how everyone wants to go.

The main point, though, is that they left early because they didn’t have enough desire to carry on—this is an acceptable retirement reason in my eyes. 

The "problem" we have is those who stay around too long. Why do this?

Some players genuinely don’t want to stop playing. Why should they? As long as they still perform, we should feel lucky to still have them.

Players such as Teddy Sherringham played until they were 40 when most footballers stop at around 34/35. He stepped down a level to where he was still capable of performing well and was an asset to any team he was a part of.

Not only could he still play, but as an experienced guy with know-how, he could pass on some of his knowledge in a way that coaches can’t do, by actually showing his younger team mates rather than telling.

Experience is needed in any team so if players want to play, why be angry at them? They will be helping the club/team in ways that aren’t necessarily visible but are certainly worthwhile.

Some players want to play but need to adapt the way they play. Dion Dublin turned into a centre half, Lance Klusener turned to a medium bowler for Northamptonshire. Still decent players but, by changing their style just so they can play, are they preventing other younger players from having a chance?

Northants do have a lot of older players; without getting into the kolpak debate, a lot of them I imagine (with no proof) are giving county cricket a go as a last way of making a bit of money from the sport they play.There are very few youngsters at Northants (Steven Crook the only one playing off the top of my head).

Is this bad for them? Are the older players preventing the club moving on? Are they helping the team in the short term by being better than the crop of youngsters they have? Who knows?

If there are ready replacements, I think older players should go for the good of their team—after all, most sports are all about the team and not the individual.  

If these older players are genuinely helping the younger player whilst being as asset to their team, they should carry on and good for them if it is their wish to play.

I don’t think there is a definite answer to retiring at the correct time. Many players say they just felt it was the time to go, some try to go at the opportune moment for their club, others carry on as long as possible regardless of the situation, others want money (which is fair enough I suppose). Others lose interest, some are forced out.

There is no proper time, the fans will never know what the individual is thinking so they won’t have a clue if the time is correct or wrong, even if it is or isn’t. The main point is that no one should tell a player when to go—it has to be down to him. Having a go at an aging player is wrong and puts a damp end to a career they are trying to savour every last minute of as they come to its end. Leave it to them.