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.
comments (7) write a comment »
write a new comment
2 months ago
Brett Favre is a hero in Green Bay, the annoyance is that he actually retired but then five months later decided he didn't want to after all. Thus the team has already started to move on, replaced him and started making their plans for the future without him. He's acting like he's bigger than the team and this whole fiasco has really put a dampner on what's been a fantastic career. Yeah, a player can retire whenever they want, but when they do decide to, that should be it.
2 months ago
The 'five months later' bit, i didn't know (lack of american football knowledge and 'research' on my behalf there so apologies if it caused you offense as it seems to have done. If he is acting as though he is bigger than the team, that's not good and relates to the point i make that players should go when it is best for the team as most sports (and this one is definitely one of them) are about the team and not the individual. Therefore, ignore all the bits in this article about Favre (not that there are many) and try and come up with some players who have retired too late for the good of themselves and not their team.
from 2 months ago
Ha, no it didn't offend me, just thought I'd better point it out. As for players going on too long the two that spring to mind most are the former England goalkeepers Peter Shilton and David Seaman, who were still playing for England years after their prime. I'd also say it's possible to retire too early, take Stephen Fleming, the former New Zealand cricket captain for example, there's a lot of inexperience in that team now, and his experience, leadership and sheer class would have helped them become better players, plus he was still the best batsman in that team by a long, long way.
2 months ago
Eric Cantona possibly went too early as well. I suppose he didn't have a short career but retiring at around 30 left us wanting a lot more. Utd didn't need him like New Zealand need Fleming but being a Utd fan, I wish he'd stayed on. I think there's a possibility that Fleming got tired of playing for New Zealand; he carried them for so long that i don't blame him for not sticking around any longer. He would be very useful for them to have at the moment but they have some new players with potential so maybe he thought they should be given a chance.
from 2 months ago
Another person that went on too long is Paul Gascoigne, I saw him play for Boston United a couple of years back against my Lincoln City side, and honestly he was the worst player on the pitch by a long long way - this is the bottom tier of English football. No doubt he was earning more money than the rest of the players on the pitch too. My memories of Gazza should be of his goal against Scotland at Euro 96 etc, not of a pale fat man turning out for Boston United.
2 months ago
My friend came up with a good suggestion, did the 38 year old Alec Stewart go too early? He was still a fit guy. Did we have a replacement deemed ready at the time? The fact that they were not prepared to give Read a long try says that they didn't have a keeper ready so did he go at the correct time?
from 2 months ago
Hmmmm, I'm not sure, possibly, but obviously thoughts would be on the team for the next ashes series at which time Stewart would be 40, which might have been too old. I'm a huge fan of Chris Read and I think he was good enough and would have got much better if the selectors had given him a proper run in the side following Stewart's retirement. Stewart's retiring wasn't the problem, it was the selectors doing their jobs badly and messing about a really talented keeper, in my opinion anyway.
write a new comment