It's NONSENSE to say that Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray are hurting their legacies by soldiering on, writes MATTHEW LAMBERT

Retirement has been the talk of Roland Garros. Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray were asked before and after their first-round matches if this would be their last French Open and both gave the same perfectly reasonable response: ‘I don’t know.’

This will drag on. Andy, will this be your last Wimbledon? Will you retire after the Olympics? Rafa, is this your last US Open? Last Laver Cup?

The French Open had to cancel a farewell ceremony for Nadal. Wherever he and Murray go now, will there be montages, banners, cakes, plaques and pinatas ready to be wheeled out or hurriedly packed away?

The most notorious example of this tomfoolery occurred at the Australian Open in 2019, when they read too much into Murray’s comments and put on a retirement fiesta. Five years later and here he remains.

Why are we so determined to rush these all-time greats of the game into retirement?

As fans we want a chance to say farewell: to watch Nadal and Murray on court and know, for sure, that this is goodbye. But they don’t owe us any explanation, or any clarity. They owe us precisely nothing.

Maybe Nadal or Murray have an event in mind they would like to be their last but, more likely, they will continue to fight tooth and claw to squeeze every last drop from their careers.

It has been suggested that, by soldiering on and losing to players who they would have thrashed at their peak, these two are damaging their legacies — what utter bilge. Former world No1 Andy Roddick said it right: ‘This compromised version of Murray adds to his legacy. Seeing him struggle has brought the fans in.’

Tennis seems to be unique in this urge to hurry stars into their graves, perhaps because it is not a sport in which one can age gracefully.

A footballer can become a bit-part player, supported by younger team-mates. Ageing golfers can tootle around, tip their cap and shuffle to the bar and no one bats an eyelid.

Tennis players are always going to be up against someone younger, stronger and fitter and that can be exposing. But for Murray and Nadal, the signs are they could be further away from retirement than was supposed a few weeks ago. Murray is enjoying his switch to a Yonex racket and Nadal feels as fit as he has for two years — why on earth should they give up now?

Nadal played well enough against Alexander Zverev to suggest that, with another few months of matches in his legs, he could become seriously competitive, at least on clay.

Could he come back here next year? Absolutely yes. Could he earn a seeding and avoid another nightmarish draw? Quite possibly. Could he win a 15th French Open? If there is even a one per cent chance of that then why on earth would he retire — and why on earth should we wish him to?