Some people will sit down at a keyboard and beg Andy Murray to retire. This is no way to spend a writing life. There has only ever been one worthwhile piece of writing calling for retirement—it was composed by Danny DeVito—but typists the world over continue to churn out their insignificant contributions to this doomed genre. Tennis’ latest such piece, which triggered its current tedious media cycle, is a BBC Scotland column from last week written by Kheredine Idessane. The headline poses a question about Andy Murray: “Is the end nigh for three-time Grand Slam winner after latest loss?” The column is written by a longtime close observer of Murray, but it is, ultimately, still a column asking an athlete to retire, out of some misplaced concern for the athlete’s legacy, and that makes it very silly, if perhaps less retrospectively stupid than the famous 2013 column asking Roger Federer to retire. (He had another productive decade in him, it turned out.)

“Safeguarding his own mental health must surely come into play alongside preserving his reputation,” writes Idessane. Murray, who is probably more focused on safeguarding his mental health from these kinds of articles than from tennis losses, replied to the writer with predictable indignation. “Tarnishing my legacy? Do me a favour. I’m in a terrible moment right now, I’ll give you that. Most people would quit and give up in my situation right now. But I’m not most people and my mind works differently. I won’t quit. I will keep fighting and working to produce the performances I know I’m capable of.” Peers like Andy Roddick rode to Murray’s defense, as the big-serving American referred to the beleaguered Scot as an “accomplished iconic adult,” which is a compliment so stilted I want to borrow it as a résumé topline. True to his word, Murray has not since quit. He has continued entering all the obscure tournaments of February. He has said he will go back down to the Challenger tour if he needs to.

Because this much is undeniable: Andy Murray cannot win an ATP match at present. The BBC column was inspired by his loss last week at Montpelier to Benoit Paire, the dissipated Frenchman who himself had not won a tour-level match for a year and a half. Murray lost his first-round match this week, too. He has now lost in the first round of seven of his last eight events, going back to last fall. What the talk of “legacy” glosses right over is the totally fair observation that Andy Murray stinks right now! That’s the reality on court; there’s no need to mash that accurate observation into the tortured framework of “legacy” or “safeguarding mental health.” And if what you are trying to say is that Murray’s stinking makes you personally uncomfortable, then a poem or talk therapy session might be a better outlet than a straight-faced request that he retire.

Just as Murray is free to work, you are free to construct that column about his poor play. Talk about the flagging second serve, a liability even in the best parts of his career and now barely workable some days, as in his Australian Open loss to Tomas Etcheverry, where he won just 33 percent of points behind it. Add in Murray’s observation that he’s playing phenomenal tennis in his practice sets but can’t seem to make it stick in competition. Whatever you do, just talk about the actual tennis he’s playing. Because I am not sure that the argument about legacy-tarnishing is all that clear on the mechanisms by which legacies are made. Hint: Legacies are not made in the first round of the Open Sud de France! This metal hip era is not going to somehow melt his Olympic gold medals. I don’t think the historians of tennis are going to skimp out on praise for a three-time major champ and all-time great because they were thunderstruck by the sudden memory of him losing to Tomas Machac at Marseille that one time.

But while I have you, let’s talk about that loss to Tomas Machac at Marseille. Those paying attention know that this isn’t such a dire loss anyway, because the 23-year-old Machac is one of the fastest risers on the ATP, in addition to being an avowed member of the short-shorts community. Early last year Machac nearly took out Djokovic in a third-set tiebreak in Dubai, turning heads with the quality of his aggressive tennis; this year he has already brought his best to Melbourne, with a straight-sets dismissal of Frances Tiafoe in round 2 and a tight loss to Karen Khachanov in round 3. Machac is a fleet-footed, flexible, frisky player who likes a decisive net rush and looks brilliant on fast courts. Not terribly surprising that he beat Murray, or that he followed it up with a win over Lorenzo Musetii. Fun watch, already inside the top 70, and should be moving much higher if this breakout is real. I can’t wait to see him thrive and someday bray for his retirement.

—“Coach” Craig Shapiro gets candid with tennis mom Aneke Rune.

—Any takers for The Tennis Channel?

—Move over Wimbledon, the 6 Kings Slam is coming. And the WTA Finals will probably follow it to Saudi Arabia.

—Simona Halep is fighting for her career.

—Alexander Zverev’s upcoming trial looms over his recent success, says Giri in Defector.