PDA

View Full Version : Federer on time violations (With a little dig at Rafa).


Pages : [1] 2

Paul Murphy
03-08-2012, 03:00 AM
Roger Federer says that the time taken in between points is being violated and that officials do not properly enforce it enough. At the Grand Slams, The ITF allows 20 seconds between points, while the ATP allows 25 at its tournaments.

"I do believe the officials could be a bit more tough on timing," he told reporters at Indian Wells. "I'm not complaining a lot, but I don’t know how you can go through a four-hour match with Rafa [Nadal] and he never gets a time violation. It’s natural that even I would go over time, but they never remind us. There are times when they could be a bit more firm. Because at the end of the day, I don’t know if fans are getting frustrated to watch five points that are going to take us five minutes."

However, Federer is not in favor of installing shot clock.

"I hope it does not go that far. All of us should be able to agree of something that is possible. But you don’t want to lose fans because of that."

Tennis.com

joeri888
03-08-2012, 03:08 AM
Roger Federer says that the time taken in between points is being violated and that officials do not properly enforce it enough. At the Grand Slams, The ITF allows 20 seconds between points, while the ATP allows 25 at its tournaments.

"I do believe the officials could be a bit more tough on timing," he told reporters at Indian Wells. "I'm not complaining a lot, but I don’t know how you can go through a four-hour match with Rafa [Nadal] and he never gets a time violation. It’s natural that even I would go over time, but they never remind us. There are times when they could be a bit more firm. Because at the end of the day, I don’t know if fans are getting frustrated to watch five points that are going to take us five minutes."

However, Federer is not in favor of installing shot clock.

"I hope it does not go that far. All of us should be able to agree of something that is possible. But you don’t want to lose fans because of that."

Tennis.com

Federer is just right. I love tennis, and would love to watch Djokovic or a Nadal. I don't mind watching them in a stadium, btu when you want to catch some tennis in a busy day on tv, they are really frustrating to watch.

Magnus
03-08-2012, 03:21 AM
Fed is going easy on Nadal. Rafa has ruined the sport for me, he's simply so frustrating to watch due to all the time wasting.

Hood_Man
03-08-2012, 03:22 AM
I'm inclined to agree with him. I actually think the time between points at the majors should be increased (20 seconds really is nothing) but sometimes it can get silly.

And I know it's not just us hardcore fans who get wound up by it, when Wimbledon was on some of my work colleagues were winding me up for liking the sport and mentioning the ball bouncing, towelling off, adjustments etc. They might not have found it as annoying as they said they were, but they certainly noticed it.

I don't want to see point penalties or anything, but maybe a few more polite reminders from the umpires in the middle of or early in a set. It might reduce the need for a time violation warning when things start to get tense later on.


Saying that... I do actually like that tense feeling deep in a set when someone is taking forever, it's like a "will they/won't they" get a warning sort of thing. The more drama the better.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 03:22 AM
A shot clock will make it more exciting for fans, just as hawkeye has made it more exciting. I wish Federer would support a shot clock. Surely he knows umpires are afraid of stars. A shot clock is the only solution.

tenniselbow1
03-08-2012, 03:26 AM
He's just saying what 99% of the tennis world have been thinking for years. Sadly we may need a few more GS finals between the two biggest violators in the game to make it happen. I'll be tuning on and off within a match, for these encounters myself if they're to occur.

Rozroz
03-08-2012, 03:32 AM
A shot clock will make it more exciting for fans, just as hawkeye has made it more exciting. I wish Federer would support a shot clock. Surely he knows umpires are afraid of stars. A shot clock is the only solution.

the problem with a shot clock is that it doesn't go well with concentration and players tension in the dramatic parts of matches.
a player should be 100% focused before serving, and a shot clock will simply ruin that.

it will be more simple to just make the chicken judges follow a 20 or 25 rule.
don't forget the are exceptional long dramatic points that need more than 25 seconds.

but i'm sure Rog speaks for all of us on that matter and i hope they'll come up with a solution.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 03:44 AM
the problem with a shot clock is that it doesn't go well with concentration and players tension in the dramatic parts of matches.
a player should be 100% focused before serving, and a shot clock will simply ruin that.

it will be more simple to just make the chicken judges follow a 20 or 25 rule.
don't forget the are exceptional long dramatic points that need more than 25 seconds.

but i'm sure Rog speaks for all of us on that matter and i hope they'll come up with a solution.

Very hollow solution from Federer. We all know the umpires aren't going to listen to Federer. They are just going to do what they want regarding loose enforcement. Shot clock is the only solution. The umpire can turn the shot clock off after certain points. That can be left up to the umpire.

namelessone
03-08-2012, 03:45 AM
Fed is going easy on Nadal. Rafa has ruined the sport for me, he's simply so frustrating to watch due to all the time wasting.

Here's a quick and easy solution: don't watch him. The dude plays a handful of matches in every tourney he's in and you can easily avoid him until the SF/F stage, if he makes it that far.

Bartelby
03-08-2012, 03:46 AM
Shot clock is a stupid idea, esp when all you need is for the umpire to keep track of a period of time.

Players would serve in time all the time if there were a penalty and the problem would go away.

Murrayfan31
03-08-2012, 03:47 AM
I agree with a shot clock. Nadal's lungs will be on fire and he can't win that way. :D

Bartelby
03-08-2012, 03:49 AM
If foot faults were not called they'd happen most of the time.

Time limits are not called then they happen most of the time.

The umpire has timing systems = just enforce the rule.

joeri888
03-08-2012, 03:52 AM
The shot clock is even easier Namelessone.

Nadal is not ruining tennis, but he's inspiring pro's and young kids to do the same. Sure, if you are allowed to do it, you should.Defenitely helps your game. But, you shouldn't be allowed.

A shotclock would make things exciting. It would take some time for everyone to get used to, so start with a few challengers, or a few ATP 250's/500's. After that, the 1000's and slams can follow. Nadal and Djokovic CAN learn to play quicker, and it won't be more exhausting because someone's gonna give in earlier.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 03:52 AM
Shot clock is a stupid idea, esp when all you need is for the umpire to keep track of a period of time.

Players would serve in time all the time if there were a penalty and the problem would go away.

"All you need"? You talk as if this is an easy thing. Umpires enforcing the time rule has never happened, despite it being in the rule book. It's not going to happen. A new enforcer is required. The shot clock. The umpire can still have the discretion to turn the shot clock off if he feels the previous point was exhausting etc. or maybe the rule could be that shot clock is turned off once the game reaches deuce (if 'drama' - as mentioned by the other poster - is a reason to take longer, which I don't necessarily agree with).

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 03:55 AM
Either way, Federer has once again proven to be the most useless President in ATP history. Simply suggesting that the umpires should enforce the time violations, when he knows full well it will never happen.

Time to reduce the human error in umpiring. Hawkeye worked. And a shot clock will too.

Wilander Fan
03-08-2012, 04:14 AM
Not sure about the actual rules but when does the clock start? If the clock starts immediately after the previous point then it is a bit unfair to enforce the time violations as strictly as a shot clock since ball boys have to move around and fetch a ball etc. Maybe it should start as soon as a player is handed a ball but I keep getting images in my head of Nadal walking around the court trying to avoid the ballboy so the clock doesnt start.

OTOH, if they can figure out a simple and fair way to have a shot clock, it would make for some interesting tennis...especially on big points.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 05:13 AM
Not sure about the actual rules but when does the clock start? If the clock starts immediately after the previous point then it is a bit unfair to enforce the time violations as strictly as a shot clock since ball boys have to move around and fetch a ball etc. Maybe it should start as soon as a player is handed a ball but I keep getting images in my head of Nadal walking around the court trying to avoid the ballboy so the clock doesnt start.

OTOH, if they can figure out a simple and fair way to have a shot clock, it would make for some interesting tennis...especially on big points.

I think the whole rule needs to be reviewed, because at Wimbledon 2011 I saw Nadal being warned by the umpire despite the real problem being Del Potro interrupting Nadal's service. Del Potro wasn't ready to receive so Nadal stopped the routine and then re-did the routine.

vernonbc
03-08-2012, 05:16 AM
Everyone that's hollering for a shot clock says it should be used all the time...except for maybe when the crowd is too loud...or maybe when the players have played a particularly long and hard point...or maybe when the ballkids haven't gotten the balls to the players quickly enough...or maybe when a huge gust of wind comes up...or maybe when this happens or that happens. A shot clock isn't going to solve a darn thing because every time the umpire used his/her discretion for whatever reason, certain people would gripe and complain anyway that it was unfair or that the umpire is favoring one player or the umpire is inept or some such nonsensical thing.

As Woodrow has explained many many times, the 20 or 25 seconds isn't a hard and fast rule. It is discretionary, and the umpires are currently using their discretion, but no amount of explanation stops all the criticism. On another board, a poster got in touch with some official at the ATP and after many tries got an answer to his questions and that is that the 'clock' doesn't start at the instant the last point ends, it starts after the umpire has called the score. This poster then sat there with his stop watch and timed a bunch of matches and lo and behold, Nadal and Djokovic and Wawrinka and Isner and Berdych and all the slow players almost always served within their allotted time.

It would help if the tv commentators could be informed about how the rule is applied so they could quit passing on incorrect information to their audiences. They and some of the print media who have bees in their bonnets are causing a lot of problems instead of being objective in their commentary.

vernonbc
03-08-2012, 05:20 AM
I think the whole rule needs to be reviewed, because at Wimbledon 2011 I saw Nadal being warned by the umpire despite the real problem being Del Potro interrupting Nadal's service. Del Potro wasn't ready to receive so Nadal stopped the routine and then re-did the routine.
Nadal got an awful lot of unfair flack for that match. People thought, and the media did as well and reported it incorrectly, that Delpo was hollering at the umpire for the time that Nadal was taking for his injury. He wasn't. He was yelling at the ump because he had been given a 'soft' warning for the time he was taking to serve too and he was very upset, saying they (he and Nadal) weren't upset with each other so why couldn't the umpire just let them play.

laughingbuddha
03-08-2012, 05:22 AM
A shot clock allowing 30 seconds between points would be more than reasonable.

Bobby Jr
03-08-2012, 05:33 AM
The shot clock is even easier Namelessone.
I tend to agree - but it could be a 'silent' one which only the umpire gets.

The system could work that is the player hasn't started their motion and the times is up the umpire must immediately warn the player, not after the point.

That would speed players up like crazy. Imagine bouncing the ball 15 times and being just about ready and the umpire chiming in with "time violation Mr Nadal"...

The system would also cater to special situations where both players are exhausted 5 hrs into a match... but would help prevent the time wasting - the likes of which Nadal was doing when Federer was on serve at the AO, which is basically cheating when you think about it. It not really any different to saying "stop I'm not ready" just as your opponent is about to serve each time.

That semi-final sealed the topic for me. Nadal's time-wasting has gotten to actually be unsporting as much as it is simply boring for spectators.

Rozroz
03-08-2012, 05:44 AM
^^^^^^ good points.

monfed
03-08-2012, 05:45 AM
It's in violation of the rules and must be dealt with immediately. There's just no two ways about it. The "spectators getting bored" doesn't even arise although I can understand the boredom issue.

I actually blame Federer for not being more assertive about this ,being the president of the player's council. I can't believe he can let something that's a blatant violation of the rules pass him by while he's in a position of power(especially when it affects him BADLY). He cares too much about his image and while his image is in top shape, his results are taking a beating. If anything , I'm truly shocked he took so long to speak up about it when he should've gone full tilt when Ljubicic brought it up way back.

Nadal does everything he can possibly do to win, Fed doesn't and this is the biggest difference in character for me.

Bartelby
03-08-2012, 05:53 AM
A silent shot clock is another way of saying that the umpire has a clock and can tell the time an can penalize.

They're obviously instructed not to enforce the rule strictly by the body that selects them, for whatever reason.

mandy01
03-08-2012, 06:21 AM
Shot clock is a stupid idea, esp when all you need is for the umpire to keep track of a period of time.

Players would serve in time all the time if there were a penalty and the problem would go away.
This, I agree with. It's just another way of going easy on the umpires. You're an umpire for a reason: Enforce the rules, punish the violaters or don't get into the profession at all. Umpires these days are mostly scorekeepers and not much else.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-08-2012, 07:18 AM
Why doesn't Nadal just stop cheating??? What's with this guy? Taxes, MTOs, time violation. It's just insanity what they let him get away with.

Rozroz
03-08-2012, 07:35 AM
Why doesn't Nadal just stop cheating??? What's with this guy? Taxes, MTOs, time violation. It's just insanity what they let him get away with.

hey!!
Djoko time violates too!

Clarky21
03-08-2012, 07:38 AM
Nadal is far from the only one taking too much time. It's silly to call him out alone for this.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-08-2012, 07:39 AM
hey!!
Djoko time violates too!

I agree, Djoker needs to shape up too

sureshs
03-08-2012, 07:48 AM
Silent clock is better. Loud clock puts mental pressure on the players and the viewers.

It is also a violation of workers rights.

Remember Charlie Chaplin's City Lights? How he made fun of the industrial engineering experts who installed clocks and tried to make workers into robots? Some sweatshops today even time the bathroom breaks.

How would you feel if someone followed you around at work with a clock?

aprilfool
03-08-2012, 07:55 AM
I wonder what the vice-prez has to say about this? :twisted:

Gorecki
03-08-2012, 08:06 AM
i agree with the Shot part regarding nadal... the clock, meh...

NamRanger
03-08-2012, 08:12 AM
Everyone that's hollering for a shot clock says it should be used all the time...except for maybe when the crowd is too loud...or maybe when the players have played a particularly long and hard point...or maybe when the ballkids haven't gotten the balls to the players quickly enough...or maybe when a huge gust of wind comes up...or maybe when this happens or that happens. A shot clock isn't going to solve a darn thing because every time the umpire used his/her discretion for whatever reason, certain people would gripe and complain anyway that it was unfair or that the umpire is favoring one player or the umpire is inept or some such nonsensical thing.

As Woodrow has explained many many times, the 20 or 25 seconds isn't a hard and fast rule. It is discretionary, and the umpires are currently using their discretion, but no amount of explanation stops all the criticism. On another board, a poster got in touch with some official at the ATP and after many tries got an answer to his questions and that is that the 'clock' doesn't start at the instant the last point ends, it starts after the umpire has called the score. This poster then sat there with his stop watch and timed a bunch of matches and lo and behold, Nadal and Djokovic and Wawrinka and Isner and Berdych and all the slow players almost always served within their allotted time.

It would help if the tv commentators could be informed about how the rule is applied so they could quit passing on incorrect information to their audiences. They and some of the print media who have bees in their bonnets are causing a lot of problems instead of being objective in their commentary.



This is false. I've timed Nadal, Djokovic, and Del Potro and they still consistently go over the allotted time, particularly in close score situations. Even if you shaved off the 5-10 seconds they still go way over.

Bartelby
03-08-2012, 08:16 AM
I can't help think that television and its commercial demands are somehow behind the laxity in enforcing the time rule.

rommil
03-08-2012, 08:20 AM
I wonder what the vice-prez has to say about this? :twisted:

He says wait about 55 seconds more, he might give an answer.

tenniselbow1
03-08-2012, 08:21 AM
This is false. I've timed Nadal, Djokovic, and Del Potro and they still consistently go over the allotted time, particularly in close score situations. Even if you shaved off the 5-10 seconds they still go way over.

Yeah this was obvious garbage. What's important to know here is what the rule states, does the clock start at points end or when the umpire calls the score. I've never read anywhere that the official rule is when the umpire calls the score. That said even if that's the case 8/10 points still go way over, there is no question about that.

purge
03-08-2012, 08:37 AM
telling it as it is

woodrow1029
03-08-2012, 09:00 AM
The official rule is that the time starts when the point ends. The clock is on the umpire's PDA, and actually gets reset when the umpire pushes the score button. So, the umpire's clock starts anywhere from immediately to a few seconds after the point ends. If something happens right after the point, like a code violation, or discussion, etc., it may take a few seconds to reset the stopwatch.

fed_rulz
03-08-2012, 09:03 AM
I can't help think that television and its commercial demands are somehow behind the laxity in enforcing the time rule.

they don't play commercials in between points....

Bartelby
03-08-2012, 09:12 AM
There's no commercials as such but they love to chatter on tv. The argument would be that the play tends to slow to fit televisual presentation and commentating, not to allow ads.

People tend to think that content fills time slots, but its the other way around. Time is re-shaped to fill the content needs of the televisual medium.

Sometimes Federer plays so quick that you can hear the commentators growing frustrated by being unable to milk the drama with their commentary.

No such problem with others.

aphex
03-08-2012, 09:20 AM
Why doesn't Nadal just stop cheating??? What's with this guy? Taxes, MTOs, time violation. It's just insanity what they let him get away with.

Let us not forget the big one wink::wink

TMF
03-08-2012, 09:25 AM
pretty much the rest of the fans and players want Nadal to STOP wasting time and play the game fairly, with dignity !

monfed
03-08-2012, 09:29 AM
There's no commercials as such but they love to chatter on tv. The argument would be that the play tends to slow to fit televisual presentation and commentating, not to allow ads.

People tend to think that content fills time slots, but its the other way around. Time is re-shaped to fill the content needs of the televisual medium.

Sometimes Federer plays so quick that you can hear the commentators growing frustrated by being unable to milk the drama with their commentary.

No such problem with others.

I see your point but I didn't hear any such issues in the 90s when Pete(quicker than even Fed) was playing.

Gorecki
03-08-2012, 09:30 AM
pretty much the rest of the delusional dense lunatic ****s and jealous players want San Rafael de los Calzones en el Orto to STOP delighting the viewership and play the game abruptly, with indignity !

now... that is ok...

:)

Gorecki
03-08-2012, 09:33 AM
oh... now it' Federer that plays too fast!

man.. the drugs do work!!!

NamRanger
03-08-2012, 09:37 AM
The official rule is that the time starts when the point ends. The clock is on the umpire's PDA, and actually gets reset when the umpire pushes the score button. So, the umpire's clock starts anywhere from immediately to a few seconds after the point ends. If something happens right after the point, like a code violation, or discussion, etc., it may take a few seconds to reset the stopwatch.


In which case the most notable time abusers still go far over the allotted time. I've timed Nadal, and he consistently takes 45-55 seconds, occasionally well over a minute (and he does get away with it) in close game situations, particularly on his serve.

Ledigs
03-08-2012, 09:38 AM
Haha not too much of a dig. Everyone knows that Rafa takes a long time. It's cute that Fed cares about the fans first and foremost. You really have to like the guy.

Towser83
03-08-2012, 09:48 AM
Many players take well over the time limit to play points, but it's hard to bring in a shot clock, that feels like forcing the pace of the game just as much as some players slow it down, because sometimes you do need some extra time. I forsee situations where players get in trouble where they stopped because someone in the crowd was moving or a ballboy was not ready or something had blown onto court etc and the umpire is not smart enough to give some leeway.

The thing that frustrates me about Nadal more than the time between points which lots of people do, is the fact that after 10 years as a pro he still can't be ready to do the coin toss or sometimes finish warming up when umpire calls time. I mean I can understand in the middle of the match not being able to keep track of time but when someone calls time, get a move on dude.

merlinpinpin
03-08-2012, 10:07 AM
The thing that frustrates me about Nadal more than the time between points which lots of people do, is the fact that after 10 years as a pro he still can't be ready to do the coin toss or sometimes finish warming up when umpire calls time. I mean I can understand in the middle of the match not being able to keep track of time but when someone calls time, get a move on dude.

Well, if you still believe that he doesn't do it on purpose after all this time, I have a racket signed by all the GOAT candidates since Jesus to sell you... ;)

Towser83
03-08-2012, 10:10 AM
Well, if you still believe that he doesn't do it on purpose after all this time, I have a racket signed by all the GOAT candidates since Jesus to sell you... ;)

well yeah i dunno if it's on purpose or he just doesn't care, but i think it's kind of rude to not show that professionalism after so many years in the game and 10 slams and being number 1 in the world... you know he is not some new kid on the block

monfed
03-08-2012, 10:18 AM
Many players take well over the time limit to play points, but it's hard to bring in a shot clock, that feels like forcing the pace of the game just as much as some players slow it down, because sometimes you do need some extra time. I forsee situations where players get in trouble where they stopped because someone in the crowd was moving or a ballboy was not ready or something had blown onto court etc and the umpire is not smart enough to give some leeway.

The thing that frustrates me about Nadal more than the time between points which lots of people do, is the fact that after 10 years as a pro he still can't be ready to do the coin toss or sometimes finish warming up when umpire calls time. I mean I can understand in the middle of the match not being able to keep track of time but when someone calls time, get a move on dude.

Yea, but the main issue still is time wasting between points. Glad you brought up the coin toss thing(no doubt its annoying) but it doesn't influence the outcome of a match like the time wasting b/w points. Just saying..

monfed
03-08-2012, 10:25 AM
This, I agree with. It's just another way of going easy on the umpires. You're an umpire for a reason: Enforce the rules, punish the violaters or don't get into the profession at all. Umpires these days are mostly scorekeepers and not much else.

Absolutely, doesn't matter how many players do it or who's doing it(although it's common knowledge who's doing it the most).

Towser83
03-08-2012, 10:27 AM
Yea, but the main issue still is time wasting between points. Glad you brought up the coin toss thing(no doubt its annoying) but it doesn't influence the outcome of a match like the time wasting b/w points. Just saying..

no true, it is a seperate issue, but just saying I don't blame players for taking too long between points, it's the umpires who have to do something, so nadal, djokovic and others don't annoy me when they do this because they are maybe not aware of it in the heat of battle. Not their fault, the umpire should do something.

devila
03-08-2012, 10:35 AM
you know perfectly well that nadal and a few others know they're towelling off, staring at the ball or adjusting their hair/hat repeatedly so a lot of time is wasted. federer is so old... of course, he couldn't care less when he needed to recover in 5 setters that he lost to unfit opponents.

federer is a spoiled brat who thought his fawning fanatics had no idea how useless he was when he was supposed to be a leader.
there's no bad issue because 25 seconds time taken by a player are nothing compared to foolish rushed serves by idiotic players who can't take time to serve for important sets/match wins.

merlinpinpin
03-08-2012, 11:37 AM
no true, it is a seperate issue, but just saying I don't blame players for taking too long between points, it's the umpires who have to do something, so nadal, djokovic and others don't annoy me when they do this because they are maybe not aware of it in the heat of battle. Not their fault, the umpire should do something.

Seriously, no. When it's part of an overall strategy, saying "not their fault" is like saying the same when a soccer player takes a dive to get a penalty kick.

The umpire sure *should* enforce the rules, but they know he won't, so they're abusing it and milking it for all it's worth.

celoft
03-08-2012, 12:19 PM
Federer is right.

aprilfool
03-08-2012, 01:15 PM
Wrong. They are too intimidated by the players and their teams.

Shot clock, or tennis continues to decline in viewership. Viewers want action, not close ups of players performing certain ritualistic behavior for a half minutes time. Time after time.

The-Champ
03-08-2012, 01:23 PM
Fed is going easy on Nadal. Rafa has ruined the sport for me, he's simply so frustrating to watch due to all the time wasting.

just Nadal? Djokovic at the AO averaged 31 seconds between points, when he played Murray... Even Murray exceeded the time limit.

batz
03-08-2012, 01:50 PM
Let us not forget the big one wink::wink

Aphex! Where have you been dude?

Towser83
03-08-2012, 01:51 PM
Seriously, no. When it's part of an overall strategy, saying "not their fault" is like saying the same when a soccer player takes a dive to get a penalty kick.

The umpire sure *should* enforce the rules, but they know he won't, so they're abusing it and milking it for all it's worth.

point is because they get away with it it probably becomes a natural speed for them thus they might not always be slowing play on purpose. Sometimes they are. Nadal I think did purposely introduce his serving routine to waste some time and conserve energy, judging by the Miami 2005 final and they time he took then and the fact he got outlasted by Federer, and then the Rome final soon after where he was taking longer to serve and winning a 5th set tiebreak. But now it's probably so ingrained in him that it's his natural serving speed.

woodrow1029
03-08-2012, 01:56 PM
The only way a shot clock would ever work is if it was 100% objective, with no exceptions. And that just would never happen when it comes to enforcing time between the points.

TheTruth
03-08-2012, 02:23 PM
Everyone that's hollering for a shot clock says it should be used all the time...except for maybe when the crowd is too loud...or maybe when the players have played a particularly long and hard point...or maybe when the ballkids haven't gotten the balls to the players quickly enough...or maybe when a huge gust of wind comes up...or maybe when this happens or that happens. A shot clock isn't going to solve a darn thing because every time the umpire used his/her discretion for whatever reason, certain people would gripe and complain anyway that it was unfair or that the umpire is favoring one player or the umpire is inept or some such nonsensical thing.

As Woodrow has explained many many times, the 20 or 25 seconds isn't a hard and fast rule. It is discretionary, and the umpires are currently using their discretion, but no amount of explanation stops all the criticism. On another board, a poster got in touch with some official at the ATP and after many tries got an answer to his questions and that is that the 'clock' doesn't start at the instant the last point ends, it starts after the umpire has called the score. This poster then sat there with his stop watch and timed a bunch of matches and lo and behold, Nadal and Djokovic and Wawrinka and Isner and Berdych and all the slow players almost always served within their allotted time.

It would help if the tv commentators could be informed about how the rule is applied so they could quit passing on incorrect information to their audiences. They and some of the print media who have bees in their bonnets are causing a lot of problems instead of being objective in their commentary.

I agree. This is so silly. The game is too physical and discretion is always warranted. But, no matter what's done people will complain.

They tried the shot clock on screen before, but took it down when they found out that many players went over time, specifically Maria, Ivanovic, and a whole host of ATP players too numerous to mention.

Sounds like sour grapes to me, and nothing else.

mental midget
03-08-2012, 03:37 PM
the excessive time between points doesn't bother me particularly as a fan, it's only a few seconds. however i think it's hugely disrespectful to the opponent and to the spirit of the game as a test of skill, not of gamesmanship.

The-Champ
03-08-2012, 03:44 PM
They should all play at the pace of the server. Don't ever stall agassi when he is serving, for instance.

I have seen both Nadal and Djokovic stalling the server quite a lot because they were resting between points, and this is what bothers me. I don't mind them averaging 30 seconds between points but they should respect the pace of their opponents serving.

devila
03-08-2012, 03:56 PM
if federer wastes 25 seconds, it's ok because he's the judge, jury & executioner. 16 Slams is sewn onto his gold jacket.

Mustard
03-08-2012, 04:34 PM
20 seconds between points being rigidly enforced will kill the sport completely. Well done.

TTMR
03-08-2012, 04:57 PM
20 seconds between points being rigidly enforced will kill the sport completely. Well done.

It would just kill off Nadal and Djokovic (Nadal being the big fish here--Djokovic has his uses when Federer fails to get the job done after all), and therefore would be good for the sport.

Cormorant
03-08-2012, 05:06 PM
This typically soporific subject has piqued my interest for once, because we're seeing Federer go knives out on Rafa. No, this is hardly back in the day when Cash barging McEnroe at the changeovers was no thing, but in today's media climate any criticism can come loaded with attacking intent. Roger is too seasoned to not know what he's doing here, and I like the fact he's finally accepting the Spaniard's invitation (in January) to have a spat across the minor sports news. I'd like to think this demonstrates Fed's enduring hope that he can still challenge his nemesis; not that this will materialise in any significant reversal in their rivalry...

jamesblakefan#1
03-08-2012, 07:44 PM
20 seconds between points being rigidly enforced will kill the sport completely. Well done.

Captain Hyperbole FTW!

Seriously though, the perfect solution would be to extend it to 25-30 seconds and have umps more strictly enforce it, with discretion for long rallies or latter stages of matches. I don't see how anyone can say that the amount of time between points as it is now is a good thing. Nadal-Djoker matches put me to sleep because of the long time between points.

Mustard
03-08-2012, 07:51 PM
If it has to be strictly enforced, 45 seconds is the minimum it should be. I prefer flexibility, though. Every player has their own pace.

Moose Malloy
03-08-2012, 07:51 PM
They did use a shot clock in the 80s, have posted links showing this multiple times before, but no one seems to notice. It was on the time of match clocks in the corners of the court. Not surprisingly Lendl, Mac & Connors weren't a fan of it.

Weird that so many tennis fans/media etc don't remember this.

It would be a good deterrent, no player would want to look like a fool in front of the world if it clicked down to zero(no need for a buzzer or any kind of penalty, it would be just a good way to make the player a bit more aware of time. You'd be surprised at how long 20 seconds is, its plenty of time to stare at your strings, towel off & bounce a few times. Watched a Mac match at the French where he was able to do all of his routine within 25 seconds every time - it used to 25 seconds back then, that seems like a more reasonable amount of time since no one seems to stick to 20 seconds anyway)

Mustard
03-08-2012, 07:53 PM
Wilander, in the 1988 US Open final, was in control of the match against Lendl, leading 6-4, 4-1. Wilander was serving at 4-2, I think it was, when the umpire gave Wilander a time violation for taking 30 seconds between points. Wilander didn't win another game in that set and the dynamics of the match changed. Wilander won in an epic 5-setter in the end, but it was a lot harder than what it could have been.

jamesblakefan#1
03-08-2012, 07:55 PM
If it has to be strictly enforced, 45 seconds is the minimum it should be. I prefer flexibility, though. Every player has their own pace.

45 seconds is absurd. That should only be the max after long rallies. There's no reason why a player should take any longer than 30 seconds after a relatively routine point in a match, which is what Nadal and Djoker (along with others, not to single them out) do regularly. Players should be able to adjust, just like in basketball for college the shot clock is 35 secs but in the pros its 24. Players adjust to the difference accordingly. These are world class athletes, not babies. If they can't count to 30, what can they do? :oops:

jamesblakefan#1
03-08-2012, 07:57 PM
Wilander, in the 1988 US Open final, was in control of the match against Lendl, leading 6-4, 4-1. Wilander was serving at 4-2, I think it was, when the umpire gave Wilander a time violation for taking 30 seconds between points. Wilander didn't win another game in that set and the dynamics of the match changed. Wilander won in an epic 5-setter in the end, but it was a lot harder than what it could have been.

So Wilander was mentally weak. Got it. ;)

Seriously though, the players will get used to it eventually if you put it in place correctly. Start at the 250 events, then work your way up to 500s and MS til eventually it becomes a hard fast rule at every slam and ATP event.

Mustard
03-08-2012, 07:58 PM
45 seconds is absurd. That should only be the max after long rallies. There's no reason why a player should take any longer than 30 seconds after a relatively routine point in a match, which is what Nadal and Djoker (along with others, not to single them out) do regularly. Players should be able to adjust, just like in basketball for college the shot clock is 35 secs but in the pros its 24. Players adjust to the difference accordingly. These are world class athletes, not babies. If they can't count to 30, what can they do? :oops:

Some players are naturally slower than others. They should be allowed to play at their pace without being forced to hurry up. I prefer these matches to be about the tennis, and not a stupid time rule.

jamesblakefan#1
03-08-2012, 08:05 PM
Some players are naturally slower than others. They should be allowed to play at their pace without being forced to hurry up. I prefer these matches to be about the tennis, and not a stupid time rule.

The best player is still going to win. If a 'stupid time rule' is enough to throw your game off completely because you can't wipe the towel 3x, bounce the ball 10+ times, pick your arse, check the wind, throw the ball, etc...then you obviously aren't that great to begin with. I'm not trying to pick on Nadal here since obviously he's your charge, but it's ridiculous that these guys can't go faster than they do right now. The game should be sped up, people don't have the tolerance to sit waiting 45 seconds for 2 guys to finish their beauty routines before playing a point.

FD3S
03-08-2012, 08:07 PM
Without the time violation rule, the AO final may very well have run right through February. The spectators would have had to take shifts to go home for food and sleep :D

SLD76
03-08-2012, 08:41 PM
20 seconds between points being rigidly enforced will kill the sport completely. Well done.

Normally I respect you as a poster as you are fairly reasonable

but if you honestly feel this way, I have no choice but to call you out on your tardism..

ruining the sport? really?

come on now.

SLD76
03-08-2012, 08:43 PM
The best player is still going to win. If a 'stupid time rule' is enough to throw your game off completely because you can't wipe the towel 3x, bounce the ball 10+ times, pick your arse, check the wind, throw the ball, etc...then you obviously aren't that great to begin with. I'm not trying to pick on Nadal here since obviously he's your charge, but it's ridiculous that these guys can't go faster than they do right now. The game should be sped up, people don't have the tolerance to sit waiting 45 seconds for 2 guys to finish their beauty routines before playing a point.

/thread.

10closedthreads.

TheTruth
03-08-2012, 09:06 PM
Some players are naturally slower than others. They should be allowed to play at their pace without being forced to hurry up. I prefer these matches to be about the tennis, and not a stupid time rule.

Agreed. Such a petty amount of time to create such a furor. Gotta laugh at the insanity.

tacou
03-08-2012, 09:21 PM
I don't think it's really a dig at Rafa, he's holding the umpires accountable. Nadal will play at his own pace, which we are all familiar with, until someone stops him. Why wouldn't he?

BeHappy
03-08-2012, 09:25 PM
20 seconds is more than enough to be honest.

FlashFlare11
03-08-2012, 09:33 PM
Many players take well over the time limit to play points, but it's hard to bring in a shot clock, that feels like forcing the pace of the game just as much as some players slow it down, because sometimes you do need some extra time. I forsee situations where players get in trouble where they stopped because someone in the crowd was moving or a ballboy was not ready or something had blown onto court etc and the umpire is not smart enough to give some leeway.

The thing that frustrates me about Nadal more than the time between points which lots of people do, is the fact that after 10 years as a pro he still can't be ready to do the coin toss or sometimes finish warming up when umpire calls time. I mean I can understand in the middle of the match not being able to keep track of time but when someone calls time, get a move on dude.

Pretty interesting that you bring this up, Towser. I remember one of the tennis commentators on ESPN (I think it was John McEnroe) who said that if he were playing against Nadal, he would not get up out of his seat until Nadal does first or would finish warming-up his serves after Nadal, just as a sign to show him that the time wasting isn't just being taken unnoticed.

I'm kind of surprised that none of Nadal's more frequent opponents (especially Soderling) haven't yet done this.

But I agree, it needs to stop.

tenniselbow1
03-08-2012, 10:00 PM
If it has to be strictly enforced, 45 seconds is the minimum it should be. I prefer flexibility, though. Every player has their own pace.

Lol at proposing more than double what's currently allotted but still preferring flexibility. Do you understand how when one player breaks this rule as opposed to the vast majority, it can affect the play of his opponent in multiple ways? Should one player be allowed to catch his breath more than another? Nadal by the way exceeded 45 seconds, over 15 times in the 08 Wimbledon final (as opposed to once for Roger) and likely far exceeded those numbers this year in Australia. Flexibility is yet another thing Rafa's shamelessly taken advantage of..

purge
03-08-2012, 10:01 PM
Pretty interesting that you bring this up, Towser. I remember one of the tennis commentators on ESPN (I think it was John McEnroe) who said that if he were playing against Nadal, he would not get up out of his seat until Nadal does first or would finish warming-up his serves after Nadal, just as a sign to show him that the time wasting isn't just being taken unnoticed.

I'm kind of surprised that none of Nadal's more frequent opponents (especially Soderling) haven't yet done this.

But I agree, it needs to stop.
actually i think i once saw federer doing that. dont remember where.. maybe it was in madrid.

i was wondering what was going on since neither of them would get up out of their chairs for several minutes lol. in the end it was still fed who got up first. i guess if he hadnt theyd have been sitting it out until sundown oO

Mustard
03-08-2012, 10:19 PM
Pretty interesting that you bring this up, Towser. I remember one of the tennis commentators on ESPN (I think it was John McEnroe) who said that if he were playing against Nadal, he would not get up out of his seat until Nadal does first or would finish warming-up his serves after Nadal, just as a sign to show him that the time wasting isn't just being taken unnoticed.

I'm kind of surprised that none of Nadal's more frequent opponents (especially Soderling) haven't yet done this.

They have. Didn't change anything. Nadal has his routines and he sticks to them.

Mick
03-08-2012, 10:26 PM
asking Rafa and Novak to play faster between points is sort of like asking Maria and Victoria to remain silent while they play :)

Clarky21
03-08-2012, 10:27 PM
They have. Didn't change anything. Nadal has his routines and he sticks to them.


Yep. Multiple players have made Nadal wait and it didn't affect his rituals one single bit. I wish he would stop the shorts picking and the silly lining up of his bottles,but he won't. Nadal is a headcase out there,and needs to tic like a clock to function. Nothing is going to change that about him or else he would have stopped this stuff years ago.

Sentinel
03-08-2012, 10:39 PM
Some players are naturally slower than others. They should be allowed to play at their pace without being forced to hurry up. I prefer these matches to be about the tennis, and not a stupid time rule.
Yup, they should have a special tour for slower players. It's like having slow students in class, holding up everyone's learning. Obviously its frustrating for other players.

Imagine running a marathon, if you had to wait every time others took a break!

Gorecki
03-09-2012, 12:59 AM
Wilander, in the 1988 US Open final, was in control of the match against Lendl, leading 6-4, 4-1. Wilander was serving at 4-2, I think it was, when the umpire gave Wilander a time violation for taking 30 seconds between points. Wilander didn't win another game in that set and the dynamics of the match changed. Wilander won in an epic 5-setter in the end, but it was a lot harder than what it could have been.

am i the only one who find this good for the game?

you see.. a player abusing rules is taking unfair advantage from it and somehow you try to turn it into something good for the game?

this is my opinion, but for someone who knows so much about tennis, you sure hate the sport a lot!!!

zagor
03-09-2012, 01:06 AM
Some players are naturally slower than others. They should be allowed to play at their pace without being forced to hurry up. I prefer these matches to be about the tennis, and not a stupid time rule.

Except Nadal often stalls servers and forces them to play at his (Nadal's pace), shouldn't players who are quick (relatively compared to Nadal atleast) be allowed to play at their own pace as well?

As for whether the rule is stupid or not, it depends on a person's opinion. I think 2012 AO final was a great match, but I'd prefer it took 4h instead of 6h because Nadal and Novak take forever to serve (and I'd think the same if Fed was a time waster as well).

The rule is there for a reason, 25 seconds is more than enough.

Virginia
03-09-2012, 01:06 AM
Pretty interesting that you bring this up, Towser. I remember one of the tennis commentators on ESPN (I think it was John McEnroe) who said that if he were playing against Nadal, he would not get up out of his seat until Nadal does first or would finish warming-up his serves after Nadal, just as a sign to show him that the time wasting isn't just being taken unnoticed.

I'm kind of surprised that none of Nadal's more frequent opponents (especially Soderling) haven't yet done this.
I remember Federer did do it once. He just waited and waited and finally Nadal got up and went to the net. Federer followed and it was pretty obvious that he was making a point. A couple of years ago, I think it was, but I can't remember the occasion.

zagor
03-09-2012, 01:09 AM
am i the only one who find this good for the game?

you see.. a player abusing rules is taking unfair advantage from it and somehow you try to turn it into something good for the game?

this is my opinion, but for someone who knows so much about tennis, you sure hate the sport a lot!!!

No, he just apparently loves Nadal even more than he loves the sport :).

If anything Fed was overly diplomatic here and didn't take a real stand. If Fed can act like a sour puss when he loses he sure as heck can be more direct about this issue though I'm glad atleast someone said something.

zagor
03-09-2012, 01:09 AM
I remember Federer did do it once. He just waited and waited and finally Nadal got up and went to the net. Federer followed and it was pretty obvious that he was making a point. A couple of years ago, I think it was, but I can't remember the occasion.

2009 Madrid final .

Magnus
03-09-2012, 01:12 AM
Here's a quick and easy solution: don't watch him. The dude plays a handful of matches in every tourney he's in and you can easily avoid him until the SF/F stage, if he makes it that far.

I would gladly do that, and I usually do when he plays against someone I don't care about, but when he plays semis or finals I usually want to watch the math because it involves some competition and sometimes high quality tennis. The time wasting takes it away in the worst fashion possible. It ruins the pace and flow of the match. The AO 2012 final is a classic example of that, both men played well at some points and bad at others, it was a well balanced match that felt open until the very last point, and yet the time wasting was so bad it made the match too long. I mean, people say its the longest GS final ever, right? But how much tennis did they play? I bet not the longest.

monfed
03-09-2012, 01:15 AM
No, he just apparently loves Nadal even more than he loves the sport :).

If anything Fed was overly diplomatic here and didn't take a real stand. If Fed can act like a sour puss when he loses he sure as heck can be more direct about this issue though I'm glad atleast someone said something.

He's up in arms about Novak's FH winner but is all statesmanlike about a more pressing issue that affects HIS game more than others. Not to mention he's the president of the player's council and has more influence than say a player ranked 120. Beats me.

vernonbc
03-09-2012, 03:01 AM
They have. Didn't change anything. Nadal has his routines and he sticks to them.

Exactly. Nadal doesn't care if the other guy sits on his chair and waits. Rafa still does his thing and goes to the net after he's finished his routine whether the other guy has waited or not. There are a number of players who have waited Rafa out and it doesn't bother him in the least as he's in his own zone.

Magnus
03-09-2012, 03:42 AM
Some players are naturally slower than others. They should be allowed to play at their pace without being forced to hurry up. I prefer these matches to be about the tennis, and not a stupid time rule.

That's BS and you know it. You know that you are simply biased and you can't possibly give an honest view on this matter. But, luckily for you, I'm here. Now, go to Youtube, watch Nadal's exo with Fed in 2006, and look how quick Nadal is between points. That's because it was an exo, but it proves Nadal can be fast, he just doesn't want to. He wants to stall his opponents, he wants to make them lose focus in any way he possibly can, Nadal is not a clean player, he never was, he will play the dirtiest game he can to get the big W at the end. Some will see this is a legitimate way, and that's fine, but to deny it is pathetic. To me, Nadal is ruining a sport I grew up watching and playing, he is constantly finding new ways to do that, whether its time wasting, on court coaching, faking injuries, and giving false interviews.

Again, if there are fans who see this as legitimate, its their right and I can respect that. What I do not respect is people who see it and simply deny it or say "maybe he's just slow". Please, give me a break, I'm going to vomit.

Slice&Smash
03-09-2012, 04:07 AM
2009 Madrid final .

I think it was the WTF 2010 final.

Colin
03-09-2012, 04:17 AM
Having long-pondered the complexity of this situation and found myself suffering the twitching finger that aches for the fast-forward button on the remote control (only to discover that we're watching this slow-motion affair live), having thought over the pros and cons of shot clocks and point penalties, having read the meritorious commentary in this thread, I've come to only one practical solution: summary execution.

For the good of the sport, the chair umpire must be accorded the right to bear arms and, more importantly, to utilize them when a player has taken longer than 25 seconds on serve. I know it's not pretty, and I'm sincerely hoping no seeds are lost early on. But I think once you have one or two forfeits — accompanied by bloodied corpses dragged from the courts (red dirt never looked so red!) — that the players will take the rules seriously and not violate them henceforth. Do you think Djokovic will bounce that ball more than three times after that?










*Of course, I'm a bleeding-heart liberal so I'm not a huge fan of hearts liberally bleeding. In this case, what we're doing is faking the deaths of a couple of player while putting the fear of semiautomatic pistol into their cohort. (Don't worry, our accomplices be getting extra ranking points for their endeavors, though we'll need to spirit them away to Challengers — which, depending on how you look at it, is a little like death — for a couple of months for this to have an impact.)

vive le beau jeu !
03-09-2012, 04:41 AM
Wilander, in the 1988 US Open final, was in control of the match against Lendl, leading 6-4, 4-1. Wilander was serving at 4-2, I think it was, when the umpire gave Wilander a time violation for taking 30 seconds between points. Wilander didn't win another game in that set and the dynamics of the match changed. Wilander won in an epic 5-setter in the end, but it was a lot harder than what it could have been.
am i the only one who find this good for the game?

you see.. a player abusing rules is taking unfair advantage from it and somehow you try to turn it into something good for the game?

this is my opinion, but for someone who knows so much about tennis, you sure hate the sport a lot!!!
you're not the only one... ;)
but i don't think mustard cares a lot about that !
The history books don't remember a lack of sportsmanship. They remember winners.

celoft
03-09-2012, 05:32 AM
asking Rafa and Novak to play faster between points is sort of like asking Maria and Victoria to remain silent while they play :)

Pretty much.

Tennis_Hands
03-09-2012, 05:42 AM
The thing that frustrates me about Nadal more than the time between points which lots of people do, is the fact that after 10 years as a pro he still can't be ready to do the coin toss or sometimes finish warming up when umpire calls time. I mean I can understand in the middle of the match not being able to keep track of time but when someone calls time, get a move on dude.

It is beyond me, how so many people do not see in this part of his (Uncle Tony's ) mind games with his opponents. And, while it is not illegal, it is hugely disrespectful towards everybody involved. It is the same as with the time violations. He and every other time waster should be put in their place. No tennis player is bigger than the sport. If the rules are enforced, you will see how quickly everybody will adjust.

Bartelby thinks that that benefits the commentators, but, really, this can not and should not be what determines how the sport should be played.

Moreover, I think that soon enough (if the rules are not enforced) we will see a situation, which is similar to the situation in volleyball from a couple of years ago, where there were changes in the rules, because the matches were taking far too long and that caused problems with the broadcasting schedules. Noone knew how long is a single volleyball match going to continue, so a lot of broadcasters in Europe just dropped the sport from their schedules. That forced drastic changes in the way the points were counted, in order to bring the match time back to reasonable length.

Will tennis take a hit from the situation now? Not necessarily, but I can see a problem with the broadcasters in the near future, if the trend continues.

Of course, that is only additional concern to the main point, that 20 to 25 seconds between points is enough time, if the players do not try to exploit the rules for their own benefit.

Sentinel
03-09-2012, 05:47 AM
GOLD !!1

Having long-pondered the complexity of this situation and found myself suffering the twitching finger that aches for the fast-forward button on the remote control (only to discover that we're watching this slow-motion affair live), having thought over the pros and cons of shot clocks and point penalties, having read the meritorious commentary in this thread, I've come to only one practical solution: summary execution.

For the good of the sport, the chair umpire must be accorded the right to bear arms and, more importantly, to utilize them when a player has taken longer than 25 seconds on serve. I know it's not pretty, and I'm sincerely hoping no seeds are lost early on. But I think once you have one or two forfeits — accompanied by bloodied corpses dragged from the courts (red dirt never looked so red!) — that the players will take the rules seriously and not violate them henceforth.

Pretty much.

Mustard
03-09-2012, 08:11 AM
That's BS and you know it. You know that you are simply biased and you can't possibly give an honest view on this matter. But, luckily for you, I'm here. Now, go to Youtube, watch Nadal's exo with Fed in 2006, and look how quick Nadal is between points. That's because it was an exo, but it proves Nadal can be fast, he just doesn't want to. He wants to stall his opponents, he wants to make them lose focus in any way he possibly can, Nadal is not a clean player, he never was, he will play the dirtiest game he can to get the big W at the end. Some will see this is a legitimate way, and that's fine, but to deny it is pathetic. To me, Nadal is ruining a sport I grew up watching and playing, he is constantly finding new ways to do that, whether its time wasting, on court coaching, faking injuries, and giving false interviews.

Again, if there are fans who see this as legitimate, its their right and I can respect that. What I do not respect is people who see it and simply deny it or say "maybe he's just slow". Please, give me a break, I'm going to vomit.

That was an exhibition, as you've already said. To compare an exo to a competitive match is silly.

Magnetite
03-09-2012, 09:11 AM
A shot clock may be implemented, but there should be some variation.

For instance, there should be a longer amount of time allowed between points in the fifth set as opposed to the first set (the time can increase incrementally from the first set, to the second e.t.c .. until the fifth set).

Also, if the rally is greater than 25 shots, they should up the time allowed in between points by 5 or 10 seconds.

If the shot count gets to 40 they should increase the timer by 15 seconds.

These are just ideas, but this is the only way that they can reasonably include a shot clock, or cut down on time violations. It would prevent Nadal from taking a minute in between points in the first set, but also allow him and Djoker to take 50 seconds if they want to in the 5th set after a marathon rally.

jgrushing
03-09-2012, 10:22 AM
I really think that for the next couple of points after Rafa plays a long rally, balls of his that are really close (or at least pretty close) should be called good. I mean, you can't expect perfection when someone's playing such long, intense points. After all, he's Rafa...

Seriously, I feel like I can almost guess the age of people by their stance on this. No one wants hard and fast rules any more and it's totally ridiculous.

And, the by the way, Borg, Vilas, Orantes, Connors, etc. played long points in intense matches also.

NamRanger
03-09-2012, 10:28 AM
Some players are naturally slower than others. They should be allowed to play at their pace without being forced to hurry up. I prefer these matches to be about the tennis, and not a stupid time rule.



Players should not be allowed to waste time, period. Those are the rules. Nadal has consistently wasted time in a deliberate manner in order to ice his opponent.




The best player is still going to win. If a 'stupid time rule' is enough to throw your game off completely because you can't wipe the towel 3x, bounce the ball 10+ times, pick your arse, check the wind, throw the ball, etc...then you obviously aren't that great to begin with. I'm not trying to pick on Nadal here since obviously he's your charge, but it's ridiculous that these guys can't go faster than they do right now. The game should be sped up, people don't have the tolerance to sit waiting 45 seconds for 2 guys to finish their beauty routines before playing a point.



There are rules in other sports to prevent "icing" tactics for a reason. It's because they do have a real effect on the game. If you're getting man handled by some random no name player, you take it like it is, or play within the rules of the game.

woodrow1029
03-09-2012, 10:37 AM
A shot clock may be implemented, but there should be some variation.

For instance, there should be a longer amount of time allowed between points in the fifth set as opposed to the first set (the time can increase incrementally from the first set, to the second e.t.c .. until the fifth set).

Also, if the rally is greater than 25 shots, they should up the time allowed in between points by 5 or 10 seconds.

If the shot count gets to 40 they should increase the timer by 15 seconds.

These are just ideas, but this is the only way that they can reasonably include a shot clock, or cut down on time violations. It would prevent Nadal from taking a minute in between points in the first set, but also allow him and Djoker to take 50 seconds if they want to in the 5th set after a marathon rally.

So now, the umpire needs to keep track of how many shots in each rally as well?

Towser83
03-09-2012, 10:53 AM
That was an exhibition, as you've already said. To compare an exo to a competitive match is silly.

True, although he was quicker in Miami 2005, at least he didn't adjust his socks or any of that stuff. Some people think it was him running out of gas in the latter stages of the match that led to him starting his pre serve routine to take some time, because i think he's doing it in Rome that year. Could be wrong.

Tennis_Hands
03-09-2012, 12:30 PM
you're not the only one... ;)
but i don't think mustard cares a lot about that !



The history books don't remember a lack of sportsmanship. They remember winners.




Oh, man, where did you get that from? Well, well, I guess the ***** are no different than their idol.

Mustard, I feel sorry for you.

Mustard
03-09-2012, 12:56 PM
Oh, man, where did you get that from? Well, well, I guess the ***** are no different than their idol.

Mustard, I feel sorry for you.

You disagree with that quote? History does remember winners, not incidents about "lack of sportsmanship."

stringertom
03-09-2012, 12:58 PM
Learn from basketball...w/o a shot clock, endless passing almost killed the NCAA so they adapted NBA rules and, voilà March Madness!

Here's my suggestions (previously posted on another thread).

1. Separate official operates the shot clock. He/she starts it when the chair calls the score.

2. Server has the agreed-upon time for the ball to leave his/her hand on the toss.

3. Serving player only may call time out twice per set. Add one for tiebreaks.

4. Receiver must play at server's pace. NO exceptions! Warning once, loss of point second and subsequent occasions.

5. Time violation by server penalty sequence: warning, loss of first serve, point loss for 3rd or more violation.

Tweak my ideas if you care but it would work if they want to get to the 21st century. I can see a whole generation of juniors thinking that if Djokdahl get away with it, I'll just push the envelope a little further. Then we'll have multiday finals the rule, like cricket, no?

Rozroz
03-09-2012, 01:06 PM
Learn from basketball...w/o a shot clock, endless passing almost killed the NCAA so they adapted NBA rules and, voilà March Madness!

Here's my suggestions (previously posted on another thread).

1. Separate official operates the shot clock. He/she starts it when the chair calls the score.

2. Server has the agreed-upon time for the ball to leave his/her hand on the toss.

3. Serving player only may call time out twice per set. Add one for tiebreaks.

4. Receiver must play at server's pace. NO exceptions! Warning once, loss of point second and subsequent occasions.

5. Time violation by server penalty sequence: warning, loss of first serve, point loss for 3rd or more violation.

Tweak my ideas if you care but it would work if they want to get to the 21st century. I can see a whole generation of juniors thinking that if Djokdahl get away with it, I'll just push the envelope a little further. Then we'll have multiday finals the rule, like cricket, no?

alright.
now let's send this to be executed at once!

Towser83
03-09-2012, 01:33 PM
It is beyond me, how so many people do not see in this part of his (Uncle Tony's ) mind games with his opponents. And, while it is not illegal, it is hugely disrespectful towards everybody involved. It is the same as with the time violations. He and every other time waster should be put in their place. No tennis player is bigger than the sport. If the riles are enforced you will see how quickly everybody will adjust.

Bartelby thinks that that benefits the commentators, but, really, this can not and should not be what determines how the sport should be played.

Moreover, I think that soon enough (if the rules are not enforced) we will see a situation, which is similar to the situation in volleyball from a couple of years ago, where there were changes in the rules, because the matches were taking far too long and that caused problems with the broadcasting schedules. Noone knew how long is a single volleyball match going to continue, so a lot of broadcasters in Europe just dropped the sport from their schedules. That forced drastic changes in the way the points were counted, in order to bring the match time back to reasonable length.

Will tennis take a hit from the situation now? Not necessarily, but I can see a problem with the broadcasters in the near future, if the trend continues.

Of course, that is only additional concern to the main point, that 20 to 25 seconds between points is enough time, if the players do not try to exploit the rules for their own benefit.

Yeah it is disrespectful, and i really hope tennis isn't changed to fit TV, but you're right it will happen. Surfaces are slowing, players are grinding, players are being slow.This adds up to 6 hour finals being just the beginning of things...

Also it's ridiculous to like slow play because it gives commentators time to bore us with their drivel :lol:

DjokovicForTheWin
03-09-2012, 02:06 PM
Ok I suppose I am completely in left field with this notion, but I always thought fitness was part of tennis as well. Hence why there was a time rule implemented in the first place. Else why even have a rule?

Gorecki
03-09-2012, 03:09 PM
You disagree with that quote? History does remember winners, not incidents about "lack of sportsmanship."

like the story of sports is not filled with legends of infamy from those who have displayed lack of sportsmanship....

Mustard
03-09-2012, 03:56 PM
like the story of sports is not filled with legends of infamy from those who have displayed lack of sportsmanship....

Who's going to remember time violations years into the future? When people look back at Nadal's record, they will see all the majors he won, his phenomenal clay-court record etc.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-09-2012, 04:10 PM
Who's going to remember time violations years into the future? When people look back at Nadal's record, they will see all the majors he won, his phenomenal clay-court record etc.

I don't only remember McEnroe's 7 slams, I also remember his fiery antics and bad sportsmanship. In fact, Mac's image is based on this and now the ridicule of many.

Mustard
03-09-2012, 04:19 PM
I don't only remember McEnroe's 7 slams, I also remember his fiery antics and bad sportsmanship. In fact, Mac's image is based on this and now the ridicule of many.

Ah well, McEnroe is a special case because nobody has been as disobedient on-court and as loud in going about it. McEnroe is remembered just as much for his natural tennis ability.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-09-2012, 04:21 PM
Ah well, McEnroe is a special case because nobody has been as disobedient on-court and as loud in going about it. McEnroe is remembered just as much for his natural tennis ability.

Nadal might become a special case too if he keeps it up. Nobody has cheated as much as Nadal.

Raz11
03-09-2012, 05:06 PM
Do umpires have access to how long a player spends between points like having a stopwatch on them or do they just give out warnings if they feel the players are taking too long by subjective guesses?

pundekman
03-09-2012, 05:38 PM
Actually the worst part about the time violations are that it will spawn a whole generation of tennis players who think taking 35 secs betwen pts and bounce the ball 50 times is ok. Anyone who plays social golf will know that the kids these days will look at a putt from 10 diff angles before addressing the ball. Thanks to tiger that one.

Tennis_Hands
03-09-2012, 05:44 PM
Who's going to remember time violations years into the future? When people look back at Nadal's record, they will see all the majors he won, his phenomenal clay-court record etc.

Knowledgable people are going to know it. That is the only thing that matters. Of course, I was refering to the fact, that you are OK with it, rather than the objectivity of that statement.

Bartelby
03-09-2012, 05:52 PM
Someone mentioned that they do actually time these intervals so they know exactly what is going on.

Given that it takes a lot for an umpire to reprimand a player they must be instructed not to unless the delay is egregious.

I hate to mention this to those who dislike Nadal, but there's no time violation unless the umpire calls it.

Why they allow such clear time violations is a mystery, but television does pay the bills and they're not complaining.



Do umpires have access to how long a player spends between points like having a stopwatch on them or do they just give out warnings if they feel the players are taking too long by subjective guesses?

DjokovicForTheWin
03-09-2012, 06:09 PM
I hate to mention this to those who dislike Nadal, but there's no time violation unless the umpire calls it.


This is not true. There is no call on the time violation unless the umpire calls it. But there is still a time violation whether the umpire calls it or not.

stringertom
03-09-2012, 08:38 PM
Someone mentioned that they do actually time these intervals so they know exactly what is going on.

Given that it takes a lot for an umpire to reprimand a player they must be instructed not to unless the delay is egregious.

I hate to mention this to those who dislike Nadal, but there's no time violation unless the umpire calls it.

Why they allow such clear time violations is a mystery, but television does pay the bills and they're not complaining.

It's really not a mystery why more warnings aren't called...tournament directors are higher up the food chain than chair umpires and they're lower on that same chain than our new tier of superstars. They are scared of the current #1 players and what would happen if their matchups were marred by controversy. Until enough tennis fans go away from the seats and the televisions because of this mindless delaying, they will instruct the chairs to let it slide. We need to change that opinion...kinda like the scene in "Network"..."we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore!"

"Shot clock now!" "Shot clock now!"

woodrow1029
03-09-2012, 09:06 PM
Do umpires have access to how long a player spends between points like having a stopwatch on them or do they just give out warnings if they feel the players are taking too long by subjective guesses?
There's a stopwatch on the scoring PDA.

rommil
03-09-2012, 09:19 PM
There's a stopwatch on the scoring PDA.

You said you would only give Rafa a warning if you umpired him. Did you ever use that stopwatch when you umpired?

ViscaB
03-09-2012, 10:09 PM
True greats don't moan. Like Messi. He just gets on what his game no matter what.

Paul Murphy
03-10-2012, 12:05 AM
Steve Tignor makes some good points:

A shot clock, which would be an effective final arbiter in theory, is too rigid for tennis. If it has the final say—and why would you bring it in if it doesn’t—it’s easy to imagine a situation where, say, a ball kid mishandles a ball or a player bobbles it, he sees the clock running down, and rushes himself into a missed serve. It’s also easy to imagine the buzzer sounding and a player pleading with the umpire to overrule the machine’s decision due to extenuating circumstances—what will constitute extenuating, and what won’t? At this point, the tour doesn’t see the problem as widespread enough to warrant such a major change in administering the rules, and in that sense the tour is right.

devila
03-10-2012, 03:29 AM
thousands of guys rushed in serves and lost set points and match points in federer matches. no surprise to hear federer's cowardly, bored-sounding. useless "leadership" interview. he realized that a great thoughtful player took time to beat fed arse while others rushed SERVES, lacked talent, listened to federer hype
and tanked matches to give him 16 slams (supposedly, federer was old & diminished since 2007),

ToddLaver
03-10-2012, 04:27 AM
For me time violating is killing tennis strategy. And I put an example:
Imagine a Nadal-Murray match. Nadal on serve 15-40, 2BP. Murray's strategy: in the first point he's going to tire Nadal by trying to move him with not fully-powered shots. For the next point, Nadal's serve accuracy or power would not be the same, allowing Murray to do a better return than the point before. But that plan can't be carried out because Nadal is given the chance to recover. It's like in football counterattacks were not allowed, and you would have to wait for the other team to reordenate.
Don't know if you see my point, also english is not my native language.

purge
03-10-2012, 04:39 AM
thousands of guys rushed in serves and lost set points and match points in federer matches. no surprise to hear federer's cowardly, bored-sounding. useless "leadership" interview. he realized that a great thoughtful player took time to beat fed arse while others rushed SERVES, lacked talent, listened to federer hype
and tanked matches to give him 16 slams (supposedly, federer was old & diminished since 2007),

wow thats like a whole new level of hatred and bitterness -.-

SLD76
03-10-2012, 04:40 AM
wow thats like a whole new level of hatred and bitterness -.-

devila and *********...the biggest Fed fans in the forum, given how everything they write mentions his name.

TTMR
03-10-2012, 04:41 AM
If it bothers Federer so much, why does he not complain about it to the umpire during a match, especially when he himself is serving? He's had plenty of opportunities against Nadal and Djokovic. He would almost certainly have the crowd on his side (who support him no matter what, Spain being the exception). Oh right, he's too "classy" for that. "Subtle" barbs to the media are more befitting of his "elegant" countenance.

Hilarious how Federer fans will go to any lengths to discredit Nadal's head to head advantage over Federer. As if making Nadal serve faster (as opposed to 'cheating' an unenforced archaic rule) would single-handedly reverse this matchup. Fantasyland has no borders, does it?

I'm also a big fan of this Javert-like "the law is always right" mentality. I hope you never fight a speeding or parking ticket. Hopefully you would have had no issues with the rules in Soviet Russia, because the context of the rule is irrelevant, only the fact that a 'higher authority' created it.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 04:45 AM
If it bothers Federer so much, why does he not complain about it to the umpire during a match, especially when he himself is serving? He's had plenty of opportunities against Nadal and Djokovic. He would almost certainly have the crowd on his side (who support him no matter what, Spain being the exception). Oh right, he's too "classy" for that. "Subtle" barbs to the media are more befitting of his "elegant" countenance.

Hilarious how Federer fans will go to any lengths to discredit Nadal's head to head advantage over Federer. As if making Nadal serve faster (as opposed to 'cheating' an unenforced archaic rule) would single-handedly reverse this matchup. Fantasyland has no borders, does it?

I'm also a big fan of this Javert-like "the law is always right" mentality. I hope you never fight a speeding or parking ticket. Hopefully you would have had no issues with the rules in Soviet Russia, because the context of the rule is irrelevant, only the fact that a 'higher authority' created it.


not sure what tennis rules have to do with soviet russia but, ok.

its a game. Not a dictatorial hegemony.

Are we equating time violations with freedom fighting now? :)

Vive la Revolucion!

TTMR
03-10-2012, 04:48 AM
not sure what tennis rules have to do with soviet russia but, ok.

its a game. Not a dictatorial hegemony.

Are we equating time violations with freedom fighting now? :)

Vive la Revolucion!

Obviously not, but defenders of the rule utilize the same 'the rule is the rule' appeal to authority argument, and discount context, such as kind of game it was when the rule was created and the kind of game it is now.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 04:51 AM
Obviously not, but defenders of the rule utilize the same 'the rule is the rule' appeal to authority argument, and discount context, such as kind of game it was when the rule was created and the kind of game it is now.

true the game has changed...and yet it seems like the vast majority of players seem to be able to function within the ancient rules.

Bartelby
03-10-2012, 04:58 AM
If you know you're not going to be done for speeding would a speed limit really exist? It doesn't happen with speeding, but its more generally known as white collar crime.

Rules are vaguely enforced so I'll do as I please unless otherwise advised.



This is not true. There is no call on the time violation unless the umpire calls it. But there is still a time violation whether the umpire calls it or not.

TTMR
03-10-2012, 04:59 AM
true the game has changed...and yet it seems like the vast majority of players seem to be able to function within the ancient rules.

Please provide evidence that most players stay within the allotted 20 seconds consistently throughout the match. What little token evidence we do have suggests otherwise.

Bartelby
03-10-2012, 05:04 AM
The bigger tournaments have no need to be scared of the big names.

Telling players before a tournament that rules would be enforced would cause little or no controversy unless players wanted to rebel.

But seriously look at the current generation of players - thery are obedient little boys and girls with no smell of controversy about them.

The simple fact is that for the people that count this is not a big problem, and perhaps not a problem at all.

It concerns people here and those who think Fed is old school and Nadal and Djoko are being uncool.

Nothing will happen because the people with power don't define this as a problem.



It's really not a mystery why more warnings aren't called...tournament directors are higher up the food chain than chair umpires and they're lower on that same chain than our new tier of superstars. They are scared of the current #1 players and what would happen if their matchups were marred by controversy. Until enough tennis fans go away from the seats and the televisions because of this mindless delaying, they will instruct the chairs to let it slide. We need to change that opinion...kinda like the scene in "Network"..."we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore!"

"Shot clock now!" "Shot clock now!"

Tennis_Hands
03-10-2012, 05:12 AM
If you know you're not going to be done for speeding would a speed limit really exist? It doesn't happen with speeding, but its more generally known as white collar crime.

Rules are vaguely enforced so I'll do as I please unless otherwise advised.

It is not players fault, that the rules are not being enforced. But, as far as I can see, the discussion is about the rules being enforced by the umpires and what represents a reasonable delay.

However, some people (like me), would like to see the players stick to the rules when they can. The reality is, that a lot of players abuse the rules and disrupt their opponent's momentum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a0hqtmOu-8&feature=related

This is just one episode in this match, but Sharapova was indeed doing this all the time. It is inexcusable, that the server should bow to his opponent and that goes unpunished. As is the situation the other way around, when the server is keeping his opponent waiting, causing concentration and other problems.

Bartelby
03-10-2012, 05:12 AM
Someone said something very true the other day in relation to Murray telling the press that he was playing better because Lendl had fixed his forehand.

And that was that after media training, Murray realised that all he had to do was feed the press an interesting story or two and he'd get more press.

Sharapova screaming, Nadal time wasting - these are the ridiculous little back stories of tennis that keep people talking about the game.

And you people want to kill it off???

Federer woke up and said I'll talk about time violation and have a poke back at Nadal for the Melbourne incident.

Nadal speaks back and thousands of words are written and three days of tennis emptiness are filled.

And you people want to kill it off???

Tennis_Hands
03-10-2012, 05:21 AM
But seriously look at the current generation of players - thery are obedient little boys and girls with no smell of controversy about them.

The simple fact is that for the people that count this is not a big problem, and perhaps not a problem at all.

It concerns people here and those who think Fed is old school and Nadal and Djoko are being uncool.

Nothing will happen because the people with power don't define this as a problem.

While I agree with your last sentence (for now, I should say) I certainly do not agree with your assessment, that the current generation is not controversial. Gamesmanship has always been and will always be controversial. The people, who care about tennis, certainly care about such problems. Incidentally, those are the people, that are also the biggest consumers of tennis related goods and services.

Bartelby
03-10-2012, 05:29 AM
Federer said the other day as well that Hawkeye had taken something out of tennis.

I forget what he said exactly, but the human element of contesting a point with an umpire is now almost dead.

There was gamesmanship in all that but really what game can do without gamesmanship.

We get huffy about it but really a lot of people are engaged - either for or against - because of it.

I used to ask why McEnroe got away with so much, but the fact is that oddballs make the game.

Nadal's *** picking, bottle adjusting, bull running, time delaying pieces of neurosis and gamesmanship make the game.

Just look at the camera - every piece of his on court neurosis is lovingly photographed for our admiration or detestation.

Tennis_Hands
03-10-2012, 05:54 AM
Federer said the other day as well that Hawkeye had taken something out of tennis.

I forget what he said exactly, but the human element of contesting a point with an umpire is now almost dead.

There was gamesmanship in all that but really what game can do without gamesmanship.


Correct. No modern game lacks gamesmanship. That doesn't mean, that we have to tolerate it.

We get huffy about it but really a lot of people are engaged - either for or against - because of it.

I used to ask why McEnroe got away with so much, but the fact is that oddballs make the game.

Nadal's *** picking, bottle adjusting, bull running, time delaying pieces of neurosis and gamesmanship make the game.

Just look at the camera - every piece of his on court neurosis is lovingly photographed for our admiration or detestation.

Yes, most people like that boulevard style. Not the majority of people, who are serious about tennis, though. Besides, there is a difference between arranging bottles and time violations. Just saying.

McEnroe was frequently punished for his on-court behaviour. Much more frequently than any modern player. All that, when there was no Hawk-eye, and often it was much more debatable, whether umpires' decisions were correct, which, to some extend, may have served as an excuse for Mac to do such things.

Bartelby
03-10-2012, 06:00 AM
I must confess my only real preference is for the game to go at a brisk pace otherwise my concentration falters.

But the modern televisual viewer is meant to be continually distracted and still stay glued.

I became unglued during the AO final even though I anticipated it keenly, so I'd like a change but I can't see anyone in power taking the issue seriously, so that makes me curious.

NamRanger
03-10-2012, 09:08 AM
Ah well, McEnroe is a special case because nobody has been as disobedient on-court and as loud in going about it. McEnroe is remembered just as much for his natural tennis ability.



Yeah, no one remembers Rios' ****** attitude, Nasty Nastase, or Connors being a huge jackass. No one. Get the hell out of here.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-10-2012, 09:35 AM
If you know you're not going to be done for speeding would a speed limit really exist? It doesn't happen with speeding, but its more generally known as white collar crime.

Rules are vaguely enforced so I'll do as I please unless otherwise advised.

If there is a speed limit, which there is. And you go over the speed limit and the police do not give you a ticket, then the only truth is that the police have not given you a ticket. But the fact remains that you still went over the speed limit. The fact that you went over the speed limit does not get erased simply because you were not ticketed, as you suggest.

chrischris
03-10-2012, 09:37 AM
A Shot Clock Ala The Nba.

TTMR
03-10-2012, 10:27 AM
Yeah, no one remembers Rios' ****** attitude, Nasty Nastase, or Connors being a huge jackass. No one. Get the hell out of here.

So Nadal is as bad as Rios, Nastase, Connors and McEnroe because...he, like many others, sometimes goes over the unenforced time limit?

I'm glad you and DjokovicForTheWin also consider Djokovic, Del Potro, Isner and innumerable others as cheaters and gamesmen as well, as to not specifically single out one player you have a particular dislike for. It's good to see such fair, balanced and non-agenda driven beliefs presented on TW.

If there is a speed limit, which there is. And you go over the speed limit and the police do not give you a ticket, then the only truth is that the police have not given you a ticket. But the fact remains that you still went over the speed limit. The fact that you went over the speed limit does not get erased simply because you were not ticketed, as you suggest.

Suppose some jurisdiction put up a law saying 30 MPH is the maximum speed limit, even on eight lane free ways. Should those that exceed this absurd limit be punished? After all, a rule is a rule, so it must be right.

And again, it's a good thing you also vociferously lambaste Djokovic for toweling off after an ace and his taking an average of 29 seconds to serve. It's good you don't just target one particular player due to an almost clinical level of hatred, while ignoring the many others who commit the same acts of "cheating" and "gamesmanship". We wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite, after all.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-10-2012, 10:30 AM
Suppose some jurisdiction put up a law saying 30 MPH is the maximum speed limit, even on eight lane free ways. Should those that exceed this absurd limit be punished? After all, a rule is a rule, so it must be right.


Yes...........

I've never said Djokovic is not guilty too. Check my posts.

TTMR
03-10-2012, 10:49 AM
Yes...........

I've never said Djokovic is not guilty too. Check my posts.

Hard to check your 5000 posts, so please, point me towards the one that says "Djokovic's time-wasting and MTOs show he is nothing but a cheater and gamesman".

DjokovicForTheWin
03-10-2012, 10:52 AM
Hard to check your 5000 posts, so please, point me towards the one that says "Djokovic's time-wasting and MTOs show he is nothing but a cheater and gamesman".

Here you go.

hey!!
Djoko time violates too!

I agree, Djoker needs to shape up too

abmk
03-10-2012, 10:53 AM
Yeah, no one remembers Rios' ****** attitude, Nasty Nastase, or Connors being a huge jackass. No one. Get the hell out of here.

+1. I don't know what the hell Mustard was thinking when he posted that ...

TTMR
03-10-2012, 10:54 AM
Here you go.

I agree, Djoker needs to shape up too

'Shape up'? Damn, that was harsh. Give the guy a break.

I'm glad you're not so hard on Nadal.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-10-2012, 10:55 AM
'Shape up'? Damn, that was harsh. Give the guy a break.

I'm glad you're not so hard on Nadal.

You women folk are never satisfied. Can't you just say sorry and that you were wrong?

TTMR
03-10-2012, 10:55 AM
Double post

Mustard
03-10-2012, 11:26 AM
Yeah, no one remembers Rios' ****** attitude, Nasty Nastase, or Connors being a huge jackass. No one. Get the hell out of here.

Rios? I doubt most people even know who Rios is, and those who do remember him will recall him being number 1 while never winning a major in his career (which the history books will mention), and also for hating grass-courts. As for Nastase and Connors, their bad behaviour got overshadowed by McEnroe's emergence and are now painted as lovable rogues, one with genius talent who never won Wimbledon (but still won 2 majors) and the other with a big never-say-die spirit (won 8 majors and played into his 40s). This is what the history books will pay attention to.

When Nadal has long since retired, history will mention his major wins and phenomenal clay-court records, not the time violations he occasionally got from umpires.

TennisLovaLova
03-10-2012, 11:40 AM
Mustard is right. And history books will also tell that fed h2h vs nadal is bad.
A shot clock violation rule wont change a thing. Federer need to beat him on the court, not outside tennis

jamesblakefan#1
03-10-2012, 12:01 PM
Rios? I doubt most people even know who Rios is, and those who do remember him will recall him being number 1 while never winning a major in his career (which the history books will mention), and also for hating grass-courts. As for Nastase and Connors, their bad behaviour got overshadowed by McEnroe's emergence and are now painted as lovable rogues, one with genius talent who never won Wimbledon (but still won 2 majors) and the other with a big never-say-die spirit (won 8 majors and played into his 40s). This is what the history books will pay attention to.

When Nadal has long since retired, history will mention his major wins and phenomenal clay-court records, not the time violations he occasionally got from umpires.

It's obvious you can't see this without your Nadal colored glasses, but to a degree you're right. History remembers the winners. But people also remember Connors calling a linesperson an abortion and Nastase's wild rantings of course. The good always goes with a degree of bad, so to say that only wins are remembered and people don't remember the flaws in players is selling it short. As someone who wasn't around back then I only remember Nastase for his angry tirades, so that right there partially disproves your point about him being remembered as a magician or whatever other flowery language you want to use.

If anything Nadal will be remembered negatively more for his constant injury excuses after losses than anything. Of course he'll be remembered greatly for his slams and such, but don't act as if history ignores the bad about people just because you do (or want to with Nadal). Nadal's a great player of course but his slams shouldn't excuse the fact that time wasting is annoying and by the spirit against the rule, even if it isn't strictly enforced.

rommil
03-10-2012, 12:11 PM
For most casual tennis viewers, Rafa will be remembered as:

-the one that beats Federer

-the one that picked and sniffed his butt


...in no particular order.

CMSlam
03-10-2012, 12:12 PM
The antics of the likes of McEnroe or Connors were at least entertaining to watch.

I just can't say the same about watching some guy bounce a ball 40 times before hitting every serve.

jackson vile
03-10-2012, 12:18 PM
Mustard is right. And history books will also tell that fed h2h vs nadal is bad.
A shot clock violation rule wont change a thing. Federer need to beat him on the court, not outside tennis

He just could not stop crying after that AO or what?

Tennis_Hands
03-10-2012, 12:43 PM
Suppose some jurisdiction put up a law saying 30 MPH is the maximum speed limit, even on eight lane free ways. Should those that exceed this absurd limit be punished? After all, a rule is a rule, so it must be right.

Is this a hypotetical situation, that you present us with? I can confidently say, that the supermajority :twisted: of the people, who drive over the speed limit, doesn't know jack about setting speed limits. They think, that they can judge the situation on the road well enough, but they don't.

Nadal is being singled out, because he is one of the few high profile players, that break the rules, because of gamesmanship (now Djokovic joined him in that aspect). But, gamesmanship or not, everybody should stop with the time wasting.

TTMR
03-10-2012, 01:16 PM
Is this a hypotetical situation, that you present us with? I can confidently say, that the supermajority :twisted: of the people, who drive over the speed limit, doesn't know jack about setting speed limits. They think, that they can judge the situation on the road well enough, but they don't.

I brought up the speed limit example because a 30 MPH limit would be an extreme and arbitrary inconvenience for modern drivers, much like the 20 second rule is in many cases arbitrary and inconvenient for modern players. However, people on the side of "20 seconds or gtfo" should support any rule created by a higher authority, because it is a rule and all rules are good.

Nadal is being singled out, because he is one of the few high profile players, that break the rules, because of gamesmanship (now Djokovic joined him in that aspect). But, gamesmanship or not, everybody should stop with the time wasting.

Or maybe Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Isner and many others play at a slower pace because that is what they are comfortable with. Maybe it is not gamesmanship.

Maybe Federer and Roddick rushing to the next serve is gamesmanship. But of course, gamesmanship that's "within the rules", regardless of the modern suitability of that rule, is irrelevant.

The reason why Nadal is singled out is not just because he is a high profile player. It's because people will grasp at anything to discredit his wins. The delusional mentality goes as follows: if Nadal weren't allowed to "cheat" by going over the limit, he'd be rushed into playing faster, and Federer would win those matches. It's a fantasy, but it's one that preserves the mythical idea that Nadal is not just another tennis player trying to be successful, but a punk whose success came through incremental cheating, gamesmanship, steroids, capitalizing on slower surfaces, etc., repeatedly robbing the eminently graceful Federer of the complete grand slam to which he was entitled. Not that I expect anyone to own up and admit to it.

mellowyellow
03-10-2012, 02:02 PM
It is clear that guys like Nadal/Murray and whoever else has a bad and predictable second serve get into trouble routinely, are allowed to take way too much time then come up with a great serve or two in a row to get their game back under control along with their heart rate. It also gets under an opponents skin, and breaks the rhythm of a match/play. I don't think anyone thinks that individually a point here or a point there is a problem or is going to make or break a match. It most definitely is about on what points these extra seconds are being taken on. History does not lie. It is always when these guys are in trouble the rhythm of the serve is completely changed. It is also a fact that anyone whose game's foundation is on running everything down, that this laxness on the rule going to favor. This lack of enforcement may not change every match outcome but don't underestimate the importance of when this lack of enforcement has occurred is a key time in the match..... When you start to add up how many sets this may save a certain player in a tourney, and that may have an effect on the level of play in a quarter/semi/final. Its not just illegal and unfair to the opponent it happens to, but also to all players played in a tourney down the line.

chrischris
03-10-2012, 02:06 PM
N . B . A. shot clock. ASAP.

Tennis_Hands
03-10-2012, 03:02 PM
I brought up the speed limit example because a 30 MPH limit would be an extreme and arbitrary inconvenience for modern drivers, much like the 20 second rule is in many cases arbitrary and inconvenient for modern players. However, people on the side of "20 seconds or gtfo" should support any rule created by a higher authority, because it is a rule and all rules are good.

In this case your example is not relevant to the situation. The majority of the high profile matches in the past years where played in accordance with the rules. Even nowadays most of the players, including the grinders, manage to stay within those rules. Should the rules be changed, just because 2 (or even 5) of the best tennis players in the world cannot abide to them, for whatever reason? Even if they are to be changed that should happen in a suitable way. Not by breaking them all the time.


Or maybe Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Isner and many others play at a slower pace because that is what they are comfortable with.

What on earth is that? Comfortable? If I am comfortable with a lot higher payment than my qualifications and position suggest am I going to get it?

Maybe it is not gamesmanship.

Maybe not, maybe so. On this matter I have a firm belief, that in Nadal's case it is gamesmanship. There have been too many examples, that do not go well with the situation, to believe otherwise. In Djokovic's case I am not decided as of yet. He seems to have routines, but, other than them, he is pretty straightforward in his game approach. Of course, this doesn't excuse him one bit. He should stop wasting time too. My comment in this case is only about the possibility, that he is abusing the rules for his own benefit.

Maybe Federer and Roddick rushing to the next serve is gamesmanship. But of course, gamesmanship that's "within the rules", regardless of the modern suitability of that rule, is irrelevant.

You are making assumptions, that do not go well with the well established practices within the game. Normally a receiver should give a sign, when he is not ready to play and the umpire will consider it. However, the receiver cannot do this without a good reason. Otherwise he would be in a position to dictate the pace on the service game of his opponent, which is well outside of the established understanding. Though, I would gladly hear, what woodrow1029 has to say about that.

The reason why Nadal is singled out is not just because he is a high profile player. It's because people will grasp at anything to discredit his wins. The delusional mentality goes as follows: if Nadal weren't allowed to "cheat" by going over the limit, he'd be rushed into playing faster, and Federer would win those matches..

While I do not deny, that there are people, who just want to discredit Nadal, I certainly do not agree, that the time wasting does not affect the play of the opponent. Have you ever played a player, whose preparation on his serve is extremely long and erratic on top of that? I have. With such opponents I have to stay concentrated for prolonged periods of time and my physical readiness has to be on its max level, to be able to play well.

Nadal is a player of immence skill and mental fortitude. That doesn't mean, that he cannot benefit from a gamesmanship (as I believe he has done many times). I was never (and will never be) in the shoes of those top ranked players, but I can imagine, that winning/losing the mental battle could be the difference between winning and losing the match.

I certainly do not agree with you, when you say, that there is no way the outcome of the matches between Nadal and Federer could have been different, should Nadal have played within the rules. There is not knowing that, but IF we assume, that there was gamesmanship (on which I agree to disagree with anyone, who says otherwise), there must be a good reason for it to happen.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 04:00 PM
I brought up the speed limit example because a 30 MPH limit would be an extreme and arbitrary inconvenience for modern drivers, much like the 20 second rule is in many cases arbitrary and inconvenient for modern players. However, people on the side of "20 seconds or gtfo" should support any rule created by a higher authority, because it is a rule and all rules are good.



Or maybe Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Isner and many others play at a slower pace because that is what they are comfortable with. Maybe it is not gamesmanship.

Maybe Federer and Roddick rushing to the next serve is gamesmanship. But of course, gamesmanship that's "within the rules", regardless of the modern suitability of that rule, is irrelevant.

The reason why Nadal is singled out is not just because he is a high profile player. It's because people will grasp at anything to discredit his wins. The delusional mentality goes as follows: if Nadal weren't allowed to "cheat" by going over the limit, he'd be rushed into playing faster, and Federer would win those matches. It's a fantasy, but it's one that preserves the mythical idea that Nadal is not just another tennis player trying to be successful, but a punk whose success came through incremental cheating, gamesmanship, steroids, capitalizing on slower surfaces, etc., repeatedly robbing the eminently graceful Federer of the complete grand slam to which he was entitled. Not that I expect anyone to own up and admit to it.

The irony is that if Nadal played faster, a lot of players would be in even more trouble, lol.

Your analysis is spot on, and I agree with your last line completely. There is no way this 20 second rule is this important, especially considering the physicality of the modern game.

Polaris
03-10-2012, 04:18 PM
The irony is that if Nadal played faster, a lot of players would be in even more trouble, lol.

This contradicts the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, i.e., reality. Even with the current slow pace that Nadal sets between points, he is an injury-prone player who beats his body up during a match. If you take away 10 seconds of his recovery time per point, it is logical to conclude that he will suffer even more. Other players, such as Federer, by contrast, are used to shorter (legal) breaks.

It is probably wishful thinking to suggest that Nadal would lose more often, if he adhered to the rules. But it is laughably stupid to claim that he would trouble other players even more often, i.e., win more if he followed the rules.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 04:36 PM
This contradicts the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, i.e., reality. Even with the current slow pace that Nadal sets between points, he is an injury-prone player who beats his body up during a match. If you take away 10 seconds of his recovery time per point, it is logical to conclude that he will suffer even more. Other players, such as Federer, by contrast, are used to shorter (legal) breaks.

It is probably wishful thinking to suggest that Nadal would lose more often, if he adhered to the rules. But it is laughably stupid to claim that he would trouble other players even more often, i.e., win more if he followed the rules.

Too many insults in here to even consider discussing anything with you. I don't deal with people like you who lace their posts in such a manner.

FlashFlare11
03-10-2012, 04:48 PM
The irony is that if Nadal played faster, a lot of players would be in even more trouble, lol.

Your analysis is spot on, and I agree with your last line completely. There is no way this 20 second rule is this important, especially considering the physicality of the modern game.

Disagree here.

There is no way of proving your first statement at all, since I doubt Nadal will every play as quickly as others.

Secondly, his analysis is heavily biased, based on this statement:
"The delusional mentality goes as follows: if Nadal weren't allowed to "cheat" by going over the limit, he'd be rushed into playing faster, and Federer would win those matches."
Coming from this poster, who, in 90% of his posts tries to make Federer fans look like delusional idiots through passive-aggressive posts, this is no surprise. Fact is, not one person has said this and he is making this up to further his own beliefs.

Nadal is not "singled out" only because he is a high profile player, but because he is very deliberate in his routine. Going by your suggestions, this, to me, seems like another attempt to have the rules change to the player (like the 2-year ranking system). When you come onto the tour, you change yourself to adapt to the rules. When there are other players on the tour who can stay within the rules, why can't the others. Suggesting Federer is guilty of gamesmanship because he is within the rules by playing to the time allotted for servers is laughable.

The rules have been there long before Nadal was on the tour. Why should they change just because he can't follow them?

SLD76
03-10-2012, 04:50 PM
Too many insults in here to even consider discussing anything with you. I don't deal with people like you who lace their posts in such a manner.

how was anything in he said a personal insult? He underlined certain words and phrases for emphasis. How is that an insult??

Polaris
03-10-2012, 04:51 PM
Too many insults in here to even consider discussing anything with you. I don't deal with people like you who lace their posts in such a manner.

Other than "laughably stupid", nothing insulting was intended. And even that was intended to convey that it was worse than the wishful thinking of people who think Nadal would lose more often if he played quicker. Everything else consists of a refutation of an obviously specious argument. If those two words are too much for you, then that's too bad.

vive le beau jeu !
03-10-2012, 05:06 PM
how was anything in he said a personal insult? He underlined certain words and phrases for emphasis. How is that an insult??

Other than "laughably stupid", nothing insulting was intended. And even that was meant in order to convey that it was worse than the wishful thinking of people who think Nadal would lose more often if he played quicker. Everything else consists of a refutation of an obviously specious argument. If those two words are too much for you, then that's too bad.
ladies'n'gentlemen, welcome to the wonderful and paranoid world of...... *drumroll* TheTruffle !!!
http://acidcow.com/engine/data/emoticons/28.gif
TheTruffle airlines sincerely hope you'll enjoy your stay and will be happy to welcome you again soon onboard one of her double standards.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 05:11 PM
Other than "laughably stupid", nothing insulting was intended. And even that was intended to convey that it was worse than the wishful thinking of people who think Nadal would lose more often if he played quicker. Everything else consists of a refutation of an obviously specious argument. If those two words are too much for you, then that's too bad.

you can insult someone's argument without insulting them directly which is how I read what you wrote.


talk about kid gloves with some people.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 05:11 PM
Disagree here.

There is no way of proving your first statement at all, since I doubt Nadal will every play as quickly as others.

Secondly, his analysis is heavily biased, based on this statement:
"The delusional mentality goes as follows: if Nadal weren't allowed to "cheat" by going over the limit, he'd be rushed into playing faster, and Federer would win those matches."
Coming from this poster, who, in 90% of his posts tries to make Federer fans look like delusional idiots through passive-aggressive posts, this is no surprise. Fact is, not one person has said this and he is making this up to further his own beliefs.

Nadal is not "singled out" only because he is a high profile player, but because he is very deliberate in his routine. Going by your suggestions, this, to me, seems like another attempt to have the rules change to the player (like the 2-year ranking system). When you come onto the tour, you change yourself to adapt to the rules. When there are other players on the tour who can stay within the rules, why can't the others. Suggesting Federer is guilty of gamesmanship because he is within the rules by playing to the time allotted for servers is laughable.

The rules have been there long before Nadal was on the tour. Why should they change just because he can't follow them?

I've been watching tennis for a long time and never has there been such a furor over the time limit on a continual basis. I think it has to do with commentator bias and carefully constructed snippets leaked to the press. I don't agree with this argument, don't consider it cheating, and believe the poster had it right.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 05:13 PM
how was anything in he said a personal insult? He underlined certain words and phrases for emphasis. How is that an insult??

Go back and read it then. Maybe you don't view it as an insult, but when you put in words like laughable, delusional, "reality." Yep, I consider it an insult.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 05:15 PM
I've been watching tennis for a long time and never has there been such a furor over the time limit on a continual basis. I think it has to do with commentator bias and carefully constructed snippets leaked to the press. I don't agree with this argument, don't consider it cheating, and believe the poster had it right.

Thats because players didnt blatantly violate it until recent years. Some more noticeable than others.

As to the second bolded...so its an outside conspiracy? So people are completely hallucinating when they notice certain players playing exceedingly slowly?

Cup8489
03-10-2012, 05:15 PM
I've been watching tennis for a long time and never has there been such a furor over the time limit on a continual basis. I think it has to do with commentator bias and carefully constructed snippets leaked to the press. I don't agree with this argument, don't consider it cheating, and believe the poster had it right.

actually, it has to do with the fact that people followed the rule in past seasons. LOL.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 05:18 PM
Other than "laughably stupid", nothing insulting was intended. And even that was intended to convey that it was worse than the wishful thinking of people who think Nadal would lose more often if he played quicker. Everything else consists of a refutation of an obviously specious argument. If those two words are too much for you, then that's too bad.

Yeah, but what gives you the right to tell someone their opinion on a matter is "laughably stupid?" Why would anyone want to discuss an issue with someone who starts out that way? Chances are, the dialogue will become much worse.

Too bad? Not really, I just don't like talking to people who can't be reasonable in their conversation. It's not too bad for me, because the powers that be recognized that some people would cross the line in their efforts to communicate.

TTMR
03-10-2012, 05:18 PM
Though, I would gladly hear, what woodrow1029 has to say about that.


Woodrow has said on more than one occasion 20 seconds is not nearly enough time in today's game, and that most umpires agree, which is why it is not rigidly enforced. His expertise, though, is always soundly dismissed because it does not accord with the prevailing "wisdom" of TW's armchair legalists.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 05:18 PM
actually, it has to do with the fact that people followed the rule in past seasons. LOL.

Actually, it has to do with the fact that in past seasons no one was sitting around counting seconds in order to discredit their competition.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 05:20 PM
Yeah, but what gives you the right to tell someone their opinion on a matter is "laughably stupid?" Why would anyone want to discuss an issue with someone who starts out that way? Chances are, the dialogue will become much worse.

Too bad? Not really, I just don't like talking to people who can't be reasonable in their conversation. It's not too bad for me, because the powers that be recognized that some people would cross the line in their efforts to communicate.

Please.

If you make a statement which sounds utterly ridiculous to someone else, they are going to let you know about it.

Not that Im saying this is so, but its called a discussion.

Honestly, he didnt say you personally were laughingly stupid, just your position.

And if you think this is rude you may want to avoid other forums.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 05:21 PM
Woodrow has said on more than one occasion 20 seconds is not nearly enough time in today's game, and that most umpires agree, which is why it is not rigidly enforced. His expertise, though, is always soundly dismissed because it does not accord with the prevailing "wisdom" of TW's armchair legalists.

Hmm, but the issue seems to be that not even 25 or 30 seconds are enough for some players.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 05:22 PM
Actually, it has to do with the fact that in past seasons no one was sitting around counting seconds in order to discredit their competition.

wait..so you are saying there was no 20 second rule til 2004?

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 05:23 PM
Thats because players didnt blatantly violate it until recent years. Some more noticeable than others.

As to the second bolded...so its an outside conspiracy? So people are completely hallucinating when they notice certain players playing exceedingly slowly?

Not so much a conspiracy, as is it following others. Once someone says something, true or not, many blindly follow. I'm not in power to change anything so I go with the flow. But there are many players who go over the time limit and not one word is uttered.

Exceedingly slowly is an exaggeration. We're talking about less than 5-10 seconds in most cases. Another example of people blowing it out of proportion.

Personally, I can't recall how many times Federer has "leaked" this to the press. You don't think there's a motivation for this?

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 05:25 PM
wait..so you are saying there was no 20 second rule til 2004?

No one paid any attention to it. They just played within the lines. I never heard of people talking about this ad nauseum when Pete and Andre played. Did you?

TTMR
03-10-2012, 05:25 PM
Hmm, but the issue seems to be that not even 25 or 30 seconds are enough for some players.

I believe during the AO final the commentators showed the average time between points and it was something like 27 seconds for Djokovic and 29 for Nadal, or vice-versa.

Again, I'll take the moaning seriously when the purists start attacking Del Potro as a cheater and gamesman. But they don't and won't, because he "plays the game the right way", even if he is the slowest of them all between points.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 05:26 PM
Not so much a conspiracy, as is it following others. Once someone says something, true or not, many blindly follow. I'm not in power to change anything so I go with the flow. But there are many players who go over the time limit and not one word is uttered.

Exceedingly slowly is an exaggeration. We're talking about less than 5-10 seconds in most cases. Another example of people blowing it out of proportion.

Personally, I can't recall how many times Federer has "leaked" this to the press. You don't think there's a motivation for this?

Im sorry but that is ridiculous. I dont need a commentator to tell me that Djoker takes exceedingly long with the ball bounces.

I dont need a commentator to know that Nadal's service routine slows down to a crawl during a pressure point.

Its not a top down conspiracy. People i.e. fans, viewers, notice and that is why commentators speak about it. Not the other way around.

It probably seems exceedingly slow compared to the normal pace of play, which is noticeably broken.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 05:27 PM
I believe during the AO final the commentators showed the average time between points and it was something like 27 seconds for Djokovic and 29 for Nadal, or vice-versa.

Again, I'll take the moaning seriously when the purists start attacking Del Potro as a cheater and gamesman. But they don't and won't, because he "plays the game the right way", even if he is the slowest of them all between points.

Everything Del Potro does is slow. I get peeved at him taking 2 years to decide if he wants to challenge.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 05:27 PM
No one paid any attention to it. They just played within the lines. I never heard of people talking about this ad nauseum when Pete and Andre played. Did you?

they didnt take forever between points, hence nobody talked about it.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 05:28 PM
Please.

If you make a statement which sounds utterly ridiculous to someone else, they are going to let you know about it.

Not that Im saying this is so, but its called a discussion.

Honestly, he didnt say you personally were laughingly stupid, just your position.

And if you think this is rude you may want to avoid other forums.

People make opinions that I think are utterly ridiculous all the time. That doesn't make me insult them or their positions. I guess that's the difference. I believe in using restraint rather than blurting out whatever I think.

I don't need to avoid forums as I enjoy them and the majority of different views.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 05:30 PM
they didnt take forever between points, hence nobody talked about it.

They don't take forever now. Since when did a few seconds become forever?

I'm done with this. You can either accept a difference of opinion or move on.

I'm moving on.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-10-2012, 05:30 PM
I'm sure there were always player offending the time rules, even in the 90s and before. But when the top 2 players in the world do it habitually, people are gonna notice and call it out. Why not after all.

FlashFlare11
03-10-2012, 05:31 PM
Hmm, but the issue seems to be that not even 25 or 30 seconds are enough for some players.

I can understand that in the latter stages of a physical match, a few more seconds couldn't hurt.

The problem is that Nadal and Djokovic play at a very slow pace from the very first point. There is no excuse for that at all.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 05:32 PM
They don't take forever now. Since when did a few seconds become forever?

I'm done with this. You can either accept a difference of opinion or move on.

I'm moving on.

why bother being on a forum if you cant deal with a difference of opinion?

Fare the well.

Tennis_Hands
03-10-2012, 05:33 PM
Woodrow has said on more than one occasion 20 seconds is not nearly enough time in today's game, and that most umpires agree, which is why it is not rigidly enforced. His expertise, though, is always soundly dismissed because it does not accord with the prevailing "wisdom" of TW's armchair legalists.

Please, go back and reread the part of my post, that asks for woodrow1029's opinion! It has NOTHING to do with the 20 second rule, but with your assumption, that serving quick can be viewed as gamesmanship, and my response, that that is well in control of the chair umpire.

And while I am inclined to agree, that at some points the 20 second should not be the ultimate factor, I do not agree, that the players should be allowed to break the rule at will. Which they do, in order to achieve competitive advantage in many situations.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 05:33 PM
I'm sure there were always player offending the time rules, even in the 90s and before. But when the top 2 players in the world do it habitually, people are gonna notice and call it out. Why not after all.


pretty much this here.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 05:34 PM
I believe during the AO final the commentators showed the average time between points and it was something like 27 seconds for Djokovic and 29 for Nadal, or vice-versa.

Again, I'll take the moaning seriously when the purists start attacking Del Potro as a cheater and gamesman. But they don't and won't, because he "plays the game the right way", even if he is the slowest of them all between points.

Exactly. So we're talking about 2-3 seconds being a crime. And it is funny how del Potro is not considered a "cheater" around here, only Nadal and sometimes Djokovic.

Ridiculous.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 05:38 PM
Exactly. So we're talking about 2-3 seconds being a crime. And it is funny how del Potro is not considered a "cheater" around here, only Nadal and sometimes Djokovic.

Ridiculous.

29-20= 9

27-20=7

so, if on average, djokdal are nearly 10 seconds above the allotted time, then one can assume that there are many points where they are well over 10 seconds above the allotted time.

how is that 2-3 seconds again?


And I agree, Del Po is slow as molasses.

then again, guy is 7 ft tall, he can move but so fast I guess?

DjokovicForTheWin
03-10-2012, 05:38 PM
Anyone who has an average time over the limit is a cheater. Not just Nadal.

DragonBlaze
03-10-2012, 05:39 PM
I believe during the AO final the commentators showed the average time between points and it was something like 27 seconds for Djokovic and 29 for Nadal, or vice-versa.

Again, I'll take the moaning seriously when the purists start attacking Del Potro as a cheater and gamesman. But they don't and won't, because he "plays the game the right way", even if he is the slowest of them all between points.

Exactly. So we're talking about 2-3 seconds being a crime. And it is funny how del Potro is not considered a "cheater" around here, only Nadal and sometimes Djokovic.

Ridiculous.

29-20= 9

27-20=7

so, if on average, djokdal are nearly 10 seconds above the allotted time, then one can assume that there are many points where they are well over 10 seconds above the allotted time.

how is that 2-3 seconds again?


And I agree, Del Po is slow as molasses.

then again, guy is 7 ft tall, he can move but so fast I guess?


Na it was 31 and 34 seconds on average. Don't remember if Nadal or Djoker was the slower one (I think it was Djokovic).

To me that's way too long. I mean obviously 30 seconds + is understandable with a 20-30 shot rally. Heck even 40-50 seconds is fine in those cases. But when one player is taking 34 seconds on average, and the other one isn't much better, it DOES slow it down considerably. Let me make it clear though, I don't think the match result would change if either of them went faster, it just wouldn't take so damn long and break the momentum for me. That's why I would like the umpires to be more strict.

Also Delpo annoys me as well with how long he can take. They all do. I wouldn't call any of them cheaters though (including Nadal or Djokovic).

Polaris
03-10-2012, 05:40 PM
Yeah, but what gives you the right to tell someone their opinion on a matter is "laughably stupid?"

I don't have the right, actually, just the privilege to post on these boards. I try not to misuse it.

But, the deeper point is this. It is all fine and dandy to respect other people's opinions, but when opinions conflict with basic reality, then it amounts to respecting a delusion. See, if someone says that, "In my opinion, the sun goes around the earth?", you would say that the idea is completely bonkers. You wouldn't give such a preposterous notion a fair chance, I hope. Why is this so? Because it contradicts reality.

Now, the point that you are making is similar: "Take away time from Nadal, and that makes him even more dangerous to other players who are used to keeping good time". What you are claiming goes against everything we know about human physiology, which in turn is based on what we know of biology, which in turn is based on what we know of chemistry, which in turn is based on what we know of physics, ... you know where I'm going with this.

In my mind, such a preposterous opinion - with no basis in reality - does not deserve respect. Hence, my characterization of your opinion as "laughably stupid." If you play tennis against someone who is already faster than you between points, and then try to increase your own pace, you will not become a more dangerous player. Chances are that you will become less dangerous. It is only logical.

Honestly, he didnt say you personally were laughingly stupid, just your position.
This, exactly.

Tennis_Hands
03-10-2012, 05:43 PM
Exactly. So we're talking about 2-3 seconds being a crime. And it is funny how del Potro is not considered a "cheater" around here, only Nadal and sometimes Djokovic.

Ridiculous.

That is not The Truth:???: The truth is, that time and time again the people said that the rules should be enforced. Not that the rules should be enforced just in the case of Nadal or Djokovic. The said players are being singled out, because they are at the top of the game and notorious for their time wasting.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 05:48 PM
I don't have the right, actually, just the privilege to post on these boards. I try not to misuse it.

But, the deeper point is this. It is all fine and dandy to respect other people's opinions, but when opinions conflict with basic reality, then it amounts to respecting a delusion. See, if someone says that, "In my opinion, the sun goes around the earth?", you would say that the idea is completely bonkers. You wouldn't give such a preposterous notion a fair chance, I hope. Why is this so? Because it contradicts reality.

Terrible analogy

Now, the point that you are making is similar: "Take away time from Nadal, and that makes him even more dangerous to other players who are used to keeping good time". What you are claiming goes against everything we know about human physiology, which in turn is based on what we know of biology, which in turn is based on what we know of chemistry, which in turn is based on what we know of physics.

In my mind, such a preposterous opinion - with no basis in reality - does not deserve respect. Hence, my characterization of your opinion as "laughably stupid."

This, exactly.

You just can't seem to restrain yourself. Your opinion is no better than mine's to me, so we need to agree to disagree. This 20-second rule does not warrant the sciences of biology, physiology, chemistry, and physics. To me, it's preposterous to drag all of these sciences in there for the sake of a few
seconds.

We disagree, Polaris. That's all there is to it. I vote we let it go, because I'm not changing my position and I doubt you will either, so no point in going on and on about it. Going on and on about it, to me, is laughably stupid.

FlashFlare11
03-10-2012, 05:49 PM
That is not The Truth:???: The truth is, that time and time again the people said that the rules should be enforced. Not that the rules should be enforced just in the case of Nadal or Djokovic. The said players are being singled out, because they are at the top of the game and notorious for their time wasting.

Exaclty. The rule is only enforced some of the time. Nadal has gotten the time warning plenty of times, yet he doesn't change and he's not regularly penalized for it. It doesn't matter if people "feel" they need the time, the rules are the rules. Again, a few extra seconds in a physical match is understandable. Taking excessive amounts of time in the very first few games of a match? No excuse.

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 05:50 PM
That is not The Truth:???: The truth is, that time and time again the people said that the rules should be enforced. Not that the rules should be enforced just in the case of Nadal or Djokovic. The said players are being singled out, because they are at the top of the game and notorious for their time wasting.

A recent transgression in the tennis world, and a petty one imo.

Still no talk of the slow moving del Potro, though.

I don't buy your position. Is that okay?

SLD76
03-10-2012, 05:52 PM
A recent transgression in the tennis world, and a petty one imo.

Still no talk of the slow moving del Potro, though.

I don't buy your position. Is that okay?

Its cool

Nadal and Djoker and Del Potro are still slow as molasses though.

Polaris
03-10-2012, 06:13 PM
You just can't seem to restrain yourself. Your opinion is no better than mine's to me, so we need to agree to disagree. This 20-second rule does not warrant the sciences of biology, physiology, chemistry, and physics. To me, it's preposterous to drag all of these sciences in there for the sake of a few
seconds.

We disagree, Polaris. That's all there is to it. I vote we let it go, because I'm not changing my position and I doubt you will either, so no point in going on and on about it.

Okies, we can agree to disagree. You can continue to disregard basic science in favor of your opinions. I'll continue to regard it while forming mine. :)

TheTruth
03-10-2012, 06:39 PM
Okies, we can agree to disagree. You can continue to disregard basic science in favor of your opinions. I'll continue to regard it while forming mine. :)

You must be in the science field, or do something in that capacity, because you always seem to post on scientific matters (from what I remember). It's cool. I enjoy reading your posts anyway, and don't take it personal.

devila
03-10-2012, 06:59 PM
roddick and federer used to rush to serve and you could see opponents waving their hand to slow them down during break points. ljubicic very publicly gave an interview about the "other guys not liking roddick". he rolled his eyes when roddick didn't even hold the ball up to get the opponent ready for serves.

abmk
03-10-2012, 07:07 PM
This contradicts the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, i.e., reality. Even with the current slow pace that Nadal sets between points, he is an injury-prone player who beats his body up during a match. If you take away 10 seconds of his recovery time per point, it is logical to conclude that he will suffer even more. Other players, such as Federer, by contrast, are used to shorter (legal) breaks.

It is probably wishful thinking to suggest that Nadal would lose more often, if he adhered to the rules. But it is laughably stupid to claim that he would trouble other players even more often, i.e., win more if he followed the rules.

how was anything in he said a personal insult? He underlined certain words and phrases for emphasis. How is that an insult??

Other than "laughably stupid", nothing insulting was intended. And even that was intended to convey that it was worse than the wishful thinking of people who think Nadal would lose more often if he played quicker. Everything else consists of a refutation of an obviously specious argument. If those two words are too much for you, then that's too bad.

ladies'n'gentlemen, welcome to the wonderful and paranoid world of...... *drumroll* TheTruffle !!!
http://acidcow.com/engine/data/emoticons/28.gif
TheTruffle airlines sincerely hope you'll enjoy your stay and will be happy to welcome you again soon onboard one of her double standards.

indeed ...

10 double standards !

Sid_Vicious
03-10-2012, 07:22 PM
I can understand that in the latter stages of a physical match, a few more seconds couldn't hurt.

The problem is that Nadal and Djokovic play at a very slow pace from the very first point. There is no excuse for that at all.

Rigidly using a 20 second rule will be awful because even the fast-paced players would be screwed. Federer was taking 23 seconds on average against Nadal, who was taking 30, at the AO this year.

FlashFlare11
03-10-2012, 07:30 PM
Rigidly using a 20 second rule will be awful because even the fast-paced players would be screwed. Federer was taking 23 seconds on average against Nadal, who was taking 30, at the AO this year.
Yeah, true. 25 is the limit at a Grand Slam, I think. Besides, like I said, the more physical a match is, the more time players need between points. The rallies between Federer and Nadal were long, so I'm not surprised that Federer averaged 23 seconds (for the whole match, right?). But I don't think Federer started the match with around 23-30 seconds between points on his serve. Nadal and Djokovic take similar amounts of time between the first ball struck to the last.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-10-2012, 08:01 PM
I think slams are 20 seconds. ATP matches are 25 seconds.

FlashFlare11
03-10-2012, 08:02 PM
I think slams are 20 seconds. ATP matches are 25 seconds.

You're probably right. 23 seconds in a physical match is reasonable. 30-40 seconds is kind of excessive.

TTMR
03-10-2012, 09:29 PM
Rigidly using a 20 second rule will be awful because even the fast-paced players would be screwed. Federer was taking 23 seconds on average against Nadal, who was taking 30, at the AO this year.

It doesn't matter if people "feel" they need the time, the rules are the rules.

You're probably right. 23 seconds [for Federer] in a physical match is reasonable. 30-40 seconds is kind of excessive.

20 seconds is the ITF rule.

I'm sorry. It doesn't matter if people 'feel' they need the time, the rules are the rules. Federer is a cheater and a gamesman. People like Roddick can presumably play within the allotted time, so there is no reason why Federer cannot except to gain a competitive advantage. The rule should be enforced and Federer should develop a style of play less taxing on his body if he feels 20 seconds is insufficient time.

FlashFlare11
03-10-2012, 09:33 PM
20 seconds is the ITF rule.

I'm sorry. It doesn't matter if people 'feel' they need the time, the rules are the rules. Federer is a cheater and a gamesman. People like Roddick can presumably play within the allotted time, so there is no reason why Federer cannot except to gain a competitive advantage. The rule should be enforced and Federer should develop a style of play less taxing on his body if he feels 20 seconds is insufficient time.

Did you read? I said in a physical match, 23 seconds is nothing. 30 is kind of excessive. 40 is really pushing it. In most matches, Federer doesn't go over the time limit (his service games stay within just over a minute many times), and since the average was 23 for that one, very physical match, he didn't go over the limit too often. If Nadal stayed between 20 and 25, that would be fine too. But he deliberately goes over the limit FROM THE VERY FIRST POINT.

Didn't you say this was up to the umpire's discretion? Are you trying to say that when the match gets very physical, 23 seconds is the same as 30 seconds between points?

phnx90
03-10-2012, 09:41 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't really mind ~35 seconds because then I can watch the replays and listen to the commentary?

(except say, when Rafa takes like 40 seconds then double faults and takes another 40 seconds...I hate that almost as much as when Djokovic bounces the ball 20 times only to double fault and bounce the ball another 20 times)

FlashFlare11
03-10-2012, 09:43 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't really mind ~35 seconds because then I can watch the replays and listen to the commentary?

Replays are nice when the points are interesting or long. But replays after every point are pretty annoying, in my opinion, especially when the point isn't really remarkable.

aprilfool
03-11-2012, 03:12 AM
Someone said something very true the other day in relation to Murray telling the press that he was playing better because Lendl had fixed his forehand.

And that was that after media training, Murray realised that all he had to do was feed the press an interesting story or two and he'd get more press.

Sharapova screaming, Nadal time wasting - these are the ridiculous little back stories of tennis that keep people talking about the game.

And you people want to kill it off???

Federer woke up and said I'll talk about time violation and have a poke back at Nadal for the Melbourne incident.

Nadal speaks back and thousands of words are written and three days of tennis emptiness are filled.

And you people want to kill it off???

Well I know that you would not want to kill it off. You certainly got a lot out of the Melbourne affair! Kept the thread alive until Federer finally lost, if I recall. Then you vanished...
Astute public relations student that you are, you picked the losing horse in this battle. Let's keep this one alive right through the year.

And if you think time-wasting is trivial, try doing against the people you play with and see how long you last.

aprilfool
03-11-2012, 03:14 AM
Woodrow has said on more than one occasion 20 seconds is not nearly enough time in today's game, and that most umpires agree, which is why it is not rigidly enforced. His expertise, though, is always soundly dismissed because it does not accord with the prevailing "wisdom" of TW's armchair legalists.

Do you play tennis? Please have someone video tape you performing Nadal/Djoker antics wherever you play and post it here.
With all due respect to Woodrow, that is his opinion and he is entitled to it. He is not Federer and he is not waiting at the other end of the net for Mind Games 1 and 2 to finish their..."gamemenship".

Oh, and fyi, Andre was quite demonstrative in his revulsion of Nadal's time wasting when they played in Canada. And he played at a fairly brisk pace himself. Stop trying to reinvent history.

aprilfool
03-11-2012, 03:27 AM
Claims that this is a Federer forum are greatly unproven.

jerriy
03-11-2012, 02:24 PM
29-20= 9

27-20=7

so, if on average, djokdal are nearly 10 seconds above the allotted time, then one can assume that there are many points where they are well over 10 seconds above the allotted time.

how is that 2-3 seconds again?


And I agree, Del Po is slow as molasses.

then again, guy is 7 ft tall, he can move but so fast I guess?O'rly?

What did that ever happen? Lemme guess, when your beloved started averaging beyond 30 seconds and you wanted to search for a justification? LMAO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRXrjdTPso8

jerriy
03-11-2012, 02:26 PM
Na it was 31 and 34 seconds on average. Don't remember if Nadal or Djoker was the slower one (I think it was Djokovic).

To me that's way too long. I mean obviously 30 seconds + is understandable with a 20-30 shot rally. Heck even 40-50 seconds is fine in those cases. But when one player is taking 34 seconds on average, and the other one isn't much better, it DOES slow it down considerably. Let me make it clear though, I don't think the match result would change if either of them went faster, it just wouldn't take so damn long and break the momentum for me. That's why I would like the umpires to be more strict.

Also Delpo annoys me as well with how long he can take. They all do. I wouldn't call any of them cheaters though (including Nadal or Djokovic).How long is your definition of long? 10 seconds? LMAO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRXrjdTPso8

jerriy
03-11-2012, 02:28 PM
Still no talk of the slow moving del Potro, though. What talk should there be, oh wise *********? That he takes too much time cuz he serves TWICE within 20 seconds? LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRXrjdTPso8

woodrow1029
03-11-2012, 03:02 PM
Yeah, true. 25 is the limit at a Grand Slam, I think. Besides, like I said, the more physical a match is, the more time players need between points. The rallies between Federer and Nadal were long, so I'm not surprised that Federer averaged 23 seconds (for the whole match, right?). But I don't think Federer started the match with around 23-30 seconds between points on his serve. Nadal and Djokovic take similar amounts of time between the first ball struck to the last.

25 is the limit at ATP events. 20 seconds at ITF (Grand Slam, Olympics, Davis Cup)

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 03:03 PM
25 is the limit at ATP events. 20 seconds at ITF (Grand Slam, Olympics, Davis Cup)

Thanks for clearing that up! (Sorry, you've probably repeated that countless times)

Crisstti
03-11-2012, 03:05 PM
Everyone that's hollering for a shot clock says it should be used all the time...except for maybe when the crowd is too loud...or maybe when the players have played a particularly long and hard point...or maybe when the ballkids haven't gotten the balls to the players quickly enough...or maybe when a huge gust of wind comes up...or maybe when this happens or that happens. A shot clock isn't going to solve a darn thing because every time the umpire used his/her discretion for whatever reason, certain people would gripe and complain anyway that it was unfair or that the umpire is favoring one player or the umpire is inept or some such nonsensical thing.


People just dislike umpires using their own discretion and not and not the posters'. All the claims that the rule should be applied as in the book are BS.

Nadal got an awful lot of unfair flack for that match. People thought, and the media did as well and reported it incorrectly, that Delpo was hollering at the umpire for the time that Nadal was taking for his injury. He wasn't. He was yelling at the ump because he had been given a 'soft' warning for the time he was taking to serve too and he was very upset, saying they (he and Nadal) weren't upset with each other so why couldn't the umpire just let them play.

Had no idea about that.

Hitman
03-11-2012, 03:18 PM
Was watching the Nadal match on Sky Sports in the UK. Fleming mentioned that he thinks Federer was just being too polite about the whole time violations thing. That if Federer was more vocal that the rule should be enforced, and not allow it to get abused...perhaps that would have helped him in his battles with Nadal. Nadal wouldn't have as much time to recover, compose himself, and would play at a pace that Federer prefers.

He also stated, that while Djokodal matches are great, they often do become slugfests. And if the time was reinforced, it could force them to end points more quickly with more shot making, moving up the court, since they would have less time to get ready for the next shot.

Interesting thoughts.

Clarky21
03-11-2012, 03:50 PM
Was watching the Nadal match on Sky Sports in the UK. Fleming mentioned that he thinks Federer was just being too polite about the whole time violations thing. That if Federer was more vocal that the rule should be enforced, and not allow it to get abused...perhaps that would have helped him in his battles with Nadal. Nadal wouldn't have as much time to recover, compose himself, and would play at a pace that Federer prefers. He also stated, that while Djokodal matches are great, they often do become slugfests. And if the time was reinforced, it could force them to end points more quickly with more shot making, moving up the court, since they would have less time to get ready for the next shot.

Interesting thoughts.


What hogwash. So now every player is supposed to play the game as Fed sees fit? What kind of pure bs is that?

I do think they could speed it up a bit,I just don't like the way that was worded. It sounds as if everyone should just do as Fed asks because it gives him an advantage. That is just absolute nonsense.

Crisstti
03-11-2012, 04:09 PM
Some little (or not so little) digs between Rafa and Fed lately.

Wonder what's going on there.

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 04:15 PM
Some little (or not so little) digs between Rafa and Fed lately.

Wonder what's going on there.

Maybe they're easily grappled by the bait? The press is obviously looking for something to report on, since there hasn't been much tennis news in a month or so.

Crisstti
03-11-2012, 04:26 PM
Maybe they're easily grappled by the bait? The press is obviously looking for something to report on, since there hasn't been much tennis news in a month or so.

But the press has always tried that.

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 04:32 PM
But the press has always tried that.

Yeah, true. At least they're not going after each other's throats. Just little digs. It's not too surprising considering that they're so different from each other.

mellowyellow
03-11-2012, 05:34 PM
What hogwash. So now every player is supposed to play the game as Fed sees fit? What kind of pure bs is that?

I do think they could speed it up a bit,I just don't like the way that was worded. It sounds as if everyone should just do as Fed asks because it gives him an advantage. That is just absolute nonsense. You are looking at it from the wrong point of view, as though this is Feds rule, it is THE RULE in the books, not Feds rule. Fed is asking for players and official to adhere to the rules, how dare he? If applied as it is written, then no player can ***** about an umpires discretion, it is not a gray area to argue about.

FlashFlare11
03-11-2012, 05:52 PM
You are looking at it from the wrong point of view, as though this is Feds rule, it is THE RULE in the books, not Feds rule. Fed is asking for players and official to adhere to the rules, how dare he? If applied as it is written, then no player can ***** about an umpires discretion, it is not a gray area to argue about.

I don't think that's the reason she's upset. The commentators' remarks she was responding to made it sound like it was Federer's rule and not a universal rule. What you say is true, and she knows it too.

Clarky21
03-11-2012, 05:59 PM
You are looking at it from the wrong point of view, as though this is Feds rule, it is THE RULE in the books, not Feds rule. Fed is asking for players and official to adhere to the rules, how dare he? If applied as it is written, then no player can ***** about an umpires discretion, it is not a gray area to argue about.



If you read the comment that I quoted,I was referring to the commentators remarks about playing at Fed's preferred pace. I know there is a time limit rule,and I think they could speed it up a bit myself. I just didn't like the way the commentator made it sound as if players should do it for Fed's sake.

monfed
03-11-2012, 06:11 PM
People just dislike umpires using their own discretion and not and not the posters'. All the claims that the rule should be applied as in the book are BS. Had no idea about that.

What a pathetic statement. Props for frankness but still downright pathetic.

Crisstti
03-11-2012, 06:31 PM
What a pathetic statement. Props for frankness but still downright pathetic.

It's BS because it's not what people actually mean. What they want is that the umpires use their (the poster's) discretion.

I've been over this already, not going into it at length again.

monfed
03-11-2012, 06:40 PM
It's BS because it's not what people actually mean. What they want is that the umpires use their (the poster's) discretion.

I've been over this already, not going into it at length again.

On the contrary people WANT umpires to enforce rules(they weren't written by Federer). Rules are rules,enforce them or drop them altogether.

Again, drop the ******* shades!!

Crisstti
03-11-2012, 07:36 PM
On the contrary people WANT umpires to enforce rules(they weren't written by Federer). Rules are rules,enforce them or drop them altogether.

Again, drop the ******* shades!!

Sure. Except when there's too much noise from the audience, or the previous point was too long, etc, etc.

monfed
03-11-2012, 07:40 PM
Sure. Except when there's too much noise from the audience, or the previous point was too long, etc, etc.

Nadal goes over the time limit EVERY point.

Drop the shades already!

The-Champ
03-11-2012, 08:40 PM
Time limit between points = a multilateral international treaty.

The ATP = International System.

Rafa, Fed, Djokovic etc = individual states.


It seems to me that Djokovic, federer and Nadal have all signed the treaty, but only Federer had ratified it. It means that only Federer gave consent to be bound by this treaty. Nadal and Djokovic on the other hand have no objection to the treaty but are not bound by it because they never ratified it.

TheTruth
03-11-2012, 09:55 PM
What hogwash. So now every player is supposed to play the game as Fed sees fit? What kind of pure bs is that?

I do think they could speed it up a bit,I just don't like the way that was worded. It sounds as if everyone should just do as Fed asks because it gives him an advantage. That is just absolute nonsense.

That's what I was thinking. Federer is one man, with one style of play. He is not the standard for everyone else's game, nor should everyone be judged by it.

Hitman
03-12-2012, 04:05 AM
What hogwash. So now every player is supposed to play the game as Fed sees fit? What kind of pure bs is that?

I do think they could speed it up a bit,I just don't like the way that was worded. It sounds as if everyone should just do as Fed asks because it gives him an advantage. That is just absolute nonsense.

Just to confirm. Those were HIS words. Not mine. :)

SLD76
03-12-2012, 06:00 AM
Hmm..it was curious yesterday watching the Delpo Maktosevic(???) match from IW.

The american commentators covering the match for TC discussed the time limit rule at one point:



For Jerry- they remarked how in that match, Delpo avg 27 secs between points. Not criminal time abuse but not the greased lightening
you claimed he was either. Doubtless he needed the time to recover between pts from his epic match with a qualifier ;)
25 is the limit at ATP events. 20 seconds at ITF (Grand Slam, Olympics, Davis Cup)



They remarked how if certain players are going to blatantly disregard the rule repeatedly, why bother having a written rule?

One commentator asked that if after a long 30+ stroke rally should the umpire have the discretion to let the players take a little extra time, and his colleague replied vehemently 'no, it is a hard and fast rule, enforce it', to which the other commentator replied that he actually agreed.

FWIW.

Doubtless, Im sure the *******s will say its a conspiracy and the commentators are secret *******s:)