PDA

View Full Version : Rafa's response on time violations.


Paul Murphy
03-08-2012, 05:51 PM
Rafael Nadal responded to Roger Federer's comments 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 seconds.

Federer said on Wednesday that, "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."

On Thursday at Indian Wells, Nadal responded by saying: "The rules are there, but we cannot expect to play six hours and play rallies of crazy points and rest for 20 seconds for nobody. If the umpire considers that he has to put a warning because the player is not doing the right thing between points, I think the players have to accept. The rule is there but I think it is more the [interpretation] of the umpire, that's my way to understand the rule. Everyone understands different ways and you can understand to some its 15 seconds under normal conditions. But you have to understand how the match goes and that's the role of the umpire. They have given me a lot of warnings in my career and I have accepted almost every one, because sometimes they are right, and the same for Novak [Djokovic] having to do it a few times, too. It's part of the game and we have to follow the rules, but we don't have to [put blinders on]."

Tennis.com

Mustard
03-08-2012, 05:54 PM
Very diplomatically put by Nadal.

rommil
03-08-2012, 06:04 PM
Even Nadal's answer goes over the time limit.

TTMR
03-08-2012, 06:04 PM
Very diplomatically put by Nadal.

Bring in the guillotine.

NamRanger
03-08-2012, 06:07 PM
Very diplomatically put by Nadal.



And yet he clearly and systematically abuses it because he knows he will never get a point penalty of any sort even if he gets warned.


One example is against Roddick at IW in the TB where Nadal had already received ONE time violation, and then proceeded to waste truckloads of time in the tiebreak for virtually no apparent reason. The umpire at the time literally stared Nadal down, but did absolutely nothing because he knew Nadal would go ballistic if he was given a further violation.


And I have seen plenty of examples where Nadal gets extremely upset over a time violation even though it was clearly warranted. That's a load of crap from Nadal.

Mustard
03-08-2012, 06:11 PM
20 seconds is far too short and everyone knows it. I bet even Federer goes over this limit often.

NamRanger
03-08-2012, 06:12 PM
20 seconds is far too short and everyone knows it. I bet even Federer goes over this limit often.



When you're switching sides on the tiebreak you're not supposed to take 50 seconds (which he clearly did).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyU5VbWoDdc


This is a clear and systematic abuse of time and everyone in the stadium knew it, despite the fact that Nadal had already received a time violation prior to this, he still got 0 penalties. He knows he can get away with gross abuses of time violations no matter what, so he's going to continue to do it until he gets real penalties attached to his violations.


There's no way you're going to be able to defend this. Nadal clearly and grossly wasted time in the video after he had received a time violation (first time = warning). He received no penalties despite the fact that the umpire was pretty much staring him down the entire time during his whole time wasting (which he clearly didn't need to do, because I see Nadal clearly take far less time in a tiebreak).

drakulie
03-08-2012, 06:14 PM
I'm surprised Nadal didn't ask for a medical time out before answering the question.

TTMR
03-08-2012, 06:17 PM
20 seconds is far too short and everyone knows it. I bet even Federer goes over this limit often.

Everyone should just develop superior genetics and a more aesthetically pleasing attacking game. If they can't, they should be men, suck it up and accept the losses. Or retire.

If anything 20 seconds is too long and rewards pushers too much already.

MichaelNadal
03-08-2012, 06:23 PM
I'm surprised Nadal didn't ask for a medical time out before answering the question.

That was brilliant :) lol.
Seriously though, he raises a good point, and agrees with the violations he's gotten. But as he said when you play crazy *** rallies like he and Novak do, sometimes you need more than 20 seconds.

Bartelby
03-08-2012, 06:23 PM
He does have a point - if slow courts cause endless matches then the games will keep going by more slowly.

Mustard
03-08-2012, 06:24 PM
When you're switching sides on the tiebreak you're not supposed to take 50 seconds (which he clearly did).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyU5VbWoDdc


This is a clear and systematic abuse of time and everyone in the stadium knew it, despite the fact that Nadal had already received a time violation prior to this, he still got 0 penalties. He knows he can get away with gross abuses of time violations no matter what, so he's going to continue to do it until he gets real penalties attached to his violations.


There's no way you're going to be able to defend this. Nadal clearly and grossly wasted time in the video after he had received a time violation (first time = warning). He received no penalties despite the fact that the umpire was pretty much staring him down the entire time during his whole time wasting (which he clearly didn't need to do, because I see Nadal clearly take far less time in a tiebreak).

He was thirsty ;)

It's up to the umpire to enforce the rules if he thinks a player is taking too much time, which he didn't on that occasion since he didn't give a warning, which is the umpire's choice.

6-2/6-4/6-0
03-08-2012, 06:28 PM
Breaking the rules is not playing the game. If your style of play demands that you take 30+ seconds between almost every point, then there is a flaw with your style of play. Enforcing the rules is the only fair thing to do. 20 to 25 seconds is enough time from the point ending to serving the next point, if it's not, the consider how you choose to play the game and modify that to fit within the rules.

Just as a point for consideration, if you look back at Laver/Newcombe or Laver/Rosewall matches (or a lot of old matches), those guys would be covering every square inch of the court - both side to side and front to back - in a point, and they seemed to be able to serve in a lot less than 25 seconds after a point ended...

It's cheating, and making excuses for it is just making excuses. Play by the rules or play baseball where you get 7 minutes to rest after every physical effort...

FlashFlare11
03-08-2012, 06:30 PM
Everyone should just develop superior genetics and a more aesthetically pleasing attacking game. If they can't, they should be men, suck it up and accept the losses. Or retire.

If anything 20 seconds is too long and rewards pushers too much already.

What does this have to do with anything? These are the rules and they weren't made by Federer.

I suppose going over 20-25 seconds (not by much though, I guess 30 seconds is alright) is okay if the players are engaging in long rallies. However, not every one of Nadal's opponents is Djokovic. Much of the time he's playing against more aggressive players who can finish the point pretty quickly or Nadal himself is ending points quickly. In those matches, there should be no excuse in going over the ime limit.

Admittedly, the time both Djokovic and Nadal take between points does deter me a bit from watching their matches, whether it's against each other or most other players.

rommil
03-08-2012, 06:33 PM
Rafa should just wear his jockstrap on his face to save him time.

Moose Malloy
03-08-2012, 06:38 PM
some good points here. and if you click on the other links in the article, it shows that Novak & Nadal consistently take longer to serve after every point they lose than after points they win, regardless of how short or long the rally was. the time they take has nothing to do with the game being more physical, etc, its all about their routine.

It also has made for some very slow tennis, especially when Djokovic meets No. 2 Nadal. Nadal’s and Djokovic’s final on Sunday was a classic, but it also was about an hour longer than it needed to be, as each player is among the slowest in men’s tennis when it comes to pace of play between points. There were 369 points played in 353 minutes of tennis, or 1.04 points per minute, in line with their slow pace in their six meetings in 2011.

You’ll hear, in their defense, how grueling the match was. That’s certainly a factor — the sight of the two players struggling to remain standing during interminable postmatch speeches before being brought chairs was a memorable one, and in one fifth-set rally they ran a combined 540 feet, or two city blocks, according to ESPN. So it’s forgivable that their last 16 points, over the final two games, took 16 minutes.

But even in their very first service games, each player exceeded the allotted 20 seconds between points – on every point. Neither took fewer than 24 seconds even once, and Djokovic averaged 28 seconds while Nadal averaged 26. This was before they’d even played two games. Yet the average rally lasted just 5.4 shots according to Eurosport, far less than the 6.9 shots they averaged during their U.S. Open final last fall. On the same court, in similar conditions and in matches with as many scintillating, long rallies, Federer and Nadal managed to fit in 1.24 points per minute in their semifinal on Thursday. Then Djokovic and Murray squeezed in 1.19 points per minute in their semi on Friday. Had Nadal or Djokovic channeled their inner Federer between points, if not during points, they could have finished the match without setting a new record for longest open-era Grand Slam final.

It truly is a golden age for men’s tennis, with four players at the peak, and one at the very top, defeating the other three in matches he had no business winning. The sport just might want to take some steps — Sports Illustrated’s Jon Wertheim suggests a shot clock — to ensure it doesn’t lose fans, and viewers, during the long periods of down time between these great players’ epic points.


http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2012/01/30/novak-djokovic-master-of-the-slow-escape/

Sentinel
03-08-2012, 06:41 PM
Even Nadal's answer goes over the time limit.
lol, when you justify a lie, you have a lot of explaining to do.

TopFH
03-08-2012, 06:42 PM
The most irritating thing is when players towel off after a 3-second ace.

FlashFlare11
03-08-2012, 06:44 PM
The most irritating thing is when players towel off after a 3-second ace.

What's worse is when the player toweling off is the receiver.

monfed
03-08-2012, 06:47 PM
The most irritating thing is when players towel off after a 3-second ace.

Force of habit; which isn't dealt with due to lack of enforcement.

rommil
03-08-2012, 06:47 PM
lol, when you justify a lie, you have a lot of explaining to do.

Are you bringing in namelessness into this?:)

Mustard
03-08-2012, 06:47 PM
Breaking the rules is not playing the game. If your style of play demands that you take 30+ seconds between almost every point, then there is a flaw with your style of play. Enforcing the rules is the only fair thing to do. 20 to 25 seconds is enough time from the point ending to serving the next point, if it's not, the consider how you choose to play the game and modify that to fit within the rules.

No, it shows that there is something wrong with the rules.

rommil
03-08-2012, 06:51 PM
No, it shows that there is something wrong with the rules.

When most of your colleagues are able to abide by the rules, there is something wrong with you.

jamesblakefan#1
03-08-2012, 06:53 PM
No, it shows that there is something wrong with the rules.

So what do you propose then? There has to be some sort of rule in place, lest we have players taking a whole minute between points to make sure they're completely 110% before serving. Now THAT would kill the sport.

Like I said in the other thread, extend the time to 25 or 30 seconds but there's no need for a shot clock. The umps should enforce it strictly. But at their discretion after long rallies it can be extended to up to 40 seconds, but anything after that and the ump can give a warning. You can't get rid of the rule completely, which is what you seem to want.

Mustard
03-08-2012, 06:56 PM
So what do you propose then? There has to be some sort of rule in place, lest we have players taking a whole minute between points to make sure they're completely 110% before serving. Now THAT would kill the sport.

Like I said in the other thread, extend the time to 25 or 30 seconds but there's no need for a shot clock. The umps should enforce it strictly. But at their discretion after long rallies it can be extended to up to 40 seconds, but anything after that and the ump can give a warning. You can't get rid of the rule completely, which is what you seem to want.

If it has to be strictly enforced, it should be at least 45 seconds. I'd prefer around the 40-45 mark with some umpire flexibility.

rommil
03-08-2012, 06:59 PM
If it has to be strictly enforced, it should be at least 45 seconds. I'd prefer around the 40-45 mark with some umpire flexibility.

The Australian Open final this year would still be in the 4th set today.

Mustard
03-08-2012, 07:03 PM
The Australian Open final this year would still be in the 4th set today.

I don't think it would have made any difference at all.

TMF
03-08-2012, 07:05 PM
If it has to be strictly enforced, it should be at least 45 seconds. I'd prefer around the 40-45 mark with some umpire flexibility.

45 seconds is TOO long for an average point. Unless if it was a 30+ shot rallies then I can understand.

drakulie
03-08-2012, 07:07 PM
If it has to be strictly enforced, it should be at least 45 seconds. I'd prefer around the 40-45 mark with some umpire flexibility.

Disagree. They should allow one days rest between points.

Bobby Jr
03-08-2012, 07:07 PM
Nadal truly said he accepted the warnings he has previously received??? I recall him complaining to the umpire often when he's had them.

FlashFlare11
03-08-2012, 07:08 PM
If it has to be strictly enforced, it should be at least 45 seconds. I'd prefer around the 40-45 mark with some umpire flexibility.

This is too long, in my opinion. That's almost a minute per point, which, in most cases involving Nadal, last longer than a minute. Many times 45 seconds is much shorter than the point's length. It would slow the game down considerably.

TopFH
03-08-2012, 07:09 PM
Disagree. They should allow one days rest between points.

And one week rest between sets!

SLD76
03-08-2012, 07:23 PM
He does have a point - if slow courts cause endless matches then the games will keep going by more slowly.

this.

hate to say it, but if grinding attrition tennis is the order the day, then just make the limit 30 secs and be done with it.

rafa is right that after crazy long rallies , there should be some consideration of the time in favor of the players.

that said, make it a hard 30 secs and be done with it.

45 seconds between pts minimum is beyond ridiculous.

only a serious rafa/djoker homer would even suggest such a ridiculous thing with a halfway straight face.

sbengte
03-08-2012, 07:25 PM
And one week rest between sets!

Wrong. One day between points, one week between games, one month between sets with an additional week thrown in for every TB. And another month rest between matches. That way we just need to play the Australian Open in one year, French Open in the next, USO ...and so on. No slams in the Olympic year.

sbengte
03-08-2012, 07:25 PM
this.

hate to say it, but if grinding attrition tennis is the order the day, then just make the limit 30 secs and be done with it.

rafa is right that after crazy long rallies , there should be some consideration of the time in favor of the players.

that said, make it a hard 30 secs and be done with it.

Or just speed up the courts and be done with it.

Bartelby
03-08-2012, 07:25 PM
a hard 30 seconds sounds a good rule

drakulie
03-08-2012, 07:26 PM
And one week rest between sets!

and of course, one month rest between matches.

FlashFlare11
03-08-2012, 07:27 PM
Honestly, they can change it to any allotted time limit, but the problem isn't the time limit itself, it's the enforcement. They can keep it at 20-25 seconds, make it 30 seconds, 45 seconds, a minute, whatever. None of it matters if the umpires don't hand out violations everytime the limit is exceeded.

SLD76
03-08-2012, 07:28 PM
Or just speed up the courts and be done with it.

now this I agree with! faster surfaces( which is why the 20 sec rule was implemented to begin with) would solve everything.

but alas, til that time comes...30 secs..I dont care if the rally was 100 shots including a trip to the moon in mid point.

Dont like the time limit? figure out a way to win a point.

come to net maybe?

go for a winner?

Crazy suggestions, I know.

MichaelNadal
03-08-2012, 07:29 PM
I say 30 seconds should be the hard rule. After a crazy, sick Djokodal point though, it should be flexible in that scenario obviously.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 07:32 PM
Only answer is the shot clock. Then the spectators see what the umpire is ignoring. And behind the scenes somebody should only turn the shot clock on if the point was less than 25 shots.

drakulie
03-08-2012, 07:34 PM
And behind the scenes somebody should only turn the shot clock on if the point was less than 25 shots.

They should let rafa handle this.

SLD76
03-08-2012, 07:36 PM
Only answer is the shot clock. Then the spectators see what the umpire is ignoring. And behind the scenes somebody should only turn the shot clock on if the point was less than 25 shots.

or maybe rafa should moonball less and go for a winner.

SLD76
03-08-2012, 07:38 PM
I say 30 seconds should be the hard rule. After a crazy, sick Djokodal point though, it should be flexible in that scenario obviously.

30 secs is plenty of time to get the breathing under control.

rommil
03-08-2012, 07:39 PM
I say 30 seconds should be the hard rule. After a crazy, sick Djokodal point though, it should be flexible in that scenario obviously.

It's stupid for people to keep bring up the "after a strenuous point" argument when it's clear that unnecessary rituals are what is consistenly present in almost all situations.

monfed
03-08-2012, 07:42 PM
It's stupid for people to keep bring up the "after a strenuous point" argument when it's clear that unnecessary rituals are what is consistenly present in almost all situations.

It's more a copout than anything else.

sbengte
03-08-2012, 07:45 PM
They should let rafa handle this.

Doh ! You want Rafa to handle this additional burden of running in to handle the shot clock after every point ? Imagine the additional medical time outs and time violations resulting from this.
Toni is the guy for the job.

SLD76
03-08-2012, 07:45 PM
It's more a copout than anything else.

I wonder...is it a more 'strenuous point' when rafa/djoker are down in a game as well?

both routinely slow their rituals down to molassess when facing a bp,or are significantly down in a game.

MichaelNadal
03-08-2012, 07:46 PM
It's stupid for people to keep bring up the "after a strenuous point" argument when it's clear that unnecessary rituals are what is consistenly present in almost all situations.

There's a big difference between a non-strenuous point, and a strenuous point. Unless it's an unbelievable rally, it needs to be a hard 30 seconds. I don't see the problem with that really. It would be completely STUPID to expect Djokovic and Nadal to start the next point within 30 seconds after some of the rallies they have.

sbengte
03-08-2012, 07:50 PM
There's a big difference between a non-strenuous point, and a strenuous point. Unless it's an unbelievable rally, it needs to be a hard 30 seconds. I don't see the problem with that really. It would be completely STUPID to expect Djokovic and Nadal to start the next point within 30 seconds after some of the rallies they have.

Well, you play a 30 shot rally when you are unable to end the point quicker which is totally your problem. And you pay for it if you can't recover within the stipulated time limit. The relatively fitter player who can recover within that time has to have some advantage there. No ifs, no buts.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-08-2012, 07:50 PM
Interesting, so now Nadal is advocating cheating.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-08-2012, 07:53 PM
What's the big deal if you get a point penalty? Just enforce the damn rule all the time no matter what the situation. Screw the damn crowd clapping

Nathaniel_Near
03-08-2012, 07:53 PM
If it has to be strictly enforced, it should be at least 45 seconds. I'd prefer around the 40-45 mark with some umpire flexibility.

You must be the biggest Nadal nut this forum has to offer. 40 - 45 seconds? Give me a break - wait, don't!

Nathaniel_Near
03-08-2012, 07:54 PM
I say 30 seconds should be the hard rule. After a crazy, sick Djokodal point though, it should be flexible in that scenario obviously.

Fair suggestion, I approve.

MichaelNadal
03-08-2012, 07:59 PM
What's the big deal if you get a point penalty? Just enforce the damn rule all the time no matter what the situation. Screw the damn crowd clapping

LOL! I almost spit out my applesauce reading your last line :) I envisioned in an instant in my head the crowd cheering after a long point and the umpire just talking loudly over them, "time violation warning Mr. Nadal" lmao.

monfed
03-08-2012, 08:02 PM
Fed fans want 20 seconds(which infact is the rule). Nadal fans want 30 seconds(actually they'd prefer a whole minute but let's not go there).

So, 25 seconds it is, We've got ourselves a deal!!! :D

TheTruth
03-08-2012, 08:03 PM
How many times is Federer going to "leak" this tidbit to the press? LMHO! Get over it. If I had a dollar for every time he came up with this gem...

Fate Archer
03-08-2012, 08:09 PM
I think maybe a 3 strikes rule to be applied combined with the time between points would help umpires to strictly enforce he rules without over penalizing a player or without the need for a shot clock.

If a player goes over the time limit, whether it's 20, 25 or 30 seconds, he gets one strike. Again, second strike. If a third violation occurs, then the player receives a match violation.

Repeat the above scenario for the second time, POINT violation.

This way for a player to be point penalized for the first time he would need to violate the time constraint 6 times.

That's MORE than enough leeway for Mr Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic to play relatively pressure free AND strictly following the rules in their matches.

niff
03-08-2012, 08:12 PM
Even Nadal's answer goes over the time limit.
Amazing <3

Bartelby
03-08-2012, 08:19 PM
A shot clock was invented to stop a team in front from endlessly passing the ball, so to use it just to make a server hurry up when there is an umpire there to do that would be bizarre.

The people who run tennis just don't care about enforcing this rule. The umpires themselves are not solely to blame.

Fate Archer
03-08-2012, 08:31 PM
A shot clock was invented to stop a team in front from endlessly passing the ball, so to use it just to make a server hurry up when there is an umpire there to do that would be bizarre.

The people who run tennis just don't care about enforcing this rule. The umpires themselves are not solely to blame.

This redundancy is similar to the need of the hawkeye in a way.

I mean, why else do we have 6+ line judges in a match?

It's curious how tennis rules are evolving and could possibly evolve even more in a way where the ones responsible for enforcing the rules are delegating increasingly more their authority and responsibility to rule a tennis match.

OddJack
03-08-2012, 08:37 PM
Nadal made it about AO final and the " six hours" where it is almost everytime and everywhere he plays, so that was bull.

Umpires now are gonna give him more warnings.

I have to add that the time violations does not bother me at all, I barely notice them. It's actually not bad for drama if it's on the right time not when Nadal uses it on big points.
It's ok, as far as I am concerned, to take longer after long rallies.
Cheating though is quite a diff matter.

kragster
03-08-2012, 08:40 PM
How about this. How about penalizing a player significant amount of prize money. For e.g. more than 5 violations in a match will result in 50% of money gone. If players playing slow is affecting viewership, then that affects sponsorship money and event money which is what ultimately trickles down to prize money. So it kind of makes sense that if the tournaments start to lose money, the offending player loses money.

Over the course of a year, a player will certainly learn to fix his habits unless he wants it to cost him upto 50% of his yearly earnings.

This way the umpire doesn't even need to get into a confrontation, at the end of the match, the player is simply handed a report that shows him/her how much money he/she was penalized that day.

purge
03-08-2012, 08:53 PM
easy for him to accept the violations hes gotten. since hes never gotten any. hes gotten warnings. "oh gee! now they gave me a warning.. that means if i go on like this then.. nothing will happen to me.. what am i gonna do now?"
seriously who cares about a warning? has a warning ever kept someone from smashing their racquet? no one cares until youre given an actual point penalty. thats just common sense.

ive said it before and ill say it again. theres exactly 2 ways of solving this endless debate:

drop the rule alltogether

or

keep it and enforce the damn thing

having it sit there as an official rule but then just ignoring it on court is simply the dumbest way of dealing with this. for as long as it remains like this people who complain will have a valid point and people who do it cant really be blamed. the discussion will never end

monfed
03-08-2012, 08:55 PM
LOL@prize money. These guys could probably tip their prize money away. Whatever.

The irony of this whole thread is that we're actually discussing the pros/cons of a RULE. The rule is what it is, it's the same for every player and it must be enforced(like every other rule). The one's who want a change could always approach the concerned heads.

namelessone
03-08-2012, 09:29 PM
a hard 30 seconds sounds a good rule

Of course.

Most of today's tennis = LONG rallies, due to the fact that are courts mostly slow. The 20 second rule was ok for the past when courts where generally faster(or not as slow) but today it's broken so many times that it's not even funny.

It's another cause of what is written in the rulebook and what actually happens oncourt. Both the umps and the players know that players use up more energy today due to the long rally nature of modern tennis and they have a sort of "truce" if you will, you can go over the 20 sec rule, just don't push it. I've rarely seen umps give out time violations when guys stay in the 20-30 second margin. Even Nadal himself, who rarely gets time violations considering how much time wastes, only gets warned when he repeatedly goes towards the 40 second mark or more.

On the courts it's 30 seconds already, they need only make it official.

namelessone
03-08-2012, 09:32 PM
LOL@prize money. These guys could probably tip their prize money away. Whatever.

The irony of this whole thread is that we're actually discussing the pros/cons of a RULE. The rule is what it is, it's the same for every player and it must be enforced(like every other rule). The one's who want a change could always approach the concerned heads.

A rule is nothing but empty words on a paper unless it's ENFORCED on the actual freaking court. Given the fact that umps are VERY lenient towards timewasters(not just Nadal) I doubt that the 20 second rule is an actual rule but more of a guideline for today's tennis establishment.

Sentinel
03-08-2012, 09:46 PM
And one week rest between sets!

Wrong. One day between points, one week between games, one month between sets with an additional week thrown in for every TB. And another month rest between matches. That way we just need to play the Australian Open in one year, French Open in the next, USO ...and so on. No slams in the Olympic year.

Don;t forget the two year ranking system.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 11:31 PM
It's fun to see Nadal's eccentricities getting to Federer more and more each year :D

zagor
03-09-2012, 12:16 AM
How many times is Federer going to "leak" this tidbit to the press? LMHO! Get over it. If I had a dollar for every time he came up with this gem...

Fed has every right to voice his opinion. No one is above criticism, especially not a player who routinely goes over the time limit rule on his serve.

Fed was wrong many times in his interviews but this is a legitimate criticism.

zagor
03-09-2012, 12:17 AM
It's fun to see Nadal's eccentricities getting to Federer more and more each year :D

Wrong Bullzie, it's quite the opposite, Fed has been more and more complimentary of Nadal as years pass by.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 12:18 AM
Fed has every right to voice his opinion. No one is above criticism, especially not a player who routinely goes over the time limit rule on his serve.

Fed was wrong many times in his interviews but this is a legitimate criticism.

I hope Fed keeps talking. It's fun to watch this one-sided cat-fight play out :D

Say Chi Sin Lo
03-09-2012, 12:24 AM
Did Nadal really bring that 6 hours final into this? :shock:

Yeah, after 4 hours, or even 3 hours I'll agree with his response.

But fool goes over the time limit in the first game of the match. What, he's tired from sprinting to the back of the court for no reason during the warm up?

Gorecki
03-09-2012, 12:35 AM
It's a pleasure. the chance to see Nadal for an extra 30 seconds just for toweling and rituals after an ace is a previlege. we should be thankfull

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 12:39 AM
It's a pleasure. the chance to see Nadal for an extra 30 seconds just for toweling and rituals after an ace is a previlege. we should be thankfull

I don't like aces to be honest.

Gorecki
03-09-2012, 12:47 AM
I don't like aces to be honest.

neither do i. i rather see a 60 looping shot fest mixed in with some savage grunting and lots of time wasting between points. that would give us more time to enjoy the miraculous sight of San Rafael....

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 12:55 AM
neither do i. i rather see a 60 looping shot fest mixed in with some savage grunting and lots of time wasting between points. that would give us more time to enjoy the miraculous sight of San Rafael....

I like your style :D

Gorecki
03-09-2012, 01:03 AM
I like your style :D

http://www.fmvmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/pimp.jpg_1285636281.jpg

Rhino
03-09-2012, 01:04 AM
I would love to see an umpire enforce the rule, but nobody seems to have the courage to stand up to the world's top two players.

niff
03-09-2012, 01:54 AM
I will support Mustard's 45 second rule as long as the ATP hands a free iPad to every tennis fan, to dull the boredom somewhat.

Madrid 09 SF compilation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhF20UKYboA&feature=player_embedded#!

Rozroz
03-09-2012, 03:09 AM
you all say 20 sec. Were legit at fast courts way back.
What about RG? It was still a slow court, no? They also did long rallies.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 03:14 AM
you all say 20 sec. Were legit at fast courts way back.
What about RG? It was still a slow court, no? They also did long rallies.

Roland Garros was faster in 2011 than it ever has been, ever. It's faster every year, and the tennis balls are. Federer got more reward for his shots at Roland Garros last year than ever. More than he gets at the AO.

TTMR
03-09-2012, 03:18 AM
Of course.

Most of today's tennis = LONG rallies, due to the fact that are courts mostly slow. The 20 second rule was ok for the past when courts where generally faster(or not as slow) but today it's broken so many times that it's not even funny.

It's another cause of what is written in the rulebook and what actually happens oncourt. Both the umps and the players know that players use up more energy today due to the long rally nature of modern tennis and they have a sort of "truce" if you will, you can go over the 20 sec rule, just don't push it. I've rarely seen umps give out time violations when guys stay in the 20-30 second margin. Even Nadal himself, who rarely gets time violations considering how much time wastes, only gets warned when he repeatedly goes towards the 40 second mark or more.

On the courts it's 30 seconds already, they need only make it official.

Oh but you read it a page or two ago: Laver and Rosewall used to cover every square inch of the court, front and back, and were always raring to go within 10 seconds. Players only use more energy today because they are weak nancy boys/untalented hardworking hacks afraid to go for a winner. Surfaces, racquet technology, advances in technique and fitness/nutrition are irrelevant. 20 seconds or get out. Rules are rules are rules, and they are always right because they are rules, even when they are altered or abolished. Just like every law enacted by every government in history is right, because it's the law.

vive le beau jeu !
03-09-2012, 03:24 AM
On Thursday at Indian Wells, the nadal responded by saying: "The rules are there, but we cannot expect to play six hours and play rallies (...)"
then just bring back faster surfaces... it's that simple !
It's a pleasure. the chance to see Nadal for an extra 30 seconds just for toweling and rituals after an ace is a previlege. we should be thankfull
every second of watching the rusty peak injured golden bull is a blessing for your eyes.

Gorecki
03-09-2012, 03:40 AM
then just bring back faster surfaces... it's that simple !

every second of watching the rusty peak injured golden bull is a blessing for your eyes.

That is the reaon why i would not mind San Rafael to be shot. clocked...? not so much!

tennis_pro
03-09-2012, 03:54 AM
We don't need to change the rules. All we need is 1 umpire to finally stand up and have the courage to hand some point penalties from time to time. I'm sure that will wake everyone up.

Sentinel
03-09-2012, 04:39 AM
Are you bringing in namelessness into this?:)
That's so shameless of you.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 04:52 AM
We don't need to change the rules. All we need is 1 umpire to finally stand up and have the courage to hand some point penalties from time to time. I'm sure that will wake everyone up.

Is that all?

You'll be saying that for decades from now.

Gorecki
03-09-2012, 05:13 AM
http://gifs.gifbin.com/062010/1275389891_the-quick-brown-fox-jumps-over-the-lazy-dog.gif

SLD76
03-09-2012, 05:14 AM
http://gifs.gifbin.com/062010/1275389891_the-quick-brown-fox-jumps-over-the-lazy-dog.gif

cant see your pic my man.

Gorecki
03-09-2012, 05:22 AM
cant see your pic my man.

it's the .gif of a quick brown fox jumping over a lazy dog....

MichaelNadal
03-09-2012, 05:39 AM
^^Lol I get it.

sunof tennis
03-09-2012, 05:43 AM
Even Nadal's answer goes over the time limit.

Brilliant!!!

Tammo
03-09-2012, 05:46 AM
I was thinking of saying either

Wow, Fed got owned again
or
Nadal gets help from Uncle Toni again

You guys decide which one is better.

aprilfool
03-09-2012, 05:47 AM
For responding to my query in the Federer thread.
And kudos to your PR team as well, who have a formidable presence here and perform admirably.

:)

The Fool