Federer on time violations (With a little dig at Rafa).

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
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

Bionic Poster
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

Professional
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

Rookie
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.
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
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

Hall of Fame
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

G.O.A.T.
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.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Oh, man, where did you get that from? Well, well, I guess the ****s 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

Bionic Poster
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

G.O.A.T.
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

G.O.A.T.
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:
 
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?
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
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

Bionic Poster
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.
 
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

Bionic Poster
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.
 
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

Professional
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

Rookie
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.
 
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

Bionic Poster
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?
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
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&#2 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

Hall of Fame
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.
 

Paul Murphy

Hall of Fame
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

Banned
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

New User
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

Hall of Fame
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 -.-
 

TTMR

Hall of Fame
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

G.O.A.T.
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

Hall of Fame
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

G.O.A.T.
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

Bionic Poster
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

Hall of Fame
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

Bionic Poster
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!"
 
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

Bionic Poster
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???
 
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

Bionic Poster
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 ass 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.
 
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 ass 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

Bionic Poster
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

G.O.A.T.
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' ****ty attitude, Nasty Nastase, or Connors being a huge jackass. No one. Get the hell out of here.
 
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.
 
Top