Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Paul Murphy, Mar 8, 2012.
you're not the only one...
but i don't think mustard cares a lot about that !
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.
That was an exhibition, as you've already said. To compare an exo to a competitive match is silly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So now, the umpire needs to keep track of how many shots in each rally as well?
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.
Oh, man, where did you get that from? Well, well, I guess the tards 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."
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?
now let's send this to be executed at once!
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?
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.
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.
Nadal might become a special case too if he keeps it up. Nobody has cheated as much as Nadal.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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?
True greats don't moan. Like Messi. He just gets on what his game no matter what.
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.
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),
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.
wow thats like a whole new level of hatred and bitterness -.-
devila and bullzilla...the biggest Fed fans in the forum, given how everything they write mentions his name.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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???
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.
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.
Correct. No modern game lacks gamesmanship. That doesn't mean, that we have to tolerate it.
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.
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.
Yeah, no one remembers Rios' ****ty attitude, Nasty Nastase, or Connors being a huge jackass. No one. Get the hell out of here.
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.
Separate names with a comma.