We need to sort out this time wasting BS right now

ninman · Jan 29, 2012

Ok, I did some calculations, here are some facts for you.

The match lasted a total of 369 points;

It was 5:53 long which translates to 21180 seconds, there were 26 change of ends, each of which is 90 seconds, which means that every point lasted 51 seconds.

So that's 51 seconds a point, including actual time when the ball is in play. If each rally lasted on average 20 seconds, then that means there was an average of 30 seconds per point.

I actually timed Nadal and Djokovic for a little while, Nadal took around 32 seconds most points, Djokovic was 23-25, so lets say there was an average of 30 seconds per point.

If both players had taken an average of 20 seconds per point, that's a difference of just 10 seconds every point the match would have been 61 minutes and 30 seconds shorter!

Yes, longest final in GS history only because of the amount of time both players were taking between points.

It winds me up like nothing else when commentators talk about getting rid of lets, how about making players play faster?

jamesblakefan#1 · Jan 29, 2012

I can't stand watching these guys play each other. Novak 20 bounce Djokovic and Rafael 30 seconds Nadal. Absolutely unbearable. It's understandable after some of the long rallies, but when a guy serves an ace he really shouldn't take that long to get ready for the next point. Even worse when Djokovic misses a first serve, bounce another 10 times, then serves a let, another 5 bounces...you get my point.

monfed · Jan 29, 2012

I understand how you feel , I feel the same way. The ATP have purposely slowed the courts down for longer rallies, so why would they bother with time wasting? Seems to me that the longer the match the more it suits ATP's agenda.

ninman · Jan 29, 2012

My suggestion is get a shot clock, reduce it to 15 seconds per point, if a buzzer sounds then it's a fault, the player has 5 seconds to serve a second serve, if the buzzer sounds again then it's a double fault.

If they had a strict 15 seconds between points, the match would have been 92 minutes and 30 seconds shorter. So instead of a 6 hour marathon it would have come in at 4 and a half hours! That's a huge difference.

fps · Jan 29, 2012

ninman said:
My suggestion is get a shot clock, reduce it to 15 seconds per point, if a buzzer sounds then it's a fault, the player has 5 seconds to serve a second serve, if the buzzer sounds again then it's a double fault.

If they had a strict 15 seconds between points, the match would have been 92 minutes and 30 seconds shorter. So instead of a 6 hour marathon it would have come in at 4 and a half hours! That's a huge difference.

I disagree, there are circumstances where leniency needs to be shown, after a ridiculous rally for instance or if a player feels a knee tweak a little before regrouping to serve or receive, and also times when an extra gap provides suspense, such as before a match point, and allows the crowd to cheer and everyone to take in the magnitude of the occasion.

I just think they should back the umpires and allow them to enforce the rules that are already in place!!!

Rozroz · Jan 29, 2012

it needs to be ruled that it's 20secs and then an umpire declaring fault.
buzzer will distract at tense points.

Sentinel · Jan 29, 2012

The telly now shows the average time between points for both players, so you don't need to calc that.

i can't remember but I think Joker was taking more time than Nadal at some point. Could be wrong, though.

West Coast Ace · Jan 29, 2012

What's the rush? DVR the match, stay away from the internet, watch it later and ff through the commercials.

While I agree it's senseless to have a rule that isn't enforced, I want the highest quality match possible - so taking another 10 seconds so one can play the next point better doesn't bother me - regardless of who the player is.

nikdom · Jan 29, 2012

Its OK. Don't bust Novak's balls about this.... I don't mind it if both players take time. Its only unfair if one of them does.

als47 · Jan 29, 2012

As someone said, it's not such a big deal if you don't watch in real time, but it does take the shine off of the comments about the brutality of such a long match. If it's only long because the players are being leisurely, it's no more brutal than any other close five-setter, and possibly less so.

Rozroz · Jan 29, 2012

nobody, especially the crowd, likes time stretching between points.
so if entertainment already ruined the game (slower courts), at least give us 10 sec. less waiting for a game to start!

TimothyO · Jan 29, 2012

The 20 second rule was developed when the game wasn't as physically demanding. Looks at the conditioning required to be competitive in the professional men's game.

Make the official rule 25 or 30 seconds but then enforce it ruthlessly with a shot clock as others have suggested.

Rozroz · Jan 29, 2012

TimothyO said:
The 20 second rule was developed when the game wasn't as physically demanding. Looks at the conditioning required to be competitive in the professional men's game.

Make the official rule 25 or 30 seconds but then enforce it ruthlessly with a shot clock as others have suggested.

well, if they enforce the PEDs rule, i could agree

Tyrus · Jan 29, 2012

around the 3rd set ESPN brought up the statistic

Average time between points:
Novak: 30 sec
Rafa: 33 sec

It felt okay, a bit slow but thats these players for ya.

entertainment already ruined the game by slower courts? gtfo with that ignorance.

Rozroz · Jan 29, 2012

Tyrus said:
entertainment already ruined the game by slower courts? gtfo with that ignorance.

what's wrong with this? you don't agree that the courts being slower is because they want to make the point longer for the crowd's demand?
what's 'ignorant' about that?

jamesblakefan#1 · Jan 29, 2012

West Coast Ace said:
What's the rush? DVR the match, stay away from the internet, watch it later and ff through the commercials.

While I agree it's senseless to have a rule that isn't enforced, I want the highest quality match possible - so taking another 10 seconds so one can play the next point better doesn't bother me - regardless of who the player is.

Normally I'd agree on the DVR point, but I'm away at college and don't have access to my DVR at home. So I'm forced to sit through this ball bouncing, all while trying not to fall asleep. Finally last night I gave up and said eff it, I'm not watching this. Of course the match was still on when I woke up, which I wasn't surprised by. These guys take too much time, its understandable after long rallies but not after short points.

aprilfool · Jan 29, 2012

The oft-used rationalization for time-wasting is that today's game is more powerful, physical etc.. This is flawed logic. It's become that way because players take longer to rest before the next play. It's also a way to throw off timing. Just as it does in other sports.
Hats off to Pmac and Co. for addressing the problem during the final.

Thanks for the op.

Sid_Vicious · Jan 29, 2012

I wonder if the rest of the world outside this forum is uptight about stuff like this.

NamRanger · Jan 29, 2012

fps said:
I disagree, there are circumstances where leniency needs to be shown, after a ridiculous rally for instance or if a player feels a knee tweak a little before regrouping to serve or receive, and also times when an extra gap provides suspense, such as before a match point, and allows the crowd to cheer and everyone to take in the magnitude of the occasion.

I just think they should back the umpires and allow them to enforce the rules that are already in place!!!

There is no leniency in American Football. If you are tired, you are tired. Your own fault.

fps · Jan 29, 2012

NamRanger said:
There is no leniency in American Football. If you are tired, you are tired. Your own fault.

I've never watched a whole American Football match, but it's a very different thing in team sports. Tennis doesn't need to adhere to something like that if it doesn't want to. It needs to be sorted though, because Nadal was taking like 32-33 seconds between points which is a joke.

Moose Malloy · Jan 29, 2012

It was 5:53 long

The on court clock didn't stop for the 10 minute rain/roof delay, which I found strange. So the match was really more like 5:43.

My suggestion is get a shot clock, reduce it to 15 seconds per point, if a buzzer sounds then it's a fault, the player has 5 seconds to serve a second serve, if the buzzer sounds again then it's a double fault.

I've posted this many times here, but no one seems to notice. At many events in the 80s, they DID have a shot clock on court(some of these matches are on youtube, check out Mac-Zivojinovic at the '85 Australian Open)

The umpire would press a button at the end of each point & the clock/scoreboard behind the players would then start counting down from 25(have a Mac match on dvd where he yells at the umpire for starting the clock before his shot had bounced twice. but he still was able to get back to the baseline, do his routine & serve before it struck zero. No buzzer went off, I think it was more of a deterrent - what player would like everyone in the audience to see he was taking too much time?)

DunlopMax200G · Jan 29, 2012

A shot clock would completely throw off Nadal and Djokovic. Their entire game is based on taking as much time between points to settle, think, and get into a rhythm. If the rule is enforced, it would change tennis. Federer and others, who run through points quickly, would have a huge advantage.

jamesblakefan#1 · Jan 29, 2012

DunlopMax200G said:
A shot clock would completely throw off Nadal and Djokovic. Their entire game is based on taking as much time between points to settle, think, and get into a rhythm. If the rule is enforced, it would change tennis. Federer and others, who run through points quickly, would have a huge advantage.

And why would that be a problem? If you're a great player, you should be able to adjust your routine to fit the rules. You're really telling me if Djokovic bounced 5 times instead of 15 he would become a drastically worse player?

Eternity · Jan 29, 2012

Sid_Vicious said:
I wonder if the rest of the world outside this forum is uptight about stuff like this.

I doubt it. I honerstly didn't think they were taking that long. It didn't bother me.

ttbrowne · Jan 29, 2012

NamRanger said:
There is no leniency in American Football. If you are tired, you are tired. Your own fault.

Seems like I heard there was a 40 man roster in American Football. And you're able to coach, call timeouts, have extra-long tv timeouts, there's a 25 minute halftime. Is that right?

1970CRBase · Jan 29, 2012

Next, count how many rally strokes each player hit.

diggler · Jan 29, 2012

ninman said:
Ok, I did some calculations, here are some facts for you.

The match lasted a total of 369 points;

It was 5:53 long which translates to 21180 seconds, there were 26 change of ends, each of which is 90 seconds, which means that every point lasted 51 seconds.

So that's 51 seconds a point, including actual time when the ball is in play. If each rally lasted on average 20 seconds, then that means there was an average of 30 seconds per point.

I actually timed Nadal and Djokovic for a little while, Nadal took around 32 seconds most points, Djokovic was 23-25, so lets say there was an average of 30 seconds per point.

If both players had taken an average of 20 seconds per point, that's a difference of just 10 seconds every point the match would have been 61 minutes and 30 seconds shorter!

Yes, longest final in GS history only because of the amount of time both players were taking between points.

It winds me up like nothing else when commentators talk about getting rid of lets, how about making players play faster?

I honestly don't understand. Were you watching the match and after a long rally you were screaming at the telly, come on, hurry up? Do you scream at the golf? Come on Tiger, do you have to walk between shots? If you run to you next shot it will take me less time to watch.

This is one of the most demanding non contact sports in the world, and you think they are bludging? I agree with the other poster who said the game has changed. It is not like Wimbledon in the 1990s when it was serve, volley, return.

I know they have rules about time, but would you prefer a match where they have no time to recover between points and the standard of play is lower?

If they are breaking the curremt rules then maybe they should be changed to 30 seconds. The cureent time limits came into play when the sport was less demanding.

ninman · Jan 29, 2012

diggler said:
I honestly don't understand. Were you watching the match and after a long rally you were screaming at the telly, come on, hurry up? Do you scream at the golf? Come on Tiger, do you have to walk between shots? If you run to you next shot it will take me less time to watch.

This is one of the most demanding non contact sports in the world, and you think they are bludging? I agree with the other poster who said the game has changed. It is not like Wimbledon in the 1990s when it was serve, volley, return.

I know they have rules about time, but would you prefer a match where they have no time to recover between points and the standard of play is lower?

If they are breaking the curremt rules then maybe they should be changed to 30 seconds. The cureent time limits came into play when the sport was less demanding.

And yet many players such as Federer and Roddick have no problem sticking to the current 20 second rule.

To put it into perspective the Federer Roddick Wimbledon 2009 final was 436 points in length, and took 15360 seconds. The match had 36 change of ends, each of which is 90 seconds, which means there was an average of 28 seconds per point, including the time when the ball was actually in play.

So why is it that they can manage to play each point in almost half the amount of time Nadal and Djokovic can?

diggler · Jan 30, 2012

Eternity said:
I doubt it. I honerstly didn't think they were taking that long. It didn't bother me.

There is nobody in the universe as uptight about this as this forum.

In Australia, the big issue was the Azarenka shriek. That is all.

diggler · Jan 30, 2012

ninman said:
And yet many players such as Federer and Roddick have no problem sticking to the current 20 second rule.

To put it into perspective the Federer Roddick Wimbledon 2009 final was 436 points in length, and took 15360 seconds. The match had 36 change of ends, each of which is 90 seconds, which means there was an average of 28 seconds per point, including the time when the ball was actually in play.

So why is it that they can manage to play each point in almost half the amount of time Nadal and Djokovic can?

And how long were the rallies?

Do you really feel cheated of your limited time on earth? As I said in my earlier post, surely this would affect your enjoyment of other sports or activities.

Baseball - stop spitting and just throw that thing! What's wrong with you??

American football - why do you keep stopping to have a meeting??? Just keep playing.

Do you watch movies and fast forward all the boring talking stuff to get to the car chases?

Are you thr guy pressing the door close button on the elevator because it is sucking precious life from you?

diggler · Jan 30, 2012

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/...-theyre-no-mean-sprinters-20120130-1qpr5.html

They only did 1100 sprints for eight to 10 seconds over six hours (not to mention they were swinging their rackets at maximum intensity). What a bunch of wuses. Hurry up. What are you doing? Catching your breath?

Seriously, can anyone think of a more physically demanding challenge? (Not counting contact sports like boxing of course).

Even an ironman triathlon doesn't have you doing sprints like that.

The tour de france has some brutal mountain climbs although you do get some rest in the peloton.

Polvorin · Jan 30, 2012

TimothyO said:
The 20 second rule was developed when the game wasn't as physically demanding. Looks at the conditioning required to be competitive in the professional men's game.

Make the official rule 25 or 30 seconds but then enforce it ruthlessly with a shot clock as others have suggested.

On the other hand, if the players are unable to play the way they choose to play within the rules, that is their own fault. If they want to grind every point out with heavy topspin, retrieving, and waiting for errors, well that's fine...they can play that way. But if they have to bend the rules of tennis...that's when it's not ok anymore because it is quite literally cheating. Not only does it give extra recovery time but it also disrupts their opponent's rhythm/momentum. If they can't handle it, maybe they need to start taking some risks.

I agree with you and most people it seems, that the rule must be enforced seriously. Which is 25 seconds, and 20 for the slams.

Polvorin · Jan 30, 2012

Oh, also @ the OP

Yeah I did the math too and it came out the same. An average extra 11-12 seconds per point on 369 points indeed comes out to around a FULL HOUR (closer to 1hr 10min) of extra time that was tacked on to the match. And there was also a 10 minute rain delay.

The match length meant very little compared to the hype. But it was still a good and very dramatic 5 setter.

Big_Dangerous · Jan 30, 2012

NamRanger said:
There is no leniency in American Football. If you are tired, you are tired. Your own fault.

Actually you can call timeout. I've seen many coaches and players call timeout to avoid penalties, or substitute players in.

And the other thing I've seen is players faking injuries like the Giants just to get a breather...

Don't sit there and say there is no leniency... That's ********.

TimothyO · Jan 30, 2012

aprilfool said:
The oft-used rationalization for time-wasting is that today's game is more powerful, physical etc.. This is flawed logic. It's become that way because players take longer to rest before the next play. It's also a way to throw off timing. Just as it does in other sports.
Hats off to Pmac and Co. for addressing the problem during the final.

Thanks for the op.

Yeah, racket technology, strings, and, most importantly, advances in physical conditioning having NOTHING to do with today's power game.

Yup, it's the 12 extra seconds between points.

You could make bigs bucks advising guys like Joker. He spent all that time and money on his physio, working out,time on the track, etc. What a waste! Those 12 seconds are the secret to his power and endurance!

Or maybe write a book: 12 Seconds to Power Tennis! I see it at the top of Amazon.

And forget analysis of high speed film of tennis players. Who needs A deeper understanding of biomechanics when 12 seconds will do?!?!

TimothyO · Jan 30, 2012

Polvorin said:
On the other hand, if the players are unable to play the way they choose to play within the rules, that is their own fault. If they want to grind every point out with heavy topspin, retrieving, and waiting for errors, well that's fine...they can play that way. But if they have to bend the rules of tennis...that's when it's not ok anymore because it is quite literally cheating. Not only does it give extra recovery time but it also disrupts their opponents rhythm/momentum. If they can't handle it, maybe they need to start taking some risks.

I agree with you and most people it seems, that the rule must be enforced seriously. Which is 25 seconds, and 20 for the slams.

Excellent point.

But if in light of today's game players feel the need to take 10-12 extra seconds might we see more injuries with less time? That would be a question for the sports medicine folks.

In any case, I'd like to see a shot clock. Heck, even American football has a play clock. And the idea on time outs is good.

Cindysphinx · Jan 30, 2012

If the TV audience had to watch a bunch of toweling off, I would understand the gripe.

The delay between points doesn't bother me. I *love* the instant replays. That technology is amazing. You can see every ripple of every muscle. You can see the use of the wrist, the pronation on the serve, how intently they watch the ball, how they transfer their weight onto the ball, how elegant their footwork is on approach shots.

Come on, don't you sit there imagining that your strokes look like that?

When I watch the players who play fast (Fed, Clijsters), I miss all of those sweet replays. Bummer.

TimothyO · Jan 30, 2012

Watching certain feeds on ESPN3 excluded commercials. Instead they showed the players resting and thinking. It was actually interesting to watch how they reacted to the previous game and prepared for the next.

Some sat under towels. Others rested briefly and focused on ice towels, food, and water. But most sat quietly with a thousand yard stare contemplating their fate. In many ways their actiojs and body language told a good story.

Polvorin · Jan 30, 2012

TimothyO said:
Yeah, racket technology, strings, and, most importantly, advances in physical conditioning having NOTHING to do with today's power game.

Yup, it's the 12 extra seconds between points.

You could make bigs bucks advising guys like Joker. He spent all that time and money on his physio, working out,time on the track, etc. What a waste! Those 12 seconds are the secret to his power and endurance!

Or maybe write a book: 12 Seconds to Power Tennis! I see it at the top of Amazon.

And forget analysis of high speed film of tennis players. Who needs A deeper understanding of biomechanics when 12 seconds will do?!?!

This post added absolutely nothing substantive to the discussion.

kOaMaster · Jan 31, 2012

he is right though. the players take way too much time between the points. I can't stand that too. in other sports are booked for such time wasting behaviour

Bobby Jr · Jan 31, 2012

I think they need first to stop the recent creep of receivers delaying the server as Nadal did untold in his match against Federer.

When they server is ready they should be able to serve within reason. It's silly for one player to be able to stuff around on his own serve, but for him to then disrupt the rhythm/flow of the server when he's receiving it bad form imo.

Making enforcing the time-clock mandatory for umpires whenever there is an obvious disparity between the speed of the players would seem a fair aim. Just how to do that is a difficult question which is probably the reason we rarely see the worst time wasters ever get warned.

Polvorin · Jan 31, 2012

Bobby Jr said:
I think they need first to stop the recent creep of receivers delaying the server as Nadal did untold in his match against Federer.

When they server is ready they should be able to serve within reason. It's silly for one player to be able to stuff around on his own serve, but for him to then disrupt the rhythm/flow of the server when he's receiving it bad form imo.

Making enforcing the time-clock mandatory for umpires whenever there is an obvious disparity between the speed of the players would seem a fair aim. Just how to do that is a difficult question which is probably the reason we rarely see the worst time wasters ever get warned.

Yes, that is true, Nadal always uses time violations to throw Federer off (as well as stalling him on his own serve) and it must be extremely frustrating. Momentum and rhythm are crucial to his game.

I think people underestimate how powerful controlling the tempo of a match can be. There is a reason basketball teams use timeouts whenever the opposing team gets on a roll. Timeouts often completely turn the tide and reset the game.

I kind of get some enjoyment out of the fact that Djokovic beats him by (among other things) using his own dirty tactic against him. :evil:

I also suspect that if the two biggest time wasters weren't the #1 and #2 ranked players we would see more enforcement of the rules.

namelessone · Jan 31, 2012

Polvorin said:
Yes, that is true, Nadal always uses time violations to throw Federer off and it must be extremely frustrating. Momentum and rhythm are crucial to his game.

I think people underestimate how powerful controlling the tempo of a match can be. There is a reason basketball teams use timeouts whenever the opposing team gets on a roll. Timeouts often completely turn the tide and reset the game.

I kind of get a some enjoyment out of the fact that Djokovic beats him by (among other things) using his own dirty tactic against him. :evil:

I also suspect that if the two biggest time wasters weren't the #1 and #2 ranked players we would see more enforcement of the rules.

Nadal loves it when Djoko wastes time or else he'd complain.

Djokovic is hardly beating Nadal because he is wasting time as well but because of the matchup issues.

Also, Nadal and Djokovic were wasting time when they were relative newcomers as well and they didn't get punished for it. Djokovic has cut his ball bouncing a bit but still bounces big when crunch time comes. And you'd be surprised by how many players go over time regularly. Nadal is worst offender but ******* on the time rule is something that A LOT of players do.

Polvorin · Jan 31, 2012

namelessone said:
Nadal loves it when Djoko wastes time or else he'd complain.

Djokovic is hardly beating Nadal because he is wasting time as well but because of the matchup issues.

First off, I doubt Nadal will ever complain about someone else stalling because he is the worst offender of all. If he complained about it they would have to enforce it against him as well as his opponents, and he obviously wouldn't like that because it is a winning tactic for him.

Also, what "matchup issue" is that? They play like a mirror of each other...

namelessone · Jan 31, 2012

Polvorin said:
First off, I doubt Nadal will ever complain about someone else stalling because he is the worst offender of all. If he complained about it they would have to enforce it against him as well as his opponents, and he obviously wouldn't like that because it is a winning tactic for him.

Also, what "matchup issue" is that? They play like a mirror of each other...

Djokovic can reset the point at any moment by giving a high ball to Nadal's BH.

Djokovic's return brutalizes Nadal's serves for the most part.

Djokovic's serve doesn't have to be outstanding because of Nadal's poor ROS.

Djokovic's BH anihilates Nadal's best weapon, his FH.

Polvorin · Jan 31, 2012

namelessone said:
Djokovic can reset the point at any moment by giving a high ball to Nadal's BH.

Djokovic's return brutalizes Nadal's serves for the most part.

Djokovic's serve doesn't have to be outstanding because of Nadal's poor ROS.

Djokovic's BH anihilates Nadal's best weapon, his FH.

These things don't seem like anything to do with this particular matchup.

For example, is there some reason why only Djokovic can throw a high ball to Nadal's backhand to reset a point? Can't any other player do the same thing? Is Djokovic's high ball somehow special?

Is there some reason Djokovic's serve return works especially well against Nadal? Isn't it just as effective against other players?

Do you really think Djokovic's backhand "annihilates" Nadal's forehand...(any more so than it annihilates other player's strokes?)

Nadal's poor ROS hardly seems like anything that works against him any more in this matchup than against any other player...

Furthermore, Nadal still has a winning record against Djokovic, does he not? It doesn't seem like this matchup has been too problematic for him. I don't see Djokovic's game specifically exploiting anything in Nadal's except maybe in the case of his second serve. He beats Nadal by outplaying him at his own game. He doesn't do anything that particularly forces Nadal to change his game plan or play out of his comfort zone.

Big_Dangerous · Jan 31, 2012

kOaMaster said:
he is right though. the players take way too much time between the points. I can't stand that too. in other sports are booked for such time wasting behaviour

Yeah but not many other sports are individual like tennis. Only Golf is an example I can think of, but good luck trying to convince me that's not taking too much time.

All the other sports I can think of, allow players to sit down and rest for a considerable amount of time. Hockey has two intermissions, football, and basketball have halftime. Only baseball doesn't have a break, but even so most people would agree baseball isn't anywhere near as physically demanding as tennis.

als47 · Jan 31, 2012

Big_Dangerous said:
Yeah but not many other sports are individual like tennis. Only Golf is an example I can think of, but good luck trying to convince me that's not taking too much time.

All the other sports I can think of, allow players to sit down and rest for a considerable amount of time. Hockey has two intermissions, football, and basketball have halftime. Only baseball doesn't have a break, but even so most people would agree baseball isn't anywhere near as physically demanding as tennis.

Marathoners don't get to take a break in the middle of their 26.2 miles.

TimothyO · Jan 31, 2012

Polvorin said:
This post added absolutely nothing substantive to the discussion.

You're right. Sorry for the sarcasm.

kOaMaster · Jan 31, 2012

Big_Dangerous said:
Yeah but not many other sports are individual like tennis. Only Golf is an example I can think of, but good luck trying to convince me that's not taking too much time.

All the other sports I can think of, allow players to sit down and rest for a considerable amount of time. Hockey has two intermissions, football, and basketball have halftime. Only baseball doesn't have a break, but even so most people would agree baseball isn't anywhere near as physically demanding as tennis.

I play badminton and can tell you that I've seen it more than once that a player lost service (point for the opponent) when he did not play fast enough or on the other side, when the receiver did take too long to be ready.

It is not less physical and certainly doesn't need less concentration. If there was a really long rally, they can ask the referee for a additional break/time to drink, usually around 20-30sek.

take a look at this:
Finals - MS - Lee. C.W vs Lin D. - 2012 Victor Korea Open

We need to sort out this time wasting BS right now

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

monfed

Guest

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

nikdom

Guest

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Professional

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

aprilfool

Guest

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

1970CRBase

Guest

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Legend

Professional

Legend

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Similar threads