Would the 25 sec shot clock be actually counterproductive?

Z

zep

Hall of Fame
With the introduction of the shot clock, the average time taken between points has become meaningless. At present, players who like to take their time between points still stay around the 25 sec average mark. They do go over 25 secs after long points and on important points but to keep the average around 25 they play other points relatively faster. Keep in mind that the unofficial timekeepers now start the clock as soon as the ball of the previous rally goes out of play. With the new rule, there's a good chance that after long rallies, the umpire would wait 5-6 secs for the crowd to settle down and then start the clock. At least that's my current understanding, or is that a wrong assumption? Assuming that to be true, in essence, the players are going to get ~30 secs after long points. But since the average time no longer matters, they might utilize the full 25 secs after short points/service winners too. If that's the case, would the 25 sec shot clock really make things faster? Or, would it just act as an unnecessary distraction?

Discuss
 
P

Pete Player

Hall of Fame
Two way street. A match is never determined by the time it takes. However some players seem to take their time without the clock, which I think may turn into benefit of the fittest and fast players.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Krish872007

Krish872007

Talk Tennis Guru
If it's enforced harshly and regularly, it may actually act as a deterrent for getting involved in longer rallies.
We might see people take more chances earlier on in a rally to avoid taking too long and getting exhausted. Bigger serving, bigger hitting, more winners but also more errors.

I don't know if that's the direction we should be going in but since it's coming into effect, umpires are responsible for fairly and consistently applying the rule. Let us see what impact it has.

Is it a distraction? Maybe. Need very clear guidance on when to start the timer.
 
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
Pete Player said:
Two way street. A match is never determined by the time it takes. However some players seem to take their time without the clock, which I think may turn into benefit of the fittest and fast players.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

To put things into perspective, the two most common abusers, Nadal and Djokovic have improved vastly in the last few years. Here's an interesting stat, at the end of the second set of the 2012 Australian Open, Nadal was taking 30 secs on average between points and Djokovic 33. Now compare that to 2014-2016, Nadal took 24.91 secs and Djokovic 21.34. I am quite sure that this year Nadal was actually faster than that.

https://2017.ausopen.com/en_AU/news...t_hurried_players.html?promo=previous_article
 
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
Pete Player said:
@zep, I think they got notified being observed carefully forehand the slams.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well they increased time violation warnings from 2013 onward. That notorious 2012 AO final was the turning point. The point being, if the two slowest guys on tour are already playing under 25 sec average, is the shot clock really necessary?
 
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
Krish872007 said:
If it's enforced harshly and regularly, it may actually act as a deterrent for getting involved in longer rallies.
We might see people take more chances earlier on in a rally to avoid taking too long and getting exhausted. Bigger serving, bigger hitting, more winners but also more errors.

I don't know if that's the direction we should be going in but since it's coming into effect, umpires are responsible for fairly and consistently applying the rule. Let us see what impact it has.

Is it a distraction? Maybe. Need very clear guidance on when to start the timer.
Click to expand...

True, I think we will get a better idea when we see it being used in a 5 setter.
 
MasturB

MasturB

Legend
The clock does not start when the second bounce begins correct?

It is the umpire's discretion when to start the clock. So after a long winded rally and the crowd is going crazy, the umpire does not have to start the clock yet. Once the pandemonium has gone on far too long then the Umpire can start the clock to get the crowd to settle down and the players ready.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
As long as the umpires can use some discretion it should be fine. In most circumstances 25 seconds should be enough, if it starts getting enforced after brutal rallies then I think it will be detrimental.
 
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
MasturB said:
The clock does not start when the second bounce begins correct?

It is the umpire's discretion when to start the clock. So after a long winded rally and the crowd is going crazy, the umpire does not have to start the clock yet. Once the pandemonium has gone on far too long then the Umpire can start the clock to get the crowd to settle down and the players ready.
Click to expand...

That's my understanding too and I mentioned it in the OP.
 
MasturB

MasturB

Legend
The clock will help when Rafa hits a serve and it gets unreturned or it's an ace. So instead of him going through the entire mantra because it was not even a rally, he will be forced to go to the line and start his routine immediately instead of the usual wipe down with the towel, check three balls and walk up. If he wants sto do the bouncing and buttpicking then he has to do it immediately. Unless of course it's a long point.
 
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
NatF said:
As long as the umpires can use some discretion it should be fine. In most circumstances 25 seconds should be enough, if it starts getting enforced after brutal rallies then I think it will be detrimental.
Click to expand...

Yeah 25 secs combined with some common sense from the umpires after longer points are usually enough even for the slower players. If it was 20, it would have been a cause of concern for them. But now they're actually officially getting more time than before (it was 20 before). However, it can still play on the minds of many players, which is what I meant by distraction. That can lead to missed serves/needless ballbashing etc resulting in worse quality of tennis.
 
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
MasturB said:
The clock will help when Rafa hits a serve and it gets unreturned or it's an ace. So instead of him going through the entire mantra because it was not even a rally, he will be forced to go to the line and start his routine immediately instead of the usual wipe down with the towel, check three balls and walk up. If he wants sto do the bouncing and buttpicking then he has to do it immediately. Unless of course it's a long point.
Click to expand...

I think you're not getting the point or you didn't read the OP. Now with 25 secs in hand, and without having to worry about the average time between points, he can actually take the full 25 secs even after an ace, which is counterproductive. Earlier he would have wanted to keep the average down so that he could get some leeway after long points. Now there's no such incentive, each point is different.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
zep said:
Yeah 25 secs combined with some common sense from the umpires after longer points are usually enough even for the slower players. If it was 20, it would have been a cause of concern for them. But now they're actually officially getting more time than before (it was 20 before). However, it can still play on the minds of many players, which is what I meant by distraction. That can lead to missed serves/needless ballbashing etc resulting in worse quality of tennis.
Click to expand...

It could lead to ball bashing but on the flip side encouraging players to be less passive in rallies isn't necessarily bad IMO. We'll have to see how it works practically. The first thing I thought of was Cilic's annoying ball bouncing routine ( @Meles ) so anything that cuts stuff like that down is welcome - in fact I'd support giving Cilic just 20 seconds :D It's tough because I'm not necessarily opposed to a little gamemanship but it has to work both ways e.g. no making the server wait if they're ready.
 
D

Deleted member 743561

Guest
What new info are you introducing that would merit a 20th serve clock thread?

Yeah, it won't be perfect as there are no associated alarm blasts when the clock ticks down to zero.

Seriously, though, it's very simple; umpires didn't have the cojones to call violations. That experiment failed. This is a step in the right direction, even with the discretionary authority granted to them.
 
Poisoned Slice

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
FedFosterWallace said:
What new info are you introducing that would merit a 20th serve clock thread?

Yeah, it won't be perfect as there are no associated alarm blasts when the clock ticks down to zero.

Seriously, though, it's very simple; umpires didn't have the cojones to call violations. That experiment failed. This is a step in the right direction, even with the discretionary authority granted to them.
Click to expand...

i-agree-gif-10.gif
 
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
FedFosterWallace said:
What new info are you introducing that would merit a 20th serve clock thread?

Yeah, it won't be perfect as there are no associated alarm blasts when the clock ticks down to zero.

Seriously, though, it's very simple; umpires didn't have the cojones to call violations. That experiment failed. This is a step in the right direction, even with the discretionary authority granted to them.
Click to expand...


I went through your thread history. All I can say is that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Now if this thread is worthless, I suggest you take a hike, how about that? You don't own this forum. If you have an issue, contact moderators. Thanks.
 
Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
It will be interesting to see how often the shotclock needs to be used or whether its mere presence will be enough to ensure players keep within the prescribed time limit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zep
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
NatF said:
It could lead to ball bashing but on the flip side encouraging players to be less passive in rallies isn't necessarily bad IMO. We'll have to see how it works practically. The first thing I thought of was Cilic's annoying ball bouncing routine ( @Meles ) so anything that cuts stuff like that down is welcome - in fact I'd support giving Cilic just 20 seconds :D It's tough because I'm not necessarily opposed to a little gamemanship but it has to work both ways e.g. no making the server wait if they're ready.
Click to expand...

I think most of the players would want to keep their service routine intact, they'd most likely cut down on the time they take to get to the service line.
 
D

Deleted member 743561

Guest
zep said:
I went through your thread history. All I can say is that hose who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Now if this thread is worthless, I suggest you take a hike, how about that? You don't own this forum. If you have an issue, contact moderators. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Fairly aggressive response.

Glad to see that you have the know-how to search thread histories. Didn't bother to take it upon yourself to see whether there were serve clock threads before creating yours, eh?

And for the record, "worthless" is your characterization of the thread. "Broken record" will be mine.
 
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
FedFosterWallace said:
Fairly aggressive response.

Glad to see that you have the know-how to search thread histories. Didn't bother to take it upon yourself to see whether there were serve clock threads before creating yours, eh?

And for the record, "worthless" is your characterization of the thread. "Broken record" will be mine.
Click to expand...

Those were news threads, this is an opinion thread sharing a contrarian view point. It's not my fault that you're not intelligent enough to see the difference.
 
D

Deleted member 743561

Guest
zep said:
Those were news threads, this is an opinion thread sharing a contrarian view point. It's not my fault that you're not intelligent enough to see the difference.
Click to expand...
Guess what? Intelligence tells me that threads can be bumped, and it's not always necessary to retread old ground with your own masterpiece.

Also, they're reality. There's no "would" about them. I know someone who is having trouble accepting change.
 
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
zep said:
I think most of the players would want to keep their service routine intact, they'd most likely cut down on the time they take to get to the service line.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this. I think they probably wouldn't want to push the 25 secs limit like they used to.
 
MasturB

MasturB

Legend
zep said:
I think you're not getting the point or you didn't read the OP. Now with 25 secs in hand, and without having to worry about the average time between points, he can actually take the full 25 secs even after an ace, which is counterproductive. Earlier he would have wanted to keep the average down so that he could get some leeway after long points. Now there's no such incentive, each point is different.
Click to expand...

He still takes 25 seconds regardless.

And even then before when he’s been warned he stilll took his time and didn’t get a second code call.
 
P

Pete Player

Hall of Fame
Bigger thing than the shot-clock to me is that ITF-Junior Circuit is to waive the let-rule on serves.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
vbranis

vbranis

Professional
I don't like the shot clock, and I sincerely hope the crowd doesn't start counting down, 4....3....2....1....

It's amazing how quickly the game was played in the 70s, 80s, and even the 90s. Then players started to carry their towel to the back to wipe down between points, instead of using wristbands, shirts, sawdust, etc. Then came Nadal and Djokovic, who really should've been penalized from the get-go (although in fairness, Nadal played relatively quickly during his first few years on tour). So I understand that something had to be done, but I'm still not convinced it's the right way to combat this problem.
 
Bartelby

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Tennis' version of the shot clock is a 'soft' clock. Its mere presence will be what disciplines the players.

In the modern world, a person telling you 'no' has no authority, whereas technology must be obeyed.
 
Last edited:
Bobby Jr

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
zep said:
...Keep in mind that the unofficial timekeepers now start the clock as soon as the ball of the previous rally goes out of play... .. for the crowd to settle down and then start the clock.
Click to expand...

MasturB said:
It is the umpire's discretion when to start the clock. So after a long winded rally and the crowd is going crazy, the umpire does not have to start the clock yet.
Click to expand...
The timer begins automatically immediately as the point outcome is entered into the tablet by the umpire. They don't start the timer manually. That would be silly. It's at the end of the timing window that umpires add their discretion in after long points or for crown noise etc.
 
M

Max G.

Legend
Krish872007 said:
If it's enforced harshly and regularly, it may actually act as a deterrent for getting involved in longer rallies.
We might see people take more chances earlier on in a rally to avoid taking too long and getting exhausted. Bigger serving, bigger hitting, more winners but also more errors.
Click to expand...

I think that's unlikely, because it's symmetric - a longer rally tires your opponent out too. So it's not a deterrent unless it somehow affects the players unevenly.
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
Hopefully it will make tennis more enjoyable. Players are playing long ralleys because they are allowed to rest inbetween.
 
Z

zep

Hall of Fame
Chadillac said:
Hopefully it will make tennis more enjoyable. Players are playing long ralleys because they are allowed to rest inbetween.
Click to expand...

Many people enjoy long rallies too. Many casual viewers actually found Wimbledon boring in the '90s when it was dominated by serve and volley.
 
ADuck

ADuck

Legend
I can't believe people are in support of this because they think it will lead to shorter rallies. That is not the purpose of it being there, and if it is, it should be removed. Players will decide how they play, not us spectators who are sitting on an armchair.
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
zep said:
Many people enjoy long rallies too. Many casual viewers actually found Wimbledon boring in the '90s when it was dominated by serve and volley.
Click to expand...

Not every point. Lets see the grueling ones at 30-15 or bp, not the very first
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
ADuck said:
I can't believe people are in support of this because they think it will lead to shorter rallies. That is not the purpose of it being there, and if it is, it should be removed. Players will decide how they play, not us spectators who are sitting on an armchair.
Click to expand...

The time between points is there for a reason, people are cheating because it benefits their game. They will have to take more chances which leads to more skilled tennis. If you play its very easy to see, id personally like 3 mins in between points :)
 
Sudacafan

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
zep said:
With the introduction of the shot clock, the average time taken between points has become meaningless. At present, players who like to take their time between points still stay around the 25 sec average mark. They do go over 25 secs after long points and on important points but to keep the average around 25 they play other points relatively faster. Keep in mind that the unofficial timekeepers now start the clock as soon as the ball of the previous rally goes out of play. With the new rule, there's a good chance that after long rallies, the umpire would wait 5-6 secs for the crowd to settle down and then start the clock. At least that's my current understanding, or is that a wrong assumption? Assuming that to be true, in essence, the players are going to get ~30 secs after long points. But since the average time no longer matters, they might utilize the full 25 secs after short points/service winners too. If that's the case, would the 25 sec shot clock really make things faster? Or, would it just act as an unnecessary distraction?

Discuss
Click to expand...
I am against.
 
marc45

marc45

G.O.A.T.
what about the fans?...are we going to see them going nuts as the player is starting his motion and the clock hits 3,2,1?...players hate when someone yells out now

is it contact with ball btw, or start of motion that needs to be 25?
 
Bartelby

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
If zero actually meant zero problems like that might arise, but it is still up to the umpire if zero means zero.

marc45 said:
what about the fans?...are we going to see them going nuts as the player is starting his motion and the clock hits 3,2,1?...players hate when someone yells out now

is it contact with ball btw, or start of motion that needs to be 25?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Ok, Does Nadal ever go beyond zero on the shot clock without warning?
Replies
1
Views
175
zuluzazu
Z
OrangePower
Shot clock rules
Replies
38
Views
3K
diggler
diggler
Z
Shot clock observation
3 4 5
Replies
221
Views
9K
clayqueen
clayqueen
2nd Serve Ace
  • Poll
Shot Clock or Decider Point?
2
Replies
50
Views
1K
Tennease
Tennease
junior74
Shot clock - the point isn't over until the umpire has spoken?
2
Replies
74
Views
2K
Tennis_Hands
T
Top