A Tennis Shot Clock? Yay or nay?

Sudacafan said:
Please stop with that preposterous idea. This is not the NBA.
Click to expand...
Not merely an idea anymore...

Besides, we've seen slam dunks; we've observed endless dribbling; there's no shortage of sleight of hand.

Passing? Plenty of that. And here's the kicker. There's likely to be even more of it as clock usage expands. One of the things to which I'm most looking forward in the new season!
 
If the clock starts after the applause ends to allow for long points then that is reasonable.

Also if the penalty is loss of first serve then that is more reasonable.

If the quality of play declines because the players are tired, would that make you people happy?

What other sport in the world demands players to sprint for 30 seconds, then expect them to do it 25 seconds later over a course of a few hours?
 
Last edited:
diggler said:
If the clock starts after the applause ends to allow for long points then that is reasonable.

Also if the penalty is loss of first of first serve then that is more reasonable.

If the quality of play declines because the players are tired, would that make you people happy?

What other sport in the world demands players to sprint foe 30 seconds, then expect them to do it 25 seconds later over a course of a few hours?
Click to expand...

Too strenuous?? Watch a couple of Steffi Graf matches ...;)
 
HyperHorse said:
i think all tournaments should have a 30 second limit....
and this proposed rule change doesnt take into account the time needed after 2 players play a very long, physically strenuous point...
i guess that's what the crowd's applause is for....
Click to expand...

I agree that 30 seconds for all tournaments makes more sense. They could apply the 30 second clock in a consistent and objective way without having to mess around and adjust things due to longer points etc. if they need to allow an extra 5-6 seconds after longer points it means that the 25 second clock does not work, and they need to make it 30 seconds.
 
TheNatural said:
I agree that 30 seconds for all tournaments makes more sense. They could apply the 30 second clock in a consistent and objective way without having to mess around and adjust things due to longer points etc. if they need to allow an extra 5-6 seconds after longer points it means that the 25 second clock does not work, and they need to make it 30 seconds.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand what is going on.

Nadal does it not because he needs the time for something he does.

Nadal does it, because his opponents are trained to abide to the rules of tennis and thus are accustomed to specific time spans for peaking concentration and physical preparedness.

Nadal breaks the rules in order to gain advantage by exposing their concentration to a lot more stress than a typical rules abiding player. It is a mental and physical stress.

Indeed, in his younger days he wasn't doing much of the stuff he does now and also, when a time violations against him are called, he is able to keep his pace within the time with no visible deterioration of his game.

His coach is a genius for having figured out the gamesmanship down to a science.

It stands to reason then, that if the time is increased we will see the same problem.

It is also interesting that, because the new generations of players have grown up in the toxic environment created by Dr. Bull and to a lesser extent by others, they are accustomed to much longer preparation phases, so he cannot gain competitive advantage by using the same tactic as against the older players, so..... he tries to pick up his pace in order to dictate against their habits.
 
Last edited:
Tennis_Hands said:
You don't seem to understand what is going on.

Nadal does it not because he needs the time for something he does.

Nadal does it, because his opponents are trained to abide to the rules of tennis and thus are accustomed to specific time spans for peaking concentration and physical preparedness.

Nadal breaks the rules in order to gain advantage by exposing their concentration to a lot more stress than a typical rules abiding player. It is a mental and physical stress.

Indeed, in his younger days he wasn't doing much of the stuff he does now and also, when a time violations against him are called, he is able to keep his pace within the time with no visible deterioration of his game.

His coach is a genius for having figured out the gamesmanship down to a science.

It stands to reason then, that if the time is increased we will see the same problem.

It is also interesting that, because the new generations of players have grown up in the toxic environment created by Dr. Bull and to a lesser extent by others, they are accustomed to much longer preparation phases, so he cannot gain competitive advantage by using the same tactic as against the older players, so..... he tries to pick up his pace in order to dictate against their habits.
Click to expand...
the nadal ?... breaking the rules ??? :eek:

6360266308281696301835954103_1278532078236.jpg
 
Craig Sheppard said:
So after suffering through Nadal's pokey play, as well as quite a few towel jockeys that drag on and on...

What do you think of a tennis shot-clock, so to speak? That is, a clock on court that resets at the end of every point and notifies everyone how many seconds left before a warning and/or penalty. It would abosolutely force the players to play expeditiously! If time runs out before the first serve, then point penalty. Or perhaps a first-serve penalty.

Has this been proposed before? Obviously support would be split for it... those who play quickly probably would support it and those who work the towel constantly probably wouldn't.

Perhaps you could be more leniant, resetting the clock if there was a disturbance, or giving a player say 5 or 10 chances to run over in a match.

Stupid idea, or no?
Click to expand...

Giving players any extra chances to run over the clock would totally defeat the purpose, and would open it up to more problems. Can you imagine a basketball match where teams can go over the shot clock 5-10 times per match? It needs to be implemented in a totally consistent and objective way like the basketball shot clock. The umpire should not have to decide anything with the shot clock. The clock should start immediately after the previous point ends without exception. It won't work if the umpire has to decide when to delay starting the clock if he thinks there has been a longer then ussual point, if he thinks it's too hot, if he thinks both players are fatigued and need more time, if the crowd is making too much noise, or if the ball boys are a bit slow, etc.

I am fine with a 25 second clock as long as it is implemented properly. if it works without detracting from the game, then good, but if it detracts from the spectacle by bringing way too much attention to the clock or by causing more problems than it solves, then they may need to extend the clock to 30 seconds. Right now a lot of players average around the 25 second mark, so we will see how it goes.
 
Tennis_Hands said:
You don't seem to understand what is going on.

Nadal does it not because he needs the time for something he does.

Nadal does it, because his opponents are trained to abide to the rules of tennis and thus are accustomed to specific time spans for peaking concentration and physical preparedness.

Nadal breaks the rules in order to gain advantage by exposing their concentration to a lot more stress than a typical rules abiding player. It is a mental and physical stress.

Indeed, in his younger days he wasn't doing much of the stuff he does now and also, when a time violations against him are called, he is able to keep his pace within the time with no visible deterioration of his game.

His coach is a genius for having figured out the gamesmanship down to a science.

It stands to reason then, that if the time is increased we will see the same problem.

It is also interesting that, because the new generations of players have grown up in the toxic environment created by Dr. Bull and to a lesser extent by others, they are accustomed to much longer preparation phases, so he cannot gain competitive advantage by using the same tactic as against the older players, so..... he tries to pick up his pace in order to dictate against their habits.
Click to expand...

You seem a little obsessed with Rafa. A load of players average around the 25 second mark, and that is what my input is based on.
 
TheNatural said:
You seem a little obsessed with Rafa. A load of players average around the 25 second mark, and that is what my input is based on.
Click to expand...

Just like Bollettieri introduced the gamesmanship tactic of screaming via Seles and later on this became a problem on a much bigger scale, it is Nadal, who is the most prominent and early figure to introduce stalling as a means of putting pressure on his opponents systematically and later on many younger players saw the benefits of doing the same.

The difference between him and Seles is that while Seles was certainly quite prominent player and screamer, she was nowhere as prominent as Nadal is, so her tactic was not as widely copied (the proud owner of the title "the worst most prominent screamer" should be chosen between Azarenka and Sharapova).

Go watch the Miami 2004 encounter between Federer and Nadal and also the AO 2009 encounter and see the huge difference in Nadal's preparation and overall demeanour.

Of course, it is a problem that is the same for everyone and noone should be exempted from the solution.

I don't agree with your solution of the problem, because the problem itself doesn't seem to stem from the reasons you are giving for that solution.

Djokovic doesn't need to bounce the ball thirty times before serving (or at least shouldn't need that), so it is unreasonable to change the rules just because he has found a way to apply pressure by going over the time limit.

Now, where is that wonderful gif/montage?
 
diggler said:
If the clock starts after the applause ends to allow for long points then that is reasonable.

Also if the penalty is loss of first serve then that is more reasonable.

If the quality of play declines because the players are tired, would that make you people happy?

What other sport in the world demands players to sprint for 30 seconds, then expect them to do it 25 seconds later over a course of a few hours?
Click to expand...
in a four hour match...these guys play about 40 to 50 minutes of actual tennis, they rest after each point,every 2 games and then have a picnic after the set.
 
TheNatural said:
Giving players any extra chances to run over the clock would totally defeat the purpose, and would open it up to more problems. Can you imagine a basketball match where teams can go over the shot clock 5-10 times per match? It needs to be implemented in a totally consistent and objective way like the basketball shot clock. The umpire should not have to decide anything with the shot clock. The clock should start immediately after the previous point ends without exception. It won't work if the umpire has to decide when to delay starting the clock if he thinks there has been a longer then ussual point, if he thinks it's too hot, if he thinks both players are fatigued and need more time, if the crowd is making too much noise, or if the ball boys are a bit slow, etc.

I am fine with a 25 second clock as long as it is implemented properly. if it works without detracting from the game, then good, but if it detracts from the spectacle by bringing way too much attention to the clock or by causing more problems than it solves, then they may need to extend the clock to 30 seconds. Right now a lot of players average around the 25 second mark, so we will see how it goes.
Click to expand...
what the hell has a 25 second average got to do with anything........the rule in slams was 20 seconds MAXIMUM...maximum.....do you know what that means?
 
I would do away with time Violation penalties and warnings and just Count it as a fault serve starting with the first violation (which is a lost Point in case of second serve). that way a Player can take longer if he Needs more time but he has to waste a first serve to get that extra rest.

since going to second serve lowers your Chance to win the Point by like 30% or so that is a big Price to pay.
 
Well now. Need has certainly diminished a tad of late (has he any idea what he’s missing?).

Regardless, word on the street is that Roland Garros, himself, shall be the one to lower the Waterford ball. Friends, a new day is upon us.
 
With both Nadal and his opponent going over the time limit, but only Nadal's opponent being warned in the only tournament that Nadal has played so far this year, this thread is more actual than ever.

8-)
 
diggler said:
If the clock starts after the applause ends to allow for long points then that is reasonable.

Also if the penalty is loss of first serve then that is more reasonable.

If the quality of play declines because the players are tired, would that make you people happy?

What other sport in the world demands players to sprint for 30 seconds, then expect them to do it 25 seconds later over a course of a few hours?
Click to expand...
Change your strategy, train for tennis not marathons, lobby for regulating equipment, speeding up surfaces etc.
 
titoelcolombiano said:
Yes I would like to see it, but being that our sport is tennis - let's call it a serve-clock
Click to expand...
I thought it was a good idea at first and still do on many levels but since I read Rafa's words a few days ago somewhere I am having some doubts as whether it's a good idea or not. He said something like this: "Novak and I played a 56 shot rally in the US Open and these are the kind of points the crowds go crazy after. But if there is only 25 seconds to recover we might not be able to put a display such as this and so it is bad for entertainment and only good for business". This made a lot of sense and I began to think that what if not having a shot clock wastes time at least it gives us the entertainment we are here for. But a verdict to whether it's good or bad is not mine to give. I think the Open should have surveyed about this on a large scale and seen how people feel about it before implementing it. That would have been fair.
 
I don't like the idea of the shot clock itself.

But I do think that umpires need to enforce the time rule strictly.

Enforce it enough and people will comply! The players know full well there is a time rule and don't need a stupid "shot clock" to tell them.

Give them one warning. If they continue just dock them points/ fine them/ whatever the procedure is. Let's see how long Nadal lasts if they actually enforce it.
 
Bennis3037 said:
I don't like the idea of the shot clock itself.

But I do think that umpires need to enforce the time rule strictly.

Enforce it enough and people will comply! The players know full well there is a time rule and don't need a stupid "shot clock" to tell them.

Give them one warning. If they continue just dock them points/ fine them/ whatever the procedure is. Let's see how long Nadal lasts if they actually enforce it.
Click to expand...

Nadal bans them from umpiring his matches. Comedy gold in its purest form.

Of course, I agree 100%. But no umpire dare enforce the rule, because the players get angry at them.

e4ozo_s-200x150.gif
 
Novak and Rafa take 35 seconds on average between points and 15 seconds of that time is spent just standing there. Obviously they are recovering at that time but still there's margin to reduce the time considerably. Hence I think the clock should be for 30 seconds rather than 25. It's a win win situation for all.
 
ak24alive said:
I thought it was a good idea at first and still do on many levels but since I read Rafa's words a few days ago somewhere I am having some doubts as whether it's a good idea or not. He said something like this: "Novak and I played a 56 shot rally in the US Open and these are the kind of points the crowds go crazy after. But if there is only 25 seconds to recover we might not be able to put a display such as this and so it is bad for entertainment and only good for business". This made a lot of sense and I began to think that what if not having a shot clock wastes time at least it gives us the entertainment we are here for. But a verdict to whether it's good or bad is not mine to give. I think the Open should have surveyed about this on a large scale and seen how people feel about it before implementing it. That would have been fair.
Click to expand...

But, that is one of the challenges of tennis: to be able to play within the allotted time.

If one needs longer time to recover from a gruelling rally, he needs to pace himself, so that not every rally is gruelling (and Nadal is obviously using a purposely incomplete description of the situation, because the 50 + shot rallies are an exception, not a rule, the umpire will have the discretion to postpone the starting of the clock in extraordinary circumstances and also, if the point was as highly appreciated as he claims, the public remains noisy for longer, thus giving the umpire reason to postpone the starting of the shot clock).

Instead, we see things that seemingly have nothing to do with the players being in need for recovery, and everything to do with putting the opponent under immense pressure, by keeping him alert, thus tiring him physically and mentally, by forcing him to keep his focus for longer without even playing.

In a game of tight margins that can make a player, that has been taught and abides to the rules, ineffective and cause him to lose his own approach, and that is what Nadal and the less prominent offenders have been doing with great success. Nadal, Djokovic etc wouldn't have been so successful, if they didn’t do that, so it is natural for them to defend the status quo, although they seemingly agree (while clenching their teeth).

8-)
 
Tennis_Hands said:
But, that is one of the challenges of tennis: to be able to play within the allotted time.

If one needs longer time to recover from a gruelling rally, he needs to pace himself, so that not every rally is gruelling (and Nadal is obviously using a purposely incomplete description of the situation, because the 50 + shot rallies are an exception, not a rule, the umpire will have the discretion to postpone the starting of the clock in extraordinary circumstances and also, if the point was as highly appreciated as he claims, the public remains noisy for longer, thus giving the umpire reason to postpone the starting of the shot clock).

Instead, we see things that seemingly have nothing to do with the players being in need for recovery, and everything to do with putting the opponent under immense pressure, by keeping him alert, thus tiring him physically and mentally, by forcing him to keep his focus for longer without even playing.

In a game of tight margins that can make a player, that has been taught and abides to the rules, ineffective and cause him to lose his own approach, and that is what Nadal and the less prominent offenders have been doing with great success. Nadal, Djokovic etc wouldn't have been so successful, if they didn’t do that, so it is natural for them to defend the status quo, although they seemingly agree (while clenching their teeth).

:cool:
Click to expand...
Your point is equally correct if not more and considering that I already pointed out a possible solution which will obviously go unnoticed by the US Open :D but you can tell me if you like it or not.
Here it is.
ak24alive said:
Novak and Rafa take 35 seconds on average between points and 15 seconds of that time is spent just standing there. Obviously they are recovering at that time but still there's margin to reduce the time considerably. Hence I think the clock should be for 30 seconds rather than 25. It's a win win situation for all.
Click to expand...
 
ak24alive said:
Novak and Rafa take 35 seconds on average between points and 15 seconds of that time is spent just standing there. Obviously they are recovering at that time but still there's margin to reduce the time considerably. Hence I think the clock should be for 30 seconds rather than 25. It's a win win situation for all.
Click to expand...

I don't think that putting your hair behind your ears, bouncing the ball 30 times and other abominable activities that take place only to slow the start of the point are part of the recovery process.

That becomes evident after they do it even after an ace.

Also, like I said, regardless of how much time they will have, they will still go over it, because the reason for going over it is not recovery. The only players that may benefit from extended time for recovery purposes are very tall players like Karlovic, Isner and Del Potro type of player, who need more recovery time due to their physique.

8-)
 
Tennis_Hands said:
Also, like I said, regardless of how much time they will have, they will still go over it, because the reason for going over it is not recovery.
:cool:
Click to expand...
So basically you are saying that "these" players are doing it as a part of game plan to put the opponent off i.e. breaking their rhythm or something on these lines right?
If so then we have nothing to discuss here because there is no way to prove that they are doing it as a strategy.

Edit: If such is the case then I think the best solution is this like with most of the problems in a democracy.
"I think the Open should have surveyed about this on a large scale and seen how people feel about it before implementing it. That would have been fair."
 
ak24alive said:
So basically you are saying that "these" players are doing it as a part of game plan to put the opponent off i.e. breaking their rhythm or something on these lines right?
If so then we have nothing to discuss here because there is no way to prove that they are doing it as a strategy.

Edit: If such is the case then I think the best solution is this like with most of the problems in a democracy.
"I think the Open should have surveyed about this on a large scale and seen how people feel about it before implementing it. That would have been fair."
Click to expand...

Isn't stalling on important points enough proof for you?

On aces?

When returning?

8-)
 
Tennis_Hands said:
Isn't stalling on important points enough proof for you?

On aces?

When returning?

:cool:
Click to expand...
We can very well say that it is their in habit to do all those things and as you can see it is.
It's not like they are going out of their way to stall a point. They have been doing it for all their lives. It's so natural for them. And it is right to put their bad habits to a stop which maybe is what the Open is doing but it certainly is not enough conclusive evidence to say that they cheat.

And I am a Fed fan to the very core and am not advocating these players because I have some agenda but because I honestly feel that they are not guilty of cheating.
 
ak24alive said:
We can very well say that it is their in habit to do all those things and as you can see it is.
It's not like they are going out of their way to stall a point. They have been doing it for all their lives. It's so natural for them. And it is right to put their bad habits to a stop which maybe is what the Open is doing but it certainly is not enough conclusive evidence to say that they cheat.

And I am a Fed fan to the very core and am not advocating these players because I have some agenda but because I honestly feel that they are not guilty of cheating.
Click to expand...

Someone posted a graph showing when Nadal is going most over the time limit.

Unsurprisingly, it was on 30-40 with a big lead over 30-30 and I think on Deuce, so, I would say that he is going out of his way to stall at certain points more than on others.

8-)
 
Tennis_Hands said:
Someone posted a graph showing when Nadal is going most over the time limit.

Unsurprisingly, it was on 30-40 with a big lead over 30-30 and I think on Deuce, so, I would say that he is going out of his way to stall at certain points more than on others.

:cool:
Click to expand...
This can be true and I am not sure what it reflects on Nadal. Maybe you are right and maybe my judgement is clouded by my belief that a nice guy like Nadal won't commit such actions that can be qualified as cheating. Maybe there's some other reason behind this pattern in the graph like pressure and putting more time to think about strategy on an important point.
So sir I conclude from our conversation that it is better to frame a rule like a shot clock and operate under to it to put a stop to claims of intentional stalling. Still if the clock runs to 30 seconds it would be better.
 
ak24alive said:
This can be true and I am not sure what it reflects on Nadal. Maybe you are right and maybe my judgement is clouded by my belief that a nice guy like Nadal won't commit such actions that can be qualified as cheating. Maybe there's some other reason behind this pattern in the graph like pressure and putting more time to think about strategy on an important point.
So sir I conclude from our conversation that it is better to frame a rule like a shot clock and operate under to it to put a stop to claims of intentional stalling. Still if the clock runs to 30 seconds it would be better.
Click to expand...

There is such a rule. It is not being enforced and there is no substitute for that, but, like I said, a shot clock is better than nothing.

Other than that, I already addressed why I think the extended time is irrelevant to Nadal.

In fact, having said what I said, watch him go over the time limit against the older players and play much faster than the current rule against the new generations.

Also, I don't know Nadal personally, so I cannot comment about how "nice" he is, but he is a ruthless competitor who doesn't see as wrong to abuse the rules to his advantage.

Whether that constitutes "nice" to you is a different matter.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OrangePower
Shot clock rules
Replies
38
Views
3K
diggler
diggler
F
Alcaraz about new automatic shot clock rule: “I have never seen something like that in tennis"
2
Replies
97
Views
3K
jm1980
jm1980
D
AO 2018 to have a shot clock, 16 seeds at slams from 2019
2 3 4
Replies
168
Views
11K
Boom-Boom
Boom-Boom
J
Would ATP consider a Tennis Shot Clock?
Replies
2
Views
764
West Coast Ace
West Coast Ace
rosenstar
How I would change pro tennis
2
Replies
70
Views
5K
rosenstar
rosenstar
Back
Top