A Tennis Shot Clock? Yay or nay?

I don't think clock is the problem. Homogenization and slower balls are bigger problems. That's why top guys even need to rest between points and why points are long and boring.

Nothing with wrong and boring, there is a place for that on clay, but all surfaces shouldn't play the same, that is just wrong.
 
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...
What about a rally like this? The audience applauds loudly for 30 seconds and the umpire doesn’t even call the score until after they settle down. A 30 seconds shot clock wouldn’t address situations like this.

 
c_zimma said:
I think he means after points. Even then, I think that would be a bad idea. Just won more thing to think about. Let them play. If players take an extreme amount of time in between points, then give a warning. But I just assume let them play. Whats the rush?
Click to expand...
Exactly. There’s already a rule - the chairs just aren’t enforcing it, especially against big stars. When Carlos Bernardes dared to, he was reassigned to other matches.
 
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.
Click to expand...
even if they do it to recover themselves, they take control over the time spent (which automatically gives them an advantage), and that should be restricted.

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...
i haven't seen the shot clock in use yet, but from what i've heard it starts ticking when the umpire enters the score into the board.
and my assumption is that the umpires will directly be instructed to wait a bit with that after long rallies.
the merit of the shot clock is that not the player/server can decide on the time anymore,
but (for the reasons Nadal mentions) i doubt that there's an ambition to be overly accurate with it.

ak24alive said:
I think the clock should be for 30 seconds rather than 25. It's a win win situation for all.
Click to expand...
let's see how the 25 will work in practice.
 
van_Loederen said:
even if they do it to recover themselves, they take control over the time spent (which automatically gives them an advantage), and that should be restricted.


i haven't seen the shot clock in use yet, but from what i've heard it starts ticking when the umpire enters the score into the board.
and my assumption is that the umpires will directly be instructed to wait a bit with that after long rallies.
the merit of the shot clock is that not the player/server can decide on the time anymore,
but (for the reasons Nadal mentions) i doubt that there's an ambition to be overly accurate with it.


let's see how the 25 will work in practice.
Click to expand...
This makes sense. Nice post.
 
van_Loederen said:
even if they do it to recover themselves, they take control over the time spent (which automatically gives them an advantage), and that should be restricted.


i haven't seen the shot clock in use yet, but from what i've heard it starts ticking when the umpire enters the score into the board.
and my assumption is that the umpires will directly be instructed to wait a bit with that after long rallies.
the merit of the shot clock is that not the player/server can decide on the time anymore,
but (for the reasons Nadal mentions) i doubt that there's an ambition to be overly accurate with it.


let's see how the 25 will work in practice.
Click to expand...
And using discretion is fine so long as it's transparent and fair for everyone.
 
The umpires just need to enforce the already existing rule. Players are aware of the rule and it’s always the same ones who abuse the time limit. I would give some leeway for a 26 shot all over the court rally on the previous point but no player should make it a habit to go over the time limit
 
'Kay, so these things will finally be in effect at majors beginning next month. Here's what I'm wondering:

If enforced, and effectively regulating the pace of play...

Will you feel that justice has been served (and a sense of satisfaction)?

-or-

Will you mostly feel nostalgia?
 
Clock will be in effect in Toronto.

This is terrific, as the big North American events can brand themselves as "The Honest Tourneys." :)

If others have more confirmed tournaments that will be using it, feel free to mention. I'll maintain a list here.

b7100195783a38e63260c6e4158d263a.jpg
 
It's up to the chair umpire to decide when to start the clock

Don't worry, Rafans. Nadal will be given plenty of leeway
 
Tennis_Hands said:
You mean to say that there is no will to enforce it.

If there is, it will take exactly 3 games in one match, and the whole tour will get in line.

Trust me. It is very easy to do.

:cool:
Click to expand...

It is definitely enforceable, there I agree with you.

But should there be any discretion at all in your opinion?

On one hand allowing for discretion, opens up a can of worms. It is easier and simpler to have a black and white rule and to enforce it without exception.

But then on the other hand, do you enforce it after a 40 stroke rally in the 5th set?

Interested to hear your opinion.
 
125downthemiddle said:
It is definitely enforceable, there I agree with you.

But should there be any discretion at all in your opinion?

On one hand allowing for discretion, opens up a can of worms. It is easier and simpler to have a black and white rule and to enforce it without exception.

But then on the other hand, do you enforce it after a 40 stroke rally in the 5th set?

Interested to hear your opinion.
Click to expand...

There should be a discretion, and it doesn't open anything, if the tennis authorities clearly demonstrate that no games with the rule will be tolerated.

If a player needs to go through a "routine" on top of the time he needs to start the point, he cuts this routine down or completely in order to focus on what he needs to do.

If the point is 50 shots, the umpire can decide to postpone the start of the timer.

If a player intentionally celebrates excessively in order to buy himself more time, it is a penalty.

Very simple, and very easy to understand from everyone involved.

8-)
 
Tennis_Hands said:
There should be a discretion, and it doesn't open anything, if the tennis authorities clearly demonstrate that no games with the rule will be tolerated.

If a player needs to go through a "routine" on top of the time he needs to start the point, he cuts this routine down or completely in order to focus on what he needs to do.

If the point is 50 shots, the umpire can decide to postpone the start of the timer.

If a player intentionally celebrates excessively in order to buy himself more time, it is a penalty.

Very simple, and very easy to understand from everyone involved.

:cool:
Click to expand...
And it is not as if this is being beta tested for the very first time to "see how it goes." They've trialed this for years with great success. There's a generation coming along that's going to render these clocks useless. Maybe they are done away with at that time...

It is a direct result of Nadal and his ilk that the service clock exists at all. A pity that it is being rolled out at last in 2018, and not a decade ago.
 
Tennis_Hands said:
There should be a discretion, and it doesn't open anything, if the tennis authorities clearly demonstrate that no games with the rule will be tolerated.

If a player needs to go through a "routine" on top of the time he needs to start the point, he cuts this routine down or completely in order to focus on what he needs to do.

If the point is 50 shots, the umpire can decide to postpone the start of the timer.

If a player intentionally celebrates excessively in order to buy himself more time, it is a penalty.

Very simple, and very easy to understand from everyone involved.

:cool:
Click to expand...

That is what I meant by discretion. I understand that of course there would be still some time limit, but how long the umpire waits to start the clock will be debated if it was correct or not, unfair or not etc.

Anyways I am fine with this.
 
FedFosterWallace said:
And it is not as if this is being beta tested for the very first time to "see how it goes." They've trialed this for years with great success. There's a generation coming along that's going to render these clocks useless. Maybe they are done away with at that time...

It is a direct result of Nadal and his ilk that the service clock exists at all. A pity that it is being rolled out at last in 2018, and not a decade ago.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think Rafa would have less slams if there had been a clock for the last 10 years?
 
FedFosterWallace said:
That's a serious question...?

He's adapted some. But there was a period of time where he was incapable. He won many, many tight games and matches because of that gamesmanship. His career would've been impacted enormously.
Click to expand...

you don't think he could have adjusted? This seems a bit sour grapes, my friend.
 
FedFosterWallace said:
Sour grapes? Fed's the GOAT. Think that through. :D

Would there have been a bit less animosity? Likely.

At any rate, thinking a poll may be the thing here. ;) You game?
Click to expand...

Also there would be discretionary practice late in many matches after long rallies.

And I do think he could adjust, I don't think it's the major reason for his success in tight moments , the "gamesmanship"

Obviously, I understand the argument that "why would he do it if it didn't help him?"

You could start a poll, but I suspect with a touchy question, how you specifically word it would have significant impact on the results of the poll.
 
125downthemiddle said:
Also there would be discretionary practice late in many matches after long rallies.

And I do think he could adjust, I don't think it's the major reason for his success in tight moments , the "gamesmanship"

Obviously, I understand the argument that "why would he do it if it didn't help him?"

You could start a poll, but I suspect with a touchy question, how you specifically word it would have significant impact on the results of the poll.
Click to expand...
Okay, given that the rules have been in place for many years... and he has consistently violated them throughout the duration...

Do you honestly think that umpires calling him on it would not have impacted matches? :eek:

A visible clock is the last resort... and I think it is sad for tennis on many levels. But he's broken the rules throughout his career. And not by a little!
 
125downthemiddle said:
Also there would be discretionary practice late in many matches after long rallies.
Click to expand...

Why? Did Rockey Marciano get more time between rounds because he got punched more?

There are risks and rewards of playing all styles. Rafa plays a risk free strat because the downside of it currently isnt there.

If the ralley goes 50 shots in the 5th set, should the players be able to go to the locker room for a quick nap?

Rules are not elastic, sorry
 
Chadillac said:
Why? Did Rockey Marciano get more time between rounds because he got punched more?

There are risks and rewards of playing all styles. Rafa plays a risk free strat because the downside of it currently isnt there.

If the ralley goes 50 shots in the 5th set, should the players be able to go to the locker room for a quick nap?
Click to expand...

Well then argue with @Tennis_Hands.

The rallies will suffer from both ends after extreme points late in matches. Since Rafa is the one in your eyes benefitting more from it, I understand why you want it totally "by the book" but you aren't keeping in mind the book currently does allow for discretion.

You are asking for a rule change basically which is fine but make sure you are aware of it, especially when you say "rules are not elastic"
 
125downthemiddle said:
Well then argue with @Tennis_Hands.

The rallies will suffer from both ends after extreme points late in matches. Since Rafa is the one in your eyes benefitting more from it, I understand why you want it totally "by the book" but you aren't keeping in mind the book currently does allow for discretion.

You are asking for a rule change basically which is fine but make sure you are aware of it, especially when you say "rules are not elastic"
Click to expand...
Is he asking for a rule change...? Or is he lamenting the fact that it's not enforced by spineless umpires?

The rules are there... but pro tennis is hard up for attention, so some of the rules become an abstraction.
 
FedFosterWallace said:
Okay, given that the rules have been in place for many years... and he has consistently violated them throughout the duration...

Do you honestly think that umpires calling him on it would not have impacted matches? :eek:

A visible clock is the last resort... and I think it is sad for tennis on many levels. But he's broken the rules throughout his career. And not by a little!
Click to expand...

I dont know, I dont think it is as obvious as you are making out. It is a play style which comes more naturally to him that could be negated somewhat by more rushed play, but I'm not so sure how much of a difference it would make in the result.

Consider: on 1 hand people are saying "why would he do it if it didn't help?"

then on the other hand, they are saying he does it because he get away with it so easily.

Perhaps it is something that is natural but of minimal benefit and he doesn't want to be bothered to change.

I think if we could somehow simulate many past matches with more stringent time warnings, you would be disappointed at the result ;)
 
125downthemiddle said:
Well then argue with @Tennis_Hands.

The rallies will suffer from both ends after extreme points late in matches. Since Rafa is the one in your eyes benefitting more from it, I understand why you want it totally "by the book" but you aren't keeping in mind the book currently does allow for discretion.

You are asking for a rule change basically which is fine but make sure you are aware of it, especially when you say "rules are not elastic"
Click to expand...

Djok is actually worse than Nadal. Tennis just needs to establish a rule on what the start of the service motion is. Both nadal and djok are bouncing the ball and it currently counts as the beginning of their motion, when they are taking an additional 20secs.

The rule should state you have X amount of seconds to hit a serve.
 
Definitely needs to be minimally implimised by umpires. Maybe crowd reaction to it on court would also force players like Rafa to follow the rules as opposed to getting rid of that umpire. I don’t think individual long points or slowed courts that some point out are the problem. More like players who habitually break this rule. I think Rafa taking so freaking long in between points is like taking an extra minute on change overs. Of course that wouldn’t be allowed...
 
The only good thing about this time clock is that it's finally going to shut up a lot of righteous fans who go on about Rafa but say nothing about numerous other guys who take every bit as long to serve or longer. I mean, there were Djokovic fans whining about Rafa in their last match while saying nothing about Novak who bounced and bounced and bounced his ball and took far longer. Or Anderson and Isner who took an hour and fifteen minutes to play a set where few points were more than four shots.
 
125downthemiddle said:
you don't think he could have adjusted? This seems a bit sour grapes, my friend.
Click to expand...

I am curios, when you asked FFW that question, did you do it because you already decided what you wanted to say (the bolded) in his general direction as a Federer fan, or you really were interested why he would think what he thinks?

:cool:
 
Tennis_Hands said:
I am curios, when you asked FFW that question, did you do it because you already decided what you wanted to say (the bolded) in his general direction as a Federer fan, or you really were interested why he would think what he thinks?

:cool:
Click to expand...

There is no bolded.

He had already said his opinion in uncategorical terms. I was challenging it. The rest is fluff from you.
 
vernonbc said:
The only good thing about this time clock is that it's finally going to shut up a lot of righteous fans who go on about Rafa but say nothing about numerous other guys who take every bit as long to serve or longer. I mean, there were Djokovic fans whining about Rafa in their last match while saying nothing about Novak who bounced and bounced and bounced his ball and took far longer. Or Anderson and Isner who took an hour and fifteen minutes to play a set where few points were more than four shots.
Click to expand...

No, darling.

The only good thing would be if actually the rules are strictly enforced with the introduction of the shot clock, but imo, they will not be, so basically it will become a caricature of rule enforcement, which will make the situation even worse.

The rule should be enforced against anyone who breaks it.

It just so happens is that Nadal is one of the worst offenders, but the rule should be equally enforced against Djokovic, Del Potro, Isner, Federer or anyone who breaks it.

8-)
 
FedFosterWallace said:
Then you should have made it. :)

VOTE!!!!
Click to expand...

well-considered, thoughtful people voting on the poll already:

"Ned as it stands does not have a single ATP title without a seriously big asterisk next to it due to cheating

He might not have won any if his cheating was penalized before."



:D
 
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
760
West Coast Ace
West Coast Ace
rosenstar
How I would change pro tennis
2
Replies
70
Views
5K
rosenstar
rosenstar
Back
Top