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.
Yes, there is.
The bolded was not a challenge, it was a statement.
How do I know this?
Because you offered your own opinion of the situation before hearing his response.
Indeed, Nadal does his time violations with a pattern which is incompatible with any sort of random behaviour.
He does them with a strict purpose at particular times (that is a fact).
What would that purpose be?
He offered his opinion, then I offered mine. In fact, I said it in the form of a question which is gentler than offering an opposing opinion and afforded him the opportunity to clarify. Is this not enough? Was I meant to ask him genuinely why he feels that way before daring to give my point of view?
No, you flat out qualified his opinions.
Your opinion didn't counter his.
In fact, your explanation of Nadal's behaviour is weak and illogical.
You say "on one hand people ask "why would he do it if it didn't help"", then "on the other hand" (he does it, because he gets away with it so easily)"as if the reason why he does it is because he can, when the reason for his behaviour is not because he is allowed to do it.
The consequence from being allowed to do it is that he breaks the rules, but the reason is something else.
If there is a debate then there is no effective solution?
Jeebus, where did you learn logic?
There will always be opinions on all matters, including from some pretty ignorant folk, so, from your logic it follows that as long those whackos have their opposing opinions, no solutions will be found or deemed reasonable.
If you don't know why he thinks what he thinks you ask, no?
That is what I addressed when I asked you, because I noticed that you are interested in qualifying his opinions before asking about the reasoning behind them.
Arrogance based on the conviction that noone will dare to challenge Nadal: that is what your opinion amounts to, Mr. joke.
The bolded is not true.
I often objected against the rule being bent to accommodate the whims of the players, and this includes being allowed extra time between point without that being absolutely necessary.
A 50 shot rally happens once in a blue moon.
If the player thinks that someone should accommodate his 20 shot rallies, he is sorely mistaken, not to speak that the overwhelming majority of points are played at a lot shorter exchanges.
You avoid addressing the points I have made (like for example the time wasting patterns Nadal displays, or whether you think that such patterns are beneficial), and instead are simply going on about how biased I am, how I distorted what you said, and even award yourself "scores".
Hilarious.
Anyone leading a discussion in a good faith, is trying to clarify for himself the motives behind the statements of the opponent.
That is why there is discussion.
Apparently your way of discussing is to qualify without clarify.
Apparently you do that intentionally too.
Congratulations!
It is not only about time wasting.
Nadal receives competitive advantage by doing that, as seen by his time wasting patterns.
And, oh, look, two of the most notorious other time wasters Djokovic and Del Potro have a relative high success against him, despite of their vastly different standing in the world of tennis.
No.
And I wasn't awarding myself scores, I was actually scoring your performance.
Now you are stating an untruth and using an irrelevant subject as an argument tactic.
So now you are 0 for 3.
I have addressed that point many times and we have been around and back discussing it. That has no bearing on this subject, I am arguing with you on the implementation of something meant to solve that issue, and I am not even arguing against it being put into practice, just considering possible issues with it. I am fine with trying the shot clock. But even that is not good enough for you...
You have distorted what I said, as you seem to do with anyone who does not agree completely 100 percent with your position.
A sign of a small mind.
As often happens with your level of understanding, you again display a total lack of as far as is what is being said goes.
I didn't say that that is the main reason for the success of the aforementioned players against Nadal, which is an argument that you put forward when you misconstrued my statement.
I said that there is a connection between those things that I see, which is a different argument.
Wawrinka, who you give as an example of a person who regularly troubles the big players has a combined 6 wins against Federer and Nadal. One less than Del Potro has against Nadal alone.
To make it clear, so that I don’t have to read another sanctimonious BS: I am not saying that this is the only or the main reason for those results.
What I am saying is that the game of tennis from certain point onwards becomes a war of psychological and physical attrition, which is greatly helped by such behaviour.
That is my mistake, it is one more, obviously.
Of course that it is a mistake, as, if I wanted to obscure the discussion I would have used just relative terms, and would have never provided the actual numbers, which I did.
Your reaction to that mistake reeks of desperation.
Something that is confirmed by you yet again rushing to the grand conclusions.
That in fact is totally untrue. Some of us like Nadal a lot - I'm one of them - but his time wasting drives me nuts, equally true of Novak's endless ball bouncing.
I already gave my explanation, and it is the truth.
I think that I might have thought about writing that Wawrinka had only one more win against Federer and Nadal combined than Del Potro had against Nadal alone, but eventually didn't, when I separated both sentences, and the mistake occurred.
You are completely incorrect on that score obviously, as my explanation about giving the correct number of total wins for Wawrinka proves.
I have not forgotten that you haven't addressed my points in the previous posts.
I am a kind of suspicious that you were all over a simple mistake, but never addressed those, but I will give you the benefit of doubt until I see whether you will do it or not.
If you do then you going on a rant was just an unfortunate development, if you don't, we both know why that rant was (to avoid giving answers).
Bold is not true. If you say they both waste about the same amount of time, maybe that is true, but in the past Nadal has been called for more time violations than anyone else.
You are so busy trying to win an argument here that probably no one at this point know what your position is, clearly.1) what would either result prove in regard to their past results?
2) what if the rules are properly enforced, and either of them wins it?
3) what if the rules are not properly enforced, and either of them wins it?
Same thing I just said: At this point I have no idea what your position is, because you have been arguing with Tennis Hands for what seems like pages.
1) what would either result prove in regard to their past results?
2) what if the rules are properly enforced, and either of them wins it?
3) what if the rules are not properly enforced, and either of them wins it?
OK. I'm not quite sure what you guys are going back and forth about. Maybe the topic of cheating? Or whether or not faster players are more hurt by extremely slow play?
I'm not sure if you are accurately expressing his point, but if you are, I would say this: Leaving anything open to an umpire's discretion leads to the same problems we've had. If, on the other hand, this discretion is about restarting the clock or delaying starting it if there is a huge disruption but once the clock is restarted the players have to complete the serve before it reaches the limit, I'm OK with that.
There will always be problems with a new rule. Think how long they have been trying to iron out problems Hawk Eye.
My idea years ago was to extend the time after rallies that go over X number of shots, but that will start a lot of arguments and did so at the time.
I see your point, but what will we do about players like Nadal who are never on time, and how do we explain players like Fed who will be ready after a point that has 100 shots?
I can see huge potential problems with this, but I also see huge potential problems with always starting the clock at the same time. In fact, I'd wager it won't be uniform. I've time from the moment the last ball is out, using that for a model, and Nadal takes as long as 45 seconds - or longer - for some points. But I've never seen Fed over around 20. It's pretty obvious you don't need a clock for Fed. You most definitely need one for Nadal, Djokovic and a few others.
Well, I think first you need to get a clock and use it, then we can see how to work out problems. I see any use of a clock as at least a partial improvement.
I don't see that you two guys are really that far apart. But I think it is unlikely that if and when there is a shot clock, and it is used, that it won't improve matters, and I think if it is visible to the fans, they will ultimately get on the offenders. Furthermore, it will give more power to the umps, who have been pretty much screwed by given rules to enforce but no power to enforce the rules. As it is the rules have been an absolute joke.My position on the shot clock: it doesn't matter whether there is a shot clock, if there is no intention to enforce the rule (which I cannot know).
The only benefit I can see from its introduction is, if it is visible to the public, and the public attention somewhat increases the pressure on the time wasters to conform to the time regulations.
It is still better than nothing, so I say "yes" to the shot clock.
I would have written something about this in a private conversation, but I see that you have those blocked, so I'll keep it short.We are not far apart on paper.
The reasons why some people intentionally steer the discussion about a shot clock towards "all or nothing" approach i. e. whether it gives all answers to all questions are twofold:
1) if problems arise from its use, they will be used by the same people to claim that the new and the previous systems are both imperfect, and thus both "unfair"
2) since there cannot be a perfect solution, once exceptions are made the same people will start haggling over the amount of leeway the players are allowed.
Rest assured, those people will claim that the allowed leeway should include what is "normal" for specific players.
This is where our real positions diverge: what is reasonable to one depends on how one views the game.
As I said, it is reasonable that after a 50 shot rally there is a prolonged period of rest (and by prolonged I mean maybe 10 seconds more, not a minute). However, even Nadal cannot claim such style, so that's rather the exception.
If a player builds his style around 20 shot rallies, when the average is 5 than that is solely his problem.
The thing is, even Nadal doesn't regularly play 20 shots rallies.
His time wasting has a distinctive patterns, and here are the reasons why I think he does it:
Reason #1: Nadal forces his opponent to remain concentrated/highly alert a lot longer than usual.
If a player is waiting to receive he is highly focused, both physically and mentally. The longer the server postpones the longer the receiver has to keep this level of focus.
If that happens regularly throughout a match it literally wears the opponent down.
Same goes for the physical part as Nadal literally makes his opponents expend extra valuable energy while waiting in the receiving position.
IMO, this tactic is despicable, and should a player tries it on a club level, soon he will not find a single partner to play with.
Reason #2: throwing his opponent off: when a player is allowed to vary wildly his serving times, there is no sense of rhythm of the play.
That again delves into the concentration issues.
Sometimes Nadal makes his opponents wait above the time when they are serving! (hence sometimes it is recorded that when playing Nadal, the times of a player otherwise not known to go above the time limit, increase).
That contradicts one of the fundamental guarantees in tennis: that the players are guaranteed a pace within a certain limit.
For a sport, where the rules set how the patterns of play are learnt from a very early age and are ingrained in the player's psyche, that is a huge mental issue!
Reason #3) playing by "his" rules
Again, when you already are playing by someone else's rules you are already mentally in disadvantage
Reason #4) physical rest
Duh
Oh, look Octo-Fanatic is gracing my day with her presence.
He's not the only guy who does this, but he wastes more time than any other player on tour, and that's simply a fact.
I don't care if it is intentional or not. The bottom line is that it takes him about 25 second between points, at the absolute minimum. Since you have checked the time, you know that under 25 seconds is extremely rare. Maybe he finishes in 24 seconds now and then. Then it goes WAY up whenever he starts losing points or things get tight.
[/QUOTE]
ah, now we have confirmation.
good point, but if that really happens, they could reduce it to 20 seconds next year. it's normal to start out with some care.
