A Tennis Shot Clock? Yay or nay?

[steamed]

Based on your posts, everyone reading them can see that your brain has the consistency of scrambled eggs. Assuming you can even read and comprehend this post at this point.

I presume the former statement is referring to yourself in relation to the latter statement.

 

[WestboroChe]

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.

As has already been stated the clock starts after the umpire announces the score. A sympathetic umpire can just wait a few secs before announcing it.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

As has already been stated the clock starts after the umpire announces the score. A sympathetic umpire can just wait a few secs before announcing it.

That is causing all sorts of problems. Look at the arguments already in this thread. Particularly from people claiming it isn't/won't be enforced correctly. Of course when I pointed that out as a potential logistical problem, even when I said I have no issue with the clock on principle, I was accused of using a rhetorical tactic (by pointing out flaws in the system) to argue against having it at all.

You can't win with some people.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I like the fact that tennis is actually trying to shake things up and that they are willing to make a change. Some degree of flexibility is in order given the extremely short attention spans of audiences these days.

As far as I can tell, the popularity of the game as far as actual recreational players has tanked. TV ratings are extremely low from a historical perspective.

To put it simply, tennis has gone from the periphery of the mainstream and has been fully marginalized as a second or even third tier sport.

Even in larger markets like the Bay Area, two major tournaments have folded: SAP in '13 and BOTW in '17.

Tennis officials have to think of ways to grow the market, or at the very least prevent any further erosion in it's popularity which is at an all time low. Few if any casual sports fans know who Fed is. And practically zero know who Murray or Wawrinka are. Heck, even a lot of tennis players don't know who Fed or Nadal are.

The game's popularity is in bad shape, probably at an all time low.

Sure. Although I doubt the clock will make a difference in the sport's popularity. I mean, seriously?

Not sure what that has to do with what I said though.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

If people think this rule is going to negatively affect certain players, I think they are in for a rude surprise.

It will, even if the powers that decide these things didn't wanted it to.

Soon we will see certain fans complain about it, and it wouldn't surprise me, if they are the same that now think that the show will go on as before.

 

[WestboroChe]

While we’re on the subject why not go to automated line calling a la Team Tennis and eliminate the need for challenges?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

As has already been stated the clock starts after the umpire announces the score. A sympathetic umpire can just wait a few secs before announcing it.

This doesn't even matter.

It has been proven without the shadow of a doubt that the time wasting has almost nothing to do with needing a rest, and everything to do with putting the opponent's concentration under constant pressure.

That aspect is now gone, regardless of how much time the umpire allows before starting the shot clock.

 

[WestboroChe]

Sure. Although I doubt the clock will make a difference in the sport's popularity. I mean, seriously?

Not sure what that has to do with what I said though.

It will have some impact. The problem is that these matches take too long. If you watch a five set match you’re talking 4.5 hours minimum. If you take just 10 seconds off each point that will add up. I also think that having less down time will encourage the pros to attack more. If you know you only have 25 seconds to catxh your breath than you might consider trying to end the point before stroke 40. I don’t miss the days of the 3 stroke rally but I also don’t need any Borg/Vilas matches either.

 

[WestboroChe]

This doesn't even matter.

It has been proven without the shadow of a doubt that the time wasting has almost nothing to do with needing a rest, and everything to do with putting the opponent's concentration under constant pressure.

That aspect is now gone, regardless of how much time the umpire allows before starting the shot clock.

I suppose you’re right. Which makes objections to the clock even sillier.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I suppose you’re right. Which makes objections to the clock even sillier.

The objections to or the support of the clock can come from various points of view, and from different people.

Generally there are several distinctive groups of people, that claim different things.

Group 1: the supporters of the shot clock, who think that the shot clock will stop the general time wasting/shorten the matches.

They are also mostly people who think that the time wasting is directly related to need of rest, or that is the main reason why it happens: those people will be disappointed.

Group 2: the supporters of the shot clock who think that the shot clock is a legitimate tool to tackle the problem of stalling on crucial points.

Generally those people think that the time wasting has tactical purpose of ruining the rhythm and focus of the opponents, and think that it is worth a try: those people will not be disappointed.

Group 3: people who don't mind the shot clock, because they think that it will not change anything in regard to what liberties the players will be able to take: those people will be disappointed.

Group 4: against the shot clock, because they think that the shot clock limits in any way the perfect preparation of the players.

Generally those people are extreme fans that don’t want their favourite to be punished for anything he does: those people will be disappointed

Group 5: against shot clock, because they cannot foresee how the new rule will affect their favourites, and don't want to "risk" anything.

Generally those people are the most vocal group, presenting the opinion that the shot clock is useless, because it solves a problem that doesn't exist/nothing will change.

They are also the group that engages in the (faulty) suggestions that all the proponents of the shot clock expect that the rule will shorten the matches.

Those people will be disappointed.

 

[WestboroChe]

Has anyone noticed that tennis has completely tanked in popularity during the same period that Venus and Serena entered the scene? If so, I doubt the shot clock adds to the game's popularity. The Williams family has to exit first.

I hope you’re joking but I doubt it. Serena and Venus have been perhaps the only bright spot in American tennis since Sampras et al retired.

To give you another non sequester. Has anyone noticed that since Babolat became a major brand that tennis has tanked popularity? Only when they go out of business will tennis be popular again.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

It will, even if the powers that decide these things didn't wanted it to.

Soon we will see certain fans complain about it, and it wouldn't surprise me, if they are the same that now think that the show will go on as before.

I'm not a Nadal fan if you havent noticed.

But you were too busy being a partisan hack to notice.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I'm not a Nadal fan if you havent noticed.

But you were too busy being a partisan hack to notice.

I don't understand what who you are a fan of has to do with my post.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The new rule will provide unexpected relief for the taller players, who, due to their physique, might indeed need more time to recover between points.

Now they don't have to break the rules, as the additional time will be automatically available to them.

 

[Bartelby]

No one indeed expected the shot clock to be so bound up with the fate of the Williams.

I hope you’re joking but I doubt it. Serena and Venus have been perhaps the only bright spot in American tennis since Sampras et al retired.

To give you another non sequester. Has anyone noticed that since Babolat became a major brand that tennis has tanked popularity? Only when they go out of business will tennis be popular again.

 

[Bartelby]

You don't explain, inter alia, why Group 3 will be disappointed. In general, the shot clock is going to be hard to assess because there is no before and after involving the same rule set.

The objections to or the support of the clock can come from various points of view, and from different people.

Generally there are several distinctive groups of people, that claim different things.

Group 1: the supporters of the shot clock, who think that the shot clock will stop the general time wasting/shorten the matches.

They are also mostly people who think that the time wasting is directly related to need of rest, or that is the main reason why it happens: those people will be disappointed.

Group 2: the supporters of the shot clock who think that the shot clock is a legitimate tool to tackle the problem of stalling on crucial points.

Generally those people think that the time wasting has tactical purpose of ruining the rhythm and focus of the opponents, and think that it is worth a try: those people will not be disappointed.

Group 3: people who don't mind the shot clock, because they think that it will not change anything in regard to what liberties the players will be able to take: those people will be disappointed.

Group 4: against the shot clock, because they think that the shot clock limits in any way the perfect preparation of the players.

Generally those people are extreme fans that don’t want their favourite to be punished for anything he does: those people will be disappointed

Group 5: against shot clock, because they cannot foresee how the new rule will affect their favourites, and don't want to "risk" anything.

Generally those people are the most vocal group, presenting the opinion that the shot clock is useless, because it solves a problem that doesn't exist/nothing will change.

They are also the group that engages in the (faulty) suggestions that all the proponents of the shot clock expect that the rule will shorten the matches.

Those people will be disappointed.

 

[Bartelby]

The shot clock probably legalises the current situation, rather than adding more time for recovery.

The new rule will provide unexpected relief for the taller players, who, due to their physique, might indeed need more time to recover between points.

Now they don't have to break the rules, as the additional time will be automatically available to them.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You don't explain, inter alia, why Group 3 will be disappointed. In general, the shot clock is going to be hard to assess because there is no before and after involving the same rule set.

The Group 3 will be disappointed as soon as they understand that the shot clock will still affect their favourites negatively.

It will be possible to assess its effects in two areas: the general length of the matches (which I expect to remain the same or get slightly bigger), and upholding the time limit after the 25 seconds have expired.

So, the shot clock will not achieve the shortening of the matches, but will reduce, IMO, the effects of delaying the serve, or completely remove them.

It needn't be a precise comparison to draw conclusions.

It is also clear that estimating whether the shot clock has been successfully deployed will depend on what one thinks its purpose is.

Ironically, the manoeuvre that the tennis authorities used might simultaneously backfire, as prolonged matches might create problems with tournament and broadcasting scheduling, and deal with what is the biggest problem with the time wasting.

 

[Bartelby]

I don't think the shot clock will shorten matches. It's probably just designed to take the pressure off umpires from players as penalties are now transparent and automatic.

The fact is that a player still has ten or so seconds to play around with if they want to shorten or delay the serve, but most just follow their strict time ritual in any event.

I can't see why you consider this a factor at all.

The Group 3 will be disappointed as soon as they understand that the shot clock will still affect their favourites negatively.

It will be possible to assess its effects in two areas: the general length of the matches (which I expect to remain the same or get slightly bigger), and upholding the time limit after the 25 seconds have expired.

So, the shot clock will not achieve the shortening of the matches, but will reduce, IMO, the effects of delaying the serve, or completely remove them.

It needn't be a precise comparison to draw conclusions.

It is also clear that estimating whether the shot clock has been successfully deployed will depend on what one thinks its purpose is.

Ironically, the manoeuvre that the tennis authorities used might simultaneously backfire, as prolonged matches might create problems with tournament and broadcasting scheduling, and deal with what is the biggest problem with the time wasting.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I don't think the shot clock will shorten matches. It's probably just designed to take the pressure off umpires from players as penalties are now transparent and automatic.

The fact is that a player still has ten or so seconds to play around with if they want to shorten or delay the serve, but most just follow their strict time ritual in any event.

I can't see why you consider this a factor at all.

By "delaying the serve" I meant "delaying the delivery of the serve"/"delaying the moment when the player strikes the ball".

I didn't mean "delaying the pre-serve routine" which they can initiate at any moment between the end of the previous point and the expiration of the allotted 25 seconds.

 

[Bartelby]

Delaying the routine means spinning the serve out beyond the legal time limit, and not delaying its commencent, in this context.

And this is precisely how everyone understands it so I still don't understand the point of your comment.

There was no killer psychological incentive to play with the timing of the delivery of the ball although some do try this.

If that is now gone with the new rules then nothing is lost.

By "delaying the serve" I meant "delaying the delivery of the serve"/"delaying the moment when the player strikes the ball".

I didn't mean "delaying the pre-serve routine" which they can initiate at any moment between the end of the previous point and the expiration of the allotted 25 seconds.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Delaying the routine means spinning the serve out beyond the legal time limit, and not delaying its commencent, in this context.

And this is precisely how everyone understands it so I still don't understand the point of your comment.

There was no killer psychological incentive to play with the timing of the delivery of the ball although some do try this.

If that is now gone with the new rules then nothing is lost.

I also am not sure that I understand your comment.

By "serve routine" I think it is generally accepted that people understand "pre-serve routine", not the serve itself, or at worst for both the pre-serve routine and the serve as a whole.

When you say "commencement" do you mean the "commencement of the pre-serve routine", ot the "commencement of the service motion"?

My comment (and the additional clarification) was a response to this:

"has ten or so seconds to play around with, if they want to shorten or delay the serve"

The bolded word led me to believe that you are talking about the pre- serve routine, because it wouldn't make much sense to say something like this for a period after the player has already exceeded the time limit.

Of course, if you think that there is no psychological effect from delaying the serve delivery, then we are on a completely different page as to why this tactic is deployed.

Not only I think that it has such effect, but I also think that it is the main reason why it is used, especially on critical points.

 

[WestboroChe]

The shot clock needn’t shorten matches to be successful. It just has to eliminate delays and gamesmanship. However I think it will shorten them a little. Baseball has been using a pitch clock in the minor leagues and all reports are that it makes the game flow better. It also seems to have reduced total game time by a few minutes.

Baseball also has a problem with gamesmanship as if you think about it pitching and batting is very similar to serving and returning. The pitch/serve clock minimizes the players ability to do this and ensures that certain players (Nadal?) don’t get the star treatment. Will it hurt him once this change is made? If you think that than you must have a pretty poor opinion of his competitiveness.

I for one think it will hurt no one and benefit the fans. It will just take the stall out of the game.

 

[Bartelby]

You invent complications where none exist, which is a sure and certain sign you have nothing to say.

I'll leave you to ponder the psychology of a few undefined seconds, which are now of mostly historical interest.

I also am not sure that I understand your comment.

By "serve routine" I think it is generally accepted that people understand "pre-serve routine", not the serve itself, or at worst for both the pre-serve routine and the serve.

When you say "commencement" do you mean the "commencement of the pre-serve routine", ot the "commencement of the service motion"?

My comment (and the additional clarification) was a response to this:

"has ten or so seconds to play around with, if they want to shorten or delay the serve"

The bolded word led me to believe that you are talking about the pre- serve routine, because it wouldn't make much sense to say something like this for a period after the player has already exceeded the time limit.

Of course, if you think that there is no psychological effect from delaying the serve delivery, then we are on a completely different page as to why this tactic is deployed.

Not only I think that it has such effect, but I also think that it is the main reason why it is used, especially on critical points.

 

[Bartelby]

I suppose the argument is that the shot clock could have been better implemented.

Given the time frame it measures, they could have given them only 20 seconds as was the historical limit.

The shot clock needn’t shorten matches to be successful. It just has to eliminate delays and gamesmanship. However I think it will shorten them a little. Baseball has been using a pitch clock in the minor leagues and all reports are that it makes the game flow better. It also seems to have reduced total game time by a few minutes.

Baseball also has a problem with gamesmanship as if you think about it pitching and batting is very similar to serving and returning. The pitch/serve clock minimizes the players ability to do this and ensures that certain players (Nadal?) don’t get the star treatment. Will it hurt him once this change is made? If you think that than you must have a pretty poor opinion of his competitiveness.

I for one think it will hurt no one and benefit the fans. It will just take the stall out of the game.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You invent complications where none exist, which is a sure and certain sign you have nothing to say.

I'll leave you to ponder the psychology of a few undefined seconds, which are now of mostly historical interest.

I stated my opinion on the matter, so indeed, there is only so much someone can "elaborate" before he starts to repeat himself.

My efforts were aimed at clarifying what you mean, but that is not that important either, seeing that you don't see the point of clarifying further.

Those few seconds were the reasons for the changes, and since we are in a thread about them, they will remain the focus of my attention at least.

 

[Bartelby]

Those few seconds were not the reason for the decision. The psychological thesis is yours alone.

The shot clock seems designed to make the penalty a clear and transparent function of the clock ticking down.

It may hasten play slightly but it does mainly take the pressure off the umpire.

I stated my opinion on the matter, so indeed, there is only so much someone can "elaborate" before he starts to repeat himself.

My efforts were aimed at clarifying what you mean, but that is not that important either, seeing that you don't see the point of clarifying further.

Those few seconds were the reasons for the changes, and since we are in a thread about them, they will remain the focus of my attention at least.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Clock already having a negative impact on Rafa as geniuses predicted. Lost 5 whole games, without it probably would have only lost 3 or 4 max

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Clock already having a negative impact on Rafa as geniuses predicted. Lost 5 whole games, without it probably would have only lost 3 or 4 max

So, which of the aforementioned groups you belong to?

Pick one.

 

[Bartelby]

No one was seriously doubting Nadal's mental capacity to adapt. Your views are those of one seized by the idea that officialdom is out to get Nadal.

Clock already having a negative impact on Rafa as geniuses predicted. Lost 5 whole games, without it probably would have only lost 3 or 4 max

 

[Deleted member 716271]

No one was seriously doubting Nadal's mental capacity to adapt. Your views are those of one seized by the idea that officialdom is out to get Nadal.

No actually they were in various threads and called me stupid for doubting it would negatively affect him. "Why would he do it if it didnt help him?" Was the refrain. One user said he would have far less accomplishments if this clock had been there all along.

Maybe you should be more precise before you go running your mouth and know what the bleep you're talking about.

I dont think the officials are out to get anyone.

I'm not a conspiratorial drug addict unlike many online posters.

 

[Bartelby]

It is a change Nadal does not prefer and is not in line with his past conduct. What that means for his future conduct under changed rules is where you are completely confused.

He changed, that's all, as any sensible person would have predicted.

No actually they were in various threads and called me stupid for doubting it would negatively affect him. "Why would he do it if it didnt help him?" Was the refrain. One user said he would have far less accomplishments if this clock had been there all along.

Maybe you should be more precise before you go running your mouth and know what the bleep you're talking about.

I dont think the officials are out to get anyone.

I'm not a conspiratorial drug addict unlike many online posters.

 

[AlexanderTheGreat08]

The shot clock is not needed, It should be off, At least when Nadal plays

 

[Deleted member 716271]

You are confused. It is a change Nadal does not prefer and is not in line with his past conduct. What that means for his future conduct under changed rules is where you are completely confused.

He changed, that's all, as any sensible person would have predicted.

And it hasnt yet affected his performance which is what people, I was (somewhat tongue in cheek since it was only 1 match vs Paire) getting at, claimed would happen.

 

[Bartelby]

You have an odd way of putting your tongue in your cheek!

And it hasnt yet affected his performance which is what people, I was (somewhat tongue in cheek since it was only 1 match vs Paire) getting at, claimed would happen.

 

[vandre]

has anyone other than cilic received a warning for having the "shot clock" expire?

 

[Deleted member 716271]

You have an odd way of putting your tongue in your cheek!

Glad you conceded you were wrong since you seem to no longer be addressing the original source of argument.

 

[Bartelby]

You have a way of engaging disengaging your tongue from your brain.

Glad you conceded you were wrong since you seem to no longer be addressing the original source of argument.

 

[Bartelby]

This is you conceding you were either wrong or not serious or whatever ... who cares, after all?

And it hasnt yet affected his performance which is what people, I was (somewhat tongue in cheek since it was only 1 match vs Paire) getting at, claimed would happen.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

This is you conceding you were either wrong or not serious or whatever ... who cares, after all?

No your issue was with the concept that people said it would affect his performance, which they DID many times in many insulting ways.

You contended they never did and that obviously Nadal would "mentally" adjust.

You were wrong. Plain and clear. It's a demonstrable fact and beyond the point of debate.

You said nothing about the fact that it was only 1 match so we can't tell yet (after all you AGREED that he would adjust). Only now are you trying to make the argument about that since I demonstrated you were wrong in your initial reply to me. I guess I gave you "ammo" by being fair and reasonable and admitting I was joking a bit, but again your initial reply had nothing to do with that and you AGREE he will adjust. Very dishonest by you.

Just admit you were wrong here and stop trying to shift the debate.

No one was seriously doubting Nadal's mental capacity to adapt. Your views are those of one seized by the idea that officialdom is out to get Nadal.

 

[Bartelby]

You are seriously disturbed if you think I'm going to reply to your imaginary re-arrangements of reality.

No your issue was with the concept that people said it would affect his performance, which they DID many times in many insulting ways.

You contended they never did and that obviously Nadal would "mentally" adjust.

You were wrong. Plain and clear. It's a demonstrable fact and beyond the point of debate.

You said nothing about the fact that it was only 1 match so we can't tell yet (after all you AGREED that he would adjust). Only now are you trying to make the argument about that since I demonstrated you were wrong in your initial reply to me. I guess I gave you "ammo" by being fair and reasonable and admitting I was joking a bit, but again your initial reply had nothing to do with that and you AGREE he will adjust. Very dishonest by you.

Just admit you were wrong here and stop trying to shift the debate.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

You are seriously disturbed if you think I'm going to reply to your imaginary re-arrangements of reality.

No defense in regards to the facts. Point out 1 thing I said was untrue and state the truth. Just 1...

The prosecution rests, your honor.

 

[Bartelby]

And now your ever fertile imaginary grasp on reality has shifted to a courtroom drama.

No defense in regards to the facts. Point out 1 thing I said was untrue and state the truth. Just 1...

The prosecution rests, your honor.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

And now your ever fertile imaginary grasp on reality has shifted to a courtroom drama.

More diversion from the original point after you were shown to be wrong. Nice. You're keeping good company with th and ffw in intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Bartelby]

You'd first need to acquire an intellect to know what intellectual honesty is, and then there is the equally onerous task of acquiring a sense of the ethical.

More diversion from the original point after you were shown to be wrong. Nice. You're keeping good company with th and ffw in intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

You'd first need to acquire an intellect to know what intellectual honesty is, and then there is the equally onerous task of acquiring a sense of the ethical.

Okay, have a good night.

Thanks for verifiying my position.

Sleep well, dearie

 

[Bartelby]

Wrap yourself in the arms of your Djokodoll and continue your daydream into the night.

Okay, have a good night.

Thanks for verifiying my position.

Sleep well, dearie

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Wrap yourself in the arms of your Djokodoll and continue your daydream into the night.

Ad hominems now. Point still not addressed. Funny how you were addressing all of my points until exactly the post where I showed you clearly wrong with evidence, then you stopped all of a sudden saying "You are seriously disturbed if you think I'm going to reply to your imaginary re-arrangements of reality." But you replied to all the other posts...

Make sure to empty your bladder before bed, honeybunch.

 

[Bartelby]

I told you a long time ago that I wasn't arguing with you so what part of that did you not understand?

Ad hominems now. Point still not addressed. Funny how you were addressing all of my points until exactly the post where I showed you clearly wrong with evidence, then you stopped all of a sudden saying "You are seriously disturbed if you think I'm going to reply to your imaginary re-arrangements of reality." But you replied to all the other posts...

Make sure to empty your bladder before bed, honeybunch.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I told you a long time ago that I wasn't arguing with you so what part of that did you not understand?

Yet you are still talking. For me, it is amusing to see you so throughly vivisected, so you will have to go away if you don't wish to converse