AO 2018 to have a shot clock, 16 seeds at slams from 2019

[Deleted member 688153]

Yesssssss

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/42070743

"The Australian Open will use a 25-second shot clock and players may be fined for retiring or performing "below professional standards" in the first round of Grand Slams from next season.

The shot clock, trialled at US Open qualifying and the Next Gen ATP Finals, is used in between points to ensure players serve within 25 seconds.

It is one of a number of changes decided by the Grand Slam Board (GSB).

The GSB is also intending to reduce Grand Slam seeds from 32 to 16 in 2019.

Other rule changes:

• Timing of pre-match warm-ups to be strictly enforced, with players subject to a fine up to $20,000 (£15,000).
• Any main draw singles player who is unfit to play and who withdraws on-site after 12:00 noon on Thursday before the start of the main draw will now receive 50% of the first round prize money.
• The replacement lucky loser will receive the remaining 50% plus any additional prize money earned thereafter."

And Nadal complains:

"World number one Rafael Nadal has criticised the introduction of a shot clock and said it would ruin the sport as entertainment.

"If you don't want a great show, of course it's a great improvement," he said in August."

 

[Fedforever]

Shot clock is a great idea. Not sure why Nadal thinks that watching him take thirty seconds between serves is a great show. I wouldn't have thought even his fans found that thrilling.

 

[NoleFam]

Wow 2019 will be a game changer. I'm looking forward to the introduction of the shot clock and surprised it took this long. Going back to 16 seeds will be a recipe for blockbuster matches and potential upsets in the earlier rounds.

 

[The_Order]

Shot clock is a great idea. Not sure why Nadal thinks that watching him take thirty seconds between serves is a great show. I wouldn't have thought even his fans found that thrilling.

For once, don't think about yourself as a spectator. Get off your couch and go out in 35 degree celsius heat and play greulling rally after greulling rally for 3+ hours. Oh and you're only allowed 25 secs between points.

Then you'll realise why Nadal complained.

 

[True Fanerer]

 

[MichaelNadal]

Boooooooo.

 

[Gazelle]

16 seeds this year, and we could have had a Fedal first round at AO this year. If that's your cup of tea, ok...

 

[mightyrick]

I disagree with Nadal. I think this actually benefits grinders because their opponents will not be allowed to recover completely after long points. However, I think this is going to lead to a lot of players receiving serve to "put their hands up" signaling that they aren't ready to receive. Which is complete bullsh*t.

If they put up a shot-clock, then they need to start issuing points against receivers-of-serve if they aren't ready.

Quick-serving should be a completely valid tactic. It used to frustrate me a lot when Roddick would get on a roll and basically just hold three balls in his pocket and serve three to four times in 20 seconds. Only to have his opponent hold their hands up... just to disrupt his rhythm.

I've seen this against Federer several times, too.

 

[TheAssassin]

At first I was like it's going to take a long time for those 16 seeds to return but then I realized there are only 4 more Slams with 32. Can someone make time go slower please?

 

[NoleFam]

16 seeds this year, and we could have had a Fedal first round at AO this year. If that's your cup of tea, ok...

Fedal are #1 and #2 and can't meet until the final. That's not how 16 seeds work and it starts in 2019.

 

[RF-18]

Oh snap. Nadal won't like this and he will make sure to be public about it.

 

[Gazelle]

Fedal are #1 and #2 and can't meet until the final. That's not how 16 seeds work and it starts in 2019.

...I mean that's what could have happened if 16 seeds had been introduced this year.

 

[mike danny]

Can someone explain to me what is the big deal about 16 seeds vs 32 seeds?

 

[Fedforever]

For once, don't think about yourself as a spectator. Get off your couch and go out in 35 degree celsius heat and play greulling rally after greulling rally for 3+ hours. Oh and you're only allowed 25 secs between points.

Then you'll realise why Nadal complained.

Actually a poster did suggest the umpire was given discretion after particularly long rallies which seems sensible and this could apply in hot conditions too. But many players have complained about those amongst them who take an inordinately long time between points so they clearly think it's not always justified.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Can someone explain to me what is the big deal about 16 seeds vs 32 seeds?

Yeah, me too.
Does it really matter for a top 5 player if they play a 16 seed or a 27 seed?

 

[NoleFam]

...I mean that's what could have happened if 16 seeds had been introduced this year.

Oh I see.

 

[NoleFam]

Can someone explain to me what is the big deal about 16 seeds vs 32 seeds?

You can draw more dangerous players with 16 seeds because anyone seeded below 16 you can draw in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd round. Whereas before, you would only draw anyone ranked below 32 in the 1st or 2nd round, and a #17-#32 seed in the 3rd round.

 

[George Turner]

Yeah, me too.
Does it really matter for a top 5 player if they play a 16 seed or a 27 seed?

Murray could play Nadal in round 1 at this AO if it was implemented now..

Other players such as Berdych and Tsonga could also play a top player in round 1.

Very good players are often ranked just outside the top 16, so reducing the seeds to 16 is not good imo.

Also gives less incentive for players ranked 40 odd to get into the top 30.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Can someone explain to me what is the big deal about 16 seeds vs 32 seeds?

The top players can meet a player ranked 17 -32 in the first round, I think.

 

[Bukmeikara]

The top players can meet a player ranked 17 -32 in the first round, I think.

Each player ranked below number 16 could meet anyone in the first round.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Murray could play Nadal in round 1 at this AO if it was implemented now..

Other players such as Berdych and Tsonga could also play a top player in round 1.

Very good players are often ranked just outside the top 16, so reducing the seeds to 16 is not good imo.

Also gives less incentive for players ranked 40 odd to get into the top 30.

All in all it will be bad for the injured older players then. Since they can't do full seasons.

 

[junior74]

However, I think this is going to lead to a lot of players receiving serve to "put their hands up" signaling that they aren't ready to receive. Which is complete bullsh*t.

Quick-serving should be a completely valid tactic. Only to have his opponent hold their hands up... just to disrupt his rhythm.

Couldn't agree more. To put the racquet up to make the server wait is very disrespectful. Horrible behaviour. The receiver must adjust to the servers tempo. That's the rules. It should be possible to give the receiver a warning for disrupting the server's rhythm. Nadal is breaking the rules as a tactic. And is never punished for it

 

[NatF]

Quite excited by the seeding change. R.e the shot clock will have to see how it works in practice, if the umpire has discretion on how to enforce it when players go over it should be ok.

 

[Slicerman]

Can someone explain to me what is the big deal about 16 seeds vs 32 seeds?

Yeah, me too.
Does it really matter for a top 5 player if they play a 16 seed or a 27 seed?

Most likely more upsets and tougher early rounds for the top players.
For example imagine, Nadal vs Isner OR Federer vs Kyrgios at first round AO.

The 16 seed change would be significant, since with the 32 seed rule, top players alway play against low ranking players in the first round. With only 16 seeds the whole dynamic changes.

 

[mike danny]

You can draw more dangerous players with 16 seeds because anyone seeded below 16 you can draw in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd round. Whereas before, you would only draw anyone ranked below 32 in the 1st or 2nd round, and a #17-#32 seed in the 3rd round.

Oh, I see. Thanks.

Would this make winning slams tougher than before?

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Can someone explain to me what is the big deal about 16 seeds vs 32 seeds?

The top 16 seeds can draw 17th-32nd players in the 1st round already. Currently those guys are seeded too so those meetings are only possible from the 3rd round. Basically with the 16 seeds it's more likely to have interesting matches early as well as an upset.

 

[George Turner]

All in all it will be bad for the injured older players then. Since they can't do full seasons.

Would also be bad for the higher ranked player, more chance of an early exit.

Meanwhile you'd get more dumb match ups on round 1 such as Groth vs Young, some weak players could get to round 4 before they face a competent player. You'd get unbalanced draws such as the last US open (some freak circumstances caused that.)

So i'm not keen on this change.

 

[NoleFam]

Oh, I see. Thanks.

Would this make winning slams tougher than before?

It can but depends on the draw. Maybe someone can dig up when this change happened because it seems this whole era has been 32 seeds.

 

[mike danny]

The top 16 seeds can draw 17th-32nd players in the 1st round already. Currently those guys are seeded too so those meetings are only possible from the 3rd round. Basically with the 16 seeds it's more likely to have interesting matches early as well as an upset.

If the top guys draw Baustista Agut in the 1st round, they're safe.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Would also be bad for the higher ranked player, more chance of an early exit.

Meanwhile you'd get more dumb match ups on round 1 such as Groth vs Young, some weak players could get to round 4 before they face a competent player. You'd get unbalanced draws such as the last US open (some freak circumstances caused that.)

So i'm not keen on this change.

But why are they changing it?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Each player ranked below number 16 could meet anyone in the first round.

Yeah, I was describing the worst scenario for a seeded player stemming directly from this change.

 

[RF-18]

Very good IMO. Even better with the seeding system. Now we can have 2 week interesting slams rather than 1 week. Top players SHOULD be challenged more early rather than getting a free ride to the 2nd week.

I approve

 

[Krish872007]

Ah yes, 16 seeds - just how KING PETE liked them

 

[TheAssassin]

It can but depends on the draw. Maybe someone can dig up when this change happened because it seems this whole era has been 32 seeds.

2001 French Open was the last tournament to have 16 seeds.

 

[Gary Duane]

Reminding everyone that the chances of top players getting knocked out early did not really change much when the seedings changed. That happened several years later and may or may not be linked to the change in seedings. We won't know for a few years.

But I personally like the idea of only 16.

Shot clock? The sooner the better...

 

[NoleFam]

2001 French Open was the last tournament to have 16 seeds.

Thanks for that. It didn't seem like it had been that long but I remember the 16 seeds very well in the previous era.

But why are they changing it?

Probably for entertainment value and more competitive matches early on. They are basically just reverting back to the way it used to be.

 

[ChaelAZ]

All that build up to try and slam Nadal? Sad.

Not sure if anyone noticed but Nadal has sped up his service time to around 20 seconds now in preparation already. Won't change anything, but agree that it will drastically change for all players in how they have to construct points, with a goal to end things much quicker and save energy without time to recover.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Now THIS is like putting the cat among the pigeons.

The 16 seed draw concept is interesting, but we need to be careful here also, because we could end up extremely stacked quarters...think of something like Indian Wells this year, where we got a group of death quarter. With 16 seeds, potentially one section of the draw could be extremely brutal, then we will hear about how unfair it is, because your fav player gets the short end of the stick, while the rival gets a much easier ride to the title.

As for the shot clock...I actually want to see this in practice, lets see just how it works. I think a lot of players will not like being rushed, but it can make things very interesting. I think we may see most aggressive tennis than ever, since players will now want to conserve energy and end points more quickly without getting out of breath. More aggressive play is always a welcome, players could be venturing more towards the net also. Looking at the positives here.

As for Nadal complaining...well if Federer can do it in the Melbourne heat, regardless of how tough the point, no reason why Nadal can't either.

 

[AtomicForehand]

I am neutral on the shot clock (umps will still have discretion as to when to start it)...but can anyone explain why it was thought to be a GOOD idea to reduce the seeds to 16?

For instance, Andy Murray is right at #16 as I write this. If he were to slip one more place in the rankings, he could be drawn against Nadal or Federer in his first big match back from injury, and lose big-time ranking points (yes, I realize that this won't be implemented until 2019, but we could have a comparable situation then). And someone already noted that at the 2017 AO, Federer was at #17, and the tourney would have risked a Fedal match in the first round. I see no advantage to a 16-seed system for either spectators OR players, but perhaps I'm missing something...?

In other news, I do like the 1st round LL/prize money rule change.

 

[George Turner]

But why are they changing it?

haven't got any idea why!

At my club tournament in 2016 i wasn't seeded despite having reached the final before and i played the club champion in round 1. I was not very fit at the time and lost 1-6 6-4 7-5, having played the whole 3rd set with cramp. In the next round my opponent played a beginner, winning 6-0 6-0. He then won his next round 6-0 6-4 against a guy i'd beaten 6-0 6-1 earlier in the year.

That sort of situation shouldn't happen in a professional tennis tournament. The good players should meet each other in later rounds. This is a backward step.

 

[YellowFedBetter]

I understand the idea for a shot clock and get it, I really do. But this is a bad idea. I don’t want to get deep in the 5th of a major classic and have a potentially huge point decided to because the players had to get right back at it after a lung busting rally.

Yes players abuse the current rules. The solution lies in umpires using common sense.

 

[YellowFedBetter]

And the 16 seed idea is dumb. Go back to 64 man fields if you want to do that. It doesn’t work with such a big roster.

@BeatlesFan What do you think of the new rules?

 

[Chanwan]

Boooooooo.

Why?

 

[MarcusInKensington]

Still won’t make the majors as good as the mighty IPTL.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I understand the idea for a shot clock and get it, I really do. But this is a bad idea. I don’t want to get deep in the 5th of a major classic and have a potentially huge point decided to because the players had to get right back at it after a lung busting rally.

Yes players abuse the current rules. The solution lies in umpires using common sense.

The umpires will start the clock, so I suppose they will consider the situation you are describing when they decide when to start it.

I don't want to get deep in the 5th in a Major classic and witness one of the players manhandling mentally his opponent by making him wait while serving and sometimes when receiving as I have seen many times a certain player do, so something needs to be done.

I agree that this shot clock could have been avoided, if not for the spineless direction of the umpiring, influenced no doubt by concerns about not making angry some of the cash cows of the tour.

If the tennis authorities think that shifting the source of pressure from the way the umpiring in the tour is conducted to the one exercised by the viewer and the broadcaster then it still is a bit cowardly, but it should be given a try.

 

[YellowFedBetter]

The umpires will start the clock, so I suppose they will consider the situation you are describing when they decide when to start it.

I don't want to get deep in the 5th in a Major classic and witness one of the players manhandling mentally his opponent by making him wait while serving and sometimes when receiving as I have seen many times a certain player do, so something needs to be done.

I agree that this shot clock could have been avoided, if not for the spineless direction of the umpiring, influenced no doubt by concerns about not making angry some of the cash cows of the tour.

If the tennis authorities think that shifting the source of pressure from the way the umpiring in the tour is conducted to the one exercised by the viewer and the broadcaster then it still is a bit cowardly, but it should be given a try.

Yes I agree with most of this point.

 

[Tennease]

Boooooooo.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[merlinpinpin]

can anyone explain why it was thought to be a GOOD idea to reduce the seeds to 16?

It's not good, it's excellent. Because with 16 seeds, depending on the draw, of course, you've now got the possibility of getting interesting matches for the top players during the first rounds. At the moment, they don't get any seed during the first two rounds, a "low seed" slated for R3 (who most of the time gets beaten before getting there), a "medium seed" for R4 (ditto), etc.

With 16 seeds, a top player can potentially play a top 20/top 30 player in R1, and another one in R2, etc. So now, the top 20+ players will actually be possible threats early on, instead of getting beaten by a top 50 on a good day (at the moment, top players generally face no threats until the quarters, so they've got a full first week of training matches, basically).

For example, at RG 1992, an old Lendl, then seeded #5, drew Bruguera (#17) on the first round. Everyone thought Lendl was toast, although he won that day (Bruguera went on to win the tournament in 93 & 94). This was the highlight of the draw that year. With 16 seeds, you don't have to conjecture what the QF and SF matches will be if all the seeds get there (and they generally don't), you get to see interesting tennis from the get-go.

 

[Tennease]

haven't got any idea why!

At my club tournament in 2016 i wasn't seeded despite having reached the final before and i played the club champion in round 1. I was not very fit at the time and lost 1-6 6-4 7-5, having played the whole 3rd set with cramp. In the next round my opponent played a beginner, winning 6-0 6-0. He then won his next round 6-0 6-4 against a guy i'd beaten 6-0 6-1 earlier in the year.

That sort of situation shouldn't happen in a professional tennis tournament. The good players should meet each other in later rounds. This is a backward step.

Top players out early in a grand slam is good. Give chance for poorer and low ranked player to earn a living and stop the rich top player's monopoly of the big money.

 

[moon shot]

I understand the idea for a shot clock and get it, I really do. But this is a bad idea. I don’t want to get deep in the 5th of a major classic and have a potentially huge point decided to because the players had to get right back at it after a lung busting rally.

Yes players abuse the current rules. The solution lies in umpires using common sense.

I don’t know if you watched any recent matches that used a shot clock but in use it had many benefits.

One of the best I think is that the clock is visible. Sometimes a pre-serve ritual seems to take forever but when an official clock is counting you may realize they are fine on time.

The clock starts after the crowd quiets, the score is called. It is triggered at the umpire’s discretion so nobody is going to run out of time after taking a spill or recovering from an intense rally.

The visibility makes it feel less subjective. The umpire isn’t leaning on the player in the final set of a tight match when it seems like the player is playing at the same pace, instead the limit has been visible the whole time.