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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 688153
  • Start date Start date
The main thing that will change for the top seeds is going to be the dynamic of playing themselves into the tournaments.

They will have to keep their higher lever for much longer...... or actually develop more weapons and more all-round game in order to get out of jail, if they have to play another top player early in the tournament, but their preparation is not where they want it to be for the most important part of the tournament.

:cool:
 
moon shot said:
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.
Click to expand...
This brings up another point. What’s going to happen when we have to deal with dumb—- crowds making noise and disrupting things?
 
The Nadal approved the surprise :


20171122_073129.png
 
"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."

They should name these rules after the players that caused them.. "the rafa rule" and "the tomic/kyrgios rule"
 
The_Order said:
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.
Click to expand...

Two things:
  1. Same conditions for both players. The player that handles the conditions best, wins.
  2. The conditions you describe are normal in many, many sports, where there is no rest. Grueling rallies in tennis are child's play compared to f.inst. the climbing stages in TdF in similar conditions. Those are brutal.
 
I love 16 seeds over 32 but if they do that they have to use protected seedings more often instead of just going off the rankings so that we don't have a Fedal first round in situations like 2017 AO for instance.
 
smalahove said:
Two things:
  1. Same conditions for both players. The player that handles the conditions best, wins.
  2. The conditions you describe are normal in many, many sports, where there is no rest. Grueling rallies in tennis are child's play compared to f.inst. the climbing stages in TdF in similar conditions. Those are brutal.
Click to expand...

Five hours on the bike, constant output of several hundred watts that reach thousand something in extreme circumstances, heat, rain, wind, crushes, no toweling. Easy peasy.
 
I'm probably in a minority of one, but I'd prefer 64 seeds to 32 or 16. Top half play the bottom half. There are always plenty of good early matches despite seeding protection, the draw just doesn't give away which ones they'll be.
 
16 seed draw is going to make for slightly more interesting early rounds and slightly less interesting later rounds on average.

ATP doesn't want any more easy draws for cruiser style top 30 players like Cuevas, Cool-schrieber, Bautista Agut etc etc who don't generate much money for ATP but benefit heavily from being in top 32 seedings...... This will create more changeability in this section of rankings and bring more difference through with other / younger players. This is what ATP wants imo.

As for the shot clock, I don't think people should panic because we still have the chair umpire's discretion.

Only difference is now a player can't feign disbelief if they get a time violation because they can see the clock counting down.

If the umpire sees crowds attempting to yell out and bleed the shot clock the option is available to pause it to prevent crowd abuse / problems.
 
The shot clock will raise the quality of play in my opinion. Shorter breaks means more rhythm for the players who strike the ball with authority. The only people frustrated by this change will be players who use delays between points as a way to break momentum and snap concentration to raise the error count, and the people who support those players.
 
Nadal can say goodbye to Tennis if they are seriously willing to enforce 25 seconds rule. I mean there should be more penulty for repeated violations than just warning.
 
MichaelNadal said:
Bc it's not basketball, it's just an unnecessary distraction. I'm totally cool with the 25 second rule, call it, enforce it, but a shot clock? No.
Click to expand...

Shot clock is there precisely to enforce the rule. Without that there is no rule enforcement - we have seen it for years (that is Nadal cheating his way exploiting not so strict system). It's not surprising to see Nadal/his fans opposing it with some BS excuses. After all this decision if properly implemented could end his career at top level in very short time.
 
D.Nalby12 said:
Shot clock is there precisely to enforce the rule. Without that there is no rule enforcement - we have seen it for years (that is Nadal cheating his way exploiting not so strict system). It's not surprising to see Nadal/his fans opposing it with some BS excuses. After all this decision if properly implemented could end his career at top level in very short time.
Click to expand...

Good GOD, everything is NOT about Nadal. I'm talking about TENNIS. Not Nadal. Basic people draw basic conclusions. Nadal takes too long between serves PERIOD. Me being his fan doesn't mean I'm thrilled with him while waiting on him to serve. I'm not a fan of ANY rule changes to tennis, look up a single idea that's been proposed that I'm for, whether it helps Nadal or not.
 
Kalin said:
Yeah, right... for years Rafa abused the rule and now, when he will be 32 by the time the rule will have been implemented, they finally decide to adopt the shot clock. It's like calling a doctor a week after the patient has died.
Click to expand...

It's too late. The patient (Tennis) almost dead as you said.
 
The_Order said:
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.
Click to expand...
The irony of your comment is that it’s the exact opposite of Nadal’s reasoning as to why this is bad.

The reality is that if you cannot manage to recover in the time given you need to change your playing style. Nadal’s complaints are like a boxer complaining that they don’t get enough time between rounds. It’s beyond ridiculous.
 
MichaelNadal said:
Good GOD, everything is NOT about Nadal. I'm talking about TENNIS. Not Nadal. Basic people draw basic conclusions. Nadal takes too long between serves PERIOD. Me being his fan doesn't mean I'm thrilled with him while waiting on him to serve. I'm not a fan of ANY rule changes to tennis, look up a single idea that's been proposed that I'm for, whether it helps Nadal or not.
Click to expand...

If you oppose the shot clock while backing 25 seconds rule, you must suggest an alternative for strict enforcement of rule.
 
D.Nalby12 said:
If you oppose the shot clock while backing 25 seconds rule, you must suggest an alternative for strict enforcement of rule.
Click to expand...

Yeah, umpires with balls. I just think it's an unnecessary distraction, all these years I've been watching tennis without having to pay attention to a clock ticking down behind my player. It's just too much.

Like I said in another thread, soon tennis will be all best of 3, with no second serve, and a shot clock. That's the day I stop watching.
 
Fedforever said:
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.
Click to expand...

But if you put a shot clock in place then you have to abide by it at all times. Otherwise it just gets too confusing for the casual spectators.
 
smalahove said:
Two things:
  1. Same conditions for both players. The player that handles the conditions best, wins.
  2. The conditions you describe are normal in many, many sports, where there is no rest. Grueling rallies in tennis are child's play compared to f.inst. the climbing stages in TdF in similar conditions. Those are brutal.
Click to expand...

And when you have to do it match after match after match, players will be gassed by the time the finals start and in turn will produce poorer quality tennis.
 
Vrad said:
The irony of your comment is that it’s the exact opposite of Nadal’s reasoning as to why this is bad.

The reality is that if you cannot manage to recover in the time given you need to change your playing style. Nadal’s complaints are like a boxer complaining that they don’t get enough time between rounds. It’s beyond ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Only thing beyond ridiculous is your post.
 
Somebody please tell me what I'm missing here on the seeding changes.

It sucks for 1-16 because they don't get the luxury of playing into form and a protected status as reward for their hard work.

It sucks for would-have-been 17-32 for the same reasons.

It's only good then for the event (tweeting about wildly exciting early upsets and such) and the first week fans then?

I'm quite drunk but am I wrong in seeing this as extremely player unfriendly?
 
moon shot said:
I think that might have been related to moving to a 128 draw around that time.
Click to expand...
Roland Garros has always been a 128 draw tournament in the Open Era except 1972.
Wimbledon - 128 player draw since the start of the open era
US Open - 128 player draw since 1969

Australian Open - 64 player draw from the start of Open Era to 1981. 96 players from 82-87. 128 player draw from 1988 up to the present.

The move from 16 to 32 seeds came about because 64 player draws then have 16 seeds so it was only natural to go 32 seeds in a 128 player draw tournament. It was also to protect the "stars" from getting upset in the earlier rounds.


I feel that this move was made with considerations to the impending departure of Fed, Rafa, Novak and Andy and the old guys at the top including the women too- Serena, Maria, Azarenka. Their retirements will cause a massive void in the tennis world especially in the men's side. Considering that the next generation doesn't look that promising compared to their legendary predecessors- this move to 16 seeds will ensure exciting matches from the get go.

The only downside from 16 seeds is if majority of players ranked 17-24ish lands in a certain quarter then that will make a very lopsided draw.

We'll probably see more unseeded players win a grand slam like unseeded Agassi winning the US Open in 1994 (ranked 20 in the world at that time).
 
NoleFam said:
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.
Click to expand...

merlinpinpin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or, another way of saying it might be 16 seeds is one less round.

mike danny said:
Oh, I see. Thanks.

Would this make winning slams tougher than before?
Click to expand...

Now that surfaces are homogenized, would make it easier for the top guys if we have another ATG roster. One less round may mean someone like Federer in his prime might have won 20-22+ slams. Think of awful GOAT debates future generations will have have because “eras were different”.

Personally I’m not for this. Keep same number of rounds for the slams.
 
Hydrocella said:
Or, another way of saying it might be 16 seeds is one less round.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not, there's still as much tennis to be played, and no buffer to make sure you won't play the guys ranked 17-32 until round 3. Now, you may have real dangerous floaters. It actually won't change much in the end (ie it will probably cause a few more upsets, but not that many), because, you know, the top players are still supposed to come out on top. But with 16 seeds, they should get challenged more often, ie more exciting matches.

Raindogs said:
Somebody please tell me what I'm missing here on the seeding changes.

It sucks for 1-16 because they don't get the luxury of playing into form and a protected status as reward for their hard work.
Click to expand...

That's okay--tennis had been using 16 seeds "only" since the start of the Open Era. I'm sure the top guys will manage if they don't play guys ranked 100-200 each and every round in the first week of a slam. ;)

Raindogs said:
It sucks for would-have-been 17-32 for the same reasons.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. On the positives, it's a great incentive for them to get to the top 15. Also, a player ranked 20 has a better chance of an upset if he plays a top 5 on round 1 than later on in the tournament, so in the long run, it probably evens out for them.

Raindogs said:
It's only good then for the event (tweeting about wildly exciting early upsets and such) and the first week fans then?
Click to expand...

For the event and for the millions of fans watching on TV, ie for everyone who follows the sport. And as professional tennis is entertainment, well, it's obviously a good thing. Also, as said above, it's better for a hot, unseeded player poised to cause an upset.

Raindogs said:
I'm quite drunk but am I wrong in seeing this as extremely player unfriendly?
Click to expand...

Not really, it's just something they need to adapt to. Once in a while, they'll get a tough match from the start, but that's what tennis is about--you're not supposed to get a bye to the quarters each and every time just because you're ranked 1-5. If it brings back some more umpredictability and excitement to the game, then great.

As for the shot clock, I would have preferred umpires enforcing the rules (of course, the ATP would have needed to 'protect' them, because as we saw with Carlos Bernardes, Nadal would have fired them all, otherwise), but this might be interesting, too. Let's see how it goes. For example, with a shot clock, the AO 2012 may actually have been watchable. We don't need to spend hours watching guys towelling off and bouncing the ball with their hand--they're supposed to do that with their racket, playing against the other guy.
 
Excellent changes!
About the shot clock: What most people don't seem to grasp is you need to play within the rules, not change the rules to your preferences. If your style of play is not optimally suited to the rules, adapt! It really is that simple. Noone said playing long rallies (on every surface!) should be the standard. The shot clock will definitely be a step in the right direction as far as seeing more diverse tactics on the court is concerned.
 
It's a very soft shot clock that they are adopting and one completely unlike the basketball version of which many were enamoured.

it's very existence will, however, change bad habits so even if it goes mostly unused and unnoticed, it will have the desired effect.
 
MichaelNadal said:
Bc it's not basketball, it's just an unnecessary distraction. I'm totally cool with the 25 second rule, call it, enforce it, but a shot clock? No.
Click to expand...
fair enough, I'd be cool with that too. Just can't see it working without a clock in practice given the last many years of no calls, no enforcement and removement of umpires who enforced it a wee bit more than his peers
 
There won't be any shot clock for the AO, only the qualifiers as at the USO.

They clarified this an hour ago as reported by Euronews.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

marc45
New Rules..shot clock and seedings
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
TheGhostOfAgassi
TheGhostOfAgassi
marc45
Serve Clock At U.S. Open This Year
2 3
Replies
103
Views
5K
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
edberg volleys
Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic lead complaints over shot clock plan
3 4 5
Replies
220
Views
8K
flanker2000fr
flanker2000fr
marc45
Serve Clock Failing?
2 3
Replies
103
Views
5K
clayqueen
clayqueen
F
Alcaraz about new automatic shot clock rule: “I have never seen something like that in tennis"
2
Replies
97
Views
3K
jm1980
jm1980
Back
Top