Federer on time violations (With a little dig at Rafa).

[monfed]

Many players take well over the time limit to play points, but it's hard to bring in a shot clock, that feels like forcing the pace of the game just as much as some players slow it down, because sometimes you do need some extra time. I forsee situations where players get in trouble where they stopped because someone in the crowd was moving or a ballboy was not ready or something had blown onto court etc and the umpire is not smart enough to give some leeway.

The thing that frustrates me about Nadal more than the time between points which lots of people do, is the fact that after 10 years as a pro he still can't be ready to do the coin toss or sometimes finish warming up when umpire calls time. I mean I can understand in the middle of the match not being able to keep track of time but when someone calls time, get a move on dude.

Yea, but the main issue still is time wasting between points. Glad you brought up the coin toss thing(no doubt its annoying) but it doesn't influence the outcome of a match like the time wasting b/w points. Just saying..

 

[monfed]

This, I agree with. It's just another way of going easy on the umpires. You're an umpire for a reason: Enforce the rules, punish the violaters or don't get into the profession at all. Umpires these days are mostly scorekeepers and not much else.

Absolutely, doesn't matter how many players do it or who's doing it(although it's common knowledge who's doing it the most).

 

[Towser83]

Yea, but the main issue still is time wasting between points. Glad you brought up the coin toss thing(no doubt its annoying) but it doesn't influence the outcome of a match like the time wasting b/w points. Just saying..

no true, it is a seperate issue, but just saying I don't blame players for taking too long between points, it's the umpires who have to do something, so nadal, djokovic and others don't annoy me when they do this because they are maybe not aware of it in the heat of battle. Not their fault, the umpire should do something.

 

[devila]

you know perfectly well that nadal and a few others know they're towelling off, staring at the ball or adjusting their hair/hat repeatedly so a lot of time is wasted. federer is so old... of course, he couldn't care less when he needed to recover in 5 setters that he lost to unfit opponents.

federer is a spoiled brat who thought his fawning fanatics had no idea how useless he was when he was supposed to be a leader.
there's no bad issue because 25 seconds time taken by a player are nothing compared to foolish rushed serves by idiotic players who can't take time to serve for important sets/match wins.

 

[merlinpinpin]

no true, it is a seperate issue, but just saying I don't blame players for taking too long between points, it's the umpires who have to do something, so nadal, djokovic and others don't annoy me when they do this because they are maybe not aware of it in the heat of battle. Not their fault, the umpire should do something.

Seriously, no. When it's part of an overall strategy, saying "not their fault" is like saying the same when a soccer player takes a dive to get a penalty kick.

The umpire sure *should* enforce the rules, but they know he won't, so they're abusing it and milking it for all it's worth.

 

[celoft]

Federer is right.

 

[aprilfool]

Tuning out

Wrong. They are too intimidated by the players and their teams.

Shot clock, or tennis continues to decline in viewership. Viewers want action, not close ups of players performing certain ritualistic behavior for a half minutes time. Time after time.

 

[The-Champ]

Fed is going easy on Nadal. Rafa has ruined the sport for me, he's simply so frustrating to watch due to all the time wasting.

just Nadal? Djokovic at the AO averaged 31 seconds between points, when he played Murray... Even Murray exceeded the time limit.

 

[batz]

Let us not forget the big one wink::wink

Aphex! Where have you been dude?

 

[Towser83]

Seriously, no. When it's part of an overall strategy, saying "not their fault" is like saying the same when a soccer player takes a dive to get a penalty kick.

The umpire sure *should* enforce the rules, but they know he won't, so they're abusing it and milking it for all it's worth.

point is because they get away with it it probably becomes a natural speed for them thus they might not always be slowing play on purpose. Sometimes they are. Nadal I think did purposely introduce his serving routine to waste some time and conserve energy, judging by the Miami 2005 final and they time he took then and the fact he got outlasted by Federer, and then the Rome final soon after where he was taking longer to serve and winning a 5th set tiebreak. But now it's probably so ingrained in him that it's his natural serving speed.

 

[woodrow1029]

The only way a shot clock would ever work is if it was 100% objective, with no exceptions. And that just would never happen when it comes to enforcing time between the points.

 

[TheTruth]

Everyone that's hollering for a shot clock says it should be used all the time...except for maybe when the crowd is too loud...or maybe when the players have played a particularly long and hard point...or maybe when the ballkids haven't gotten the balls to the players quickly enough...or maybe when a huge gust of wind comes up...or maybe when this happens or that happens. A shot clock isn't going to solve a darn thing because every time the umpire used his/her discretion for whatever reason, certain people would gripe and complain anyway that it was unfair or that the umpire is favoring one player or the umpire is inept or some such nonsensical thing.

As Woodrow has explained many many times, the 20 or 25 seconds isn't a hard and fast rule. It is discretionary, and the umpires are currently using their discretion, but no amount of explanation stops all the criticism. On another board, a poster got in touch with some official at the ATP and after many tries got an answer to his questions and that is that the 'clock' doesn't start at the instant the last point ends, it starts after the umpire has called the score. This poster then sat there with his stop watch and timed a bunch of matches and lo and behold, Nadal and Djokovic and Wawrinka and Isner and Berdych and all the slow players almost always served within their allotted time.

It would help if the tv commentators could be informed about how the rule is applied so they could quit passing on incorrect information to their audiences. They and some of the print media who have bees in their bonnets are causing a lot of problems instead of being objective in their commentary.

I agree. This is so silly. The game is too physical and discretion is always warranted. But, no matter what's done people will complain.

They tried the shot clock on screen before, but took it down when they found out that many players went over time, specifically Maria, Ivanovic, and a whole host of ATP players too numerous to mention.

Sounds like sour grapes to me, and nothing else.

 

[mental midget]

the excessive time between points doesn't bother me particularly as a fan, it's only a few seconds. however i think it's hugely disrespectful to the opponent and to the spirit of the game as a test of skill, not of gamesmanship.

 

[The-Champ]

They should all play at the pace of the server. Don't ever stall agassi when he is serving, for instance.

I have seen both Nadal and Djokovic stalling the server quite a lot because they were resting between points, and this is what bothers me. I don't mind them averaging 30 seconds between points but they should respect the pace of their opponents serving.

 

[devila]

if federer wastes 25 seconds, it's ok because he's the judge, jury & executioner. 16 Slams is sewn onto his gold jacket.

 

[Mustard]

20 seconds between points being rigidly enforced will kill the sport completely. Well done.

 

[TTMR]

20 seconds between points being rigidly enforced will kill the sport completely. Well done.

It would just kill off Nadal and Djokovic (Nadal being the big fish here--Djokovic has his uses when Federer fails to get the job done after all), and therefore would be good for the sport.

 

[Cormorant]

This typically soporific subject has piqued my interest for once, because we're seeing Federer go knives out on Rafa. No, this is hardly back in the day when Cash barging McEnroe at the changeovers was no thing, but in today's media climate any criticism can come loaded with attacking intent. Roger is too seasoned to not know what he's doing here, and I like the fact he's finally accepting the Spaniard's invitation (in January) to have a spat across the minor sports news. I'd like to think this demonstrates Fed's enduring hope that he can still challenge his nemesis; not that this will materialise in any significant reversal in their rivalry...

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

20 seconds between points being rigidly enforced will kill the sport completely. Well done.

Captain Hyperbole FTW!

Seriously though, the perfect solution would be to extend it to 25-30 seconds and have umps more strictly enforce it, with discretion for long rallies or latter stages of matches. I don't see how anyone can say that the amount of time between points as it is now is a good thing. Nadal-Djoker matches put me to sleep because of the long time between points.

 

[Mustard]

If it has to be strictly enforced, 45 seconds is the minimum it should be. I prefer flexibility, though. Every player has their own pace.

 

[Moose Malloy]

They did use a shot clock in the 80s, have posted links showing this multiple times before, but no one seems to notice. It was on the time of match clocks in the corners of the court. Not surprisingly Lendl, Mac & Connors weren't a fan of it.

Weird that so many tennis fans/media etc don't remember this.

It would be a good deterrent, no player would want to look like a fool in front of the world if it clicked down to zero(no need for a buzzer or any kind of penalty, it would be just a good way to make the player a bit more aware of time. You'd be surprised at how long 20 seconds is, its plenty of time to stare at your strings, towel off & bounce a few times. Watched a Mac match at the French where he was able to do all of his routine within 25 seconds every time - it used to 25 seconds back then, that seems like a more reasonable amount of time since no one seems to stick to 20 seconds anyway)

 

[Mustard]

Wilander, in the 1988 US Open final, was in control of the match against Lendl, leading 6-4, 4-1. Wilander was serving at 4-2, I think it was, when the umpire gave Wilander a time violation for taking 30 seconds between points. Wilander didn't win another game in that set and the dynamics of the match changed. Wilander won in an epic 5-setter in the end, but it was a lot harder than what it could have been.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

If it has to be strictly enforced, 45 seconds is the minimum it should be. I prefer flexibility, though. Every player has their own pace.

45 seconds is absurd. That should only be the max after long rallies. There's no reason why a player should take any longer than 30 seconds after a relatively routine point in a match, which is what Nadal and Djoker (along with others, not to single them out) do regularly. Players should be able to adjust, just like in basketball for college the shot clock is 35 secs but in the pros its 24. Players adjust to the difference accordingly. These are world class athletes, not babies. If they can't count to 30, what can they do?

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Wilander, in the 1988 US Open final, was in control of the match against Lendl, leading 6-4, 4-1. Wilander was serving at 4-2, I think it was, when the umpire gave Wilander a time violation for taking 30 seconds between points. Wilander didn't win another game in that set and the dynamics of the match changed. Wilander won in an epic 5-setter in the end, but it was a lot harder than what it could have been.

So Wilander was mentally weak. Got it.

Seriously though, the players will get used to it eventually if you put it in place correctly. Start at the 250 events, then work your way up to 500s and MS til eventually it becomes a hard fast rule at every slam and ATP event.

 

[Mustard]

45 seconds is absurd. That should only be the max after long rallies. There's no reason why a player should take any longer than 30 seconds after a relatively routine point in a match, which is what Nadal and Djoker (along with others, not to single them out) do regularly. Players should be able to adjust, just like in basketball for college the shot clock is 35 secs but in the pros its 24. Players adjust to the difference accordingly. These are world class athletes, not babies. If they can't count to 30, what can they do?

Some players are naturally slower than others. They should be allowed to play at their pace without being forced to hurry up. I prefer these matches to be about the tennis, and not a stupid time rule.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Some players are naturally slower than others. They should be allowed to play at their pace without being forced to hurry up. I prefer these matches to be about the tennis, and not a stupid time rule.

The best player is still going to win. If a 'stupid time rule' is enough to throw your game off completely because you can't wipe the towel 3x, bounce the ball 10+ times, pick your arse, check the wind, throw the ball, etc...then you obviously aren't that great to begin with. I'm not trying to pick on Nadal here since obviously he's your charge, but it's ridiculous that these guys can't go faster than they do right now. The game should be sped up, people don't have the tolerance to sit waiting 45 seconds for 2 guys to finish their beauty routines before playing a point.

 

[FD3S]

Without the time violation rule, the AO final may very well have run right through February. The spectators would have had to take shifts to go home for food and sleep

 

[SLD76]

20 seconds between points being rigidly enforced will kill the sport completely. Well done.

Normally I respect you as a poster as you are fairly reasonable

but if you honestly feel this way, I have no choice but to call you out on your ****ism..

ruining the sport? really?

come on now.

 

[SLD76]

The best player is still going to win. If a 'stupid time rule' is enough to throw your game off completely because you can't wipe the towel 3x, bounce the ball 10+ times, pick your arse, check the wind, throw the ball, etc...then you obviously aren't that great to begin with. I'm not trying to pick on Nadal here since obviously he's your charge, but it's ridiculous that these guys can't go faster than they do right now. The game should be sped up, people don't have the tolerance to sit waiting 45 seconds for 2 guys to finish their beauty routines before playing a point.

/thread.

10closedthreads.

 

[TheTruth]

Some players are naturally slower than others. They should be allowed to play at their pace without being forced to hurry up. I prefer these matches to be about the tennis, and not a stupid time rule.

Agreed. Such a petty amount of time to create such a furor. Gotta laugh at the insanity.

 

[tacou]

I don't think it's really a dig at Rafa, he's holding the umpires accountable. Nadal will play at his own pace, which we are all familiar with, until someone stops him. Why wouldn't he?

 

[BeHappy]

20 seconds is more than enough to be honest.

 

[FlashFlare11]

Many players take well over the time limit to play points, but it's hard to bring in a shot clock, that feels like forcing the pace of the game just as much as some players slow it down, because sometimes you do need some extra time. I forsee situations where players get in trouble where they stopped because someone in the crowd was moving or a ballboy was not ready or something had blown onto court etc and the umpire is not smart enough to give some leeway.

The thing that frustrates me about Nadal more than the time between points which lots of people do, is the fact that after 10 years as a pro he still can't be ready to do the coin toss or sometimes finish warming up when umpire calls time. I mean I can understand in the middle of the match not being able to keep track of time but when someone calls time, get a move on dude.

Pretty interesting that you bring this up, Towser. I remember one of the tennis commentators on ESPN (I think it was John McEnroe) who said that if he were playing against Nadal, he would not get up out of his seat until Nadal does first or would finish warming-up his serves after Nadal, just as a sign to show him that the time wasting isn't just being taken unnoticed.

I'm kind of surprised that none of Nadal's more frequent opponents (especially Soderling) haven't yet done this.

But I agree, it needs to stop.

 

[tenniselbow1]

If it has to be strictly enforced, 45 seconds is the minimum it should be. I prefer flexibility, though. Every player has their own pace.

Lol at proposing more than double what's currently allotted but still preferring flexibility. Do you understand how when one player breaks this rule as opposed to the vast majority, it can affect the play of his opponent in multiple ways? Should one player be allowed to catch his breath more than another? Nadal by the way exceeded 45 seconds, over 15 times in the 08 Wimbledon final (as opposed to once for Roger) and likely far exceeded those numbers this year in Australia. Flexibility is yet another thing Rafa's shamelessly taken advantage of..

 

[purge]

Pretty interesting that you bring this up, Towser. I remember one of the tennis commentators on ESPN (I think it was John McEnroe) who said that if he were playing against Nadal, he would not get up out of his seat until Nadal does first or would finish warming-up his serves after Nadal, just as a sign to show him that the time wasting isn't just being taken unnoticed.

I'm kind of surprised that none of Nadal's more frequent opponents (especially Soderling) haven't yet done this.

But I agree, it needs to stop.

actually i think i once saw federer doing that. dont remember where.. maybe it was in madrid.

i was wondering what was going on since neither of them would get up out of their chairs for several minutes lol. in the end it was still fed who got up first. i guess if he hadnt theyd have been sitting it out until sundown oO

 

[Mustard]

Pretty interesting that you bring this up, Towser. I remember one of the tennis commentators on ESPN (I think it was John McEnroe) who said that if he were playing against Nadal, he would not get up out of his seat until Nadal does first or would finish warming-up his serves after Nadal, just as a sign to show him that the time wasting isn't just being taken unnoticed.

I'm kind of surprised that none of Nadal's more frequent opponents (especially Soderling) haven't yet done this.

They have. Didn't change anything. Nadal has his routines and he sticks to them.

 

[Mick]

asking Rafa and Novak to play faster between points is sort of like asking Maria and Victoria to remain silent while they play

 

[Clarky21]

They have. Didn't change anything. Nadal has his routines and he sticks to them.

Yep. Multiple players have made Nadal wait and it didn't affect his rituals one single bit. I wish he would stop the shorts picking and the silly lining up of his bottles,but he won't. Nadal is a headcase out there,and needs to tic like a clock to function. Nothing is going to change that about him or else he would have stopped this stuff years ago.

 

[Sentinel]

Some players are naturally slower than others. They should be allowed to play at their pace without being forced to hurry up. I prefer these matches to be about the tennis, and not a stupid time rule.

Yup, they should have a special tour for slower players. It's like having slow students in class, holding up everyone's learning. Obviously its frustrating for other players.

Imagine running a marathon, if you had to wait every time others took a break!

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Wilander, in the 1988 US Open final, was in control of the match against Lendl, leading 6-4, 4-1. Wilander was serving at 4-2, I think it was, when the umpire gave Wilander a time violation for taking 30 seconds between points. Wilander didn't win another game in that set and the dynamics of the match changed. Wilander won in an epic 5-setter in the end, but it was a lot harder than what it could have been.

am i the only one who find this good for the game?

you see.. a player abusing rules is taking unfair advantage from it and somehow you try to turn it into something good for the game?

this is my opinion, but for someone who knows so much about tennis, you sure hate the sport a lot!!!

 

[zagor]

Some players are naturally slower than others. They should be allowed to play at their pace without being forced to hurry up. I prefer these matches to be about the tennis, and not a stupid time rule.

Except Nadal often stalls servers and forces them to play at his (Nadal's pace), shouldn't players who are quick (relatively compared to Nadal atleast) be allowed to play at their own pace as well?

As for whether the rule is stupid or not, it depends on a person's opinion. I think 2012 AO final was a great match, but I'd prefer it took 4h instead of 6h because Nadal and Novak take forever to serve (and I'd think the same if Fed was a time waster as well).

The rule is there for a reason, 25 seconds is more than enough.

 

[Virginia]

Pretty interesting that you bring this up, Towser. I remember one of the tennis commentators on ESPN (I think it was John McEnroe) who said that if he were playing against Nadal, he would not get up out of his seat until Nadal does first or would finish warming-up his serves after Nadal, just as a sign to show him that the time wasting isn't just being taken unnoticed.

I'm kind of surprised that none of Nadal's more frequent opponents (especially Soderling) haven't yet done this.

I remember Federer did do it once. He just waited and waited and finally Nadal got up and went to the net. Federer followed and it was pretty obvious that he was making a point. A couple of years ago, I think it was, but I can't remember the occasion.

 

[zagor]

am i the only one who find this good for the game?

you see.. a player abusing rules is taking unfair advantage from it and somehow you try to turn it into something good for the game?

this is my opinion, but for someone who knows so much about tennis, you sure hate the sport a lot!!!

No, he just apparently loves Nadal even more than he loves the sport .

If anything Fed was overly diplomatic here and didn't take a real stand. If Fed can act like a sour puss when he loses he sure as heck can be more direct about this issue though I'm glad atleast someone said something.

 

[zagor]

I remember Federer did do it once. He just waited and waited and finally Nadal got up and went to the net. Federer followed and it was pretty obvious that he was making a point. A couple of years ago, I think it was, but I can't remember the occasion.

2009 Madrid final .

 

[Magnus]

Here's a quick and easy solution: don't watch him. The dude plays a handful of matches in every tourney he's in and you can easily avoid him until the SF/F stage, if he makes it that far.

I would gladly do that, and I usually do when he plays against someone I don't care about, but when he plays semis or finals I usually want to watch the math because it involves some competition and sometimes high quality tennis. The time wasting takes it away in the worst fashion possible. It ruins the pace and flow of the match. The AO 2012 final is a classic example of that, both men played well at some points and bad at others, it was a well balanced match that felt open until the very last point, and yet the time wasting was so bad it made the match too long. I mean, people say its the longest GS final ever, right? But how much tennis did they play? I bet not the longest.

 

[monfed]

No, he just apparently loves Nadal even more than he loves the sport .

If anything Fed was overly diplomatic here and didn't take a real stand. If Fed can act like a sour puss when he loses he sure as heck can be more direct about this issue though I'm glad atleast someone said something.

He's up in arms about Novak's FH winner but is all statesmanlike about a more pressing issue that affects HIS game more than others. Not to mention he's the president of the player's council and has more influence than say a player ranked 120. Beats me.

 

[vernonbc]

They have. Didn't change anything. Nadal has his routines and he sticks to them.

Exactly. Nadal doesn't care if the other guy sits on his chair and waits. Rafa still does his thing and goes to the net after he's finished his routine whether the other guy has waited or not. There are a number of players who have waited Rafa out and it doesn't bother him in the least as he's in his own zone.

 

[Magnus]

Some players are naturally slower than others. They should be allowed to play at their pace without being forced to hurry up. I prefer these matches to be about the tennis, and not a stupid time rule.

That's BS and you know it. You know that you are simply biased and you can't possibly give an honest view on this matter. But, luckily for you, I'm here. Now, go to Youtube, watch Nadal's exo with Fed in 2006, and look how quick Nadal is between points. That's because it was an exo, but it proves Nadal can be fast, he just doesn't want to. He wants to stall his opponents, he wants to make them lose focus in any way he possibly can, Nadal is not a clean player, he never was, he will play the dirtiest game he can to get the big W at the end. Some will see this is a legitimate way, and that's fine, but to deny it is pathetic. To me, Nadal is ruining a sport I grew up watching and playing, he is constantly finding new ways to do that, whether its time wasting, on court coaching, faking injuries, and giving false interviews.

Again, if there are fans who see this as legitimate, its their right and I can respect that. What I do not respect is people who see it and simply deny it or say "maybe he's just slow". Please, give me a break, I'm going to vomit.

 

[Slice&Smash]

2009 Madrid final .

I think it was the WTF 2010 final.

 

[Colin]

Having long-pondered the complexity of this situation and found myself suffering the twitching finger that aches for the fast-forward button on the remote control (only to discover that we're watching this slow-motion affair live), having thought over the pros and cons of shot clocks and point penalties, having read the meritorious commentary in this thread, I've come to only one practical solution: summary execution.

For the good of the sport, the chair umpire must be accorded the right to bear arms and, more importantly, to utilize them when a player has taken longer than 25 seconds on serve. I know it's not pretty, and I'm sincerely hoping no seeds are lost early on. But I think once you have one or two forfeits — accompanied by bloodied corpses dragged from the courts (red dirt never looked so red!) — that the players will take the rules seriously and not violate them henceforth. Do you think Djokovic will bounce that ball more than three times after that?










*Of course, I'm a bleeding-heart liberal so I'm not a huge fan of hearts liberally bleeding. In this case, what we're doing is faking the deaths of a couple of player while putting the fear of semiautomatic pistol into their cohort. (Don't worry, our accomplices be getting extra ranking points for their endeavors, though we'll need to spirit them away to Challengers — which, depending on how you look at it, is a little like death — for a couple of months for this to have an impact.)