Finally Some Justice: Nadal engages in gamesmanship

li0scc0 said:
I can see the story now....
Nadal finally comes clean on urination issue.
Rafael Nadal, in his press conference with the media, said the issue that has been bothering him of late. "Yes, before Indian Wells I sit in a reclining chair. I rest, no? Rest needed for body, to prepare. And then I turn funny and feel awful need to, what is the word, go pee-pee? And this urge keep happening. I thought of not playing tournament, but could not let fans down. I fear this will happen so often. I want a special brace or wrap, but how you wrap bladder? Impossible, no?"
Click to expand...
this rusty peak injured golden bull... what a warrior ! :D
 
kanamit said:
It's the same arguments from the *******s everytime something like this happens: (a) if an ump doesn't enforce a clear rule, then there must not be a rule and therefore Rafa did not violate a rule. Or (b) everybody violates these rules, so it is unfair to gang up on Rafa when he does it.

It's always some tortured piece of logic constructed solely for the ad hoc purpose of defending Nadal. In order to see this clearly, just ask yourself, if somebody murders a stranger and tosses the stranger's body in the lake, but is never caught, does that mean that the murder was legal? What if the police department knows about it and chooses not to prosecute because the murderer is a powerful pillar of the community? Does it mean that the murder was legal then?

The logic is obviously laughable.
Click to expand...
What is just as laughable is your example...

Murder is obvously a crime and in itself morally wrong. That's why there is no debate about whether a murderer needs to be punished.

The same isn't logic doesn't work for tennis rules. Taking 30s to serve is not in itself a morally despicable act. It is just wrong because by some rather arbitrary circumstances there just happens to be a rule that says you have to take no more than 20s. This is not necessarily a good rule, just because it exists. This rule was established to benefit tennis and it may or may not do this.
However, it is legit to question such rules whether they still make sense or not.
In case of many sports rules, there is obvously no need ot question them because it all works just fine. But in this case, there is enough evidence to suggest that is is more than time to call it into question. The officials seems to know this themselves, otherwise they wouldn't handle it the way they do.

It was to officials who decided to slow down the court and make tennis more physical in addition to the natural development of the sport due to poly strings etc..
Then it is the job of these officials to check whether their rules are still good under the new circumstances. They make the rules so they have a responsibility towards the players. Yet, they haven't done much to fulfill this responsibility.
Simply saying you guys have to be able to play for hours and obey that rule whether it harms the quality of the game or your health or whatever would be stupid.

I don't say it is good the way it is right now (rule constantly being broken and some random warnings). I think there just needs to be a debate about how it should be. Then we would have a good rule and it would be right to strictly enforce it.

edit: Let me therefore give you an more appropriate example: In the past there have also been laws saying that slavery is alright, women aren't allowed to vote and homosexuality needs to be punished. Now were these rules good, just because a long time ago someone though so? And wasn't many people ignoring them and protesting against them with valid arguments good evidence that is was time to overthink those laws? Or should we rather all be sheep just doing what someone says is right never calling it into question?
 
Last edited:
Netzroller said:
What is just as laughable is your example...

Murder is obvously a crime and in itself morally wrong. That's why there is no debate about whether a murderer needs to be punished.

The same isn't logic doesn't work for tennis rules. Taking 30s to serve is not in itself a morally despicable act. It is just wrong because by some rather arbitrary circumstances
Click to expand...

You seem confused. Nowhere in my post did I talk about whether something was ethical or not. I was discussing whether the lack of enforcement of a rule means that a rule doesn't exist and therefore hasn't been broken. It might be that certain rules are themselves unethical for whatever reasons, but that's not the question we're addressing here.

there just happens to be a rule that says you have to take no more than 20s. This is not necessarily a good rule, just because it exists. This rule was established to benefit tennis and it may or may not do this.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and if somebody takes longer than that time, he or she is violating the rules, regardless of whether there is enforcement of that rule.

However, it is legit to question such rules whether they still make sense or not. In case of many sports rules, there is obvously no need ot question them because it all works just fine. But in this case, there is enough evidence to suggest that is is more than time to call it into question. The officials seems to know this themselves, otherwise they wouldn't handle it the way they do.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that there is a rule that players frequently violate, but you just don't like the rule -- therefore it is okay to violate it?

That's beside the point: the question is whether there is a rule even if it is not enforced in a particular case or set of cases. I am glad that you are now clarifying that YES, there is a rule, and that you like it when some players violate these rules because you think these rules are "dumb" or "wrong."

But let's not pretend it's not a violation of the rules.

I don't say it is good the way it is right now (rule constantly being broken and some random warnings). I think there just needs to be a debate about how it should be. Then we would have a good rule and it would be right to strictly enforce it.
Click to expand...

I think rules should always be openly and carefully debated, but I do not think that rules should be violated or only selectively enforced.
 
Great thread and opening post.

Typical Rafa acolytes deflecting responsibility, forgetting that our sport is based on honor and sportsmanship, not 'getting over'. This isnt Euro football or the NBA. Just like the time Rafa took an MTO (Hamburg?) yrs ago when Roger was stomping him on clay - Roger lost his rhythm and Rafa came back to win the next 6, the set and the match. Afterwards the look on his face showed that he knew he'd screwed up.

And then bringing up the fact that Roger 'walked slow' when returning from his between set bathroom break vs. Davy in the AO SF. Priceless.
 
OddJack said:
After watching the match again, I have to say there was almost no delay. Nadal was back within 90 seconds or about...I dont think it affects anyone or anything.
Click to expand...

Don't say this, it will ruin the whole thread.

In a way I'm glad Fed won because ****s would be spinning this just like RG 2011 situation if somehow Nadal managed to break Fed back at the end of the set(like Fed not consolidating a break against Nadal never happened before).
There are people on this board that still believe Fed lost the first set in RG 2011 final cause Nadal changed some tape on his foot, even though Rafa faced SP against him in the very next game.

The famed Hamburg example with the MTO, yeah,mastermind plan by Nadal there. People once again ignore that Fed blew the lead on his own mental woes against Nadal, not anything having to do with rhythm. I mean Fed lead 5-1 in the first(lost it 7-5) and 4-1 in the second(won it 6-7) set which kinda says it all. Two sets in which he had a good foothold both almost went to tiebreaks.

This is a repeating pattern with Fed against Nadal on clay, Nadal MTO or not, Fed can dominate, brutally even, stretches of the match but Nadal slowly comes back into it and Fed's consistency starts to go. That's why Fed has beaten(even bageled) Rafa in 2 out of 3 on clay but not in RG, even when Fed was at his peakiest peak. Take almost every Fedal encounter on clay and you will see this pattern time and time again, nothing to do with mto's.
 
Last edited:
namelessone said:
Don't say this, it will ruin the whole thread.

In a way I'm glad Fed won because ****s would be spinning this just like RG 2011 situation if somehow Nadal managed to break Fed back at the end of the set(like Fed not consolidating a break against Nadal never happened before).
There are people on this board that still believe Fed lost the first set in RG 2011 final cause Nadal changed some tape on his foot, even though Rafa faced SP against him in the very next game.

The famed Hamburg example with the MTO, yeah,mastermind plan by Nadal there. People once again ignore that Fed blew the lead on his own mental woes against Nadal, not anything having to do with rhythm. I mean Fed lead 5-1 in the first(lost it 7-5) and 4-1 in the second(won it 6-7) set which kinda says it all. Two sets in which he had a good foothold both almost went to tiebreaks.

This is a repeating pattern with Fed against Nadal on clay, Nadal MTO or not, Fed can dominate, brutally even, stretches of the match but Nadal slowly comes back into it and Fed's consistency starts to go. That's why Fed has beaten(even bageled) Rafa in 2 out of 3 on clay but not in RG, even when Fed was at his peakiest peak. Take almost every Fedal encounter on clay and you will see this pattern time and time again, nothing to do with mto's.
Click to expand...

Can you ever not write a thesis to defend nadal?
 
SLD76 said:
Can you ever not write a thesis to defend nadal?
Click to expand...

Didn't realize 3 paragraphs make a thesis.

Even OddJack, who isn't exactly a Nadal fan to say the least, says that this is nothing. It's simple actually, Fed won and now his fans are nitpicking anything Nadal did in this match to create more pointless threads.

Nadal made it from 5-2 to 5-4 before that taking **** break so he killed his own momentum according to the "breaking the rhythm" theory that so many Fed fans choose to follow.
 
Magnus said:
Nadal has ruined the sport. Yes, he can play great tennis alright, but he's a shamful figure and the biggest cheater in the history of tennis. Quite frankly, I don't understand how this guy isn't banned from the sport.
Click to expand...

Mallorcan Mafia, dude. Mallorcan Mafia.
 
Win or lose..it was a questionable bathroom break for nadal, to go along with a career;s worth of questionable mto's, tape changes on feet, game delaying, and making players wait at the net.
 
dudeski said:
Exactly. The length of the delay doesn't matter when you play against Federer who is very prone to total meltdowns when Nadal does his MTOs. It was clearly a mind game. Nadal didn't want to make it a MTO this because that would be too obvious. Nadal is not as dumb as he looks or sounds.
Click to expand...

Wow, this is pretty anti-Fed.

You are saying that Fed is so mentally frail, walks such a tight mental rope against Nadal that almost anything that disturbs his "rhythm" during a match makes him go on a mental walkabout?

And since Nadal is the biggest cheater/faker/possibly the devil, why the hell wouldn't he take a MTO at that point? I learned from TW that he has no respect for Fed, he just fakes it.

I heard in this thread that he had no problem taking away Fed's rhythm in Hamburg 08 final. Come to think of it, why didn't he take a MTO in the first set of the IW SF this year? Oh I know, here comes the standard explanation - "Nadal knew he could nothing against this Fed so he didn't bother this time" :)
 
put it like this...nadal is serving for the match..rain delay.

all of a sudden, at the moment match point, djoker decides he needs to hit the head.

fair play..or questionable?

I GUARANTEE every Nad fan on the board would be calling b.s. on joker choosing
to use the bathroom right then.
 
namelessone said:
Isn't woodrow an actual umpire or am I mistaken?

Is he a ******* in disguise?

I think I'll trust his word on this one.
Click to expand...

again, the question isnt so much, is it legal

its ..thats a curious time for a break, no?

how many players ask for a break, mto, bathroom visit etc on match pt?
 
SLD76 said:
put it like this...nadal is serving for the match..rain delay.

all of a sudden, at the moment match point, djoker decides he needs to hit the head.

fair play..or questionable?

I GUARANTEE every Nad fan on the board would be calling b.s. on joker choosing
to use the bathroom right then.
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen me call BS on anything Djoker did(like that MTO that some Nadal fans accused him of in early 4th set USO final) of the like?
 
SLD76 said:
again, the question isnt so much, is it legal

its ..thats a curious time for a break, no?

how many players ask for a break, mto, bathroom visit etc on match pt?
Click to expand...

I would think so, considering that Nadal was getting into the groove at that point.
 
CMM said:
What? He went to the bathroom during the break between games and came back in time, without delaying the play.
Click to expand...

my bad, I meant to type, serving for the match..you know, when most players choose to go to the bathroom, as someone is about to serve for the match.
 
just like his curious foot-wrapping break as Fed as about to serve for the first set during the FO.

And best believe he would have taken longer had not the Ump warned him not to dawdle.
 
SLD76 said:
my bad, I meant to type, serving for the match..you know, when most players choose to go to the bathroom, as someone is about to serve for the match.
Click to expand...

You could look at it the other way as well. Nadal was coming back into the match from 5-2 to 5-4 and there would have been immediate pressure on Fed to close it out against a better(as opposed to the beginning of the match at least) Nadal. As it stands, Nadal took his **** break right when he was starting to get some footing in the set.
 
SLD76 said:
just like his curious foot-wrapping break as Fed as about to serve for the first set during the FO.

And best believe he would have taken longer had not the Ump warned him not to dawdle.
Click to expand...

If memory serves me right, in the game right after Fed had a SP. Great tactic there. :oops:
 
SLD76 said:
my bad, I meant to type, serving for the match..you know, when most players choose to go to the bathroom, as someone is about to serve for the match.
Click to expand...

He went to the bathroom when Fed was sitting on his chair. What happened after that is irrelevant.
His "curious" foot-wrapping break... There was no break. If Fed can't stand seeing the trainer on court he should have closed his eyes.
 
namelessone said:
Wow, this is pretty anti-Fed.

You are saying that Fed is so mentally frail, walks such a tight mental rope against Nadal that almost anything that disturbs his "rhythm" during a match makes him go on a mental walkabout?

And since Nadal is the biggest cheater/faker/possibly the devil, why the hell wouldn't he take a MTO at that point? I learned from TW that he has no respect for Fed, he just fakes it.

I heard in this thread that he had no problem taking away Fed's rhythm in Hamburg 08 final. Come to think of it, why didn't he take a MTO in the first set of the IW SF this year? Oh I know, here comes the standard explanation - "Nadal knew he could nothing against this Fed so he didn't bother this time" :)
Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly. Inspite of all your sarcasm that's exactly how it is.
 
Ok, I looked it up online cause I didn't remember the "event" all the way(heck, it was nearly one year ago) but Nadal got the tape adjusted before he was serving to stay in the set, at 2-5 for Fed. So Nadal changed the tape before his own service game and was so brilliant at it that he faced a SP which he saved to hold for 3-5. Then Fed was probably distracted by something and got broken by Nadal and you know how the set ended.

Now, if this wasn't a MTO(not officially anyway) and it wasn't even before his opponent's service game, why are people "crediting" Nadal with it?
 
OK, I bothered to look up the rules:

Toilet Visit
Case: In a best of three (3) set match, a player has used his one toilet
visit. The player informs the chair umpire that at the next changeover
he would like to take another toilet visit prior to his serving.
Decision: The chair umpire may allow a player to leave the court
but must inform the player that any delay beyond the 90 seconds
will be penalized in accordance with the Point Penalty Schedule.

So it appears the ump can let a player leave for the restroom during the 90-second changeover. Sounds like it's best to do it before your own serve, but as long as you're back in time I don't see the big deal.

If Nadal took more than the 90 seconds he should have gotten a time violation, but as far as everyone's said he was back in time.

I have no idea why his being in the bathroom would/should have distracted/upset Fed.

Nonissue as far as I'm concerned and I'm a Fed fan as most of you know.
 
The fact remains that Nadal knows that Fed is mentally weak and he takes advantage of it. It's that simple. Obviously he can`t take an MTO every single time they play because that would be too obvious. Also, indoors Nadal knows that Fed is too good so stupid tricks won`t work. On other surfaces Nadal knows that Fed is always one distraction away (fireworks, MTO, washroom break etc) from turning into Murray.
 
Emet74 said:
OK, I bothered to look up the rules:

Toilet Visit
Case: In a best of three (3) set match, a player has used his one toilet
visit. The player informs the chair umpire that at the next changeover
he would like to take another toilet visit prior to his serving.
Decision: The chair umpire may allow a player to leave the court
but must inform the player that any delay beyond the 90 seconds
will be penalized in accordance with the Point Penalty Schedule.

So it appears the ump can let a player leave for the restroom during the 90-second changeover. Sounds like it's best to do it before your own serve, but as long as you're back in time I don't see the big deal.

If Nadal took more than the 90 seconds he should have gotten a time violation, but as far as everyone's said he was back in time.

I have no idea why his being in the bathroom would/should have distracted/upset Fed.

Nonissue as far as I'm concerned and I'm a Fed fan as most of you know.
Click to expand...

I already had said what the rule was. The rule you quoted is not relevant for this situation though. The rule you quoted is for an "additional toilet break" after the player has already used the one bathroom break he is entitled to.

But you are right. It is a nonissue, because the toilet break was not against the rules.
 
woodrow1029 said:
I already had said what the rule was. The rule you quoted is not relevant for this situation though. The rule you quoted is for an "additional toilet break" after the player has already used the one bathroom break he is entitled to.

But you are right. It is a nonissue, because the toilet break was not against the rules.
Click to expand...


Well I thought it was the closest to the situation as it at least referred to the possibility of taking the break at some time other than set break and explained what the limitation is - must be w/in 90 seconds.
 
Emet74 said:
Well I thought it was the closest to the situation as it at least referred to the possibility of taking the break at some time other than set break and explained what the limitation is - must be w/in 90 seconds.
Click to expand...

But an authorized toilet break does not need to be completed in 90 seconds. It is a "reasonable time" break. The 90 second limitation on toilet visits only applies to additional toilet breaks after their one has been used.

As I said earlier, it is definitely preferred that an authorized toilet break be used at a setbreak or before their own serve. But, if it is an emergency, they can use it at any time. And they have reasonable time to go.
 
woodrow1029 said:
But an authorized toilet break does not need to be completed in 90 seconds. It is a "reasonable time" break. The 90 second limitation on toilet visits only applies to additional toilet breaks after their one has been used.

As I said earlier, it is definitely preferred that an authorized toilet break be used at a setbreak or before their own serve. But, if it is an emergency, they can use it at any time. And they have reasonable time to go.
Click to expand...

I don't see support in the rules for that. The rules say the authorize break "should" be at the set break and I don't see where emergencies are discussed.

Ana Ivanovic was penalized when she took an emergency bathroom break before her opponant's serve: http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=5685361

Are the WTA rules different?
 
sbengte said:
So you think Fed wasn't joking ? Especially when the break was legal, non disruptive between the sets as allowed and he was back on time ?You can only joke about something that was not meant to be gamesmanship in the first place. Exactly why Nadal doesn't "joke" about his MTOs in post match interviews. Let me know when Nadal makes a joke in his presser saying "He was playing very well, so I took an MTO to throw him off his rhythm".
Click to expand...

Same case with Nadal. What I'm questioning is why the big difference? How can some posters say one person is cheating, and the other person was joking?

I don't know if Fed was joking or not. How on earth would I be privy to that? I'm just addressing the double standards used in this post.

And, judging by your post to me, you are getting offended over nothing.
 
Netzroller said:
What is just as laughable is your example...

Murder is obvously a crime and in itself morally wrong. That's why there is no debate about whether a murderer needs to be punished.

The same isn't logic doesn't work for tennis rules. Taking 30s to serve is not in itself a morally despicable act. It is just wrong because by some rather arbitrary circumstances there just happens to be a rule that says you have to take no more than 20s. This is not necessarily a good rule, just because it exists. This rule was established to benefit tennis and it may or may not do this.
However, it is legit to question such rules whether they still make sense or not.
In case of many sports rules, there is obvously no need ot question them because it all works just fine. But in this case, there is enough evidence to suggest that is is more than time to call it into question. The officials seems to know this themselves, otherwise they wouldn't handle it the way they do.

It was to officials who decided to slow down the court and make tennis more physical in addition to the natural development of the sport due to poly strings etc..
Then it is the job of these officials to check whether their rules are still good under the new circumstances. They make the rules so they have a responsibility towards the players. Yet, they haven't done much to fulfill this responsibility.
Simply saying you guys have to be able to play for hours and obey that rule whether it harms the quality of the game or your health or whatever would be stupid.

I don't say it is good the way it is right now (rule constantly being broken and some random warnings). I think there just needs to be a debate about how it should be. Then we would have a good rule and it would be right to strictly enforce it.

edit: Let me therefore give you an more appropriate example: In the past there have also been laws saying that slavery is alright, women aren't allowed to vote and homosexuality needs to be punished. Now were these rules good, just because a long time ago someone though so? And wasn't many people ignoring them and protesting against them with valid arguments good evidence that is was time to overthink those laws? Or should we rather all be sheep just doing what someone says is right never calling it into question?
Click to expand...

Considering the physicality and power of the modern game, you'd think people would realize the need for change. If rules were never called into question we'd be living in a much different society. This pragmatism is annoying. The rule needs to be changed.
 
TheTruth said:
Same case with Nadal. What I'm questioning is why the big difference? How can some posters say one person is cheating, and the other person was joking?

I don't know if Fed was joking or not. How on earth would I be privy to that? I'm just addressing the double standards used in this post.

And, judging by your post to me, you are getting offended over nothing.
Click to expand...

No one will know. The only reason people are coming down on Rafa harder is because he has a history of taking MTOs at seemingly adverse times. That's why. How often do you see others taking these breaks? But Rafa is always injured and wins when he doesn't lose 10,000 vamoses and 40,000 fist pumps.
 
Biscuitmcgriddleson said:
No one will know. The only reason people are coming down on Rafa harder is because he has a history of taking MTOs at seemingly adverse times. That's why. How often do you see others taking these breaks? But Rafa is always injured and wins when he doesn't lose 10,000 vamoses and 40,000 fist pumps.
Click to expand...

People are coming down on Rafa because that's what they do, period. Rafa does not have a history of MTO's at seemingly adverse times, that's just how some people choose to view it. And, why wouldn't an oft-injured, won't play til his 30's with such a history of injuries not take MTO's? It doesn't make sense to me. Some people take the slightest thing about Nadal and make a big case about it.

Woodrow has already tried to explain this rule, and yet many posters are still crying "crucify him." It's just sad, imo.
 
Emet74 said:
I don't see support in the rules for that. The rules say the authorize break "should" be at the set break and I don't see where emergencies are discussed.

Ana Ivanovic was penalized when she took an emergency bathroom break before her opponant's serve: http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=5685361

Are the WTA rules different?
Click to expand...

Yes the WTA rules are different.

I don't understand why some people can't see the difference between "should" and "shall" or "must."
 
Here's the WTA rule

b. Toilet Breaks
Toilet breaks should be taken on a set break. However, if a toilet
break is taken during a set, it must be taken before the player’s
own service game. If the player has been authorized to leave the
court before her opponent’s service game or during her own service
game once started, then the player is leaving the court on her
own time and will be penalized with back-to-back Time Violations
until the earlier of the time she returns to play, is due to serve, or​
the score reaches a set break.
 
TheTruth said:
People are coming down on Rafa because that's what they do, period. Rafa does not have a history of MTO's at seemingly adverse times, that's just how some people choose to view it. And, why wouldn't an oft-injured, won't play til his 30's with such a history of injuries not take MTO's? It doesn't make sense to me. Some people take the slightest thing about Nadal and make a big case about it.

Woodrow has already tried to explain this rule, and yet many posters are still crying "crucify him." It's just sad, imo.
Click to expand...

The Fish one in Cincy? Del Potro at Wimbledon? Petzschner at Wimbledon in 2010?

Fish was before Fish's serve as was the Petzschner when Nadal as down 2 sets to 1. Nothing wrong with taking an MTO before your opponent is to serve? Nothing gamesmanship about that? He was down a break against Fish and was down 2 sets to 1 against Petzschner. How about when he felt like he crushed his foot against Del Potro and then proceeded to become a jumping rabbit? I agree some are overly hard on Rafa, but a good deal of it is brought on by his antics and tactics on court.
 
Last edited:
woodrow1029 said:
Yes the WTA rules are different.

I don't understand why some people can't see the difference between "should" and "shall" or "must."
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But in the match I could hear Nadal asking if he could leave the court and the ump saying sth like "you need to hurry."

Since I think Nadal was back w/in the 90 seconds I have no problem w/ his break as I said earlier. But if he'd caused measurable delay of Fed's serve I think that would have been wrong on his part and I don't think the ump should have allowed it unless Nadal was in some SERIOUS distress.
 
Biscuitmcgriddleson said:
The Fish one in Cincy? Del Potro at Wimbledon? Petzschner at Wimbledon in 2010?

Fish was before Fish's serve as was the Petzschner when Nadal as down 2 sets to 1. Nothing wrong with taking an MTO before your opponent is to serve? Nothing gamesmanship about that? He was down a break against Fish and was down 2 sets to 1 against Petzschner. How about when he felt like he crushed his foot against Del Potro and then proceeded to become a jumping rabbit? I agree some are overly hard on Rafa, but a good deal of it is brought on by his antics and tactics on court.
Click to expand...

I disagree totally with the Petzschner one, especially since Petzschner himself denied it and didn't allow himself to be baited on that one. I also remember both Petzschner and del Potro taking MTO's in those matches. IMO, many players take MTO's and only Nadal is ever "called out" on it. For this reason I see it more as unfounded bashing.

I watch almost all of Nadal's matches and statistically the number of MTO's vs. career matches played is miniscule.

I am not aware of the one with Fish.
 
^^OK I love Rafa as my 2nd fave ATP player, but that one against DelPo at Wimbly last year was 8 minutes BEFORE the 1st set tiebreak right after DelPo had gained some momentum going into the tiebreak. The foot problem seemed to come out of nowhere and didn't stop him from running around like a bunny rabbit for the rest of the match.

DelPo's MTO in that same match was a result of him slipping and falling later on in the match and having to get hip treatment as a result, off-court. It was clear where DelPo's MTO need came from, but it certainly wasn't clear to me where Rafa's foot problem mysteriously came from right before the 1st set tiebreak which Nadal proceeded to win by running around like a bunny rabbit.

As for the other matches, I cannot comment as I don't remember, but I tend to agree that Rafa is very...shall we say....strategic about his MTO's.
 
Last edited:
Juan Ma Del Pony said:
^^OK I love Rafa as my 2nd fave ATP player, but that one against DelPo at Wimbly last year was 8 minutes BEFORE the 1st set tiebreak right after DelPo had gained some momentum going into the tiebreak. The foot problem seemed to come out of nowhere and didn't stop him from running around like a bunny rabbit for the rest of the match.

DelPo's MTO in that same match was a result of him slipping and falling during his own service game later on in the match and having to get hip treatment as a result, off-court. It was clear where DelPo's MTO need came from, but it certainly wasn't clear to me where Rafa's foot problem mysteriously came from right before the 1st set tiebreak which Nadal proceeded to win by running around like a bunny rabbit.

As for the other matches, I cannot comment as I don't remember, but I tend to agree that Rafa is very...shall we say....strategic about his MTO's.
Click to expand...



Nadal did not take that MTO to throw Delpo off. If Nadal had meant to break Delpo's momentum,he sure picked the wrong time to do it considering he had just hit a fabulous dtl fh to get a set point/break point right before it happened. After that he did not win another point until he was iirc,0-3 down in the tiebreaker.
 
Nadal and Djokovic are both big-time fakers. Djokovic acts like he's about to fall over any second and Nadal makes it seem like he's on the brink of death in a lot of his matches with his fans acting like he summoned superhuman powers to get the win.
What's even funnier is Nadal accusing Djokovic of faking. :lol:
 
TheTruth said:
I disagree totally with the Petzschner one, especially since Petzschner himself denied it and didn't allow himself to be baited on that one. I also remember both Petzschner and del Potro taking MTO's in those matches. IMO, many players take MTO's and only Nadal is ever "called out" on it. For this reason I see it more as unfounded bashing.

I watch almost all of Nadal's matches and statistically the number of MTO's vs. career matches played is miniscule.

I am not aware of the one with Fish.
Click to expand...

http://goo.gl/7EinP

Petzschner didn't get baited into the argument on whether or not Nadal engages in gamesmanship. We aren't talking about medical time outs, but the time at which he chooses to take them. If you say that MTOs are such a rarity then that only strengthen's the argument for it being a gamesmanship issue because he appears to take a disproportionate amount of them before his opponent's serve.


Addition:

http://goo.gl/mvzZj

See what i mean about him taking MTOs before his opponent's serve? I wonder what his MTO average(MTO/# of matches) per match is, I'd be willing to be it's higher than just about anyone else on tour.
I wonder if anyone has ever done a full accounting of the MTOs that Nadal has taken and when he took them. It would be interesting to see if he takes a majority of them when he is down in a match opposed to up in a match.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AM95
Federer "gamesmanship" and Nadal gamesmanship+cheating were not the same.
2 3
Replies
136
Views
17K
Ms Nadal
Ms Nadal
S
Article on bathroom breaks in tennis.
Replies
38
Views
10K
Arak
A
C
Can Wawrinka Save Tennis? You bet he can
2 3
Replies
142
Views
11K
Chopin
C
L
Roger Federer the cheater?
3 4 5
Replies
208
Views
24K
dandelion_smiley
dandelion_smiley
r2473
What sort of gamesmanship do you engage in?
2 3
Replies
129
Views
7K
Fay
Fay
Back
Top