How much of a tennis match is actually play?

[alexio]

You posted another figure, my Polinesian friend,

 

[Tennis_Hands]

..

 

[TimHenmanATG]

You posted another figure, my Polinesian friend, and you didn't even say what "other" considerations you measured when you reduced the figure that you yourself posted.

I didn't post another figure, mein Herr.

When even an English Premier League match can only yield 45 minutes of technical "action", then it's obvious that the 22-28 minute figure is correct.

 

[yokied]

Gary I'm in a similar position and it depresses the hell out of me for two reasons. Firstly, I have it etched into my mind via watching habits as you do. Watching replays at my pace allows me to pay full attention, replay points as I want to, pause to make notes or think etc. I have no idea how anyone watches any of it live either.

It's so depressing that I don't want to waste time making a study of it because I know it'll be bad. And the shot clock hasn't made any difference at all. Nadal has definitely gotten worse now that he has become a ticket inspector and crowd controller. When I'm watching backups from my server, I can skip 5 or 10 seconds. Routinely, I am skipping 3x10 seconds on Djokodal points, then in blocks of 5 until the ball is in play. Djoker is a bit inconsistent, like most non-Fedal players, tailoring it depending on whether he's winning or losing or the importance of the point. Fed, it is 10 then 5 most of the time, if not faster.

Another reason it's depressing and I don't think anyone cares is that I think the whole situation may have devolved so far that a lot of average punters aren't watching it properly anymore anyway. A lot are two-screening ie using a handheld screen plus watching TV and/or doing other things. A big point happens, scoreboard tension builds and they pay attention, then drift back off.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

..

 

[TimHenmanATG]

You know about football just as much as about tennis I see. The term joga bonita/o logo bonito was used in football to identify the fluidity between players that are capable of extreme ball control while dribbling and the change of their tactical position creating almost eerie-like spectacle. It was also a long long time ago that it was applied in its true sense. In modern football that is almost obsolete (if presented at all).

Also, you just admitted that you are talking BS.

The term "o jogo bonito" has always been misapplied. It's never really used in English parlance. The rough translation of "the beautiful game" is used widely and broadly to refer to football, and certain aspects of the game.

You are showing your ignorance of British football culture.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Gary what have you done? Because of you on one side we get a fake fossil tell us about the calamity of the modern attention spam and teaches you what you should pay attention to and what not to, on the other a fake prof telling you about sex, and in the middle a fake football expert telling us about things he has never seen (Nottingham Forest a champion amongst many things).

Nottingham Forest were champions of England and won the European Cup twice.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

..

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Your points are cynical and depressing. They are also probably right.

Once a year I have to suffer through a full football game. The reason? My wife loves the Super Bowl commercials. She has no interest in football. So grit my teeth and do it. It is endless boredom. I loathe it.

Nothing to do with football itself. I just can't stand the waiting. Anything I watch for myself I record. I have to zip the commercials and time outs. My way of viewing a football game is fine for me. I need the FF button for any sport.

Any game that is televised is like that for me. You would think a game like basketball, which is so fast, would be the exception, but with all the time outs and stops it's about the same.

I probably have undiagnosed ADD, but I need to be either physically in motion or mentally busy. TV sports don't allow that for me. If someone transported me back to the 50s, I'd have to kill myself from boredom!!!

Yeah, there's a reason me and some buddies will basically just use the Superbowl as background fodder while we get pissed and talk bollocks. The fact that it lasts so damn long actually assists the occasion if you are barely invested and trash talking through the whole thing, ads included. Kinda reduces the intended spectacle though huh... I sometimes feel the same about tennis, 2019 W final existential crisis notwithstanding.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

..

 

[TimHenmanATG]

On the contrary, my Polinesian friend, I specifically said that it is obsolete nowadays. I never ever said that it was used in the "English parlance" to refer to the English football. I said what it refers to, and you got that wrong, it never referred to football in general. It referred to a specific brand of football that was played by the Brazilians in the 50ies, 60ies, 70ies and at the beginning of the 80ies, with the demise of the style with the Brasil squad in 1982.

What are you even arguing about, you contentious fellow?

You have no idea about British footballing culture, nor about colloquial usages within the English language.

Also, for the love of god, it's spelt "PolYnesian"!

 

[Tennis_Hands]

..

 

[Third Serve]

Yeah I think the server should be kept to a reasonable pace, IMO 25 seconds should be enough in most situations. The umpire should be able to discern when there's a pattern of slowing down the play and enforce the rules when it's apparent.

And yes Cilic is the most annoying server for me by faaaaaar.

Yes, yes, and yes. I so hate when he looks up at the opponent in the middle of the bounce just to see if he's still there and then bounces it another ten times.

 

[icedevil0289]

Watch out some may think you are an insane fed fan for even bringing up time issues even if its not just about nadal

 

[TimHenmanATG]

Well, I argued your original point about the length of time that the ball is in play, but you dropped that contention already. You tried to change the topic using phrases you don't even know what they mean, and then you tried once again to imply things that I never said, so maybe you should ask yourself what you are even arguing about.

It looks like now you are trying to change the topic to English footballing culture. I wouldn't say that there is much "culture" there involved, but that is another matter altogether. BTW, just to test my guess: have you seen Nottingham Forest Champions in the equivalent of what is today the Premier League?

Thank you for the correction. There are languages where it is written with "i".

It's you who are continually moving the goalposts, amico mio.

I don't even think you understand what you are even arguing about.

OK, I'll acknowledge that I didn't present my original point clearly. But there was nothing erroneous about it. The ball is in-play for roughly 45-55 minutes per match, but when you exclude perfunctory actions (such as the goalkeeper passing to one of his defenders), then there is only around 22-28 minutes of contested action.

I was born in '81, mate. Of course I saw Forest in the top-flight, you cheeky sod!

 

[Tennis_Hands]

..

 

[SumYungGai]

Your points are cynical and depressing. They are also probably right.

Once a year I have to suffer through a full football game. The reason? My wife loves the Super Bowl commercials. She has no interest in football. So grit my teeth and do it. It is endless boredom. I loathe it.

Nothing to do with football itself. I just can't stand the waiting. Anything I watch for myself I record. I have to zip the commercials and time outs. My way of viewing a football game is fine for me. I need the FF button for any sport.

Any game that is televised is like that for me. You would think a game like basketball, which is so fast, would be the exception, but with all the time outs and stops it's about the same.

I probably have undiagnosed ADD, but I need to be either physically in motion or mentally busy. TV sports don't allow that for me. If someone transported me back to the 50s, I'd have to kill myself from boredom!!!

I actually think this is evidence you don't have ADD, because you want to stay focused on the product (sport) you're interested in and trying to watch at the time. This is why I can't watch nba or tennis (the two sports I still watch fairly often) without FF'ing through the nonsense. It got to a breaking point for me years ago.

 

[waarp]

It's really out of hand today. The pre-serve rituals and stalling, even between the serves. The challenges/replays. The endless baseline duking. Quite exhausting. But you have to give the fans more of everything I suppose for the inflated ticket prices today...

 

[TimHenmanATG]

Wow, you saw things before the time you were born? I am mightily impressed.

As for the rest, I just can't see how you can simply start excluding passes on the football field, just to make a point. I have seen quite a few curious results form such situations that apparently "don't count". Tennis is worse than those numbers even with the rules being enforced, let alone when there are problems like the ones we are talking about.

I didn't even want to discuss that what is in other sports shouldn't be a concern for tennis, otherwise we would just accept that it is OK the sport to be eroded to something that has never been part of its history, image or indeed hopes for the future.

I said I obviously saw Forest play in the top-flight (which they did up until 1999).

You are not making any sense, kolega.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

..

 

[LETitBE]

While watching the 2nd and 3rd sets of the USO final, which I missed last night but recorded, I stopped to check times for ads and for blank space between points.

I focused on Nadal as the slowest, and here is what I found:

30 seconds between service points because the clock is started at about 5 seconds. So for a love game there is a minimum of 2 minutes time watching him set up. For a deuce game we wait for him at least 4 minutes. But that's if he makes every 1st serve.

If he hits a let, he resets for 20 seconds. Then for the second serve, another 10 seconds.

Commercials last 90 seconds, so that's baked into the cake. With a 75 set there will be 6 ads, so add to that another 9 minutes.

At 1/0 Rafa took around 75 seconds to finally get to the other end of the court and serve. At one point Shriver interviewed Laver between the end of one game and the next.

I'm sure Rafa takes more time than anyone else, but there are other guys who are not exactly speedy. So there is a huge amount of waiting around. Maybe it is not so noticeable live because there is more going on, but I can hardly watch tennis live on TV now. It is so slow.

Set 2 and set 3 took about 15 minutes each for me to see every shot in every point simply by fast forwarding through TV breaks and breaks between points. I'd estimate a 5 hour marathon match like the one years ago between Rafa and Novak probably takes little more than an hour if you fast forward between all the delays.

If I didn't love tennis, I'd never be able to watch a match on TV. It's so slow.

Each shot in a point takes about a second. Next time you see a 40 shot rally, time it. It won't even last 50 seconds. Since the average point is really not many shots, probably the average point takes about 5 or 6 seconds. Certainly 10 seconds at the max, and that is probably way too long. Any game that lasts more than a minute, for the actual play, is probably unusual.

For the most part I can no longer watch a live match on TV. Am I the only one here like that?

2008 Wimledon final went for 288 minutes,the ball was in play for 73 minutes......and that's on grass!

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

The problem with the shot clock is that its rigidity is inherently flawed. The idea that the same 25 seconds is appropriate following both an ace and a 25 shot rally + applause is just inexplicable. So in my opinion Rafael is correct to expect extra time after such points, because it not only builds the spectacle but allows the players precious more seconds to recover. A more dynamic system in which the serve clock is based on the preceding point (0-1 shots = 20 seconds, 2-10 shots = 25 seconds, 11-20 shots = 30 seconds, 21+ shots = 35 seconds) would make much more sense for tennis.

Wow, a sensible post from the seasoned vamosbrigader!
Yeah, no problem allowing extra time after super long points, 20+shot rallies are rare in modern tennis, even in Nadal matches. Taking your sweet time after a short point / changeover is the real cause of annoyance.

 

[Bender]

Rafa just needs to hurry the F up. Waste time during your own serve game. Play at the server's pace like the rules say, unless the server is going far too fast (Kyrgios) or there is an obvious disturbance, eg the crowd, ball boys / girls, etc

 

[Gary Duane]

I am the opposite case. I like to see human drama unfolding slowly. Facial expressions, thinking under pressure, faces in the crowd (Mirka at 40:15; Srdan at 6:3, etc.). Playing without time between points and all the drama is like sex without foreplay.

I've had a hard day, and you have not idea how much that made me laugh.

For me it's a matter of degree. But wouldn't you agree that all this is very different when you are actually there? Wouldn't you rather have control of all these things? And wouldn't it be more fun to look around during breaks instead of watching some mindless ad? And wouldn't it be nice NOT to hear the steady nonsense coming from commies who are trying to dumb it all down for people who don't know what is going on?

Maybe you just like longer foreplay than I do.

 

[Gary Duane]

To answer your question, as far as I know you're the only person here who routinely watches recorded matches, instead of live t.v. I'll watch a recorded match just to see Serena losing a slam final again. LOL.
Otherwise it's live for me.

Televisions annoying filler, to keep the casual fans interest during this slow down time between points, is to zoom in at 100 magnification for close up of fans, players boxes, and washed up celebrities. All of which is no interest to me. I'd rather see a player blowing his nose into his towel and handing to ball boy than to see some fan hamming it up to get on camera. Keep the camera on the players and speed up the game!

Remember, there is a compromise. If you record, then watch the recording about an hour after a match starts, you can watch everything without FF but you get to skip the ads, long MTOs and bathroom breaks. You'll end up ending the match in real time, and you have extra time for your own replays and even slo mo replays to see for yourself if a call is wrong. I don't know how it is for the rest of you, but I have a family, and none of those in my family have the least interest in sports. If I go MIA for 5 hours, they are not exactly appreciative! I think it even pisses off the cat!

 

[Gary Duane]

When Nadal held up his racquet 7 times in one game to disturb Medvedev, I really couldn't belive my eyes...

Sometimes the umpire reacts - in reverse - when the server waits for the returner, and then gets time violation

Playing Devils' Advocate, I don't know how much not hearing the ball screws things up. Maybe more for some than others. And when there is so much noise, delays are more understandable to me.

But does Nadal cross the line? Yes. I think he does, and more than any other player I've ever seen. Without the routines and quirks he might be my favorite player. I love his intensity, and there are other things I admire about him, but I don't like the gamesmanship.

 

[Gary Duane]

Yeah, there's a reason me and some buddies will basically just use the Superbowl as background fodder while we get pissed and talk bollocks. The fact that it lasts so damn long actually assists the occasion if you are barely invested and trash talking through the whole thing, ads included. Kinda reduces the intended spectacle though huh... I sometimes feel the same about tennis, 2019 W final existential crisis notwithstanding.

If you love sports and have been to many events that are not televised, you know how much faster things go when TV is not involved.

 

[Gary Duane]

2008 Wimledon final went for 288 minutes,the ball was in play for 73 minutes......and that's on grass!

There you go: 288/4=72. So 25%. 15 minutes of play for each hour. That will go up a bit on clay, longer points, but not much.

 

[MichaelNadal]

It's tennis doesn't bother me at all.

 

[junior74]

Playing Devils' Advocate, I don't know how much not hearing the ball screws things up. Maybe more for some than others. And when there is so much noise, delays are more understandable to me.

But does Nadal cross the line? Yes. I think he does, and more than any other player I've ever seen. Without the routines and quirks he might be my favorite player. I love his intensity, and there are other things I admire about him, but I don't like the gamesmanship.

I like Nadal, too - but I don't like his tactics between points. He employs more tricks on big points and in key moments. He bends the rules more than he bends his forehand. The slightest noise and his hand is up.

When he said Kyrgios lacks respect for his opponent and the game, it was impossible not to laugh. Nadal was employing all his tricks, and for once it didn't work. I mean, trying to say that an underarm serve is not sportsmanlike because he is standing 5 metres behind the baseline?

It's like saying "it's disrespectful to lob me when I am at the net"

 

[ABCD]

I've had a hard day, and you have not idea how much that made me laugh.

For me it's a matter of degree. But wouldn't you agree that all this is very different when you are actually there? Wouldn't you rather have control of all these things? And wouldn't it be more fun to look around during breaks instead of watching some mindless ad? And wouldn't it be nice NOT to hear the steady nonsense coming from commies who are trying to dumb it all down for people who don't know what is going on?

Maybe you just like longer foreplay than I do.

Dear Gary, it is a matter of taste. I have personal experience of playing important/"important" points/matches so I have idea what they feel (my feeling x zillion). Mirka (and probably/Roger) had feeling at 40:15 that I had once when I had a sizable lead (I knew that it is not going to happen although on the scoreboard everything was perfect; I needed 1 point out of next 6). On the other hand, Djokovic accepted a loss (dead man walking) and started playing freely without fear (when you are dead you are not afraid of anything). I think that I understand their "time-wasting".

 

[TheIntrovert]

If you watch your team every week, then you don't notice the inaction because you are caught up in the moment.

That's one of the many beauties of football. It's known as "o jogo bonito" for a reason.

However, if you look at it objectively, the ball is out of play for an average of between 35-45 minutes during a 90-minute match.

Also, who is your team? I support Nottingham Forest.

Chelsea but they’ve been shocking since Lampard left

 

[Gary Duane]

Dear Gary, it is a matter of taste. I have personal experience of playing important/"important" points/matches so I have idea what they feel (my feeling x zillion). Mirka (and probably/Roger) had feeling at 40:15 that I had once when I had a sizable lead (I knew that it is not going to happen although on the scoreboard everything was perfect; I needed 1 point out of next 6). On the other hand, Djokovic accepted a loss (dead man walking) and started playing freely without fear (when you are dead you are not afraid of anything). I think that I understand their "time-wasting".

Well, "time wasting" may not be that to the people who are playing. Meanwhile, I would argue that it's worse for a friend or husband or wife or significant other to watch important events, and it's not just sports. If you have prepared a student for a competition, you are way more tense during a performance/match/play/whatever than the person on stage or on court. As the person who is doing the thing you are in the moment. But watching it seems to take forever, and you don't breathe deeply again until it's over.

 

[ABCD]

Well, "time wasting" may not be that to the people who are playing. Meanwhile, I would argue that it's worse for a friend or husband or wife or significant other to watch important events, and it's not just sports. If you have prepared a student for a competition, you are way more tense during a performance/match/play/whatever than the person on stage or on court. As the person who is doing the thing you are in the moment. But watching it seems to take forever, and you don't breathe deeply again until it's over.

I agree. It is more difficult to watch than to play. I was so sorry for Mirka and Federer's Dad.

 

[mika1979]

You were probably not around a few years back when there were angry debates. You have to remember some people think the clock - any clock - is a bad idea.

I'm not sure it has sped up play at all. It may in the future, if younger players get used to playing faster due to rules. The nature of the game itself has slowed things down. Decades ago you just did not see so many insanely long points, and you certainly did not see so much movement. The equipment has changed things. The best players in the world, the best conditioned, are going to be winded at times. But you can't deny that players are now so used to going to the towel after every point that even this one factor is going to be impossible to change unless they outlaw towels. And that just is not going to happen. Then there is the ritual of always grabbing at least 3 balls, examining them, discarding one, putting the other in a pocket, rinse and repeat.

A few guys always play fast. Fed is one. I don't know how much of that is part of his personality and play style. Maybe if he delayed more, sometimes he'd think things through better and win more points. I honestly don't know.

Ban the towel?

 

[kailash]

Anyone who loves tennis -or plays it- knows that this incredible sporting combination of mind and body isn't simply played when the ball is "in play."

+1

The difference between the top players and others is the strategies/mind. More work is done in between points than the ball being in play!

 

[Spencer Gore]

2008 Wimledon final went for 288 minutes,the ball was in play for 73 minutes......and that's on grass!

And they were among the most engrossing 288 minutes of drama in sporting history.

I wouldn't have missed a minute of it for the world.

 

[alexio]

And they were among the most engrossing 288 minutes of drama in sporting history.

I wouldn't have missed a minute of it for the world.

fed was displeased of the scoreboard' illumination trying to break his concentration when it was plunged into darkness