Nadal: “The 25-Second Rule Will Harm the Fans”

[Polaris]

I spoke out about the rule before Rafa said anything about it, so you couldn't be more wrong (I was one of the first people to speak against it).

Reasoning still stands. I may be wrong but your posts are ample evidence that your tennis world begins and ends with Rafa. You didn't have to wait to hear Rafa speak about it. His serial time-wasting was an unmistakable signal about his preferences. Let us be honest here.

Tennis is not basketball. It has more emotional, dramatic, mental factors than most sports and for sure than any team sport.

How do you know? Have you played basketball at a level approaching competitiveness? For that matter, have you even played tennis at a level above the recreational NTRP 3.0's?

More imaginative? That's absurd. The only thing it could possibly promote is less thinking, more rushing into points and less care in making strategic choices rather than impulsive ones.

Actually, you are correct here. Initially, the reaction would be less thinking, more rushing, and impulsive decisions. That is normal. But, in case you haven't noticed, players adapt. Coaches adapt. Strategies are developed. The game evolves.

 

[cc0509]

Unlike the Fed fanatics, I am not campaigning for 1 player's sake. Nadal hasn't even played for the last 7 months and who knows what the future holds for him? That is really not the issue. The issue is to keep tennis as entertaining as the sport can be so that people keep watching it and more importantly enjoying it.

Yes, but if tennis goes bankrupt due to inept business decisions, none of us will benefit and there will be no tennis. Just let the CEO's run the business and make decisions that are in the best interest of the sport. Obviously they made the decision after that 6 hour snorefest AO match between Nadal and Djokovic. Who has time to watch 6 hour matches?

 

[cc0509]

You didnt mind so much when officials slowed the courts, but god forbid there is a rule that rafa doesnt benefit from.

Escalando!

His fans are getting desperate after seeing Nadal gone for seven months and now he comes back and loses on clay yet to a nobody.

 

[Sartorius]

Of course Nadal is right about the 25 second rule. It's only become an issue in recent years because of the Federer fanatics and the anti-Nadal brigade. Federer seldom takes 20 seconds to serve, while Nadal is on the slower side, so they try to hammer Nadal with bureaucracy.

Mustard is right. The only reason this thing even came about is because Fed likes to play super fast. (Hence the implication everyone should be the same. Personally, I often lose interest in Fed's matches because I don't have time to get excited with the rallies. ). Same as random doping accusations on the other top 4 (the implication is: Fed is the only one not athletic enough to be suspicious. Well, too bad, I really enjoy the increase of athleticism in the sport. Makes it much more interesting). Same with the obsession about surface speed (the implication being that aging Fed will have an easier time on fast ones. Sorry but medium paced surfaces are much more favorable to variety in styles).

I think you two (and a whole bunch of other people, Fed fans and Nadal fans alike) need to stop thinking that what you see on this forum or anywhere else on the internet represent the general perspective of the tennis world. The time second rule wasn't an issue brought by "Fed fanatics" and the "anti-Nadal brigade", or (the worst) merely because "Fed likes to play fast". It has been talked about on and off ever since Nadal and also Djokovic became stars of this sport. Also the overall slowness of courts has been discussed, documented, talked about by fans, players, ex-players of the game extensively for several years.

IMO what would really harm the sport, in fact what perhaps is hurting the sport this very day is the perception that longer matches, baseline tennis, never-ending rallies is "better" tennis. The longer it is, the more epic it is. We need more matches like that. Well, the AO final was indeed a classic match. That's not the problem. The problem is the kind of tennis people watched there, is the kind of tennis you watch everywhere. Tennis is great because in essence it's an individualized sport, bound to create many possibilities, different type of game styles, ultimately different types of "better tennis". I think you just have to be a fan of the game and not exactly a player per se, just to see that today's tennis pushes players to play only a few styles, shrinking the boundaries.

 

[veroniquem]

Actually, you are correct here. Initially, the reaction would be less thinking, more rushing, and impulsive decision. But, in case you haven't noticed, players adapt. Coaches adapt. The game evolves.

Of course they'll adapt. Give them enough money and I'm sure they'll adapt to anything. You don't understand that I'm not campaigning for the palyers here. I'm campaigning for the audience (which I am a part of), I'm campaigning for not trying to eliminate the spectacular, epic matches which are a major reason why I'm addicted to watching tennis as a hobby ( while I never watch most other sports on TV). Let's not let tennis drown in the mass of other sports and keep the specificity of what attracts people to it (even people who are not the biggest sport fans in general)

 

[Polaris]

You don't understand that I'm not campaigning for the palyers here. I'm campaigning for the audience (which I am a part of), I'm campaigning for not trying to eliminate the spectacular, epic matches which are a major reason why I'm addicted to watching tennis as a hobby ( while I never watch most other sports on TV). Let's not let tennis drown in the mass of other sports and keep the specificity of what attracts people to it (even people who are not the biggest sport fans in general)

I think, instead of repeating my view of imaginative tennis, I will just quote Sartorius because he expresses the thought beautifully and accurately. I couldn't have said it better even if I tried.

IMO what would really harm the sport, in fact what perhaps is hurting the sport this very day is the perception that longer matches, baseline tennis, never-ending rallies is "better" tennis. The longer it is, the more epic it is. We need more matches like that. Well, the AO final was indeed a classic match. That's not the problem. The problem is the kind of tennis people watched there, is the kind of tennis you watch everywhere. Tennis is great because in essence it's an individualized sport, bound to create many possibilities, different type of game styles, ultimately different types of "better tennis". I think you just have to be a fan of the game and not exactly a player per se, just to see that today's tennis pushes players to play only a few styles, shrinking the boundaries.

 

[SLD76]

/thread.


10makessenses

I think you two (and a whole bunch of other people, Fed fans and Nadal fans alike) need to stop thinking that what you see on this forum or anywhere else on the internet represent the general perspective of the tennis world. The time second rule wasn't an issue brought by "Fed fanatics" and the "anti-Nadal brigade", or (the worst) merely because "Fed likes to play fast". It has been talked about on and off ever since Nadal and also Djokovic became stars of this sport. Also the overall slowness of courts has been discussed, documented, talked about by fans, players, ex-players of the game extensively for several years.

IMO what would really harm the sport, in fact what perhaps is hurting the sport this very day is the perception that longer matches, baseline tennis, never-ending rallies is "better" tennis. The longer it is, the more epic it is. We need more matches like that. Well, the AO final was indeed a classic match. That's not the problem. The problem is the kind of tennis people watched there, is the kind of tennis you watch everywhere. Tennis is great because in essence it's an individualized sport, bound to create many possibilities, different type of game styles, ultimately different types of "better tennis". I think you just have to be a fan of the game and not exactly a player per se, just to see that today's tennis pushes players to play only a few styles, shrinking the boundaries.

 

[cc0509]

Of course they'll adapt. Give them enough money and I'm sure they'll adapt to anything. You don't understand that I'm not campaigning for the palyers here. I'm campaigning for the audience (which I am a part of), I'm campaigning for not trying to eliminate the spectacular, epic matches which are a major reason why I'm addicted to watching tennis as a hobby ( while I never watch most other sports on TV). Let's not let tennis drown in the mass of other sports and keep the specificity of what attracts people to it (even people who are not the biggest sport fans in general)

But the majority of normal people don't want 6 hour matches! Not everybody is a freaky Nadal fan who only parrots whatever he says as the gospel. I am sure he has some semi-normal fans. If you think tennis is honestly going to drown as a sport because of one time rule, you are being silly. Nobody is going to change his style or Djokovic's style and most of the matches will still be long, the goal is not to have them all be in the Guinness Book of World records for painfully long matches!

 

[SLD76]

Of course they'll adapt. Give them enough money and I'm sure they'll adapt to anything. You don't understand that I'm not campaigning for the palyers here. I'm campaigning for the audience (which I am a part of), I'm campaigning for not trying to eliminate the spectacular, epic matches which are a major reason why I'm addicted to watching tennis as a hobby ( while I never watch most other sports on TV). Let's not let tennis drown in the mass of other sports and keep the specificity of what attracts people to it (even people who are not the biggest sport fans in general)

then what is the problem exactly.

****s cant even keep up with their own logic.

 

[DropShotArtist]

Of course they'll adapt. Give them enough money and I'm sure they'll adapt to anything. You don't understand that I'm not campaigning for the palyers here. I'm campaigning for the audience (which I am a part of), I'm campaigning for not trying to eliminate the spectacular, epic matches which are a major reason why I'm addicted to watching tennis as a hobby ( while I never watch most other sports on TV). Let's not let tennis drown in the mass of other sports and keep the specificity of what attracts people to it (even people who are not the biggest sport fans in general)

Why not then take a poll of the audience first to ensure that what you are preaching is what they truly want?

 

[veroniquem]

Yes, but if tennis goes bankrupt due to inept business decisions, none of us will benefit and there will be no tennis. Just let the CEO's run the business and make decisions that are in the best interest of the sport. Obviously they made the decision after that 6 hour snorefest AO match between Nadal and Djokovic. Who has time to watch 6 hour matches?

The hypocrisy here is to claim that it was a snorefest. It was gripping. It was the opposite of a snorefest and it's that type of matches that keeps people glued to their computers or TV sets. Take those away and people will lose interest. (Not saying every match should be 6 hours long of course! but for a big final, an epic is an appropriate climax, there are enough of the one sided affairs in the early rounds. )

 

[DropShotArtist]

Actually I do agree the AO12 final was epic. But that wasn't because of its length.

 

[Smasher08]

Fact: the 25 second rule will harm the time-wasters.

I know it. Nads knows it. The Nards know it.

Whatever.

 

[Smasher08]

then what is the problem exactly.

****s cant even keep up with their own "logic".

Fixed that for you.

 

[SLD76]

The hypocrisy here is to claim that it was a snorefest. It was gripping. It was the opposite of a snorefest and it's that type of matches that keeps people glued to their computers or TV sets. Take those away and people will lose interest. (Not saying every match should be 6 hours long of course! but for a big final, an epic is an appropriate climax, there are enough of the one sided affairs in the early rounds. )

People were glued to their seats the first 4 hours..by the last set people were exhausted and tired. I know I was, I just wanted it to end already.

I get tired just watching a djoker rafa watch with all the unending ceaseless grinding and each point exactly the same. They are thrilling matches because they are usually finals but dont delude yourself into thinking they are matches of the ages. The tennis is boring, the retrieving however is amazing.

Djoker v Murray is darn near unwatchable because they play THE EXACT SAME WAY. Or at least rely on the same weapons. At least with rafa murray or rafa djoker there is the lefty element. But djoker murray is just painfully boring.

 

[ductrung3993]

What a freaking joke. It's like saying that "Hey I'm Nadal. Since I'm so cool and I'm able to play *competitive rallies and amazing shot*, I dont have to follow the rules while you guys have to hahaha!"

FULL BULLSH!T!

 

[Say Chi Sin Lo]

Of course Nadal is right about the 25 second rule. It's only become an issue in recent years because of the Federer fanatics and the anti-Nadal brigade. Federer seldom takes 20 seconds to serve, while Nadal is on the slower side, so they try to hammer Nadal with bureaucracy.[/QUOTE]

Then don't break the rule, simple as that.

 

[veroniquem]

Why not then take a poll of the audience first to ensure that what you are preaching is what they truly want?

The most telling poll is the # of tickets sold. And the kind of interest/attention a match triggers. You want to ask prospective spectators if they'd rather pay a hundred bucks to watch an epic or a quick affair? Be my guest.
And the quality argument is worthless. No amount of technical skills (and the top players have those whether in short or long matches) will make up for the amount of drama and suspense. If you don't understand that live sport is all about emotion, then I don't think you understand the business of sport as popular entertainment. People want to feel excited by and involved in what happens on the court . They don't want to see X or Y showing off their technique and the entire match being a foregone conclusion. Less for a final than any other round. They want to see a battle and they want to vibrate with it.
Would you want tennis to become like the super bowl? Something that the majority of people watch for the commercials instead of the game? Sorry but no.

 

[sdont]

Keeping the points short will prevent injuries such as tendinitis.

It's mindboggling that so-called Nadal fans want him to play longer matches with brutal rallies when we know what happened last year after the Australian Open final.

 

[kishnabe]

Which was a classic match.

Was pretty exciting at the time because of the record and Djokovic taking it away from Nadal.

Though it a match I will never put back on......I deleted everything to do with it. Just like the Madrid 2009 Match.

2009 Ausssie final and Semi....those are classic matches......you can watch them over and over.

Not the boring crappy slow rallies both Nadjok were producing. The surface was too slow....that the UE count was higher than Winners for both players. Then coupled with Nadal and Djokovic each taking as much time possible btwn points....made even more worse.

The worst 5 set match I ever watch......I only liked the part when Nadal misses his Backhand 30-15 and Djokovic winning.

 

[cknobman]

Nadal keep reinforcing that stereotype.

Maybe its not a stereotype if its true?

 

[Clarky21]

Keeping the points short will prevent injuries such as tendinitis.

It's mindboggling that so-called Nadal fans want him to play longer matches with brutal rallies when we know what happened last year after the Australian Open final.

This is correct. I am a Nadal fan and I would rather he did not grind his knees to dust running around on hardcourts in any more 6 hour finals. I knew that match was going to come back and bite him and it did.

 

[SLD76]

Keeping the points short will prevent injuries such as tendinitis.

It's mindboggling that so-called Nadal fans want him to play longer matches with brutal rallies when we know what happened last year after the Australian Open final.

*******s arent known for logic.

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

Of course Nadal is right about the 25 second rule. It's only become an issue in recent years because of the Federer fanatics and the anti-Nadal brigade. Federer seldom takes 20 seconds to serve, while Nadal is on the slower side, so they try to hammer Nadal with bureaucracy.

Are you saying the Fedfarts have now officially infiltrated the highest levels of the ATP? It has nothing to do with just wanting to speed up play and all to do with the rivalry between a way past his prime Fed and an injured for seven months Rafa?

The most telling poll is the # of tickets sold. And the kind of interest/attention a match triggers. You want to ask prospective spectators if they'd rather pay a hundred bucks to watch an epic or a quick affair? Be my guest.
And the quality argument is worthless. No amount of technical skills (and the top players have those whether in short or long matches) will make up for the amount of drama and suspense. If you don't understand that live sport is all about emotion, then I don't think you understand the business of sport as popular entertainment. People want to feel excited by and involved in what happens on the court . They don't want to see X or Y showing off their technique and the entire match being a foregone conclusion. Less for a final than any other round. They want to see a battle and they want to vibrate with it.
Would you want tennis to become like the super bowl? Something that the majority of people watch for the commercials instead of the game? Sorry but no.

No one is ever going to agree with what they want to see in a match. It is nice to see epic, bruising encounters sometimes, but there is nothing wrong with a lesson in technical perfection either. All my opinion, though.

 

[jaggy]

All he cares about are the fans, bless him

 

[Mustard]

The network bosses with TV schedules to keep RUN the sport.

Really? Not the tennis authorities? That speaks volumes.

It is about money and that is how it should be. Tennis is a business not a charity.

Tennis is a sport before anything else, at least that's how it should be.

I think you two (and a whole bunch of other people, Fed fans and Nadal fans alike) need to stop thinking that what you see on this forum or anywhere else on the internet represent the general perspective of the tennis world. The time second rule wasn't an issue brought by "Fed fanatics" and the "anti-Nadal brigade", or (the worst) merely because "Fed likes to play fast". It has been talked about on and off ever since Nadal and also Djokovic became stars of this sport.

Yes, when Federer as a dominant champion was already well established.

 

[BHud]

Nads...STFU and concentrate on your tennis, no? ...not your opinions on doping or the 25 second rule! Just when I thought I missed him, back he trots babbling on and on about every issue he has thought about over the past 9 months...ENOUGH, NO?

 

[Say Chi Sin Lo]

All he cares about are the fans, bless him

Too bad the fans don't care about the game being played at baseball's pace.

 

[Sartorius]

Yes, when Federer as a dominant champion was already well established.

And?

So Federer was/is the reason for people talking about Nadal and Djokovic taking a long time between points and serves? Is it unrelated to the fact that they actually did/do take a long time between points and serves?

 

[SLD76]

Too bad the fans don't care about the game being played at baseball's pace.

oh the fans care, they just want no part of it.

 

[DropShotArtist]

The most telling poll is the # of tickets sold. And the kind of interest/attention a match triggers. You want to ask prospective spectators if they'd rather pay a hundred bucks to watch an epic or a quick affair? Be my guest.
And the quality argument is worthless. No amount of technical skills (and the top players have those whether in short or long matches) will make up for the amount of drama and suspense. If you don't understand that live sport is all about emotion, then I don't think you understand the business of sport as popular entertainment. People want to feel excited by and involved in what happens on the court . They don't want to see X or Y showing off their technique and the entire match being a foregone conclusion. Less for a final than any other round. They want to see a battle and they want to vibrate with it.
Would you want tennis to become like the super bowl? Something that the majority of people watch for the commercials instead of the game? Sorry but no.

chacun son goût

 

[Hood_Man]

If we're focusing so much on what the fans want, how about we spare a thought for the two old dears who sat in front of me during the 2011 Wimbledon final (in the cinema of course), who huffed and sighed while waiting for Djokovic to finish bouncing the ball and serve?

Are they not fans? Are we really going to cast out these two old, sweet natured grandmothers to us all, into the cold, dark abyss of those we conveniently ignore whenever we want to make sweeping generalisation to win debates against our fellow pixels on the internet?

Are we?​

 

[SharkysMV1]

Needs to let his racquet do the talking.

 

[Warmaster]

It will harm his fans.

The average tennis enthusiast approves this bold decision!

 

[billnepill]

Typical Nadal and bravo for the creativity of the devoted sheep in defending his groundbreaking views

 

[Vrad]

But the majority of normal people don't want 6 hour matches!

Seriously...

I mean, I can't believe I am living in a time where cricket matches are shorter than tennis ones.

 

[Polaris]

If we're focusing so much on what the fans want, how about we spare a thought for the two old dears who sat in front of me during the 2011 Wimbledon final (in the cinema of course), who huffed and sighed while waiting for Djokovic to finish bouncing the ball and serve?

Are they not fans? Are we really going to cast out these two old, sweet natured grandmothers to us all, into the cold, dark abyss of those we conveniently ignore whenever we want to make sweeping generalisation to win debates against our fellow pixels on the internet?

Veronique would have you cast those grandmothers into the dung-heap of outdated fans who want to watch tennis, rather than a protracted emotional baseline brawl.

I mean, I can't believe I am living in a time where cricket matches are shorter than tennis ones.

Indeed. You can say that again .

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Nadal: “The 25-Second Rule Will Harm the Fans”

the fans... of ball bouncing and butt picking ?
(yeah yeah, you can switch them if you want)

 

[monfed]

Eh Ralph is too scared of losing,needs to man up.

 

[CCNM]

I say let's give the 25-second rule a try and see what happens......

 

[Rocky89]

He may not be a fan of the 25 second rule, but he is still abiding by it and has reduced his time between points.

There seems to be too many drama queens on this thread. Nadal said this, Nadal said that...

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

He may not be a fan of the 25 second rule, but he is still abiding by it and has reduced his time between points.

There seems to be too many drama queens on this thread. Nadal said this, Nadal said that...

Hmm...I agree, too many drama queens.

 

[robertk29]

Rommil--Now that is funny, you made my day..Robert

 

[Speranza]

After numerous Djokodal marathons, the rule was pushed because some of the spectators pictures started appearing on milk cartons

LOL! Rommil, you're very good for my health I think you should comment on each thread as a rule of this forum.

 

[dunlop_fort_knox]

Of course Nadal is right about the 25 second rule. It's only become an issue in recent years because of the Federer fanatics and the anti-Nadal brigade. Federer seldom takes 20 seconds to serve, while Nadal is on the slower side, so they try to hammer Nadal with bureaucracy.

it's all slipping away from rafa. and at 27. maybe borg was right after all. this season should be fun to watch.

 

[pennc94]

Hard to fault him for trying.

His need for more than 25 seconds is primarily a function of his chosen style of play. He has the ability to close points quickly. The other part is gamesmanship with the need for a towel after an ace or one-stroke point. He is not the only one guilty of that, however.

 

[Feather]

Of course Nadal is right about the 25 second rule. It's only become an issue in recent years because of the Federer fanatics and the anti-Nadal brigade. Federer seldom takes 20 seconds to serve, while Nadal is on the slower side, so they try to hammer Nadal with bureaucracy.

I thought, and still think that, you are a sensible poster. Seriously do you think that the Federer fanatics and anti Nadal brigade have infiltrated the ATP and have decided to hammer Nadal with bureaucracy? If they were as powerful as you claim then why they are not trying to get at least few of the courts sped up? Would it be a better thing to do if they had that power than this?

Mustard, don't post things that you don't believe in. You would either lose credibility or lower yourself into a troll.

 

[Colin]

Yep. You've got to laugh when some people act like the interests of network bosses with TV schedules to keep are actually the interests of tennis fans.

Some tennis fans have full-time jobs and can't spare six hours for a match. That's like two "Lord of the Rings" films. Frodo could travel from the Shire to Mount Doom in the cumulative time it takes Nadal to remove his underwear from his buttocks.

 

[Vrad]

I thought, and still think that, you are a sensible poster. Seriously do you think that the Federer fanatics and anti Nadal brigade have infiltrated the ATP and have decided to hammer Nadal with bureaucracy? If they were as powerful as you claim then why they are not trying to get at least few of the courts sped up? Would it be a better thing to do if they had that power than this?

Mustard, don't post things that you don't believe in. You would either lose credibility or lower yourself into a troll.

The stupidest thing about this claim is that the oh-so-pro-Federer ATP decided to create this rule when he is almost 5 years past his prime, at a time where there are arguably at least 2 players who are more likely to win any slam than he is.

In other words, they are so pro-Fed that they changed the rules in favor of him when it can barely even help him anymore. Smh.

Also, the reality, which many of the more ludicrous Nadal fans here are ignoring, js that the rule has been around for a long time. It just used to not be enforced regularly because this was never an issue. Most players did not abuse the time limits. Nadal was one of the highest profile players who started doing this, and ever since, a lot of players have started taking tons of time between points. The 6hr AO final last year was the straw that broke the camel's back, and the ATP decided to start getting matters under control in a very gentle manner. This isn't like basketball where if you don't score before the shot clock you turn the ball over, or football, where you get a 5 yard penalty for not starting the play in 40 secs. At worst, you lose 1 point on your serve, and only after a warning, and only after the umpire has considered all sorts of mitigating factors.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I am still waiting to hear, why the rule will harm the fans?

I thought, and still think that, you are a sensible poster. Seriously do you think that the Federer fanatics and anti Nadal brigade have infiltrated the ATP and have decided to hammer Nadal with bureaucracy? If they were as powerful as you claim then why they are not trying to get at least few of the courts sped up? Would it be a better thing to do if they had that power than this?

Mustard, don't post things that you don't believe in. You would either lose credibility or lower yourself into a troll.

That is simply hard to understand.

Just because a person is using Internet, to give statistics (he didn't make them himself, so, even for that, the credit goes elsewhere), doesn't make him sensible.

What makes one sensible, is level-headedness, common sense and reasonable logic. The person in question has failed in all 3. Pretty hard at that. This thread makes no exception.