Nadal unhappy over Wimbledon roof closure

  • Thread starter Deleted member 756486
  • Start date

Is Rafa right to be upset?


  • Total voters
    95
D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
London -Rafael Nadal believes it was an error to keep the Centre Court roof closed as he lost an epic Wimbledon semi-final to old rival Novak Djokovic on Saturday.

Nadal was defeated 6-4, 3-6, 7-6 (11/9), 3-6, 10-8 in the second longest semi-final ever played at the tournament, at 5 hours and 15 minutes.

It was a second day of epic drama at the All England Club after Kevin Anderson had needed 6 hours and 36 minutes to beat John Isner on Friday.

That set the record for the longest semi-final at the tournament and became the second longest Grand Slam singles match ever played.


It also meant that Djokovic and Nadal had been unable to finish their 52nd career clash on Friday night.

Their semi-final was started under the roof and finished under it on Saturday despite clear blue skies and temperatures hovering close to 30 degrees.

Asked if it was logical to have the roof closed, the world number one said: "No. But I will not talk more about this.

"If I talk about it, then you are going to write about this, and I don't want you to write about this today."

Nadal, the 2008 and 2010 champion, was playing in his first semi-final at the All England Club since 2011 when he finished runner-up to Djokovic.

He believes his semi-final should have been played before the Anderson-Isner match on Friday.

That semi-final only finished just before 8pm making it impossible for Nadal and Djokovic to finish before the 11pm curfew.

"It's true that the schedule was a little bit tight knowing that the first match was between two big servers," said the 32-year-old.

"Of course you can't predict that they play that long.

"But yeah, knowing that, maybe would be better if they play us first at 13:00, that's all."

Djokovic, the Wimbledon champion in 2011, 2014 and 2015, will be bidding for a 13th Grand Slam title when he faces Anderson on Sunday.

That match will be played with the roof open.

However, he said he was happy to see it shut on Saturday.

"There was a dialogue, yeah," said Djokovic after his 52nd career clash against Nadal.

"I was for the roof because we started to play, and I wanted to play in the same conditions.

"I didn't ask them (the organisers). I just expressed my opinion because they asked for my opinion. But as I understood, they already made a decision."
 

Rabin

Professional
I don't see what's wrong with this. At no point in the press conference did he say he lost because of the roof. They asked him whether he agreed with the decision and he said no, went into more detail in the Spanish section. Basically said he agreed it was the right decision to have it closed yesterday but that he didn't understand the reasoning for an outdoor tournament to have it closed on the next day when it's sunny and dry. Completely fair in my opinion as the rule is flawed to begin with.
 

Colin

Professional
13 reasons why Nadal lost ...

1. Roof: He doesn't want to talk about it to distract from Novak's victory, but will tell you he doesn't want to talk about it so you'll talk about it instead.
2. Schedulers having the audacity to put the boring match on first as opening act.
3. Injuries probably, but we can talk about that later once Nadal's camp decides what they are to pull out of summer hard-court events.
4. Draw fixed to put Djokovic on his side. Diego Schwartzmann would have been more fair semifinal opponent for Rafa since they are both clay specialists.
5. Grass: Not fair world's most prestigious tennis tournament is always played on grass. Mix up with clay sometimes, no?
6. Novak's ball-bouncing: His time-wasting interfered with Rafa's strategy of time-wasting.
7. Stupid neighbors: Curfew means they had to stop playing at 11 last night. Rafa was ready to play and win all night.
8. British taxes: Nadal distracted wondering about his unfair tax bill if he wins the tournament.
9. Octobrina not in his box to cheer him on properly. Uncle Toni didn't bring enough energy.
10. Carlos Bernades: Rafa heard he was still at Wimbledon, sending bad vibes his way.
11. Nike clothing: Brand is cursed now that Fed has gone to Uniqlo.
12. Head to head: Rafa worried too much about tying up head to head, which is unfairly skewed by not having more matches on clay.
13. Lingering sadness over Federer losing in quarters. It was his turn for a major, so does that mean U.S. Open is no longer in the bag for Rafa? Only a cakewalk draw will tell.
 
D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
I agree should’ve been open as it was a lovely day.
Yeah I think he has a valid argument. Roof shouldn’t be closed when the weather is like that but what’s done is done.

Hopefully Nole wins Wimbledon now so the epic match wasn’t for nothing.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Yeah I think he has a valid argument. Roof shouldn’t be closed when the weather is like that but what’s done is done.

Hopefully Nole wins Wimbledon now so the epic match wasn’t for nothing.

Agreed but it still isn’t a valid excuse as both players faced the same conditions.

Yeah, that's the rule, it's a lovely day so why not have a picnic out there on Centre Court with cucumber sandwiches and Pimms?

I agree sir. Some strawberries and cream too.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
He believes his semi-final should have been played before the Anderson-Isner match on Friday.

That semi-final only finished just before 8pm making it impossible for Nadal and Djokovic to finish before the 11pm curfew.

"It's true that the schedule was a little bit tight knowing that the first match was between two big servers," said the 32-year-old.

"Of course you can't predict that they play that long.

"But yeah, knowing that, maybe would be better if they play us first at 13:00, that's all."
To me this is the real scoop. Quite amusing.
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
From the Wimbledon website:

Protocol for use of the roof
These basic principles will govern the use of the roof:

(a) The Championships is an outdoor daytime event. Therefore, in good weather, the roof will only be used if it is too dark to play on without it.
I mean it's literally the first thing their own protocol points out, so yes, it was a pretty stupid decision. Regardless, the match probably would not have been as good as it was without it, so... That's some comfort... :oops:
 

VaporDude95

Banned
13 reasons why Nadal lost ...

1. Roof: He doesn't want to talk about it to distract from Novak's victory, but will tell you he doesn't want to talk about it so you'll talk about it instead.
2. Schedulers having the audacity to put the boring match on first as opening act.
3. Injuries probably, but we can talk about that later once Nadal's camp decides what they are to pull out of summer hard-court events.
4. Draw fixed to put Djokovic on his side. Diego Schwartzmann would have been more fair semifinal opponent for Rafa since they are both clay specialists.
5. Grass: Not fair world's most prestigious tennis tournament is always played on grass. Mix up with clay sometimes, no?
6. Novak's ball-bouncing: His time-wasting interfered with Rafa's strategy of time-wasting.
7. Stupid neighbors: Curfew means they had to stop playing at 11 last night. Rafa was ready to play and win all night.
8. British taxes: Nadal distracted wondering about his unfair tax bill if he wins the tournament.
9. Octobrina not in his box to cheer him on properly. Uncle Toni didn't bring enough energy.
10. Carlos Bernades: Rafa heard he was still at Wimbledon, sending bad vibes his way.
11. Nike clothing: Brand is cursed now that Fed has gone to Uniqlo.
12. Head to head: Rafa worried too much about tying up head to head, which is unfairly skewed by not having more matches on clay.
13. Lingering sadness over Federer losing in quarters. It was his turn for a major, so does that mean U.S. Open is no longer in the bag for Rafa? Only a cakewalk draw will tell.

Lol.

This x1000
 

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal blaming outside elements after a loss
outside... and indoor too ;)

getimage.aspx
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
From the Wimbledon website:


I mean it's literally the first thing their own protocol points out, so yes, it was a pretty stupid decision. Regardless, the match probably would not have been as good as it was without it, so... That's some comfort... :oops:

Then there must be another rule that takes precedence. And Djoker used it to screw VAMOS.

“Competition rules state if a match starts with the roof shut then it must remain that way unless both players can agree to have it opened. If one player objects to the roof being open for the second session then it shall remain closed for the entirety of the match.”

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/ten...kovic-playing-with-the-roof-shut-at-Wimbledon

(Apologies if I’m citing a fake news site for this alleged rule (e.g., Fox “News”). I did no due diligence on it.)

Of course this rule is or should be trumped by the Bill Withers rule. If it’s a Lovely Day then you play roof open.
 
Considering Wimbledon is an outdoor tournament and there was no need to have the roof closed when they played on Saturday, I don't see how Rafa's opinion that they shouldn't have closed the roof is wrong. The organizers and many fans here say that they needed to keep the conditions the same throughout the match, but I don't think it's a particularly strong argument. If I were in Nadal's place I would be unhappy too. It seems like only the people who are busy denigrating Nadal every chance they get wouldn't stoop so low as to be upset over conditions favoring their opponent.
 
Then there must be another rule that takes precedence. And Djoker used it to screw VAMOS.

“Competition rules state if a match starts with the roof shut then it must remain that way unless both players can agree to have it opened. If one player objects to the roof being open for the second session then it shall remain closed for the entirety of the match.”

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/ten...kovic-playing-with-the-roof-shut-at-Wimbledon

(Apologies if I’m citing a fake news site for this alleged rule (e.g., Fox “News”). I did no due diligence on it.)

Of course this rule is or should be trumped by the Bill Withers rule. If it’s a Lovely Day then you play roof open.
I think this rule was made with matches that start and finish on the same day in mind. The Djokovic-Nadal semi was an outlier, and there wasn't any practical reason for them to close the roof the next day.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
I think this rule was made with matches that start and finish on the same day in mind. The Djokovic-Nadal semi was an outlier, and there wasn't any practical reason for them to close the roof the next day.

Seems like a reasonably interpretation. Is there a rule book or does W just make it up on the fly ?

Mueller/Rosenstein to check whether any deposits made to W officials bank accounts by Vlad & Co. on behalf of Djoker.
 
Last edited:
Seems like a reasonably interpretation. Is there a rule book or does W just make it up on the fly ?

Mueller/Rosenstein to check whether any deposits made to W officials bank accounts by Vlad & Co. on behalf of Djoker.
I am not saying the organizers shouldn't have followed the rules, but I do think the rule wasn't practical in this particular case.
 

Xavier G

Hall of Fame
Some thoughts.
Nadal, Fed and all these players are paid fortunes and it's an entertainment business too.
More night sessions at Wimbledon like at the US Open would be an exciting move. The atmosphere was great last night. Let's shake the old fogies running Wimbledon up a bit. I mean, what's the roof for? For tv coverage, right, in bad weather or if it's dark, so Wimby need to change it up.
I know it's meant to be an outdoor tournament, so if the weather's fine, schedule more night matches with the roof open and get floodlights too! :D

Outdoors, indoors? If the weather's bad, they'll close the roof anyway so there's guaranteed tennis, for tv mostly.

Tiebreaks in the final set should be brought in. It doesn't have to be at 6 all. It could be at 9 all, or 10 all etc.

Nadal can partly blame bad scheduling and dull thinking on Wimbledon's part for his defeat, but also that Djokovic adapts better to these conditions and there's definitely no doubt that Novak causes him big problems in their match up.

27-25. Could have gone either way. What a rivalry.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
I am not saying the organizers shouldn't have followed the rules, but I do think the rule wasn't practical in this particular case.

I misunderstood you.

@Fedfather "I think this rule was made with matches that start and finish on the same day in mind."

I thought you meant the rule didn't speak to multi-day matches and W was free to make case by case decisions when a match went beyond one day. And I thought your interpretation was reasonable without knowing more.

By the way, wonderful job you and your wife did with Roger. He seems like a good person.
 
Last edited:

I get cramps

Semi-Pro
Clickbait garbage strikes again. Nadal made one comment about the roof in his presser, and only after reporters pressed him


He is actually pretty gracious in this and complimentary of Djokovic

jm1980 is absolutely right.

I'm a native spanish speaker.

Full statement. From 16' 08" onwards:

Nadal: Do you know what happens, Nacho? This match has been so good and so many things have happened that if I start to talk about that... I know how it works, I'm not blaming you, but we'll end talking abou that, and, sincerely... it is very easy... I explain to you how it goes but don't take it as [reporter: no, no, no] I'll give you the referee's take, if you can do me a favour, don let it go beyond that [namely: make it public] .

It is the referre's decision to start at 19:30 because at 9:15 twilight makes playing impossible. Since we started playing indoors it is agreed, according to their logic that game has to end under the same conditions with which we started playing. Unless both players agree to play outdoors. (Shrugs his shoulders). It up to you [the reporter] to decide wether you find it fair or unfair. It is an outdoor tournament, that's a fact. We could have started playing outdoors and we did not do so.

The only thig that I don't really fully understand is: if we start indoors on account of the lack of light, we could have started outdoors [he's not expressing himself clearly]. The tournament is played outdoors unless it's raining, and on top of that, we continue playing today outdoors so the conditions remain unchanged. It doesn't seem correct to me. That's my opinion. But i'll appreciate [he's adressing the same reporter, he's making it clear that he doesn't want this to be a headline]... The other semi started before and lasted a lot, bad luck. It is an outdoor court. Light is diminishing and they decide to play indoors. Having said this, yesterday i understood their way of thinking but what i can't understad is that today we remain play indoors if we both are in agreement. And quite obviously we weren't."

There's one logical inconsisntenciy. To wit: he disagrees with the match starting indoors, but afterwards understands/accepts it and in the end on what he disagrees is on is Saturday's match being played indoors.

[Adresses the spanish speaking media]

I gave you the explanation. I'll aprecciate if you don't treat this... Not a headline with this... Because the match had so many good things that i¡m telling you this because you asked and i'm telling you only for informational purposes.

"Roof is the new injury." No. He didn't mention the word roof.
 
jm1980 is absolutely right.

I'm a native spanish speaker.

Full statement. From 16' 08" onwards:

Nadal: Do you know what happens, Nacho? This match has been so good and so many things have happened that if I start to talk about that... I know how it works, I'm not blaming you, but we'll end talking abou that, and, sincerely... it is very easy... I explain to you how it goes but don't take it as [reporter: no, no, no] I'll give you the referee's take, if you can do me a favour, don let it go beyond that [namely: make it public] .

It is the referre's decision to start at 19:30 because at 9:15 twilight makes playing impossible. Since we started playing indoors it is agreed, according to their logic that game has to end under the same conditions with which we started playing. Unless both players agree to play outdoors. (Shrugs his shoulders). It up to you [the reporter] to decide wether you find it fair or unfair. It is an outdoor tournament, that's a fact. We could have started playing outdoors and we did not do so.

The only thig that I don't really fully understand is: if we start indoors on account of the lack of light, we could have started outdoors [he's not expressing himself clearly]. The tournament is played outdoors unless it's raining, and on top of that, we continue playing today outdoors so the conditions remain unchanged. It doesn't seem correct to me. That's my opinion. But i'll appreciate [he's adressing the same reporter, he's making it clear that he doesn't want this to be a headline]... The other semi started before and lasted a lot, bad luck. It is an outdoor court. Light is diminishing and they decide to play indoors. Having said this, yesterday i understood their way of thinking but what i can't understad is that today we remain play indoors if we both are in agreement. And quite obviously we weren't."

There's one logical inconsisntenciy. To wit: he disagrees with the match starting indoors, but afterwards understands/accepts it and in the end on what he disagrees is on is Saturday's match being played indoors.

[Adresses the spanish speaking media]

I gave you the explanation. I'll aprecciate if you don't treat this... Not a headline with this... Because the match had so many good things that i¡m telling you this because you asked and i'm telling you only for informational purposes.

"Roof is the new injury." No. He didn't mention the word roof.
Still would be finished under a closed roof... Also why would you start a match to play 15 mins knowing you need a 40min break to close roof and acclimate?
 

Federer and Del Potro

Talk Tennis Guru
Considering Wimbledon is an outdoor tournament and there was no need to have the roof closed when they played on Saturday, I don't see how Rafa's opinion that they shouldn't have closed the roof is wrong. The organizers and many fans here say that they needed to keep the conditions the same throughout the match, but I don't think it's a particularly strong argument. If I were in Nadal's place I would be unhappy too. It seems like only the people who are busy denigrating Nadal every chance they get wouldn't stoop so low as to be upset over conditions favoring their opponent.

Oh like how they slowed down Wimbledon/USO already which favored guys like RAFA?

Even Laver said RAFA would struggle on the old Wimbledon grass.


He had innumerable chances to win, roof or not. Just like Federer should have won on Court 1 (Which I didn't complain about).

Anything else is just sour grapes. Fed/Nadal can be pretty sore losers...we don't have to pretend they aren't/don't act petty sometimes.

I agree if you complain about court conditions then you can't complain about Nadal complaining about them. But you can still call him a sour loser. I'll call him one, because I can't recall a single time I've blamed court conditions for why Federer lost a match. And they weren't why Nadal lost today. He got out-clutched, especially in the 3rd and 5th sets.
 
Last edited:

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
London -Rafael Nadal believes it was an error to keep the Centre Court roof closed as he lost an epic Wimbledon semi-final to old rival Novak Djokovic on Saturday.

Nadal was defeated 6-4, 3-6, 7-6 (11/9), 3-6, 10-8 in the second longest semi-final ever played at the tournament, at 5 hours and 15 minutes.

It was a second day of epic drama at the All England Club after Kevin Anderson had needed 6 hours and 36 minutes to beat John Isner on Friday.

That set the record for the longest semi-final at the tournament and became the second longest Grand Slam singles match ever played.


It also meant that Djokovic and Nadal had been unable to finish their 52nd career clash on Friday night.

Their semi-final was started under the roof and finished under it on Saturday despite clear blue skies and temperatures hovering close to 30 degrees.

Asked if it was logical to have the roof closed, the world number one said: "No. But I will not talk more about this.

"If I talk about it, then you are going to write about this, and I don't want you to write about this today."

Nadal, the 2008 and 2010 champion, was playing in his first semi-final at the All England Club since 2011 when he finished runner-up to Djokovic.

He believes his semi-final should have been played before the Anderson-Isner match on Friday.

That semi-final only finished just before 8pm making it impossible for Nadal and Djokovic to finish before the 11pm curfew.

"It's true that the schedule was a little bit tight knowing that the first match was between two big servers," said the 32-year-old.

"Of course you can't predict that they play that long.

"But yeah, knowing that, maybe would be better if they play us first at 13:00, that's all."

Djokovic, the Wimbledon champion in 2011, 2014 and 2015, will be bidding for a 13th Grand Slam title when he faces Anderson on Sunday.

That match will be played with the roof open.

However, he said he was happy to see it shut on Saturday.

"There was a dialogue, yeah," said Djokovic after his 52nd career clash against Nadal.

"I was for the roof because we started to play, and I wanted to play in the same conditions.

"I didn't ask them (the organisers). I just expressed my opinion because they asked for my opinion. But as I understood, they already made a decision."
Nadal is right. he should have told Wimbledon officials,, he would Refuse to play if the roof is close, and see what happens. but he caved in and played, so it is too late. RAFA should have stood his ground and just Refuse to play
 
Oh like how they slowed down Wimbledon/USO already which favored guys like RAFA?

Even Laver said RAFA would struggle on the old Wimbledon grass.


He had innumerable chances to win, roof or not.
Yes, like that. Does that mean Nadal loses the right to feel upset over being disadvantaged at any given match at Wimbledon/USO? What standards are you holding him to? He's not a robot.

And BTW, when I say he was disadvantaged I don't mean that it was unfair to close the roof. Just that as Djokovic is a better indoors player, Nadal was, in fact, disadvantaged in these conditions.
 
Top