Question re Timed Matches

[Cindysphinx]

Server serves and hits the net. Ball rolls slowly toward sideline, as server hesitates to see whether it needs to be cleared. Server decides it does not and serves again, this time clipping the net for a let. Server now has no ball. Opponent is holding third ball and hits it to server, who misses it and has to walk back to the curtain to pick it up. Server serves and hideous push rally commences, with both women hitting moonballs up the middle. On the sixth shot, a ball comes flying in from adjacent court and a let is called. All three balls are then picked up. All that time, and not a single point was played.

Yeah, ball clearing can be ridiculously slow.

 

[Xisbum]

I think it's impossible to fit 3 competitive sets in to 90 minutes. It can even be difficult to fit 2 competitive sets in 90 minutes.

I wish we had 120 minutes for singles, but I can understand the courts need to make money.

-Matt

You are on the money on competitive sets. And the courts would still get the same amount of money; we players would just pay a little more for the extra 30 minutes, which is fine by me. I would rather settle the match on tennis skills and smarts than on Timex.

But then what do we know? We're not really athletes, are we?

 

[peter]

You are on the money on competitive sets. And the courts would still get the same amount of money; we players would just pay a little more for the extra 30 minutes, which is fine by me. I would rather settle the match on tennis skills and smarts than on Timex.

But then what do we know? We're not really athletes, are we?

Here's a data sample for the discussion:

In our local league around here a league match consists of two singles and one doubles. Played as full best-of-three sets (normal tiebreak at 6-6 in all sets). Not timed.

Basicall all the clubs/teams that book courts for these matches allocate things the same: One court for 2+2 hours and one court for 2 hours. (The two singles matches are played first on each court, and then we play the doubles match on the 4-hour-court).

Only _very_ seldom does we run out of time. Typically what happens is that one of the singles matches is longer, but the doubles match almost always is quicker so it evens out in the end.

Often one or both of the singles players also play the doubles match.

Btw, another data point: A couple of years ago I timed/measured how long a (full) set took to play on average (I measured the time for all the sets played in our local neighborhood tournament - think full of NTRP 2.5-3.5 players - for a couple of years). Outdoor. Clay. Two full days of matches on two courts. It was amazingly accurate when I compared the results the next couple of years (I used that statistics for match scheduling).

A full set took on average 37 minutes to play. If the set started at 2-2 it took 29 minutes.

 

[Cindysphinx]

What level, Peter?

 

[JRstriker12]

Here's a data sample for the discussion:


Btw, another data point: A couple of years ago I timed/measured how long a (full) set took to play on average (I measured the time for all the sets played in our local neighborhood tournament - think full of NTRP 2.5-3.5 players - for a couple of years). Outdoor. Clay. Two full days of matches on two courts. It was amazingly accurate when I compared the results the next couple of years (I used that statistics for match scheduling).

What level, Peter?

Think 2.5 to 3.5 players.

 

[split-step]

Thank you Peter for your data.

Some people here just don't want to humble themselves and maybe realise that they play slowly.

I have just come back from a tennis center here. Played a doubles match. Didn't take too long and I was very tired so I just watched other people play.
Everyone but one court, was playing slowly. Taking extra long time on changeovers, some chatting. Very little time was expended on retrieving balls.

A lot of people play slowly and don't know it (I was one of them). Humble yourself, quit with the excuses and consciously try to get a singles match into 1.5 hrs. You will be surprised how easily it can be done.

 

[JRstriker12]

Thank you Peter for your data.

Some people here just don't want to humble themselves and maybe realise that they play slowly.

I have just come back from a tennis center here. Played a doubles match. Didn't take too long and I was very tired so I just watched other people play.
Everyone but one court, was playing slowly. Taking extra long time on changeovers, some chatting. Very little time was expended on retrieving balls.

A lot of people play slowly and don't know it (I was one of them). Humble yourself, quit with the excuses and consciously try to get a singles match into 1.5 hrs. You will be surprised how easily it can be done.

Sometimes it's not about excuses. Yes, I've managed to get a 2-set and tie break match in 1.5 hours, but I've also have about 3 matches with ALOT of deuce games where the first set ended at 6-7 (one tie break wen to 10-12) that timed out in the second set. During these matches we didn't switch ends until the end of the set, we didn't sit on breaks, and we didn't talk. It was just a very tight match, where neither player had the upper hand.

Also, as others have pointed out, only about 1/3 (or less) of the matches time out - I may be an exception. So what it comes down to, is that timed out matches will, can, and do happen, even for people playing at a good pace. It's not about being humble and just getting down to work. I'm not saying that finishing matches in 1.5 hours is impossible, it's just that sometimes, it doesn't happen, no matter what you do.

 

[peter]

What level, Peter?

The players at the local neighborhood tournament:
NTRP 2.5-4.0 (most 3.0-3.5)

The players in the league:
NTRP 3.5-5.5 (most 4.0-4.5)

All guesses by me - most players don't have an "official" or even unofficial NTRP ranking.

(Well, perhaps except for the one time that Mattias Sköld played a match last summers outdoor season)...

Skold had a sensational freshman campaign, posting a spring dual match record of 15-3 and 23-8 overall mark for a Georgia State squad that is ranked #50 in the nation. He played primarily at the #3 singles position and was 10-2 at the spot. Skold was also 11-7 in doubles, with all but one of his matches coming at the number one or two spot.

http://www.collegetennisonline.com/view/news.aspx?nwId=30485

 

[Cindysphinx]

Some people here just don't want to humble themselves and maybe realise that they play slowly.

I have just come back from a tennis center here. Played a doubles match. Didn't take too long and I was very tired so I just watched other people play.
Everyone but one court, was playing slowly. Taking extra long time on changeovers, some chatting. Very little time was expended on retrieving balls.

Was this a timed league match you were watching? Did they finish?

I can't deny that some people do waste a lot of time. I was arriving for a match and needed to cross another court to reach my warm-up court. There was a player I knew on that court, and the four players were huddled around the cooler talking. I figured they had finished their league match and were just socializing. On and on it went, with me hanging around hoping to say a quick hello to my friend. Finally I was able to break in and ask how their match went. They said they *hadn't finished yet!* They eventually did resume, and they played right up until the next matches were to begin.

Dang.

I remember one 90-minute match that timed out. I served first and had the longest service game I think I have ever had. Almost every ad point was ad in, but still my partner and I kept making errors on those points. Finally I held. I remember looking at my watch and seeing that almost 30 minutes had elapsed, which included the 10-minute warm-up. That's not anyone's fault. It's just the way it goes sometimes.

A lot of people play slowly and don't know it (I was one of them). Humble yourself, quit with the excuses and consciously try to get a singles match into 1.5 hrs. You will be surprised how easily it can be done.

Eh. There are some people who play too slowly, but I don't think I'm one of them. I'm OK with my 16% time-out rate. I take time on big points or to collect myself when things seem to be getting away from me. Maybe that looks slow. But I'd rather go slower and try to turn things around than rush myself into a quick loss.

 

[JRstriker12]

I take time on big points or to collect myself when things seem to be getting away from me. Maybe that looks slow. But I'd rather go slower and try to turn things around than rush myself into a quick loss.

Good point Cindy - I was going to make a similar point, but didn't get around to it.

 

[Cindysphinx]

In 2007, I played 34 matches (including three singles matches). Six timed out. That's about 14%. One of my three singles matches timed out (33%). It would be nice to find a way to give singles players 2 full hours.

 

[JRstriker12]

In 2007, I played 34 matches (including three singles matches). Six timed out. That's about 14%. One of my three singles matches timed out (33%). It would be nice to find a way to give singles players 2 full hours.

We could - just have the teams pay more $$.

 

[MSL]

We could - just have the teams pay more $$.

My local place has about 8 courts. They are open 8:30 to 10:00. If the whole day was filled with singles, they would fit in 9 matches. $2.50/$3.50 (depending on time of day) per person per slot.

They could take 1 or 2 courts and use them for 2 hour singles. Start with one 90 minute match and then 6 two hour matches. They would need to charge an extra 75 cents for non prime or an extra 1.25 for prime time to make slightly more money.

I play most of my ladder matches there and ladder matches get pretty competitive once you eventually work your way to the appropriate rung. Most of my matches end with a tie-breaker 3rd set, shortened 3rd set, or a ugly 3rd set as both of us increase the tempo to try to fit it in.

90 minutes just doesn't cut it.

-Matt

 

[spot]

wouldn't no-ad scoring be more fair than having a match time out?

 

[tfm1973]

spot -- good point. i don't mind playing no ad. you definitely speed up play and there's something fun about a do or die point.

i would imagine most people don't like no ad scoring. but i likes it.

 

[JRstriker12]

spot -- good point. i don't mind playing no ad. you definitely speed up play and there's something fun about a do or die point.

i would imagine most people don't like no ad scoring. but i likes it.

I could handle no ad.

 

[Tarboro]

Interesting discussion between some posters above - some note (correctly) that in the interests of settling the team matches timed matches are better. Others note (also correctly) that the better player or doubles team does not always win a timed match because there is a third element introduced (without some other element to save time, like no-ad scoring).

Which is more important to you? Personally, I'm glad to live in FL where the outdoor courts are usable year-round and the leagues drive attendance at the clubs (at least, the clubs I'm welcome at) so there's little competition for our courts. With proper scheduling, I've had only one match in three seasons get stopped by the 10:00 close of the facility, and that was a week when I had the late match and went to three sets. We started at about 8:15 and stopped at 4-6, 7-6 (6), 2-3 and finished in about 45 minutes two days later.

 

[Cindysphinx]

wouldn't no-ad scoring be more fair than having a match time out?

No. The reason is that I am completing 84% of my matches in 90-minutes or less. Why would we make a drastic change in format for 100% of matches when only 16% of matches are affected by the time limit?

The tail would really be wagging the dog, don't you think?

 

[JavierLW]

No. The reason is that I am completing 84% of my matches in 90-minutes or less. Why would we make a drastic change in format for 100% of matches when only 16% of matches are affected by the time limit?

The tail would really be wagging the dog, don't you think?

No because 16% of the matches is a lot. That can easily affect the standings drastically in some leagues where you dont have a lot of matches to begin with.

That's the difference in view point. For some of us having timed matches IS A DRASTIC CHANGE, more so then playing prosets or no-ad scoring. (anyone who's played tournaments a lot are already used to those things and some of us value our league matches just as much)

It doesnt matter that most of them may not time out, the fact that there is a time limit does change how you play and not always for the best. I play plenty of timed matches in club ladder matches and that's why those are generally considered to be pretty much "practice" more than a match that is really important.

I believe (as do a lot of other people) that tennis meant to be played so that you do not win until you've reached a certain goal. (winning 2 sets, or a set and a supertiebreaker, or winning a 10 game set, or winning 3 sets) Which means that if you are ahead you have definately not win the match yet and you can still lose.

But having a time limit ruins that effect. Then it's more like football or basketball, where one team can be WAY ahead and then you have "garbage time". That's the weak part of those two sports in my opinion. (although in my city they play "roll out the barrell" during garbage time so at least it's entertaining)

 

[Cindysphinx]

As between no-ad and timed matches, I think the latter are more appropriate for deciding which teams advance.

Remember, in a timed match you do not flip a coin to decide who won. You give credit for sets won, and you give credit for sets where one team is leading (by two or more games, which means there was a break). It would be interesting for someone to do a study and take a look at whether the team that would be declared the winner in a time match actually would win if you played it out. I suspect that most times the leader would be the eventual winner.
Javier:

It doesnt matter that most of them may not time out, the fact that there is a time limit does change how you play and not always for the best. I play plenty of timed matches in club ladder matches and that's why those are generally considered to be pretty much "practice" more than a match that is really important.

How does the time limit change the way you play?

I think it incorrect to assume that the time limit fundamentally changes the way the match is played. (I admit that this may be because I am used to timed matches and therefore am used to it and do not let it throw me).

Personally, I ignore the clock completely until there is a reason to pay attention to it. I tend not to look at my watch at all in the first set. Then I'll take a look at the set change. I will play the second set the same way I played the first if we won the first. If we lost the first, I will probably try to shorten the points and play more aggressively. But this makes sense even if there were no time limit. 'Cause if you lost the first set, you had better make some sort of change, and being more aggressive is usually a nice choice.

Anyway, I think the strongest argument is the one I made already: There is no need to tinker with 84% of matches to tinker with 16% of them. This is especially so given that those who tend to finish matches more quickly would wind up wasting perfectly good court time. In other words, assume that just 5% of 4.0 men's doubles time out. If you adopt no-ad scoring, those 4.0 players might be finishing their matches in an hour. I would think they would far prefer to be able to use the full 90 minutes and just live with the fact that 5% of their matches time out.

 

[JavierLW]

As between no-ad and timed matches, I think the latter are more appropriate for deciding which teams advance.

Remember, in a timed match you do not flip a coin to decide who won. You give credit for sets won, and you give credit for sets where one team is leading (by two or more games, which means there was a break). It would be interesting for someone to do a study and take a look at whether the team that would be declared the winner in a time match actually would win if you played it out. I suspect that most times the leader would be the eventual winner.
Javier:



How does the time limit change the way you play?

I think it incorrect to assume that the time limit fundamentally changes the way the match is played. (I admit that this may be because I am used to timed matches and therefore am used to it and do not let it throw me).

Personally, I ignore the clock completely until there is a reason to pay attention to it. I tend not to look at my watch at all in the first set. Then I'll take a look at the set change. I will play the second set the same way I played the first if we won the first. If we lost the first, I will probably try to shorten the points and play more aggressively. But this makes sense even if there were no time limit. 'Cause if you lost the first set, you had better make some sort of change, and being more aggressive is usually a nice choice.

Anyway, I think the strongest argument is the one I made already: There is no need to tinker with 84% of matches to tinker with 16% of them. This is especially so given that those who tend to finish matches more quickly would wind up wasting perfectly good court time. In other words, assume that just 5% of 4.0 men's doubles time out. If you adopt no-ad scoring, those 4.0 players might be finishing their matches in an hour. I would think they would far prefer to be able to use the full 90 minutes and just live with the fact that 5% of their matches time out.

No ad scoring matches do not generally make the match last only one hour. Ive played plenty of them and plenty the other way and you still get to around 90 minutes.

The reason why no-ad scoring works is that for many of the games the time it takes will remain the same. What it eliminates is the chance of those super long games that go to deuce multiple times which many times are the very same ones that would cause a match to go over the 90 minute mark in the first place.

Just playing aggressively in general can mean many things. The fact that you change at all if you lose the first set and you have to do it keeping in mind that there is a time limit is bad.

If you are looking for consistantly from match to match, there is no way you can say the occasional timed match (which by your own admission only affects the match 16% of the time) is somehow more fair then no-ad scoring which would affect everyone.

16% is a lot.

And I disagree about your study, totally. You seem to have some fascination about starting out a match well, as if it's more important then ending it well. There are plenty of people (me for example) who may start out slow but I will win more than my fair share of matches if Im allowed to. Especially at 3.0 and 3.5 where players most of the time do not start out well and you spend the entire first set just figuring them out (or sometimes they are just cold and dont come alive until the 2nd set).

In our timed matches, sometimes there is a tie. (it's not a league so we allow ties) Id give way more credit to the person who was winning at the end of the match then the person who won the first set. (or even worse when you have to resort to spinning racquets, counting scores on other courts, or any other unnatural items that should have nothing to do with winning one single match)

So that's the issue again. It's not a matter of whether it's fair for one player over another, but it does change the entire nature of the game when you can actually be losing at the end of the match but you can still win because you've won a set.

And maybe your method is a bit more fairer then other methods but that's apparently another problem with the system. Every single little area that has timed matches seems to have their own way of doing it. And I think you can easily argue out a negative for every single one of them (because there really is no fair way to do it).

You may not like no-ad scoring but at least it's keeping with the usual nature of tennis which is it's not meant to be a timed sport and you have to be winning at the end of the match if you expect to win. (there is no "taking an awesome start with a smile", you need to finish)

 

[Cindysphinx]

Fair enough. It is certainly true that if you habitually get off to a slow start, you will lose a lot of matches, both timed and untimed.

So far, the powers that be around here have rejected the idea of no-ad scoring or pro sets or any of that. I am thankful for this and think they have made the best decision for everyone.

Cindy -- who doesn't think 16% qualifies as "a lot" because if she lost only 16% of her matches she would consider her season a smashing success

 

[JavierLW]

Fair enough. It is certainly true that if you habitually get off to a slow start, you will lose a lot of matches, both timed and untimed.

So far, the powers that be around here have rejected the idea of no-ad scoring or pro sets or any of that. I am thankful for this and think they have made the best decision for everyone.

Cindy -- who doesn't think 16% qualifies as "a lot" because if she lost only 16% of her matches she would consider her season a smashing success

16% is a lot. If 3 out of 20 people died from riding the subway then nobody would be riding the subway. (although 75% of most statistics are made up 50% of the time)

I dont care what you guys want to do. Luckily the power that be here are playing full 2 out of 3 sets, and we have the environment to get away with it. But if the clubs ever got greedy, they would love timed matches and most people hopefully would not put up with it.

(although if we had like 20 zillion different USTA leagues like you guys then having some of the minor ones as timed probally isnt a huge deal because it's hard to put the same importance on all of them, instead we play club matches that are timed)

And it is not always true that if you get off to a slow start you will lose. That is your belief but you have nothing to back that up.

In un-timed tennis, if you are slow or dont do well at the end, you will probably lose 98% or more of the time.

If the match is long enough anything can happen during the course of a match, especially when you are dealing with good players who can handle themselves and dont cave at the prospect of losing a set or having a few setbacks. (if you see people who win almost all the time at any level they are always like that)

Ive been in matches where Ive started awesomely and eventually my opponent(s) woke up and all their shots started falling in and they outplayed me to win the match.

And Ive been in a lot of matches lately where me or my team loses the first set but we figure things out and by the end of the match when we won (easily) we cant even believe that we lost that first set.

If you believe that you are going to lose most of the time because you started slow then you must cave in a lot of matches. (of course if you arent allowed to actually finish the matches you probably dont get to experience coming back too often)

 

[Cindysphinx]

And it is not always true that if you get off to a slow start you will lose. That is your belief but you have nothing to back that up.

It's common sense, no? If you watch sports, you'll notice commentators often say, "Nadal is 20-1 in matches where he wins the first set." Well, duh. If you get behind early, you will put yourself at a considerable disadvantage.

In un-timed tennis, if you are slow or dont do well at the end, you will probably lose 98% or more of the time.

I'd like to see some evidence for this. I think it would be more accurate to say that if you go through bad patches that are too long or too frequent, you are more likely to lose. I do not think it is possible to say that having a bad patch at the end of a match is worse than at the beginning. Dementieva is notorious for having bad patches late in matches due to nerves. She wins plenty anyway.

If you believe that you are going to lose most of the time because you started slow then you must cave in a lot of matches. (of course if you arent allowed to actually finish the matches you probably dont get to experience coming back too often)

To be clear . . . I think you were the one who said you tend to start slow. Remember a few posts ago when you wrote this: "There are plenty of people (me for example) who may start out slow . . . "

I was responding to that.

 

[Xisbum]

I think I'm with Javier on this one, even though I don't like no-ad scoring. In many of my matches, I am in better tennis condition than the opponent (or opponents) and like it or not, that is or should be one of the factors in athletic contests. Even if the opponent is "better" than I, if he/she can't sustain that advantage over a full match, then he/she may not deserve to win.

Timed matches, therefore, penalize me (and those like me) for what should be an advantage. I won a mixed doubles last weekend against a clearly superior shot maker simply because I could play at the same level in the third set as I could in the first set, and he couldn't. The score was 3-6, 6-4, 6-4. If we had timed out after the second set, my team would have lost on total games.

And since I'm in the same area as Cindy, I tend to avoid leagues, USTA or otherwise, that depend on the clock instead of the players to determine the outcome. I want to play tennis the way I learned it, not as some "coordinator" sitting in an air conditioned office determines it should be played. With all due respect, of course, to Cindy and the coordinators.

 

[tfm1973]

xisbum -- you would like playing me. i sometimes think i have a little egg timer inside me that is set for 60 minutes. during those 60 minutes i'm gonna be about as energetic as i am ever gonna get. and after those 60 minutes -- well you're gonna see an awful lot of worse footwork and chop socky and moonballs.

in my mind -- i know that leagues i'm gonna have a time limit and possible some other factors to take into account. i also know that most tourneys you'll usually play 3 full sets or at the very least 2 full sets a tiebreak and no time limit. it works for me. as you might imagine i avoid tourneys like the plague. at least in my current chubby state.

 

[spot]

16% time out? thats a pretty big percentage... That means that pretty much 4 out of 5 weeks at least one line in a team match will get timed out. I guess I just don't at all understand why ad scoring is in anyway more "fair" than ad scoring or how it benefits some players but not others. I mean all those deuces may benefit players with the higher fitness level, but thats sort of killed by timed matches anyway.

 

[JavierLW]

It's common sense, no? If you watch sports, you'll notice commentators often say, "Nadal is 20-1 in matches where he wins the first set." Well, duh. If you get behind early, you will put yourself at a considerable disadvantage.



I'd like to see some evidence for this. I think it would be more accurate to say that if you go through bad patches that are too long or too frequent, you are more likely to lose. I do not think it is possible to say that having a bad patch at the end of a match is worse than at the beginning. Dementieva is notorious for having bad patches late in matches due to nerves. She wins plenty anyway.



To be clear . . . I think you were the one who said you tend to start slow. Remember a few posts ago when you wrote this: "There are plenty of people (me for example) who may start out slow . . . "

I was responding to that.

Okay let's put it this way. You have to win the last point to win the match.

Most of us are not Nadal, he is a professional.

It's true that you "want" to have a good start, but if you go out there feeling that you were going to lose anyway if you didnt have a good start then you should just play one set matches then. If you carry that sort of attitude into the match I can easily imagine you are one of those people who whine and complain and probally cave at that point and have no chance at winning.

(but you have a time clock so you feel it's justifyed anyway)

I dont care if you are responding to me or not. I have just as much right to win the match as someone who doesnt start slow, which is why I will not put up with timed matches. (at least not in matches that I consider to be important which league matches are)

If someone cant finish a match then they dont deserve to win more so then someone who didnt start out the match well.

You do not seem to get that part which is why timed matches seem okay for you. (the part where the way tennis is meant to be played you havent won anything until you won enough sets or games or whatever the goal may be and if you let up at all during that whole time you very well can lose just as quickly as you got ahead)

 

[MSL]

It's common sense, no? If you watch sports, you'll notice commentators often say, "Nadal is 20-1 in matches where he wins the first set." Well, duh. If you get behind early, you will put yourself at a considerable disadvantage.

I think there might be a slight difference beween Nadal closing out a match and your local rec player closing out a match. I think it's more common for the 3.5 or 4.0 player to have a let-down after a strong first set. You always see posts on this forum similar to "How do I close out a match?". A LOT of the matches I see (or participate in) look like this: 6-2, 0-6, 7-6

Getting back to the original point though... It's very difficult to fit a competitive match in to 90 minutes. A match that is limited by time allows for other variables to influence the outcome of the match that wouldn't come in to play if the match was played out.

-Matt

 

[JavierLW]

It's common sense, no? If you watch sports, you'll notice commentators often say, "Nadal is 20-1 in matches where he wins the first set." Well, duh. If you get behind early, you will put yourself at a considerable disadvantage.

http://www.resultsfromtennis.com/ni/playerstat.php?id1=3193

Nadal wins 73.55% of his matchs when he wins the first set.

However he wins 88.43% of his matches when he's won at least one set.

However those stats are useless and they do not support your argument as well as the one you are mentioning.

The reason why is because that doesnt mean he's 1-20 when he loses the first set. You dont know what his record is when he loses the first set.

He's Nadal, he wins most of his matches regardless of what happens. He is a very poor example.

As much as you dont like to hear it, recreation tennis is different and many players at 3.0 and 3.5 do not know how to turn around a match that starts out badly for them. That takes some skill and mental ability that someone in the pro ranks has managed to overcome at some point otherwise you wouldnt be watching them on TV. (if they played timed matches all the time they never would of succeeded)

And if you feel that it's okay and that you'll lose anyway then you might as well save yourself even more time and just play one set. (which here's a shocker, Id take that over a timed match at least it has a definate goal other then a timeclock running out)

Again, we're not debating on whether you want to get behind early or not, we're debating on whether if you get behind early you are defaintely going to lose. If it's you, then Id agree that it sounds like you've defeated yourself already, but if it's other people, maybe not. Id rather play the match out and see rather then have time run out and speculate on who might of won.