Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic lead complaints over shot clock plan

[icedevil0289]

i mean really we are using attention spans as an arguing point, what happened when the grass was lightning fast ...guess what they changed that. I mean granted it went with the evolution of the game, but corporate interests unfortunately play a role in that. its to the point that now rafa and some of his fans think that kind of tennis is not real tennis.

 

[icedevil0289]

Bwahahahah,....routinely warned? When? If an ump routinely warns him, he just has them banned (a la Bernardes).

I like to joke about that too and to be fair I found it hilarious because you know "humble nadal" or w/e but I think that got a lot of traction because rafa is a big name. I've heard that quite a few players will ask certain umpires not to work their matches and vice versa, some umpires just don't want to work with certain players which makes sense. Its just funny that the reason rafa choose not to is because an umpire had the guts to enforce rules

 

[Mustard]

One of your chief points was that Nadal was being uniquely targeted because of Federer fans making a stink.

Correct, that's why it's become a public talking point since 2006 and why we're now on the point of shot clocks in major tennis tournaments.

How do you reconcile that narrative with a lesser-known player like Berloqc being called out substantially more in a given year, despite playing 1/3rd less matches

By the umpire at the time of his matches, not in terms of public awareness. I'm a big tennis fan, and I didn't know about how much Berlocq had time violations. Are you seriously suggesting that Berlocq's time violations are why we are on the point of a shot clock in major tournaments? Do these talking pundits and commentators on TV mention Berlocq when talking about the amount of time between points? No. It's Nadal. People wouldn't care about time between points at all today if Nadal was as fast between points as Federer.

I think it's a good rule, open to discretion (crowd applause, frequency of the violations etc should all factor into the umpires decision to call it) but a good rule.

You've listed precisely why it's a bad rule, i.e. "open to discretion". In other words, ignore it, unless we want to put pressure on a player we don't like, like Nadal. And as I've said before, the ITF had the time between points rule at 20 seconds, which Federer regularly violated from end of a point to the next serve. The time between points rule is a bit like opinion polls, you can make it mean anything that you want it to mean, to paint any picture, to ignore it and take pressure off people, or to emphasis something and try to put pressure on the people you want.

 

[Bartelby]

You must be kidding. Nadal just ignores the rule and because of that we may get the shot clock nonsense, even if it is a very mild version.

Nadal and Djokovic should both apologise to the tennis public and commit themselves to following the rule.

Correct, that's why it's become a public talking point since 2006 and why we're now on the point of shot clocks in major tennis tournaments.



By the umpire at the time of his matches, not in terms of public awareness. I'm a big tennis fan, and I didn't know about how much Berlocq had time violations. Are you seriously suggesting that Berlocq's time violations are why we are on the point of a shot clock in major tournaments? Do these talking pundits and commentators on TV mention Berlocq when talking about the amount of time between points? No. It's Nadal. People wouldn't care about time between points at all today if Nadal was as fast between points as Federer.



You've listed precisely why it's a bad rule, i.e. "open to discretion". In other words, ignore it, unless we want to put pressure on a player we don't like, like Nadal. And as I've said before, the ITF had the time between points rule at 20 seconds, which Federer regularly violated from end of a point to the next serve. The time between points rule is a bit like opinion polls, you can make it mean anything that you want it to mean, to paint any picture, to ignore it and take pressure off people, or to emphasis something and try to put pressure on the people you want.

 

[jaggy]

2 cheats complain about rule enforcement, what a shock

 

[icedevil0289]

Correct, that's why it's become a public talking point since 2006 and why we're now on the point of shot clocks in major tennis tournaments.



By the umpire at the time of his matches, not in terms of public awareness. I'm a big tennis fan, and I didn't know about how much Berlocq had time violations. Are you seriously suggesting that Berlocq's time violations are why we are on the point of a shot clock in major tournaments? Do these talking pundits and commentators on TV mention Berlocq when talking about the amount of time between points? No. It's Nadal. People wouldn't care about time between points at all today if Nadal was as fast between points as Federer.



You've listed precisely why it's a bad rule, i.e. "open to discretion". In other words, ignore it, unless we want to put pressure on a player we don't like, like Nadal. And as I've said before, the ITF had the time between points rule at 20 seconds, which Federer regularly violated from end of a point to the next serve. The time between points rule is a bit like opinion polls, you can make it mean anything that you want it to mean, to paint any picture, to ignore it and take pressure off people, or to emphasis something and try to put pressure on the people you want.

anyone who is not a massive nadal fan can attest to that?

 

[Bartelby]

They can take between zero and twenty-five seconds so they can game play within that timeframe.

Of course, they could take between zero and twenty-five minutes under your brilliant plan!

I personally would get rid of the time between points rule altogether. I think it should be a completely legitimate tactic for the server to slow down play between points, or speed up play between points.

 

[Bartelby]

Oh, but wait, there is a limit ... and now it's one minute ... plus whatever beyond that Nadal deems necessary.

Within reasonable limits, of course. Say, a minute, at the umpire's discretion.

 

[Fabresque]

Djokovic is more opposing the fact that the players on tour weren’t consulted on the change before hand. Nothing opposing the actual shot clock. He is a big culprit of time wasting but I don’t see anything negative about it other than the pros not being talked to beforehand.

Nadal on the other hand is a worse offender than Djokovic and he has plenty negatives to say about this. He has a problem with not getting his way and has to say things that make no sense in the situation “The best tennis matches are not 2 hours but 4-5 hours”. What relevance does that have?

Cheater doesn’t get what he wants, cries to the media outlets. Priceless.

 

[CentreCourt]

Djokovic is more opposing the fact that the players on tour weren’t consulted on the change before hand. Nothing opposing the actual shot clock. He is a big culprit of time wasting but I don’t see anything negative about it other than the pros not being talked to beforehand.

Nadal on the other hand is a worse offender than Djokovic and he has plenty negatives to say about this. He has a problem with not getting his way and has to say things that make no sense in the situation “The best tennis matches are not 2 hours but 4-5 hours”. What relevance does that have?

Cheater doesn’t get what he wants, cries to the media outlets. Priceless.

I did laugh at "the best tennis matches" part myself. Hilariously and stupidly irrelevant to the point in question. Who'd have thunk it that the King of Gamesmanship wouldn't want to be able to kill his opponent's rhythm and momentum?

 

[Bartelby]

There will be a visible shot clock but no audible signal and the reality is that tournaments are doing this to speed up play in order to make the game more attractive.

Grand Slams are not run by the ATP so they are not really in the business of taking advice from players on such a pivotal issue.

Their decision has naught to do with specific players and their demands or objections.

 

[Deleted member 60695]

He's president of the players council so that's a reasonable thing for him to say.

Except it isn't a change to the game. The time between serves has existed, it's just not being enforced.

 

[Mustard]

I did laugh at "the best tennis matches" part myself. Hilariously and stupidly irrelevant to the point in question.

It's very relevant to the point in question, and how certain people are not appreciating this era of tennis, like those who were obsessed with muzzling Connors and McEnroe.

 

[Chadillac]

As a fat guy i dont like the double bounce rule, sometimes i just cant get to a drop shot. Lets change that one too

 

[Mustard]

There will be a visible shot clock but no audible signal and the reality is that tournaments are doing this to speed up play in order to make the game more attractive.

The big 4 era has been a golden age of tennis, has it not? Which person says that tennis needs to be "more attractive", and more attractive to whom? More to the point, who says fast play is "more attractive"? It ain't to me.

 

[oldmanfan]

Within reasonable limits, of course. Say, a minute, at the umpire's discretion.

I understand what you're trying to say, but you're missing the main problem. These are all ruthless competitors and many will abuse any and all things to their advantage. Some even take illegal substances. There have been bans to prove this.

Losing vs. winning a GS title can be the difference between $100K's or $10's of millions. Look at Kei's endorsements income just for 'reaching' a GS finals. Lots of money is involved in any sport.

You give them 20seconds between points, and they will exploit this limit. Give them 1 minute like you've suggested, then they will push this limit. Give them 5 minutes, and you can be certain there will be players who will abuse this.

20-25seconds has been in existence before Djokodal were born. Just bc they happened to make it big, now they want to change the rules of a sport that gave them everything?

Lacking of gratitude, is an understatement.

They are ATG champions, and these are rules.
Adapt or GTFO.

 

[icedevil0289]

Djokovic is more opposing the fact that the players on tour weren’t consulted on the change before hand. Nothing opposing the actual shot clock. He is a big culprit of time wasting but I don’t see anything negative about it other than the pros not being talked to beforehand.

Nadal on the other hand is a worse offender than Djokovic and he has plenty negatives to say about this. He has a problem with not getting his way and has to say things that make no sense in the situation “The best tennis matches are not 2 hours but 4-5 hours”. What relevance does that have?

Cheater doesn’t get what he wants, cries to the media outlets. Priceless.

that is what gets me, also novak was a pretty big offender back in the day but he has gotten much better. rafa though.....first of all he is wrong in saying the best matches are 4-5 hours, you can easily have a 5 hour slug fest. second enforcing a rule that is already there is not going to drastically cut down on the actual rallies. correct me if I'm wrong but this is all about time between points not that actual point being played

 

[icedevil0289]

The big 4 era has been a golden age of tennis, has it not? Which person says that tennis needs to be "more attractive", and more attractive to whom? More to the point, who says fast play is "more attractive"? It ain't to me.

really?? I am utterly shocked.

 

[CentreCourt]

It's very relevant to the point in question, and how certain people are not appreciating this era of tennis, like those who were obsessed with muzzling Connors and McEnroe.

It's not relevant at all. It's maybe relevant to why Nadal is good at winning those types of matches, but it is irrelevant to whether they take place or how good they are for fans.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Geeee

Two multiple slam champions having an opinion about this.
It's their right.

Deal w it.

 

[oldmanfan]

Novak mostly complains that the players aren't consulted when any big change is about to take place. He didn't really oppose the idea.

Nadal was being well, Nadal.

This bold is true. But in this case, it's not a big deal at all bc a shot clock will only facilitate application of an existing old-as-dirt rule. It's a rule that Djokovic happens to violate often, so this is not a good time to chime in re: consulting players' opinions.

It's funny that Nadal is making this sound as if it's some 'new and ridiculous' rule. Rafa, this rule existed before you were born! The shot clock is only to make the rule transparent to everyone.

 

[icedevil0289]

There will be a visible shot clock but no audible signal and the reality is that tournaments are doing this to speed up play in order to make the game more attractive.

Grand Slams are not run by the ATP so they are not really in the business of taking advice from players on such a pivotal issue.

Their decision has naught to do with specific players and their demands or objections.

to be honest in terms of speeding up play, I feel like there are so many factors. they want to speed up play which is good to atleast balance the slow as molasses courts but maybe they should speed up teh surfaces that are meant to play fast.

 

[icedevil0289]

This bold is true. But in this case, it's not a big deal at all bc a shot clock will only facilitate application of an existing old-as-dirt rule. It's a rule that Djokovic happens to violate often, so this is not a good time to chime in re: consulting players' opinions.

It's funny that Nadal is making this sound as if it's some 'new and ridiculous' rule. Rafa, this rule existed before you were born! The shot clock is only to make the rule transparent to everyone.

lmao he's going on about it being a detriment to the sport

 

[oldmanfan]

I am one of the people who aren't bothered if a player takes longer than 25 seconds to serve unless it's taken to the extreme. Rafa's comments about emotional matches are a strawman, of course. It's not like by introducing shot clock they're going to limit the time of entire matches, so why is he talking about two-hour matches all of a sudden?

However, Nadal's comments just made me realize that players don't just recover physically when they get ready to serve, but they are actually thinking through their tactics for the next point . From this angle, I can definitely understand why he, in particular, takes that much time. He likes to have everything in order so he feels most comfortable when he has a clear picture of what he's going to do. That in contrast to Federer who is a very intuitive player, or Kyrgios who just does things. I know it will fall on deaf ears and those who dislike Nadal will be just as annoyed by his timewasting as they were, but it's really the case of his OCD personality and something he has little control over. Not saying he can't control how much time he spends getting ready to serve, but that he wouldn't feel at ease if he doesn't take his time.

This is a 'Nadal' problem, NOT a 'tennis' problem. Have you considered the flip side? That allowing too much time throws off players like Kyrgios, Federer, Tomic (don't laugh) who learned to play the game by following the rules that have existed since long ago? This is essentially to 'miss the forest for the trees'.

 

[EloQuent]

Except it isn't a change to the game. The time between serves has existed, it's just not being enforced.

I agree, but he still has to say something because his voters expect it.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Correct, that's why it's become a public talking point since 2006 and why we're now on the point of shot clocks in major tennis tournaments.

It became a talking point on message boards, but did it lead to Nadal being warned more than other frequent abusers? Not really.

You're being misleading. Shot clocks have been proposed not just because some players are taking loads of time between points, but also because matches in general are longer than ever, a phenomenon somewhat independent of mere time between points. And let's say they're not the least bit independent of one another; that would mean that players are wasting more time than ever, making the genesis of these talking points more organic than you may like to admit.

By the umpire at the time of his matches, not in terms of public awareness. I'm a big tennis fan, and I didn't know about how much Berlocq had time violations. Are you seriously suggesting that Berlocq's time violations are why we are on the point of a shot clock in major tournaments? Do these talking pundits and commentators on TV mention Berlocq when talking about the amount of time between points? No. It's Nadal. People wouldn't care about time between points at all today if Nadal was as fast between points as Federer.

You absolutely know I'm not, so why ask?

Those very same high-profile commentators work about 10x the amount of Nadal matches that they do Berlocq matches. More public exposure, more public awareness, it's not rocket appliances.

You've listed precisely why it's a bad rule, i.e. "open to discretion". In other words, ignore it, unless we want to put pressure on a player we don't like, like Nadal.

Code violations are also open to discretion. Umpiring in general is open to discretion. The fact that you yourself have a rule of thumb as to what constitutes a reasonable amount of time ("within a minute") shows that this is not lost on you, contrarianism be damned.

And, once again, there is no evidence that Nadal is being unfairly targeted by umpires. Conversely, there is a bulk of evidence that he is the slowest player of any that commands a lot of air time. Similarly slow players, in certain instances, have been called for more time violations despite there being less of a public outcry against the players in question.

And as I've said before, the ITF had the time between points rule at 20 seconds, which Federer regularly violated from end of a point to the next serve. The time between points rule is a bit like opinion polls, you can make it mean anything that you want it to mean, to paint any picture, to ignore it and take pressure off people, or to emphasis something and try to put pressure on the people you want.

Violated how? His average time between points was well under 20 seconds. Nobody here is suggesting that Nadal or any player should be dinged the instant they go over 25 seconds, or if there are extenuating circumstances at play that cause a player to go over 25. Just don't go so far over the limit, routinely, that it becomes difficult to ignore. Nadal has put himself into a camp of about three players of the last 25 years..one has played less than 40 matches on tour, and the other, Massu, has retired and was also one of the tour-leaders for time violations.

And yes, once more, there is an element of in-match subjectivity. Acknowledging that no approach to enforcing a rule is perfect does not necessitate throwing the baby out with the bathwater and utterly failing to enforce the rule altogether.

Now hey, the rule can be changed, but I don't want it to be and many others don't. While it exists, it can be followed. How do I know this? Well, the proof is in the pudding: the vast majority of players do. There is no reason Nadal can't.

 

[George Turner]

I lost in my club championships to the club champion the other day. After the first set i was absolutely knackered and was unable to give my best effort.

I'm sure if i took 30 seconds between every point i would not have had this problem. But i would also have pissed off my opponent and felt guilty that i was employing gamesmanship for my own advantage.

Taking too long between point is used to recover between points. any talk about pondering tactics is utter bull. It is also win-at-any-cost type gamesmanship.

 

[AiRFederer]

I like it when hypocrites on these boards put it on Fed when tournaments close their roofs but are yada yada when Nadal is blatantly advocating to continue breaking a certain RULE.

 

[Bartelby]

Unnecessarily long games are a problem and fuel the demands to quicken the game in a bad way, but I would agree that there is in general too great a move to make the game faster.

The big 4 era has been a golden age of tennis, has it not? Which person says that tennis needs to be "more attractive", and more attractive to whom? More to the point, who says fast play is "more attractive"? It ain't to me.

 

[The Fedfather]

This is a 'Nadal' problem, NOT a 'tennis' problem. Have you considered the flip side? That allowing too much time throws off players like Kyrgios, Federer, Tomic (don't laugh) who learned to play the game by following the rules that have existed since long ago? This is essentially to 'miss the forest for the trees'.

It is his problem. What I'm saying is he's not doing it to cheat or annoy anyone.

 

[pame]

I am one of the people who aren't bothered if a player takes longer than 25 seconds to serve unless it's taken to the extreme. Rafa's comments about emotional matches are a strawman, of course. It's not like by introducing shot clock they're going to limit the time of entire matches, so why is he talking about two-hour matches all of a sudden?

However, Nadal's comments just made me realize that players don't just recover physically when they get ready to serve, but they are actually thinking through their tactics for the next point . From this angle, I can definitely understand why he, in particular, takes that much time. He likes to have everything in order so he feels most comfortable when he has a clear picture of what he's going to do. That in contrast to Federer who is a very intuitive player, or Kyrgios who just does things. I know it will fall on deaf ears and those who dislike Nadal will be just as annoyed by his timewasting as they were, but it's really the case of his OCD personality and something he has little control over. Not saying he can't control how much time he spends getting ready to serve, but that he wouldn't feel at ease if he doesn't take his time.

Well then he should have chosen another sport, not one where the time rules have been clearly spelled out just about since tennis began.

 

[pame]

It is his problem. What I'm saying is he's not doing it to cheat or annoy anyone.

Is that why Tio Toni said in an interview some time ago that the biggest thing they worked on where Federer was concerned was slowing down the game?

 

[helterskelter]

Rafa was never the humble peoples champion any more than Fed is a classy Edberg successor. Those are just marketing manufactured images, nothing more.

Nadal is the unbeaten champion of humble tennis. Nobody has ever been as humble as him. If he weren't occasionally induced by journalists into admitting that he never loses unless he's injured, everybody would be aware of his immense humility.

 

[The Fedfather]

Well then he should have chosen another sport, not one where the time rules have been clearly spelled out just about since tennis began.

Sure, one of the biggest talents known to us in the sport shouldn't have developed his gift because he doesn't follow a clearly spelled out but rarely enforced rule. Right. Let's see who else should've applied themselves differently.

Djokovic, Murray, Lendl, Courier, Connors, Chang, and McEnroe. Why the hell did they take up tennis? Clearly, the sport wasn't meant for them.

 

[The Fedfather]

Is that why Tio Toni said in an interview some time ago that the biggest thing they worked on where Federer was concerned was slowing down the game?

Could you please provide a link to the interview or at least quotes, so I can see the context in which he said that.

 

[rommil]

The shot clock is intended for Indian Wells spectators so they can make it home before they die of natural causes

 

[Fiero425]

Just how bitter are you? Sure, one of the biggest talents known to us in the sport shouldn't have developed his gift because he doesn't follow a clearly spelled out but enforced rule. Right. Let's see who else should've applied themselves differently.


Djokovic, Murray, Lendl, Courier, Connors, Chang, and McEnroe. Why the hell did they take up tennis? Clearly, the sport wasn't meant for them.

I think Djokovic started taking his time just to PO Rafa who was "KING" of slowing down a match to a crawl! When they got together, you might as well settle in for a long night! In their final at the USO in 2011, the 1st 3 sets were interminable, lasting 1:15-1:30 or better; 4 games taking 20 min. wasn't unusual! Rafa couldn't stall or wait out someone better conditioned than him and it worked allowing Nole to win 7 straight BIG matches from Rafa from 2011 IW's to 2012 AO! Djokovic saved us from Nadal owning the tour for 2 consecutive years after a very successful 2010!

 

[tenisdecente]

He did tone down his ball bouncing over the years but recently at Queens both him and Cilic were taking a lot of time. I'm not getting the respect the tradition part either but he's open to discussion and change which I think is the best way to approach the situation, have a dialogue and reach the agreement both sides can be happy with.

I dont think there is a need to consult the players for an option to enforce a rule that has been in the rulebook forever. And, in the end, US Open is part of the ITF, not ATP, so I think ATP cannot do alot about this.

You know, it's unfair to criticize Nadal for his moaning. It's like when you see a kid misbehaving in a restaurant or a public space. You don't fault the kid, you fault the parents for lack of parenting.

Nadal is the end result of the ATP/ITF never really enforcing their own rule. Every player who bends or breaks the time rule, every player who calls dodgy MTOs, who takes that urgent bathroom break, who tanks . . . they are all the creation of a governing body who has done very little governing for the past 15 years. So, lay the blame there. The governing body of our sport is absolutely worthless.

Having said that, at least we're not FIFA.

Exaqtly this. Well said

Except it isn't a change to the game. The time between serves has existed, it's just not being enforced.

Exactly. A rule that is not being enforced is basically a non-existant rule.

What I find mmost surprising by the Nadal words is how he talks about business. Are this guy really serious? The same business that pay him ****LOADS in useless exhos and appearance fees in tournaments he does not even need to enter? The same business that has given him more money than his family can spend in 200 years? Come on, the hipocrisy in this is SO STRONG that it is annoying. The business is fine for you when you check your bank account, but it is wrong when it tries to enforce a rule he breaks time and time again? This guy is a bigger troll than 90's clay. Or maybe he is 90's clay like some theorised here?

 

[icedevil0289]

Sure, one of the biggest talents known to us in the sport shouldn't have developed his gift because he doesn't follow a clearly spelled out but rarely enforced rule. Right. Let's see who else should've applied themselves differently.

Djokovic, Murray, Lendl, Courier, Connors, Chang, and McEnroe. Why the hell did they take up tennis? Clearly, the sport wasn't meant for them.

meh that person was probably not being entirely serious but in general rafa does want things very much his way which is not a good look in my book. the shot clock is just one of many examples.

 

[BeatlesFan]

However, Nadal's comments just made me realize that players don't just recover physically when they get ready to serve, but they are actually thinking through their tactics for the next point ..

Yes, that's why two guys who share 34 slams between them (Pete and Roger) take/took 14 seconds between points. Give me a break on this. Nadal needs 35 seconds between points when playing Fed to figure out this Einstein-ian tactic: "Serve big topspin to BH, no?" His tactics are predictable and unvarying. Nadal has no tactics, he just outlasts his opponents with his topspin and fitness. That is not "tactics," though it's highly successful, so more credit to him.

It's not like Becker, Mac or Edberg who could actually vary their pattern of play and HAVE tactics:

1. "Do I stay back on this second serve?"
2. "Should I volley to the deuce or the ad court?"
3. "Do I chip and charge on this next point?"

Question for anyone here: when did Nadal ever in his career change a losing "tactic" when down two sets and start serving and volleying, coming to the net, slicing, or hitting flat?

Answer: never.

 

[Purplemonster]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...n/news-story/95088e06ff8db702d922acddc66a6132

Rafael Nadal insists that plans by Wimbledon to introduce a 25-second shot clock will kill off the sport’s capacity for epic Grand Slam confrontations.

The US Open will have a shot clock for this year’s tournament with Wimbledon poised to follow suit.

World number one Nadal is routinely warned for slow play between points. However, he believes players need time to compose themselves between points and to ponder tactics over five sets.

“If you want to see a quick game without thinking, well done,” said Nadal. “If you want to keep playing in a sport that you need to think, you need to play with more tactics, you want to have long and good rallies, then of course you are going the wrong way.

“But seems like sometimes it is only about the business, so … I can’t support this because I don’t feel the matches that stay for the history of our sport went that quick.”

Nadal has been involved in epic confrontations down the years as he amassed 17 Grand Slam titles.

He famously defeated Roger Federer in 2008 for the first of his two Wimbledon titles in a final which took the best part of five hours and ended in near-darkness.

In 2012, he lost the longest final at a major to Novak Djokovic in Australia, a five-setter which stretched to five hours and 53 minutes.

“I don’t remember any emotional match that the total time was two hours,” added the 32-year-old Nadal.

“All the matches that have been important in the history of our sport have been four hours, five hours.

“To play these kind of matches you need time between points because you cannot play points in a row with long rallies, with emotional points, having only 25 seconds between points.” Despite his objections, the All England Club insist that a shot clock is on the agenda.

“There’s a general feeling that we should speed up when a match begins and ends,” said the tournament’s chief executive Richard Lewis.

“The shot clock isn’t a rule change, that’s just something visible.”

Nadal had no cause to worry about getting caught up in a marathon match on Tuesday as he opened his Wimbledon campaign with a 6-3, 6-3, 6-2 win over Israel’s Dudi Sela, the world 127.

Fresh from an 11th French Open title, Nadal was playing on grass for the first time this season.

But there was no lack of competitive edge from the 2008 and 2010 champion who comfortably avoided being beaten at the tournament by a player ranked outside the top 100 for what would have been the fifth time in his last six visits.

“I had a long clay court season, a lot of matches,” said Nadal as he explained why he sat out the grass court build-up to Wimbledon.

“After playing the final of Roland Garros and playing so many matches on clay, for my knees, the drastic changes are not good.

“So we decided to stop a couple of days, then to start step by step on grass. I did the same last year.”

Djokovic also weighed in on the shot clock debate, claiming the full opinion of the players has yet to be sought.

“I understand what they are trying to do with the shot clock,” said Djokovic after making the second round with a 6-3, 6-1, 6-2 win over Tennys Sandgren.

“Everybody is trying to get this new generation of people and the attention span is not maybe as it used to be, except if you’re a real, real tennis fan.

“But it has to be in line with the respect towards the tradition of the game.”

If the rule is the same for every player then no player should be complaining. It’s actually a good way to speed up the game because of the boring nature of the game these days.

 

[JackGates]

I don't get it, why would that change anything for Djokovic and Nadal? Their competition would also have less time to rest and they are the fittest on the tour at their best, so why would it matter anyway?

 

[LETitBE]

As I said, he can be faster but it's difficult for him mentally. Like, imagine a very shy person that dreads public speaking has to present a project in front of their class in order to pass. They would be able to do it, but the entire time they'd feel extremely uncomfortable.

imagine a rally driver who doesnt like driving fast through the trees...or a soccer player who gets the ball and is too slow,so the opposition players take it from him?If he cant play by the rules he should lose

 

[Sentinel]

Nice touch with adding the Uniqlo logo. Details are important.

Shouldn't Fedr be in white not black.

@Rafa24 needs to up his game.

 

[Sentinel]

I don't get it, why would that change anything for Djokovic and Nadal? Their competition would also have less time to rest and they are the fittest on the tour at their best, so why would it matter anyway?

If Nadal can take a minute or more between points, then each point will be even longer. Then he will demand two minutes to recover. This will just go on.

And then we'll have commercial breaks between serves.

Looks like we have a player who thinks he is bigger than the game. What you say, @Rafa24 ?

 

[JackGates]

If Nadal can take a minute or more between points, then each point will be even longer. Then he will demand two minutes to recover. This will just go on.

And then we'll have commercial breaks between serves.

Looks like we have a player who thinks he is bigger than the game. What you say, @Rafa24 ?

Yeah, he will never be happy, that's the problem. We can change entire tour to clay and have 2 year ranking, then he will complain that he gets injured from so much playing. He will then win 50 majors and then complain that he wasn't challenged and that it was boring, so he will demand that the courts are being sped up. It never ends with this guy.

 

[Slightly D1]

Strict implementation of this rule via a shot clock is specifically for the out of shape people at home who have the attention span of a fish.

Does anybody know how fatigued guys might be by 3 sets? Dumb rule meant for people who will never play at that speed or energy for 5 sets watching tv.

 

[Russeljones]

Serial offenders wanting to change the rule book.

There's nothing like an epic 6 hour final where tennis is being played only 30% of the time. Epic.

 

[JackGates]

Strict implementation of this rule via a shot clock is specifically for the out of shape people at home who have the attention span of a fish.

Does anybody know how fatigued guys might be by 3 sets? Dumb rule meant for people who will never play at that speed or energy for 5 sets watching tv.

Ok, then MMA fans are basically bunch of lazy people, because those fights are like 10 minutes long. Tennis by nature has too many tournaments and too long matches.

And clock would force top guys to play more aggressive and freaking prevent their injuries. So, it's a win-win. And that would be mostly only in early rounds where top guys would win anyway. In later rounds when two guys are evenly matched the match would still be long. Just that Rafa will for once arrive healthy in a slam final.

Actually Rafa might even win more if points were shorter, because he would get tired and injured a lot less, because he would be forced to figure out how to play with more aggressive game.

So, Rafa and his fans are really complaining for no reasons.

 

[JackGates]

There's nothing like an epic 6 hour final where tennis is being played only 30% of the time. Epic.

Ok, finals are rare, if it was only in finals, it's ok. But you have hundreds of matches, you can't just change the rules to only make finals look good.

Also I'm surprised that people like long rallies. It's like watching a practice match. 20 shots to set up the point, what's up with that? It's like 19 points of practising ground strokes then one guy gets bored and hits a winner.

But in the end I will accept it, won't be such a big deal, what bothers me that why have rules if you break them? If the time was 40 seconds, Rafa would still go over, that's the problem. Just start enforcing the damn rules no matter what they are. And even 25 seconds is too long. 25 is the max, you go 25 in extreme cases rarely, 25 is meant the upper limit but just in theory. 25 doesn't mean you go 25 every time, it's about freaking common sense and fair play and that the match has rhythm.