Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic lead complaints over shot clock plan

[The Fedfather]

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.

I understand your point and those who say the same thing, that Nadal uses the same tactics. But even with Federer, where there used to be one pattern of play until recently, it's not like he only had to serve to Roger's BH and the point was over. They played many long rallies and while Nadal doesn't have much variety in his game, Roger does. Obviously I may be wrong, but I do believe that a person like Nadal would think through even the simplest of tactical decisions, possible outcomes to which he'll need to react and how he'll react to them.

Anyway, we'll never know for sure what the truth is. From watching Nadal play I don't get the idea that he's trying to gain an advantage by making his opponent wait. He just needs time to collect his thoughts and have a plan in his head, that's when he feels most comfortable. I don't think the other players or the rules should cater to Nadal and his needs. As it was pointed out, that's his problem. However, I can't stand people here viciously attacking and disparaging him for this.

 

[Mustard]

As it was pointed out, that's his problem. However, I can't stand people here viciously attacking and disparaging him for this.

He dared to stand up to peak Federer, and usually won. There's their motive.

 

[The Fedfather]

The optimistic dreamer in me wants to wholeheartedly agree with you.

The realist in me is just thinking "What does Nadal have to contemplate or plan before each point? How high he's going to hit the ball cross court to someone's backhand?"

I'd buy that argument for your Djokovics, Murrays and Federers. But Nadal?

Nadal is different from Djokovic, Murray, and Federer. He makes sure to put his water bottles to stand perfectly in line. Is it that bizarre he would be going over the learned tactics in his head to get the sense of being in control?

 

[Russeljones]

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.

I don't know what line of work you are in, but the implementation of the rule, as-is, is too manual and susceptible to human error to be applied evenly across the board. This is the no 1 reason you have hawk eye.

 

[Arafel]

My problem is when do you start the clock? If a guy makes a run to a drop shot and is all the way by the net and the point ends do you start it as soon as the point is over? or if the crowd is going nuts after a long rally when do they start the clock. I think 35 seconds and start as soon as the point ends would be reasonable. otherwise I think there has to be some discretion on when the clock starts.

I agree with this. I was watching the French Open matches and it seemed a lot of the time that Nadal was exceeding the time limit, it was because the crowd got really rowdy, and you need to wait for them to settle down slightly. it's so funny to see all the people on this board whine about it. I don't think 35 seconds between points is excessive, especially on points where there is a lot running and rallies.

 

[van_Loederen]

too many Feder worshippers on here, who are too distanced from the sport to realize that a strict enforcement of such a rule would make rallies shorter and tennis less interesting.

i doubt that the Slams/ITF want that.
after long rallies will the umpire either delay the start of the clock or ignore the clock, i assume.

only that way would the shotclock be a good invention as it reduces deliberate delay by players.

when do you start the clock? If a guy makes a run to a drop shot and is all the way by the net and the point ends do you start it as soon as the point is over? or if the crowd is going nuts after a long rally when do they start the clock.

according to the rules, the 25 secs shall start right after the point/rally is over, but i can't see how that could work technically.
so i'd assume it starts when the umpire logs the score into the board, which normally happens shortly after the rally is over.

the lenght of the previous point played should be an indicator for the pause between points.

how could that be measured automatically? it would require an extra person, wouldn't it?

 

[cknobman]

I believe that the tennis should be the deciding factor in tennis matches, and not this time nonsense that has only been made a fuss of since 2006. Speaking of rules, I'm pretty sure I heard that it's not permitted in the rulebook for players to sit down after the end of the pre-match warmup, nor is it permitted to take time to drink after the first game of a set or a changeover in a tiebreak, yet these rules are ignored and rightfully so.

Only since 2006??

Do you not see the correlation?
Rafa and his rise on the tour correlates directly with the fuss.
Why? Because no one in tennis history took so much time between points so the subject never had been an issue.

Any yes the tennis should be the deciding factor and tennis does relate to recovery time, stamina, and physical fitness. If you are lacking in those areas you dont deserve to win.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Lmao stfu ned. So Fed and like 80% of tennis pros dont think because they play quick? Idiot.

He just confirms in public that he is slow (not only at getting on with the play).

What, you have no compassion for such people?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

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.

So, I am slowly, but surely getting to your point.

Until now we know from your posts that:

1) all ATP players are Federer fans, were rooting for him, and that is why wanted Nadal to be (unfairly) punished

2) the tennis authorities, via the umpires, are introducing the shot clock to specifically target Nadal, and to have a revenge on him, because they don't like him

 

[fednad]

Nadal needs 30 seconds to wipe sweat and pull wedgie out.
Joker needs 25 seconds to bounce balls.
shot clock basically means they will be penalized matches !

 

[fednad]

So, I am slowly, but surely getting to your point.

Until now we know from your posts that:

1) all ATP players are Federer fans, were rooting for him, and that is why wanted Nadal to be (unfairly) punished

2) the tennis authorities, via the umpires, are introducing the shot clock to specifically target Nadal, and to have a revenge on him, because they don't like him

Do not pick on Mustard. He is a good guy. Just that he is supporting an unhygienic guy !

 

[clayqueen]

Ok, Nadal just said that you don't need to think, if points are faster, so why would you need extra time to think? He contradicted himself.

When did he say you don't need to think if points are faster? He said you won't have time to think if points are faster.

 

[clayqueen]

When the sport changes to big serves and short points with matches lasting a maximum of 2 hours, would people go to the trouble of queueing for hours to watch people just serving and winning 2-point games? It would be just like club tennis and people will lose interest.

 

[TMF]

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.

But still, wasting time have added blemishes to the sport. Keep it clean, the sport is more attractive.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

But still, wasting time have added blemishes to the sport. Keep it clean, the sport is more attractive.

The beauty of the sport is contained in the meeting of different styles, conditions, playing philosophies etc.

A person pushing for removing of those is either ignorant or deliberately ignoring this to massage a certain ego.

 

[bananaforehand]

Let's be honest a strict enforcement of this rule doesn't enhance the sport. It's neither here nor there and people that moan about it are moaning for the sake of it.

Keep it reasonable, but to me it's not that big of an issue to have a shot clock. In football the rule is that the keeper should only hold the ball for 6 seconds but it's not followed to the dot and works fine.

When thinking about rhythm, as long as the server is fairly consistent (slow or fast) then no issue for me.

 

[Rafa24]

The beauty of the sport is contained in the meeting of different styles, conditions, playing philosophies etc.

A person pushing for removing of those is either ignorant or deliberately ignoring this to massage a certain ego.

They like saying it hurts the sport because fed plays fast. If fed played slow they'd be against it 10000000%.

 

[sarmpas]

They like saying it hurts the sport because fed plays fast. If fed played slow they'd be against it 10000000%.

If it was Fed who was exposed as a TUE taker instead of Nadal

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016...ues-tennis-performance-enhancing-drugs/61215/

You'd all be calling him a cheat.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

They like saying it hurts the sport because fed plays fast. If fed played slow they'd be against it 10000000%.

There are surfaces and conditions for fast, slow, and in-between play, and players.

Forcing on everyone only fast or slow conditions for the entire time is a mistake with detrimental consequences for the sport.

Nadal and Djokovic are pushing for a domination of slow play (be it by slowing down the game, including by violating the time rules, or supporting the slowing down of the surfaces), which is bad for that variety.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/44726266

 

[flanker2000fr]

I think a number of the comments about the time limit changing the style of play (claybot / servebot) are missing the mark.

The vast majority of the players, regardless of their style, consistently abide to the time limit, with occasional infringements.

Then, there are a few players, generally highly ranked, who consistently infringe the limit. And they do so because they feel their status will let them get away with it.

Because of these consistent abuses, the regulator feels they have to step in and impose more stringent controls, which end up hitting everybody, including the occasional culprits.

I don't understand how anyone would be surprised about this. I've seen the same thing happen in countless occasions outside of tennis.