Roof open on a new day

[NAS]

In that case, going into the 2014 Australian Open final, Nadal leads Wawrinka 12-0 and has never lost a set. Simple.


The curfew rule was known in advance, and they went beyond 11pm anyway.

So was the roof rule known by everybody till then, actually it was second time Djokovic was nearly screw*d by this stupid rule, first time Anderson in 2015

 

[GabeT]

7>2. Give it up people. Roof, no roof, no difference

 

[Mustard]

So was the roof rule known by everybody till then, actually it was second time Djokovic was nearly screw*d by this stupid rule, first time Anderson in 2015

Apparently, there was no such rule officially. The referee, Andrew Jarrett, had to make a decision on opening the roof, and he decided that both players had to consent to open the roof the next day, rather than take the view that it was sunny, an outdoor tournament and should be outdoors.

 

[DogInSpace]

7>2. Give it up people. Roof, no roof, no difference

I'm not arguing that Nadal is a better grass court player than Djokovic. In my opinion he isn't because serve+return is such a big factor on grass. It's like 50% of the game. And Djokovic is much better server and returner than Nadal (returner on fast surfaces).

But in 2018 Nadal built probably his best form on grass in 2010's decade. And he could beat Djokovic. They played so rarerly at wimbledon that it sucks so much that when they finally met the circumstances were so unfortunate for Nadal.

And saying "roof, no roof, no difference'' for me is just trolling. That match ended 10-8 in the 5th.

 

[Mustard]

7>2. Give it up people. Roof, no roof, no difference

Back then, it was 3-2 in Wimbledon titles, and Djokovic hadn't won Wimbledon for 3 years. That match is a huge reason for the 7 Wimbledons that Djokovic has today.

 

[TheNachoMan]

I was an 11 year old whippersnapper the last time RAFA won Wimbledon. Time flies.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

The roof should have been open in 2018…..

Sounds like heartbreak, kid.

 

[Mustard]

I'm not arguing that Nadal is a better grass court player than Djokovic. In my opinion he isn't because serve+return is such a big factor on grass. It's like 50% of the game. And Djokovic is much better server and returner than Nadal (returner on fast surfaces).

But in 2018 Nadal built probably his best form on grass in 2010's decade. And he could beat Djokovic. They played so rarerly at wimbledon that it sucks so much that when they finally met the circumstances were so unfortunate for Nadal.

And saying "roof, no roof, no difference'' for me is just trolling. That match ended 10-8 in the 5th.

A lot of people would say that Djokovic is better at the US Open, having played in 9 finals there, yet Nadal has won more US Open titles.

 

[DogInSpace]

A lot of people would say that Djokovic is better at the US Open, having played in 9 finals there, yet Nadal has won more US Open titles.

When I say that Djokovic is better on grass than Nadal I don't mean it by the number of their titles. Djokovic is just so good at placing his servers and neutralizing huge servers with his return. Much better than Nadal who still to this day has his bad habits from clay to stand so far when returning. That 2018 match showed me that Nadal is much better at improvising and creativly building the points but it didn't matter at the end of the day where when Djokovic was under the pressure he just sent aces or unreturnable servs.

 

[itrium84]

Jfc. It is not about the surface. It is about heat, humidity, and other weather conditions and how the BALL goes through the AIR regardless of on which surface it bounces on. These factors can even impact the ball's bounce due to the court becoming hotter or drier. Closing the roof eliminates these challenges, creating a controlled and consistent environment. Also one player wanted roof to be open the other wanted it to remain closed. Wonder why?

Ok. Please provide data on similarities of all (or any?) categories you mentioned, between outdoors grass under movable roof (at Wimbledon 2018 SF) and average (or any?) indoors hard court. I'm interested in all numbers you compared during your research on this topic. It seems the conditions you compared are extra-similar, since you're extra-confident in your conclusion.


Also one player wanted roof to be open the other wanted it to remain closed. Wonder why?

It's the matter of on-the-spot calculation:
Do I provide undetermined but possible advantage to my opponent, or do I not? Hmmmm.... Yeah.... Can't say..... It's really tough decision.... I don't know.

 

[GabeT]

I'm not arguing that Nadal is a better grass court player than Djokovic. In my opinion he isn't because serve+return is such a big factor on grass. It's like 50% of the game. And Djokovic is much better server and returner than Nadal (returner on fast surfaces).

But in 2018 Nadal built probably his best form on grass in 2010's decade. And he could beat Djokovic. They played so rarerly at wimbledon that it sucks so much that when they finally met the circumstances were so unfortunate for Nadal.

And saying "roof, no roof, no difference'' for me is just trolling. That match ended 10-8 in the 5th.

Novak also had right matches he lost, matches that but for some small difference the result would have been very different.

In the end this was a decision by the organizers of the tournament. Their rules and their decision. It’s up to the players to win.

 

[Sephiroth]

7>2. Give it up people. Roof, no roof, no difference

Back then it was 3-2. It was literally the catalyst for what you're seeing today.

 

[GabeT]

Back then it was 3-2. It was literally the catalyst for what you're seeing today.

You think had Novak lost that match his post 30 renaissance would have not happened?

 

[Sephiroth]

You think had Novak lost that match his post 30 renaissance would have not happened?

To the point he's 1 Wimb title away from tying Federer's 8? Who just won it 1 year prior to 2018? No chance.

Each of the Big 3 thrive on confidence. Wimb 18 would've been a huge body blow for Djokovic.

 

[StrongRule]

Djokovic is the luckiest player in history, there is no doubt about it.

 

[DogInSpace]

Novak also had right matches he lost, matches that but for some small difference the result would have been very different.

In the end this was a decision by the organizers of the tournament. Their rules and their decision. It’s up to the players to win.

The decision was actually left for the players to make. If 2 players would agree to open the roof, they would have opened it. Djokovic obviously didn't want it to be open.

Anyway back then Djoko fans were defending his decision arguing that the match HAS to have the same conditions throughout it's whole duration. Like it is an argument. Apperently they got error404 in their brains whenever the roof is getting closed mid-match. And the fact that they no longer keep it closed on the next day nowadays proves that it was a stupid decision back then. I'm not blaming Djokovic. It was his right to make that call as they asked him. He played the game. It just bad luck for Nadal.

 

[Sephiroth]

Djokovic was completely gone after losing at RG 18, his body language, look at the way he talks "i don't know if I'm gonna play on grass" etc etc

imagine Wimb 18 loss piled on top of this @Mustard

 

[Mustard]

You think had Novak lost that match his post 30 renaissance would have not happened?

That's right. Djokovic hadn't won a major for over 2 years. Nadal and Federer had won 3 majors each in the previous 6 majors held.

 

[Mustard]

Djokovic was completely gone after losing at RG 18, his body language, look at the way he talks "i don't know if I'm gonna play on grass" etc etc

imagine Wimb 18 loss piled on top of this @Mustard

Absolutely.

 

[ibbi]

Nadal died so these guys could have their sunny day rights. He's the Martin Luther King of tennis.

He may not get there with you
But he wants you to know
That WE as a PEOPLE
Will GET to play tennis under the sun!

 

[GabeT]

To the point he's 1 Wimb title away from tying Federer's 8? Who just won it 1 year prior to 2018? No chance.

Each of the Big 3 thrive on confidence. Wimb 18 would've been a huge body blow for Djokovic.

This makes no sense. All Big 3 and (I would argue Novak even more) have shown they can recover even after losses. Losses of all kinds.

From W16 to FO18 Novak was lost. And FO18 was the low point in many ways (hence the famous “I don’t know if I’m playing grass” response). But W18 changed that and had he lost to Nadal it still would have changed.

I recall an interview with Nadal right before W18 where he was asked if Novak could be “back”. And he responded something along the lines that Novak was already back and anyone who didn’t see it didn’t understand tennis (paraphrasing from memory).

W18 proved Nadal was right. Even if he had lost it would have been losing to Nadal in 5 sets in the defacto final. Very very very different from what had been happening in the prior slams

 

[Tennfan123]

I don’t think much would have changed either way. That 2018 USO was pretty weak and I think Djokovic would have still won it.

 

[NeutralFan]

Wimbledon probably just didn't know what to do because it was a unique situation and so they improvised. They asked both Nadal and Djokovic what they wanted, Nadal wanted outdoors, Djokovic wanted indoors, and they chose to continue playing indoors under the logic that the conditions should stay the same the whole match, ignoring that Wimbledon is an outdoors tournament and that matches switch conditions all the time when play is interrupted by rain. Why not prioritize switching back to the conditions under which the tournament is classified as when play is interrupted? It made no sense, which is why after the tournament they formally implemented a rule preventing the same thing from happening again.

It was Nadal's fault to play with closed roof when the match started.he could have said no and then game would have started next day.

 

[ADuck]

It was Nadal's fault to play with closed roof when the match started.he could have said no and then game would have started next day.

Did Nadal ask to start match with the roof closed to save time? That's kind of ****ed up if true, because it means they used his altruistic decision against him.

 

[NeutralFan]

Did Nadal ask to start match with the roof closed to save time? That's kind of ****ed up if true, because it means they used his altruistic decision against him.

Yes, to start the play under the roof when it's not raining they need consent from both players. Nadal could have played with roofs off till natural light was available and then resume it next day. He knew the rule and went along with them.

 

[ADuck]

Yes, to start the play under the roof when it's not raining they need consent from both players. Nadal could have played with roofs off till natural light was available and then resume it next day. He knew the rule and went along with them.

That just adds to how ****ed up the decision was then. No wonder he was pissed about it. What happened is certainly one of, if not the the biggest "what if" in Rafa's career.

 

[Torben]

Well well well...look what we have here...the roof wide open on a bright sunny day after it was closed yesterday, part 1 roof closed, part 2 roof open

where have I seen this before? oh wait

Yes we have been here before.

I strongly believe had they done that for the Nadal vs Djokovic match in 2018, the Slam race would be tied and the perception of their rivalry much different than it is today.

 

[Mustard]

It was Nadal's fault to play with closed roof when the match started.he could have said no and then game would have started next day.

I doubt that Wimbledon would have ended the day's play at 8pm. Closing the roof seemingly couldn't be avoided after Wimbledon declined to start the Nadal vs. Djokovic semi on Court 1 around 6pm or something. The Isner vs. Anderson semi final ended up going on for a ridiculous 6 hours and 36 minutes, with Anderson eventually winning 7-6, 6-7, 6-7, 6-4, 26-24.

By the time that Nadal and Djokovic walked on to Centre Court, under the roof, it was something like 8:09pm. If they had started the match outdoors at that time, they would have had to stop sometime between 9pm-9:30pm when the light had faded badly enough, and then they would close the roof (which takes 15-20 minutes) and an 11pm curfew.

Even in the pre-roof days, they'd have started the match on the Friday, perhaps moving it to Court 1, and playing as much as they could before the light faded. I remember in 1996, Todd Martin and MaliVai Washington was deadlocked at 2 sets all overnight.

 

[NeutralFan]

I doubt that Wimbledon would have ended the day's play at 8pm. Closing the roof seemingly couldn't be avoided after Wimbledon declined to start the Nadal vs. Djokovic semi on Court 1 around 6pm or something. The Isner vs. Anderson semi final ended up going on for a ridiculous 6 hours and 36 minutes, with Anderson eventually winning 7-6, 6-7, 6-7, 6-4, 26-24.

By the time that Nadal and Djokovic walked on to Centre Court, under the roof, it was something like 8:09pm. If they had started the match outdoors at that time, they would have had to stop sometime between 9pm-9:30pm when the light had faded badly enough, and then they would close the roof (which takes 15-20 minutes) and an 11pm curfew.

Even in the pre-roof days, they'd have started the match on the Friday, perhaps moving it to Court 1, and playing as much as they could before the light faded. I remember in 1996, Todd Martin and MaliVai Washington was deadlocked at 2 sets all overnight.

Not really, they would have played outdoor till the light was available. I heard commentators saying Nadal agreed to it and the consent was given from the get go. Also, why play indoor when light was available for atleast another one and half hour ? that would have given Nadal significant edge . He would have played another two hours since weather was very hot those days and lights would be available for atleast another two hours. That was sheer stupidity to get along this nonsense.

 

[Mustard]

Not really, they would have played outdoor till the light was available. I heard commentators saying Nadal agreed to it and the consent was given from the get go. Also, why play indoor when light was available for atleast another one and half hour ?

Because, as I mentioned, starting at gone 8:09pm outdoors would have meant about a hour or so of daylight before they'd have to stop play for around half a hour while they closed the roof. And these days, Wimbledon decide to go under the roof until 11pm if a match isn't finished by the time that the light has faded.

that would have given Nadal significant edge . He would have played another two hours since weather was very hot those days and lights would be available for atleast another two hours. That was sheer stupidity to get along this nonsense.

If Nadal had insisted on starting the match outdoors and they agreed to it, they'd be demanding a roof closure a hour later rather than calling it a night. Why did Nadal agree to the roof closed at the start? Because it would mean no interruption of play until 11pm.

 

[NeutralFan]

Because, as I mentioned, starting at gone 8:09pm outdoors would have meant about a hour or so of daylight before they'd have to stop. And these days, Wimbledon decide to go under the roof until 11pm if a match isn't finished by the time that the light has faded.


If Nadal had insisted on starting the match outdoors and they agreed to it, they'd be demanding a roof closure a hour later rather than calling it a night. Why did Nadal agree to the roof closed at the start? Because it would mean no interruption of play until 11pm.

It made literally no sense to start with roof when atleast 1 and half hour of sun light was available and it was a hot summer in 2018 so light could have been available beyond 9:30 PM. It made absolutely no sense to get extra half an hour or one hour of play since 11 is the curfews time. Nadal made a mistake by playing with a roof on when sunlight was available.

 

[Mustard]

It made literally no sense to start with roof when atleast 1 and half hour of sun light was available

Not as much as 90 minutes. 60 minutes or so, perhaps 75 minutes if lucky.

and it was a hot summer in 2018 so light could have been available beyond 9:30 PM.

But light enough to play tennis? Even if they could have played beyond 9:30pm, which is not really likely, the match would have been about 70-80 minutes long, so wouldn't be finished, and the new wisdom is to play under the roof until 11pm if the light has faded, particularly if the tournament is behind schedule. That would have meant a delay in play while they closed the roof. It was easier to just agree to close the roof at the start, and play all the way through to 11pm without interruption.

It made absolutely no sense to get extra half an hour or one hour of play since 11 is the curfews time. Nadal made a mistake by playing with a roof on when sunlight was available.

Like I said, I can't see Wimbledon agreeing to an outdoors match for 60-80 minutes, and then just postponing the match until the next day when they could play under the roof until 11pm.

 

[NeutralFan]

Not as much as 90 minutes. 60 minutes or so, perhaps 75 minutes if lucky.


But light enough to play tennis? Even if they could have played beyond 9:30pm, which is not really likely, the match would have been about 70-80 minutes long, so wouldn't be finished, and the new wisdom is to play under the roof until 11pm if the light has faded, particularly if the tournament is behind schedule. That would have meant a delay in play while they closed the roof. It was easier to just agree to close the roof at the start, and play all the way through to 11pm without interruption.


Like I said, I can't see Wimbledon agreeing to an outdoors match for 60-80 minutes, and then just postponing the match until the next day when they could play under the roof until 11pm.

There's no rule that says they have to play under the roof when there's no rain or light issue.moreover Nadal gave the consent to start the match under the roof from the get go . As far as sunlight is concerned on a good hot summer day easily 90 minutes of tennis was there to play. Nadal took the chance and went along with it. I would appreciate the link to support your theory.

 

[Mustard]

There's no rule that says they have to play under the roof when there's no rain or light issue.moreover Nadal gave the consent to start the match under the roof from the get go . As far as sunlight is concerned on a good hot summer day easily 90 minutes of tennis was there to play. Nadal took the chance and went along with it. I would appreciate the link to support your theory.

They would not be playing until 9:45pm outdoors. It has to be light enough to play tennis, not light in a general sense.

And a link for what? Why should some journalist's opinion carry more weight than mine?

 

[NeutralFan]

They would not be playing until 9:45pm outdoors. It has to be light enough to play tennis, not light in a general sense.

And a link for what? Why should some journalist's opinion carry more weight than mine?

there's no rule for playing with roof on when there's light and no rain , you should provide evidence that Nadal was forced to play with roof open from the get go.

 

[Mustard]

there's no rule for playing with roof on when there's light and no rain , you should provide evidence that Nadal was forced to play with roof open from the get go.

I didn't say that he was forced to from the beginning, but I think he would have been once the daylight had faded to no longer being suitable for play.

The choice was basically:

1. Start outdoors, play for 60-80 minutes, stop, close roof, play indoors for another hour or so until 11pm
2. Start indoors, play continuously for around 160-165 minutes until 11pm.

Number 2 is what happened, although it ended up being 11:03pm. Had number 1 happened, then the referee, Andrew Jarrett, would have still probably made the decision to keep the roof closed the next day, saying that both players would need to consent to open the roof.

 

[Start da Game]

it's a ****ing disgrace they dint do the same in 2018....brainless bimbos....

 

[Enceladus]

The retractable roof at outdoor tournaments has become an element of the game to be reckoned with. It's fascinating to read the posts in this thread from by Nadal fans, who are so frustrated as if Nadal was playing with a weight on his back in 2018 SF match. It's nonsense of course, the conditions were the same for both players and that's what matters.

 

[DogInSpace]

The retractable roof at outdoor tournaments has become an element of the game to be reckoned with. It's fascinating to read the posts in this thread from by Nadal fans, who are so frustrated as if Nadal was playing with a weight on his back in 2018 SF match. It's nonsense of course, the conditions were the same for both players and that's what matters.

Oh great. Because Nadal fans obviously argued that the conditions were different for two players

Nadal plays alot worse in indoor conditions and there is 20 years of career data to prove it. That match was played for it's whole duration under the roof creating indoor conditions and that match eneded 10-8 in the 5th. That is also a fact. It is one of the biggest "what ifs" in recent tennis and was made by a utterly stupid decision based against common sense and logic and the fact that they have never done it again shows that they non verbally admitt that they were wrong.

 

[Enceladus]

Oh great. Because Nadal fans obviously argued that the conditions were different for two players

Nadal plays alot worse in indoor conditions and there is 20 years of career data to prove it. That match was played for it's whole duration under the roof creating indoor conditions and that match eneded 10-8 in the 5th. That is also a fact. It is one of the biggest "what ifs" in recent tennis and was made by a utterly stupid decision based against common sense and logic and the fact that they have never done it again shows that they non verbally admitt that they were wrong.

But that's Nadal's problem, that he is weaker under the roof. Uncle Toni obviously didn't prepare him for that.

In the disputies over the clouded roof during Saturday's finishing part, the question of why Wimbledon is forced to suspend matches at 11pm London time, when they have lighting available, disappears. Yes, I know that's what the residents of the area want, and they enforced a curfew. But it's an annoying limitation for the tournament. If we are already talking about what should be right, then the match should have taken place in one piece.

 

[DogInSpace]

But that's Nadal's problem, that he is weaker under the roof. Uncle Toni obviously didn't prepare him for that.

In the disputies over the clouded roof during Saturday's finishing part, the question of why Wimbledon is forced to suspend matches at 11pm London time, when they have lighting available, disappears. Yes, I know that's what the residents of the area want, and they enforced a curfew. But it's an annoying limitation for the tournament. If we are already talking about what should be right, then the match should have taken place in one piece.

1. We are talking about outdoor tournament that is Wimbledon, not WTF. Obviously no Nadal fan has a problem that WTF is played indoors. Yes it is Nadals problem nobody argues that it isn't what is even that point? He knows that because of that part of the season is going to be difficult for him but as a matter of fact Wimbledon is an outdoor tournament. If it rains you need a roof and there is an agreement between everybody that this is now a situation and conditions that the match has to be played under. Nadal plays worse indoor? Well bad luck for him but it is raining so there is no problem we all are adults and understand it. Why the hell you create indoor conditions when it is perfect weather? So you can handicap one of the players?

2. That is the seperate issue. Stopping the match at 11pm at least has a valid reason and anybody can have an understanding about it. You can have a different opinion about it, you can argue about it but at least there is logic behind it. Playing under the roof on the next day when it is hot and sunny weather is dumb and without any logical understanding. They know it now so they are opening the roof on the next days but they didn't on that day and clearly on of the players benefitted from it. If you are going to say that it didn't matter and there would be no difference then sure everybody can have their own opinion but it is a fact that 1. Wimbledon in fundamentally outdoor tournament. 2 Nadal plays worse indoor. 3. Djokovic won by a skin of the teeth. 4. Djokovic wanted the roof to be closed.