5555
Hall of Fame
This is copy/paste from http://justdjoking.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/the-apparent-criticisms-of-novak.html
Part 1 - Tactical MTOs & Faking Injury
I’ve wanted to address the criticisms of world number one, Novak Djokovic, for a long time. But it seems that whenever I gather the courage to start writing down my thoughts, there’s another blast of criticism for the latest mistake Novak has made. The time has come, however, for me to present my point of view in a series of articles that will each address a different issue. It’ll be clear in writing this instalment that I am a Djokovic fan, something I am not ashamed of, but I’m worried will make you, the reader, less likely to take what I am saying seriously. I will try my best to be objective and I know this will unlikely change the minds of 99% of the people who have taken a disliking to the best player in the world but to the remaining 1% - this is what I have to say.
Let’s start with the most recent criticism of Novak - that is, faking injury and taking tactical MTOs to try and put his opponent off. I’m going to begin with a lesson in the rules of tennis. This is a quote from the ITF official grand slam rule book:
“If a player is bleeding, the Chair Umpire must stop play as soon as possible, and the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer must be called to the court by the Chair Umpire for evaluation and treatment. The Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer, in conjunction with the Tournament Doctor if appropriate, will evaluate the source of the bleeding, and will request a Medical Time-Out for treatment if necessary. If requested by the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer and/or Tournament Doctor, the Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Supervisor or Chair Umpire may allow up to a total of five (5) minutes to assure control of the bleeding.”
Now let’s take a look at the facts. Was Novak bleeding? Yes. He, himself, said so in his post-match presser:
“The toenails were off and bleeding so it was quite painful to move around. But I tried.”
So this brings us back to the rules. A reminder: if a player is bleeding, whether visible or not, play must be stopped so a physiotherapist can be called to assess the injury. Bleeding is also considered an acute medical condition which you can receive immediate treatment for. Therefore, Novak was well within his rights to ask for a medical timeout, even at a non-changeover game. Regardless of acting within the rules, Novak still apologised to Stan for taking the MTO before Stan was about to serve saying:
“Stan, I'm sorry man. I couldn't stand. Sorry.”
Stan appeared to completely accept this apology, stating in his post-match presser:
“That’s it. If your opponent is struggling, if he has blood coming out, you have to stop. So when the umpire and the referee came to me saying, it’s like that. It’s just happening. We have to stop for him because there is blood coming out. We have to make sure he’s going to be okay.”
If Stan himself was fine with the MTO and understood its necessity, then why are so many people still outraged by it?
Perhaps it's because many think the timing was convenient and held the purpose of breaking Stan’s rhythm when he was up in the match. Perhaps it's because he started playing better after the MTO and almost broke Stan’s serve. But let’s analyse these reasons more closely. Many people say that Novak’s MTOs tend to come when he is down in a match or a set. This is not accurate; I can cite many examples as evidence, such as recently in the third set vs Kyle Edmund at the US Open. However, let’s say it is, for argument’s sake. It makes indisputable sense that when a player is injured, they start playing worse and consequently might start losing. Therefore, it follows fairly easily that, if they take an MTO to have treatment for said injury, they are likely to feel better afterwards and, as a result, start playing better and start winning. This seems a natural course of events to me but apparently not to others. I’ve heard accounts of Novak going from “hobbling” to “running like a rabbit” after an MTO. Maybe this is because we don’t fully understand or appreciate the difference an MTO can make. Maybe I’m naive and I don’t want to believe that Novak would want to tactically slow down the match, but I think I’m just being logical and rational.
Reading through articles written by well-established tennis journalists on this incident, after having done a lot of research about the legitimacy of Novak’s MTO myself, is certainly an eye-opening experience. It has shown me that a lot of journalists are lazy when it comes to the finer rules of tennis; opting for big, bold, click-inducing headlines rather than balanced, rational arguments. (Note: this is beautifully explained by Matt Zemek in this article which I suggest you all go read.) For example, Jon Wertheim writes:
“In the (potential) last set of a major final, when your opponent has momentum and you appear to be cramping, you cannot call a trainer after an even game before your opponent is to serve….for a foot issue. This was a borderline “acute injury” at best. To me, it was about the timing than the injury…But when a player is visibly cramping and asks for a respite to have a foot examined it does seem to smudge a line.”
Now, there are many things that are technically wrong with what he is saying here. Firstly, he seems to imply that Novak has called the trainer by lying about a foot issue when his real problem was cramping. We know that the foot issue was genuine. Vajda describes there being “blood everywhere” in the dressing room after the match. It is now touch and go whether Novak will actually have to have surgery on his infected toenail which could leave him out of the Asian swing. This was not a made up issue. Secondly and to address the issue of Novak cramping, I will once again refer to the rules:
“In cases where there is doubt about whether the player suffers from an acute medical condition, non-acute medical condition inclusive of muscle-cramping, or non-treatable medical condition, the decision of the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer, in conjunction with the Tournament Doctor, if appropriate, is final. A player who has stopped play by claiming an acute medical condition, but is determined by the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer and/or Tournament Director to have muscle cramping, shall be ordered by the Chair Umpire to resume play immediately.”
In short, it was up to the physiotherapist in the evaluation to decide whether Novak’s foot injury was acute and required immediate attention at a non-changeover game. If Novak had indeed called for the trainer to examine his foot as a guise to seek help for his cramping, as is suggested by Wertheim, he would’ve been ordered by the umpire to immediately resume play. Sadly, Wertheim is just as unaware of these rules as I was before writing this article - calling the injury “borderline acute” when it is not up to him, or Novak, to decide.
Finally, I’d like to address the accusations of faking injury. Novak was genuinely injured before and during this tournament. His own coach, Marian Vajda, voiced his fears that Novak wouldn’t be able to play at the US Open at all:
“We were all worried. We didn't expect this performance here, basically because all the diagnoses, everything, led us to think that we should consider not to play the tournament, basically. He needed more rest.”
It will have been clear to anyone who follows Novak’s career closely that his body has not been quite the same since winning his elusive Roland Garros title. Since then he has struggled with shoulder, elbow and wrist injuries and, as a result, his game, and particularly his serve (and occasionally backhand), has suffered. I have done a quick analysis on his serve at the US Open to prove this point - I’m no statistician but I’m sure you’ll agree that there appears to be an obvious decline:
Pre-June 2016, Novak was serving with an average of 67% of first serves in with 3.1 aces per double fault. At the US Open this year, he served with an average of 59% of first serves in with a shocking 0.9 aces per double fault* - he actually hit more double faults than aces throughout the tournament. In fact, in the final he had his lowest percentage of first serves in, at just 51%, and hit 7 double faults. He hit 7 double faults in three matches in the tournament; an incredibly uncommon occurrence for Novak since the improvements in his serve post-2010. It’s therefore clear to anyone willing to look closely enough that Novak has certainly not been faking injury recently. The injury is genuine and clearly apparent in his game.
I am no writer. I don’t expect this article to be picked apart for its inspiring quotes and metaphors (there aren’t any). But I hope in reading this you learned a little bit more about tennis and understand why fans of Novak (in particular) are tired of one-sided media reports. I hope I have provided a glimpse into the other side and encouraged you to think twice before believing everything you see or hear.
Please stay tuned for the next instalment of The Apparent Criticisms of Novak Djokovic.
Part 1 - Tactical MTOs & Faking Injury
I’ve wanted to address the criticisms of world number one, Novak Djokovic, for a long time. But it seems that whenever I gather the courage to start writing down my thoughts, there’s another blast of criticism for the latest mistake Novak has made. The time has come, however, for me to present my point of view in a series of articles that will each address a different issue. It’ll be clear in writing this instalment that I am a Djokovic fan, something I am not ashamed of, but I’m worried will make you, the reader, less likely to take what I am saying seriously. I will try my best to be objective and I know this will unlikely change the minds of 99% of the people who have taken a disliking to the best player in the world but to the remaining 1% - this is what I have to say.
Let’s start with the most recent criticism of Novak - that is, faking injury and taking tactical MTOs to try and put his opponent off. I’m going to begin with a lesson in the rules of tennis. This is a quote from the ITF official grand slam rule book:
“If a player is bleeding, the Chair Umpire must stop play as soon as possible, and the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer must be called to the court by the Chair Umpire for evaluation and treatment. The Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer, in conjunction with the Tournament Doctor if appropriate, will evaluate the source of the bleeding, and will request a Medical Time-Out for treatment if necessary. If requested by the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer and/or Tournament Doctor, the Referee in consultation with the Grand Slam Supervisor or Chair Umpire may allow up to a total of five (5) minutes to assure control of the bleeding.”
Now let’s take a look at the facts. Was Novak bleeding? Yes. He, himself, said so in his post-match presser:
“The toenails were off and bleeding so it was quite painful to move around. But I tried.”
So this brings us back to the rules. A reminder: if a player is bleeding, whether visible or not, play must be stopped so a physiotherapist can be called to assess the injury. Bleeding is also considered an acute medical condition which you can receive immediate treatment for. Therefore, Novak was well within his rights to ask for a medical timeout, even at a non-changeover game. Regardless of acting within the rules, Novak still apologised to Stan for taking the MTO before Stan was about to serve saying:
“Stan, I'm sorry man. I couldn't stand. Sorry.”
Stan appeared to completely accept this apology, stating in his post-match presser:
“That’s it. If your opponent is struggling, if he has blood coming out, you have to stop. So when the umpire and the referee came to me saying, it’s like that. It’s just happening. We have to stop for him because there is blood coming out. We have to make sure he’s going to be okay.”
If Stan himself was fine with the MTO and understood its necessity, then why are so many people still outraged by it?
Perhaps it's because many think the timing was convenient and held the purpose of breaking Stan’s rhythm when he was up in the match. Perhaps it's because he started playing better after the MTO and almost broke Stan’s serve. But let’s analyse these reasons more closely. Many people say that Novak’s MTOs tend to come when he is down in a match or a set. This is not accurate; I can cite many examples as evidence, such as recently in the third set vs Kyle Edmund at the US Open. However, let’s say it is, for argument’s sake. It makes indisputable sense that when a player is injured, they start playing worse and consequently might start losing. Therefore, it follows fairly easily that, if they take an MTO to have treatment for said injury, they are likely to feel better afterwards and, as a result, start playing better and start winning. This seems a natural course of events to me but apparently not to others. I’ve heard accounts of Novak going from “hobbling” to “running like a rabbit” after an MTO. Maybe this is because we don’t fully understand or appreciate the difference an MTO can make. Maybe I’m naive and I don’t want to believe that Novak would want to tactically slow down the match, but I think I’m just being logical and rational.
Reading through articles written by well-established tennis journalists on this incident, after having done a lot of research about the legitimacy of Novak’s MTO myself, is certainly an eye-opening experience. It has shown me that a lot of journalists are lazy when it comes to the finer rules of tennis; opting for big, bold, click-inducing headlines rather than balanced, rational arguments. (Note: this is beautifully explained by Matt Zemek in this article which I suggest you all go read.) For example, Jon Wertheim writes:
“In the (potential) last set of a major final, when your opponent has momentum and you appear to be cramping, you cannot call a trainer after an even game before your opponent is to serve….for a foot issue. This was a borderline “acute injury” at best. To me, it was about the timing than the injury…But when a player is visibly cramping and asks for a respite to have a foot examined it does seem to smudge a line.”
Now, there are many things that are technically wrong with what he is saying here. Firstly, he seems to imply that Novak has called the trainer by lying about a foot issue when his real problem was cramping. We know that the foot issue was genuine. Vajda describes there being “blood everywhere” in the dressing room after the match. It is now touch and go whether Novak will actually have to have surgery on his infected toenail which could leave him out of the Asian swing. This was not a made up issue. Secondly and to address the issue of Novak cramping, I will once again refer to the rules:
“In cases where there is doubt about whether the player suffers from an acute medical condition, non-acute medical condition inclusive of muscle-cramping, or non-treatable medical condition, the decision of the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer, in conjunction with the Tournament Doctor, if appropriate, is final. A player who has stopped play by claiming an acute medical condition, but is determined by the Physiotherapist/Athletic Trainer and/or Tournament Director to have muscle cramping, shall be ordered by the Chair Umpire to resume play immediately.”
In short, it was up to the physiotherapist in the evaluation to decide whether Novak’s foot injury was acute and required immediate attention at a non-changeover game. If Novak had indeed called for the trainer to examine his foot as a guise to seek help for his cramping, as is suggested by Wertheim, he would’ve been ordered by the umpire to immediately resume play. Sadly, Wertheim is just as unaware of these rules as I was before writing this article - calling the injury “borderline acute” when it is not up to him, or Novak, to decide.
Finally, I’d like to address the accusations of faking injury. Novak was genuinely injured before and during this tournament. His own coach, Marian Vajda, voiced his fears that Novak wouldn’t be able to play at the US Open at all:
“We were all worried. We didn't expect this performance here, basically because all the diagnoses, everything, led us to think that we should consider not to play the tournament, basically. He needed more rest.”
It will have been clear to anyone who follows Novak’s career closely that his body has not been quite the same since winning his elusive Roland Garros title. Since then he has struggled with shoulder, elbow and wrist injuries and, as a result, his game, and particularly his serve (and occasionally backhand), has suffered. I have done a quick analysis on his serve at the US Open to prove this point - I’m no statistician but I’m sure you’ll agree that there appears to be an obvious decline:
Pre-June 2016, Novak was serving with an average of 67% of first serves in with 3.1 aces per double fault. At the US Open this year, he served with an average of 59% of first serves in with a shocking 0.9 aces per double fault* - he actually hit more double faults than aces throughout the tournament. In fact, in the final he had his lowest percentage of first serves in, at just 51%, and hit 7 double faults. He hit 7 double faults in three matches in the tournament; an incredibly uncommon occurrence for Novak since the improvements in his serve post-2010. It’s therefore clear to anyone willing to look closely enough that Novak has certainly not been faking injury recently. The injury is genuine and clearly apparent in his game.
I am no writer. I don’t expect this article to be picked apart for its inspiring quotes and metaphors (there aren’t any). But I hope in reading this you learned a little bit more about tennis and understand why fans of Novak (in particular) are tired of one-sided media reports. I hope I have provided a glimpse into the other side and encouraged you to think twice before believing everything you see or hear.
Please stay tuned for the next instalment of The Apparent Criticisms of Novak Djokovic.
