objectivity
Banned
yes yes it is awesome.
but can a defensive player be in control of the match? can he?
Wimbledon 2014 R64: Lukas Rosol vs Rafael Nadal [2]
- Thread starter aldeayeah
- Start date
yes yes it is awesome.
but can a defensive player be in control of the match? can he?
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
octobrina10
Talk Tennis Guru
Video. Rosol knocks Nadal's Bottles over! - Wimbledon 2014
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjXh_pDl-TM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjXh_pDl-TM
Last edited:
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Yeah. And kudos to you for giving credit to Rosol! He played a great match as did Rafa. A little bit of luck going Rosol's way and he would probably be the winner.
I think he would have won the point at 5-4 in the TB had his forehand not lost the pace on the net.
malbaker86
Hall of Fame
well technically, every opponent Rafa is facing is a lower ranked oppponent...
technically, Nadal has never had a legitimate win in his career.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Of course it ain't at the other players racquet at 3-0. In a sense, it's on the aggressive (Rosol) player's racquet. In another sense, it's on the favorite's (Rafa) racquet.
But when Rosol is 2 points away from being up 2-0 - on serve - and he generally wins 75 % of his service points up until that, then yes, I say the set and the match was on his racquet at that point in time.
Anyhow - Rafa still won it;-)
Smasher08
Legend
OMG that's awesome! Can anyone gif it??
DRII
G.O.A.T.
you can call it whatever you want
but what 'Nad's' style actually is; is incredibly succesful!
i suggest you start accepting and then dealing with that reality...
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
He can. But he will lose control once (if) the more aggressive player starts zoning.
objectivity
Banned
yes yes it is awesome.
but can a defensive player be in control of the match? can he?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
How embarrassing you forgot that he won his first round match as well...
clayqueen
Talk Tennis Guru
Oh dear. You should have quit while you were behind.
You are correct. I am extremely embarrassed to have made a such fool of myself. How will I explain this to my mother?
Sounds incredibly close minded to me. You act as if he has come out and said that he plays slower to bother his opponents... I'm not saying he's never used it that way, but according to him, he feels that getting some rest between points increases the quality of the match. Both players would benefit physically from that rest, not just him. You are choosing to call him a liar and a cheat, so that's on you. I could see people making a much bigger deal out of quick serving, with rosol was close to at points in the match, but allowing the other player to rest a little longer? Do players really lose their feel for the match if they have to wait 10 more seconds? I just dont see the big deal. I get that there are rules, and its clear Nadal doesnt agree with them, but if hes not getting an inherent advantage, then isnt it just a technicality?
Play shall be continuous and shall not unreasonably be delayed [ATPRB, Rule IV-D-2, p. 44, Rule VI-M-1 p. 97, Rule VII-J-4-o), pp. 131-132].
Players have 25 seconds to strike the first serve from the moment the previous point has been decided (ball has gone out of play) or the players have been ordered to play by the umpire [ATPRB, Rule VI-M-1, p. 97]. Various rules apply to determine when the ball is in play and when a point has been lost [ATPRB, Rule IX-O-1, p. 181, IX-O-24, p. 184].
The first failure to strike the ball within 25 seconds results in a warning for Time Violation [ATPRB, Rule VI-M-1, p. 97].
For the second time violation and every subsequent time violation, the player shall receive a Delay of Game Code Violation [ATPRB, Rule VI-M-1, p. 97], resulting in a point penalty (second violation) and thereafter a game penalty for subsequent violations [ATPRB, Rule VII-J-2, p. 127].
Does anyone have the rules for coaching violations? Does that get added on or is it treated as a separate penalty?
Players have 25 seconds to strike the first serve from the moment the previous point has been decided (ball has gone out of play) or the players have been ordered to play by the umpire [ATPRB, Rule VI-M-1, p. 97]. Various rules apply to determine when the ball is in play and when a point has been lost [ATPRB, Rule IX-O-1, p. 181, IX-O-24, p. 184].
The first failure to strike the ball within 25 seconds results in a warning for Time Violation [ATPRB, Rule VI-M-1, p. 97].
For the second time violation and every subsequent time violation, the player shall receive a Delay of Game Code Violation [ATPRB, Rule VI-M-1, p. 97], resulting in a point penalty (second violation) and thereafter a game penalty for subsequent violations [ATPRB, Rule VII-J-2, p. 127].
Does anyone have the rules for coaching violations? Does that get added on or is it treated as a separate penalty?
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
It's quite clear that extra rest will typically benefit the player who is more tired (usually the one who runs around more, plays less offensively, chases down everything). Thus, you would expect extra rest to benefit Nadal vs. most of his opponents, except perhaps Djokovic. Who chases down more stuff than Nadal?
That said, conditioning also comes into the equation, which may partially offset that -- Nadal is probably better conditioned than most of his opponents, so that factor reduces the benefit to him vis-a-vis his opponents by resting more.
OTOH, ultimately, why would he do it if he didn't feel he benefits from it? The fact that he does it suggests that the most simple explanation is that he benefits from it, perhaps physically and mentally.
I think it's illegal for 14 year olds to procreate.
Some people play faster and some people play slower. Of course a player will play at a pace that benefits them the most. Nadal gets penalized because his pace is on average, idk like 5 seconds slower than the rules? It just seems insignificant to me.
On the other hand, quick serving can have a much bigger effect, imo. Are there any rules that limit how fast a player can play?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
So I'm a 14 year old now because you think Federer's playing at his 2007 level and you don't know how to count. Cool story brah!
Ralph
Hall of Fame
No, it isn't just a technicality if he isn't playing to the server's pace intentionally, and way above the time rule allocated. Yes, Rosol was trying to play quicker for that very reason, it was quite apparent. Hence why he asked the umpire if there was a different rule for his opponent in that tie break. Players lose a feel for their serve perhaps. You know the game well, and you'll know that it's the smallest things that can disrupt concentration.
It isn't just that Nadal doesn't agree with the rules, he openly goes against them when it suits him. No, he isn't the only one before that usual line comes in.
To reiterate, he is getting an advantage as the rule is being abused without umpires doing anything about it. This has always been the case.
But my point again, is why does such an incredible player need to do this? It leaves such a taste of disdain with me and lessens his achievements in mine, and in the eyes of many - not just fans of one Roger Federer.
objectivity
Banned
actually now that i am reading the rules, it seems that this condition "or the players have been ordered to play by the umpire" means players technically can take longer than 25 seconds -- they just have to be called out by the umpire. but the rules also give significant leeway to the umpire to interpret the rules. ...
"Make the first determination on all Questions of Law arising during the match,subject to the right of a player to appeal to the ITF Supervisor/Referee"
http://www.itftennis.com/media/107082/107082.pdf
DRII
G.O.A.T.
so the best modern player ever is 'zoning' Safin, with 'zoning' Venus being the best female...
I actually believe and have said this, but at least i admit its a hypothetical
I still don't know what you are accusing him of. I'm assuming you mean that he plays slower to purposely disrupt his opponent. This is not a fact.... That is your opinion. Just because it is shared by many people, a high number of which hate nadal, does not make it a fact.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Like he cares about a quality match :lol: All he cares about is winning, and rightfully so. You're being naive.
There is a rule against slow serving, and for reason. And there is no rule against "quick serving", and for reason.
Fortunately for Tennis, Nadal is not the rulemaker. If there were no inherent advantage with Nadal stalling, players right from Federer to Rosol wouldn't be complaining about him being too slow. Get real.
Mayonnaise
Banned
If it didn't disrupt opponents, why would Federer and Rosol complain against his stalling, just from Slams of this year alone? These are professional players, not you or me. Why would they do it for any other reason except that they feel they're being cheated?
I think that part is there for when the umpire says "play" at the beginning of the match.
I dislike this. What if the umpire gives leeway when it comes to line calls? Where does it stop? Either change the rules to say the umpire will determine the length of time allowed or enforce them as they are.
I would have thought someone bolshy like Gulbis would have stuck it to Nadal by now by signaling to the umpire when he takes his sweet time to serve. Or at least throw in a counter-delay every time he is forced to wait. Rosol did say something today before he served but the umpire has already had his balls removed.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Just like Nadal fluked his 2009 Australian Open win. He hasn't been able to back it up in 4 tries since. Rosol has only had 1 try so far
firepanda
Professional
Time rules are not absolute rules in that sense and they were never intended to be that way. In theory, when Nadal needed to change his racquet between points, he should have been penalised 5 times over.
Only about 60% full at the moment, but I had a bran muffin for lunch so I might be ready to go soon.
PrinceMoron
Legend
Be good to back up a few tournaments off the clay. Else your logic is that they were all flukes.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
No one is talking about "erasing" anything. Today's win is about the dangerous hatred some TTW members have for Nadal, and how they were hoping to say, "Nadal got Rosol-ed! LOL!" again.
This group of TTW members are now in this thread, posting anything they can to attack Nadal for booting Rosol from the 2014 Wimbledon. Their bitter tears aside, Nadal marches on.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Just because he couldn't back it up doesn't necessarily mean that it was a fluke.
Mayonnaise
Banned
You could argue murder is not an absolute crime because it's permissible to do it in self defense. Point is, racquet change delay is an exception. Nadal picking his butt between every serve and delaying the point is not.
objectivity
Banned
But the rules do give umpire leeway when it comes to line calls! He/she can overrule the line judge. But the players can challenge the ruling too.
The issue ultimately is as much of the thread has digressed into, whether it is really problematic. I admit I am a Nadal fan, but personally, I think umpires should be given the leeway to allow players to take a little extra time especially if the previous point was particularly energy sapping.
Anyway, I think Nadal does go right to the edge of the time limits -- 22-24 seconds usually. But the times he actually exceed 25 are quite rare these days. I did a timing test today for entire match and to my best effort, I only noted 3 occasions when he exceeded 25 seconds.
Broken strings would come under this rule:
Play shall be continuous and shall not unreasonably be delayed
It's a reasonable delay to switch racquets so he should not be penalised for that. Using the towel for an extra 6 seconds, choosing balls for another 5 are unreasonable.
Mayonnaise
Banned
I've refuted his silly claim several times. If Rosol's win against Nadal was a fluke because he couldn't back it up, so is Nadal's AO win because he couldn't back it up. What's more, Nadal has had 4 tries at it since. Rosol has had just 1
objectivity
Banned
I've refuted his silly claim several times. If Rosol's win against Nadal was a fluke because he couldn't back it up, so is Nadal's AO win because he couldn't back it up. What's more, Nadal has had 4 tries at it since. Rosol has had just 1
but the unit of analysis is not the same. Rosol's win is a match win. Nadal's AO win is a tournament win.
you can't equate the 2 phenomenon when the unit of analysis isn't even the same.
Mayonnaise
Banned
You know, those are understandable, too. It's that he does it so obviously deliberately, especially when he has to pick his butt 3 times instead of the usual 1 time, and rub his nose over and over again like he likes the smell of wherever his hand had just been.
objectivity
Banned
i think so long as Nadal keeps to 25 seconds, we should not criticize him for this. i think you will be surprised yourself if you do a careful timing of him in an actual match, that the number of violations are really very few these days. even against the likes of djokovic which typically have really long rallies.
Nadal isn't the only one though. JMDP, Isner, Sharapova, maybe Djokovic ( although I think he's gotten better recently). Nadal and Sharapova seem to take another 10 seconds between 1st and 2nd serves. Sharapova usually just staring into space while her opponent uses up mental energy in the "ready to receive position" (damn I'm dirty today).
I also don't agree with extra time for an energy sapping point. If you want to play that brand of tennis then you have to do so within the rules. It gives grinders a slight advantage over the big hitters.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Why not? Winning a single point is a fluke. Not winning 3 sets at a Slam. Where do you draw the line? If it were so easy to fluke wins against professional Tennis players, I'd love to see you go and fluke a win against Nadal.
Besides, The_Order said that anything that happens only once is a fluke. That was his original claim. Nadal winning the AO has happened only once, so it must be a fluke by his original reasoning.
TennisLovaLova
Hall of Fame
Rosol just trolled Nadal on twitter
objectivity
Banned
i don't care whether it is a fluke or not. i am saying you can't compare the 2 sets of phenomenon because they are based on different units of analysis.
Mayonnaise
Banned
LOL, that's mathematically impossible. The average time is 25. How could the average time be 25 if he only exceeded 25 three times? Unless he took 40 or 50 seconds on those three occasions.
objectivity
Banned
what's the rule for time between first and second serve?
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
