Nadal's super quick serving.

by Josiah Maiestas Thu 13 Oct 2011, 21:35

First topic message reminder :

This guy used to be so fast, he even put Roddick and RF to shame back in the day...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzKuv4j67aw&feature=player_embedded#!

I do believe for Nadal to win off clay again, he has to go back to basics and play as quick as this, not letting his man able to breathe. Think that we all can see he has altered his game too much, if he goes back to his super quick 1999 self, I believe Djokovic may struggle with him like he often does with Federer and (at times) Niko Davydenko when they take the ball on early and play faster.

P.S; If Rafa suddenly changes his game and plays super fast, I will take the credit and expect a royalty in the region of 20% of future successes'.

Yours Truly,

Josiah

by bogbrush Mon 17 Oct 2011, 14:14

legendkillar wrote:Again I come back to the point of interpretation. If the umpire is choosing not to act upon it, is showing their belief in the rule.

PED's is altogether another discussion.

If the rule is to be upheld and I for one would not disagree with it being upheld, introduce a shot clock. Least it is then inthe players minds as well as the umpire.

Let's look at solutions and not player bash eh?

Why are times and PEDs different? Both are crystal clear rules.

They have all the technology they need, a shot clock would just take the power from the Umpire (because he cannot be trusted) and put it with the media. Fine, but it's not needed by the Umpire, it's useful if it takes the control away from people who cannot be trusted.

by lydian Mon 17 Oct 2011, 14:21

bogbrush wrote:Tenez is 100% correct here and no amount of deflection will work. The Umpires don't enforce because the TDs will lean on them because Nadal brings in the fans/TV exposure and they don't want to fall out and be by-passed.

Simple really.

What so Nadal is going to bypass every tournament he could be "told off" in? If the umpires agreed as a whole to tell him, Nole, Delpo, whoever that they're breaking time rules what are they going to do - boycott the slams, Masters and every other 500 they appears in?
Sorry that doesnt wash at all. I'm more of the opinion that the umpires dont see the rule breaking as serious enough to take action. After all, the ATP/ITF governing bodies dont appear to given renewed guidance to umpires on it, or even publicly let it be known to players they will start clamping down on it.

Shot clocks will never work, there are various oncourt issues that would get in the way of a rigorous approach like that (what happens if there's a sudden commotion in the stands, or a delay while fans get seated, or a crazy point that finds a player sprawled face-down in the corner of the arena? What if a standing ovation breaks out, and everyone's basking in the glory of a special moment? The shot clock would be rendered irrelevant. What happens when idiots in the crowd start shouting out "5-4-3-2-1!" on big points....it would become a farce.

by time please Mon 17 Oct 2011, 14:24

But some of the players do see it as serious enough lydian, and so do people like Patrick McEnroe and Newcombe as quoted in the article I posted from NY Times.

Ljubicic and Melzer are quite outspoken about the detrimental effect on players with Rafa's time keeping.

by lydian Mon 17 Oct 2011, 14:26

TP - can we just get one thing straight here. I do not condone Nadal's (or anyone's) time-taking between points.
My point is that the umpire are not taking action and they NEED to! Rules are not rules unless they are seen to be enforced.

by Tenez Mon 17 Oct 2011, 14:50

lydian wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Tenez is 100% correct here and no amount of deflection will work. The Umpires don't enforce because the TDs will lean on them because Nadal brings in the fans/TV exposure and they don't want to fall out and be by-passed.

Simple really.

What so Nadal is going to bypass every tournament he could be "told off" in? If the umpires agreed as a whole to tell him, Nole, Delpo, whoever that they're breaking time rules what are they going to do - boycott the slams, Masters and every other 500 they appears in?
Sorry that doesnt wash at all.

C'mon, you know how business works! The slams, the TDs and and everybody involved in the ATP/ITF are dependant on the sponsors money and popularity of the players. They are the ones providing the real money and the referees' salaries.

No, again, it's very clear, you do not want to see it. You don't condone Nadal but you will never condemn him....anyone but Rafa, isn't it?!

by time please Mon 17 Oct 2011, 15:00

lydian wrote:TP - can we just get one thing straight here. I do not condone Nadal's (or anyone's) time-taking between points.
My point is that the umpire are not taking action and they NEED to! Rules are not rules unless they are seen to be enforced.

I agree with you about the umpires needing to enforce the rules and I said in an earlier post I don't see why Rafa wouldn't take advantage if he is allowed to - it's too tempting (I am aware that other players at fault, but he is the most high profile serial offender) Why are they not? - I was responding to your question whether the rules are often not enforced because the umpires are not seeing time violations as a real problem to other players so they use their discretionary powers to overlook the violation. I think the NY Times Article illustrates that even if the umpires feel that a player exceeding the time limit is not detrimental to another player, that is not the feeling amongst the tour.

Furthermore, we can all also see that the rules are not consistently applied - the most obvious high profile example being the one Tenez and I mentioned about Cilic vs Fed when a warning was given very draconianly at a break point for Cilic, who was barely being over the limit, and certainly not enough for the spectators, by now inured to various pre serving rituals amongst some of the elite, to have noticed.

by bogbrush Mon 17 Oct 2011, 15:11

lydian wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Tenez is 100% correct here and no amount of deflection will work. The Umpires don't enforce because the TDs will lean on them because Nadal brings in the fans/TV exposure and they don't want to fall out and be by-passed.

Simple really.

What so Nadal is going to bypass every tournament he could be "told off" in? If the umpires agreed as a whole to tell him, Nole, Delpo, whoever that they're breaking time rules what are they going to do - boycott the slams, Masters and every other 500 they appears in?
Sorry that doesnt wash at all. I'm more of the opinion that the umpires dont see the rule breaking as serious enough to take action. After all, the ATP/ITF governing bodies dont appear to given renewed guidance to umpires on it, or even publicly let it be known to players they will start clamping down on it.

Again with the call for the rules to be reiterated. They get reiterated to him every few events, then he just carries on breaking them until eventually someone gets up the courage to reiterate them again, whereupon he carries on and they don't.

The Umpires wouldn't get rehired unless the TDs want them and the TDs aren't there to make an argument with one of the top draws. Simple economics.

Makes you long for a player like Jimmy Connors, who would be all over this. The rest are too easy going and/or intimidated.

by lydian Mon 17 Oct 2011, 15:18

Tenez, I dont agree with what you're saying in reality. Yes, the sponsors, etc, provide the money but are you seriously suggesting that sponsors would not ultimately want their players to be seen to be following rules? Is it good for sponsors to actively not see rules followed if awareness of time adherence was high? Would sponsors have an issue with a player being penalised? I dont think so. And the same umpires preside over all ATP/ITF events so why would a specific TD have an issue with one of them - they cant block them all...if all TDs felt the same it doesnt matter, the sponsors will still sponsor tennis...and will sponsor it in the same relative levels if all events were seen to implement the rules in the same way. At the moment what you have is inconsistency...so how can consistency be worse?
If the ATP/ITF made a public statement saying "Right, we're going to clamp down on time wasting now" and warnings were subsequently given across events, why would a sponsor react negatively to that? The warnings are not damaging the players or the fabric of the game - and the public would be behind the rule adherence not the players flouting them in the face of increased awareness and vigilance.

TP, we all agree the players should not break the rules. I believe the discussion has moved on to how should the rules be re-imposed because for me that the issue now. Nadal/Nole/others are breaking the rules - whats to be done? According to Tenez/BB nothing because it will scare the sponsors off...that seems a ridiculous stance to take in my opinion and they're relying on the players to self-manage/follow the rules. Since when did that ever work? Its like asking people to follow laws in the knowledge that if they break them no one will hold them to task!

by Tenez Mon 17 Oct 2011, 15:38

Tenez, I dont agree with what you're saying in reality. Yes, the sponsors, etc, provide the money but are you seriously suggesting that sponsors would not ultimately want their players to be seen to be following rules?

Are you suggesting that Nadal could secure all his wins within the 20s rule without affecting the outcome of his match? DO you really think Nadal goes through this over-night ritual in 2005, bad press, warnings with a threat of points penalty because of OCD?

Nadal's wins come with this time taking. They are part of his game. His sponsors know that. They'd rather have a dodgy winning Rafa than a clean losing Rafa. Don't you think? Like you, they prefer to see Rafa lifting the slam's cup and argue about the rule in an anonymous forum than taking the risk to see their man lose within the rules.

Out of the only 3 5-setters nadal lost in his career, 2 have been played within the 20s rule!!!. The only one he lost despite extending time between points also had him lose the last 4 games of the 5th set cause he ran out of steam, essentially by federer making him run the extra mile.

For Nadal extending this 20s is of paramount importance. The guy who cares about how his water bottles are placed, is not going to leave the chance of winning or losing over the distance down to a rule he learnt he can easily get away with.

by time please Mon 17 Oct 2011, 15:45

lydian wrote:TP, we all agree the players should not break the rules. I believe the discussion has moved on to how should the rules be re-imposed because for me that the issue now. Nadal/Nole/others are breaking the rules - whats to be done? According to Tenez/BB nothing because it will scare the sponsors off...that seems a ridiculous stance to take in my opinion.

sorry Lydian, I must admit to skimming the thread in places so obviously behind with the argument Very Happy

I don't know why umpires won't tackle the issue, but I think you can see by Rafa's staging a sit down and threatening to walk during his match against Berdych at WTF over whether he had held a hand up or not, and Serena's intimidation of the umpire during USO this year, that some players definitely seem to feel that they are able to throw their weight around, and with full knowledge of how valuable they are to the tournament by putting bottoms on seats. Reprisals are either derisory or non existent because it is in everyone's interest to have the superstars happy and playing. There are certainly tournaments such as the 500s and 250s who are competing against each other to have the top players turn up where the sponsorship argument might, just might have some foundation, but this certainly can't hold true for the slams and the Masters series.

At the end of the day it is about modestly paid officials standing up to some of the wealthiest players in the game - a very different scenario from pre Open Era days.

by lydian Mon 17 Oct 2011, 16:31

Tenez, thats all supposition on your part and hardly conclusive - once more we have your Nadal thesis laid out without evidence.

1. Point me to the evidence where Nadal played slower after Miami (or faster before it).
Also, you do realise you are talking about the period of him being an 18 year old player right?
Players change their approaches to their game alot around that age...maybe he gave himself more time between points to mentally prepare himself and focus - you have no evidence it is linked to recovery
2. 2 x 5 set losses is hardly convincing is it. And players are allowed to become tired sometimes in long matches - especially when they're just 18 years old against an alltime great on hardcourt in his prime.
You always forget Nadal had come off the back of a long South-American clay season beforehand which he had gone deep in the whole way - hardly any wonder he was tired! (and he had pulled out of IW before Miami due to injury).
Besides which, he played lots of other 3hr+ matches before Miami 2005 which he won, doesnt have to be a 5 setter to be long!
3. Where is the actual evidence his sponsors know he breaks the rules to win his matches? Where is the actual evidence he breaks the rule for the reasons you state?
4. What about the countless matches he wins easily, are they due to long point gaps too?
5. His record on tour up to Miami 2005 was 98-41, not bad for a 16-18 year old I'd say...and if he was playing quicker as you assert it didnt seem to hurt him that much, especially considering he played on clay alot!#

I never have, and never will buy into your theory about Nadal's time stretching - especially when you offer no factual evidence!

by Tenez Mon 17 Oct 2011, 16:46

lydian wrote:I never have, and never will buy into your theory about Nadal's time stretching - especially when you offer no evidence!

What do you mean my theory? no evidence? I have shown it many times. It's there on youtube. You expect me to spend some time and get it out for you again? You clearly don;t want to see it so I am not going to waste my time. It would be so easy for you to prove me wrong by showing me clips where Nadal abuses the rule regularly before Miami 2005 or not abusing it after Miami 2005...but clearly...you know you won't find your ammunition so you prefer to waste my time.

This is why I have always questioned your objectivity cause unlike you I base what I say on verifiable facts...facts you refuse to consider. Reading all your previous posts on that matter, its clear you don;t want to consider what I say as a possibility like any person with an open mind woudl do. You go a long way systematically doubting everything instead of investigating yourself with a desire to know the facts. For you, a smile from Nadal seals his honesty more than a 1000 facts proving otherwise. Not much any of us can do about that.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Mon 17 Oct 2011, 19:03

lydian wrote:
I never have, and never will buy into your theory about Nadal's time stretching - especially when you offer no factual evidence!

There are 1000s of evidence only if you want to see. I think Tenez meant just exactly this when he said the below:
thumbsup

Tenez wrote:

You don't condone Nadal but you will never condemn him....anyone but Rafa, isn't it?!

Good posts BB, JM, TP and some others.
clap

by bogbrush Mon 17 Oct 2011, 19:59

Lydian. you can put an end to Tenez's posts by finding evidence of Rafa serving quickly after Mami 2005 and slowly prior to the same.

I suspect Tenez would be impressed if you could find even one match to buck the pattern he's identified. If you can't don't you think you should concede that he appears to have the facts behind him?

by legendkillar Mon 17 Oct 2011, 20:22

bogbrush wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Again I come back to the point of interpretation. If the umpire is choosing not to act upon it, is showing their belief in the rule.

PED's is altogether another discussion.

If the rule is to be upheld and I for one would not disagree with it being upheld, introduce a shot clock. Least it is then inthe players minds as well as the umpire.

Let's look at solutions and not player bash eh?

Why are times and PEDs different? Both are crystal clear rules.

They have all the technology they need, a shot clock would just take the power from the Umpire (because he cannot be trusted) and put it with the media. Fine, but it's not needed by the Umpire, it's useful if it takes the control away from people who cannot be trusted.

Ermmm no. They are the same in principle, but not nature. Next we will be saying attempted murder is the same as murder.

The thing with Agassi and the PED thing, he got away with it when rules and laws of the game had no autonomy about it what so ever. Can he be punished now? No. So it is different.

Like I said, solutions have been offered. Why can they not be discussed in a civil manner?

by **laverfan** Mon 17 Oct 2011, 21:35

bogbrush wrote:Lydian. you can put an end to Tenez's posts by finding evidence of Rafa serving quickly after Mami 2005 and slowly prior to the same.

I suspect Tenez would be impressed if you could find even one match to buck the pattern he's identified. If you can't don't you think you should concede that he appears to have the facts behind him?

Nadal vs. Henman Dubai 2006 QF - full match - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-54325qzxjk&feature=BFa&list=ULp1W0m0j9zas&lf=mfu_in_order

Make your own judgements and keep an eye on the UTube video clock. Wink

by Positively 4th Street Mon 17 Oct 2011, 21:51

There is no doubt that Nadal takes too long between points, but, as ever, the effect of this is dramatically overplayed. Clearly those 5 extra seconds are the difference between 10 and zero slams...

If his fellow pros were so adversely affected then do people really believe they are so cowed by Nadal that they would accept a defeat they feel is unfair? Really?

Not convinced the depth of feeling on tour is that strong, Nadal did win the Stefan Edberg sportsmanship award last year. I guess that lost its lustre once Federer stopped winning it. Nadal probably only won it due to slower courts or something anyway.

The guy takes too long and that's that. The attempts to bring other tangential agendas in to the debate are risible.

by lydian Mon 17 Oct 2011, 22:08

Tenez/BB/Raiders - the 2005 Miami match (and before) has you all suckered, you've obviously completely and blindly bought into Tenez's story, er....myth. Tenez's "thesis" has always been based on this one match in that he's always said how Nadal was at 20secs in this match - he probably just thinks people will never question the number.

However, if you watch the Miami match you'll find Nadal pretty much averages between 25 and 30 seconds on serve across the match. Indeed I just watched 2 back to back service games in the 3rd set for that match where Nadal served at 33, 31, 31, 31 seconds between each point. Over the course of 2 service games it averaged out at 26.25 seconds. I'd say his average for Miami was around 25-27 seconds. Tenez's 2005 Miami story is rubbish, always has been.

I then watched 2 back to back service games of Nadal vs Federer in 2004, when Nadal was 17 years old. Service time gaps? 20/36/44/32 (average 33secs) and then 37/24/22/33/46 (average 32.4 secs). Shall I go finding other examples too? Hang on, I dont think I'll bother...

Why? Because Nadal has always been pretty slow!

If we move forward to this year - Nadal's 1st set average time between points for Wimbledon this year vs Djokovic was 25.23 seconds (faster than Djokovic). Against Dodig this year in the Roger's Cup Nadal was 27.7 secs on average, Dodig was 27.3 average. The point is that Nadal is usually over 25secs (nothing new there) but so are so many other players.

But to pin this whole "Nadal needs extra recovery time" story since Miami 2005 when facts show differently is just complete nonsense. I first read the Miami story on 'tennis has a steroids problem' where just about every male player is called into question. The Miami story is a myth and has always been recycled by Tenez. So bogbrush, please do keep buying into this myth, it makes for a lovely story dont you think? It certainly seems to have you and others hoodwinked. Nadal has been playing slowly and breaking the time rules pretty much consisently from the start (which I do not condone and it should have been addressed), sometimes he can play quicker, sometimes slower but there's no rhyme nor rhythm to it, never has been. The Miami 2005 match as some kind of "watershed moment" after which Nadal changed his approach is just a myth first peddled by dodgy websites and subsequently repeated by posters like Tenez who bought into it.

by Tenez Mon 17 Oct 2011, 23:34

laverfan wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Lydian. you can put an end to Tenez's posts by finding evidence of Rafa serving quickly after Mami 2005 and slowly prior to the same.

I suspect Tenez would be impressed if you could find even one match to buck the pattern he's identified. If you can't don't you think you should concede that he appears to have the facts behind him?

Nadal vs. Henman Dubai 2006 QF - full match - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-54325qzxjk&feature=BFa&list=ULp1W0m0j9zas&lf=mfu_in_order

Make your own judgements and keep an eye on the UTube video clock.

Very funny one LF! I have only watched the first 30 sec of that clip and no-one served yet. So if Tim takes that long, then maybe Nadal doesnt need to.

by Tenez Mon 17 Oct 2011, 23:38

Positively 4th Street wrote:There is no doubt that Nadal takes too long between points, but, as ever, the effect of this is dramatically overplayed. Clearly those 5 extra seconds are the difference between 10 and zero slams...

It's not because you don;t quite grasp the implication P4S, that it is over-blown. It is vital to his game...especially in 3+ sets matches.

by Tenez Mon 17 Oct 2011, 23:43

lydian wrote:Tenez/BB/Raiders - the 2005 Miami match (and before) has you all suckered, you've obviously completely and blindly bought into Tenez's story, er....myth. Tenez's "thesis" has always been based on this one match in that he's always said how Nadal was at 20secs in this match - he probably just thinks people will never question the number.

However, if you watch the Miami match you'll find Nadal pretty much averages between 25 and 30 seconds on serve across the match. Indeed I just watched 2 back to back service games in the 3rd set for that match where Nadal served at 33, 31, 31, 31 seconds between each point. Over the course of 2 service games it averaged out at 26.25 seconds. I'd say his average for Miami was around 25-27 seconds. Tenez's 2005 Miami story is rubbish, always has been.

I then watched 2 back to back service games of Nadal vs Federer in 2004, when Nadal was 17 years old. Service time gaps? 20/36/44/32 (average 33secs) and then 37/24/22/33/46 (average 32.4 secs). Shall I go finding other examples too? Hang on, I dont think I'll bother...

Why? Because Nadal has always been pretty slow!

If we move forward to this year - Nadal's 1st set average time between points for Wimbledon this year vs Djokovic was 25.23 seconds (faster than Djokovic). Against Dodig this year in the Roger's Cup Nadal was 27.7 secs on average, Dodig was 27.3 average. The point is that Nadal is usually over 25secs (nothing new there) but so are so many other players.

But to pin this whole "Nadal needs extra recovery time" story since Miami 2005 when facts show differently is just complete nonsense. I first read the Miami story on 'tennis has a steroids problem' where just about every male player is called into question. The Miami story is a myth and has always been recycled by Tenez. So bogbrush, please do keep buying into this myth, it makes for a lovely story dont you think? It certainly seems to have you and others hoodwinked. Nadal has been playing slowly and breaking the time rules pretty much consisently from the start (which I do not condone and it should have been addressed), sometimes he can play quicker, sometimes slower but there's no rhyme nor rhythm to it, never has been. The Miami 2005 match as some kind of "watershed moment" after which Nadal changed his approach is just a myth first peddled by dodgy websites and subsequently repeated by posters like Tenez who bought into it.

Again, a long post with no proof and wrong data. Nadal doesn't average 25 second in that Miami match. He is under 20s in 90% of rallies, often hitting within 17sec. you are either trying to save your face, or Nadal's but probably both, because admit it, you are still not in the mood to consider the facts with an open mind.

by lydian Tue 18 Oct 2011, 00:38

Tenez...I'm not really surprised you say thats "no proof" or "wrong data" in the face of being exposed. And yet you offer nothing in return, only thin veneers of claims about how Nadal used to serve faster up to and including Miami 2005 with the aim of saying he slowed his game down after Miami 2005 to aid recovery. Where's your actual evidence for this - you say its all on Youtube like that's definitive.

So, I took you up on your offer and watched all of Nadal's service games in the Miami 2004 v Fed match via Youtube clips because according to your gospel he played faster before and during Miami 2005? After all, if Tenez says something it must be right, right?

As you'll know Miami 2004 was a match where the 17 year old Nadal essentially outclassed Federer 6-3 6-3 so you'd expect him to have been even quicker between serves than a hard fought battle? Well here are ALL his inbetween point serve timings from that match. Timings are measured in seconds re: ATP guidance, i.e. from ball being out of play to when his next ball served. Timings may not be in exact order due to the order of the clips I watched.

So what did it show us...were Tenez's long held and stated fast-serving assertions correct? Er, no...here's the actual timings laid bare:
34, 17, 20, 21, 30, 23, 24, 35, 23, 21, 20, 20, 28, 21, 20, 18, 40, 21, 30, 23, 24, 35, 33, 36, 28, 26, 33, 17, 34, 45, 32, 40, 24, 21, 33, 46, 45, 17, 20, 19, 28

AVERAGE OVERALL TIME BETWEEN POINTS? 27.43 seconds.
You claimed he served 90% of ralleys at/under 20s at Miami 2005 and so presumably similar before that...what do we find here? 17%!
You also said he often hit serves at 17s - in this earlier match when he should have been even faster according to you he did it just 3 times! So that's even slower serving in 2004 than his 1st set at Wimbledon 2011 and comparable to his exhausting Rogers Cup 2011 match vs Dodig. The bare fact is that Nadal has always been slow...and I dont condone it, he should have been consistently pulled up for it. However, thats not the point here. The point is you were and always have been wrong about Nadal, your long-held agenda against him is built on pure fallacy.

You said to me above "It would be so easy for you to prove me wrong by showing me clips where Nadal abuses the rule regularly before Miami 2005 or not abusing it after Miami 2005...but clearly...you know you won't find your ammunition so you prefer to waste my time".

Well you got something finally right, it was so easy to prove you wrong! All it needed was somebody to actually investigate your claims rather than take them as literally read. No doubt you'll bleat on again about it being "no proof" or "wrong data" but let's face it Tenez, you and your "up to Miami 2005 theory" are clearly rumbled Laugh

by Tenez Tue 18 Oct 2011, 09:20

Don't laugh..because you are plain wrong. You cannot even be more wrong.

First the Miami 2004 link so anybody can make up his mind and see that those figures you chose don;t tell the true story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvAGAdLArKY

secondly...Miami 2004 is actually the match played at a much faster rhythm than Miami 2005....according to the irrefutable stats. 40s per point on average!!!!!! 3 sec shorter than Miami 2005, a whopping 10s shorter per point on average than the Nadal v Ferrero barcelona 2005 match played just 2 weeks after Miami.

I have tons of other verifiable facts that will prove you wrong....but again....are you really interested in finding out the truth? clearly, you are not.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue 18 Oct 2011, 09:40

lydian wrote:BB - you've been listening to Tenez too much! Nadal beat Federer in 2004 playing plenty fast enough, and won 5 setters in 2003/2004 playing fast...he just chose to adopt a different and more measured routine from 2005.

Now he posts this:

lydian wrote:The bare fact is that Nadal has always been slow...and I dont condone it, he should have been consistently pulled up for it.

These are 2 totally different points and from the same person on the same thread.

2. He then posts something like this:

lydian wrote:The current rule isnt working, nor is imposed. The question is....is it really a big deal? After all there never used to be a rule just "play shall be continuous".

He doesn't know about Rule 29 and jumps to declare his stance.
http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_54584_original.PDF

3. You bring a handful of points and say thats enough to concluded the pace of the whole match?

by lydian Tue 18 Oct 2011, 09:56

Raider - are you the alter-ego of Tenez or something?

1. Whats rule 29 got to do with anything? My comment you copied refers to older rules that pre-dated the more recent rule books from ITF/ATP when timeframes of 20s/25s werent given. I know the ITF/ATP rules as have pasted some of this elsewhere on this site!

2. "Playing plenty fast enough" in 2004 meant Nadal varied his speed quite abit in previous matches when he wanted/needed to....some points were quick (although not that many), others slow. In more recent times I would say Nadal plays with less variation of quick/slow time, i.e. at a more measured pace across the points, he's learnt to consistently pace his overall approach more (albeit still abusing the time rule!)...but the overall averages are similar pre- or post-2005.

3. The "handful of points" just happens to be all the service points for Nadal in that match...so yes I'd say that concludes Nadal's service pace for that match which is the topic in hand. This contradicts Tenez's point about Nadal being a faster overall player pre-Miami, a point I disagree with.

4. Instead of having a go, why dont you post YOUR evidence that Nadal was a faster overall player pre-Miami?

by legendkillar Tue 18 Oct 2011, 10:11

Lydian

I respect the research, but despite the areas where Nadal was 'quicker' the average was still above the ITF and ATP time limit rules. While some players bemoan the time taken in between points, a change might see benefits to others game too

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue 18 Oct 2011, 10:42

Raider - are you the alter-ego of Tenez or something?

===========================

No Smile

. But like him I'm a netural tennis fan who loves the game as a neutral spectator. I like discussing tennis, arguing on points, getting more insight into things and while doing all these (unlike some other posters), I stick to my stance.

1. Whats rule 29 got to do with anything? My comment you copied refers to older rules that pre-dated the more recent rule books from ITF/ATP when timeframes of 20s/25s werent given. I know the ITF/ATP rules as have pasted some of this elsewhere on this site!

Rule 29 mainly hasn't got anything to do in respect the OP and the basically things that were being discussed. What is has got to do is to correct down the statement you made in your argument saying " ..After all there never used to be a rule just "play shall be continuous".. This showed how informed you are about the tennis rules before making statements.

2. "Playing plenty fast enough" in 2004 meant Nadal varied his speed quite abit in previous matches when he wanted/needed to....some points were quick (although not that many), others slow. In more recent times I would say Nadal plays with less variation of quick/slow time, i.e. at a more measured pace across the points, he's learnt to consistently pace his overall approach more (albeit still abusing the time rule!)...but the overall averages are similar pre- or post-2005.

================================

I expected this reply. This is a politician's way of justifying their acts and explaining things when they are caught changing stance.

3. The "handful of points" just happens to be all the service points for Nadal in that match...so yes I'd say that concludes Nadal's service pace for that match which is the topic in hand. This contradicts Tenez's point about Nadal being a faster overall player pre-Miami, a point I disagree with.

Yes of course. Just curious , can u post the link of the full match you saw? I normally believe that videos on youtube or some other video sharing site are often edited to make it fit within the applied limit. Can you post the link which you saw, I couldn't find it myself.

4. Instead of having a go, why dont you post YOUR evidence that Nadal was a faster overall player pre-Miami?

If Nadal would not have been a quick player in the beginning, this OP wouldn't have existed at all. See the video in the OP. The whole thing is based on this fact that Nadal was faster earlier on, but later changed his actions to slow things down taking far too long between points. why?? The whole thread is full of reasons why he did that.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue 18 Oct 2011, 11:20

Y I Man and the other moderators,

where are you?

by legendkillar Tue 18 Oct 2011, 11:27

I can define neutral if you want

1. Someone who doesn't player bash.

2. Offers perception on all points without any deciding favouritism to their argument.

3. Shares opinions and doesn't move goalposts.

Laverfan and timeplease meet this criteria.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 18 Oct 2011, 11:34

legendkillar wrote:Neutral fan my backside!

Try using a comma to make it a command - Neutral, fan my backside!

by sirfredperry Tue 18 Oct 2011, 11:56

Older posters might remember the time that John Newcombe took to serve. Mind you they came through pretty fast when he finally got around to hitting the ball.
Pat Rafter also had that very deliberate serving style that, maybe , he picked up from J Newc. Just wonder how long that 16-14 last set at Wimbledon (09) would have taken if Rafa had been involved instead of the, comparatively, lightning-fast Andy R and Fed.

by bogbrush Tue 18 Oct 2011, 12:15

If it had been Nadal/Djokovic they'd still be playing it.

For all the noise made about advantage or otherwise what matters to me is that it bores me to death. I find it truly tedious. The other day I tuned in to see the Nadal/Mayer match, which I knew Nadal had lost, because I wanted to see why and I turned it back off after 10 minutes because it was so ridiculously slow.

Who really wants to sit through 45 seconds of ritual only for a let or 2nd serve to have similar preparation, and then to get a rally that lasts nowhere near the time of the preparation? It's a turn-off.

by legendkillar Tue 18 Oct 2011, 12:33

JuliusHMarx wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Neutral fan my backside!

Try using a comma to make it a command - Neutral, fan my backside!

Are you oblieging?

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 18 Oct 2011, 12:37

legendkillar wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Neutral fan my backside!

Try using a comma to make it a command - Neutral, fan my backside!

Are you oblieging?

Frequently, but even I have my limits!

by legendkillar Tue 18 Oct 2011, 12:44

JuliusHMarx wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Neutral fan my backside!

Try using a comma to make it a command - Neutral, fan my backside!

Are you oblieging?

Frequently, but even I have my limits!

The power of thve comma, Laugh

by **laverfan** Tue 18 Oct 2011, 12:56

Djokovic seems to adjust his pace very well.

1. He plays Nadal, and adjusts his rhythm very well (as shown in the last few finals). Nadal is considered a 'slow' player.

2. He plays Federer and adjusts his rhythm very well (as shows in AO 11, RG 11 and USO 11). Federer is considered a lightening fast player.

Does it mean we, as spectators, should learn from Djokovic and enjoy both (and different) styles of Tennis, rather than this 'slow' vs. 'fast' debate?

Murray also seems to adjust his pace when playing both types of players.

The 20/25 second question is for all players, not just a few.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Neutral, fan my backside!

:roflmao:

by legendkillar Tue 18 Oct 2011, 13:07

The consensus should be that yes Nadal does violate the time between points, but is rarely pulled up about it.

If I was a Fed fanboy, I would take the position that my guy stands at the peak of tennis. 16 Slams. Unmatched. To try and discredit Nadal and his achievements is somehwat bizarre given the achievements of Federer. What is the likelyhood of Nadal surpassing him? Probably lower now given this season.

Take Agassi. An admitted liar. Yet I have not seen the type of witch hunt to discredit the guy. He is still respected as a player. Do you think Nadal will release another autiobiography saying to win slams all you need is to violate the time? Hardily.

Makes me question the ethics of some posters.

by Tenez Tue 18 Oct 2011, 13:49

lydian wrote:Raider - are you the alter-ego of Tenez or something?

Reason has only got one voice Lydian. Don't we all agree that 2+2 = 4? When it becomes a bit more complex and subtle, not everybody follows...some even actually don;t want to face the facts, as you probably know.

I consider myself a very neutral tennis fan too. Neutral doesn't mean sitting between 2 extremes views or players. What if a player gets to do extreme things or has a very strange behaviour but on the other side of the net, a player simply plays tennis with no particular flaws? Does it mean the balanced poster is still between those 2? That is not a logical approach I am afraid. I don't know Federer any better than Nadal or Murray. I however read a lot on what I see on the court...like everybody else and though I never liked Nadal's game at first, my earlier posts were quite respectful. But I have lost this respect for many reasons. One is the bending of a basic rule to accomodate his gruelling game.

by Tenez Tue 18 Oct 2011, 14:00

legendkillar wrote:I can define neutral if you want

1. Someone who doesn't player bash.

But what if a player cheats...or bends the rule to put it mildly?

2. Offers perception on all points without any deciding favouritism to their argument.

Am I saying that Nadal is a weak player lacking stamina? Whatever I say it's what I believe to be true. I don;t say it to simply destroy the player. I just expose the player. It's very different. We all know there are lots of things we find hard to explain when it comes to Nadal. wearing blinkers doesn't make anyone neutral. Unlike Lydian, if someone can prove Federer abuses the rule one way or another, or tries to intimidate his opponents before the match or else, I'll approach the facts with an open-mind. I have never for instance tried to defend Federer's arrogant behaviour at times. 1 cause I am not interested as it is outside the court and secondly, ye he may well be arrogant...I don't really know. I don't care.

3. Shares opinions and doesn't move goalposts.

Yes...I think ROTLA hasn't moved them...as much as Lydian or LF for sure. Just read the earlier LF posts and sees how he travels from one side of the fence to the other ..and far beyond in the dephth of the universe.

by Tenez Tue 18 Oct 2011, 14:11

legendkillar wrote:Take Agassi. An admitted liar. Yet I have not seen the type of witch hunt to discredit the guy. He is still respected as a player. Do you think Nadal will release another autiobiography saying to win slams all you need is to violate the time? Hardily.

I never quite liked Agassi and less now after his book. But a lot of people were very disappointed by his meth story. The thing is Agassi was apopular player, like Nadal and when they are at teh top, they are untouchable...when they go down, it's easier to criticse them but the game moves on and we only remember the good moments. There is little passion to stir about Agassi from todays tennis fans. He is history.

by bogbrush Tue 18 Oct 2011, 15:44

legendkillar wrote:The consensus should be that yes Nadal does violate the time between points, but is rarely pulled up about it.

If I was a Fed fanboy, I would take the position that my guy stands at the peak of tennis. 16 Slams. Unmatched. To try and discredit Nadal and his achievements is somehwat bizarre given the achievements of Federer. What is the likelyhood of Nadal surpassing him? Probably lower now given this season.

Take Agassi. An admitted liar. Yet I have not seen the type of witch hunt to discredit the guy. He is still respected as a player. Do you think Nadal will release another autiobiography saying to win slams all you need is to violate the time? Hardily.

Makes me question the ethics of some posters.

Makes me wonder too. That's what you would act like whereas all I'm interested in is how much Nadal bores me to tears by dragging out games with a lot of standing around.

I guess I'm not the fanboy.

by legendkillar Tue 18 Oct 2011, 16:17

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:I can define neutral if you want

1. Someone who doesn't player bash.

But what if a player cheats...or bends the rule to put it mildly?

Rule bending yes, but does it require a full assassination of the guy? In terms of Time Violation, I think of Einstein's theory of relativity. An hour can feel like second and an hour like a second. I am not in the guy's mind so it is more than difficult to see whether it is a ploy to unsettle a player or whether it is to regain composure.

2. Offers perception on all points without any deciding favouritism to their argument.
Am I saying that Nadal is a weak player lacking stamina? Whatever I say it's what I believe to be true. I don;t say it to simply destroy the player. I just expose the player. It's very different. We all know there are lots of things we find hard to explain when it comes to Nadal. wearing blinkers doesn't make anyone neutral. Unlike Lydian, if someone can prove Federer abuses the rule one way or another, or tries to intimidate his opponents before the match or else, I'll approach the facts with an open-mind. I have never for instance tried to defend Federer's arrogant behaviour at times. 1 cause I am not interested as it is outside the court and secondly, ye he may well be arrogant...I don't really know. I don't care.

I have nothing against self belief, but when saying someone is wrong can be intimidating. I have never thought of Federer as 'arrogant'. I find him to be more self confident and comfortable in his own skin. The ultimate paradigm if you ask me.

3. Shares opinions and doesn't move goalposts.

Yes...I think ROTLA hasn't moved them...as much as Lydian or LF for sure. Just read the earlier LF posts and sees how he travels from one side of the fence to the other ..and far beyond in the dephth of the universe.

ROTLA has on other threads moved the goalposts. A lot of posters do make that mistake. LF is a she I might add and all she was implying that a shift or change in the rule would have benefits, equally as not changning it.

by legendkillar Tue 18 Oct 2011, 16:25

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Take Agassi. An admitted liar. Yet I have not seen the type of witch hunt to discredit the guy. He is still respected as a player. Do you think Nadal will release another autiobiography saying to win slams all you need is to violate the time? Hardily.

I never quite liked Agassi and less now after his book. But a lot of people were very disappointed by his meth story. The thing is Agassi was apopular player, like Nadal and when they are at teh top, they are untouchable...when they go down, it's easier to criticse them but the game moves on and we only remember the good moments. There is little passion to stir about Agassi from todays tennis fans. He is history.

Well I am actually un-decided on Agassi as a person after reading his book. I saw it as at the time was at a low point in his life and he sunk lower. In terms of his actions at the time, I would've highly doubted whether his comeback would've resulted in Slam success as it did. Given his upbringing and his feelings towards the game made me question him. He is a highly rebelious character and for some reason had a dislike for Sampras that I never understood. Pete was actually more genuine than Agassi. When you take into account the Federer and Nadal rivalry, least both players have respect for each other. I saw the Autiobiography as a redemption for him. Not sure the readers felt any pity towards him.

by Tenez Tue 18 Oct 2011, 17:14

LK

1 - I don't commit an assasination of Nadal. I expose his time taking and the purpose of this time taking. I prove it is intentional and serves unfairly Nadal. Of course if people don;t believe the purpose, then it can be seen as an "assassination" of the player, just for the sake of it. But if they see it, then, it gives us better understanding of the player.

2 - Yes not nice to say someone is wrong. But again, if I were to try to convince someone with an open mind I would use a different approach and language. When I know there is a strong willingness to deny facts at all costs, I then don't mind going a bit more "lively". All in good spirit of course.

I have not read Agassi's book and won't read it. To me this low he went through is not really what bothers me. It's his character in general and other things he is not mentioning in his book, for a good reason.

by **laverfan** Tue 18 Oct 2011, 17:29

Tenez wrote:I have not read Agassi's book and won't read it.

Personal choice, but parts of the book are quite fascinating, for example, his relationship with his father.

Tenez wrote:To me this low he went through is not really what bothers me. It's his character in general and other things he is not mentioning in his book, for a good reason.

It takes different types of people to make the world an interesting place. Perhaps you may not be interested in it, but others (like LK and myself) do see a different world.

Personally, another aspect that fascinates me about Agassi, is his relationship with Pancho - his brother-in-law - and influences that he [Pancho] may have had on Agassi.

by Guest Tue 18 Oct 2011, 17:36

The OP infers that if the time rule was strictly enforced this would benefit Rafa Nadal. I'm not sure that I would agree with this.

For Grand Slam tournaments there is supposedly a 20 second time rule in place, which is the maximum time allowance given to the server to serve the next point (to strike the ball with his racket) after the previous point has ended. Clearly this rule is not being enforced by umpires. The only explanation for umpires not enforcing the rule must be associated with their "interpretation" of the time rule and presumably the guidance given to them by their own union and whoever else they may be accountable to.

To an on-looker one can conclude that the umpires "interpretation" is that the time rule is only a rough guide and can be essentially ignored, with the actual time allowance being based on the umpires own "gut feeling" of "fairness" with perhaps some assistance from the timer that he uses.

With regard to the timer, if the umpire only starts the timer after the crowd has settled (after cheering the winning of the previous point) and at the same time as he announces to the crowd and players the latest score - then 10 seconds could have elapsed between the ending of the previous point and the starting of the timer for the next point. If this is the case, then this together with the above could help to explain why the umpire rarely calls a time violation.

by legendkillar Tue 18 Oct 2011, 17:38

I think in terms of Nadal and even Djokovic yes they do flout the time violation rule. To me again the umpires, ATP, ITF are failing the the players who are 'affected' by this violation. Mumblings by a couple of players isn't going to kickstart a revolution amongst umpires. If umpires were enforcing the rule and it was persistently broken, then the umpires could make a case to the ATP/ITF asking for a stiffer punishment.

by Tenez Tue 18 Oct 2011, 17:44

Life is too short LF. I do not see Agassi as a particularly outstanding individual in that planet to want to explore, in depth, his relationship with his brother-in-law. I'd rather know a bit more about guys like Medvedev, Rios, or even Bahrami...if I had time and interest.

As mentioned quite a few times....for me, it's all about what happens on the court. That's where I learn from the players, better than any of the stories they can make up in books to make their life appear more exciting than they really were.

There is so much to read from someone's game and behaviour when asked to force the destiny of his/her life!

by Tenez Tue 18 Oct 2011, 17:59

legendkillar wrote:I think in terms of Nadal and even Djokovic yes they do flout the time violation rule. To me again the umpires, ATP, ITF are failing the the players who are 'affected' by this violation. Mumblings by a couple of players isn't going to kickstart a revolution amongst umpires. If umpires were enforcing the rule and it was persistently broken, then the umpires could make a case to the ATP/ITF asking for a stiffer punishment.

At bottom, we, the fans, are to blame cause we accept it. If we didn't Nadal and Djoko woudl have no choice but to stick to the rule. I have been at a few live matches with Nadal and Djoko, and there were some in the crowd that were whistling when nadal was taking too much time. They were right. They knew the rule and maybe even knew what was Nadal's purpose. But there are many more people who do not dare to protest, or simply do not understand why nadal goes over time, or simply do not want to know like we have experienced even here in a suposedly "tennis fan forum", and even lots more people who like Nadal full stop and don't care about everything else.

If we accept it, then not much the TDs. ITF, ATP, and umpires can do. In a way, it's a bit like our bankers. We don't like them..but we accept them as they are.

However, it doesn't excuse the true culprits to stick to the rule. I mentioned how taking extra time was very similar, physiologically, to taking EPO so I woudl expect players to stick to the rule, just a confirmation they are playing fair and square.

by **laverfan** Tue 18 Oct 2011, 18:40

Tenez wrote:If we accept it, then not much the TDs. ITF, ATP, and umpires can do.

Why? It is not the fans' responsibility to enforce the rules. The designated officials MUST enforce the rules. Now you are agreeing with Lydian on the enforcement aspect of it. Wink

Tenez wrote:In a way, it's a bit like our bankers. We don't like them..but we accept them as they are.

Absolutely different case. Care to comment on Societe Generale and Jerome Kerviel? Erm

. BTW, we do not accept them as they are, we question them after the problems in banking systems surface.

http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/poor-it-security-blame-in-société-générale-fraud-559

Tenez wrote:However, it doesn't excuse the true culprits to stick to the rule. I mentioned how taking extra time was very similar, physiologically, to taking EPO so I woudl expect players to stick to the rule, just a confirmation they are playing fair and square.

See the previous example. laughing

. Are you expecting every financial investor to walk into Societe Generale and ask to see their security policies after losses have already been incurred?.
Using your logic the 'fans' (= financial investors) should boo/jeer (= walk into company offices) to enforce tennis rules, while the officials (ATP/ITF/Umpires = Societe Generale employees) are negligent.

by Sponsored content