Nadal's super quick serving.

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

Tenez wrote:But again, because the game was becoming more physical already then, they decided to shorten...NOT EXTEND the time between points. The purpose is clear not allow stamina to be too big a factor.

That is a fairly subjective statement, how does one quantify 'too big a factor'?

Tenez wrote:The rule is what it is and we cannot simply penalise all those who developed their game based on those rules in favour of those who would benefit from breaking it. It's simply absurd!

Yet courts were slowed down and S&V is almost dead. There was no rule in place to preserve S&V, was there?

Let us go back to the 20/25 second discussion.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

laverfan wrote:More than likely. It also makes me wonder, if the athletes of yesteryears were somehow 'better' than today's 'spoilt' lot.

Spoilt? Hand me my towel, hold my parasol, just going for a wee, think I'll have a quick massage. Spoilt? Surely not.

:roflmao:

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:Also, hitting with 4800RPM does not mean the ball has to fly higher over the net? Nadal chooses to "parabolise" the ball more so that it rears up off the court even more when the 4800rpm bites into the surface. Anyway, lets not get into the risk/talent discussion again.

Yes, we went there once and you lost the argument again. rpm is essentially power related. That's why Nadal has got biceps and that's why when he lost those biceps in fall 2009 his rpm and length went down....as opposed to flat hitting which essentially requires a constant and subtle energy.

But let's keep the topic in mind ...extra time taking.

Regarding me suggesting increasing the size of the court, yes, I did...but unlike you I never said that wide or long shots shoudl be called "in" nowadays which is what you are effectively saying when defending extra time taking.

Tenez, I've lost no such arguments. It ultimately boils down to differences of opinions, and in your case the usual subjectively based ones at that. For example, you SUBJECTIVELY say RPM is power related. Where is your EVIDENCE as usual? You're great at making subjective comments like they're fact. So its no surprise that I disagree with you again - for example, if its all power based are you saying that Nadal is twice as strong as most of the top players to generate twice the rpm they do? I dont think so. Its a "freak" of timing/head speed, some might even call it talent Tenez

Nadal's biceps are no bigger than Verdasco's or several other players. This "bodybuilder" tennis player argument doesnt wash, never has. Then you say his rpm went down in 2009...so you were on court with a "spinometer" to measure it were you? Or is that another subjective opinion expressed as fact? Indeed if anything, according to your arguments less rpm should equal lower height so better length but then you contradict yourself by adding his length was down too...so what was it then - decreased length or rpm - because according to you it cant be both. Its almost like you make it up as you go along to support your pre-conceived constructs.

So at least you admit you proposed increasing the size of the court after hypocritically seeking to deride me or Laverfan by extrapolating our earlier points to suggest that (which they didnt). You talk about logic all the time yet you contradict yourself frequently. The stuff about wide/long shots is irrelevant to the discussion, its just more subjectivity and extrapolation of opinion on your part.

This is why I find it hard to listen to your points - you jump down people throats when they dont agree with you, you extrapolate and twist their opinions to suggest they're saying things they arent, and then you contradict yourself frequently. So, I'm now supposed to believe everything you write about the basis of the 25 second rule and why Nadal takes longer inbetween points since that fabled Miami 2005 match from which your whole "Nadal stamina/physicality thesis" rests upon but yet is contradicted by Nadal winning long 3hr+ matches beforehand and that he takes the same amount of time between points whether he's played 4 or 20 shots.

From Steve Flink's article that I quoted earlier....

And yet, Lendl could be infuriating in one respect: he seemed to have an inner clock clicking at all times, telling him precisely how much time was elapsing between points. He would frequently take 29 seconds; I know because I would use my stopwatch to time his routine. To be sure, this regimen allowed Lendl to totally prepare himself for each point, and he was not breaking the rules.

Also, from the same article...

Djokovic was well into his familiar ball bouncing routine as he prepared to serve. By all accounts, he won the next point to reach deuce and then let it be known in no uncertain terms that he was livid about the warning he received. After losing his cool, he then lost his serve and soon lost control of the match. The rapidly improving Anderson fully exploited the situation, and recorded the biggest win of his young career 7-6 (1), 3-6, 6-4.

It is entirely possible, as indicated, that an untimely time violation warning can derail a match, as the Djokovic-Anderson match shows. The fear of such a warning must constantly haunt Rafa.

lydian wrote:Tenez, I've lost no such arguments. It ultimately boils down to differences of opinions, and in your case the usual subjectively based ones at that. For example, you SUBJECTIVELY say RPM is power related. Where is your EVIDENCE as usual? You're great at making subjective comments like they're fact. So its no surprise that I disagree with you again - for example, if its all power based are you saying that Nadal is twice as strong as most of the top players to generate twice the rpm they do? I dont think so. Its a "freak" of timing/head speed, some might even call it talent Tenez

No it's not a question of "opinions". You see...you are the one twisting everything to suit your agenda, not me. We, the racquets, the strings and balls are very much constrained by the universal laws of physics. the more rpm, the more energy is required...as simple as that. Now timing and other factors can make best use of that energy, however power is the main factor. And how do you know yourself whether the other players cannot rpm as fast as Nadal? I am pretty sure they could if they wanted to. I doubt however they could do it as relentlessly as Nadal and more so I am not sure they would choose to max their rpm in the first place. Players tend to find their best pace/safety ratio and that means minimising rpm for pace. And that applies to Nadal too. If Nadal could win points without taking too much risk by flatening out his FH v Djoko, do you really think he would hesitate? more so after losing 6 straight times against him?

Tenez wrote:And how do you know yourself whether the other players cannot rpm as fast as Nadal? I am pretty sure they could if they wanted to.

A digression perhaps, but, .....

Bruguera FH has been measured at 3300 rpm. Nadal is at 4800 rpm, perhaps not every shot, though.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/340600-does-rafael-nadal-hit-with-too-much-topspin

This report doesn't say those players tried to reach their max rpm. it only refers to their rpm during match. Plus bruguera was probably using a heavier racquet and not modern strings.

I am pretty sure that guys like Monfils, Soderling and Delpo coudl create as much rpm on a single shot. It's simply not what they try to achieve though.

BUt back to those 20/25s...how do you justify this extra time taking!!!! ????

Tenez wrote:This report doesn't say those players tried to reach their max rpm. it only refers to their rpm during match. Plus bruguera was probably using a heavier racquet and not modern strings.

I am pretty sure that guys like Monfils, Soderling and Delpo coudl create as much rpm on a single shot. It's simply not what they try to achieve though.

BUt back to those 20/25s...how do you justify this extra time taking!!!! ????

I already justified it in my previous responses, but
1. from S&V (typically shorter points) to baseline (typically longer rallies), and,
2. your observation that the game is more physical now, and,
3. to prevent injuries, which may have happen due to 20/25s time limit (USO withdrawals/injuries), and,
4. slower courts

Is that justification enough?

Now, my question is, why was 20/25s chosen in the first place, and what were the factors that were considered as input to such a choice? The onus is on you to find an answer.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:This report doesn't say those players tried to reach their max rpm. it only refers to their rpm during match. Plus bruguera was probably using a heavier racquet and not modern strings.

I am pretty sure that guys like Monfils, Soderling and Delpo coudl create as much rpm on a single shot. It's simply not what they try to achieve though.

BUt back to those 20/25s...how do you justify this extra time taking!!!! ????

I already justified it in my previous responses, but
1. from S&V (typically shorter points) to baseline (typically longer rallies), and,
2. your observation that the game is more physical now, and,
3. to prevent injuries, which may have happen due to 20/25s time limit (USO withdrawals/injuries), and,
4. slower courts

Is that justification enough?

Now, my question is, why was 20/25s chosen in the first place, and what were the factors that were considered as input to such a choice? The onus is on you to find an answer.

No. your justification doesn't cut it!

1 - Baseline game thrived before Nadal within 20s.
2 - I obvserve that the game is more physical BECAUSE of the extra time taken. Not teh other way around! When will you finally understand that simple point?
3 - Wrong again! The two kings of extra time taking that are Nadal and Djoko are those who ended up both injured in that USO final. 20s woudl force players to shorter rallies, therefore minimising injuries.
4 - Slower court is even more of a problem if we extend extra time taking.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:This report doesn't say those players tried to reach their max rpm. it only refers to their rpm during match. Plus bruguera was probably using a heavier racquet and not modern strings.

I am pretty sure that guys like Monfils, Soderling and Delpo coudl create as much rpm on a single shot. It's simply not what they try to achieve though.

BUt back to those 20/25s...how do you justify this extra time taking!!!! ????

I already justified it in my previous responses, but
1. from S&V (typically shorter points) to baseline (typically longer rallies), and,
2. your observation that the game is more physical now, and,
3. to prevent injuries, which may have happen due to 20/25s time limit (USO withdrawals/injuries), and,
4. slower courts

Is that justification enough?

Now, my question is, why was 20/25s chosen in the first place, and what were the factors that were considered as input to such a choice? The onus is on you to find an answer.

No. your justification doesn't cut it!

1 - Baseline game thrived before Nadal within 20s.
2 - I obvserve that the game is more physical BECAUSE of the extra time taken. Not teh other way around! When will you finally understand that simple point?
3 - Wrong again! The two kings of extra time taking that are Nadal and Djoko are those who ended up both injured in that USO final. 20s woudl force players to shorter rallies, therefore minimising injuries.
4 - Slower court is even more of a problem if we extend extra time taking.

1. There is no mention of Nadal in my justification. You gave an example of a 3+ minute Wilander rally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYds3V-fAXk . Lendl took more his time in my example. IIRC, no warnings for Lendl. You are sure about the 20s, or was it 30?
2. And how can you claim that fact? Can you provide evidence to support your conjecture? The converse is also a simple point.
3. Wrong again. Lendl, Borg, McEnroe - from Steve Flink's article?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/aug/21/tennis-us-open-injuries
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/sports/tennis/in-tennis-injuries-sometimes-strain-credibility.html
This entire list is not due to a physical playing style, is it?
4. How and why? There are examples (see the Steve Flink article) where Borg and McEnroe played long matches on 'fast' grass. Counter argument is that given more 'preparation' time, points may be shorter and aggressive.

1 - Wrong! Baseline game is baseline game and has nothing to do with extending the time in between. Murray and Federer play essentially a baseline game but stick to teh 20s.

2 - Easy. I did explain it to you but you conveniently try to ignore it. . Those guys take extra time to actually engage in longer rallies. Players give 100% in all circumstances. If you stick to 20s, less O2 in their blood will mean less energy available.

3 - dubious logic of yours as usual. It's not because all injuries are not down to physical playing style that playing style doesn't have an influence on the injury rate. Nadal is the top player having been injured in slams despite taking the most time in between points.

4 - Again completely off the mark. A SVer taking extra time between points has nothing to do with our discussion here. Why not talk about left handers taking extra time?? Besides, grass of McEnroe/Borg was fast but the game was dead slow due to the wooden racquets inviting to a crafty game instead of power game. So wrong example anyway.

Tenez wrote:1 - Wrong! Baseline game is baseline game and has nothing to do with extending the time in between. Murray and Federer play essentially a baseline game but stick to teh 20s.

Nadal and Djokovic do not. What does it prove, nothing? If 50% of the Top 4 players play in less than 20/25 sec, while the other 50% take 35 seconds, it is a meaningless assertion to quote a number. There is no logic to it.

Tenez wrote:2 - Easy. I did explain it to you but you conveniently try to ignore it. . Those guys take extra time to actually engage in longer rallies. Players give 100% in all circumstances. If you stick to 20s, less O2 in their blood will mean less energy available.

Are you are saying that athletes should be deprived of natural resources, and you consider it a level playing field? . By your logic, a person who has a body weight of 60kg/155cm should have the same oxygen needs as a 80kg/185cm Tennis player. We are now slowly going sliding in to your favourite subject.

Tenez wrote:3 - dubious logic of yours as usual. It's not because all injuries are not down to physical playing style that playing style doesn't have an influence on the injury rate. Nadal is the top player having been injured in slams despite taking the most time in between points.

Each athlete has a playing style. You, as a spectator, cannot dictate the playing style of an athlete. You forgot current players, like Federer, Nalbandian, Del Potro, Murray, Tsonga, Djokovic have all been injured in their careers. Connors took breaks to take cortisone injections to play matches. . IIRC, you mentioned Federer being injured during the famous Falla Wimbledon match, correct? And Federer's playing style is the most economical. Is Murray's or Del Potro's wrist injury related to playing style, and, should they change their style. Magnus Norman's career ended due to injury.

Nadal was playing fast according to you in 2004-2005, yet did not play FO 2004, due to a stress fracture.

Here is a link you might enjoy (1984)...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19840514&id=YjlSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SDYNAAAAIBAJ&pg=6192,4724858

Tenez wrote:4 - Again completely off the mark. A SVer taking extra time between points has nothing to do with our discussion here. Why not talk about left handers taking extra time?? Besides, grass of McEnroe/Borg was fast but the game was dead slow due to the wooden racquets inviting to a crafty game instead of power game. So wrong example anyway.

If the game is played at a faster pace now, because of better strings and racquet technology on current 'slow' courts, compared to 1980's 'fast' grass, it is even more of a justification to change the 30 second time out of 1980s to perhaps 45 seconds of 21st century? No sprinter runs two 100 meter races in a span of 20 seconds, but Tennis players seem to be required to do that?

Tenez wrote:No it's not a question of "opinions". You see...you are the one twisting everything to suit your agenda, not me. We, the racquets, the strings and balls are very much constrained by the universal laws of physics. the more rpm, the more energy is required...as simple as that. Now timing and other factors can make best use of that energy, however power is the main factor. And how do you know yourself whether the other players cannot rpm as fast as Nadal? I am pretty sure they could if they wanted to. I doubt however they could do it as relentlessly as Nadal and more so I am not sure they would choose to max their rpm in the first place. Players tend to find their best pace/safety ratio and that means minimising rpm for pace. And that applies to Nadal too. If Nadal could win points without taking too much risk by flatening out his FH v Djoko, do you really think he would hesitate? more so after losing 6 straight times against him?

lol...I dont have any agenda - dont tar me with your brush! Your arguments, as they always used to on 606, go all over the place in the face of contrary opinion. It was YOU who started on about Nadal's huge RPM needing more muscle, and therefore he's so much stronger than other players, and needs more time between points, etc, etc, (your agenda...). But then you propose that other players can rpm as fast as Nadal but they choose not to do so (because you would know right?). Your agenda is full of ifs, buts and subjective maybes but not based on alot of technical knowledge. One guy may have much more power than another to theoretically, under your premise, to create more rpm - but its not about raw power. High rpm is about the optimal timed release of explosive 'stored' energy, optimal use of biomechanics, and creation of prodigious racquet head speed through amazing timing.

I cant believe you think that differentiation of racquet head speeds from one player to the next is due to power levels because it fully reveals you do not know what you're talking about when it comes to technique. Your argument about rpm is fundamentally flawed and limited due to you not knowing about the biomechanics and dynamics involved in generating modern forehands. Indeed, the fact you have never mentioned multi-segment forehands and stretch shortening cycles simply means you dont know or understand how racquet head velocities can vary greatly from the same power base.

Do you even know why Federer and Nadal have much consistently higher RPM levels than other players? Do you know how stretch shortening cycles and their relation to elastic energy storage translate into explosive power release? Federer and Nadal use alot of wrist in their FHs from positions of inertia to create massive whip (racquet head speed) which requires prodigious timing. Yes prodigious timing = talent! Nadal has massive talent, indeed a unique talent - as commented on by leading coaches the world over, with his forehand stroke production. But your technique-lite agenda just tries to palm off Nadal as some muscle merchant without understanding why he is actually a unique talent. I suggest you go away and read about SSC's and their relation to racquet head speed and how multi-segment FHs create more rpm (>20% compared to the "old" way of hitting forehands) from similar power bases then come back on here and start discussing FHs, rpm and power again.

To get you started I'll give you some help with your forehand technique education:

1. http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=341:tennis-explosive-article&catid=95:tennis-general-articles&Itemid=173
Inside you'll read: "The amount of force a player is able to develop during a forehand or backhand stroke is not only dependent upon the external forces but also is dependent upon internal factors associated with the mechanics of muscle contraction. Muscles can produce different types of contractions: isometric, no change in the muscle length; concentric, contraction involving shortening of the muscle; and eccentric, a contraction involving a lengthening of the muscle. It is known that the amount of force produced by a muscle depends on the type of contraction and the velocity of the contraction (see Figure 2). It is also known that human muscle is able to produce larger forces under eccentric contraction than under concentric contraction. Therefore, it should be advantageous for a tennis player to try to develop eccentric muscular contractions during the forehand and backhand strokes".

This is the basis of how SSC's in tennis utilise stored elastic energy to create explosive power and increased racquet head speed (i.e. rpm). Hence, modern players undergo plyometric training programs to complement their innate stroke production talents. It figures that players who are masters at multi-segment FH generation, singular stroke flow (no loss of energy transferance) and SSC utilisation will create much higher rpm than others from a similar power base...in other words the exploitation of innate timing talent.

2. http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=333:tennis-strokeproduction-article&catid=95:tennis-general-articles&Itemid=173
Again, this bit is key: "While it has been shown that a specific training program can enhance racket-speed, it is questionable as to whether more strength/power will naturally lead to an increase in racket-speed".

laverfan,

Are we still discussing the original content of the post?

Its very hard trying to discuss and understand your points . You never stick to you points and keep bringing new dimensions and deviating the topic and they often are self contradictory. Then you'll give mistry one-strange-liner or a long explanation on things which were not even the part of original thread. Then you'll leave the thread and move ahead.

Let me get this clear and lets get back to the time rule which was the original content of the post.

1. What is your take on players violating the time rule? Is it fair to the opponent that players like Nadal. Djo who are repeat offenders when it comes to time rule violation, are let off without anything? Do you think those players do it on purpose to gain advantage? If not, what is the reason behind these player repeatedly violating the time rule? I've never seen Federer or Murray getting a time violation warning from the umpire. I don't see any other player taking so long between points? What is the reason that these 2 in particular have been violating the time rule more often than any other player? I think the warning count for these 2 ( most of the time they get away even without any warning) will be more than all the other players put together. Can you suggest why is it so?

2. What is your take on 20(25s) rule. Is it less or more than needed? Or in your opinion no time rule should ever exist and players can take as long as they want?

3. Should umpires be more strict on the time violation rules?

I don't have the practical tennis knowledge that you and Tenez do Lydian as I only played to a very mediocre level a few years ago, but as a long time avid spectator of the game I agree and disagree with you both about Rafa.

To me it seems that his muscular power and his game are heavily linked - I saw him at Queens in 2008 and then at O2 in 2009. I couldn't believe it was the same player in 2009 - it was obvious he was going to be okay despite all the doomsayers because his shots were accurate and his low unforced error count was much what it always had been. But, because he dropped some weight, noticeably on his top half and around the lower legs at the back of 2009 to relieve the pressure on his knees his shots had lost their venom. To watch him live in 2009 was to watch the same player, albeit one much weakened than the 2008 variety. Rafa's core is so strong and that is why he is able to hit a shot for a winner when on the run - he is able to get into balance very quickly because his legs and core strength are fantastic. Federer too has a very strong core and has always been able to get into balance quickly, but live he obviously hits very different balls to Rafa - much, much faster than the tv ever shows us. To deny that this is a factor in Rafa's success seems very odd to me because it is not what most commentators and spectators see. He is the Samson of tennis.

However, I think that for such a muscular player when Rafa does come to the net he has some of the most instinctive touch and anticipation of the top guys and he is formidable in the forecourt. Given this it is surprising that when he loses his mojo he chooses to retreat so far behind the baseline but perhaps because when his confidence is ebbing, he himself feels comfortable relying on his physical strength even though he clearly has a very complete game.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:laverfan,

Are we still discussing the original content of the post?

Its very hard trying to discuss and understand your points . You never stick to you points and keep bringing new dimensions and deviating the topic and they often are self contradictory. Then you'll give mistry one-strange-liner or a long explanation on things which were not even the part of original thread. Then you'll leave the thread and move ahead.

Exactly. LF changing the goal posts is an admission that he lost the debate and I now leave him to debate with himself/herself. Still a pleasant poster , just foreign to logos.

time please wrote:I don't have the practical tennis knowledge that you and Tenez do Lydian as I only played to a very mediocre level a few years ago, but as a long time avid spectator of the game I agree and disagree with you both about Rafa.

To me it seems that his muscular power and his game are heavily linked - I saw him at Queens in 2008 and then at O2 in 2009. I couldn't believe it was the same player in 2009 - it was obvious he was going to be okay despite all the doomsayers because his shots were accurate and his low unforced error count was much what it always had been. But, because he dropped some weight, noticeably on his top half and around the lower legs at the back of 2009 to relieve the pressure on his knees his shots had lost their venom. To watch him live in 2009 was to watch the same player, albeit one much weakened than the 2008 variety. Rafa's core is so strong and that is why he is able to hit a shot for a winner when on the run - he is able to get into balance very quickly because his legs and core strength are fantastic. Federer too has a very strong core and has always been able to get into balance quickly, but live he obviously hits very different balls to Rafa - much, much faster than the tv ever shows us. To deny that this is a factor in Rafa's success seems very odd to me because it is not what most commentators and spectators see. He is the Samson of tennis.

Indeed!

However, I think that for such a muscular player when Rafa does come to the net he has some of the most instinctive touch and anticipation of the top guys and he is formidable in the forecourt. Given this it is surprising that when he loses his mojo he chooses to retreat so far behind the baseline but perhaps because when his confidence is ebbing, he himself feels comfortable relying on his physical strength even though he clearly has a very complete game.

yes but his volleys are essentially reflexes volleys and he comes to the net when the ball is relatively easy to put away. Now those volleys are very much helped by a strong arm. He holds a tennis racquet like you and I woudl hold a pingpong bat and that certainly helps a lot when volleying. When a ball comes at you with power, the strength needed to absorb and guide the energy of the ball is extremely important and natural volleyers use the anticipation and racquet mouvement going forward to counter the energy of the ball. Nadal has considerable help with his strength when it comes to volleying. What is a reflexe volley? the ability to move your arm and racquet in a fraction of second....Try to make the mouvement with a tennis racquet and a ping pong bat and notice the difference...then imagine a ball with power coming at you...A strong arm is a huge advantage. Let's not underestimate that...

lydian wrote:...as the game has become quicker & physical due to slower conditions, better traning and technology, etc, isnt there a case for the time between points being extended rather than sticking to time limits that were created for a different game we have now? (not that it would particularly make tennis more viewable!)

Which therefore begs the question, to make the 20/25s rule more appropriate again, we need to speed the conditions back up!

An interesting point

Currently the rules are the rules but certainly there is scope for a review. Since the original rules were laid down the influence of "money" and the paradigm of "marketable product" seems to have increased in importance. That is to say the review would take into account both "sporting" and commercial interests and one could only guess as to which interest would carry the greater influence.

Nore Staat wrote:

lydian wrote:...as the game has become quicker & physical due to slower conditions, better traning and technology, etc, isnt there a case for the time between points being extended rather than sticking to time limits that were created for a different game we have now? (not that it would particularly make tennis more viewable!)

Which therefore begs the question, to make the 20/25s rule more appropriate again, we need to speed the conditions back up!

An interesting point

Currently the rules are the rules but certainly there is scope for a review. Since the original rules were laid down the influence of "money" and the paradigm of "marketable product" seems to have increased in importance. That is to say the review would take into account both "sporting" and commercial interests and one could only guess as to which interest would carry the greater influence.

Well as explained many times, this is wrong. The game became very physical and "fast" in the late 70s which already then justified the shortening of the time between rallies. It says in the tennis rule that stamina being a factor, time had to be limited ...obviously to sort the players with the most energy efficient game. ! There is nothing new today for those who watched the game in the 70s and 80s. It's simply more of the same thing.

Do people understand that if players are forced to stick to the 20s, they will in turn be forced to shorten the rallies. You simply cannot play the game we have had in that USO final if players stick to 20s.

Though I'd love to make the conds faster...in theory we should not have to! Extending time between points is exactly like allowing EPO use. It's plain wrong.

Tenez wrote: Well as explained many times, this is wrong.

... It says in the tennis rule that stamina being a factor, time had to be limited ... Do people understand that if players are forced to stick to the 20s, they will in turn be forced to shorten the rallies. ...

Though I'd love to make the conds faster...in theory we should not have to! ...

It is not clear what you deem to be specifically "wrong" in the preceding text but yes strictly enforcing current time limit rules will either shorten rallies, decrease their intensity or cause more retirements or a combination of these. Certainly as far as I am aware, Roger Federer and presumably other players too, support a stricter enforcement of the time between points rule.

But ultimately, as far as I am aware, it is the umpires decision that is final ... so presumably it cannot be said that any rules have been broken (unless the umpire says so).

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:laverfan,

Are we still discussing the original content of the post?

Its very hard trying to discuss and understand your points . You never stick to you points and keep bringing new dimensions and deviating the topic and they often are self contradictory. Then you'll give mistry one-strange-liner or a long explanation on things which were not even the part of original thread. Then you'll leave the thread and move ahead.
Let me get this clear and lets get back to the time rule which was the original content of the post.

1. What is your take on players violating the time rule? Is it fair to the opponent that players like Nadal. Djo who are repeat offenders when it comes to time rule violation, are let off without anything? Do you think those players do it on purpose to gain advantage? If not, what is the reason behind these player repeatedly violating the time rule? I've never seen Federer or Murray getting a time violation warning from the umpire. I don't see any other player taking so long between points? What is the reason that these 2 in particular have been violating the time rule more often than any other player? I think the warning count for these 2 ( most of the time they get away even without any warning) will be more than all the other players put together. Can you suggest why is it so?

2. What is your take on 20(25s) rule. Is it less or more than needed? Or in your opinion no time rule should ever exist and players can take as long as they want?

3. Should umpires be more strict on the time violation rules?

Pot and Kettle my friend!!!

Nore Staat wrote:

Tenez wrote: Well as explained many times, this is wrong.

... It says in the tennis rule that stamina being a factor, time had to be limited ... Do people understand that if players are forced to stick to the 20s, they will in turn be forced to shorten the rallies. ...

Though I'd love to make the conds faster...in theory we should not have to! ...

It is not clear what you deem to be specifically "wrong" in the preceding text but yes strictly enforcing current time limit rules will either shorten rallies, decrease their intensity or cause more retirements or a combination of these. Certainly as far as I am aware, Roger Federer and presumably other players too, support a stricter enforcement of the time between points rule.

But ultimately, as far as I am aware, it is the umpires decision that is final ... so presumably it cannot be said that any rules have been broken (unless the umpire says so).

My wrong was aimed at Lydian's text you hilighted...of course. It's a false assumption that longer time taking will be more adapt to today's game. It's the other way around. A strict 20s rule applied will actually cause LESS retirements...not more. PLayers out of breath won't retire..they'll simply find a better rhythm to their games...that has a better risk/energy ratio. They might not be the same players at the top. Those with the most energy efficient game might benefit as it was intended by the ITF rules in the first place.

Tenez/RaidersOTLA...

The discussion is specifically about 20/25 seconds vs 30/35 seconds or 40/45 seconds. It is not about removing the time limit.

I have yet to see anyone tell me why 20/25 sec was originally chosen. Julius came the closest with the 30 sec/no chairs piece of information.

Tenez seems to have descended into his favourite EPO/Blood doping discussion, rather interesting and limited that all roads lead to just one subject.

laverfan wrote:Tenez seems to have descended into his favourite EPO/Blood doping discussion, rather interesting and limited that all roads lead to just one subject.

Yes, all those top professionals are talking about is about getting fitter, it's just a fact. Whether you use legal or illegal stuff, the aim is to increase the O2 the blood can carry, exactly what taking extra time between points does! So very relevant to the discussion.

The OP doesn't talk about increasing the time taking, no more than he is talking about changing the dimensions of the courts....only you is changing subjects again.

But obviously, people are slow to follow cause I have been talking about the real reasons why players were taking extra time for years. It seems nowadays, at least, not many will argue like they did then that it's simply an OCD problem.

We are seeing players abusing the rules to their benefit and this is against the principle of sport.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:Tenez seems to have descended into his favourite EPO/Blood doping discussion, rather interesting and limited that all roads lead to just one subject.

Yes, all those top professionals are talking about is about getting fitter, it's just a fact. Whether you use legal or illegal stuff, the aim is to increase the O2 the blood can carry, exactly what taking extra time between points does! So very relevant to the discussion.

The OP doesn't talk about increasing the time taking, no more than he is talking about changing the dimensions of the courts....only you is changing subjects again.

The discussion is specifically about 20/25 seconds vs 30/35 seconds or 40/45 seconds. It is not about removing the time limit.

If you choose not to comprehend, then we are not discussing the OP "he has to go back to basics and play as quick as this, not letting his man able to breathe."

The OP does not mention EPO/O2/Lung Capacity either.

laverfan wrote:Tenez/RaidersOTLA...

The discussion is specifically about 20/25 seconds vs 30/35 seconds or 40/45 seconds. It is not about removing the time limit.

I have yet to see anyone tell me why 20/25 sec was originally chosen. Julius came the closest with the 30 sec/no chairs piece of information.

See this link - http://m.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/match-tough/tick-tick-tick/article702616/?service=mobile

Blame Mark Dickson

One quote is "the guys all started playing faster and then we felt it was at the right level". 30 seconds felt a bit too long, especially as some leeway was given, so 25 felt about right. It still does IMO. Waiting 30 seconds plus, on a regular basis, is too long. 25 seconds isn't arbitrary, it is a best judgment from officials who run the game - they didn't just pluck it out of the air.

This link states that 25% of points in the USO exceeded the time limit - and that was the best of all the GS.
http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2011/09/12/nadal-will-serve-when-hes-ready/

laverfan wrote:If you choose not to comprehend, then we are not discussing the OP.

I choose to comprehend but me no comprehend mucho what you are on about.

Julius... many thanks. ....

“We never wanted to penalize the player when he's getting ready to start his (service) motion, you still have to use some common sense like when there's a huge reaction from the crowd or they've played a great, long point with both of them running everywhere. There are certain times when you just have to use common sense. And we didn't want to take that away from the chairs (umpires). We think our chairs are of an ability where they can they can distinguish when it's appropriate and when not – manage the time by using lots of soft warnings, communication on the change-overs. If a guy is getting close or maybe he went over one time, just give a little boost to get him to speed up again. Most of the players really respond well to that.”

Very clearly a 'discretionary' power vested in the chair umpire. And Bernardes did use it well in Shanghai in the Nadal-Mayer match.

Poor Mark Dickson.

From the WSJ link...

Regardless of the exact number, many of the game’s top players consistently exceed the limit. None do it more than Nadal.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:If you choose not to comprehend, then we are not discussing the OP.

I choose to comprehend but me no comprehend mucho what you are on about.

The discussion is specifically about 20/25 seconds vs 30/35 seconds or 40/45 seconds.It is not about removing the time limit.

Regarding Djokovic's ball bouncing, it can be bounced 25 times in 25 seconds, if so desired.

A really good player, to get extra, legal recovery time, would take 19 seconds, then deliberately serve a let

JuliusHMarx wrote:A really good player, to get extra, legal recovery time, would take 19 seconds, then deliberately serve a let

In the ATP case, 24 seconds (first serve let) + 24 seconds (second serve) = 48 seconds.

The pictures I have posted earlier, show average 33 and peak 53 seconds.

Tenez wrote:We are seeing players abusing the rules to their benefit and this is against the principle of sport.

Hypothetically, if the limit was 60 seconds, then all current players would be within the limits of the rule, and we would not have this discussion.

Changing the limit from 20/25 to 45/60 makes it legal and the principle of sport is still intact.

You do understand the varying speed limits on vehicular traffic in different parts of the city are in response to factors in those specific parts of the city.

Similarly, if the limit was 60 seconds, would it compromise the spirit of sport?

Television is perhaps a different matter, but it is used to Wilander rallies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYds3V-fAXk

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:We are seeing players abusing the rules to their benefit and this is against the principle of sport.

Hypothetically, if the limit was 60 seconds, then all current players would be within the limits of the rule, and we would not have this discussion.

Changing the limit from 20/25 to 45/60 makes it legal and the principle of sport is still intact.

You do understand the varying speed limits on vehicular traffic in different parts of the city are in response to factors in those specific parts of the city.

Similarly, if the limit was 60 seconds, would it compromise the spirit of sport?

Television is perhaps a different matter, but it is used to Wilander rallies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYds3V-fAXk

Me no comprehend mucho more where you want lead this discussion.

What discussion?

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:We are seeing players abusing the rules to their benefit and this is against the principle of sport.

Hypothetically, if the limit was 60 seconds, then all current players would be within the limits of the rule, and we would not have this discussion.

Changing the limit from 20/25 to 45/60 makes it legal and the principle of sport is still intact.

You do understand the varying speed limits on vehicular traffic in different parts of the city are in response to factors in those specific parts of the city.

Similarly, if the limit was 60 seconds, would it compromise the spirit of sport?

Television is perhaps a different matter, but it is used to Wilander rallies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYds3V-fAXk

Me no comprehend mucho more where you want lead this discussion.

The discussion is specifically about 20/25 seconds vs 30/35 seconds or 40/45 seconds.It is not about removing the time limit.

No room for EPO/Blood O2/Physicality/Size of Muscles.

You should be able to expand your horizons a bit outside your favourites.

laverfan wrote:
Hypothetically, if the limit was 60 seconds, then all current players would be within the limits of the rule, and we would not have this discussion.

Changing the limit from 20/25 to 45/60 makes it legal and the principle of sport is still intact.

This is such a flawed argument, I can't believe it comes from someone who says he/she has been watching and following tennis from laver's days. Its another absurd point. You have been just yourself even in this argument i.e. say something without the reasoning. Lets see why.

1. You suggest to increase the time allowed between the points. Tell me what is reasons for this need in tennis? Why would there be such a need to to push this time limit rule up to 45/60 seconds in slams/ATP tournaments respectively? I see that barring Nadal and Djo the rest of the playing field can manage nicely within the current rules of 20/25 sec. These 2 player are repeat offenders violating the rules more often than all player combined. I asked you what you think why do they violate this rule again and again and why do they need more time when others are okay .And as expected you had no answers and chose to deviate from the question bringing up this. Nadal and Djo are ranked 1,2 but that doesn't mean they are above the game itself that rules need to be changed so that they can escape from violating them. Just for 2 or a handful of players rules can not be altered.

2. The rule is 20/25 seconds between points. I didn't see any place where it states that it can well within the rules be valid to have a let and the server can take another 20/25 seconds before attempting the serve again. If someone has a link please provide. My understanding is a point must be started within the 20/25 sec of the previous point, if its a let/fault the next attempt must be immediate ( certainly not after another 20/25 sec of the first attempt.)

3. Changing the limit from 20/25 to 45/60 makes it legal and the principle of sport is still intact.
=====================
No it doesn't. You make strange assumption as if a let happen so frequently that effectively every point is anyways about 24+24 sec so why not make it the rule. This is a flawed logic. Only a handful of points are delayed because of a Let and hence there is no such need to increase the time limit.

4. If the time rule is increased to what you say, it will again be worse for the game. The 5 hour match ( which is also a result of current time violations by some players) will become 7 hours. Tennis nowadays is more physical than ever was, and your suggesting something that will turn tennis into a 'last man standing' match. I don't know about you but I don't want to see any match like that.

5. if 45/60 sec is made the new time rules, as per your logic of first serve let and the seconds attempt will have about 90/120 sec in total. So we have about 1.5 -2 min of time delay just between points? Are we still talking sense?

[quote="laverfan"][quote="Tenez"]

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:

The discussion is specifically about 20/25 seconds vs 30/35 seconds or 40/45 seconds.It is not about removing the time limit.

No room for EPO/Blood O2/Physicality/Size of Muscles.

You should be able to expand your horizons a bit outside your favourites.

That is laver fan's opinion. The discussion was that if Nadal starts to serve quicker then he might be able to come back to his winning ways. \umpires have the authority to enforce the rule and if they choose not t do so then it is not Djoko's or Nadal's fault.
If rule becomes 60 seconds then it becomes 60 seconds. Djoko, Nadal are not the only one, I have seen Delpo as well breaking the time limit. This is one of the contentious issues which is not easily forceable as in the case of screaming during points.

If the stats in the article Julius linked to are correct then the 20s limit was exceeded 25% of the time in the USO mens draw. This would suggest that it is a far wider issue than "2 or a handful of players". The figures for the womens draw were even higher.

This being the case, it is definitely something that the ATP/ITF/WTA etc. need to look at to find the best way forward. Not sure I could cope with the added "fascinating" commentator insights that an extended time would lead to though!

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

laverfan wrote:
Hypothetically, if the limit was 60 seconds, then all current players would be within the limits of the rule, and we would not have this discussion.

Changing the limit from 20/25 to 45/60 makes it legal and the principle of sport is still intact.

This is such a flawed argument, I can't believe it comes from someone who says he/she has been watching and following tennis from laver's days. Its another absurd point. You have been just yourself even in this argument i.e. say something without the reasoning. Lets see why.

1. You suggest to increase the time allowed between the points. Tell me what is reasons for this need in tennis? Why would there be such a need to to push this time limit rule up to 45/60 seconds in slams/ATP tournaments respectively? I see that barring Nadal and Djo the rest of the playing field can manage nicely within the current rules of 20/25 sec. These 2 player are repeat offenders violating the rules more often than all player combined. I asked you what you think why do they violate this rule again and again and why do they need more time when others are okay .And as expected you had no answers and chose to deviate from the question bringing up this. Nadal and Djo are ranked 1,2 but that doesn't mean they are above the game itself that rules need to be changed so that they can escape from violating them. Just for 2 or a handful of players rules can not be altered.

2. The rule is 20/25 seconds between points. I didn't see any place where it states that it can well within the rules be valid to have a let and the server can take another 20/25 seconds before attempting the serve again. If someone has a link please provide. My understanding is a point must be started within the 20/25 sec of the previous point, if its a let/fault the next attempt must be immediate ( certainly not after another 20/25 sec of the first attempt.)

3. Changing the limit from 20/25 to 45/60 makes it legal and the principle of sport is still intact.
=====================
No it doesn't. You make strange assumption as if a let happen so frequently that effectively every point is anyways about 24+24 sec so why not make it the rule. This is a flawed logic. Only a handful of points are delayed because of a Let and hence there is no such need to increase the time limit.

4. If the time rule is increased to what you say, it will again be worse for the game. The 5 hour match ( which is also a result of current time violations by some players) will become 7 hours. Tennis nowadays is more physical than ever was, and your suggesting something that will turn tennis into a 'last man standing' match. I don't know about you but I don't want to see any match like that.

5. if 45/60 sec is made the new time rules, as per your logic of first serve let and the seconds attempt will have about 90/120 sec in total. So we have about 1.5 -2 min of time delay just between points? Are we still talking sense?

You're making the assumption that all players will deliberately take 30/45/60 seconds between points. So essentially your logic is flawed also.

It is an interesting proposition that LF makes so can we turn it in with insulting opinions!!!

wow wrote:Djoko, Nadal are not the only one, I have seen Delpo as well breaking the time limit. This is one of the contentious issues which is not easily forceable as in the case of screaming during points.

Of course they are not the ones but this is essentially happening now because top players have been granted the right to abuse the rule. That leaves everbody else the right to override that rule.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
I asked you what you think why do they violate this rule again and again and why do they need more time when others are okay

See Julius's article (over 25% exceed time limit and Carrieg4's comments).

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote: And as expected you had no answers and chose to deviate from the question bringing up this. Nadal and Djo are ranked 1,2 but that doesn't mean they are above the game itself that rules need to be changed so that they can escape from violating them.

See page 63 and page 109 of the ATP rules for which I provided link.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Just for 2 or a handful of players rules can not be altered.

My favourite example of a rule change for a single tennis player is Pancho Gonzalez. He was considered 'too quick' and there was a rule added to not allow him to step inside the court after his own serve till the opponent's racquet had touched the ball. I would suggest you take a look at that change.

Correction: the returned serve had to bounce before the server could make his own first shot, thereby keeping Gonzales from playing his usual serve-and-volley game.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:2. The rule is 20/25 seconds between points. I didn't see any place where it states that it can well within the rules be valid to have a let and the server can take another 20/25 seconds before attempting the serve again. If someone has a link please provide. My understanding is a point must be started within the 20/25 sec of the previous point, if its a let/fault the next attempt must be immediate ( certainly not after another 20/25 sec of the first attempt.)

Please watch Mardy Fish and Justine Henin (... and many others). They do not get two balls to start their serve, but just one. If the first serve is a let, the 20/25 second is dependent on ball being provided to the player by the ball persons and hence is out of control of the players themselves. Umpire discretion and observations now come into play. There is no rule which forces a player to ask for two balls to start their first serve.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:4. If the time rule is increased to what you say, it will again be worse for the game.

Has it been tried? What feedback, if any came out of such a trial. Worse for the game... is purely subjective, because it may perhaps bore a specific set of spectators/fans. Fans in the play area (not Television) are used to players sitting down on chairs between consecutive games. If it avoids injuries of any kind, it will be better for the game.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:The 5 hour match ( which is also a result of current time violations by some players) will become 7 hours. Tennis nowadays is more physical than ever was, and your suggesting something that will turn tennis into a 'last man standing' match. I don't know about you but I don't want to see any match like that.

Whether one chooses to watch a 5/7 hours match or not is a personal preference, there is no mandatory binding on spectators. Perhaps a doubles match (3-set) with a super TB or a Cricket Twenty20 (over a 5-day test match) is preferred by a set of spectators. :p

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:5. if 45/60 sec is made the new time rules, as per your logic of first serve let and the seconds attempt will have about 90/120 sec in total. So we have about 1.5 -2 min of time delay just between points? Are we still talking sense?

Please see LKs comment. It is not that every player will take time allotted. Federer (one of the fastest servers exceeds time around 5% time - see Julius's article link).

The issue here is if the rule isnt working and umpires arent imposing it then there's a big problem with the rule. Also, its a bit of a farce when ITF and ATP cant agree on the right amount of time between ralleys - that doesnt send a clear message to the players either.

Maybe its time (pardon the pun) for a new approach. I dont think they can extend much beyond 30s as the game would become too slow, but I dont agree that sticking rigidly to 20s (which isnt going to happen...especially at the French Open with its long ralleys) will make players take risks...the players will just go up in arms about it. Why? Because the game is simply more brutal now that before - slower conditions, better equipment, stronger and faster players...all means the ball stays in play for longer. They can take more risks for sure but you're STILL going to get long ralleys and players needing more time vs. yesteryear.

The issue isnt the time but the conditions! Its only become an issue since conditions have slowed since the early 00s.

wow wrote:That is laver fan's opinion. The discussion was that if Nadal starts to serve quicker then he might be able to come back to his winning ways. \umpires have the authority to enforce the rule and if they choose not t do so then it is not Djoko's or Nadal's fault.
If rule becomes 60 seconds then it becomes 60 seconds. Djoko, Nadal are not the only one, I have seen Delpo as well breaking the time limit. This is one of the contentious issues which is not easily forceable as in the case of screaming during points.

Thanks WoW.

I have repeatedly questioned the sacrosanctity of 20/25 seconds. Based on Julius's link of more than just two players exceeding the time limit, IMVHO, it is a legitimate question for debate.

To add to what Lydian is saying, specifically on Clay (see section J and K, page 109 in the ATP rule book), the overhead of 20/25 seconds and inspecting a clay court mark also add to this discussion.

Edit: FO/RG's adamant refusal to allow hawkeye (not the poster on 606v2 ) to be used is another related topic.

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".

Going back to the OP statement. I think Nadal would benefit from playing quickly - its just a habit he's got locked into IMO. If Nadal was to speed up I think it would hurt his opponents far more due to what he can take out of them in the ralleys - sure he puts alot into his points but he also has opponents moving left and right which is exhausting for them. By taking 20-30s he's giving them recovery time - and I believe they need it more than him.

This was a tactic Muster used to put to great effect on clay...he used to move his opponents left and right and played pretty quickly inbetween points giving them little recovery time. After the first set most of them were pretty shot and capitulated...Agassi wore guys out too, used to move them around on a piece of string and then serve quickly. Actually, Muster would love today's slower surface conditions!

There is no reason why playing more quickly wouldnt benefit Nadal most of the time. He did used to play quikcly and it didnt hurt his results before - I dont believe Tenez's Miami theory at all.

lydian wrote:The issue here is if the rule isnt working and umpires arent imposing it then there's a big problem with the rule. .

This shows your agenda again. A rule is a rule. It's neutral. It's nothing good or bad. It's just something that limits the game like lines limit the courts. Be it 10s or 2hours allowed between point, it is just so. It can be crtiticised but it cannot be broken. Only those trying to break it and those not enforcing it are the problem...not the rule itself.

You know too well there can be no excuse for breaking a rule. What makes you think that if teh time allowed is 1min, some won't break that one either? There is no point discussing a rule. Actually we can change it...but until we do, it has to be applied. Maybe the widening of the court will come before the extended time. Does it mean we should start now to call balls out "in"?

It's because you refuse to blame "your player" for being the biggest offender that you lose any credibilty in your arguments.

Before lydian steps in ....

Tenez wrote: A rule is a rule. It's neutral. It's nothing good or bad. It's just something that limits the game like lines limit the courts. Be it 10s or 2hours allowed between point, it is just so. It can be crtiticised but it cannot be broken. Only those trying to break it and those not enforcing it are the problem...not the rule itself.

Gave you an example of a rule for a specific player, which you have chosen to ignore.

A rule is created and/or modified to make the sport more enjoyable, equitable, etc. Why was there a need to change it from 30s (in the 1980s) to 25 seconds (as indicated by Julius's article link for some Mark Dickson).

Tenez wrote:It's because you refuse to blame "your player" for being the biggest offender that you lose any credibilty in your arguments.

My player..., your player...

Have you ever considered it our sport?

lydian wrote:There is no reason why playing more quickly wouldnt benefit Nadal most of the time. He did used to play quikcly and it didnt hurt his results before - I dont believe Tenez's Miami theory at all.

So Nadal losing the last 6 games in a row in the only 5 setter he played within 20s is my theory? Non-sense. It's not my theory, it's simply a fact you are denying cause teh fact goes against, not what you think, but what you would like to think. Comical really!

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:The issue here is if the rule isnt working and umpires arent imposing it then there's a big problem with the rule. .

This shows your agenda again. It's because you refuse to blame "your player" for being the biggest offender that you lose any credibilty in your arguments.

That's getting hysterical. What agenda can Lydian pursue on this tennis forum? How he is going to get benfitted with this agenda?

Tenez, I like your arguments but this is going OTT. The OP said and suggested that Nadal should play fast to change the results he has been getting lately. The article is about Nadal and not enforcing or suggesting changes to time limit.