The Latest Interview (Nadal's , Who Else's)

First topic message reminder :

Just as we have successfully discussed fast courts to death, to our rescue comes , who else but Rafa Nadal.

In his latest interview, he tackles another 606v2's favourite topics: time violation.

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=16795&zoneid=25

No prizes for guessing what he thinks about them....


The intro and Nadal's interview aside, I think that enforcing the 20 seconds rule would sort out the game quicker & better than anything else.

Since the umpires are obviously gutless and underpaid and don't have any say in all this, the onus is on tournament organisers to install visible clocks on courts and see what happens.

laverfan wrote:
Lydian's counter argument is worth considering, if the fittest player can recover 'faster' and within the 20 seconds, the player who cannot recover may be the loser. If the time needs to change from 20 to 30 seconds, that is an option worth considering. I would expect rigid application of such a modified time limit without any subjective implications.

I am afraid that's not a valid argument. It's not about being to recover quicker than teh opponent, it's about producing a more energy efficient tennis. If one player can make look the game easy, why woudl he have to be dragged dwn into a long physical battle by someone who is going to take a minute to breath between points to allow him to do more running. The 20s rule was actually put in place to help those who can produce more energy efficient tennis.

The rule was initially put created because there was one player who'd bounce the ball 50 times and take a minute between points (or something like that - there's an old post about it somewhere). So they decided a time limit was needed.

Tenez wrote:Why don;y you simply admit you were wrong and show some humility? I would respect that.

Firstly because I don't believe I'm wrong, because Nadal has had this time rule bad habit for years since coming on tour. The Miami 2004 match alone showed that. Nadal does abuse the time limits and he needs to be pulled up for it more often but your agenda is clear, you just want tennis to become a show piece of aggressive flat hitting where the ability/talent to retrieve is squeezed out of the game. You need to realise the game is never going back to the 80s and 90s, it's evolved and modern ralleys often need more than 20s recovery time. Why should the sport stick to rules that don't fit the reality of the modern game anymore? Why do many players break the rule, is tennis not more physical than it used to be, shall we squeeze out the talent of retrieving to allow an outdated rule to prevail? Its not even in line with ATP rules. If they simply moved to 30s and stuck to that rigidly there wouldn't be an issue I suspect. It seems you want to see an unenforceable, outdated and unrealistic rule applied to the letter of the law. Why? Because you know Nadal has always struggled with it and you only want to see short ralley tennis rewarded. I notice you only ever target Nadal with these arguments, not Nole or Delpo or others. You seem to think because Federer can play efficiently when you say 'one player can' that the rest of the tour is like him and modern tennis can stick to 20s. But even Federer breaks the rule during matches! E.g. https://2img.net/h/i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt272/bogbot/Fedtime.png (what was the basis of these rule breaks Tenez?)
So you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the 20s rule can and will be rigidly applied under current tour players and conditions when I'm sure nearly all players break it. Hence why is it that umpires dont enforce it rigidly?! They know that ralleys have become more physical across the tour as a whole in recent years.

Secondly I don't need your respect. Not when I've seen 1000s of your posts across multiple forums dating back to at least 2006 where you've had issue with just about everything Nadal does, probably ever since he started beating Federer. Others may buy into your 'impartial' comments about Nadal but I've seen them repeated over and over again for too long to show any respect for your opinion where anything to do with this player is concerned.

If it was a habit why is he giving interviews about needing the time for respite?

Ths habit excuse is just not standing up to scrutiny; we can change bad habits if we want, and in any case he's making clear he wants the time.

Your main argument appears to be that because certain super-physical players want to disregard the rule it is deemed 'outdated'. Sorry, but you open a Pandoras Box there. I mean, if some players wanted to use PEDs would that make the rules gainst them 'outdated'? Who gets to decide what therules are -or does it just come down to supporting your favourite player?

BB, he and others need the time at points during a match.
So what are your reasons for the rule breaks on this graph? https://2img.net/h/i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt272/bogbot/Fedtime.png

Nadal doesnt need the extra time ALL the time and yet he goes over the rule nearly all the time! Why?
Because it's mostly bad habit, partly modern game not fitting 20s rule anymore.
I repeat....explain the graph link above, then come back to this singular argument against Nadal.

All the link shows is that Federer sometimes goes over the limit. And? If it's that intermittent it suggests we'd need to see the specific circumstances to know why.

If Nadal does it all the time it tells me he does it deliberately. If it was a habit he wanted to change he can grind a new habit in - his life as been all about engraining habits so don't tell me he has no control over this one. More likely is that it's what you've been being told for years; it's a habit deliberately ingrained to allow him to play his game.

Now his interviews appear to be confirming this. After all, he didn't explain it as something he'd love to change but is stuck with, did he?

TBH this is an appalling response from Nadal.

Regardless of Lydian's arguements that the game has moved on, is more physical and therefore players need more time to recover etc (highly dubious arguements I think since players have been playing marathon matches since tennis started - particularly some of the clay court matches of years gone by), this blatant disregard of the rules is shameful from Rafa.

It's like he can't even be bothered to acknowledge that this is outside of the rules. His attitude is more like.. so what? I like to take my time and that's that - I dare you to try and stop me. Even worse, he tries to justify it. Instead of apologising for this flagrant and continuous breach of the rules he seems annoyed that people should question his right to CHEAT. And yes, that's calling a spade a spade, because at the end of the day that's what it is - CHEATING. He knows the rules and he openly admits to deliberately breaking them.

I have a feeling that if Nadal started playing really fast all those that are so against players going over 20 seconds would start asking for penalties for players going under 20 seconds...

Perhaps we should change the rule from 20 sec to 30 sec. Tenez said himself (on another thread) that all of Federer's defeats in Grand Slams in the last 6 years or so has been because of tiredness. Maybe if Fed could utilise 30 seconds he could be less tired from matches, no?

We've been seeing more of this side of him recently; the moans about two year ranking to protect himself, the scheduling complaints, and the attack on Federer for not sticking up for him. Now this.

I sense either Toni kept all this under wraps and he's losing influence, or its a reaction to the way Djokovic has surpassed him, and the pressure is telling.

Yes nadal collapsing under the pressure

Anyway Bogbrush what did you think of my 30 sec idea.

hawkeye wrote:I have a feeling that if Nadal started playing really fast all those that are so against players going over 20 seconds would start asking for penalties for players going under 20 seconds...

Reaching very, very far now.....

The above responses just serve to show that Nadal fans have no leg to stand on when it comes to defending their hero on this point. Instead of making ad hominen arguements you should try to debate the issue and the points raised.

At least Lydian is trying to do that.

Of course Nadal is not the only one guilty of this time breaching - Novak and Del Po are not far behind.

amritia3ee wrote:Yes nadal collapsing under the pressure

Anyway Bogbrush what did you think of my 30 sec idea.

Usual nonsense, very much par for the course.

Yes, the pressure has him going now. Being owned for close to three years now by a player just one year his junior appears to be taking its toll.

I like the title of this thread. I mean who else is there to talk about apart from Nadal?

The pressure is certainly getting to him and he is literally collapsing under it.

Remember the 'worst knee pain ever' whlst sitting in a chair in the hotel?

How about the sliding off the the chair dramatisation in a press conference following a bout of cramp?

emancipator wrote:The above responses just serve to show that Nadal fans have no leg to stand on when it comes to defending their hero on this point. Instead of making ad hominen arguements you should try to debate the issue and the points raised.

At least Lydian is trying to do that.

Yes he is trying but he remains a fan and fans cannot be objective as it's so clear here again. I have had years of discussions with him but everytime he blocks on key points...Whether it's Nadal saying he needs the extra time or Pete saying he played better at 30 than at 26, they are wrong, Lydian is right.

I dont think Nadal is undergoing any type of mental meltdown here. Lets not forget this guy is a fierce competitor first and foremost and tends to speak his mind, yes he's getting older and that will continue. But I dont see this interview as some kind of watershed moment others are ascribing to it.

BB - your response to the Federer chart wasnt particularly compelling. You know that chart contradicts alot of the flack thrown at Nadal.
If you look carefully Federer went over 20s an awful lot on that chart. It suggests that during long ralleys with Nadal he needed recovery time. Yes recovery time, the very thing people "accuse" Nadal of requiring. So if the sauce is good for the goose....? The fact is the modern pushes EVERY player very hard and they need recovery time, its just a fact. Yes even the sweatless Federer needs it. To expect them to recover within 20s is unrealistic in the modern game. Nadal goes over the 20s/25s all the time because he has a bad habit...I keep going back to 2004 when he was a 17 year old (are you telling me he had a strategy even then at 17 as a rookie on tour...come on) and he was going over 27.5s on average....its a bad habit, with some points being even longer when recovery time is needed.

Emancipator, I wholeheartedly agree the rules should be enforced. IF they're realistic. And they arent, thats why they are breached by Nadal, Nole, Delpo, Federer (see chart) and lord knows how many others we havent even timed. So do we expect umpires to enforce an updated rule or turn a blind eye when they know how physical tennis has become? What do you think is happening?

People can try to pin this time issue on Nadal all they like but this has become a broad tour issue - I'd like to know how many players breach 20s/25s regularly at the top of the game. I bet its very significant. The game has evolved, and with it the time rule needs looking at properly, a new agreed time to be agreed, and then enforced with the support of everyone behind it. Otherwise if we stick to 20s nothing will change and the umpires will keeping allowing more time to players...including Federer!

lydian wrote: The game has evolved

Wrong. The game has not evolved. It has evolved outside the rules for some players. That is very different.

Very simple fact but you don't (want to) get it. And your trying to get Fed in this is more comical.

Tenez wrote:Yes he is trying but he remains a fan and fans cannot be objective as it's so clear here again. I have had years of discussions with him but everytime he blocks on key points...Whether it's Nadal saying he needs the extra time or Pete saying he played better at 30 than at 26, they are wrong, Lydian is right.

lol...coming from Federer's biggest fan since his mother!
Tenez, I give loads of facts and figures to support my arguments against your subjectivity.
Most of which you never address.
I'm still waiting for your explanation for the Federer time chart link above where he's regularly over 20s?
You cannot attack Nadal if you cannot explain Federer also. Could it be that Federer himself sometimes needs more recovery time between points - surely not???!!!!! Fancy that...

Tenez...I thought you of all people would support the evolution argument...after all isnt evolution driven by "survival of the fittest"?

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote:Yes he is trying but he remains a fan and fans cannot be objective as it's so clear here again. I have had years of discussions with him but everytime he blocks on key points...Whether it's Nadal saying he needs the extra time or Pete saying he played better at 30 than at 26, they are wrong, Lydian is right.

lol...coming from Federer's biggest fan since his mother!
Tenez, I give loads of facts and figures to support my arguments against your subjectivity.
Most of which you never address.
I'm still waiting for your explanation for the Federer time chart link above where he's regularly over 20s?
You cannot attack Nadal if you cannot explain Federer also. Could it be that Federer himself sometimes needs more recovery time between points - surely not???!!!!! Fancy that...

I am not going to argue against a chart we have no clue about when everybody knows that Federer plays with the 20s rule. Is trying to bring Federer in your only counter-argument now? Have you given up on the OCD stuff?

summerblues wrote: For example, tennis could change its scoring system to reduce the number of points played per match. In grand slam play, this could be as simple as playing a best-of-three-sets tennis. Something like this could perhaps be more to the liking of those who would like to see longer rallies to stay.

The challenge with such a change is then how do you make slams 'harder' than say a 'Masters'. Masters reduced it's finals from Bo5 to Bo3.

summerblues wrote:One way or another, the reality is that with the current scoring, the tennis is not designed for rallies as long as we are seeing now. It has room for ebb-and-flow across one set, or maybe even across one game, but not across one point. If we are to see more and more points where there are multiple attempted winners in a rally only to be retrieved by the defender who gets the rally back to a neutral position, we do not have room for 300 points per match.

ATP Doubles has introduced the deciding point for some time now. Slams still play the traditional scoring system. WTT has a different system, which is more Team and less player-oriented. One option is to consider a 'fixed' number of points per match and have winner based on a 'fixed' difference like a TB. Technically TBs can also be indefinite. Today the doubles matches almost finish 'on time' from a broadcasting perspective.

Too much tinkering may also take away the tradition and history of the game itself.

I grew up playing Badminton with 15-point(Mens)/11-point(Womens) games and could win a point only on my serve. The current scoring is similar to Tennis, with 21-point games.

lydian wrote:Tenez...I thought you of all people would support the evolution argument...after all isnt evolution driven by "survival of the fittest"?

The game has been evolving for 200 years....but as far as I remember it has always been played within the rules. The rules have changed at times but until they changed they were respected.

The physical evolution is a poor reason to break the rule cause as JHM mentions the game was already physical in teh 70s and 80s and they brought that 20s rule to force a shorter game and therefore shorter rallies. SO saying it's more physical 30 years later is non-sense. And I am sure you know that.

And call me a Fed fanatic if you wish but unlike you I would never defend Federer if he were trying to bend the rules to win.

Tenez, thats not my only counter but its an important one because it completely undermines your argument and you know it. Against players that can push him Federer needs recovery time.
The 20s rule isnt literally fit for purpose anymore, and you're trying to see it imposed rigidly as a rod to beat Nadal with, nothing more, nothing less. My argument is that all the players will suffer with it. And in my other post above earlier today which you conveniently sidestep, the oxymoron is that imposing the 20s rule will likely actually BENEFIT the fittest, i.e. those who are recover best within that time frame. Either way, the evolution of the game....and yes it has evolved, Federer isnt winning slams anymore in recent years if you havent noticed....is making the current time rule obselete. Continue to stick your head in the sand Tenez but this argument isnt just about Nadal as much as you (always) wish it to be...

lydian wrote:
So what are your reasons for the rule breaks on this graph? https://2img.net/h/i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt272/bogbot/Fedtime.png
Nadal doesnt need the extra time ALL the time and yet he goes over the rule nearly all the time! Why?
Because it's mostly bad habit, partly modern game not fitting 20s rule anymore.
I repeat....explain the graph link above, then come back to this singular argument against Nadal.

Since this is from W2008 final, do you have a corresponding chart for Nadal since he was the other finalist, or for that matter from any of his other matches.

I have seen this before and asked this question, but have not seen an answer to it.

I assume you are not going to ask if it is fair question or not.

So you still believe Nadal's sudden extended time after Miami 2005 is OCD?

Continue to stick your head in the sand Tenez

Yeah sure....for some reasons that's exactly what you are doing and I am not surprised your subconscious brought that expression up to your mind. Time you reflect on it.

Tenez....how many more times do I have to repeat on here that I want to see Nadal picked up on time abuse, are you hard of reading?

BUT...that's in a routine sense because there are times in matches when recovery time is needed after particularly long ralleys. You might not like the Federer chart as it undermines your argument but it shows even he needs that discretion from the umpire himself. They all do! This isnt th 1980s when Lendl and Borg would have 100+ stroke ralleys but then be able to serve within 10 secs because the ralleys werent particularly taxing...you did observe Lendl "wandering about" during those long ralleys right? The speed of the game has evolved tremendously, and so has the need for increased movement, endurance, etc, etc. Continue to dunk your head in the sand with nostalgia for the 80s and Federer's hey-day but the modern tennis game needs more recovery time, or quicker surfaces, or likely both in reality.

amritia3ee wrote:Perhaps we should change the rule from 20 sec to 30 sec. Tenez said himself (on another thread) that all of Federer's defeats in Grand Slams in the last 6 years or so has been because of tiredness. Maybe if Fed could utilise 30 seconds he could be less tired from matches, no?

https://www.606v2.com/t16352-should-the-20itf-25atp-second-limit-between-points-be-changed

This was asked on MTL as well.

laverfan wrote:Since this is from W2008 final, do you have a corresponding chart for Nadal since he was the other finalist, or for that matter from any of his other matches.
I assume you are not going to ask if it is fair question or not.

I dont have the chart but I dont see the relevance of the question, Nadal will be over time limit as well.
The chart shows out of around 195 serves, Federer was beyond 22secs over 50 times...
If Nadal is >150 times over 22 secs (say) in ~200 serves does this negate Federer being over time?

The point LF is that the argument pinned on Nadal applies to others also.

laverfan wrote:

lydian wrote:
So what are your reasons for the rule breaks on this graph? https://2img.net/h/i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt272/bogbot/Fedtime.png
Nadal doesnt need the extra time ALL the time and yet he goes over the rule nearly all the time! Why?
Because it's mostly bad habit, partly modern game not fitting 20s rule anymore.
I repeat....explain the graph link above, then come back to this singular argument against Nadal.

Since this is from W2008 final, do you have a corresponding chart for Nadal since he was the other finalist, or for that matter from any of his other matches.

I have seen this before and asked this question, but have not seen an answer to it.

I assume you are not going to ask if it is fair question or not.

No need to look, I found the original article.

http://www.riaanbooysen.com/images/stories/timetoserve2.jpg

Nadal's time looks 'worse' than Federer's. (Just count the number of red lines).

Nore Staat's analysis shows that Federer 'slows' down when his opponent is slower. https://www.606v2.com/t22359-2012-australian-open-time-taken-per-point-played-for-the-top-8-men

http://www.riaanbooysen.com/misc/47-tennis?start=4

Tenez wrote:So you still believe Nadal's sudden extended time after Miami 2005 is OCD?

Miami 2005 is no different to Miami 2004 (as previously demonstrated), and no different either to Wimbledon 2011. From the age of 17 to 25 his times are generally around 27.5 secs average...so your point again is?

lydian wrote:

laverfan wrote:Since this is from W2008 final, do you have a corresponding chart for Nadal since he was the other finalist, or for that matter from any of his other matches.
I assume you are not going to ask if it is fair question or not.

I dont have the chart but I dont see the relevance of the question, Nadal will be over time limit as well.
The chart shows out of around 195 serves, Federer was beyond 22secs over 50 times...
If Nadal is >150 times over 22 secs (say) in ~200 serves does this negate Federer being over time?

The point LF is that the argument pinned on Nadal applies to others also.

I have to respectfully disagree with you Lydian. There are fast players and slow players. A player has to 'wait' for the opponent to be ready before starting the service motion.

lydian wrote:Tenez....how many more times do I have to repeat on here that I want to see Nadal picked up on time abuse, are you hard of reading?

Why do you think this is not happening?

LF....the chart shows exactly what I expected. But does it negate Federer being over time? As I said above, Nadal cannot be attacked singly here.

Federer's time slows down with "slower" players like Nadal, Djokovic and Delpo becaues those players push him much harder physically than the others...so he needs more recovery time himself! (and as the Wimb08 chart shows beyond 20s regularly!). So I'm not sure what those stats add...?

laverfan wrote:

lydian wrote:

laverfan wrote:Since this is from W2008 final, do you have a corresponding chart for Nadal since he was the other finalist, or for that matter from any of his other matches.
I assume you are not going to ask if it is fair question or not.

I dont have the chart but I dont see the relevance of the question, Nadal will be over time limit as well.
The chart shows out of around 195 serves, Federer was beyond 22secs over 50 times...
If Nadal is >150 times over 22 secs (say) in ~200 serves does this negate Federer being over time?

The point LF is that the argument pinned on Nadal applies to others also.

I have to respectfully disagree with you Lydian. There are fast players and slow players. A player has to 'wait' for the opponent to be ready before starting the service motion.

Good point. Besides, why would Federer try to play within 20s all the time if he can see that his opponent has been getting away from it for the last 3 years? including in this match? We know Federer plays fast. It's not changing his racquet every 7 games that is going to make him a rule breaker.

As said tryingto bring Federer in is an act of desperation. And we still don't know whether lydian still believe Nadal's time taking is down to OCD.

LF...please read my posts from today where I've answered that repeatedly. Time rule breaking is endemic in the game now...not just Nadal...umpires know this. Do you believe they'll never be discussing this during their own umpire committee meetings? But they also realise the game is much more physical, they also see that the ATP tour has its own rules which the players play to more often than ITF rules...they probably acknowledge that the 20s is outdated and unenforceable except where its completely gratuitous outside a long ralley point. Whats your take on it?

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote:So you still believe Nadal's sudden extended time after Miami 2005 is OCD?

Miami 2005 is no different to Miami 2004 (as previously demonstrated), and no different either to Wimbledon 2011. From the age of 17 to 25 his times are generally around 27.5 secs average...so your point again is?

YOu have not demonstarted anything about Miami. You came with your own stats showing Nadal played outside teh 20s rule when we coudl see he was almost always well within the 20s. It;s there on youtube...many have checked it for themselves..what else is there to say?

Besides, the stats show per point shows that Miami 2004 was play faster than 2005. Completely teh opposite of teh numbers you came from I am not sure from?

You have been trying to deny for years that Nadal played within 20s at Miami 05 and that there is no OCD at all at that time....no sock pulling, little towelling, no ass pinching etc...) and that he lost the last 6 games in a row. You can see that from that key moment those "OCD" got in 2 weeks later in the clay campaign. WHy refusing those facts?

laverfan wrote:

lydian wrote:

laverfan wrote:Since this is from W2008 final, do you have a corresponding chart for Nadal since he was the other finalist, or for that matter from any of his other matches.
I assume you are not going to ask if it is fair question or not.

I dont have the chart but I dont see the relevance of the question, Nadal will be over time limit as well.
The chart shows out of around 195 serves, Federer was beyond 22secs over 50 times...
If Nadal is >150 times over 22 secs (say) in ~200 serves does this negate Federer being over time?

The point LF is that the argument pinned on Nadal applies to others also.

I have to respectfully disagree with you Lydian. There are fast players and slow players. A player has to 'wait' for the opponent to be ready before starting the service motion.

I have to agree with you laver - that certainly happened in W 2008. Sometimes Fed has been a little slower up from his chair against Rafa to make a point, but otherwise he is very good about timing - in fact he is a fast player.

I have to say, with respect, Lydian that it is not when Rafa slows things down against Fed or Djokovic or Murray that annoys me because more fool them if they let him get away with it (Novak can't really talk anyway though Murray and Fed are not guilty imo of flouting court rules). It is when Rafa does it against lower ranked players and especially when he slows play down in a variety of ways against these guys who are just not going to have the crowds or the umpire with them if they complain - that is not fitting behaviour for a No 1 or a No2 in my opinion and the reason that Nadal's game is spoiled for me, not because of his superior h2h over TMF.

Maybe the time taken should be extended if the slower courts and fluffier (or whatever the hell they are!!) balls dictate longer rallies, but until then players should play within the existing rules.

Actually, your point smells more of desperation now Tenez. Now you're admitting Federer is a time breaker but thats ok because Nadal is...so the time rule argument isnt really going anywhere is it other than everyone is breaking it yet the 20s rule should still be enforced when its clearly outdated.

Again...I've answered the "OCD question" many times...you obviously arent reading what I'm writing. He's been taking along time since he was at least 17...his Wimb 11 and Miami 04 times are similar, are you suggesting a tour rookie had a time startegy back then for recovery time? Well for one you cant be because you say it started from Miami 2005...despite Nadal taking the same average time at Miami 2004 and 2005!
My point is that he has a (bad) habit, call it OCD if you like, which consistently takes him over time, even when not having a long ralley, but when he has long ralleys he takes even longer...as do other players! Now its not lik Nadal is a creature of habit or anything anyway is it....bottles lined up, shorts pulling, hair into bandana, laying his towels out....etc...etc...and you think this habitual nature of his doesnt spill over into the way he prepares for every point sending him generally over time limits?

lydian wrote:LF...please read my posts from today where I've answered that repeatedly. Time rule breaking is endemic in the game now...not just Nadal...umpires know this.

Can the Top 4 create an example which can be followed by the other players? Remember it is a question of 'leadership'?

lydian wrote:Do you believe they'll never be discussing this during their own umpire committee meetings? But they also realise the game is much more physical, they also see that the ATP tour has its own rules which the players play to more often than ITF rules...they probably acknowledge that the 20s is outdated and unenforceable except where its completely gratuitous outside a long ralley point. Whats your take on it?

I again respectfully disagree. Read Nore Staat's article which I have provided a link to. It clearly shows that players, who are considered fast, playing against each other adhere to the 20s/25sec rule, but when playing opposite a player who does not 'follow' such rules, they get broken.

Do you remember Soderling and Tsonga incidents? The other player involved was Nadal. I do not want to turn this into Fedal discussion, but he is one of the Top 4. His interviews are not helping ATP/ITF/WTA enforce rules, are they?

Tenez, I suggest you watch the Miami 2004 match and time the points yourself from when ball is out of play until next serve as I did and posted stats on here. It showed an average of 27.5 secs. Otherwise are you suggesting that Federer's superior physicality won Miami 2005?

TP, I actually agree Nadal's example is a poor one. You wont find me defending that (despite Tenez calling me a Nadal fanboy) and I've said umpteen times on here Nadal should routinely stick to the time limits as others do for normal points. For extended ralley points I think the game has an issue with the time...not just for Nadal but for others too.

I promise I will never call you a Nadal fanboy

That has shades of Ancient Rome!

Now I'm confused Lydian. Is it still Nadals OCD, or is it just everyone, or does Federer start it?

I've lost track of your argument, but I suspect you are quietly dropping the OCD idea in the ace of evidence to the ontrary from Nadal himself.

laverfan wrote:
Lydian's counter argument is worth considering, if the fittest player can recover 'faster' and within the 20 seconds, the player who cannot recover may be the loser. If the time needs to change from 20 to 30 seconds, that is an option worth considering. I would expect rigid application of such a modified time limit without any subjective implications.

LF this is not right I'm afraid. How would it feel if Coria had been given 3 serves considering his problems with his service yips? I'm sure it would have made his life much easier and could have produce better results. How if Karlovic is given 3 serves considering his lack of mobility due to his big structure? How about giving 2 chances to return serves for Rochus considering he is smaller than most players and his reach is a problem for him? How about banning any spinning high bouncing cross court shots to Federer's backhand considering he plays SHBH and its very difficult to control that high energy ball with one hand. All these changes will definitely help the respective players play their game better. Can this all be done??

If these rules can't be modified to benefit these players, I don't think a time rule should be changed just because it allows a certain player to play his game better. Players have to adjust and adopt their game to the rules. This is the fun of a game. If rules are getting changed it will not remain a game at all. This is plain against the spirit of tennis and I am absolutely against it.


So how does a lack of fitness in some player be taken as an excuse for taking extra time. And is it true that Nadal is less fit than Federer?? ha ha. Fitness and stamina is Nadal's biggest strength against Federer and he knows it well. The longer the match goes, Nadal is almost certain to outlast anyone (bar Djo ).

laverfan wrote: I again respectfully disagree. Read Nore Staat's article which I have provided a link to. It clearly shows that players, who are considered fast, playing against each other adhere to the 20s/25sec rule, but when playing opposite a player who does not 'follow' such rules, they get broken.

Do you remember Soderling and Tsonga incidents? The other player involved was Nadal. I do not want to turn this into Fedal discussion, but he is one of the Top 4. His interviews are not helping ATP/ITF/WTA enforce rules, are they?

I read the stats earlier and they are not that helpful specifically in terms of times showing how long it takes players to serve. It does show that Nadal takes almost the same amount of time against any player he plays...which supports the general habitual argument given that lesser players wont tax him as much as the leading ones.

But conversely, are you trying to tell me that Federer only ever goes over 20s because Nadal is holding him up? That he never needs extra recovery time? I would never buy that because for one thing Tenez's central argument is that Nadal tires him out in their matches...

LF, I'm not actually here to SUPPORT his (or others...why is this just about Nadal all the time?) rule breaking. What I'm trying to debate is the basis for the rule breaking, plus that the interview itself is not black and white.

However, LF are you saying that the modern game should be rigidly played within the 20s rule without exception? Or that the 20s rule even applies anymore?

bogbrush wrote:Now I'm confused Lydian. Is it still Nadals OCD, or is it just everyone, or does Federer start it?

I've lost track of your argument, but I suspect you are quietly dropping the OCD idea in the ace of evidence to the ontrary from Nadal himself.

No, you're getting yourself confused. I'm consistently asserting both but not in equal measure. For the main, Nore Straat's Aussie stats show a degree of habituation in that no matter what level of opponent Nadal plays the overall time taken per point was similar. For example the av. time in playing Kuznetsov and Lacko (to whom he lost only 14 games to them BOTH) was around 47 secs. Yet against Federer it was still similar at 48 secs. This supports that given his match times were similar for both easy "fodder" and Federer he has an habitual approach to time taken between points - whether taxing or not? (given that those early opponents hardly taxed him for extra recovery and yet he took as long playing them as he did playing Federer). I presume you can follow that? lol

time please wrote:I promise I will never call you a Nadal fanboy

That has shades of Ancient Rome!

I promise I dont wear toga's neither, nor do I feed grapes to people
(well not just anyone...lol)

lydian wrote:

laverfan wrote: I again respectfully disagree. Read Nore Staat's article which I have provided a link to. It clearly shows that players, who are considered fast, playing against each other adhere to the 20s/25sec rule, but when playing opposite a player who does not 'follow' such rules, they get broken.

Do you remember Soderling and Tsonga incidents? The other player involved was Nadal. I do not want to turn this into Fedal discussion, but he is one of the Top 4. His interviews are not helping ATP/ITF/WTA enforce rules, are they?

I read the stats earlier and they are not that helpful specifically in terms of times showing how long it takes players to serve. It does show that Nadal takes almost the same amount of time against any player he plays...which supports the general habitual argument given that lesser players wont tax him as much as the leading ones.

BB makes the argument, perhaps to the extreme, with the PED example. Neither extreme is helpful. My argument is that 'habits' can be changed, like learning to serve harder or learning to play on different surfaces. All these players are very good at learning new strokes, so why not learn to play within the current rules.

lydian wrote:But conversely, are you trying to tell me that Federer only ever goes over 20s because Nadal is holding him up? That he never needs extra recovery time? I would never buy that because for one thing Tenez's central argument is that Nadal tires him out in their matches...

If Federer does, he should be penalised, so should Nadal or DelPo or Djokovic be. Uniformity is what I am pushing towards.

lydian wrote:LF, I'm not actually here to SUPPORT his (or others...why is this just about Nadal all the time?) rule breaking. What I'm trying to debate is the basis for the rule breaking, plus that the interview itself is not black and white.

However, LF are you saying that the modern game should be rigidly played within the 20s rule without exception? Or that the 20s rule even applies anymore?

His interview (as a spokesperson) puts him in the limelight and hence it becomes about him. There is no one else who came up with argument that the 20 second rule is not valid for six hour matches. I clearly showed that Nadal has played one six-hour match and is using that in an argument. I gave examples of Wilander, McEnroe and Skoff playing 6 hour matches. Santoro-Clement took a break during their 6 hour 33 minute match and were 'sore'. Isner lost his next match after the MahIsner 'epic'.

We are now talking about the 'rigidity' of rules. There is a very rigid rule about a service being a fault or a point being won. Why does the 20/25 second rule not fall under the same 'rigid' category? (This is what Raiders has also stated).

I have stated, (and written an article on this subject), if a change is needed, so be it. But the rule, as it currently stands, should be applied to ensure that it cannot detract from Nadal's or Federer's titles or their respective abilities to win them.

lydian wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Now I'm confused Lydian. Is it still Nadals OCD, or is it just everyone, or does Federer start it?

I've lost track of your argument, but I suspect you are quietly dropping the OCD idea in the ace of evidence to the ontrary from Nadal himself.

No, you're getting yourself confused. I'm consistently asserting both but not in equal measure. For the main, Nore Straat's Aussie stats show a degree of habituation in that no matter what level of opponent Nadal plays the overall time taken per point was similar. For example the av. time in playing Kuznetsov and Lacko (to whom he lost only 14 games to them BOTH) was around 47 secs. Yet against Federer it was still similar at 48 secs. This supports that given his match times were similar for both easy "fodder" and Federer he has an habitual approach to time taken between points - whether taxing or not? (given that those early opponents hardly taxed him for extra recovery and yet he took as long playing them as he did playing Federer). I presume you can follow that? lol

You're an able advocate but the constant reference to 'habit' is clearly intended to imply that he has no control over it. Sorry, but he has. The mans whole identity on court is based on drummed in habits, so all he needs is to get the in-rule habit and we're sorted.

But he won't, because he CHOOSES not to. And in his interview he defends that choice.