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.

Lydian/Tenez:

You argue mercilessly but I am not even sure you two so totally disagree on the rule and how it should be applied. I think it is the implications of it where you are further apart.

The way I read you, Lydian, you are saying that you would be willing to clamp down on the abuse except in cases of a particularly taxing rally.

The way I read Tenez (here I am less certain my read is correct), and the way I see it also, it is the cumulative effect of taking extra 10-12 seconds before almost every point that helps players to run for 6 hours and this is what I would like to see stop. I don't have much problem with referees letting players catch breath after they just finished a 30+ stroke rally.

So maybe we can find some common ground on the rules, even though we will likely disagree on the implications that sticking to the rule would have on the game

laverfan wrote:
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.

Badminton was one of the sports that I was thinking of when I wrote that. Table tennis and Volleyball also changed their rules. So tennis may be forced down that road also. Note that I personally am not a fan of these changes. I would much rather see the game sped up through different means.

lydian wrote: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going anywhere is it other than everyone is breaking it yet the 20s rule should still be enforced when its clearly outdated.

A sophist but a bad one I am afraid.

I am not sure that Nore Staat's analysis is too useful in this regard. It shows the average time taken per point, including the playing time. Even if everyone took exactly the same amount of time between points, players' playing style would influence the numbers. Serve and volleyers would presumably show shorter points than baseliners. In fact, that could also be the reason why a generally "fast" player "slows down" against a "slower" player - a serve-and-volleyer playing a baseliners may contain more rallies than if the if the serve-and-volleyer were playing someone else.

On the same note I am tempted to go to those 2004 and 2005 Miami matches and time Nadal myself. That would provide a perfectly objective ( ) way of comparing Lydian's and Tenez's trustworthiness - it is hard to measure whether a player is "good" or "bad" for tennis but if one person says Nadal is taking 27 seconds and the other one says that he largely stays within the rules, that can be checked for sure.

summerblues wrote:Lydian/Tenez:

You argue mercilessly but I am not even sure you two so totally disagree on the rule and how it should be applied. I think it is the implications of it where you are further apart.

The way I read you, Lydian, you are saying that you would be willing to clamp down on the abuse except in cases of a particularly taxing rally.

The way I read Tenez (here I am less certain my read is correct), and the way I see it also, it is the cumulative effect of taking extra 10-12 seconds before almost every point that helps players to run for 6 hours and this is what I would like to see stop. I don't have much problem with referees letting players catch breath after they just finished a 30+ stroke rally.

So maybe we can find some common ground on the rules, even though we will likely disagree on the implications that sticking to the rule would have on the game

Great post summer

summerblues wrote:On the same note I am tempted to go to those 2004 and 2005 Miami matches and time Nadal myself. That would provide a perfectly objective ( ) way of comparing Lydian's and Tenez's trustworthiness - it is hard to measure whether a player is "good" or "bad" for tennis but if one person says Nadal is taking 27 seconds and the other one says that he largely stays within the rules, that can be checked for sure.

Be my guest summerblues.
My analysis was posted here:
https://www.606v2.com/t16091p150-nadal-s-super-quick-serving#593123

To quote from that post again:
Timings are measured in seconds re: ATP guidance, i.e. from ball being out of play to when his next ball served. Timings may not be in exact order due to the order of the clips I watched.

34, 17, 20, 21, 30, 23, 24, 35, 23, 21, 20, 20, 28, 21, 20, 18, 40, 21, 30, 23, 24, 35, 33, 36, 28, 26, 33, 17, 34, 45, 32, 40, 24, 21, 33, 46, 45, 17, 20, 19, 28
AVERAGE OVERALL TIME BETWEEN POINTS?
27.43 seconds

And that was a quick paced aggressive match too, i.e. lots of short ralleys so Nadal can hardly be accused of needing much recovery time.

I never timed the whole of Miami 2005 but earlier in that thread I posted:
"Indeed I just watched 2 back to back service games in the 3rd set for that match where Nadal served at 33, 31, 31, 31 seconds between each point.
Over the course of 2 service games it averaged out at 26.25 seconds."

Tenez always claimed that Nadal average serve times were under 20s up to and including Miami 2005, only adjusting his timing AFTER Miami 2005 because he got tired against Federer.

Anyway, besides all that my point is that the players need longer times for longer ralleys, and that conversely shortening the rule to a rigid 20 secs will actually benefit those who can recover the best within 20 secs, i.e. the fittest, as ralleys will clearly still continue. I would stretch to 30 secs and make all players stick to this for all ralleys (except where you get change of ends after 1st game in a set and change of balls...time has to be allowed for that).

summerblues wrote:Lydian/Tenez:

You argue mercilessly but I am not even sure you two so totally disagree on the rule and how it should be applied. I think it is the implications of it where you are further apart.

The way I read you, Lydian, you are saying that you would be willing to clamp down on the abuse except in cases of a particularly taxing rally.

The way I read Tenez (here I am less certain my read is correct), and the way I see it also, it is the cumulative effect of taking extra 10-12 seconds before almost every point that helps players to run for 6 hours and this is what I would like to see stop. I don't have much problem with referees letting players catch breath after they just finished a 30+ stroke rally.

So maybe we can find some common ground on the rules, even though we will likely disagree on the implications that sticking to the rule would have on the game

My understanding is that the advantage is taken IMMEDIATELY after playing a point, not as a cumulative extra bit of freshness IN CASE a match takes longer.
Basically you know you're likely not to be penalised so you freely engage in long rallies knowing you'll have plenty of time to recover aerobicly (catch your breath).

If you knew you were going to be penalised taking time, you'd think twice prolonging a point to 20-30 + shots.

Counter-punching is as old as hills as a tennis tactic/style, but adding fitness and physicallity to it should not be in need of bending the existing rules and taking extra time in order to sustain it.

I have to say that this thread has been really well debated in the main - I feel myself being swung this way and that by everyone's contribution Perhaps that just means I am very feeble minded

summerblues wrote:Lydian/Tenez:

You argue mercilessly but I am not even sure you two so totally disagree on the rule and how it should be applied. I think it is the implications of it where you are further apart.

I am very clear about it though. The rules are the rules. And no-one should take more than 20s between point unless there is a bird sitting on the net. THat's my point. Now that Nadal breaks this rule on every single point almost since May 2005, it does not really matter if Delpo, Djkoko break it too. Cause Nadal has shown the way. I do not see either why Federer who has a naturally fast pace between the point should care much if he goes over once in a while when facing Nadal.

The way I read you, Lydian, you are saying that you would be willing to clamp down on the abuse except in cases of a particularly taxing rally.

The way I read Tenez (here I am less certain my read is correct), and the way I see it also, it is the cumulative effect of taking extra 10-12 seconds before almost every point that helps players to run for 6 hours and this is what I would like to see stop. I don't have much problem with referees letting players catch breath after they just finished a 30+ stroke rally.
So maybe we can find some common ground on the rules, even though we will likely disagree on the implications that sticking to the rule would have on the game

Of course. In the 6 hour match is probably made of an hour to 1h30 of ball in play. The rest is recuperating/breathing time. It's crucial to impose a physical battle. However unlike you I do have a big problem with referee letting extra time after a long rally. As a tennis fan you shoudl care too..cause in the past when a player had a long rally, he would try desperately to serve an ace...even being forced to get an ace in the second serve. Or we would get an easy UE simply coming from the previous gruelling rally. All this contributed in helping the players who coudl win points effortlessly, the talented ones. As an aside, this is why nowadays, we have the fittest players constantly reaching the later stages of tournaments cause they don't particularly rely on talent but on smething much more reliable.

Summerblue

Very easy check for yourself the OCD from 1mn50s ..and that is after 2 tough sets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jAkoHy9iLs

That was Miami 05 43 sec per point on average.

Mimi 04 is 40s per point on average. Even faster.

While I have no problem with the rules being enforced I have to disagree completely with the time rule being an advantage for Nadal in terms of fitness. The picture painted for us is that Nadal wins on big lungs and by tiring out his opponents. If that is the case he would want to set a frenetic physical pace by playing not only gruelling points but giving his opponent as little rest as possible between points. If his goal is to physically break down his opponents conditioning in most of his matches then giving his opponent breaks between lengthy points not only gives him time to catch his breath but also to his opponent. Who Nadal supposedly has an edge over in fitness, best way to make that edge felt would be too push him the opponent to the brink faster by giving him no time breathe.

socal1976 wrote:While I have no problem with the rules being enforced I have to disagree completely with the time rule being an advantage for Nadal in terms of fitness. The picture painted for us is that Nadal wins on big lungs and by tiring out his opponents. If that is the case he would want to set a frenetic physical pace by playing not only gruelling points but giving his opponent as little rest as possible between points. If his goal is to physically break down his opponents conditioning in most of his matches then giving his opponent breaks between lengthy points not only gives him time to catch his breath but also to his opponent. Who Nadal supposedly has an edge over in fitness, best way to make that edge felt would be too push him the opponent to the brink faster by giving him no time breathe.

Oh dear! And you dare "mocking me"? You have so little understanding of the game! SO now according to you Nadal taking more time is to help his opponent?

When will you learn?

socal1976 wrote:While I have no problem with the rules being enforced I have to disagree completely with the time rule being an advantage for Nadal in terms of fitness.

Bigger athletes in terms of lung capacity would require more breaths to fill them up, correct?

Which one takes longer, a 20 oz Coke bottle, or a 2-litre Coke bottle, if both are filled at the same rate starting at the same time?

Are you saying, a bigger lung capacity can fill faster because one player can take a bigger gasp?

socal1976 wrote:The picture painted for us is that Nadal wins on big lungs and by tiring out his opponents.

The time limit may allow less recovery time. You are an athlete. Shorter and faster sprints require more effort and require higher number of recovery cycles, correct?

socal1976 wrote:If that is the case he would want to set a frenetic physical pace by playing not only gruelling points but giving his opponent as little rest as possible between points.

What about getting ready himself?

socal1976 wrote:If his goal is to physically break down his opponents conditioning in most of his matches then giving his opponent breaks between lengthy points not only gives him time to catch his breath but also to his opponent. Who Nadal supposedly has an edge over in fitness, best way to make that edge felt would be too push him the opponent to the brink faster by giving him no time breathe.

The question is at what point does a player get ready to push his opponent?

BTW, this is not specifically about Nadal alone, but players who exceed the current limit and break rules? DelPo, Djokovic...

Nadal is being discussed because of his specific statements regarding the 20-second rule and six-hour matches.

No Tenez I am not mocking you. I am making a point that your scenario that Nadal wins by tiring his opponents out is not consistent with two facts one of which has to do with the time between points. If you are fitter than someone and you want to make that edge felt not only do you increase the number of shots but give your opponent less time to recover. If Nadal has this big fitness edge time between points not only gives him more time to recover it also gives his opponent more time to recover. Seems to me if Nadal is fitter he would push the pace between points faster and that would result in maximize his fitness edge.

Its not logically consistent with the argument you are making about fitness. He wins on fitness then why give his opponent time to recover, Nadal being the fitter of the two will not hit the wall as fast as his opponent.

Laverfan, that is my specific point. If Nadal is fitter which is a fair assumption he actually gives his opponent crucial respite from the physical grind. Of the two under stressful physical conditions Nadal should break down less quickly therefore the smart thing to do is to play even quicker. It is not like his opponent is forced to do push ups or wind sprints while Nadal is taking time between points. The opponent also gets critical rest as well. And supposedly since Nadal enjoys a big fitness edge his opponent should need it more.

noleisthebest wrote:My understanding is that the advantage is taken IMMEDIATELY after playing a point, not as a cumulative extra bit of freshness IN CASE a match takes longer.

I do not know. I suppose both the cumulative and the immediate effects could feature here. To me, the cumulative ones seem the more problematic of the two. It seems to me that adding the extra 10 secs between all their points may allow players to fundamentally change the pace of the match. It is similar to converting a middle distance run into a marathon. Runners who optimize their performance assuming the need for more speed over a shorter distance will be put at a relative disadvantage. It does not mean that the ones who supplant them are either better or worse in terms of athleticism or natural talent in some sort of absolute sense, but it does alter the skill set required to win. Also, Nadal's comments referring to 6 hours seem to imply that the long haul matters too, rather than just individual points being long or short.

The more energy one consumes in a rally, the longer the recovery window, do you agree?

There is a trade-off, self-recovery vs. opponent recovery.

You are making an assumption that players like Nadal have virtually infinite capacity, while Rochus and Ferrer have a much smaller finite capacity, which is not the case. If that were the case, Nadal would not need to stop at all.

There is a discussion about the Oxygen tents that the Spanish DC team uses, somewhere on 606v2.

Tenez's main push is that players like Nadal need more than 20 seconds to 'recover' and be ready for the next point, irrespective of what the opponent can or cannot do. Lydian has done a very good analysis on the musculature and stretch cycles which is also good reading material.

In most cases, Tennis players are short sprint runners (Paganini calls it the 'explosiveness' factor).

Short sprints would mean a quick burst of energy followed by a rest period.

Marathon runners rely more on pacing themselves and do not need the short sprints as much, hence they are very light in frames.

Tennis players are more akin to 100-200m sprinters.

https://imgur.com/FlRtH
https://imgur.com/qpvoo

I may have been unclear but I do not mean the middle distance vs marathon comparison literally. All I am saying is that injecting 10 secs after each point can alter the optimal skill set required to win and I used the comparison just trying to illustrate the point.

socal1976 wrote:No Tenez I am not mocking you. I am making a point that your scenario that Nadal wins by tiring his opponents out is not consistent with two facts one of which has to do with the time between points. If you are fitter than someone and you want to make that edge felt not only do you increase the number of shots but give your opponent less time to recover. If Nadal has this big fitness edge time between points not only gives him more time to recover it also gives his opponent more time to recover. Seems to me if Nadal is fitter he would push the pace between points faster and that would result in maximize his fitness edge.

Its not logically consistent with the argument you are making about fitness. He wins on fitness then why give his opponent time to recover, Nadal being the fitter of the two will not hit the wall as fast as his opponent.

This is a very a poor assertion. Your poor tennis understanding is clearly reflected here. You assumed that all tennis players play the same kind of lung busting winning on stamina game that a period of rest is equally required by all. You assumed that every player in a point makes the same amount of running and expending energy that a extra recovery time will equally benefit both.

Its never gets to you, but players are no robots. Nadal does far more running and plays a highly energy expending game. This kind of game needs more recovery time. If at a 25 shot rally involving Nadal-Fed, enerygy expended by Nadal in running and retrieving will always be more than what is expended by Fed in hitting shots.
But as the match goes on, Fed's arm will start to get tired more than Nadal's legs. Fed's game need precision of shot-making and it becomes increasingly difficult with a tiring arm. Fed's energy tank is far smaller than Nadal's. Now you'll bring out to question this, won't you?

You like to think "differently" here. Of course, one but you alone could only see a Fognini . Nadal trying to take away recovery time from his opponent as if his opponent also expended the same energy as he did. This is plain stupid. Firstly in the same rally, Nadal's energy expense would always be more. Secondly, to keep playing his game, Nadal himself would need more recovery time. If he tries to take away any recovery time from his opponent, he in the process is reducing his own recovery time as well. But Nadal needs this recovery time more than his opponent, else he himself won't be able to continue playing his energy expending game. How will he do this when he himself needs it more than his opponent? This is a simple thing, but hard for a "fognini conspiracy " theorist to understand.

So I tested Lydian/Tenez counterclaims on Nadal's pace in 2004 Miami final. This was a quick affair so - except for having to watch Federer getting dismantled by Nadal - it was less painful than I was expecting. I ignored the two points in which the players were changing their rackets (Lydian appears to be doing the same in his analysis). I look at the average time, median time (in case the average is impacted by a handful of outliers) and at the percentage of points in which Nadal stays within the 25s limit:

Average: 27.0s
Median: 23.8s
Percent below 25s: 54%

While these numbers confirmed Lydian's data, the pace "felt" quicker than in more recent times. So, for good measure, I repeated the same exercise with their last year's Miami semifinal. Same venue, similar scoreline, so a good comparison:

Average: 30.7s
Median: 29.0s
Percent below 25s: 25%

What to make of this? This suggests that Nadal may have indeed slowed down over the years. However, regarding the original purpose of my exercise, it is clear that Lydian was right and Nadal was quite slow (slower than what the rules require) in 2004 already.

Summer blues, can you think of any reason why Nadal slowed down over the years? Is it a case of a very ancient deep rooted out of control bad habit, getting worse with time? Is this an incurable disease he is suffering and with time its getting worse?

I'm just curious to know

Summerblue - You have not checked the link I posted Miami 2005 where Nadal has absolutely no OCD and serve 4 serves in 20s whereas he has 25s allowed.

I'll check the Miami 04 but considering that the average time per point was actually shorter 40s instead of 43 I had not bothered.

The man himself is saying he needs the time. In a normal environment we'd b closing the case, but Lydian is making a heroic effort, even shifting the debate to whether Federer plays fast or slow.

summerblues - good analysis

BB - that's completely hilarious (and you know it)! Do you really need to try to prop up Tenez in this desperate way?

Closing the case? You mean on Tenez's "Nadal thesis" which now lays in tatters? Your forum buddy has again been completely debunked in relation to the long asserted Nadal story he's been ramming down the throats of forum members for years. Its very clear Nadal has been regularly rule breaking re: time since the start of his career (for whatever reason!) and didnt employ a shift of strategy to "rule-breaking" after Miami 2005 - as Tenez has always asserted.

Its clear that Nadal has always been taking his time...its nothing new! Its a habit he's had his whole career, and yes at times for long ralleys he takes even more time...thats what he says in the interview about needing more time for long ralleys but being justifiably pulled up for time at other points.

You can try to shift goalposts onto Federer (that was a different point we were discussing - do keep up BB) but lets not again forget that Tenez's assertion to me back in Oct. 2011 is debunked. Tenez said to me on the back of my 2004 analysis "Again, a long post with no proof and wrong data. Nadal doesn't average 25 second in that Miami match. He is under 20s in 90% of rallies, often hitting within 17sec. you are either trying to save your face, or Nadal's but probably both, because admit it, you are still not in the mood to consider the facts with an open mind.".

Debunked!
+ It was clear that Nadal served under 20s for just approx. 10% of his service points, not the 90% Tenez claimed, and has always claimed. And was only under the rule of 25 secs for just about half the service points!
+ When Tenez said Nadal was "often hitting within 17sec"...he only did it 3 times that match, and never under 17 secs.

So now Tenez desperately clings to the Miami 2005 match by talking about 4 fast-ish (in the "20s" lol) service points he found! I will time the Miami 05 match in due course but there's not much point really - I timed a good 2-3 of his service games in the 3rd set of Miami 05 and he averaged well over 26 secs. But Miami 2005 doesnt matter anyway, the earlier Miami 2004 match disproves the rule-following/rule-breaking story on its own and shows Nadal has been consistently time rule-breaking (which I dont and never have condoned) from the start of his career - lets not forget Nadal was just 17 in that match.

An important point here is that Tenez and others on the back of that have been ramming negative viewpoints about Nadal down people's throats for years regarding his changing strategy of being a rule follower pre-clay season 2005 to rule breaker to buy time for recovery...he's built so much onto that central story. And yet there was never any proof for it. Infact there is contradictory proof. Still lets not let the facts stand in the way of a good story hey?

What was it Tenez said yesterday about showing a little humility to gain people's respect when wrong?

It's not a habit, it's a tactic. He defends it in this interview as such.

If it were a habit he could easily alter it; his game is asked on learning habits.

Tenez/BB, additionally I just looked at Nadal's 2003 Wimbledon match against Schricapan...talk about a wet behind the ears rookie.
But a good match to see the ability he had even then even on grass. Here, take a look...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX30JIMNITk

Look at his service times for the whole of this clip...
+ never serves below ITF 20secs, and this was a "fast-paced" match
+ For the 18 serves in this clip he averaged 26.5 secs

So not exactly different from Miami is it? And the guy is barely past 16 years old. Certainly not the "speedy" server you made him out to be in the early years. Infact this is slower than his average time for the first set against Djokovic at Wimbledon 2011 (25.2 secs). Just face it, the guy has been slow from Day 1, and even at his first Wimbledon where you'd expect him to be nervous as hell and rushing through the points from the outset.

BB...actually some habits are very very difficult to alter.
So whats your take on the serve timings from 2003 onwards and how Nadal was told to be a faster server who stuck within time rules before clay season 2005?
I see you selectively dont comment on that given all thats been said on the past about it and now its debunked.

I don't have an opinion on it, I've never looked to it.

This is a man who broke the habit of holding the racquet right handed. After that I'm not able to believe any habit is beyond his control, and now that he's defending the baviour on the grounds of exertion I don't see why you are.

BB, you need to read more into the nuance. He basically says one sentence about exertion on it...."we cannot expect to play six hours and play rallies of crazy points and rest for 20 seconds for nobody"...clearly he is implying that some points are crazy and need more than 20sec rest.
We also know from his matches where he's barely exerting himself that he's still taking a long time to serve...and you tell me thats not a habit, why would he have a need to stretch out points following a short ralley if it wasnt a habit?
Also, as I showed yesterday, his matches at AO in 2 "easy" early rounds where he lost only 6-7 games in the matches were the same length per point as his more exertional match against Federer. This indicates he's taking roughly the same amount of time between points...or else the match times would be different. Now for Djokovic we know his matches are brutal, and both players abuse the rules so we see the time go up there because as Nadal says above you need more time after crazy ralleys and long matches - the type those 2 now create. You seem to be in denial in the face of very clear facts BB...are you still clinging onto that Nadal thesis of Tenez's?

Taking breaks is more important done throughout the match, not just after a tough rally, as that prevents him getting tired and building up fatigue. That's far more valuable than taking time when you're already done in, and recovery is only temporary. It's a proactive, planned approach. That's why it happens before every point, far more reliable to integrate it into routine.

You haven't commented on the habit changing capability of a man who can learn to play with his wrong hand.

Lydian. You are taking this into a totally different and wrong direction. Your "habit" logic shall be answered. Can you answer what I asked you yesterday about what is your understanding of the words "sometimes" and "some points" that you keep referring in your arguments?

Wrong again BB.
Nadal never played with go right hand, his left hand was always as strong as his right hand. Nadal writes right-handed but for tennis neither hand is the 'wrong hand.'
When he was young he had a double handed forehand, never a right handed forehand. Perhaps you should do some research before talking about Nadal.

And as for the main 'debate' it hardly been a debate, Lydian has already made a mockery of Tenez's thesis. To add to this: Nadal also has habits which he has not changed even outside the court. When he is getting prepared for the match he has the same strange routine, even when his opponent can't see or hear him. Why???

Lydian... you seem to have picked up the mantle of the defense counsel.

lydian wrote:Just face it, the guy has been slow from Day 1, and even at his first Wimbledon where you'd expect him to be nervous as hell and rushing through the points from the outset.

1. Before he became a celebrity, why was he not asked to speed up?
2. BB and I have both asked about 'breaking the habit' which you seem to circle around, but never state why? The RH vs LH is a habit which Toni 'broke' for him.
Did Toni give him the 'break the 20s' habit too?
3. Raiders has clearly indicated the 'frequency' issue with 'sometimes' vs 'habit'.

If we assume it to be a habit, and now there is a clear protest from his peers (it has been always there), what can Nadal do about it to stay within the rules.

Is the approach that if a rule is broken very frequently and no one enforces it, makes it irrelevant, then why penalise Cilic (the USO incident)?

Instead of breaking the rule, discuss it in the player council, and suggest modifications, discuss with ITF, etc. Why this approach of take your case to the media?


This is interesting... http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/The-Lowdown-on-the-Top-Tennis-Players/August-2010/Rafael-Nadal-Ends-a-Myth.aspx (Amritia is correct).

I think that's the problem with this 'debate' is that some people fundamentally don't know much about nadal. They claim he only started having his routine after 2005. Luckily Lydian was in hand to provide data, but seriously this is ridiculous. Clearly they haven't been watching nadal when he was younger or they wouldn't have been relying on Lydian to help them. I know for a fact he's had this routine for years, I've watched his matches.
And then they start saying how nadal switched from right handed as evidence, when people educated on Nadals past know he never had a right handed forehand, it was double handed. And of course technique in tennis is completely different from a routine. My routine before a match has always stayed the same, the way of mental preparation, but my technique is always changing. Its a pity some people don't know the facts about nadal, and then try to judge him.

amritia3ee wrote:Wrong again BB.
Nadal never played with go right hand, his left hand was always as strong as his right hand. Nadal writes right-handed but for tennis neither hand is the 'wrong hand.'
When he was young he had a double handed forehand, never a right handed forehand. Perhaps you should do some research before talking about Nadal.

And as for the main 'debate' it hardly been a debate, Lydian has already made a mockery of Tenez's thesis. To add to this: Nadal also has habits which he has not changed even outside the court. When he is getting prepared for the match he has the same strange routine, even when his opponent can't see or hear him. Why???

Your tone is out of place (again). People are talking sensibly here.

Feel free to join in if you want to.

laverfan wrote:Lydian... you seem to have picked up the mantle of the defense counsel.

lydian wrote:Just face it, the guy has been slow from Day 1, and even at his first Wimbledon where you'd expect him to be nervous as hell and rushing through the points from the outset.

1. Before he became a celebrity, why was he not asked to speed up?
2. BB and I have both asked about 'breaking the habit' which you seem to circle around, but never state why? The RH vs LH is a habit which Toni 'broke' for him.
Did Toni give him the 'break the 20s' habit too?
3. Raiders has clearly indicated the 'frequency' issue with 'sometimes' vs 'habit'.

If we assume it to be a habit, and now there is a clear protest from his peers (it has been always there), what can Nadal do about it to stay within the rules.

Is the approach that if a rule is broken very frequently and no one enforces it, makes it irrelevant, then why penalise Cilic (the USO incident)?

Instead of breaking the rule, discuss it in the player council, and suggest modifications, discuss with ITF, etc. Why this approach of take your case to the media?


This is interesting... http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/The-Lowdown-on-the-Top-Tennis-Players/August-2010/Rafael-Nadal-Ends-a-Myth.aspx (Amritia is correct).

Nobody said he played tennis right handed. However, focussing on a purely left handed approach for a man otherwise naturally right handed is clearly a contrivance, and. tough habit to acquire. I believe they've talked about what a big decision it was.

laverfan wrote:

This is interesting... http://www.tennisnow.com/Blogs/The-Lowdown-on-the-Top-Tennis-Players/August-2010/Rafael-Nadal-Ends-a-Myth.aspx (Amritia is correct).

Thankyou Laverfan. If you read the interview nadal confirms he always ha a choice to make when he was young (he always knew he couldn't have a double handed forehand forever.) He said the left was more natural for him to play with.

Tenez wrote:Summerblue - You have not checked the link I posted Miami 2005 where Nadal has absolutely no OCD and serve 4 serves in 20s whereas he has 25s allowed.

I think I can see where you are coming from in the "Nadal is too slow" debate. If one asks:

Does he know he is habitually breaking the time limit?

the answer is obviously "yes". If one then asks:

Is he making an effort to change that?

I am fairly certain the answer is "no". Given that most, or maybe all, of us here (including Nadal himself) seem to agree that exceeding the limit does play a role in the dynamics of the match, it does leave a bit of a bad taste in the mouth.

Somewhere in the debate around this, you and Lydian argued about whether or not Nadal only started breaking the rules after Miami 2005. Lydian timed Nadal at an average of about 27 secs in Miami 2004. You doubted that and opined otherwise. Lydian did not claim that Nadal could not string a few fast serves together nor did he make any specific claims about timing all of 2005 Miami, therefore I did not need to look at your clip. So yes, for the purposes of this particular argument at least, Lydian was right, there is no getting around that. Also, quite frankly, one should give him credit for going as far as he did. This is an internet forum where we happily make strong statements about things we never intend to have to prove, but he put an effort into collecting some hard data; so no reason to have dismissed it out of hand.

That all said, as mentioned above, I can also see your point of view in the overall debate.

Bogbrush, why haven't you answered my question?
Why has nadal stuck to his out of court habit, when no-one can see him (pre match) so routinely. He's a superstitious guy.
You know that and as an astute politician you'll find a way not to answer my question, citing you didn't like the tone or I didn't say please.

amritia3ee wrote:Bogbrush, why haven't you answered my question?
Why has nadal stuck to his out of court habit, when no-one can see him (pre match) so routinely. He's a superstitious guy.
You know that and as an astute politician you'll find a way not to answer my question, citing you didn't like the tone or I didn't say please.

Because its irrelevant to the business of following the rules. You appear to be committing to the ridiculous notion that he is incapable of serving inside time. Actually not able to do it. Crazy isn't it?

Do you read my posts?
I never said that, I said it was a habit, a routine.

Tenez said earlier on another thread that federer has lost all his matches in grand slams in the last 7 years due to tiredness.
On that thesis maybe it would help federer to extend the time limit to 30 sec, so he doesn't get tired in matches.

This is the exact quote:

Tenez wrote:Fed also got tired in AO 2005, FO final 2006, 2007 but also USO 2009 v Delpo, AO09, USO10, USO11.

Perhaps extending it to 30 sec would benefit Federer?

amritia3ee wrote:I think that's the problem with this 'debate' is that some people fundamentally don't know much about nadal. They claim he only started having his routine after 2005. Luckily Lydian was in hand to provide data, but seriously this is ridiculous. Clearly they haven't been watching nadal when he was younger or they wouldn't have been relying on Lydian to help them. I know for a fact he's had this routine for years, I've watched his matches.
And then they start saying how nadal switched from right handed as evidence, when people educated on Nadals past know he never had a right handed forehand, it was double handed. And of course technique in tennis is completely different from a routine. My routine before a match has always stayed the same, the way of mental preparation, but my technique is always changing. Its a pity some people don't know the facts about nadal, and then try to judge him.

Armitra,

we don't need to know anything about Nadal and his habits, all we want is that he plays within the rules: 20 seconds between the points, not more.
If he can't recover within those 20 seconds he should play shorter points, not take more time to recover from those long rallies.
That way he is bending the rules to suit HIS style of play, that is unacceptable.
He can play 50 shot long rallies if he wants to but take no longer than 20 seconds. Rules are rules.
What is your view on it?

noleisthebest wrote:we don't need to know anything about Nadal and his habits, all we want is that he plays within the rules: 20 seconds between the points, not more.

That is the salient point - all players should play within the existing rules.

The game can't be flexible for one player's psychological tics

TimePlease is spot on here. It's psychological ticks, not his play, when he was 6-1 6-3 4-0 up in the French Open final he knew the match wouldn't go on for longer, nor were the points that long, but yet he went through with the routine.

He has to change his habits, perhaps less time towelling (unless he really needs it) and buttpicking should help
On that note perhaps Djokovic should stop bouncing the ball 200 times before he serves, although he takes slightly less time than nadal but still breaks the rule.

Ah bless him and his 'tics'.

I with I'd known about the excusing value of tics. "I only drive at 90mph because of tics". Yeah, must try that next time.

Its a routine constructed to preserve fitness as hs game depends on this style. All this other stuff is merely excuse making.

OK BB then why did he do that when he was 6-3 6-1 4-0 up in the French open final. The rallies weren't long, Fed couldn't keep up, so was nadal saving energy? For what?

amritia3ee wrote:TimePlease is spot on here. It's psychological ticks, not his play, when he was 6-1 6-3 4-0 up in the French Open final he knew the match wouldn't go on for longer, nor were the points that long, but yet he went through with the routine.

He has to change his habits, perhaps less time towelling (unless he really needs it) and buttpicking should help
On that note perhaps Djokovic should stop bouncing the ball 200 times before he serves, although he takes slightly less time than nadal but still breaks the rule.

It has been clearly stated that all offenders of the current rules need to be hauled up, not just one. You seem to want to justify only Nadal's, but not Djokovic's or DelPotro's by using the 'habit' argument. NitB does not care if it is a habit or not. The rule has been there before Nadal picked up a racquet, IIRC.

The broadcast media have forced changes on other sports to shorten and make other sports predictable from a clock time perspective. Tennis will go the same way and the essence will be lost. Just see the ATP doubles vs Slam Doubles and you will see what I am stating.