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.

Read the post carefully LF, I said he needed to change his habit.

amritia3ee wrote: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?

This is a circular argument. If he has a habit, it makes no difference who the opponent is. If the habit was inculcated to conserve energy, it is against the rules of the sport and needs to be corrected.

Does Nadal serve outside the service box to accumulate points? Does he have foot faults? Does he get a second serve or a let? These are all rules of the sport.

amritia3ee wrote: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?

That the routine that's been drummed into him, like hit everything one side. Toni tells him what to do and he follows instructions.

amritia3ee wrote:Read the post carefully LF, I said he needed to change his habit.

... and the interview in the OP indicates no such change is possible because of a single six-hour match in 668 matches?

From the link in the article this is what Nadal said

"The rules are there, but we cannot expect to play six hours and play rallies of crazy points and rest for 20 seconds for nobody. If the umpire considers that he has to put a warning because the player is not doing the right thing between points, I think the players have to accept. The rule is there but I think it is more the [interpretation] of the umpire, that's my way to understand the rule.

Nadal's interpretation of the rule is correct. He is using the six hour AO final as an example of when some flexability is required not saying that the rule is as it is because of that one match! The rule as it stands gives the umpire some discretion over how long players take between points.

The AO umpire could see some of the crazy points being played in that final and used his discretion. I for one am glad that he did. No way should an umpire affect a match like that by giving a warning or deducting points. The umpire applied the time between points rule correctly. Both Djokovic and Nadal did not break the time between points rule.

It is of course possible to change the rule but even Federer stopped short of wanting that

However, Federer is not in favor of installing shot clock.

"I hope it does not go that far."

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/ticker.aspx?articleid=16783&zoneid=6

Oh god.... here we are back to square one.. all the 4 pages of talks and debating leads to nothing now because hawkeye here has turned the circle all around again.

Ha ha! It all goes round and round again anyway. What else is there to talk about apart from "Nadal Who Else"?

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! It all goes round and round again anyway. What else is there to talk about apart from "Nadal Who Else"?

Hawkeye?

hawkeye wrote:

The AO umpire could see some of the crazy points being played in that final and used his discretion. I for one am glad that he did. No way should an umpire affect a match like that by giving a warning or deducting points. The umpire applied the time between points rule correctly. Both Djokovic and Nadal did not break the time between points rule.

Did you see this part?

https://imgur.com/Kd5FO

hawkeye wrote:It is of course possible to change the rule but even Federer stopped short of wanting that

However, Federer is not in favor of installing shot clock.

"I hope it does not go that far."

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/ticker.aspx?articleid=16783&zoneid=6

Agree with Federer, that players should manage it themselves and play within the rules.

Lydian of course completely debunked the idea that Nadal started breaking the time limit later in his career as away to throw off the opposition. Raider as usual came up with a lengthy and rambling post that I could not bother to read.

I still don't buy that the extra time between points helps Nadal more than it helps his opponent. Nadal is super fit, ok with you there. But simultaneously, he has this supposed fitness edge which he uses to beat his opposition with and grind them to exhaustion, yet he gets so tired himself that he has to take longer between points. If Nadal has this remarkable fitness edge over 99 percent of the tour then he should play quicker between points. He can't be fitter than his opponents and tire faster than them at the same time.

Socal, obviously the extra time between points helps Nadal's game, he himself has now admitted that he needs this extra time to recover. That does not mean that he is not incredibly fit. He has incredible stamina but he needs to pace himself, kind of like a marathon runner. Essentially this is what he does on court; he makes the match into a marathon. The steadier guy with the greater stamina wins out in the end. In contrast to someone like Federer who is more of a sprinter. Both are incredibly fit but Nadal makes every match into a marathon as opposed to a sprint and thus by taking longer between points he is able to pace himself until the gruelling end.

To be quite frank this debate has been quite interesting with everyone mooting suggestions about why Nadal takes too long between points - it's great to chew the cud etc.....

but at the end of the day it is totally irrelevant about why he does it - just that he does and he shouldn't and if he persists the umpire should penalise him in accordance with the rules.

Exactly TP, as I mentioned in an earlier post, this is a flagrant breach of the rules. He even admits it. Pretty shameful.

Socal - Like many others here I'm really not so sure it's solely about fitness, or whether Nadal has some sort of "supposed fitness edge" - or not, as the case may be.

We know that all the top guys are super, super fit and - even at his advanced age - Federer seems pretty much as fit as any, in the context of an individual match ; although as the years go by he naturally must pace himself carefully between and during tourneys, esp. where Bo5 is involved

However, Emancipator draws a subtle but important contrast between stamina and fitness. I won't elaborate on what he says because it explains things very succinctly, for me at least. But I would like the time rules to be imposed a lot more stringently rather than largely being ignored and flouted. If this were to happen and we then see no change in the overall pattern of results (over a decent period) then I'll be the first to accept that no one player benefits more than another by constantly exploiting the current lax and unprofessional approach adopted by umpires who should know better.

Until that happens, there will always be a big question mark ........

I don't know if this was already posted. Fed was asked to comment on this issue and didn't seem perticularly pleased about the costant violation of the rule.....

"I do believe the officials could be a bit more tough on timing,” Federer said. “I’m not complaining a lot, but I don’t know how you can go through a four-hour match with Rafa and he never gets a time violation. It’s natural that even I would go over time, but they never call it. There are times when they could be a bit more firm because at the end of the day I don’t know if fans are getting frustrated to watch five points that are going to take us five minutes.”

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I don't know if this was already posted.

HE's link contains that comment. It is good to emphasise it though.

Some people don't appear to understand fitness. Nadal uses muscles more than anyone, and they need time to clear up. That's why the long delays benefit him over anyone else. This Los explains why he delays after every point.

Lung recovery isn't an issue for any of them except after the most lengthy points, and a slight overrun after those isn't controversial.

I'm beginning to slowly realise that not many people here have played any sport ...

laverfan wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I don't know if this was already posted.

HE's link contains that comment. It is good to emphasise it though.

Yes LF, in the article the op comments on "Nadal tackling the time violation issue", when in reality, it seems to me, is Fed who is tackling the issue, while Nadal is simply trying to defend his costant violation of the rule.

HE: did you study sport law in your high school?

These modern-day time violations that seem to affect so many matches (and exploited by some players rather more frequently than others....) are yet another reason why we should always be cautious about denigrating the standard of play of previous generations compared to today's.

Sure, many of the old youtube clips that folk regularly post show play that often seems a lot slower, less strenuous and, in a very general sense, less 'powerful' than what's on offer these days. But quite apart from advances in technology, training and sports medicine etc etc, guys like Borg, Mac and Connors were not grabbing towels to wipe every little bead of sweat like most of today's generation do, and (if my memory hasn't let me down ) nor were they were calling MTO's with quite the same frequency.

If it was that then why did nadal also have the same routine 6-3 6-1 4-0 up in the FO final.
The rallies weren't taking long (federer couldn't really keep up), and it was unlikely nadal would lose anymore games so why would he want to save energy?

noleisthebest wrote:I'm beginning to slowly realise that not many people here have played any sport ...

A good example of a rather dangerous (not to say patronising) assumption there, nitb ....... !!

I must say Amrit has a great trick of making you think you're on the wrong page of the thread!

Of course the question was unanswered by anyone last time because it's irrelevant.

Frankly, I am all for enforcing the rule. Like timeplease says his motivations in violating the rule really isn't that substantial of an issue. He just shouldn't do it. But then again it is a rule that others break and is rarely if ever enforced on anyone. So if they universally enforce the rule then I have no problem.

Here is where I have a problem with the long time between points allowing Nadal to more effectively play longer points and wear down his opponents. Take Del Potro he doesn't try to play long points and his style is completely different when compared to Nadal, but he takes almost as long as Nadal does.
Is he trying to wear down opponents with this tactic or using the extra time to break down his opponent.

Emancipator the marathon analogy doesn't really work. Turning a middle distance race into a marathon by taking time between points. In a marathon you are constantly running, just increasing the time between points doesn't increase the amount of running. It gives both players more time to rest, therefore it would seem to work cross purpose to what we have been told that Nadal primarily wins by exhausting his opposition physically. It is much harder in my cardiovascularly to play 200 points with 20 seconds between each point, as opposed to playing 200 points with 35 seconds between each point.

Trickery aside BB you haven't answered any of my 2 questions:
Why does he have off-court superstitions that he always keeps pre and post match?
Why did he stick to his habit (or trick) when he was 6-3 6-1 4-0 up? What was he saving energy for?

lags72 wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I'm beginning to slowly realise that not many people here have played any sport ...

A good example of a rather dangerous (not to say patronising) assumption there, nitb ....... !!

Why is that?

How can anyone comment on physical recovery and fitness if you have never played any sport? How can anyone understand the 20 second rule if you don't understand the difference of aerobic an anaerobic levels in physical exertion.

1. For his own reasons, they don't matter.
2. Because that's his winning routine* and he has it drummed into him.

* note, it's not to save energy it's to allow muscle recovery. Ever wondered where those any thousands rpm come from?

Obvious really.

1. They do matter, it shows he is a superstitius person. Why would he be superstitious off the court and not on the court.
2. It's a habit, not tactical play.

What do you think about Djokovic BB.
Is his ball bouncing tactical? What about Del Potro?

Yes, Djokovic is tactical on big points.

No opinion on JMDP.

'Habit' lol yeah, habitually breaks the rules, knows it, doesn't care enough to get a new habit when he is a construction of habits. That's your summary, right?

I thought you were supposed to be his cheerleader.

summerblues wrote: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.

Lydian has no leg to stand on really. I have not worked out the stats above but being 2sec over the 25 allowed doesn't show routine nor a need to go over the time allowed. However some rallies may have forced him to get some more breathing but it seems clearly that there is no intention to go over time. And that has always been my point. Miami 05 shows that even more clearly as Nadal wins the first sets playing at 20s or so (less actually) completely unaware that he is going to get out of breath at the end. It's probably one of the first 5 setter where the pace and length of the rallies are going to kill his legs and power of his shots and lose the last 6 games on the trott. The important thing is that this is news for Toni too. Toni clearly learns his lesson at Miami 05. Nadal could still run in Miami 05 but his shots suddenly fall short and have less spin allowing Federer to dictate and make Nadal run even more. .

It is pretty clear that this defeat and in particular the loss of the last 6 games taught Toni a key point: Nadal needs extra time between point so he can last 5 sets. Especially at slams where there are on;y 20s. And you can check that after Miami 05 Nadal slows things down but more importantly, through a routine that is not there 2 weeks earlier at Miami 05.

That's what Lydian has been denying for years but can be checked by anybody.

Why shoudl we blame Djoko, Delpo or anyone else for taking extra time? They woudl be stupid not to as they have learnt that the former world number 1 got away with it for years.

There is no point discussing about them until we really blame the main culprit and until the rule is enforced.

You're blinded by your hate Tenez.
You clearly haven't watched nadal play much when he was young, I can couch for a fact he had a routine when he was very young. Lydians data proves this, but the fact you didn't know that shows your fundamental lack of knowledge about Nadal. I can guarantee he has had this bad habit since he was young, a habit he needs to get rid off.

Secondly blaming everyone elses time taking in nadal shows what this is really about. Everyone is accountable for his own actions, you're clutching at straws here.

Anyone who has watched nadal knows he always had this problem. The fact Tenez is denying this shows he either is covering up the facts or is unaware of them.
And blaming everyone elses problem on nadal is just pathetic.

amritia3ee wrote:Anyone who has watched nadal knows he always had this problem. The fact Tenez is denying this shows he either is covering up the facts or is unaware of them.
And blaming everyone elses problem on nadal is just pathetic.

Armitria,

can you please stop treating us like morons and try to once see an argument from somebody else's perspective.

'problem'

Ridiculous.

Nitb - we're discussing the ramifications of the routine flouting of a particular rule by a number of ATP players (some more so than others), its possible exploitation for their unfair benefit, and invariably without appropriate sanction by those whose duty it is to enforce it.

The existence of the rule is fact, and its frequent violation is well-documented.

By contrast, your assumption as to the level of sporting activity undertaken by other forum members, as well as such knowledge they may or may not have (relative to your own) on matters surrounding fitness and recovery levels is no more than that - ie, assumption.

lags72 wrote:Nitb - we're discussing the ramifications of the routine flouting of a particular rule by a number of ATP players (some more so than others), its possible exploitation for their unfair benefit, and invariably without appropriate sanction by those whose duty it is to enforce it.

The existence of the rule is fact, and its frequent violation is well-documented.

By contrast, your assumption as to the level of sporting activity undertaken by other forum members, as well as such knowledge they may or may not have (relative to your own) on matters surrounding fitness and recovery levels is no more than that - ie, assumption.

Maybe you can't see it, but I can. It phenomenally easy to understand 20 seconds rule if you played ANY sport, i.e. what it means to need recovery and how long it takes to recover after 5, 10, 20 or 50 shot rally. YOu canunderstand it even if you have not, if you apply yourself a bit and get your head out of sand.
It's impossible to recover in 20 seconds after very long rallies. Same as it's impossible to sprint for 800 metres.

Some people made such ridiculous and non-sensical comments completely ignoring the basic understanding of the above.

I'm not judging anyone for not playing sport, but it's painful to debate with someone ABOUT THE RULE if that someone is not able/does not want to understand the rule.

Same as one old debate on 606 when a thread revealed that 99% of posters thought that an all-court player meant it was someone whose game translates well to different types of surfaces (i.e. "courts") rather than game played using the entire court as opposed pure base-line etc.

SummerBlue - I am not sure how you made your calculation but Just by checking teh first service game of Miami 04 by Nadal I get:

23s
20s
19s
26s (ball boy messing with the balls)

That's an average of 22sec!!!

I am more and more sceptic about your and Lydian's stats. And it confirms again that there si certainly no routine and time abuse in that first game.

Tenez wrote:SummerBlue - I am not sure how you made your calculation but Just by checking teh first service game by Nadal here are the numbers I get:

23s
20s
19s
26s (ball boy messing with the balls)

That's an average of 22sec!!!

I am more and more sceptic about your and Lydian's stats. And it confirms again that there si certainly no routine and time abuse in that first game.

I'm almost convinced that number crunching and statistic here are just a smoke-screen. Nadal does not play long rallies non-stop, i.e does not break 20 sec. rule all the time.
It's enough for it to happen at 5 crucial points per match.

I'll never forget all those tight losses Nole suffered in 2008 & 2009 :Hamburg, Queens, Madrid...

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:SummerBlue - I am not sure how you made your calculation but Just by checking teh first service game by Nadal here are the numbers I get:

23s
20s
19s
26s (ball boy messing with the balls)

That's an average of 22sec!!!

I am more and more sceptic about your and Lydian's stats. And it confirms again that there si certainly no routine and time abuse in that first game.

I'm almost convinced that number crunching and statistic here are just a smoke-screen. Nadal does not play long rallies non-stop, i.e does not break 20 sec. rule all the time.
It's enough for it to happen at 5 crucial points per match.

I'll never forget all those tight losses Nole suffered in 2008 & 2009 :Hamburg, Queens, Madrid...

I agree that it's clear Nadal doesn;t break the rule knowingly up to Miami 05. I was given numbers that can't quite match what we all see. This is why I am trying to dig down....though I am not going to do the whole match. The first game is enough to see there is no routine or time wasting in Miami 04..and for watching most of Miami 05, again I am sure there is no time wasting there either.

Tenez wrote:Why shoudl we blame Djoko, Delpo or anyone else for taking extra time? They woudl be stupid not to as they have learnt that the former world number 1 got away with it for years.

There is no point discussing about them until we really blame the main culprit and until the rule is enforced.

Just showing your bias here. You want the rule enforced but then you imply that it's ok for others to break it because Nadal does. Double standards I'm afraid.

Calder106 wrote:

Tenez wrote:Why shoudl we blame Djoko, Delpo or anyone else for taking extra time? They woudl be stupid not to as they have learnt that the former world number 1 got away with it for years.

There is no point discussing about them until we really blame the main culprit and until the rule is enforced.

Just showing your bias here. You want the rule enforced but then you imply that it's ok for others to break it because Nadal does. Double standards I'm afraid.

No he isn't and you know it very well. Nadal is the one who uses time violation and bends the rules because it enables him to win. He is the one who beats opponents by wearing them out not Djokovic and Del Potro.

Calder106 wrote:

Tenez wrote:Why shoudl we blame Djoko, Delpo or anyone else for taking extra time? They woudl be stupid not to as they have learnt that the former world number 1 got away with it for years.

There is no point discussing about them until we really blame the main culprit and until the rule is enforced.

Just showing your bias here. You want the rule enforced but then you imply that it's ok for others to break it because Nadal does. Double standards I'm afraid.

Am I showing bias or are you showing poor logic. As far as I know it would be double standard if Djoko and Delpo had to abide by the rule when Nadal can get away with it.

That's the problem with breaking rules. Hell breaks loose.

Answer that question: Do you think I would be perfectly fine if Djoko was and had been the only one breaking the rule? If Djoko needs to break the rule to beat someone breaking the rule I am fine! I don't like it but I don't care. In fact I am furious when a lower ranked player like Cilic or Harrison get booked for time abuse while the biggest culprit has been getting away with it for years.

If you see me bias, it's probably because you are.

bottom line is that the rule MUST be enforced, and I'm sure Nole or Delpo won' t suffer because of it. Not so sure about Nadal though.

After all even Nadal himself would benefit from obeying the rule as it his knees would be very grateful for having to run less.

No you are the one showing the bias. If everyone else played inside the rule and Nadal was the only one playing outside of it then he would be isolated and there would be a lot more pressure for him to play inside the rule. By saying its ok for others to do it because Nadal is double standards. Two wrongs do not make a right. I'm not a Nadal supporter and have no issues if he gets time violatons or loses points through it.

Nitb, I am interested in what you and lags have to say. What exactly are you talking about, are you directing your comments at me? Because frankly you are making a point and being vague about it and Lags is right that making assumptions about supposed knowledge people do or do not possess is not a credible subsititute for making a factual argument. One of the problems I have with some people on this site is that unless you don't accept their argument and opinion then you nothing about Tennis. You seem to be doing the same thing which is both condescending and logically not very strong debating.

I think people understand the 20 second rule, almost everyone in here thinks it should be applied to everyone. This talk about why Nadal breaks the rule is interesting because it is one of the principle knocks on Nadal the sportsman that this is one of his "cheating" tricks to win matches. I don't know if i buy the second part of it.

Calder, that is where I stand on it, everyone should be forced to obey the rule universally and Nadal isn't the only one who does. If the rule is universally applied fairly I have no problem with any player losing points if they violate it. The ATP and ITF should stand behind the umpires and demand that they hold the players to account.

socal1976 wrote:Nitb, I am interested in what you and lags have to say. What exactly are you talking about, are you directing your comments at me? Because frankly you are making a point and being vague about it and Lags is right that making assumptions about supposed knowledge people do or do not possess is not a credible subsititute for making a factual argument. One of the problems I have with some people on this site is that unless you don't accept their argument and opinion then you nothing about Tennis. You seem to be doing the same thing which is both condescending and logically not very strong debating.

I think people understand the 20 second rule, almost everyone in here thinks it should be applied to everyone. This talk about why Nadal breaks the rule is interesting because it is one of the principle knocks on Nadal the sportsman that this is one of his "cheating" tricks to win matches. I don't know if i buy the second part of it.

I'm directing comments at those who keep going on about some disorder Nadal has, then various habits etc, then some weird number crunching adding time per match etc, proving some strange arguments which have little or nothign to do with the 20 seconds rule.

To be honest, I don't know who posted those comments as I was reading them without looking who posted them, I would like to believe it was not you

To me, it is so easy to see how Nadal benefits from extending recovery time between longer points, and that's how bending the rule helps him to win some matches: he knows he'll get away not warned, hence allows himself to engage in very long exhausting rallies forcing his opponents to either puff out or make an UE.
He wouldn've been able to play like that if he didn't have the green light for extra recovery. THAT'S my point!