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.

noleisthebest wrote:
The problem I think is not the length of matches per se, of course, although it all adds up.

He wants more recovery time after longer rallies (regardless of how long the match is, he craftily used his last 6 hour match to illustrate it), because that is how he beats his opponents: by sapping their energy and outlasting them. Now that's all fine if he can sustain it within the rules.

The AO 2012 final:

Total points played: 369
Average time taken between points ~ 32 seconds / point
Average extra time taken between point ~ 12 sec /point

So total extra time taken ~ 74 min in the match
In that ~ 6 hours of play about an hour and qrt was only wasted on toweling, ball bouncing, placing bottles, picking pants etc.

noleisthebest wrote:He must not be allowed to break the rules in order to impose this style of play on others and gain unfair advantage in that way.

you think this way nitb, but I'm very certain there are 1000s of Nadal fans who see it differently. Firstly I'm very sure they most of them don't even know about any time rule in tennis. And secondly its nothing new for Nadal to be taking extra time a breaking rules, but still Nadal fans who know it and are going to be okay with it. They will bring out defenses like its his routine, his superstition and hence not deliberate. Some other who have better reasoning will be fine saying its ref's job to impose rules. If ref is not doing anything, everything is fine.

Yes, raiders, I'm sure that all the people who don't object to Rafa taking 30 seconds are also perfectly OK with murder.
Give it a rest.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, raiders, I'm sure that all the people who don't object to Rafa taking 30 seconds are also perfectly OK with murder.
Give it a rest.

Have just read through some of todays comments. Not just on this thread but all the articles in the tennis section. I have to conclude that 606v2 is no longer a tennis discussion site it has become a sort of "anti Nadal" fan site were those that are obsessive in ther dislike of one player congregate to talk about their favourite subject. It's impossible to talk about anything else without it being twisted round to this same topic. Hopefully this is just temporary...

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:What do these numbers actually mean LF, quality, not number-crunching wise?

The number of minutes is the length of time it took to complete the match. I am trying to find matches which are close to the magical 'six hour' mark that is referenced in the OP links.

how does that relate to 20 sec rule, or the lack of?

"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."

I am using this statement in the article.

Like NITB I don;t see the link between length of match and time taken between points. YOu coudl have a 1h 30 match with one way exceding the 20s rule.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, raiders, I'm sure that all the people who don't object to Rafa taking 30 seconds are also perfectly OK with murder.
Give it a rest.

Have just read through some of todays comments. Not just on this thread but all the articles in the tennis section. I have to conclude that 606v2 is no longer a tennis discussion site it has become a sort of "anti Nadal" fan site were those that are obsessive in ther dislike of one player congregate to talk about their favourite subject. It's impossible to talk about anything else without it being twisted round to this same topic. Hopefully this is just temporary...

You are confusing tennis forum with fan sites. This is not a fan site.

noleisthebest wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, raiders, I'm sure that all the people who don't object to Rafa taking 30 seconds are also perfectly OK with murder.
Give it a rest.

Have just read through some of todays comments. Not just on this thread but all the articles in the tennis section. I have to conclude that 606v2 is no longer a tennis discussion site it has become a sort of "anti Nadal" fan site were those that are obsessive in ther dislike of one player congregate to talk about their favourite subject. It's impossible to talk about anything else without it being twisted round to this same topic. Hopefully this is just temporary...

You are confusing tennis forum with fan sites. This is not a fan site.

Then we should discuss tennis and not other posters or fans of players in general, where such speculation can only lead to ill-feeling. Let's stick to tennis and the players - god knows that alone can generate enough ill-feeling as it is.

This is not a fan site it is "anti fan" site. Only one player is being discussed. On a fan site one player is discussed in a positive way. On an anti fan site one player is discussed in a negative way. Both are less interesting to the general tennis fan.

Julius

That is what I'de like to do. That is what I've tried to do. But recently it's not happening. Hopefully as I said this is just temporary.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, raiders, I'm sure that all the people who don't object to Rafa taking 30 seconds are also perfectly OK with murder.
Give it a rest.

Have just read through some of todays comments. Not just on this thread but all the articles in the tennis section. I have to conclude that 606v2 is no longer a tennis discussion site it has become a sort of "anti Nadal" fan site were those that are obsessive in ther dislike of one player congregate to talk about their favourite subject. It's impossible to talk about anything else without it being twisted round to this same topic. Hopefully this is just temporary...

You are confusing tennis forum with fan sites. This is not a fan site.

Then we should discuss tennis and not other posters or fans of players in general, where such speculation can only lead to ill-feeling. Let's stick to tennis and the players - god knows that alone can generate enough ill-feeling as it is.

I'm sure you have observed this huge moaning tendency from a few people. I don't know what they are doing here if it's so bad, really.
I've had enough of explaining and giving advice on how to get on with people here to be honest; you can lead a horse .... Julius, why don't you PM the ofended party with a link to THAT website, it may help

I don't want anyone to leave the forum. I don't want any comments about any players to be limited (other than for legal reasons).
But the forum is NOT for discussing other posters in a negative way.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't want anyone to leave the forum. I don't want any comments about any players to be limited (other than for legal reasons).
But the forum is NOT for discussing other posters in a negative way.

indeed

Thanks NITB

Back to business - If the next post is not about the OP, I will probably delete it and lock the thread. I'm open to PMs for other discussions.

hawkeye wrote:This is not a fan site it is "anti fan" site. Only one player is being discussed. On a fan site one player is discussed in a positive way. On an anti fan site one player is discussed in a negative way. Both are less interesting to the general tennis fan.

Julius

That is what I'de like to do. That is what I've tried to do. But recently it's not happening. Hopefully as I said this is just temporary.

Do you think this a Tennis discussion - https://www.606v2.com/t25484-rafa-is-just-too-pretty ?

LKs article today is a pretty good subject.

Should the discussion of the 20/25 second rule be taboo?

JHM, did not see your post. Please delete my earlier post, if you deem it inappropriate.

If the players were forced to adhere to the 20 seconds rule (for grand slams) we would end up with matches like the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o


I loved the commentators comment of an "unbelievably strenuous rally" after the first point in this clip - and that was after 3 hrs and 10 mins. The match seems to have lasted 3 hours and 15 mins.

Nore Staat wrote:If the players were forced to adhere to the 20 seconds rule (for grand slams) we would end up with matches like the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o


I loved the commentators comment of an "unbelievably strenuous rally" after the first point in this clip - and that was after 3 hrs and 10 mins. The match seems to have lasted 3 hours and 15 mins.

that looked like a warm-up session ....

I love the way Lendl hits the ball then just sort of stands around for a while.

There does seem to be much less running then say Nadal-Djokovic.

laverfan wrote:There does seem to be much less running then say Nadal-Djokovic.

Borg and Lendl were average lazy athletes...in comparison.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:There does seem to be much less running then say Nadal-Djokovic.

Borg and Lendl were average lazy athletes...in comparison.

Both of them should be given credit for pushing the boundaries, though. Vilas is the other player who was an amazing athlete.

Tenez/Amri: Hi and thanks for welcoming me here.

I used to visit the old BBC site quite a lot but I hardly ever posted, so you would not remember me. As Amri says, I posted a bit on MTL during the AO. I would like to post a bit more, but I always seem to struggle finding enough time for it, plus with the time difference my natural posting time does not always overlap so nicely with most of you.

I accidentally found 606v2's world tour game and that attracted me here. That one works perfect for me - I am enough of a tennis fan that a year-long game has appeal to me but would struggle finding time if I had to update my picks after every round of a tournament.

Some posters here seem to feel that since Nadal does not play many 6 hr matches, his point is invalid.

I see it almost the other way around - the more 6 hour matches we see, the less inclined I would be to give players more than 20 seconds between points.

If it is indeed true that players use the extra seconds to give themselves more time to recover, then that is the very thing that enables those six hour matches with long rallies to happen in the first place, and in that case going over the time limit does feel like cheating. Then it no longer feels like an innocent habit that some players may have.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:There does seem to be much less running then say Nadal-Djokovic.

Borg and Lendl were average lazy athletes...in comparison.

Must say the overall tennis athlete is a mixture of Karlovic peak weight Nalbandian. Tennis has hit rock bottom when experts call a 6 hour final match an "epic"...back in the old days a 6 hour match would be called "quick and effortless".

summerblues wrote:Some posters here seem to feel that since Nadal does not play many 6 hr matches, his point is invalid.

So if you exceed 20/25 seconds in the first set, what do you think should be done? Also, what is sauce for the geese, is sauce for the gander.

summerblues wrote:I see it almost the other way around - the more 6 hour matches we see, the less inclined I would be to give players more than 20 seconds between points.

How do you explain this? https://imgur.com/a1RWR (Raiders has mentioned in one his posts earlier. Look at the score in the top right corner). Remember this is the 'Average'. You can watch a recording of this specific match and make your own unbiased opinions.

summerblues wrote:If it is indeed true that players use the extra seconds to give themselves more time to recover, then that is the very thing that enables those six hour matches with long rallies to happen in the first place, and in that case going over the time limit does feel like cheating. Then it no longer feels like an innocent habit that some players may have.

Exactly.

laverfan:

You are preaching to the converted here. I would not let them go over 20/25 seconds irrespective of what set it is or how long the match takes.

I guess what I am saying is that even if his every match were six hours long, I do not think I would agree with him, and in some sense even less so, because that would be an additional argument that the more time players take between points, the more they can create these 6 hour "classics".

Thanks SummerBlues.

I am all for increasing the time between points uniformly for everyone, not just for a select few.

There are players who train with such specific goals. It is a disservice to such players to not be able to enforce rules as currently framed.

This is very similar to giving a chair to one player on the court to sit comfortably, while a lower-ranked player is asked to stand, because of their ranking or some other factor. IMVHO, this is a blatant violation of the spirit of the game and a specific rule of the game.

Serena lost a match due to a racquet abuse violation and a foot fault. I would like a 'uniform' enforcement of the current rules, or as modified by the ITF/ATP/WTA (in the future).

Umpire discretionary powers lead to favouritism and subjective applications of the laws.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yes, raiders, I'm sure that all the people who don't object to Rafa taking 30 seconds are also perfectly OK with murder.
Give it a rest.

Yes right. I maybe was just too worked up on the 'chased off Nadal fans thing'. ONLY TENNIS NOW.

Nore Staat wrote:If the players were forced to adhere to the 20 seconds rule (for grand slams) we would end up with matches like the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o

No it could end up like this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpflSU_Yvps

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:If the players were forced to adhere to the 20 seconds rule (for grand slams) we would end up with matches like the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o

No it could end up like this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpflSU_Yvps

USO 2005 - 4 set match. 238 points in 139 minutes. Average 1.71 points per minute.

AO 2012 - 5 set match. 369 points in 353 minutes. Average 1.04 points per minute.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:There does seem to be much less running then say Nadal-Djokovic.

Borg and Lendl were average lazy athletes...in comparison.

Both of them should be given credit for pushing the boundaries, though. Vilas is the other player who was an amazing athlete.

I was being sarcastic.

laverfan wrote:Thanks SummerBlues.

I am all for increasing the time between points uniformly for everyone, not just for a select few.

Very much against that.

Why not widen the courts to give the attacking players and SVers a better chance?....while we are at it.

The purpose of a sport for an athlete, is to win within the rules of this sport. Not to change the rules as we go along to advantage some.

It's Nadal and others to develop their game to win within those rules.

Players should play within the rules, umpires should enforce them. However, does there sometimes have to be umpire discretion employed as well to allow exceptions to time rules?

The thing here is that this essentially becomes another discussion about what is best in tennis - talent in attacking or talent in defending, or having both. If we only appreciate talent in attacking then ok let's always 100% apply the rule, no exceptions. If we feel there is merit in players retrieval abilities then do we simply cut the talent of extended retrieval out of the game by imposing a blanket 20 sec rule with no exceptions? Because there would be times during a match when an amazing rally would take place and both players need time to recover, if we always stick to 20s then players might never get into long ralleys and that might be argued as an equally artificial curtailing of the game. "That's fine by me" would say some but it could potentially negate an important side of the game that has always played it's part, and tennis isn't the game of the 70s/80s/90s anymore where they almost stand about in ralleys like that Lendl/Borg FO clip. On the flip side I agree players should be by and large sticking to the timeframe. But if players were to only have 20s between points mandatorily and ralleys still go on - which they would no doubt, the oxymoron here is that the fittest players would actually be the ones to benefit, not just the most aggressive, as they would be the ones who could attack and defend the most because don't think for a minute that the future of tennis is a player who can only attack and score winners every point. Today's and tomorrow's best players in tennis will be those who are adept in attacking and defending - my supposition is that a blanket enforcement of 20s will actually benefit, not hinder, the fittest players of tomorrow because the game will be dictated by those who can squeeze the most energy into attacking and/or defending between 20s breaks.

I find it difficult to get worked up by the number of seconds players take between points in fact I hardly notice. The only time I find it a bit annoying is when Del Potro is the one taking the time.... Zzzzz. So I suppose can understand why some who have a stong (cough... ) dislike for a player may resent every extra second they are on court...

But the rules are the rules and contrary to what many here appear to believe there is no hard and fast 20sec rule. The rule can be applied at the umpires discretion. It was brought in I believe to stop the deliberate time wasting and disruptive tactics of players like Nastase and McEnroe not again as many here seem to believe as some sort of test of fitness.

Anyone advocating taking away the discretion from the umpire is asking for a change of rules not the enforcement of existing rules. These rules of course apply to ALL players not just the top ones. If they are not being applied fairly that means there is a problem with the umpires.

The players can have an opinion (just like us) but they don't enforce or make the rules. If anyone objects to the rules as they are now the objections should be aimed at the umpires and not the players.

I personally would dislike watching tennis if the points were dictated by something as rigid as clock and buzzer. Luckily it will never happen as I am sure I am in the majority...

laverfan wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:If the players were forced to adhere to the 20 seconds rule (for grand slams) we would end up with matches like the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o

No it could end up like this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpflSU_Yvps

USO 2005 - 4 set match. 238 points in 139 minutes. Average 1.71 points per minute.

AO 2012 - 5 set match. 369 points in 353 minutes. Average 1.04 points per minute.

ROTLA: It's difficult to tell how long Agassi and Federer took between points in that clip, because of the cuts in the footage between points. However, it seems to be well known that both Federer and Agassi took significantly less time between points than Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro - so fair point.

hawkeye wrote:I personally would dislike watching tennis if the points were dictated by something as rigid as clock and buzzer. Luckily it will never happen as I am sure I am in the majority...

Unless you started to watch tennis when Nadal arrived, you would have not been bothered cause tennis has for a very long time been dictated by a clock. However you did not know or notice cause the players were all playing within teh rule. and time warning was given on extremely rare occasions.

lydian wrote:Players should play within the rules, umpires should enforce them. However, does there sometimes have to be umpire discretion employed as well to allow exceptions to time rules?

The thing here is that this essentially becomes another discussion about what is best in tennis - talent in attacking or talent in defending, or having both. If we only appreciate talent in attacking then ok let's always 100% apply the rule, no exceptions. If we feel there is merit in players retrieval abilities then do we simply cut the talent of extended retrieval out of the game by imposing a blanket 20 sec rule with no exceptions? Because there would be times during a match when an amazing rally would take place and both players need time to recover, if we always stick to 20s then players might never get into long ralleys and that might be argued as an equally artificial curtailing of the game. "That's fine by me" would say some but it could potentially negate an important side of the game that has always played it's part, and tennis isn't the game of the 70s/80s/90s anymore where they almost stand about in ralleys like that Lendl/Borg FO clip. On the flip side I agree players should be by and large sticking to the timeframe. But if players were to only have 20s between points mandatorily and ralleys still go on - which they would no doubt, the oxymoron here is that the fittest players would actually be the ones to benefit, not just the most aggressive, as they would be the ones who could attack and defend the most because don't think for a minute that the future of tennis is a player who can only attack and score winners every point. Today's and tomorrow's best players in tennis will be those who are adept in attacking and defending - my supposition is that a blanket enforcement of 20s will actually benefit, not hinder, the fittest players of tomorrow because the game will be dictated by those who can squeeze the most energy into attacking and/or defending between 20s breaks.

Do you still believe it's a bad habit...now that you have heard it from the horse's mouth?

I also notice that Socal has conveniently not joined the discussion here as he argued for pages in past threads that taking extra time had nothing to do with favouring one style, that it would actually favour the attacking style and said I was talking BS.

Now Nadal clearly says he could not play those "amazing" rallies within 20s.

Glad everything is finally cleared up...by Nadal himself.

It was so obvious that I seriously question the knowledge and impartiality of some so called "serious" posters here.

Give it a rest with this self-righteous stuff Tenez, your modus operandi on these forums simply seems to be the need to be proved right most of the time.
The horses mouth as you put it does not prove your point. Nadal says there are times in a match when he needs more time due to long ralleys. But we both know he takes longer to serve than 20s on just about ALL points, not just long ralley points. His serve motion and build up is extended, he goes through little sub-routines, etc. These are bad habits he's had from day 1. He indicates this by saying the umpires are sometimes right to warn him. But at other times for long ralleys he appeals that the umpire needs to be discretionary. So you can jump on this article all you like but it has mixed meanings.

You always side step the analysis I did on that Miami 2004 match, it was a fast match with Federer without many extended ralleys, a very aggressive match by both players actually, and what was Nadal's average time between points for a match that barely lasted an hour? 27.5 secs. Not because he needed air every single point but because already at 17 years old he had developed a habit of taking a long time to serve! Nadal knows he has a bad habit and that's why he's happy to admit in that article the umpire rightly pulls him up on it at times. But you're trying to use the article with the usual degree of glee (you being impartial and all that) where Nadal is concerned to meet your own ends but it doesn't quite fit I'm afraid.

lydian wrote:Players should play within the rules, umpires should enforce them. However, does there sometimes have to be umpire discretion employed as well to allow exceptions to time rules?

The thing here is that this essentially becomes another discussion about what is best in tennis - talent in attacking or talent in defending, or having both. If we only appreciate talent in attacking then ok let's always 100% apply the rule, no exceptions. If we feel there is merit in players retrieval abilities then do we simply cut the talent of extended retrieval out of the game by imposing a blanket 20 sec rule with no exceptions? Because there would be times during a match when an amazing rally would take place and both players need time to recover, if we always stick to 20s then players might never get into long ralleys and that might be argued as an equally artificial curtailing of the game. "That's fine by me" would say some but it could potentially negate an important side of the game that has always played it's part, and tennis isn't the game of the 70s/80s/90s anymore where they almost stand about in ralleys like that Lendl/Borg FO clip. On the flip side I agree players should be by and large sticking to the timeframe. But if players were to only have 20s between points mandatorily and ralleys still go on - which they would no doubt, the oxymoron here is that the fittest players would actually be the ones to benefit, not just the most aggressive, as they would be the ones who could attack and defend the most because don't think for a minute that the future of tennis is a player who can only attack and score winners every point. Today's and tomorrow's best players in tennis will be those who are adept in attacking and defending - my supposition is that a blanket enforcement of 20s will actually benefit, not hinder, the fittest players of tomorrow because the game will be dictated by those who can squeeze the most energy into attacking and/or defending between 20s breaks.

Can you clarify what you mean by "sometimes"? Because I want to know what is your perception of this word "sometimes". Lets be clear on this "sometimes" for once and for all. There were 369 points played in the AO 2012 final out of these 369, how many if taken could be called as "sometimes" when the time rule was violated. My understanding of the word sometimes would put about 30-40 or lets be more generous 50 points. I hope your "sometimes" won't mean 200 out of 369, would it lydian?

Now average time taken between points shot up by 60% of the allowed limit. 12 extra seconds on an average. Let just assume every time an extra time of just 12 seconds was taken for extra recovery after a tiring rally, so going by this "sometimes" theory, 12 * 50 = 600 sec = 10 minutes of extra time wasted. But as I pointed out in my previous post the match duration shot-up by ~ 74 min. ~ 74 min of extra time players took than the allowed limit.

How is this possible. Its is possible because the assumption I made in the beginning about this "sometimes" is incorrect. For these players, this "sometimes" isn't just about 50/369 (~ 13-14% ) of the entire points. For some players this "sometimes" is almost 90% of the points when the time rule is violated when mean this "sometimes" is "almost all the time" for them . If its really "sometimes" that is about on 10-15% of the total points, no players, no umpires or viewers like us would have had any problems. If this sometimes was actually sometimes, these matches wouldn't have been 6 hours long. And who know, would have had very different results. Now, are you ok when the rules are violated for almsot the entire match (over 300 out of 369 points the rules was violated ). Is it still going to be called "sometimes" when the rules was violated and we can be okay with that?


I know the talent of attacking tennis and also value the defending in tennis. No player plays complete black-white game. Understand lydian, the thing is some players have chosen rallying long and making it an iron man stamina lung busting game. This is their very game and this is how they play almost all the points and this is how they can only win. But for playing this kind of game they need extra recovery time. This extra recovery time is not just marginal, its by 60-75% ( look at the pic LF posted and its just the mid of 2nd set ) and even more. These players can only play this kind of game if they are allowed to take extra time. If they won't be allowed, they won't be able to play their game and hence may not win. But allowing them extra recovery time is bending the rules so that certain players can win. Its just like allowing a 3 serves for an Isner or Karlovic or using the doubles tramlines on the sides for judging Fed's or Tsonga's shots. Those won't happen because those are serve rule and lines rule are clear and will have no scope of discretion. But the time rule is also a rule, but it has scope of discretion. But the discretion doesn't mean allowing its violation to gain advantage. This is precisely what some top players are doing.

Rules can't be changed so that certain players win. It should have been other way round i.e. players who play better and within the rules should win. Rules of the game are the very spirit of having a game. Rules are the things that separates sports from a war.

lydian wrote:Give it a rest with this self-righteous stuff Tenez, your modus operandi on these forums simply seems to be the need to be proved right most of the time.
The horses mouth as you put it does not prove your point. Nadal says there are times in a match when he needs more time due to long ralleys. But we both know he takes longer to serve than 20s on just about ALL points, not just long ralley points. His serve motion and build up is extended, he goes through little sub-routines, etc. These are bad habits he's had from day 1. He indicates this by saying the umpires are sometimes right to warn him. But at other times for long ralleys he appeals that the umpire needs to be discretionary. So you can jump on this article all you like but it has mixed meanings.

You always side step the analysis I did on that Miami 2004 match, it was a fast match with Federer without many extended ralleys, a very aggressive match by both players actually, and what was Nadal's average time between points for a match that barely lasted an hour? 27.5 secs. Not because he needed air every single point but because already at 17 years old he had developed a habit of taking a long time to serve! Nadal knows he has a bad habit and that's why he's happy to admit in that article the umpire rightly pulls him up on it at times. But you're trying to use the article with the usual degree of glee (you being impartial and all that) where Nadal is concerned to meet your own ends but it doesn't quite fit I'm afraid.

Is it because you are wrong that you get aggressive? Why don;y you simply admit you were wrong and show some humility? I would respect that.

Why would Lydian say he's wrong when he's not. That would be lying and Lydian isn't a liar.

Tenez wrote:

hawkeye wrote:I personally would dislike watching tennis if the points were dictated by something as rigid as clock and buzzer. Luckily it will never happen as I am sure I am in the majority...

Unless you started to watch tennis when Nadal arrived, you would have not been bothered cause tennis has for a very long time been dictated by a clock. However you did not know or notice cause the players were all playing within teh rule. and time warning was given on extremely rare occasions.

Tenez. Ha ha! You don't know when I started watching tennis, you can't say what would or would not bother me, you don't know what I know or don't know and you don't know what I may or may not notice. You may not agree with my opinion but you certainly can't argue with it in that way...

Very informative interview. Finally we can dump the fantasy that the time delays are ritualistic or driven by OCD; he's confirmed they are for recovery. Good, that ones put to bed.

Next about to die is the idea of the humble warrior; as he gets older and slips more I expect to hear more vocal protestations about how stuff should be his way.

After all the talk of 'arrogant' Federer, it's he, not Nadal, who appears to act in the interest of the players as a whole rather than in self interest.

bogbrush wrote:Very informative interview. Finally we can dump the fantasy that the time delays are ritualistic or driven by OCD; he's confirmed they are for recovery. Good, that ones put to bed.

Next about to die is the idea of the humble warrior; as he gets older and slips more I expect to hear more vocal protestations about how stuff should be his way.

After all the talk of 'arrogant' Federer, it's he, not Nadal, who appears to act in the interest of the players as a whole rather than in self interest.

I'm not going to bother with the first bit because the whole of 606v2 is full of stuff like that.

But why do you think that the majority of players want the twenty second rule changed and made more rigid? IMO most would prefer the flexibility of the system as it is at the moment. Lots of the comments here are about the top players and speculation about how such a rule would or wouldn't affect them. I'm finding it difficult to think of reasons why the majority of players would wan't a more rigid rule. I'm also finding it difficult to imagine how it would be enforced and can think of numerous valid reasons for delay. An umpire can make judgements a stop clock cannot. As a fan I would dislike it as tennis would look less fun and it could inhibit players from producing their best play. Above all as a fan I want to see the best play.

I am pretty sure it will never happen. Even if by some wild stretch of the imagination stop clocks and buzzers did appear on the courts I think those that think (or hope...)it would damage a certain player would be very disapointed. That certain player would be one of the best at adapting and maybe even taking advantige of it. He has a set routine between points and that would be much easier to adapt than players who have a more casual on court demeanor.

Desperate stuff; the player with the least economic style would adapt best? Leaving aside that he needs (now by his own admission) the extra time, you are aware that most players wouldnt need to adapt they already comply with the rules.

As for discretion, yeah let's have that on all the rules. I mean, just a few millimetres out shouldn't be an issue if the Umpire thinks he game is better played on, right?

Average time taken between points ~ 32 seconds / point

_______________________

Raiders, where did you get that 32 sec stat please? (Source)

For years because some of us could read teh meaning and purpose of Nadal's game and its rule bending we were portrayed as anti-Nadal and Nadal haters. We were just neutral observers who simply understood what was going on.

Now that the truth comes out I hope posters can realise that our main concern was to see the game slipping outside the rules. I woudl also invite posters to think where this rule abuse would stop? There are rules we can see or check are broken and it doesn't take much imagination to believe there are probably rules that are being broken we cannot see or check.

What I observed more recently is that a few posters who have tried to be fair and respect all players including Federer and Nadal are now starting to realise a bit more of what was at stake and how those players chose to behave to achieve their success. And in that respect, those "fair" posters seem to have finally taken side.

On the positive side, Nadal provided an opponent to Federer at a time there was known and bending the rules or not he made it an excellent addition to tennis. But let's just keep things in perspective when considering his "talent" and "power".

Henman Bill wrote:Average time taken between points ~ 32 seconds / point

_______________________

Raiders, where did you get that 32 sec stat please? (Source)

Does it really matter?

Teh rule is broken for the first serve but what is really neglected in those stats in the time they take to serve a second serve and even worse when there is a let.

the rule says a serve shoudl happen within 20s and if 1st serve is fault, teh player should serve straight after a second serve, so I guess within the next 5sec.

But in slams teh second serve also takes another 10 if not 15 sec and a point is easily serve within 50s if second serve needed. That's where the rule is also abused.

My question is this. If there is a rule to stop at a traffic light, are you allowed to stop 90% of the time, 50% of the time, or 10% of the time? Similar to what Raiders is asking. This discretion from umpire can be subjective and hence the application is not uniform.

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.

Henman Bill wrote:Average time taken between points ~ 32 seconds / point

_______________________

Raiders, where did you get that 32 sec stat please? (Source)

Look at the link I posted which came from ESPN stream that I watched.

PS: https://imgur.com/a1RWR

While I think that some of the players do "bend" the rules to get extra time and while I do find it annoying, quite frankly what draws me most to this topic is that tennis will simply have to do something about the length of the matches. Having too many long matches will ultimately hurt tennis commercially and that will force a change irrespective of whether most fans prefer to see long gruelling rallies or not.

Stricter adherence to the time-between-points rule is one way to shorten the matches. If players take say 10-12 extra seconds between points and if the match lasts around 300 points (a long five setter say), then - even forgetting about any possible implications on the length of rallies - we could shave off about an hour off such a match.

For those of us who prefer to see less emphasis on defense this would also likely have the added benefit of hurting defense a bit more than hurting offense.

Of course, there are other ways to shorten matches too, some potentially quite drastic. 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.

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.