Timing talk on Sky about Nadal

It does seem like people are waking up to the facts. 'Teflon' is how Leif Shiras described Nadal with respect to time rules. Marcus Buckland mentioned that Umpires seem to find it difficult to make the rules stick on him.

I hate to see anyone just be so arrogant about the code of the sport.

It'll not change until he's outside the top 4. Then the rules will be enforced, but it's finally becoming acceptable to point it out.

Wow, Cowan and Castle are talking about nothing else.

I think Cowan is Tenez, he just said it matters because it's a physical match and the time matters for that reason.

Keep us posted BB

bogbrush wrote:Wow, Cowan and Castle are talking about nothing else.

I think Cowan is Tenez, he just said it matters because it's a physical match and the time matters for that reason.

He reads me!

I have been talking about it since 2007 I believe.

It was interesting that Cowan said it was Andy Murrays view that the time delays were important to the physical approach. I can only assume that's from a personal conversation as I've not seen an interview along those lines, but he wasn't equivocal about it, he stated it as. Fact.

bogbrush wrote:It was interesting that Cowan said it was Andy Murrays view that the time delays were important to the physical approach. I can only assume that's from a personal conversation as I've not seen an interview along those lines, but he wasn't equivocal about it, he stated it as. Fact.

Tenez take a bow

I think if Nadal delays in his matches against Murray this year he will find that Andy won't be putting up with it.
AM dealt with Rafa very well at the start of their QF AO 2010, and with Lendl girding his loins on this issue, I think it will be no nonsense from the beginning.

bogbrush wrote:It was interesting that Cowan said it was Andy Murrays view that the time delays were important to the physical approach. I can only assume that's from a personal conversation as I've not seen an interview along those lines, but he wasn't equivocal about it, he stated it as. Fact.

It's not really rocket science to conclude that players take extra time to recover from physically more exerting rallies. Oxygen has to go back to brain, that takes time: the more you've gone anaerobic, the longer.

What amazes me is that (regardless of Nadal etc) how extremely taxing tennis has become on the body both short and long term.

I can't really put my finger on it in terms of when the line of overboard fitness was crossed, my guess was with Nadal (which is why I call him the death of tennis), it's not good for long-term.
I'm beginning to believe that the game will self-regulate as this madness can go on indefinitely, there's only so much a body can take. Either that or doping will become rife, simply because it will become impossible to sustain anyone's body in that superfit/strong condition during an entire season (and then another and another one).
Then if you are e.g. "short" (anything less than 6ft), you're not going to throw years of training and sacrifice down the drain by letting the other "bigger" guy cream everything, you're going to do all you can (and get away with it) to win...
We can see it so clearly in athletics.

I saw a bit of Nadal Stepanek last night, and thought that for someone who claims he doesn't like the gym, Nadal's arms look bigger than ever, he was hitting the ball with all his might and more, poor Stepanek looked lost in space and time.

I think to be fair Nadal is simply a better tennis player than Stepanek - its 6-0 H2H now stretching back to 2004. Nadal was beating the guy on carpet as a 17 yr old. Lets not forget its not just about stamina, etc, these top guys can play a little too. I agree the game has moved on though - it is a no brainer that anyone at the top has to be able to muscle the ball with enduring stamina now - this applies to all the top guys. But why just target Nadal with these comments? Djokovic is equally as guilty of playing "physical" tennis, and taking his time - infact for some of their matches he has taken longer than Nadal on average. Lets not get myopic in our outlook across the game, we need to broaden the discussion rather than focus on one player all the time.

The big worry with the increased physicality (i.e. due to slower conditions) is that one day of the guys is going to collapse on court Fabrice Muamba style...playing at peak for 4-6 hours with max. heart rate sustained for large periods is not good for the body long-term. It may only be a matter of time, and if someone is also doping, for something to go seriously wrong out there. Matches need to be reduced in time by reducing ralley length on "typical" surfaces (clay will always be ralley based, it always has and why change that) through speed increases. But its a hard dynamic to balance because the tipping point to serve-fests may result.

Whats needed is variety, not uniformity...let the tour try out differing speed indexes and see what works best...because at the moment its the homogeniety thats the biggest issue...with the guys playing the same style week in, week out because they dont have to change their games much anymore...hence why we;re seeing the top 4 dominate just about everything the past 2 seasons.

noleisthebest wrote:Either that or doping will become rife, simply because it will become impossible to sustain anyone's body in that superfit/strong condition during an entire season (and then another and another one).

That was already the case in the 90s (some say 70s, 80s already). It has only been going creshendo since.

I saw a bit of Nadal Stepanek last night, and thought that for someone who claims he doesn't like the gym, Nadal's arms look bigger than ever, he was hitting the ball with all his might and more, poor Stepanek looked lost in space and time.

What did I tell you. It was close for 3 games.....then.... he was gone.

lydian wrote: But why just target Nadal with these comments? Djokovic is equally as guilty of playing "physical" tennis, lets not get myopic in our outlook across the game.

.

Djokovic playing physical tennis ? You cannot be serious Lydian....do not confuse Novak's fitness with physical tennis please

Yeah, what was I thinking...clearly Novak is a serve and volley player, not a baseline player.

Not quite sure how the players will get away with taking drugs considering there are regular check ups on them.

lydian wrote:Yeah, what was I thinking...clearly Novak is a serve and volley player, not a baseline player.

Are you saying that everyone except Llodra, Stepanek and Berrer are now physical players?

NITB...I'm not getting drawn on the breakdown of what a physical player means as I'm frankly tired of arguing this same topic.
My point is that the things you very openly accuse Nadal of would seemingly apply to Novak (and probably a few others too)...long time taking (e.g. see Wimbledon 2011 link below), building amazing stamina and strength, amazing retrieval qualities, extended ralleying (e.g. Murray AO 2012), etc, etc. Conversely, are you really saying that as an amazing baseliner Novak's not a physical player? That he relies on talent alone?

http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog/busted_racquet/post/how-long-do-djokovic-and-nadal-take-in-between-serves?urn=ten,wp2139

sirfredperry wrote:Not quite sure how the players will get away with taking drugs considering there are regular check ups on them.

Do you know how Agassi got away with it??? Do you know how Marion jones got away with it more than 100 times??

1. This "regular check-ups" is known to people just because they told it so. There is no way for anyone to verify if there are at all any "regular check-ups". They maybe are done or they may not be.
2. Even if there is, we don't know how is it done for sure?
3. We don't know what was the result of the test. They declare it, but there is no way to verify it.
4. Business is run on different terms and they may not be inline with integrity.

If we more talk about it, our thread may get deleted or thread locked or user banned. This subject is a taboo on 606v2. So lets stop here.

lydian wrote:NITB...I'm not getting drawn on the breakdown of what a physical player means as I'm frankly tired of arguing this same topic.
My point is that the things you very openly accuse Nadal of would seemingly apply to Novak (and probably a few others too)...long time taking (e.g. see Wimbledon 2011 link below), building amazing stamina and strength, amazing retrieval qualities, extended ralleying (e.g. Murray AO 2012), etc, etc. Conversely, are you really saying that as an amazing baseliner Novak's not a physical player? That he relies on talent alone?

http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog/busted_racquet/post/how-long-do-djokovic-and-nadal-take-in-between-serves?urn=ten,wp2139

Lydia, you're no senorita, you know what I'm talking about. Even Nadal does. Look at the size of him and compare him to Nole.
Yes, tennis in general IS a lot more physical than 20 years ago, and all players are fitter etc.

I just don't understand why you as a Nadal fan are ashamed of his tennis, because that how it comes across when you deny that he has the edge over his opponents with his physical strength. I am not saying he is just brute force, that would be plain stupid, but without that "beef" he'd be very average and would not have won 10 slams.

Look where that overexercising has left him: non-stop minor injuries etc. I mena, it's fine as that's his way of winning, no one can blame the guy for giving it his best shot, it's just the effect it has left on the game of tennis per se is that I don't like.
I really don't like the fact that players burn out physically within a year (Nole last year) after winning 70+ matches. For, THAT's what it took to DOMINATE and subdue Nadal.

lydian wrote:NITB...I'm not getting drawn on the breakdown of what a physical player means as I'm frankly tired of arguing this same topic.
My point is that the things you very openly accuse Nadal of would seemingly apply to Novak (and probably a few others too)...long time taking (e.g. see Wimbledon 2011 link below), building amazing stamina and strength, amazing retrieval qualities, extended ralleying (e.g. Murray AO 2012), etc, etc. Conversely, are you really saying that as an amazing baseliner Novak's not a physical player? That he relies on talent alone?

http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog/busted_racquet/post/how-long-do-djokovic-and-nadal-take-in-between-serves?urn=ten,wp2139

Fight fire with fire. Djo plays physical outlasting game with Nadal mainly. He doesn't have great volleying skill, but good baseline shot-making. In AO finals 2012, how many times commentators on my channel were saying that Djo can come in the finish the point quickly, but he chooses to stay in the rally trying to force an error rather than hit a winner. Watch how he played against Nadal in Us open 2010 finals and how he did in Usopen 2011 finals and their previous matches. He could have won AO12 in 4 sets easily, had he not got carried away in the tie-breaker going to winners when he got one and was 2 mini-breaks up. If he had stayed in his game-plan, it was all over in the 4th for Nadal.

If Nadal can't impose his physical strength, he looks completely toothless. Djo knows it, Nadal knows it too.

noleisthebest wrote: Lydia, you're no senorita, you know what I'm talking about

That's uncalled for.

lydian wrote:

noleisthebest wrote: Lydia, you're no senorita, you know what I'm talking about

That's uncalled for.

c'mon Lydian, don't be silly!

Has anyting generated more writing in tennis than Nadal's big guns?

Tenez wrote:Has anyting generated more writing in tennis than Nadal's big guns?

man, I'm tired just writing about it...

Returning to the point, I am struck by the trend of media comment. Until recently it was as if the idea of slowing the courts was off limits, but talking about time delays even more so.

Now we had Castle, Cowan, Buckland and Shiras talking about almost nothing else for about 15 minutes straight (before and into the match), and on top of that the statement by Cowan that Andy Murray believes time delays are an issue because some players need them to recover in order to play their gameplan. As Nadal was playing at the time it's fair to suggest the statement was in relation to him.

This is worthy of discussion here on 606v2 because;

(i) it is an important tennis subject, and
(ii) this is the very message that one member in particular has given for a long time, and many members are passionately opposed to his opinion (one of whom, coincidentally, is a very dedicated Murray fan - it will be interesting to hear his take on this).

In addition I hear more talk of the advantages of faster courts. How long before they finally connect the dots?

bogbrush wrote:Returning to the point, I am struck by the trend of media comment. Until recently it was as if the idea of slowing the courts was off limits, but talking about time delays even more so.

Now we had Castle, Cowan, Buckland and Shiras talking about almost nothing else for about 15 minutes straight (before and into the match), and on top of that the statement by Cowan that Andy Murray believes time delays are an issue because some players need them to recover in order to play their gameplan. As Nadal was playing at the time it's fair to suggest the statement was in relation to him.

This is worthy of discussion here on 606v2 because;

(i) it is an important tennis subject, and
(ii) this is the very message that one member in particular has given for a long time, and many members are passionately opposed to his opinion (one of whom, coincidentally, is a very dedicated Murray fan - it will be interesting to hear his take on this).

In addition I hear more talk of the advantages of faster courts. How long before they finally connect the dots?

Personally, I don't want the courts to be much faster, I'd rather watch a 6 hour slug fest than an hour serve fest.

Ideally if a nice balance could be struck somewhere in between but I'll leave that headache to those that are paid to have it....

Ok no more Nadal and physicality and surfaces talks.

Where is the MOTD thread for today? Why are they always put up so late? Anyone wants to do it, please do it with better commitment.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Ok no more Nadal and physicality and surfaces talks.

Where is the MOTD thread for today? Why are they always put up so late? Anyone wants to do it, please do it with better commitment.

I did it for IW, and then others chose to do individual threads for individual matches...waste of time.

Florian Mayer beat John Isner last night, The courts are quicksand and the humidity (in Spring in Miami) just makes it worse.

Stepanek had 2 BPs against Nadal. There were some long games, and a 33-year old could not keep up with current #2. Give him credit for how he played. Looby (33) has retired, so has Gonzo (31).

lydian wrote:NITB...I'm not getting drawn on the breakdown of what a physical player means as I'm frankly tired of arguing this same topic.
My point is that the things you very openly accuse Nadal of would seemingly apply to Novak (and probably a few others too)...long time taking (e.g. see Wimbledon 2011 link below), building amazing stamina and strength, amazing retrieval qualities, extended ralleying (e.g. Murray AO 2012), etc, etc. Conversely, are you really saying that as an amazing baseliner Novak's not a physical player? That he relies on talent alone?

http://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/blog/busted_racquet/post/how-long-do-djokovic-and-nadal-take-in-between-serves?urn=ten,wp2139

Gross hypocrisy from certain Djokovic fans as usual.

bogbrush wrote:
This is worthy of discussion here on 606v2 because;

(i) it is an important tennis subject, and
(ii) this is the very message that one member in particular has given for a long time, and many members are passionately opposed to his opinion (one of whom, coincidentally, is a very dedicated Murray fan - it will be interesting to hear his take on this).

Yes - I think the board owes Tenez an apology. It is not the first time he has been derided for an opinion that becomes mainstream later on (The Djokovic being a superior player to Murray being another instance!)

I too would be interested in a Murray Fan's opinion on this given the bad feeling when this subject was last discussed.

noleisthebest wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Returning to the point, I am struck by the trend of media comment. Until recently it was as if the idea of slowing the courts was off limits, but talking about time delays even more so.

Now we had Castle, Cowan, Buckland and Shiras talking about almost nothing else for about 15 minutes straight (before and into the match), and on top of that the statement by Cowan that Andy Murray believes time delays are an issue because some players need them to recover in order to play their gameplan. As Nadal was playing at the time it's fair to suggest the statement was in relation to him.

This is worthy of discussion here on 606v2 because;

(i) it is an important tennis subject, and
(ii) this is the very message that one member in particular has given for a long time, and many members are passionately opposed to his opinion (one of whom, coincidentally, is a very dedicated Murray fan - it will be interesting to hear his take on this).

In addition I hear more talk of the advantages of faster courts. How long before they finally connect the dots?

Personally, I don't want the courts to be much faster, I'd rather watch a 6 hour slug fest than an hour serve fest.

Ideally if a nice balance could be struck somewhere in between but I'll leave that headache to those that are paid to have it....

Indeed, if the choice we we had was between the two offered we may have a debate, but of course that's the false choice that socal always offers when stuck on this one.

I'm with you, and it's not that hard - just use the harder, smaller size balls and you can be assured that no matter what they do to the strings there'll still be an even contest between risk and safe and between volley and baseline.

However that's just my personal opinion. What is beyond doubt is that this subject - and that of the role of time delays in facilitating the physical game - are becoming mainstream, to the point where it's alleged by a commentator and former player that Murray has expressed a strong opinion on the matter.

time please wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
This is worthy of discussion here on 606v2 because;

(i) it is an important tennis subject, and
(ii) this is the very message that one member in particular has given for a long time, and many members are passionately opposed to his opinion (one of whom, coincidentally, is a very dedicated Murray fan - it will be interesting to hear his take on this).

Yes - I think the board owes Tenez an apology. It is not the first time he has been derided for an opinion that becomes mainstream later on (The Djokovic being a superior player to Murray being another instance!)

I too would be interested in a Murray Fan's opinion on this given the bad feeling when this subject was last discussed.

It has become a subject with the British commentators precisely because Murray has spoken to them and feels that he could gain some sort of advantage from "clamping down" on Nadal in particular. IMO the only advantage he could hope to gain is by unsettling a player that is clearly better than him. Murray has made no secret of the fact that he has used and intends to use unsettling tactics on an opponant in order to gain an advantage. He made a few statements about this in relation to what some consider his poor demeaner on court. Implying that it disrupts his opponant not himself.

Murray has attempted to use such tacticts whilst playing Nadal in the past and I'm sure he will do in the future. What I object to is the British media getting involved.

Nadal for some reason is not popular here on 606v2. I am bemused as to why. Tennis at the moment has two of the best players ever but whilst one is highly regarded the other is constantly put down. Any true tennis fan would appreciate both. What a shame so many appear to have their enjoyment of tennis spoilt because they see Nadal winning prizes that the would like their favourite player to win...

As for the comments insinuating that anyone that appreciates a player that already at the age of 25 is considered to be the 6th best male player ever is not a true tennis fan. That is delusion taken to the extreme.

The babolat balls at RG have not destroyed the essence of clay court tennis or substantially disadvantaged the great clay-court player of this era, but they have livened things up a bit. If similar balls could be used at more (not all) tournaments we'd see what sort of a balance could be struck and if it did not work there'd be no need for expensive digging up of surfaces.

Of course this is all speculation as we don't know the context of the conversation (if there was one) between Cowan and Murray. There is no record of it that I can find. As evidenced before what is reported and what is actually said can be construed quite differently. Remember Murray is no great fan of Cowan.

The main person who has brought up this issue recently in a public interview was Federer. It was fully discussed on this forum. I personally did not join in apart from saying that it was not only Nadal who overstepped the 20/25 second mark frequently. I do agree it should be more strictly poloced though. Never saw Hawkeye raising an anti-Federer thread at that time. Strange that.

The babolat balls at RG have not destroyed the essence of clay court tennis or substantially disadvantaged the great clay-court player of this era, but they have livened things up a bit. If similar balls could be used at more (not all) tournaments we'd see what sort of a balance could be struck and if it did not work there'd be no need for expensive digging up of surfaces.

Hawkeye - Yes, Nadal is one of the greatest players of all time, but yes, he appears to be taking too much time between points. Djoko also bounces the ball too many times on important points. Toilet breaks are a problem. Injury time outs are a problem.

barrystar wrote:The babolat balls at RG have not destroyed the essence of clay court tennis or substantially disadvantaged the great clay-court player of this era, but they have livened things up a bit. If similar balls could be used at more (not all) tournaments we'd see what sort of a balance could be struck and if it did not work there'd be no need for expensive digging up of surfaces.

I think those kind of balls should be used in all tournaments cause they temper the terrible effect the new strings technology have brought to tennis.

More than the court pace or even balls, the new strings is what made the game much more physical and certainly killed SVing at the top level.

I think some courts differences will be partly restored if they adopted "harder" balls everywhere.

New strings allow for a better grip of the ball, hence more spin. Harder balls allows less time in the racquet, less gripping/spin. With less spin, a shot becomes riskier (this is what Nadal hated in that last FO). I think his solution was to lower even the tension...but again, that kills control.

NITB, fair enough - but lets stick to my forum name hey (...its a guitar scale!), otherwise I find twisting it into a woman's name offensive. I dont make apologies for, or feel ashamed of Nadal's game. Those are your words. He combines many attributes into a winning formula to create a record/legacy that just about any player would give their right arm for. Yet he's roundly derided for it on here, but we know 606v2 is broadly anti-Nadal so no news there. My position on this forum regarding Nadal has been usually just to defend what I see as 1-way traffic/targeting when he's not the only player "guilty" of an "offence" or style of play. Thats why I dont wax lyrical about him otherwise, my love of the game is bigger than one player

BB, I think most people see that Nadal takes time after long ralley points to recover, and he's said as much himself. But how is he any different to Djokovic? No-one ever talks about why Novak takes time (and its not just due to ball bouncing either), only Nadal. This is a highly selective focus as it applies to him and loads of other players too. So in that respect I agree the abuse of time is becoming more mainstream as it reflects the physicality of todays game. Something needs to be done, we all agree on that and I've said that myself from as long as this topic has waged on 606v1. Speeding up conditions abit on some surfaces would seem to help. But its a fine balance between marathons and serve-fests, and agree with NITB (and socal) there.

Re: service timing, looking back the "argument" on here from my point of view has been more into the subtlety of when Nadal started to take more time. Tenez argues after Miami 2005, I argue he's always done it...we both say we have stats to back our position but hey lets not go there again, the board doesnt need it. TP, in that respect there'll be no apologies from my perspective on the timing topic unless you meant otherwise? Otherwise I dont think people are that far apart on the topic of players taking more time than the rules allow.

BTW, has anyone timed Murray after long points?

Calder106

What I object to is Murray using the media as a mouthpiece and the way players could use their influence on umpires to get time rules enforced as an unsettling tactic. Murray did this successfully against a much lower ranked and less infuential player than himself recently. This disruption IMO could be more of a problem than someone taking a few extra seconds especially as it is a tactic that can be used by higher ranked players. I totally disagree with the idea that players should try to police this matter.

I didn't call Federer out about his comments about the time rule because he said that enforcement should be in the umpires hands. I totally agree with him. There is a very good reason why umpires and not players (paricularly not players involved in a match) should try and take enforcement into their own hands. Federer also never resorts to deliberate disruptive tactics... nether does Nadal.

hawkeye - I can to a great extent understand, and even empathise with, your bemusement as to the perceived lack of Nadal's popularity here on 606v2.

But there could be various reasons for this. It's worth remembering that many blinkered Nadal fans have - both on the old 606 and to a lesser degree here too - been just as unappreciative of Federer 's achievements as you claim to be the case vice versa. And this can so often end up not only polarising opinion, but also reinforcing existing prejudice, whether irrational or otherwise

I am totally on the same wavelength when you say that "any true tennis fan would appreciate both." We are indeed privileged to have them both around at the same time. In fact, only yesterday I found myself saying that we should make the very most of this exciting rivalry while we can ; it might not be part of the game for too much longer.....

But I do believe there are many 'true tennis fans' who can happily admire and enjoy both players (even though they might ultimately favour one over the other) but for whom some of Rafa's behaviour habits on court have come to taint their overall impression and respect for him. These tactics (MTO's, time delays between points, oddly-timed bathroom breaks) have been discussed ad infinitum, and it's not my intention (or interest) to begin yet another tedious debate. I am, however, comfortable in saying that I put myself firmly in this particular category of tennis fan.

hawkeye wrote:... nether does Nadal.

cough, MTO, bathroom break, cough

Lydian, can you not see that taking more time is much more crucial to Nadal's game than Djokovic? Djokovic can blow people away with heavy artillery groundshots. Look at the way he plays Federer and the way Nadal plays Federer. Nadal hardly can. If asked to speed up, Nadal will struggle more than Djokovic to keep up the quality of his tennis. Of course, I will now be accused of being anti- Nadal for pointing out something so basic as this.

lydian wrote:Re: service timing, looking back the "argument" on here from my point of view has been more into the subtlety of when Nadal started to take more time. Tenez argues after Miami 2005, I argue he's always done it...we both say we have stats to back our position but hey lets not go there again, the board doesnt need it. TP, in that respect there'll be no apologies from my perspective on the timing topic unless you meant otherwise? Otherwise I dont think people are that far apart on the topic of players taking more time than the rules allow.

Why not drown the fish once and for all.

To me, Nadal and Toni may have known from day one that Nadal needed more time between points but they were like everybody else trying to abide by the rule. There was no routine before Miami 2005 as can be very easily verified by anybody. Before then, extra time was only taken if absolutely needed like after a gruelling rally.

The Miami 2005 loss clearly teaches team Nadal an important lesson. That controlling this time taking is extremely important for the outcome of a long match. And therefore a routine was put in place 2 weeks later to be applied from the first point of the match, whether it's a gruelling rally or not. That is the same routine we see today.

I have never understood this notion that any true fan of tennis should enjoy both Federer's game and Nadal's game. Why? It is easy to think why someone would, for eg, like neither player, and enjoy the style of say Sampras. Who are we to decide what someone else should enjoy and shouldn't?

lydian wrote:BTW, has anyone timed Murray after long points?

I actually did a couple of times in that Harrison AO match...and was a bit gutted to see that he went over 30s on longer rallies...AFTER having complained to the referee about Ryan's time abuse.

Hawkeye,
How is Murray using the media. There is no interview with him that has been published where he has said this. They may have chatted informally about it and he may have said that players use it to recover after long rallies. Nadal has said this himself so it's not news. Do you really think he has gone to Barry Cowan and said I want you to say this on television to get under Nadal's skin ? I'm sure if he wanted to make a point out of it he would say so publicly himself. Remember you are the one who is always critising what he says in his Neil Harman discussions ?

Lydian,

I agree Murray can also take more than 20/25 seconds after long points. As I said previously it's not just one player.

Tennisanorak wrote:I have never understood this notion that any true fan of tennis should enjoy both Federer's game and Nadal's game. Why? It is easy to think why someone would, for eg, like neither player, and enjoy the style of say Sampras. Who are we to decide what someone else should enjoy and shouldn't?

True....like only those enjoying both styles can be "unbiased" posters. Non-sense to me.

I do not enjoy Nadal's style but I like the challenge he represents for the players whose styles I like. If I can be perfectly honest, the challenge was a bit too much at times....for my liking.

Absolutely, Tenez. If everyone liked all styles, it would be really boring! My view on Nadal is very similar. He's a good defensive player, so it's fun to see aggressive players playing against him. But when he plays another defensive player (or forces an aggressive player to play defensively- you know who I'm talking about!), it can get pretty boring.

I wonder how many in the crowd watching Nadal play last night counted the seconds between points...

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Not quite sure how the players will get away with taking drugs considering there are regular check ups on them.

Do you know how Agassi got away with it??? Do you know how Marion jones got away with it more than 100 times??

1. This "regular check-ups" is known to people just because they told it so. There is no way for anyone to verify if there are at all any "regular check-ups". They maybe are done or they may not be.
2. Even if there is, we don't know how is it done for sure?
3. We don't know what was the result of the test. They declare it, but there is no way to verify it.
4. Business is run on different terms and they may not be inline with integrity.

If we more talk about it, our thread may get deleted or thread locked or user banned. This subject is a taboo on 606v2. So lets stop here.

Given that the ATP and ITF have tightened up their guidelines and their checks on players. I think it is silly given Agassi tested positive for a recreational drug much rather than a PED so any inhalation or lip kissing isn't really going to explain a PED in the system given I haven't come across an airbourne susbstance that inhances performance that is currently banned.

Point 2 and 3 just smack of cynical thinking. So because you don't see it means that it lacks integrity?

I somehow that if a Nadal or Federer or Djokovic or even Murray tested positive for a banned substance would be kept out of the public eye somehow. It would take an MI5 D notice for that.

Tennisanorak wrote:Lydian, can you not see that taking more time is much more crucial to Nadal's game than Djokovic? Djokovic can blow people away with heavy artillery groundshots. Look at the way he plays Federer and the way Nadal plays Federer. Nadal hardly can. If asked to speed up, Nadal will struggle more than Djokovic to keep up the quality of his tennis. Of course, I will now be accused of being anti- Nadal for pointing out something so basic as this.

Come on now, no need to be facetious with the anti-Nadal comment. What I see is two players abusing the time rules. When you say look at the way he plays Federer their matches are still ding-dong for 3-4 hours. Its not like Nole blows Fed off court is it! And conversely Nadal has had some relatively easy wins against Federer in the past also so this argument is by no means the conclusive statement you make it out to be. I'm not syaing they playing EXACTLY the same game, that would be ridiculous but on the other hand perhaps you fail to notice Djokovic breathing hard through his matches and hence wanting to take his time between points. But hey, lets not stop the focus on Nadal only for this reason...and in that regard it becomes an anti-Nadal discussion if we dont question other players for the very same thing.

Back to the OP.

Every year at a tournament there is always talk of the time between points. The pundits themselves don't seem to want to voice it as a massive issue that should be tackled by the umpires and the ATP.

I just think that for me it is an issue I have given up actually purely because that the pundits don't seem too phased by it and also his post match interviews it is never mentioned to him.

I just can't see what else can be said which hasn't already.