The advantage of modern three set tennis

It's Sunday and I wanted to watch the match, but also I need to take out the posts supporting 6 trees in my garden. What to do?

The answer is that I can watch through to 5-5 first set, then get my gear and go out for some strenuous garden work, then come back safe in the knowledge that I won't have missed the result. I got back for 5-5 2nd set and saw the tb.

Now I may get another job in before catching the climax of the decider. Great stuff!

They are both taking 31/32 seconds per point to play, which is not close to as bad as Nadal, so I can't exactly be too harsh on them. First 2 sets are littered with deuces which also explains the length of time.

I think someone should check but I heard that next year the umpire can give the players a fault like a foot fault for taking too long to serve. Robbie koenig mentioned it on the US broadcast. Does anyone have confirmation of this? I like the rule change I think it is needed I am bit tired of all the toweling off between every point.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:They are both taking 31/32 seconds per point to play, which is not close to as bad as Nadal, so I can't exactly be too harsh on them. First 2 sets are littered with deuces which also explains the length of time.

There is hardly any difference between Novak and Rafa.. THEY BOTH take too long
DelPo is not too far behind. and nor is Andy. It matters not who is worse if its over the time allowed then its still a time violation.

Andy used to be bouncing the ball 3 times before hitting his serve and nowadays he's bouncing it 6to save himself from tiring out.

He has been doing it ever since Lendl started coaching him. Delpo takes his time by walking (or ambling) around the back of the court.. first to one ball girl/boy for one ball then the other side for the 2nd ball. There are players who are a lot less obvious than Novak and Rafa but they take their time all the same. I think there are a few areas of on court behaviour that need addressing. As Socal said the excessive use of towelling is annoying... understandable when its really hot but some players use it as a "comfort blanket" I think

Ivan Ljubicic ‏@theljubicic
8 games, 6 breaks. #ihaveretiredontime

The God has spoken.

Really this goes to support what Tenez used to say (a lot); that enforcing the time rules would have a huge effect on the way the game is played - these guys simply wouldn't be able to play this game.

it's overdue..TV/internet should start editing out all the time btwn pts..you could watch a replay of a 3hr match in 1hr

Next time you play tennis (if you play) - try bouncing the ball 12-14 times before you serve. It seems to take forever.

Here's how it can be done, without an ace too.....

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wANNg3fcIII

49 secs and 2 points had ralleys!

I'm all for the top guys getting a move on, and agree a faster paced game could theoretically yield a more aggressive game as it seemingly instil that mindset. So yes a few of us agreed with the theory behind Tenez's point. However, my disagreement with him to the bitter end was his oft mentioned Nadal change of approach to longer points after Miami 2005. The evidence never back this assertion..,or rather there was evidence to the contrary when you examined his matches before 2005. Nadal also tends to take the same average time per point - around 27-30 secs - whether it's a 2hr or 5hr match. AO12 showed that.

BUT...this does not mean he, or any of the other guys who are slow, should get away with it. Absolutely not. They need to clamp down. They also need to speed the courts/conditions up so ralleys are shorter because when 2 guys have just had a 40 shot ralley then no way on earth are you going to get them serving within 20secs for next point in ITF event, ie. slam. This is the problem...longer ralleys need more recovery time for all the players...and you can't clip the game by making them hit shorter ralleys, they just won't do it...mid battle in a point they aren't going to be thinking of how much time they need for the next serve. This is one of the reasons why the current 20/25 sec rule will be a problem to enforce under present conditions.

lydian wrote:and you can't clip the game by making them hit shorter ralleys, they just won't do it...

I think they would. If not consciously then by natural selection. Even if no individual player changed their approach to how they play mid-point (though I think they would), the players who naturally go for more (a la say Tsonga) would just find themselves more successful. That said, I do agree that current conditions do not help.

Also, I realized the said advantage of modern tennis too late today. Decided against watching the final as it was starting 4:30am my time and that was a bit too early to wake up. If I had been only thinking clearly I could have realized I could set my alarm clock for 6am or so, and still catch most of the match.

See if you can catch some highlights somewhere, it was a good match.

Henman Bill wrote:See if you can catch some highlights somewhere, it was a good match.

Ok, thanks, will try. It will be highlights only though, too long to sit through the whole thing.

Some may disagree but I think It adds to tennis as a spectacle, For instance the near 6 hour Oz final brought so many of my friends to tennis. Faster courts may encourage more aggressive play, but very few casual fans get impressed with '125mph serve out wide, then forehand winner`, Its more the scramble D that gets the people. If you think I`m being dumb, go on YouTube and see which player gets more views, Nadal/Djokovic scrambling or Ivanisevic serving. It's human nature to see want to see people pushing their bödies, & thats more likely with a 30-shöt rally than 90s click-cick boom

Perhaps SB, it's an interesting chicken/egg type discussion.

We have to recognise that the 20/25s rule was created back in the 70s/80s under the umbrella of much faster conditions. So lets say conditions are 50% slower now...should that mean ATP apply 25s+50% per point, i.e. 37.5s? This is the fly in the ointment of sticking to 20/25s...why should they when conditions are slower?

I would be all for creating a new time frame which is stuck to 100%. but think the current 20/25s rule is untenable to enforce.

Of course, there is the concept of making the time limit relative to the speed index of the surface but this is never going to happen. Or if a person serves an ace they get 10s less....this won't happen either.

IMO, ATP/ITF will create a new unified time soon, e.g. 30 or 35s which will be enforced 100%.

kingraf wrote:Some may disagree but I think It adds to tennis as a spectacle, For instance the near 6 hour Oz final brought so many of my friends to tennis. Faster courts may encourage more aggressive play, but very few casual fans get impressed with '125mph serve out wide, then forehand winner`, Its more the scramble D that gets the people. If you think I`m being dumb, go on YouTube and see which player gets more views, Nadal/Djokovic scrambling or Ivanisevic serving. It's human nature to see want to see people pushing their bödies, & thats more likely with a 30-shöt rally than 90s click-cick boom

I agree with you kingraf but that isn't a popular opinion here as everyone wants to see great gets an desperate shots being hit from a mad dash. That is why they slowed the courts in the first place the big servers on faster surfaces with the technical advances were destroying the marketablitity of the game.

kingraf wrote:It's human nature to see want to see people pushing their bödies, & thats more likely with a
30-shöt rally than 90s click-cick boom

Perhaps then we should aim for conditions that have 50, 60 or 70 shot rallies?

I think first of all, on surface speed, courts should be faster behind the service line and slower in front. I genuinely think this is worthy of consideration.

Also, you can't have a rule and not enforce it. I think something should be done about it. As a spectator, I prefer to watch more of something happening and less of nothing happening. Funny that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kingraf wrote:It's human nature to see want to see people pushing their bödies, & thats more likely with a
30-shöt rally than 90s click-cick boom

Perhaps then we should aim for conditions that have 50, 60 or 70 shot rallies?

Great idea. The more (shots) the merrier.

kingraf wrote:Some may disagree but I think It adds to tennis as a spectacle, For instance the near 6 hour Oz final brought so many of my friends to tennis. Faster courts may encourage more aggressive play, but very few casual fans get impressed with '125mph serve out wide, then forehand winner`, Its more the scramble D that gets the people. If you think I`m being dumb, go on YouTube and see which player gets more views, Nadal/Djokovic scrambling or Ivanisevic serving. It's human nature to see want to see people pushing their bödies, & thats more likely with a 30-shöt rally than 90s click-cick boom

I understand your point but I think the reason why that match captured the imagination at the time was because it was unique in it's length and physical brutality. However if more and more matches start to go that way then I think the novelty will wear off very soon. Today's match was 3.5 hours for three sets. Imagine if it had been best of five - it would have reached the same length as the AUS match. Even hardcore tennis fans would have a difficult time sitting through six hours of defence and retrieval. And what about TV? and scheduling?

Furthermore it is an arguement in extremis to suggest a return to the boom boom tennis of the nineties is the only alternative. No-one is calling for W 90's style grass speeds to be implemented on the whole tour, just a variety of different speeds that allow for different brands of tennis to be played and utilised with success. Hence you can actually have different players with different styles compete against each other. Currently everyone plays the same brand of tennis with minor variations (Tsonga, Federer, Llodra to name a few). The only successful style on the slow-medium paced homogenised tour is the brutal grinding physical style ala Nadal, Novak and Murray - and it's not their fault, they know they have to adopt this to be successful. Didn't Djokovic recently come out and say the same thing?

Besides, speeding up conditions in some tournaments is not gonna result in a return to the nineties W matches. The players are too athletic, too fast and string technology and heavier balls, ensure that modern players will always be able to get their rackets on the balls resulting in long rallies. We just don't need every point to become a replay of the previous, which in all honestly (and just my opinion) is what it feels like whenever the three guys mentioned play.

As for the Ivanisevic youtube thing, well that's just unfair. Most casual fans will not have even heard of him, he is not an active player, is rarely in the media spotlight, is not flavour of the month, hasn't got his photo plastered all over the print and electronic media, so of course he will not get as many hits on youtube. I expect Borg-Mac's classic W final has less hits than the AUS match due to the same reasons above - I doubt there is any arguement as to which was the better, more exciting match.



emancipator

Look, I`m not saying I`m against speeding up the courts (I don't follow tennis enough to really care anymore), but what I am saying, is given the choice between two sports your'e only mildly interested in, people normally choose the more physically grinding one. I'm not even saying make the courts slower. All I am saying is that, outrageous defence makes for better TV than Serve-serve-serve. It is my opinion, just like in cricket with t20, that once the novelty wears off, a change of court speed would still leave you with the same top players. Nadal making 3rd round of WIMBLEDON at 17 decade ago, despite having played only a handful öf grass matches to me indicates that good=good, no matter what the rules... In related news, Nadal was receiving time violations even then. Tennis is a serious player on the table in sports now, Thanks in no small part to guys like Nadal & Djoko, so while I believe that they would still be among the best despite the faster surfaces, I doubt the ATP would risk theyre biggest cash cows by suddenly invoking time violations. I'm not saying the ATP stack chips in these guys favours, but they certainly aren`t gonna take them away. He who brings the bat makes the rules, and by virtue of bringing the most revenue tö tennis, the big dogs can have their lee-way. Is it fair? No! But its pretty financially sound...

kingraf wrote:Look, I`m not saying I`m against speeding up the courts (I don't follow tennis enough to really care anymore), but what I am saying, is given the choice between two sports your'e only mildly interested in, people normally choose the more physically grinding one. I'm not even saying make the courts slower. All I am saying is that, outrageous defence makes for better TV than Serve-serve-serve. It is my opinion, just like in cricket with t20, that once the novelty wears off, a change of court speed would still leave you with the same top players. Nadal making 3rd round of WIMBLEDON at 17 decade ago, despite having played only a handful öf grass matches to me indicates that good=good, no matter what the rules... In related news, Nadal was receiving time violations even then. Tennis is a serious player on the table in sports now, Thanks in no small part to guys like Nadal & Djoko, so while I believe that they would still be among the best despite the faster surfaces, I doubt the ATP would risk theyre biggest cash cows by suddenly invoking time violations. I'm not saying the ATP stack chips in these guys favours, but they certainly aren`t gonna take them away. He who brings the bat makes the rules, and by virtue of bringing the most revenue tö tennis, the big dogs can have their lee-way. Is it fair? No! But its pretty financially sound...

Spot on, bravo what a good post. I have been saying many of these same things and have been mocked for it, but you are saying it now most eloquently and with some interesting additional ideas as well. People do like to see athletes suffer and be pushed to feats of physical exertion to get there glory. I was suffering watching my favorite player last night Novak and you could tell that both guys were leaving nothing in the tank as reserve. Of course Djoko and Nadal would be great players even with more surface variation but that is something that some have disputted. And despite the massive amounts of complaints we hear online from the purists there is a VERY, VERY important reason the people who run the sport decided to slow it down. Here it is for you: $. Period end of story. If those running the game think the fans prefer big serve and attack tennis that is precisely what they will tilt the scales towards. Tennis was losing in popularity in the late 90s and early 2000s. Multimilionaire business don't take drastic wholesale measures like that unless they see themselves in danger of losing major market share. And the reason it hasn't been changed back now after more than a decade is that the majority of fans are happy and by extension those running these events are happy.

I guess that's why the Marathon is so much more popular than the 100m at the Olympics, and nobody knows who that guy is who wins those short sprints without breaking sweat.

Ah, but the 100m is different, its the showpiece of the game, the title of world's fastest man is pretty awesome! That said, as a guy who did a bit of athletics, and who once went to watch the Comrades Ultramarathon, I can say that where I come from, people are pretty obsessed with watching marathons. They dont even have to know the guy! Whereas a 100m not featuring Bolt, Blake, Powell, & maybe Gay will struggle to half-fill a 5,000-seater if there isnt some sort of OLYMPIC connotation. I obviously cant speak for the rest of the world, just where I come from. But in RSA, marathon running were to become a stand-alone sport, it would probably be the best attended.

They'll bring in new time rules, e.g. 30/35s, across all events and it'll be a hard and fast rule.