Grigor favours the new rule

A sense of things to come.
Since the implementation of the new stricter interpretation of the 25 sec rules, it looks like some positive impact on the tour is already notable.

Three pure shotmakers qualyfied for the semis in Brisbane and Dimitrov has just booked a place in the final. While in Doha Davidenko and Gasquet are battling in the final. Can it be just a coincidence?

Players appear to have different views on the issue: might not be so surprising that Dimitrov is in favour:

"I think it's good," he said. "Let's not forget that the players voted for that, so I guess it's if they want it to be there, it's there. It's kind of their call."

Intresting to notice that the rule was voted by the players.

It's also wotrth mentioning that the decision was taken at a time when Nadal was no longer in the board of player council. And that the most defensive players appear to have critical view on the new rule.

Only coincidences?

Davy destroyed Ferrer 2 and 3.

Such a talented ball striker.

but blew up against gasquet

Ha ha! I bet Grigor loves the new 25 second rule. In his close fought semi final in Brisbane today the final set went to a tie break. At 2 all in the tie break Baghdatis was given a point penalty and lost a service point. Grigor went on to win the tie break and of course the match. It doesn't matter how well you hit forehands and backhands what really counts is how quickly you move between points.

Ha ha! It would be funny if it wasn't true...

hawkeye wrote:At 2 all in the tie break Baghdatis was given a point penalty and lost a service point. Grigor went on to win the tie break and of course the match.

What a silly rule

The rule is great

But can you tell me how it's favoured the shotmakers as your article aludes?

Isn't Baghdatis one of those players, who fell foul of the rule?

Since when as Gasquet been known as a shotmaker?

I think some make up descriptions of players, to suit the arguments

Can 3 shotmakers make the semi's of a tournament on their own merits with nothing to do with the rule?
Of course

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! I bet Grigor loves the new 25 second rule. In his close fought semi final in Brisbane today the final set went to a tie break. At 2 all in the tie break Baghdatis was given a point penalty and lost a service point. Grigor went on to win the tie break and of course the match. It doesn't matter how well you hit forehands and backhands what really counts is how quickly you move between points.

Ha ha! It would be funny if it wasn't true...

Did you see this happen? I haven't seen the incident but even without doing so can spot what would seem likely to be a major error in your report of it...

Born Slippy wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! I bet Grigor loves the new 25 second rule. In his close fought semi final in Brisbane today the final set went to a tie break. At 2 all in the tie break Baghdatis was given a point penalty and lost a service point. Grigor went on to win the tie break and of course the match. It doesn't matter how well you hit forehands and backhands what really counts is how quickly you move between points.

Ha ha! It would be funny if it wasn't true...

Did you see this happen? I haven't seen the incident but even without doing so can spot what would seem likely to be a major error in your report of it...

Dimitrov will aim to usurp the defending champion after a 6-3 5-7 7-6 triumph against Marcos Baghdatis that was notable for the Cypriot being penalised for a time violation in the deciding tiebreaker.

The Association of Tennis Professionals is trying to speed up matches and an automatic fault was called against Baghdatis when he exceeded the time limit at 2-2 in the tiebreaker.

Baghdatis was clearly agitated by the call at such a crucial juncture and Dimitrov won the decider 7-5 to reach his first tour final and earn a clash with Murray.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/tennis-murray-final-nishikori-retires-071407471.html

I think Born Slippy may be referring to the fact that it was not a "point penalty". I saw the match and the incident, and I kind of like the new rules (well, I thought the old rules were good enough, but the application was lacking).

The match was progressing at a nice pace (no infinitely long waits while players are toweling their faces) while it did not feel hurried. As Marcos was preparing to serve for that point at 2:2, I was actually thinking he was taking way too long but did not think the referee would have the guts to call it. I was quite happy to see that she did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp6olmG0KbA&list=UUqV0MI8YsCQpVfuXo2kz5Jw&index=1

2:19:20 onwards

I have watched it now. He took ages (some might describe it as a Nadal-esque pause) and lost his first serve as a result. Seems like exactly the type of behaviour that should be penalised.

On a side note, my match report of Davydenko Gasquet:
http://www.sportpulse.net/content/gasquet-edges-davydenko-win-doha-title-6109

Baghdatis lost the point on the 2nd serve btw

falzy21 wrote:Can 3 shotmakers make the semi's of a tournament on their own merits with nothing to do with the rule?
Of course

They can and I would be surprised if the rule had that much effect as to significantly impact SF line-up.

On the other hand, this new rule does have potential to be somewhat more than just cosmetic. It may slightly adjust the balance in favor of more attacking and less defensive tennis. In other words, it may have some impact on what constitutes "meritorious" play.

What a great rule - just a tragedy that it wasn't in place 10 years ago.

Federer would have three career Slams by now,and eight Wimbledons, five Australians.

bogbrush. If the rule was in place ten years ago poor weedy (but highly talented) Federer would have won nothing. Same goes for Nadal with his weak physique. Tennis by now would be dominated by the sort of athletes that compete in triathlons or cycling. The sort willing to spend most of their time in the gym as the sport would reward continuous physical effort above beautiful play. And I for one wouldn't have "wasted" so much time watching.

Well since Federer already plays within the 'new' rule, that doesn't make much sense.

You have it the wrong way round, it's the likes of Nadal and Djokovic who will look at this rule with trepidation.

People are adaptable things.
Nadal and Djokovic aren't successful because of the time they take between points, it's what happens during points players need to worry about.
If they need to speed up, theyll do just that, they'll still be a nightmare for attacking players.

But they won't be dragging everyone into endless 40 stroke rallies by superhuman retrieving.

banbrotam wrote:

Since when as Gasquet been known as a shotmaker?

I think some make up descriptions of players, to suit the arguments

probably you believe Gasquet, Davy, Dimitrov, Baggy and Nishikori are all retrievers and perhaps Ferrer, Djokovic and Murray are the real shotmakers on the tour. No surprise from someone who proudly stated that prime Tommy Haas wasn't good at tennis........

someone wrote: "But a lot of that does sometimes come down to physically how mature you are and also when you start playing. If you've been playing since you were a young kid then you're ahead of guys. That makes a difference. But he is unbelievably talented. He's got really good hand-eye co-ordination and he's a great ball-striker."

Anyway..... for your own good, I won't tell you who said that about whom

bogbrush wrote:Well since Federer already plays within the 'new' rule, that doesn't make much sense.

You have it the wrong way round, it's the likes of Nadal and Djokovic who will look at this rule with trepidation.

She does seem to be saying that Nadal won't be happy, but only because his "weak physique" won't be able to handle it.

The jury is still out for me on exactly who this will favour. Obviously, it's good for Fed, he is supremely fit and always plays within the rule anyway. However, if say Djokovic and DP play, then DP would seem to me likely to be in real trouble. Even if he is the more aggressive player, he will still get drawn into far more rallies than against the majority of the tour and he does not have Djokovic's supreme fitness levels. I could see this rule causing the likes of DP and Berdych real problems against the top 4. Worth noting that the archetypal grinder, Ferrer, plays quickly and never seems to have any difficulty sustaining his Duracell bunny impression.

The problem for Nadal is more likely to be mental than physical. He will have to stop some of his habits and will also no longer be able to take an eternity delaying the match whilst he focuses for a big point. He will be hurt badly if the rule is properly enforced against him, which is presumably why HE is so set against it.

I think the rule is a great idea and it's good to see it implemented. I don't know why anyone thinks it's a good idea to play every point like match point. The whole point is that you have to use your available stamina strategically, not artificially extending it by breaking the rules. To believe that a player whose game is based on standing 4m behind the baseline and retrieving everything point after point won't be affected is optimistic.

It remains to be seen how much impact the rule will have but it is clear that it will tend to help aggressive players.

Did not both Nadal and Andy say something to the effect that with the long rallies in today's tennis it was difficult to stay within the rules?

Anyone remind me what events does this cover?

summerblues wrote:It remains to be seen how much impact the rule will have but it is clear that it will tend to help aggressive players.

Did not both Nadal and Andy say something to the effect that with the long rallies in today's tennis it was difficult to stay within the rules?

Murray has spoken in favour of a 30 sec rule. The fact remains that majority of players voted for a more rigorous 25 sec rule enforcement. Let's see what happens in the AO......

I've not been paying attention. Is this in for Slams?

Wow.

bogbrush wrote:I've not been paying attention. Is this in for Slams?

Wow.

Apparently not, according to my sources.

bogbrush wrote:What a great rule - just a tragedy that it wasn't in place 10 years ago.

Federer would have three career Slams by now,and eight Wimbledons, five Australians.

LOL
He would have won 5 slams a year

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I've not been paying attention. Is this in for Slams?

Wow.

Apparently not, according to my sources.

I am not convinced at all. Murray said that they came out with the rule in response to last year's AO final. Consequently.....

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:What a great rule - just a tragedy that it wasn't in place 10 years ago.

Federer would have three career Slams by now,and eight Wimbledons, five Australians.

LOL
He would have won 5 slams a year

Great move to ridicule rather than engage, because you know what I say is right.

I read that Murray's preference for a 30 second rule was just to cover issues such as untied shoelaces or broken strings. I guess those situations will de down to the umpires discretion and they will be on the lookout for players having an "untied shoelace" after every single long rally.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

summerblues wrote:It remains to be seen how much impact the rule will have but it is clear that it will tend to help aggressive players.

Did not both Nadal and Andy say something to the effect that with the long rallies in today's tennis it was difficult to stay within the rules?

Murray has spoken in favour of a 30 sec rule. The fact remains that majority of players voted for a more rigorous 25 sec rule enforcement. Let's see what happens in the AO......

I believe he was justifying the 30 secs suggestion with the length of rallies in current tennis. Which to me suggests he agrees with the opinion of most of us here who think that shorter time between the points will make those rallies more difficult.

In my mind that would definitely be a good thing. Also, a nice thing about this would be that it would give aggressive players better chance to succeed without necessarily giving big servers too much of an extra advantage (unlike say speeding up of the conditions might). As much as I dislike endless rallies a la Rafa or Nole, I find servefests even more boring. To this day, I think of Sampras Ivanisevic Wimbledon matches as the ultimate in tennnis boredom.

summerblues wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

summerblues wrote:It remains to be seen how much impact the rule will have but it is clear that it will tend to help aggressive players.

Did not both Nadal and Andy say something to the effect that with the long rallies in today's tennis it was difficult to stay within the rules?

Murray has spoken in favour of a 30 sec rule. The fact remains that majority of players voted for a more rigorous 25 sec rule enforcement. Let's see what happens in the AO......

I believe he was justifying the 30 secs suggestion with the length of rallies in current tennis. Which to me suggests he agrees with the opinion of most of us here who think that shorter time between the points will make those rallies more difficult.

In my mind that would definitely be a good thing. Also, a nice thing about this would be that it would give aggressive players better chance to succeed without necessarily giving big servers too much of an extra advantage (unlike say speeding up of the conditions might). As much as I dislike endless rallies a la Rafa or Nole, I find servefests even more boring. To this day, I think of Sampras Ivanisevic Wimbledon matches as the ultimate in tennnis boredom.

Murray is strongly in favour of there being no flexibility in the enforcement of the rule after long rallies though. He clearly has faith in his ability to recover fast.

Have to agree re Sampras Ivanisevic at Wimbledon. Both were exceptional players but I can only cope with so many sets consisting of 48 aces and a tie break

Interesting that the opinion of most is that the solution lay merely in the rigorous enforcement of an existing rule.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:What a great rule - just a tragedy that it wasn't in place 10 years ago.

Federer would have three career Slams by now,and eight Wimbledons, five Australians.

LOL
He would have won 5 slams a year

Great move to ridicule rather than engage, because you know what I say is right.

Yep, you can take that basically as an admission from me

Actually I think what Murray said was spot on in this case.
Enforce the rule, but stretch the limit to 30 seconds.

I now found Murray's quote here:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/05/uk-tennis-brisbane-men-idUKBRE90403M20130105

He brings up a few points (including the shoe lace argument - but that one I think can be handled at the discretion of the referee, no need to go to 30 secs because of that). Some of the things he says:

I also think tennis has changed since the time rule began between points. The rallies are much, much longer, so therefore it takes longer to recover.

Also:

All it takes is a shoelace to come undone and you're out of time. Guys have been getting warnings when they change their racquet for breaking a string or whatever. That's also not right.

and also:

I think it's wrong that people say they have to give a bit of leeway if there is a long point, I don't agree with that. I think that's when the person who is physically stronger gains an advantage. They should be recovering in a certain amount of time, but I just think they should have adjusted the time slightly.

What I like about the last one is that it very explicitly acknowledges that there is a connection between time taken between points and what happens during the point (what a shock).

Except that I think 25 secs is just fine. But I guess that will depend to some extent on what tennis you prefer. I prefer more aggressive tennis, so I am inclinced to prefer the rules that help that. Other people, if they prefer more attritional type of battles, may prefer different rules.

Fair enough summer blues. Personally I think that the frequent offenders would struggle with 30 seconds as well but am happy with 25 seconds. I will be interested to see if the number of times players pause to re-tie their laces / change their racquets increases in the coming months though.

carrieg4 wrote:I will be interested to see if the number of times players pause to re-tie their laces / change their racquets increases in the coming months though.

LOL, funny.

I was also initially wondering whether 25 secs might be a bit too tight but when I was watching Brisbane SF and final, it did not feel like players were hurried. They played at a nice pace but they were not rushed. The one point where Marcos got penalized he was clearly stretching the time - I thought that was exactly the type of thing that needed to see the rule applied.

The 25 secs is plenty; you watch Federer and he never seems to be running around to get to serve, it's all very lazy. He just doesn't add in a load of nonsense to drag it out.

Ironically I think this is an opportunity for Nadal. If he comes back and does really well under this rule he will have disproven all the theories about him dragging it out for benefit. Nadal fans shoud be welcoming this, if they have faith in him I can't understand the hostility to the initiative.

It's nothing to do with Nadal, Im just speaking out for the children.

It Must Be Love wrote:It's nothing to do with Nadal, Im just speaking out for the children.

Ha ha! It's funny how so many are in favor of a ridiculous rule because they think it will benefit their favorite player by penalizing Nadal. I'm quite amused that it is being introduced when he isn't playing. Fate can sometimes play funny tricks. Part of me is quite enjoying the chaos it will continue to cause. Wouldn't it be funny if due to it's obvious stupidity it had been abandoned before Nadal returns?

Next time maybe they will try and be more specific when they try and handicap one player with the introduction of a new rule? How about all players have to play with their right hand? Ha ha! Nadal is in the conversation as the greatest of all time but he is beginning to be a clear leader for the player who has had the most impact on the sport.

hawkeye wrote:Ha ha! It's funny how so many are in favor of a ridiculous rule because they think it will benefit their favorite player by penalizing Nadal. I'm quite amused that it is being introduced when he isn't playing. Fate can sometimes play funny tricks. Part of me is quite enjoying the chaos it will continue to cause. Wouldn't it be funny if due to it's obvious stupidity it had been abandoned before Nadal returns?

Next time maybe they will try and be more specific when they try and handicap one player with the introduction of a new rule? How about all players have to play with their right hand? Ha ha! Nadal is in the conversation as the greatest of all time but he is beginning to be a clear leader for the player who has had the most impact on the sport.

1. I'm sure Uncle Toni is working on nothing else.

2. It's not a new rule, it's enforcing a current one. Try as you might to misrepresent this I'm going to keep reminding you.

Like I say, you should be rejoicing. Now he can prove guys like Tenez wrong. Happy days, surely?

I agree bogbrush, this is an opportunity for Rafa to shut up the detractors. And you know what, I think if forced to play his service games at a brisker pace he'll cope absolutely fine.

He may be the one who has to adapt most, but adapt he will. With less recovery time it might force him to play closer to the baseline and do less scurrying. I think Rafa fans shouldn't worry at all, He'll cope fine with this.

I agree with bogbrush and Danny, Nadal will adapt just fine.

HE

Can you clarify why you think the rule is stupid?

Someone should then knock over his water bottles and that will annoy him as he won't have time to set them up again within 25 seconds

Seriously, I don't see it affecting too much. I just hope the umpires are lenient when it comes to broken strings, any rallies over 40 shots and legitimate shoelace problems.

As the players voted for it, maybe they're all stupid as well?

hawkeye wrote:

Next time maybe they will try and be more specific when they try and handicap one player with the introduction of a new rule?

HE - What do you mean "they"? This enforcement of an existing rule (not a new rule) is in place because it has been voted for by the players!!

Sorry to ruin your conspiracy theory about an anti-Rafa dictatorship running the game!