Grigor favours the new rule

First topic message reminder :

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?

Technically, the rule has been softened. Instead of a point penalty it is now just a second serve. 25s has always been there, only it was not being enforced. In some ways, the new apporach is a compromise - soften the rule but then try to stick with it.

[quote="Jeremy_Kyleprobably 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[/quote]


Jeremy, two major errors in your assumptiuons about my judgment

1) Since I pointed out that the new rule hardly favoured Baggy, then I was obviously classing him as a shotmaker
2) I never ever stated that "Tommy Haas wasn't good at tennis". I did however state that it showed how low the standard had dropped in 2002, when he could become No.2 in the world

Also, I've never ever heard Gasquet described as a shot maker. If he's one then virtually every player in the world is.

And that's my point. The term "shotmaker" is far too vague (in this article) to have any real meaning. I can think of numerous matches where Murray looked like a 'shotmaker' (baring in mind, apparantly Richard is!!) and times when other 'shotmakers' play passive

For isntance, where does Nadal at his ruthless best fit in - doesn't he have one of the best winning shots in the game?

Nah!! Your view is that of an idealist, who looks at certain players through rose tinted glasses, simply because you resent the success of the likes of Nole and Andy. The reality is that if you get some of your favoured players through to 15 consecutive Slam SF's (or whatever Nole's done) and you will see that there has to be lots of 'non shotmakin' simply because you can't look a million dollars all the time - nice though it would be

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

Sadly some of them are. Did you read Murray's befuddled talk about this rule. I couldn't make sense of it and neither can those that have attempted to report what he said. Some say he's for it and some say he's dead against it. The only bit that was clear was where he said the only time he went over 25 seconds was when he was bouncing the ball and that he thought that was unfair.

But stupid or not the players council has little power. Also most players are too individualistic to be able to work together in a team for the good of the sport.

summerblues wrote:Technically, the rule has been softened. Instead of a point penalty it is now just a second serve. 25s has always been there, only it was not being enforced. In some ways, the new apporach is a compromise - soften the rule but then try to stick with it.

No it's not been softened it has been hardened because it has become inflexible. It removes discretion and because of this it is has already impacted on match results. It will cause chaos. It will cause chaos but then I'm pretty sure it will be abandoned as it is ridiculous and unworkable.

If I was a player at the moment I would be tempted to get someone to time my opponent. If they took longer than 25 seconds (and they would because this sort of exact measurement won't always happen) at any point during the match and didn't receive a warning or punishment and I did it could be used as evidence of unfair treatment. Unfair treatment that could be argued made the difference between a win and a loss and involves a fair bit of money. Once umpire discretion has supposedly been removed it opens so many cans of worms it will be impossible to keep track.

Yeah, let's avoid unfair treatment by letting some players abuse the rules every point. Yes, I can't see why I didn't see the sense in that from the start.

HE - you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. No surprise really as you are paranoid that its all so unfair on Rafa.

I think you should give Rafa more credit. He's too good to be derailed by an enforcement of an existing rule. At least I think so anyway.... But I guess not everyone sees it that way.

As for Murray's "befuddled" comments, he said he was all for it although thought maybe it should be a touch more than 25 seconds to start with as players won't be used to it. Is that clear enough for you?

Jelena Jankovic's coach did that once in a final against Venus I think. They do need to be careful about it getting out of hand.

If there's less time between points i'm not sure how that doesn't favour Rafa or Djokovic beyond having to stop some superstitions. They're extremely fit, they won't get as much recovery time no, but neither will there opponent.

I'm pretty sure the main defence of the rule abuse was that it was down to the powers that be to enforce the rule. Well now they are, so it's all good, right?

Danny_1982

This rule won't affect Nadal any more than other players and if you haven't noticed he isn't playing at the moment so it's not affecting him at all. The only reason his name comes up so often is because so many naively think it's only him that will be affected. That in itself is stupid. Anyway it will cause chaos and then it will be abandoned because not only is it stupid it is also unworkable.

carrieg4 wrote:

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

Don't be silly carrieg4. We all know Andy is dreading this - as such a passive retriever (who has relied merely on fitness for all his quarter of a century of tournament wins) would

hawkeye wrote:Danny_1982

This rule won't affect Nadal any more than other players and if you haven't noticed he isn't playing at the moment so it's not affecting him at all. The only reason his name comes up so often is because so many naively think it's only him that will be affected. That in itself is stupid. Anyway it will cause chaos and then it will be abandoned because not only is it stupid it is also unworkable.

Change of mind then since you said this:

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

bogbrush wrote:Yeah, let's avoid unfair treatment by letting some players abuse the rules every point. Yes, I can't see why I didn't see the sense in that from the start.

BB you seem very excited by this new rule. I'm not. Simply because;

1) I think there is more to dictating a match than sneaking 5 seconds recovery time
2) I'm not convinced that Nadal, Nole etc are any worse than anyone else - they are just more high profile, i.e. I'm sure if we stop-watched a match between the World No 56 v The World No. 87 - we'd have the same gaps relevant to that tournament
3) Quite rightly umpires should take into account the conditons and length of match, when using the rule. It's quite OK that a 4hr SF match at Australia in 35C heat is given more leeway than a 250 first rounder in Norway. That's why you must have flexibility

I'm quite surprised at you thinking that if this rule was rigorously enforced then Roger would have more Slams. Hence, why some people thought you were being glib. The fact you're serious, shows your only weakness - a need to constantly show that Roger was / is the undisputed best. And the only way you can do that is if you alude that Rafa would have suffered (and so Roger gains) if this rule had been enforced in the past


It's amazing, but you've managed to be so out of kilter with your view that Hawkeye's comments look positively sensible

banbrotam wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

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

Don't be silly carrieg4. We all know Andy is dreading this - as such a passive retriever (who has relied merely on fitness for all his quarter of a century of tournament wins) would

Darn it all, I forgot

hawkeye wrote:

summerblues wrote:Technically, the rule has been softened. Instead of a point penalty it is now just a second serve. 25s has always been there, only it was not being enforced. In some ways, the new apporach is a compromise - soften the rule but then try to stick with it.

No it's not been softened it has been hardened because it has become inflexible. It removes discretion and because of this it is has already impacted on match results.

I did not read the official rule so could be wrong, but my understanding was that the rule was softened by penalizing with second serve instead of a point loss.

I think only the application was tightened - I believe the referees always used to have, and will continue to have, discretion, except that the intend is to be less lenient than in the past.

The only reason why this is in practice not a softening of the rule is because the old rule was habitually ignored. I am not so sure it really had much of an impact in any results so far, but even if it did, that would be fine. Rules in general are meant to have impact on results.

falzy21 wrote:If there's less time between points i'm not sure how that doesn't favour Rafa or Djokovic beyond having to stop some superstitions. They're extremely fit, they won't get as much recovery time no, but neither will there opponent.

Well, the theory is that their game is more based on the need for recovery as they like protracted rallies, and thus will be impacted more than many other players.

What you are saying is a bit too simplistic - it is sort of like saying that abolishment of the second serve would not change anyone's chances because it would apply to everyone. That is just not how it works. Obviously, 25s rule is a much more minor change, but it is still quite conceivable that it will impact different players differently.

That said, I do not expect any huge changes in results - I would still expect players who are doing well now to continue to be the ones who will do well going forward. As a rule change, it is not so huge.

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Yeah, let's avoid unfair treatment by letting some players abuse the rules every point. Yes, I can't see why I didn't see the sense in that from the start.

BB you seem very excited by this new rule. I'm not. Simply because;

1) I think there is more to dictating a match than sneaking 5 seconds recovery time
2) I'm not convinced that Nadal, Nole etc are any worse than anyone else - they are just more high profile, i.e. I'm sure if we stop-watched a match between the World No 56 v The World No. 87 - we'd have the same gaps relevant to that tournament
3) Quite rightly umpires should take into account the conditons and length of match, when using the rule. It's quite OK that a 4hr SF match at Australia in 35C heat is given more leeway than a 250 first rounder in Norway. That's why you must have flexibility

I'm quite surprised at you thinking that if this rule was rigorously enforced then Roger would have more Slams. Hence, why some people thought you were being glib. The fact you're serious, shows your only weakness - a need to constantly show that Roger was / is the undisputed best. And the only way you can do that is if you alude that Rafa would have suffered (and so Roger gains) if this rule had been enforced in the past


It's amazing, but you've managed to be so out of kilter with your view that Hawkeye's comments look positively sensible

You're the first guy to actually state they disagree with mean that. Hardly the mass condemnation you're trying to conjour up.

As I say, great opportunity for Rafa to prove Tenez and others wrong. Wins all round!

summerblues wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

summerblues wrote:Technically, the rule has been softened. Instead of a point penalty it is now just a second serve. 25s has always been there, only it was not being enforced. In some ways, the new apporach is a compromise - soften the rule but then try to stick with it.

No it's not been softened it has been hardened because it has become inflexible. It removes discretion and because of this it is has already impacted on match results.

I did not read the official rule so could be wrong, but my understanding was that the rule was softened by penalizing with second serve instead of a point loss.

I think only the application was tightened - I believe the referees always used to have, and will continue to have, discretion, except that the intend is to be less lenient than in the past.

The only reason why this is in practice not a softening of the rule is because the old rule was habitually ignored. I am not so sure it really had much of an impact in any results so far, but even if it did, that would be fine. Rules in general are meant to have impact on results.

Indeed.the mass panic exhibited by those whose previous position was just that it was for the authorities to enforce the rules is odd. As you say, they've softened the rule!

Similar to BB, I have hard time to see how the new approach can be viewed very negatively - except by those who actually prefer attritional tennis (I agree that those may have a legitimate reason to prefer a rule change).

Currently, we have accusations against Rafa and Nole, but also a number of others, that they are gaining unfair advantage by breaking the rules. These accusations may be genuine or they may just stem from bitterness over their success, but - one way or another - this should put the issue to rest. I imagine likely outcomes fit into one of these three categories, and each of them seem to bring more positives than negatives, as far as I can tell:

Outcome 1. Less time in between the points does not impact the game itself much. In this case, we at least spend less time waiting in between the points.

Outcome 2. Players will have to adjust their games to be more aggressive but overall, it will not impact the relative success of the players. In this case we will see more attacking tennis, which is a positive in my books. At the same time, Rafa, Nole and others will have proven that they can succeed anyway.

Outcome 3. Players will have to adjust and the rule will have visible impact on the success of some of them. This would mean that those players were previously gaining some of their success by breaking the rules, so once again it would seem to be a good thing to put an end to that.

Summerblues sums it up perfectly.

banbrotam wrote:

Jeremy, two major errors in your assumptiuons about my judgment

Also, I've never ever heard Gasquet described as a shot maker. If he's one then virtually every player in the world is.

And that's my point. The term "shotmaker" is far too vague (in this article) to have any real meaning. I can think of numerous matches where Murray looked like a 'shotmaker' (baring in mind, apparantly Richard is!!) and times when other 'shotmakers' play passive

For isntance, [where does Nadal at his ruthless best fit in - doesn't he have one of the best winning shots in the game?

Nah!! Your view is that of an idealist, who looks at certain players through rose tinted glasses, simply because you resent the success of the likes of Nole and Andy. The reality is that if you get some of your favoured players through to 15 consecutive Slam SF's (or whatever Nole's done) and you will see that there has to be lots of 'non shotmakin'

- did't you read or try to solve my mystery quote? In general Gasquet is thought to be one of the best ball striker, personally I agree with consensus.
(it's not really a decisive argument whether you have heard it or not imo).

- A shotmaker is a player who has the technical ability to hit powerful and precise shots with high percentage and who generally adopts an agressive rather than passive approach to win points.

-I think Federer is a good example of a succesful player who has an offensive game.

Well what do you know, I agree with bogbrush's view point here. Remember this is a rule agreed by the players so evidently they are happy with the rule so what is the problem? Also, in any case, it is merely a stance that should have been taken anyway as it is a bone fide rule about time between points. No one really has a right to complain as it is merely laws of the sport being enforced.

Firstly, the change wasn't voted in by the players, it was proposed by the ATP Competition Committee - which includes ATP player council reps but they are a minority.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/09/Feature/ATP-Board-Approves-Change-In-Time-Violation-Penalty.aspx

Secondly, agree with those pointing out that the time limit between points was always there, it is just now being consistently applied.

It's important that the umpires do get the hang of applying it appropriately though. There doesn't seem to me to be a need for a penalty if someone changes their racquet because of a broken string for example, but would be if they are changing it by choice. Similarly, there might be a need to wait until the crowd settles down after a point. So it should always be at the umpire's discretion (as are other penalties for coaching, hinderence etc). It is therefore not for the a player to time their opponent, but they could I assume appeal to the tournament referee if they felt the umpire was unfairly discriminating against them.

For slams the rule on penalties is unchanged and the time is 20s. Personally, I feel that if the ITF want to enforce this more vigorously (which I haven't seen suggested anywhere), it would be fairer to the players to change to a consistent 25s as the players will get used to their service routine and how long they have in the ATP matches.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well what do you know, I agree with bogbrush's view point here. Remember this is a rule agreed by the players so evidently they are happy with the rule so what is the problem? Also, in any case, it is merely a stance that should have been taken anyway as it is a bone fide rule about time between points. No one really has a right to complain as it is merely laws of the sport being enforced.

"God loves a sinner, come to His understanding"

Go on, can you place that quotewithout Google?

Martin Luther King? (Without Google)

CaledonianCraig wrote:Martin Luther King? (Without Google)

Nope, think a 1964 film.

CaledonianCraig wrote: it is merely a stance that should have been taken anyway as it is a bone fide rule about time between points. No one really has a right to complain as it is merely laws of the sport being enforced.

This sums it up exactly Craig.

As for the film I have no idea without google.

Yes, but what about the children?

Zulu?

That is a quote I do recognise imbl (I think). Simpsons?

Ask Bogbrush.

I think it's great! when Nadal still hammers Federer with the "new" rule in place, Fed fanatics will have one less excuse for his defeats, they'll be limited to bleating about slow courts

CaledonianCraig wrote:Zulu?

Yes! Well done.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I think it's great! when Nadal still hammers Federer with the "new" rule in place, Fed fanatics will have one less excuse for his defeats, they'll be limited to bleating about slow courts

That's what I keep saying, I just can't understand the panic of some Nadal fans. Don't they have any faith?

MFC

Bogbrush, as I said earlier I was concerned for the ball-kids

Laverfan, good to have you back

You haven't missed too much

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Zulu?

Yes! Well done.

One of my favourite films of all-time.

I hadn't read this article until now. Sky, as usual, are making it sound more extreme than normal but I noticed they had an agenda against someone.

http://www1.skysports.com/tennis/news/12110/8381236/Tennis-Andy-Murray-has-hit-out-at-the-ATP-s-modification-in-time-rule

"Players who take too long preparing to serve, choosing the right ball and tug at their shorts incessantly are being targeted by the tennis authorities."

Hmmm, I wonder who they could possibly mean.

Does it say from "our correspondent in Manacor"

Andy Murray has 'hit out' by saying it's 'a bit too much'. Did hawkeye write that headline?

It Must Be Love wrote:MFC

Bogbrush, as I said earlier I was concerned for the ball-kids

If only the players cared as much about the ball kids as you.

The ball kids should see this as an opportunity. They have become super powerful and now have a big influence over the outcome of matches. It's not only players who can get under the table payments. They should get agents to negotiate a price to ensure the operate efficiently. Otherwise who knows they may stumble on a shoe lace and drop the balls when an uncooperative player is serving to stay in a championship match. Or even do something similar when their opponent has been the cooperative one...

The top pros could hire towel boys to carry the towels.
And if they live in rented properties they could hire....er, no, maybe not.