Nadal Says The 25 Second Rule Will Harm The Fans

by hawkeye Tue 12 Feb 2013, 3:15 pm

First topic message reminder :

This is what Nadal had to say about the new 25 second rule. I was wondering when he would be asked about it.

“People want to see long matches, competitive rallies and amazing shots. For me to play in a high level for four hours, I need more than 25 seconds,” said the Spaniard, famous for taking long between serves. ”I don’t think players are happy with the new rule. The umpire will have to decide when it’s up to follow it or not. Because if it’s something mathematical, it will harm the fans.”

http://www.tennispanorama.com/archives/35199/rafael-nadal-tennis-panroama-news

Quite right too!

by User 774433 Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:01 pm

laverfan wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:I love how Nadal taking a few seconds extra (although I watched Chile Open and he has seemed to cut out on the time taken between points to around 15-20 seconds) is seen as cheating, and when Federer tries to cheat by pointing to the wrong spot on the court in trying to mislead the umpire it will be brushed under the carpet.

Why drag Federer in here, is it because Barry made a comment and he prefers Federer, is that what this is all about, a f***king GOAT debate?

Mind your language Laverfan.
This has nothing to do with a GOAT debate.

by time please Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:01 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/feb/12/rafael-nadal-injuries-atp

Also in this article.

I must say it is good to see a great champion of the game back, but I had forgotten just how tedious and contradictory Team Nadal can be. In the above article, Nadal bemoans the preponderance of hard courts and says his major fear is being unable to play recreational sport with his friends after he retires.

This is not the first time he has darkly hinted at a future that will see him stranded on the sidelines of his local golf club, which is quite disingenuous when he has 'recreationally played' during his latest injury. It also just begs the question why not retire now if the threat is that probable, and enjoy the rest of his life if it really is his greatest fear?

His press conferences don't raise my blood pressure, nor that I suspect of many of us, but they just bring a wry smile because they very often just don't make sense.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:06 pm

Slow cement is not good for your body. I would much prefer tennis to be played on natural surfaces, for the health of the players.

by **laverfan** Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:07 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Mind your language Laverfan. This has nothing to do with a GOAT debate.

How many letters can you replace the '***' with to make English words, IMBL? Laugh

We are not discussing philanthropic endeavours of Tennis players, are we?

We are specifically discussing a Tennis rule that allows 20/25 seconds between points and it's rigorous or lenient implementation.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:08 pm

laverfan wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Mind your language Laverfan. This has nothing to do with a GOAT debate.

How many letters can you replace the '***' with to make English words, IMBL?

We are not discussing philanthropic endeavours of Tennis players, are we?

We are specifically discussing a Tennis rule that allows 20/25 seconds between points and it's rigorous or lenient implementation.

It was pretty clear what you were saying.

I was responding to Barry's post.

by **laverfan** Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:10 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Slow cement is not good for your body. I would much prefer tennis to be played on natural surfaces, for the health of the players.

If playing styles can adjust to different surfaces, versatility of such adjustments is an important aspect. HCs have been around before certain current players were born. Wink

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:11 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Slow cement is not good for your body. I would much prefer tennis to be played on natural surfaces, for the health of the players.

Like ground bricks?

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:12 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
laverfan wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Mind your language Laverfan. This has nothing to do with a GOAT debate.

How many letters can you replace the '***' with to make English words, IMBL?

We are not discussing philanthropic endeavours of Tennis players, are we?

We are specifically discussing a Tennis rule that allows 20/25 seconds between points and it's rigorous or lenient implementation.
It was pretty clear what you were saying.

I was responding to Barry's post.

Barry was responding to the OP - which was about Nadal, not Federer.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:14 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
laverfan wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Mind your language Laverfan. This has nothing to do with a GOAT debate.

How many letters can you replace the '***' with to make English words, IMBL?

We are not discussing philanthropic endeavours of Tennis players, are we?

We are specifically discussing a Tennis rule that allows 20/25 seconds between points and it's rigorous or lenient implementation.
It was pretty clear what you were saying.

I was responding to Barry's post.

Barry was responding to the OP - which was about Nadal, not Federer.

Yes, and I was replying to Barry's post.
Do we really need a line by line commentary here?
There's no rule saying that every comment must reflect the title, responses to specific posts are allowed.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:16 pm

A bit like how Laverfan's post @10:10 was a reply to my post, about surface adaptability thumbsup

by **laverfan** Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:18 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Slow cement is not good for your body. I would much prefer tennis to be played on natural surfaces, for the health of the players.

But the crushed brick is just deep enough to allow footprints and, quite helpfully, ball marks. It is shallow enough not to make the court too spongy or slippery, or to allow all of the powder to accumulate into tiny piles that could affect the way the ball bounces.

“With one millimeter, if you slide, you see the white limestone,” Slastan said. “But with a few millimeters, you don’t see the white limestone on the television.”
...
Most courts at Roland Garros are constructed of several layers of materials, about three feet deep. Most of that is filled with small stones topped with smaller gravel. (The two main show courts and three other courts are built on slabs of concrete, topped with a thick layer of sand.) The base is topped with a six-inch layer of volcanic rock and three inches of porous limestone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/sports/tennis/30clay.html?_r=0

by **laverfan** Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:21 pm

@IMBL... a lot of Football is played on Astroturf (synthetic grass). - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AstroTurf

by summerblues Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:24 pm

People want to see long matches, competitive rallies and amazing shots. For me to play in a high level for four hours, I need more than 25 seconds

I am truly impressed by Nadal here. It is well known that his OCD makes it difficult for him to stick to within 25 secs, yet he keeps silent about it and focuses on other points at the risk of being mistaken for someone who is stretching the rules for his own benefit.

I am humbled by the heroic words of this young man.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:26 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
laverfan wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Mind your language Laverfan. This has nothing to do with a GOAT debate.

How many letters can you replace the '***' with to make English words, IMBL?

We are not discussing philanthropic endeavours of Tennis players, are we?

We are specifically discussing a Tennis rule that allows 20/25 seconds between points and it's rigorous or lenient implementation.
It was pretty clear what you were saying.

I was responding to Barry's post.

Barry was responding to the OP - which was about Nadal, not Federer.
Yes, and I was replying to Barry's post.
Do we really need a line by line commentary here?
There's no rule saying that every comment must reflect the title, responses to specific posts are allowed.

True, but there may be a rule that says if someone says something bad about Nadal, you are compelled to say something bad about Fed.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:27 pm

laverfan wrote:@IMBL... a lot of Football is played on Astroturf (synthetic grass). - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AstroTurf

Yes, correct.
I remember Michael Owen once hurt his knee as he played on Astro-Turf.
Not sure if that says much though.

by **laverfan** Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:28 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:True, but there may be a rule that says if someone says something bad about Nadal, you are compelled to say something bad about Fed.

Julius...

IMBL... let us go back to Tennis and OP. Apologies, if you feel offended by my comment. rose

by User 774433 Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:28 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
laverfan wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Mind your language Laverfan. This has nothing to do with a GOAT debate.

How many letters can you replace the '***' with to make English words, IMBL?

We are not discussing philanthropic endeavours of Tennis players, are we?

We are specifically discussing a Tennis rule that allows 20/25 seconds between points and it's rigorous or lenient implementation.
It was pretty clear what you were saying.

I was responding to Barry's post.

Barry was responding to the OP - which was about Nadal, not Federer.
Yes, and I was replying to Barry's post.
Do we really need a line by line commentary here?
There's no rule saying that every comment must reflect the title, responses to specific posts are allowed.

True, but there may be a rule that says if someone says something bad about Nadal, you are compelled to say something bad about Fed.

Don't be ludicrous.
Anyway, I've sent you a quiz, your first answer was correct, but didn't actually address any of my questions, but you have as many goes as you want.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:29 pm

laverfan wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:True, but there may be a rule that says if someone says something bad about Nadal, you are compelled to say something bad about Fed.

Julius...

IMBL... let us go back to Tennis and OP. Apologies, if you feel offended by my comment.

No, I don't feel offended lol Wink

Julius needs to improve his quiz skills though.

by **laverfan** Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:29 pm

RG has courts on slabs of concrete + sand + crushed brick dressing.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:30 pm

laverfan wrote:RG has courts on slabs of concrete + sand + crushed brick dressing.

In the executive boxes they have slabs of beef + salad + French dressing.

by hawkeye Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:31 pm

laverfan wrote:@IMBL... a lot of Football is played on Astroturf (synthetic grass). - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AstroTurf

Astroturf like other synthetic surfaces is associated with more injuries

(Reuters) - College football players suffer knee injuries about 40 percent more often when playing on an artificial turf versus grass, according to a U.S. study.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-football-idUSBRE84002Q20120501

by User 774433 Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:32 pm

hawkeye wrote:
laverfan wrote:@IMBL... a lot of Football is played on Astroturf (synthetic grass). - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AstroTurf

Astroturf like other synthetic surfaces is associated with more injuries

(Reuters) - College football players suffer knee injuries about 40 percent more often when playing on an artificial turf versus grass, according to a U.S. study.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-football-idUSBRE84002Q20120501

by User 774433 Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:33 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
laverfan wrote:RG has courts on slabs of concrete + sand + crushed brick dressing.

In the executive boxes they have slabs of beef + salad + French dressing.

OK I've now checked my mark-scheme and:
'Nadal =GOAT heart

'
is not an answer to any of my questions.

If any of you guys don't know yet, I've sent an exciting quiz to both Julius and Socal, whoever can answer the most questions right win. It's 0-0 at the moment.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:35 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:I've sent an exciting quiz to both Julius and Socal

Exciting? I must have got a different one.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:36 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:I've sent an exciting quiz to both Julius and Socal

Exciting? I must have got a different one.

You're just upset because your first answer was not on the mark scheme.
Keep trying though Wink

by summerblues Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:38 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:OK I've now checked my mark-scheme and:
'Nadal =GOAT '
is not an answer to any of my questions.

There must be an error in your mark-scheme. I am pretty sure that is the answer to all your questions.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:41 pm

summerblues wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:OK I've now checked my mark-scheme and:
'Nadal =GOAT '
is not an answer to any of my questions.
There must be an error in your mark-scheme. I am pretty sure that is the answer to all your questions.

I've double checked and called Edexcel, it isn't on the mark scheme.

by bogbrush Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:50 pm

hawkeye wrote:This is what Nadal had to say about the new 25 second rule. I was wondering when he would be asked about it.

“People want to see long matches, competitive rallies and amazing shots. For me to play in a high level for four hours, I need more than 25 seconds,” said the Spaniard, famous for taking long between serves. ”I don’t think players are happy with the new rule. The umpire will have to decide when it’s up to follow it or not. Because if it’s something mathematical, it will harm the fans.”

http://www.tennispanorama.com/archives/35199/rafael-nadal-tennis-panroama-news

Quite right too!

So it's official; he can't play his game within the rules

Tenez, you are vindicated.

by barrystar Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:51 pm

lydian wrote:
barrystar wrote:A cheat on court and a selfish opportunist off it who professes love for the game but in reality thinks it should be arranged for him to win. How I have missed him........ Not.
I can feel your blood pressure from here...presume you'll be calling all the other > 25 sec guys cheats as well then, or do you only single out Nadal? This so called cheat has brought more new kids into the game than you can ever imagine, boy that must stick in your craw.

Such a selfish opportunist ... http://fundacionrafanadal.org/fundacion.asp

My blood pressure is fine - I don't like the guy as a tennis player, there's no secret there. I respect his achievements and recognise and applaud his ability to accept defeat after a match as well as I have ever seen such a competitive man manage it, but I find him a fundamentally unsporting presence on court and I really dislike that. I am not impressed by his apologists who say he's not the only one - that's not good enough.

I also find his frequent agitating to change the structure of the professional game to suit his needs at the expense of lower-ranked and poorer players who are prepared to act sportingly on Court beneath the man he would have us believe he is.

As far as his foundation is concerned, of course it's a good thing, but it's got nothing to do with my criticisms of him. Citing a charitable foundation as excusing selfish and unsporting behaviour within the game has unfortunate recent parallels don't you think?

by hawkeye Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:53 pm

laverfan wrote: is that what this is all about, a f***king GOAT debate?

cough... Some people like nothing better than a (cough) GOAT debate...

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 12 Feb 2013, 10:59 pm

summerblues wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:OK I've now checked my mark-scheme and:
'Nadal =GOAT '
is not an answer to any of my questions.
There must be an error in your mark-scheme. I am pretty sure that is the answer to all your questions.

OMG that last sentence is almost exactly word for word what I'd already put in my PM to IMBL Very Happy

by User 774433 Tue 12 Feb 2013, 11:00 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
summerblues wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:OK I've now checked my mark-scheme and:
'Nadal =GOAT '
is not an answer to any of my questions.
There must be an error in your mark-scheme. I am pretty sure that is the answer to all your questions.

OMG that last sentence is almost exactly word for word what I'd already put in my PM to IMBL

Summerblues must have access to the 606v2 codes Smile

by lydian Tue 12 Feb 2013, 11:25 pm

bogbrush wrote:
So it's official; he can't play his game within the rules
Tenez, you are vindicated.

No-one disputed he has needed more time between extended points to recover.
Similarly, many of the other guys can't recover any quicker either.
Zeballos got a time violation the other night after a long ralley.
Tenez's central point was that Nadal started extending time after 2005...he was not vindicated there.
Just like socal's Chang discussion last night, the actual facts demonstrated otherwise. Was a nice story though.

by bogbrush Tue 12 Feb 2013, 11:32 pm

True, he's certainly not alone and can argue being a product of the game as operated. Perhaps he played his part in shaping it though.

Ah, the endless Miami threads. Nostaligia! You and he could run that almost as long as socal & me on whether black was white.

Tenez can claim some vindication on the general point though, he did used to argue that the time limit was critical to Nadal.

by lydian Tue 12 Feb 2013, 11:36 pm

laverfan wrote:@Lydian... what do you think of my points/minute numbers?

I know you running discussion vis-a-vis time-between points and Miami.

What about the 20/25 second ITF/ATP difference?

That supports my point that Nadal didn't slow down after Miami 2005, if anything he went quicker according to your numbers. Tenez's Miami Theory always was a hypothetical colander. Don't know how many times I have to say it and show it.

There needs to be uniformity between ITF/ATP....Having even less time in 5-set slams seems absurd when Bo3 ATP events are shorter in length, we have to realise players are human, all if the and that towards the end of every match you need more time...happens in all sports, e.g. football, players slow down after extended physical exertion. I also believe hard enforcement of the rule idiosyncratically rewards the fittest players ultimately as they can squeeze in the longest ralleys and still recover in time...so they make the weaker guys play 20-30 shots knowing they can't recover in time afterwards!

I'd rather they just went to blanket 30s and allow absolutely NO time after that. No exceptions.

by **laverfan** Tue 12 Feb 2013, 11:40 pm

hawkeye wrote:
laverfan wrote:@IMBL... a lot of Football is played on Astroturf (synthetic grass). - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AstroTurf

Astroturf like other synthetic surfaces is associated with more injuries

(Reuters) - College football players suffer knee injuries about 40 percent more often when playing on an artificial turf versus grass, according to a U.S. study.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-football-idUSBRE84002Q20120501

I understand that surfaces can cause injuries. Blaming the surfaces alone for injuries, should not be the thrust though. There are many players, who seem to manage better across multiple surfaces very well.

If you bang your head against a wall and your head gets bloody, use something other then your skull to move the wall, instead of blaming the wall for your injuries. Wink

As Lydian says, surface homogenization, if it goes any further, then the diversity of styles will be the sacrifice (and price). Muster anyone?

Borg, Lendl, Connors and many others managed to play the style of Tennis, as required by the surface, so current players can also learn from past players. Does anyone remember Carpet or Wood?

by lydian Tue 12 Feb 2013, 11:45 pm

Lol BB, Tenez was actually very similar to socal in that you would present actual contrary facts to his opinion then the discussion point would a) either morph into something else, or b) he would just flatly deny the evidence and go back to spouting the same opinion again as if the data was never presented! Used to drive me up the wall, lol.

The point I just made above actually confounds the time issue. Nadal and Djokovic, probably the fittest guys out there, can probably play the most ralleys per point and recover within 25 seconds. So there new time strategy, if 25 secs is rigidly enforced, could be to deliberately force long ralleys, e.g. 30 shots, then watch the OTHER guy struggle to recover in time. The enforcement could work with the opposite effect expected.

by **laverfan** Tue 12 Feb 2013, 11:45 pm

lydian wrote:I'd rather they just went to blanket 30s and allow absolutely NO time after that. No exceptions.

Do you think the additional 5/10 (ATP/ITF) seconds will make that much of a difference?

See this... https://imgur.com/a1RWR and look at the score in the top left corner. Wink

by hawkeye Tue 12 Feb 2013, 11:52 pm

One of the things that makes tennis special is the scoring. It's not over until it's over. But if television had it's way each match would last exactly 90 minutes. Whoever was in the lead at that point would be the winner. Also ever 15 minutes play would stop for 5 minutes so we could all watch a few adverts.

Whilst watching the AO quite a few times we missed the first point after the changeover because of an ad break. The commentators of course didn't make a fuss about this. How could they?

by lydian Tue 12 Feb 2013, 11:53 pm

I do actually LF. Nadal and Djokovic normally stick at around 27-28s per match, so extension to 30s should be achievable. Like I say, the rule could come back to bite others if rigidly enforced given the worst offenders are actually the fittest on tour. It could create a specific 'exhaustion strategy'...kind of like the way Muster and Agassi would run people left and right until their lungs were bursting. Would they then recover in 25s before being ran left/right again? Nadal and Djokovic can play like that also against others...mark my words, this will encourage a new negative "winding" tactic to emerge if they rigidly stick to 25s.

by **laverfan** Wed 13 Feb 2013, 12:00 am

I do agree that there is a negative aspect of this enforcement, penalising the 'less' fitter players, but by and large, if the worst offenders are in the top echelons of the game, then the example that they set is, frankly not good, for the sport, and a generation that is getting ready to join the sport.

The discussion on artificial enhancers within the top echelons, like Cycling, will become even more vociferous.

We do not want to turn the sport into a contest of who has the bigger Oxygen tent, do we?

by hawkeye Wed 13 Feb 2013, 12:01 am

lydian

Exactly! Rigidly sticking to 25 seconds (and it is the the NEW inflexability that is the problem) would impact on what happens DURING points and not just between points. Was that the intention?

Sorry to shout...

by lydian Wed 13 Feb 2013, 12:04 am

No we don't LF...but enforcement will strangely lead us further down that path than presently.

The ONLY answer is either
a) speed up conditions so ralleys end quicker
b) create tech limits so ralleys end quicker

Slow courts will always dictate who is the best and fittest ralleyer...the weaker ones won't be able to stick to 25s when ran ragged by the best ralleyers.

Exactly HE!

by Josiah Maiestas Wed 13 Feb 2013, 12:39 am

I love how Nadal taking a few seconds extra (although I watched Chile Open and he has seemed to cut out on the time taken between points to around 15-20 seconds) is seen as cheating, and when Federer tries to cheat by pointing to the wrong spot on the court in trying to mislead the umpire it will be brushed under the carpet.

Federer was just being cheeky, you should love him anyway after all those French Opens he donated for the man with no knees.

by User 774433 Wed 13 Feb 2013, 12:40 am

Josiah Maiestas wrote:
I love how Nadal taking a few seconds extra (although I watched Chile Open and he has seemed to cut out on the time taken between points to around 15-20 seconds) is seen as cheating, and when Federer tries to cheat by pointing to the wrong spot on the court in trying to mislead the umpire it will be brushed under the carpet.
Federer was just being cheeky, you should love him anyway after all those French Opens he donated for the man with no knees.

Not only that, he also used his power to stop Zeballos from playing Nadal as well.

by Josiah Maiestas Wed 13 Feb 2013, 12:42 am

My blood pressure is fine - I don't like the guy as a tennis player, there's no secret there. I respect his achievements and recognise and applaud his ability to accept defeat after a match as well as I have ever seen such a competitive man manage it, but I find him a fundamentally unsporting presence on court and I really dislike that. I am not impressed by his apologists who say he's not the only one - that's not good enough.

I also find his frequent agitating to change the structure of the professional game to suit his needs at the expense of lower-ranked and poorer players who are prepared to act sportingly on Court beneath the man he would have us believe he is.

As far as his foundation is concerned, of course it's a good thing, but it's got nothing to do with my criticisms of him. Citing a charitable foundation as excusing selfish and unsporting behaviour within the game has unfortunate recent parallels don't you think?

Hung, Drawn and Conquered Lydian

by lydian Wed 13 Feb 2013, 12:57 am

Sure...whatever. Barrystar is stating opinions on observations JM...nothing more, nothing less. I just don't happen to agree with those cynical opinions.

Speaking of actual facts, you didn't need anyone else to hang and draw yourself earlier with the 'Nadal wouldn't have won RG if he'd met Zeballos' comment...haha, still making me smile that one. If you're going to WUM JM, you've got to at least get your material right.

by User 774433 Wed 13 Feb 2013, 12:59 am

Josiah was right.

Nadal can't beat the likes of Zeballos when it comes to the French Open.
2010 was a fluke.

clap

by summerblues Wed 13 Feb 2013, 2:56 am

lydian wrote:
laverfan wrote:@Lydian... what do you think of my points/minute numbers?

I know you running discussion vis-a-vis time-between points and Miami.

What about the 20/25 second ITF/ATP difference?

That supports my point that Nadal didn't slow down after Miami 2005, if anything he went quicker according to your numbers.

I do not think LF's numbers can directly be used to infer whether or not players were taking too much time - there can be other reasons for the numbers. But, to the extent you do want to use them as a guidance, they would surely point in the opposite direction, no? Fewer points played per minute after Miami 2005 means each point is now taking longer than in Miami, no?

by summerblues Wed 13 Feb 2013, 3:08 am

lydian wrote:Lol BB, Tenez was actually very similar to socal in that you would present actual contrary facts to his opinion then the discussion point would a) either morph into something else, or b) he would just flatly deny the evidence and go back to spouting the same opinion again as if the data was never presented! Used to drive me up the wall, lol.

I would not put it quite that way.

Tenez was leaning towards the view that Nadal intentionally beefed up his routine to give himself unfair advantage, which helped him win matches. If I remember well, you were leaning towards the view Nadal was taking long mostly out of habit that would be difficult to shake.

Somewhere along the way Tenez claimed that in Miami 2005 Nadal stuck to the time limit on 90% of points (or something like that). When you presented the evidence tthat this was wrong, he refused to budge.

The way I see it, Tenez's main point - that Nadal was intentionally bending rules - may well have been correct, it is just that for whatever reason he got himself cornered into defending that silly 90% statement.

In the bigger scheme of things I agree with you that the way to go is to speed up the conditions but I do not take your view that in the meantime it is ok to bend this rule. Also, I am inclined to think that players like Nole and Rafa benefit from breaking it, though I agree it is not quite clear cut and it could be that I could be wrong and - as you described it - they could even benefit from the stronger enforcement.

Finally, I would say that - irrsepective whether or not he benefits from it - I find it disappointing that Rafa would be defending what is in effect rule-breaking.

by Sponsored content