Rafa's Back And He's Not Backing Down

It's not just Rafa's heavy topspin forehand that has been missed from the tour. When so many players shy away from saying anything remotely controversial and sound like they are reading directly from a carefully constructed PR script it's refreshing to have one top player not shy away from saying what he thinks. The carefully promoted views on blood testing comes to mind. Bla, bla, bla we need to go after the bad guys so that proves I'm a good guy bla, bla, bla

This is what Nadal had to say about the two topics that continue to make him cross and continue to make some cross because he is cross. No surprises but he is still mad about the stupid "new" or as many prefer to call it "more strictly enforced" time rule and hard courts. The quotes are from after last nights match against Harrison.

Listen to what he thinks about the new ATP rule which requires umpires to clamp down on anyone taking longer than 25 seconds between points:

“That’s true,” he replied when asked about playing at a faster pace. “I played much faster, no? I am doing that because someone very smart puts in a new rule that is a disaster in my opinion. Not in places like here, which is dry. But it is a complete disaster when we are playing in humid places like Acapulco, Brazil or Chile.”

Nadal said he went back to watch some of his matches in Grand Slams to check how long it took him and his opponent to recover from long rallies.

“You have to see the third set of the US Open 2011 against (Novak) Djokovic and tell me if the crowd was very happy in that set or not. You need 40 seconds rest after a great point of 30, 40 shots. Tell me if with this new rule that can happen again.”

Hard courts were another target.

“Somebody has to think, not for today,” Nadal said. “I’m not talking about my career. We’re going to finish my career playing the same number of tournaments on hard (courts) because that’s the dynamic. But my opinion is for the next generations.

"Hard courts are aggressive for the body. It’s a medical thing. If the next generations want to finish their careers with better conditions physically, the ATP has to find a solution and not continue playing more and more tournaments on this surface that is harder for the joints and for the knees; for the foot, for the ankles, for the back, for everything.

"I would not answer this question in 2005, 2006 — but now I have won a lot of tournaments on hard (courts) and that gives me the confidence to say this to you. I am not having this opinion just because I prefer to play on clay.”

http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/Rafael-Nadal-wins-Indian-Wells-slams-ATP-over-new-rules-030913

40 second rest? Silly. It's not enough.
Surely a 60 second rest would allow 60 - 70 shot rallies, maybe even regular 100 shot rallies - that's what the fans really want.

JuliusHMarx wrote:40 second rest? Silly. It's not enough.
Surely a 60 second rest would allow 60 - 70 shot rallies, maybe even regular 100 shot rallies - that's what the fans really want.

It's true. Simon-Monfils is the primary rivalry in tennis, for the fans.

Silver wrote:

It's true. Simon-Monfils is the primary rivalry in tennis, for the fans.

I would say the primary rivalry (for the fans) is Nadal/Federer closely followed by Nadal/Djokovic and Federer/Djokovic. Whatever. Nadal is up there producing the tennis that keeps fans happy. Isn't this talked about as a golden era? cough...

Federer/Djokovic - why, those matches rarely have rallies over 10 shots how can anyone enjoy that? They're 20 shots short of a good rally.

I will propose that Tennis be played indoor in Oxygen chambers and we can see a 1000-shot rally and then a shot to the arm in less than 25 seconds, so the players can play another 1000-shot rally right after the previous one.

Berdych fell on clay and almost broke his ankle, Benneteau injured his wrist at MC due to 'potholes'. This notion that HC is bad, and 25 seconds is not enough, is rather a monomania on Nadal's part. People watch shorter rallies and appreciate risk-takers as well.

Not every spectator wants 40+ shot rallies, unless they want to take pee-break and come back to the same rally/point.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Federer/Djokovic - why, those matches rarely have rallies over 10 shots how can anyone enjoy that? They're 20 shots short of a good rally.

The tickets for Federer-Djokovic matches should be made cheaper, compared to Nadal-Djokovic matches, because they (Nadal-Djokovic) play longer rallies and work harder.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Federer/Djokovic - why, those matches rarely have rallies over 10 shots how can anyone enjoy that? They're 20 shots short of a good rally.

For me Federer/Djokovic on paper sounds good but many of their matches haven't lived up to expectations. The exception being the 2011 FO semi that IMO was sensational. It was played on clay. Make of that what you will...

laverfan. Ha ha! I think you are getting a little carried away. IMO Nadal/Djokovic is too slow, Federer/Djokovic is too fast but Federer/Nadal is just right... nearly perfect in fact. Sigh!

Silver wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:40 second rest? Silly. It's not enough.
Surely a 60 second rest would allow 60 - 70 shot rallies, maybe even regular 100 shot rallies - that's what the fans really want.

It's true. Simon-Monfils is the primary rivalry in tennis, for the fans.

Isn't this just soooo exciting?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk_rhsDxUFs

JuliiusHMarx. But that is just one rally (admittedly a very long one) but sitting through that can't compare to having to watch a whole decade of even more boring stuff in the 90's. Not that I did it was way too boring... Zzzzzz...

HE, I'm sure there is an optimum rally length for tennis enjoyment. Luckily we have Rafa to tell us fans what that length is and what he needs to be able to provide it.
I'm pleased that he appears to care more about the fans' enjoyment than he does about what he needs to be able to win a tournament. Most players would put their own selfish requirements first. Obviously Rafa doesn't want 40 seconds between points to help his own game, but he's willing to put up with it for the sake of the fans. He is heroically charitable.

cough... well yes! We are lucky to have both Rafa and Roger to provide so many optimum rallies for us to watch.

I've just found a longer quote presumably from the same post match interview.



Sorry,” Nadal continued. “I cannot support that, because for so many facts in my opinion the rule is wrong. First thing, because the rules go against the great points of tennis.

“Because if you see the highlights of the end of the season, I didn’t see not one highlight, the best points of the season, I did not see not one ace.

The best points of the season are long rallies and amazing points. With this 25 seconds, you play a long rally and you think you can play another long rally next point? No. So go against the good tennis.

“So the guy who really accepted this rule was not very smart, in my opinion. Even if you don’t have time for the TV to repeat a good point, and then the referee, I don’t know what he’s doing on his chair. We can play without referee 100%. The lines on every line, Hawk‑Eye, now 25 seconds. He don’t have to analyze nothing. He just have to put the clock and that’s it. Then we can play. Put the clock on court and play without umpire, because it’s not necessary anymore because the umpire is not enough good to analyze if the match is being hard, if somebody is losing time, penalize him with a warning.

“If both players are going the same way because you are playing a great point and you need to rest 40 seconds after the point, we don’t need anymore umpire. That’s my feeling. You know what I did? Maybe somebody ‑‑ maybe nobody did at the ATP, but I went back to my matches, great matches, in Grand Slams, playing long rallies in big tournaments, and when you play like a 30 points, you know, 30‑shots rally, 40‑shots rally like final of Roland Garros, like final of Australia, like final of any good tournament, you know, how much time we rested?

“You have to see the third set of the US Open 2011 against Djokovic, and you tell me if the crowd was very happy about what happened in that set or not, and tell me if with this new rule that can happen again. Please.”

http://www.tennispanorama.com/archives/36066

Although the truth is he is only saying what many other players have been saying. The difference is he is in a position were what he says will be reported. And also he is in a position were people will be highly critical of everything he does say. So brave of him to say it.

“You have to see the third set of the US Open 2011 against (Novak) Djokovic and tell me if the crowd was very happy in that set or not. You need 40 seconds rest after a great point of 30, 40 shots. Tell me if with this new rule that can happen again.”

Nadal had just lost the first two sets, by being aggressive and playing shorter points. He went back to his Clay model, especially because the surface @USO allowed him to do that. The third set ended up in a TB. The first two sets have shorter points on the average.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhrL1OkvGRI&list=PL5C85CA847EDAAC03

Last night, Harrison engaged in base-line rallies and could not sustain it. Despite the second set scoreline, he was trying his best to put the ball closer to the base-line.

laverfan. Do you think the umpire should be replaced by machines or do you think the sort of discretion that is needed to ensure fair play requires human judgements?

@HE... can you help us and count the total number of 30-40 shot rallies in USO 2011 Nadal-Djokovic match, please?

http://2011.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day21/1701ms.html

Notice the third set is 84 minutes. The first set is 53 minutes, the second set is 71 minutes, the fourth is 42 minutes.

1st set - 8 games - 53 minutes = Average ~6.3 minutes/game
2nd set - 10 games - 71 minutes = Average 7.1 minutes/game
3rd set - 13 games - 84 minutes = Average ~8 minutes/game
4th set - 7 games - 42 minutes = Average ~6 minutes/game.

( The TB is 9.3 minutes long - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BjEyK69wyk&list=PL5C85CA847EDAAC03 )

If you take the 9 minute TB out of 13 games, it is 84 - 9 = 75 / 13 ~ 6 minutes/game. This is very close to 1st and 4th sets.

laverfan wrote:“You have to see the third set of the US Open 2011 against (Novak) Djokovic and tell me if the crowd was very happy in that set or not. You need 40 seconds rest after a great point of 30, 40 shots. Tell me if with this new rule that can happen again.”

Nadal had just lost the first two sets, by being aggressive and playing shorter points. He went back to his Clay model, especially because the surface @USO allowed him to do that. The third set ended up in a TB. The first two sets have shorter points on the average.

Ah, but he doesn't want longer points to help him win matches. No, he only wants them for the fans to enjoy. nothing to do with it being for his own benefit, nosireebob.

hawkeye wrote:laverfan. Do you think the umpire should be replaced by machines or do you think the sort of discretion that is needed to ensure fair play requires human judgements?

I use to watch a US SyFy series called Caprica, which did not have human umpires for Tennis.

The tradition of human referees and umpires is fairly old. US NFL now has slow motion playback while players wait for penalty decisions, Cricket has video umpire referrals. Football is looking to use Hawkeye, so technology is pervasive.

If, in the future, non-humans start playing Tennis, then I expect non-human umpires to become part of the game. Right now it is a very human sport, with human oversight, and it should remain that way.

If we want to see endless rallies, I would suggest programming some NAO robots to play Tennis or Virtua Tennis perhaps.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

laverfan wrote:“You have to see the third set of the US Open 2011 against (Novak) Djokovic and tell me if the crowd was very happy in that set or not. You need 40 seconds rest after a great point of 30, 40 shots. Tell me if with this new rule that can happen again.”

Nadal had just lost the first two sets, by being aggressive and playing shorter points. He went back to his Clay model, especially because the surface @USO allowed him to do that. The third set ended up in a TB. The first two sets have shorter points on the average.

Ah, but he doesn't want longer points to help him win matches. No, he only wants them for the fans to enjoy. nothing to do with it being for his own benefit, nosireebob.

I am sure savouring points, like food, is probably an art form for connoisseurs, which us mere mortals have no concept of.

hawkeye wrote: Although the truth is he is only saying what many other players have been saying. The difference is he is in a position were what he says will be reported. And also he is in a position were people will be highly critical of everything he does say. So brave of him to say it.

If he were saying something sensible, no-one would be critical at all. Indeed, he appears to think all the fans want what he wants, so there's nothing brave in saying it at all.

laverfan. I'm not sure what your trying to prove. In tennis there will be some short rallies and some long rallies. Sometimes there will be other reasons why more time is needed between points. Ballboys, balls, laces, strings, members of the crowd fainting, pigeons, feathers etc. With inflexibility all of these things could have as much impact on a match as a brilliant backhand down the line.

But we don't have to let this happen. Instead we can give an impartial person the power to make sure a match is played fairly and also make allowances for things that may require more time because. Let's call this person an umpire. What is contraversal about that?

hawkeye wrote:laverfan. I'm not sure what your trying to prove. In tennis there will be some short rallies and some long rallies. Sometimes there will be other reasons why more time is needed between points. Ballboys, balls, laces, strings, members of the crowd fainting, pigeons, feathers etc. With inflexibility all of these things could have as much impact on a match as a brilliant backhand down the line.

HE, I'm sure you must be aware (because it's been pointed out several times) that the umpire has discretion to add time between points if any of those things happen. Can you acknowledge that you are aware of this?

@HE... to add to what JHM is pointing out, since I am inclined towards human umpires, discretion of such umpires comes into play. Let them choose how to enforce/interpret the rule, given the conditions on the ground.

There is no rigidity being forced, just some strictness of enforcement, which the players are advised of, at the net, before the start of the match. In Nadal's case, he invented the dual-towel scenario, which helps both, himself and the ballboys. Heroic and charitable.

laverfan wrote:

If, in the future, non-humans start playing Tennis, then I expect non-human umpires to become part of the game. Right now it is a very human sport, with human oversight, and it should remain that way.

Well Yes! laverfan. Now you sound just like Rafa.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote: Although the truth is he is only saying what many other players have been saying. The difference is he is in a position were what he says will be reported. And also he is in a position were people will be highly critical of everything he does say. So brave of him to say it.

If he were saying something sensible, no-one would be critical at all. Indeed, he appears to think all the fans want what he wants, so there's nothing brave in saying it at all.

I'm sure he realizes that not everyone will agree with what he says and that by saying anything he leaves himself open to criticism. Like I said most players are more bothered by their image to say anything about anything.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:laverfan. I'm not sure what your trying to prove. In tennis there will be some short rallies and some long rallies. Sometimes there will be other reasons why more time is needed between points. Ballboys, balls, laces, strings, members of the crowd fainting, pigeons, feathers etc. With inflexibility all of these things could have as much impact on a match as a brilliant backhand down the line.

HE, I'm sure you must be aware (because it's been pointed out several times) that the umpire has discretion to add time between points if any of those things happen. Can you acknowledge that you are aware of this?

HE, did you miss this question?

Julius & laverfan. If nothing has changed someone should tell Nadal and all the other players who have voiced concern. They appear to think there has been a change.

Everyone knows that there had been a reduction in the penalty for going over the time limit and that it is being enforced more thaan before.

You're avoiding my question HE. I take it that your silence means 'I have no comment at this time', or 'I refuse to speak without my lawyers present'

hawkeye wrote:Julius & laverfan. If nothing has changed someone should tell Nadal and all the other players who have voiced concern. They appear to think there has been a change.

Indeed there HAS been a change......

And a pretty radical one at that.

The change is that umpires have been asked to carry out their official responsibilities by proper enforcement of existing rules.

Most players were always happy to respect the rules and so have no issue or feel any need to waffle on about it.

Some players, on the other hand ..........

hawkeye wrote:

Silver wrote:

It's true. Simon-Monfils is the primary rivalry in tennis, for the fans.

I would say the primary rivalry (for the fans) is Nadal/Federer closely followed by Nadal/Djokovic and Federer/Djokovic. Whatever. Nadal is up there producing the tennis that keeps fans happy. Isn't this talked about as a golden era? cough...

Sorry HE, Nadal-Djokovic rivarly has been on of the most boring rivalry at the top level, The USO Rafa quoted I fell a sleep 3-4 times , Rafa is just getting emotional that his views are not taken seriously, the problem is the views are expressed have no base facts to prove the theorems.

hawkeye wrote:

Silver wrote:

It's true. Simon-Monfils is the primary rivalry in tennis, for the fans.

I would say the primary rivalry (for the fans) is Nadal/Federer closely followed by Nadal/Djokovic and Federer/Djokovic. Whatever. Nadal is up there producing the tennis that keeps fans happy. Isn't this talked about as a golden era? cough...

I may not have been entirely serious, HE

Somewhat on topic, without meaning to add fuel to any fire, I thought that Murray's comments at the WTF regarding the positive correlation between rally length and overall quality of play to be very interesting. I wonder if it's a view shared by most of the tour, including Rafa?

90s tennis was an evolutionary step away from golf, thats what my always told me.

Of course Nadal is right though, not too many of the points of the year compilations had an ace, or a S&V. I don't see how him stating the obvious is wrong. The guy is 13-1 for the season, its not as if he is blaming the rule for a bad start to his comeback.

I also see where he is coming from saying umpires are becoming redundant. If a clock is to be adhered no matter the situation, in tournaments that have referees, line judges, and hawk-eye, exactly what is the umpire doing? This years AO final was an error-ridden mess, I expect that to continue so long as the courts remain slow & the clock rules.

kingraf wrote:If a clock is to be adhered no matter the situation, in tournaments that have referees, line judges, and hawk-eye, exactly what is the umpire doing?

Except that it's never been the case, nor is it the case now, that a clock is to be adhered to no matter the situation. This has been pointed out before, and it only seems to be some Rafa fans that haven't grasped it yet.

kingraf wrote:90s tennis was an evolutionary step away from golf, thats what my always told me.

In Golf, you can walk around the spot, contemplate your navel, the green, the fairway, think about your dinner, and then putt. Tennis, with it's toweling, break between games, sit-downs, etc., is not that far behind.

kingraf wrote:Of course Nadal is right though, not too many of the points of the year compilations had an ace, or a S&V. I don't see how him stating the obvious is wrong. The guy is 13-1 for the season, its not as if he is blaming the rule for a bad start to his comeback.

S&V died when the courts became slower and luxilon showed up. I am very glad that he is yet to receive a time violation.

kingraf wrote:I also see where he is coming from saying umpires are becoming redundant. If a clock is to be adhered no matter the situation, in tournaments that have referees, line judges, and hawk-eye, exactly what is the umpire doing? This years AO final was an error-ridden mess, I expect that to continue so long as the courts remain slow & the clock rules.

Do you follow US NBA? At times, the number of officials out-numbers the players. Should we also remove judges from the court, and just have juries to decide a court case? Such summary justice is what used to be called a 'posse' in the US Wild West. The umpire, like a judge, is well versed in laws of the sport or land, as the case may be. I am pretty sure a robotic umpire could not do what Cedric Mourier did at W.

This constant moaning about time and HC being damaging is making him sound like what Murray used to be, prior to Lendl, a Moaner.

Should I listen to Nadal or to Monfils?

https://www.606v2.com/t41094-monfils-would-like-the-time-between-points-reduced-to-10-seconds

hawkeye wrote:For me Federer/Djokovic on paper sounds good but many of their matches haven't lived up to expectations.

I would venture that FO2011 and USO2011 are better than any Fed/Nadal match since AO2009.

Would it also be churlish to say that 5 of the last 9 matches being straight sets wins suggests that the Fed-Nadal rivalry went off the boil some time ago?

Rafa is keen to state that he is talking for the sport, for the greater good... But it's hard to ignore the fact that everything he is pushing for would benefit himself. Possibly more than anyone else in the game.

It all makes it sound a bit disengenuous.

kinggraf.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

You're avoiding my question HE. I take it that your silence means 'I have no comment at this time', or 'I refuse to speak without my lawyers present'

Ha ha! My silence here means I'm doing far more important things...

HM Murdoch wrote:

hawkeye wrote:For me Federer/Djokovic on paper sounds good but many of their matches haven't lived up to expectations.

I would venture that FO2011 and USO2011 are better than any Fed/Nadal match since AO2009.

Would it also be churlish to say that 5 of the last 9 matches being straight sets wins suggests that the Fed-Nadal rivalry went off the boil some time ago?

HM Murdoch. You sliced my quote! I went on to say that the Federer/Djokovic 2011 semi was sensational. Do you think the fact that it was played on clay helped make it so? You should also watch/re watch the 2011 FO final and 2012 AO semi between Federer and Nadal also sensational stuff IMHO.

hawkeye wrote:HM Murdoch. You sliced my quote! I went on to say that the Federer/Djokovic 2011 semi was sensational. Do you think the fact that it was played on clay helped make it so? You should also watch/re watch the 2011 FO final and 2012 AO semi between Federer and Nadal also sensational stuff IMHO.

I wasn't censoring, just tidying my post!

The Fedal matches at FO11 and AO12 were both pretty good but, to me, were some way short of great. The FO particularly. As soon as Nadal won the first set, any drama evaporated. The outcome was inevitable.

AO12 had some excellent passages but, if it weren't the names Federer and Nadal involved, I don't think it would stand out in the recollections of many.

Fed-Nadal is always an interesting match-up stylistically but a lot of the matches have failed to ignite.

HM Murdoch. It's just my opinion of course but I though both were great. I have to disagree when you say their match ups fail to ignite. Because of their history there is always electricity on the court when they meet. But if you've got some quarter final tickets for IW that you don't want to use I'd be more than happy to take them off your hands...

This thread has been some good comedy...

hawkeye wrote:kinggraf.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

You're avoiding my question HE. I take it that your silence means 'I have no comment at this time', or 'I refuse to speak without my lawyers present'

Ha ha! My silence here means I'm doing far more important things....

An anti-Murray article presumably?

Still, you carry on, no need to answer if you can't think of a decent one.

Red wrote:This thread has been some good comedy...

Starting with Rafa's statement.

Red wrote:This thread has been some good comedy...

Some?

Julius en fuego today, recovering well after the embarrassment of his unanswered quiz

Fair enough, Hawkeye. Eye of the beholder and all that!

I like matches with twists and turns where you don't know who will win until the very end. I haven't got that from Fedal for a while. The recent matches have had a pretty clear ascendancy for one player or the other.

Red wrote:Julius en fuego today, recovering well after the embarrassment of his unanswered quiz

Not as embarrassing as you going on about your pathetic quiz ad infinitum. Is there a yawn smiley?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:Julius en fuego today, recovering well after the embarrassment of his unanswered quiz

Not as embarrassing as you going on about your pathetic quiz ad infinitum. Is there a yawn smiley?

Grrr, someone is fuming today

“Because if you see the highlights of the end of the season, I didn’t see not one highlight, the best points of the season, I did not see not one ace.

The best points of the season are long rallies and amazing points. With this 25 seconds, you play a long rally and you think you can play another long rally next point? No. So go against the good tennis."

1. The Ace that Nadal served Harrison, robbed the fans of a 20-shot rally. Really bad. And it did not make the highlight reel.

2. The reason they are called the best points of the season are because they are infrequent. If every point was a point of the season, then
a. a 5:53 highlight reel.
b. matches would never finish, because broadcasters would be showing the same point over and over again, as they would be best points of the season.

3. Is good tennis defined as consecutive 20- to 30-shot rallies? All tennis recordings before 2001 should be expunged? Sampras, Ivanisevic, Henman, Rafter, what a fate awaits them. Only Monfils-Simon rallies from now on, or Djokovic-Murray and only USO 2011 3rd set highlights, please.

HM Murdock. That AO semi had loads of twists and turns that have been hidden by the eventual scoreline... Also the FO final was very different to their previous FO encounters because Federer's backhand was standing up very well to the usual on slaught. Nadal had to try different things. But I don't want to preach so will say no more

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:Julius en fuego today, recovering well after the embarrassment of his unanswered quiz

Not as embarrassing as you going on about your pathetic quiz ad infinitum. Is there a yawn smiley?

Grrr, someone is fuming today

You mean Rafa? He seems to be fuming all the time these days. Oh the injustice of it all....oh, the humanity....

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:Julius en fuego today, recovering well after the embarrassment of his unanswered quiz

Not as embarrassing as you going on about your pathetic quiz ad infinitum. Is there a yawn smiley?

Grrr, someone is fuming today

You mean Rafa? He seems to be fuming all the time these days. Oh the injustice of it all....oh, the humanity....

Nope, I was talking about you.