Rafa's Back And He's Not Backing Down

First topic message reminder :

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

socal1976 wrote:Good post Lydian the ATP wants long base line rallies and the question bears to be asked, why? Because as Nadal indicates you rarely see anyone stand up and giving an ovation for an ace, (matchpoint excepted). The points that people cut out for the highlight reel are generally longer rallies with the fans ooing and ahing. I have been saying the same thing for years. People like the slower conditions and the longer rallies and the longer matches. Not everyone, but most fans do. They don't like matches with lots of short rallies and aces and routine holds of service games.

I don't see too many people getting too excited by Monfils & Simon and their 60 - 70 shot rallies or calling for more of them.

lydian makes a good point about the conditions etc - a point that seems to have escaped Rafa it would seem, hence we end up debating what Rafa has said (which is what the OP was about)

lydian wrote:I don't see that response as particularly relevant to what I said to be frank. I'm not talking about them....its the unfitter ones that will suffer more when Rafa and Novak move them around and they don't have time to recover fully. For example, Zeballos got a time violation in Chile when knackered after a point...had Nadal been on better form he would have only compounded Zeballos's fitness issue.

But surely those players are suffering because Rafa and Novak have greater skills and thus can move them around more - not because of fitness per se. If we allow more time between points, then the motivation to run your opponent around disappears because you know they'll be given time to recover.

Yes, there is a different between Simon who pushs the ball back and players going for big shots and finding a lot of those shots coming back. I don't like to see aimless grinding and waiting for errors either. Most of the time when you see fans get up and applause it is after a long point with both good offense and defense, rarely have I seen a two or 3 shot rally end with the fans applauding on their feet. The fans like it julius, if they didn't, the ATP would be idiotic for changing it and slowing things down.

What about 'The Shot'?
(And yes, I know you said 'rarely', but I'm giving you The Shot here, so don't pass it up!)

I don't think a 30 - 40 shot rally is necessarily, on average, more exciting than a 10 - 15 shot rally.
The fans also like Dubai - otherwise the ATP would be idiotic for NOT changing it.

But like I pointed out Lydian, Nadal and Djokovic are 25-1 collectively with the new rule "adaptation". Winners win losers lose, because winners can adapt. We could create tennis on glass and I guarantee you the top 4 would find a way to stay dominant.
I really doubt Nadal thinks that his rant will cause a rule change. He was asked a question and he answered it, no¿

Djokovic-Federer could have been a fun rivalry had they peaked simultaneously. Sadly it reads a bit like a tale of two halves now.

Murray-Nadal is rarely fun. Either Nadal runs through him, or his knees breaks down. Or Murray cant deal with external conditions. Their best matches were USO 08, and WTF 10 that was the best I ever saw Murray play.

JuliusHMarx wrote:What about 'The Shot'?
(And yes, I know you said 'rarely', but I'm giving you The Shot here, so don't pass it up!)

Hugely boring- my sources in California tell me Socal fell asleep

JuliusHMarx wrote:What about 'The Shot'?
(And yes, I know you said 'rarely', but I'm giving you The Shot here, so don't pass it up!)

I don't think a 30 - 40 shot rally is necessarily, on average, more exciting than a 10 - 15 shot rally.
The fans also like Dubai - otherwise the ATP would be idiotic for NOT changing it.

Again the shot was matchpoint julius, I doubt it would have been applauded much if it happened early on in the match. But again like I said we are talking about general rules and there are exceptions to most every rule. Who talked about a 30 shot rally as the baseline, even on slower conditions those rallies are still very rare. And actually for whatever reason the fans do seem to acknowledge those type of rallies more than the 10 or 15 shot rallies. But again no one is saying that every match or every rally should be like that, that isn't what we are seeing now either.

kingraf wrote:But like I pointed out Lydian, Nadal and Djokovic are 25-1 collectively with the new rule "adaptation". Winners win losers lose, because winners can adapt. We could create tennis on glass and I guarantee you the top 4 would find a way to stay dominant.
I really doubt Nadal thinks that his rant will cause a rule change. He was asked a question and he answered it, no¿

Djokovic-Federer could have been a fun rivalry had they peaked simultaneously. Sadly it reads a bit like a tale of two halves now.

Murray-Nadal is rarely fun. Either Nadal runs through him, or his knees breaks down. Or Murray cant deal with external conditions. Their best matches were USO 08, and WTF 10 that was the best I ever saw Murray play.

Wilander was the most weaponless grinder I have seen as a top player and he managed to win slams during an era of faster conditions and serve and volleyers. Djokovic has won all the faster hardcourt events on tour with the exception of Cincy, many of them more than once. So I do agree with your point. So I agree with you there, I don't think Nadal wins because he is allowed extra time, I always felt that critique of nadal detractors that the extra time he was allowed between points being the reason he won matches to be really silly and non-factual. The way he is playing right now with the shotmaking on display I don't think he needs to worry in 99 percent of his matches about getting tired due to long points.

socal1976 wrote:...there are exceptions to most every rule....

Not socal's maxim, I hope. I've built a life philosophy around that one

Kingraf, if tennis was played on glass....or lets say carpet, I can guarantee you the top 4 would have been different. But that's still besides the point.

JHM, yes they get moved around because of skill issues...but they still get made to suffer nonetheless. Even guys ranked 30-50 can still keep a ralley going a long time, and get winded. Plus don't forget that the longer a match goes the easier they get winded. In the first set they can take 30+ shot ralleys frequently. By set 4 or 5 a good 20 shot ralley might have them doubled over. And yet the 25s rule will be equally applied from point #1 to point #300. However, the guy coughing his guts up in set 4 who's been ran ragged is still going to try to hang in there, their competitive spirit takes over in the heat of battle, they may push themselves all the harder physically precisely because their skill level cant get them out of a bad ralley situation. So what gives...they keep sticking to 25s and eventually keel over? It may only ever happen once but what if we get another football sudden cardiac death in tennis due to exhaustive running on the court where the heart is beating at well above max. rate for too long?

In that case lydian, there should be no time limit between points and the players should just let the umpire know when they are ready.

That would be the only way to keep the players healthy and to give the fans the 30-40 shot rallies they desire.

Easy to be facetious JHM but I'm making serious points.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:...there are exceptions to most every rule....

Not socal's maxim, I hope. I've built a life philosophy around that one

Ha you are among the biggest violators of said rule but there is hope for you yet. Not all students learn at the same pace some need special attention and a slower learning curve but with steady application they can still learn I am afraid you are one of these slower learners but not incapable of intellectual growth I hold out hope for you yet

And yes even SoCal's maxim has exceptions I am not infallible

Applying a blanket 25s rule in tennis is fraught with issues - especially now that the game has been reduced to long ralleys being the order of the day.

No-one is asking for chaos or open-house but the ATP don't seem to recognise they have created their own problem. The players are the ones penalised for ATP's lack of foresight. The game is at least 20% slower now...yet no increase in the time limits, or adjustment for when matches go over 3, 4 or 5 hours. They're expecting different results from applying the same approach (time), isn't that the definition of madness when the environment has changed around you?

Remember the USO 10? Nadal needed a way to win that, and came up with a 140 mp/h serve. Dropped five (FIVE) service games out of 111 tied for the USO record. Hands up whoever saw that happenning two weeks prior? Hands up whoever saw Djokovic turning into tennis' Ironman while he was tetiring from matches? Hands up whoever saw Fed as a five-time Roland Garros runner-up when he got knocked out early 2003 & 2004? Lydian, these guys are at the top for a reason and that is because these guys are the most adaptable. Bar none.

Regardless, my point was that it doesnt matter what happens, these guys are the boys at the top. I mean they are 45-3 collectively! with the new rule ammendment. Nadal and Djokovic made the first five (except MC, which Djoko skipped) Masters finals in 2011 under the lax rules. Now they are 25-1 under the strict rules. Winners keep winning

socal1976 wrote:...I am afraid you are one of these slower learners but not incapable of intellectual growth I hold out hope for you yet

That's a coincidence - my kindergarten teacher said the same thing to me this morning.

Make sure for art class she gives you the scissors with rounded edges we wouldn't want you to get hurt julius

lydian wrote:Easy to be facetious JHM but I'm making serious points.

Not facetious, exactly, there is a serious point in there also. If rallies get more punishing, and the ATP want to keep that going to boost business, what other choice is there but to extend the time between points? Perhaps doctors need to be involved in the decision. It could be that they advise 40 seconds or a minute to be on the safe side.
Also, should players be allowed to take a risk after a long rally - should there be an enforced minimum time period of, say, 40 seconds, to ensure full an proper recovery, for health and safety reasons?
Is the emphasis on slower courts, longer rallies and more fitness actually leading to potential disaster?

The football authorities are considering heart monitors on players during matches - perhaps tennis needs the same equipment?

socal1976 wrote:Make sure for art class she gives you the scissors with rounded edges we wouldn't want you to get hurt julius

I glued my eyelids shut yesterday. Silly me.

kingraf wrote:Djokovic-Federer could have been a fun rivalry had they peaked simultaneously. Sadly it reads a bit like a tale of two halves now.

Absolutely! Peak Fed v Peak Novak on hard courts would have been very interesting!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Make sure for art class she gives you the scissors with rounded edges we wouldn't want you to get hurt julius

I glued my eyelids shut yesterday. Silly me.

LOL!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

lydian wrote:Easy to be facetious JHM but I'm making serious points.

Not facetious, exactly, there is a serious point in there also. If rallies get more punishing, and the ATP want to keep that going to boost business, what other choice is there but to extend the time between points? Perhaps doctors need to be involved in the decision. It could be that they advise 40 seconds or a minute to be on the safe side.
Also, should players be allowed to take a risk after a long rally - should there be an enforced minimum time period of, say, 40 seconds, to ensure full an proper recovery, for health and safety reasons?
Is the emphasis on slower courts, longer rallies and more fitness actually leading to potential disaster?

The football authorities are considering heart monitors on players during matches - perhaps tennis needs the same equipment?

Lets not get carried away a couple of people drop dead while playing sports due to heart defects and it is very sad no doubt. But we don't need to build an intensive care unit next to center court of each tennis match.

Socal, no one is suggesting ICU's, you're being over the top. However, as the pace and endurance needed in football has gone up so have the number of sudden cardiac deaths, not to gigantuan proportions thankfully, but they are a dreadful occurrence. How are we to know if the demands of the modern game arent putting huge physical demands on players, now further squeezed by blanket 25s rules. How are we to know if slower courts and need for much greater fitness haven't adversely affected Mardy Fish' heart? Anyway, I doubt there are any medical considerations in the 25s time rule being applied carte blanche across the duration of any match but there still remains the fact that courts are getting slower, ralleys extended, matches longer and max. heart rate periods up!

Lydian these are freak events and I am sure they would happen in the past as well but now with the global media everyone hears about it. I think 25second rule is plenty, if we see a real problem we can do what I have suggested and give the players a timeout per set or two per set which they can initiate for a one minute break after a long point. Otherwise the player can just swing for the fences on the next point like anyone who is cramping has had to do in tennis matches. Part of the challenge will be to adjust your own style based on what your body can give.

It's harsh to be too critical of Nadal here, as he's going to get asked about this often in press conferences etc and is entitled to give his point of view. It does seem to come across as a bit moany though, unless you're inclined to like Rafa anyway, and I wish his PR team would help him come up with an answer that seemed a little more constructive.

On the point of the time limit, I tend to be multi-tasking while watching tennis so like to see a replay of a great point the commentators are raving about. So my proposal would be - if a point is so good the TV producers want more than 25s for a replay then the players get more than 25s, if it's not then get on with the next point. Simples.

Actually, that is a bit harsh on players on non-TV courts, who also probably don't have the advantage of a strategic hawkeye challenge breather either, so I would then allow these players an allocation of say 3 points per set where they could take up to 40s.

On the shotclock issue, ideally place one so that players can see how much time they have (especially if the umpire is using discretion when to start the clock), but I think it should become routine to them without it (which is a good reason to bring the ITF/slam time limit in line with the ATP one - though I assume that would affect women's matches too). It's like brushing your teeth - I don't need to time myself to know when I've brushed for 2 minutes!

I have to say I'm really quite suprised by some peoples inability to comprehend that there has to be rules limiting the pace of play. In any sport an opponent who drags their heels is extremely frustrating. In cricket you get penalised for a slow over rate. In football you get booked for time wasting. Even in Snooker you get warnings if you are considered to be taking to long over a shot.

From what I understand in Tennis the ruling has not changed. You are allowed the same amount of time as before. The penalty has even become less severe. All that has changed is that the umpires have been told to enfore the existing rule that they were not doing before hand.

In the ATP guidleines it still states the umpire is allowed to use discretion if there are some extenuating circumstances. This has been pointed out. A 30-40 shot rally is not, IMO, an extenuating circumstance. That is part of the fabric of the game and occurs in the natural passage of play. To extend the time limit between points to be allowed to do this again and again and again is quite simply against the rules. If you are knackered after a rally. Deal with it. Play a different shot. The bloke on the other end of the net is in exactly the same siutation as you. Unless he has swopped places with someone halfway through a rally.

I have a lot of time for Novak and his general personality. I think he brings a human side to the world of professional athletes. His observation that spending 6 and half hours on court is not the way forward is telling. Considering the rule change would be benefit him more than others says something about him.

I prefer attacking tennis full stop. Watching endless rallies, which will end in an unforced error is not my idea of a spectacle. If someone misses going for a winner so be it. Someone missing because they have been ground into the dirt is dull. That's just my preference. The assumption that spectators like this tennis is midleading I beleive. Exactly what research has Rafa done (sorry I didn't want to mention Rafa but he has been the leading protagonist against this 'new' rule) to justify his remarks? I don't mind if he wants the rule changed - but don't start making claims on behalf of people without having any evidence to back it up. It is telling that there has hardly been a mass of players supporting him on this one.

Those are my thoughts anyway. Have a nice day all

Johnny; you know it's not a new rule, I know it's not a new rule, even Hawkeye knows it's not a new rule, trouble is she's made such a fuss over it and dug herself such a big hole on the "new rule" principle she can't back off.

It's fun. Everyone keeps reminding her. Keeps her mind off Andy Murray for a few minutes.

Good post Johnyjeep I find it interesting that I still haven't seen a player actually be charged with a fault under the modified rule, and yet if you listen to people talk enforcement of the time rule is just draconian and could harm the players and the game. If a player get tired I suggest he swings harder then and determines the next point or two on the first or second swing of the racquet. I am tired of sitting and watching endless towling and lengthy rituals before every serve. Just get on with it, as a fan I expect action for my viewing

Cheers BB and Socal. I agree I haven't seen it enforced yet but I understand it has. I think that umpires have been intimidated by star names in the past (i include Federer in this) and have made strange calls based on the name rather than the player. As long as they are brave it will be fine. Because as you say socal we want to see tennis not towling down rituals. Personally I'd just ban towels inbetween points. The game coped fine without them before bloody Rusedski came along. Just wear sweat bands!!! But that's a whole other debate I guess!! Dimitrov has imploded here. Great sportsmanship from Djokovic there.

Two interesting comments on the time rule today:

1. Fish pointing out he has a heart condition when being warned;

2. Ulrich apparently said its a crazy rule when giving a warning to Haas. Would love to see the circumstances of that one!

Fish said it tongue in cheek according to the commentators on Sky Sports (not a great source I grant you). But they know more about the incident than I so I will defer to them.

He also said he should be able to take as much time as he wants apparently. Again with tongue firmly placed in cheek.

Born Slippy. I did see the conversation between Fish and the umpire and posted this on a different thread

hawkeye wrote:Did anyone see the discussion Fish had with the umpire about going over 25 seconds between points?

The umpire said to Fish at change of ends that he was going over the time limit. According to the rules Fish should have received an official warning the first time he went over 25 seconds so why was Fish getting special treatment?

Anyway Fish complained about being told this by the Umpire. The Umpire retaliated by saying I'm only doing what you guys voted me to do. Fish said that he didn't vote for any such thing. He then said he had a heart condition...

Ha ha! I'm not sure who was more irritated by the new rule Fish or the Umpire.

Interesting that just like Ulrich this umpire clearly wasn't in full agreement of this crazy/stupid rule. As I predicted umpires are not all stupid and will find it difficult to follow stupid rules. First he didn't apply it correctly then he wanted to blame the players but Fish wasn't willing to take the blame either.

I am following this subject closely because when I am proved right about it Julius is going to present me with a crate of beer AND a bottle of champagne...

What do I get when I'm proved right? I don't like beer and detest champagne.

There has never been any change (the change here being the enforcement of an existing rule NOT a new rule) implemented in sport that has had the unanimous backing of everyone. Even Hawkeye in cricket, the Indians don't like. Yet you dont set rules based on the minority. Some people say its fine, some don't. Hawkeye you just seem to ignore the ones who say 'yeah its fine'. I just can't understand why you think that enforcing an existing rule with a softer penalty is a bad thing. Therefore the only logical inference is that you wish to extend the time period inbetween points. Because if you don't then you are saying players should be able to go over the time limit on their whim. Which is, believe it or not, against the rules of the game. Much like the agreeance that both players have between them that they will hit the ball over the net and inbetween the lines to stay in a point.

Plus Hawkeye u don't help yourself with comments like these:

Interesting that just like Ulrich this umpire clearly wasn't in full agreement of this crazy/stupid rule. As I predicted umpires are not all stupid and will find it difficult to follow stupid rules. First he didn't apply it correctly then he wanted to blame the players but Fish wasn't willing to take the blame either.

You say umpires aren't stupid? Then in the next sentence state that he didn't apply the rule correctly!! Maybe if he had of done then there would have been no discussion between players?! The problem therefore in this case was not the rule but the stupid umpire who failed to apply it correctly. And then shift responsibility for the mistake..anyone would be peeved in those circumstances!!

What about the viewer's rights in all this, I get tired of watching endless in between the point rituals of the players and afterall it is about entertainment value of the game. Johnny you make some good points in that the time limit has always been there and its abuse was so prevalent and annoying that I had to push for more enforcement mechanisms. The players had the discretion in the past and abused it, now it is not illogical for the officials to crack down on behavior that frankly was getting a bit ridiculous, all that was left was for a player to bring a portable shower and shampoo himself after every point. Don't want to lose that fresh and clean feeling even for 2 hours.

socal1976 wrote:The players had the discretion in the past and abused it, now it is not illogical for the officials to crack down on behavior that frankly was getting a bit ridiculous, all that was left was for a player to bring a portable shower and shampoo himself after every point. Don't want to lose that fresh and clean feeling even for 2 hours.

Exactly Socal. The umpire still has the discretion for use in exceptional circumstances. The only difference is that the players are no longer being allowed to ignore the long-standing and eminently sensible time rules constantly for no reason.

Johnyjeep wrote:There has never been any change (the change here being the enforcement of an existing rule NOT a new rule) implemented in sport that has had the unanimous backing of everyone. Even Hawkeye in cricket, the Indians don't like. Yet you dont set rules based on the minority. Some people say its fine, some don't. Hawkeye you just seem to ignore the ones who say 'yeah its fine'. I just can't understand why you think that enforcing an existing rule with a softer penalty is a bad thing. Therefore the only logical inference is that you wish to extend the time period inbetween points. Because if you don't then you are saying players should be able to go over the time limit on their whim. Which is, believe it or not, against the rules of the game. Much like the agreeance that both players have between them that they will hit the ball over the net and inbetween the lines to stay in a point.