MTO's

First topic message reminder :

I may have called Nadal's MTO too critically today. He turned out to have a problem, but he has taken many dubious ones, and he is not alone.

Would it not be a better rule to say that the penalty of any MTO regardless of circumstances is to forfeit upto and including the taker's next service game? Then there is no risk or perceived risk of tactics and tennis reflects what it is, a game of fitness to play and skill? If you are unfit for any reason the bad luck should remain where it falls.

JMDP took an MTO during the 2009 USO final in order to decide whether to lodge a Hawkeye challenge.

Here is a bit longer list…

v Del Potro @ W 2011
v Petzschner @ W 2010
v Murray @ AO 2010
v Almagro @ USO 2009
v Gonzalez @ USO 2009
v Djokovic @ Madrid 2009
v Murray @ Rotterdam 2009
v Federer @ AO 2009
v Federer @ MC 2008
v Federer @ Hamburg 2008
v Federer @ W 2007
v Mathieu @ RG 2006

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I think today was a perfect use of the MTO. The player that was winning before continued to win the match and Nadal after receiving some treatment and probably some pain killers was able to give the fans another 90 minutes or more of some quality tennis. What is wrong with that frankly I don't know. If he was unable to receive assistance he probably would have withdrawn. Is that any better for Stan or for the fans? I don't think so, I think it behooves the game to help the player try to find away to continue and not withdraw?

Nadal was clearly bothered for about 30 minutes or so till the pain killers kicked and he started playing a good match and gave it a go. It was not strategic unless you believe he served 20 or 30 miles an hour less on his serve in order to instigate a perfect ruse. If he took the MTO and right away was playing like a healthy Nadal then that is one thing. But by the radar gun and his movement it was obvious that he needed it. Federer fan's need to get over this Nadal injury conspiracy belief that they have. The guy is injury prone and this is pretty well documented it is not a dastardly plan to trick his opponents.

Find me one Federer fan (on this forum) who thinks yesterday's MTO wasn't genuine.
No doubt, if it was Fed who battled through and, say, SB creating a thread on how unselfish Fed was, you'd be right up there supporting that, right socal?   Or would perhaps few choice metaphors be issuing from socal's box of put-downs?

Hasn't SB basically said he is unsure whether he was injured and suspects it was all a masterplan to knock Stan out of his stride (Nadal down by a set and a break basically decided he was certain to lose and so thought serving at 80mph and barely moving was the way to turn the match around).

 
No, SB agreed with socal that it was a 'good' i.e. correct use of MTO yesterday. SB can correct me if I'm wrong. I think he suggested that part of the reason the crowd booed Rafa was that they were suspicious, before the re-start, that it was tactical, given Rafa's past history of MTOs. Frew McMillan said the same thing, until after they re-started, at which point it was clear the injury was genuine.

Possibly he changed his mind later but he was fairly clear he was of a mind that there was a strong chance Rafa was faking well after the match had finished.

Born Slippy wrote:Possibly he changed his mind later but he was fairly clear he was of a mind that there was a strong chance Rafa was faking well after the match had finished.

Huh?

I certainly expected he was faking it when it happened and I could imagine him faking it even for a while thereafter (I saw players throwing full sets intentionally faking injuries before) but (well) after the match?  Did I miss that somehow or did you get creative?

I do think he often fakes his MTOs and I do think he has himself to blame when people did not initially believe him but I do not think he was faking it yesterday - hence the boy who cried wolf comments.

so 6 in 800 matches

6 in 11 years


lets bann him for life

naxroy wrote:so 6 in 800 matches

Is that correct?  If I understand LF's list correctly, it has 12 MTOs, but I do not think that list purports to be complete either.

How do you decide whether or not you believe that a player is mostly honest with their MTOs?  Do you mostly take the "innocent until proven guilty" view (which would be just about the opposite of how I see it )?  Or do you think that many players tend to abuse the rule?  Do you judge by the number and time when the players pick their MTOs, or how do you go about it?

The normal rule is to look at who takes it, decide if you're a fan or not, and apply judgement on that basis.

Yes because an injury prone player could not possibly have the niggles in 12 out of 600 matches. But the more logical conclusion is that not only are the MTOs strategic but so are his fake injuries used to lull his opposition into a false sense of security only so Nadal can come back like Jason Voorheis in Friday the 13th and slash his opponent like big breast teenage girls frolicking in the woods.

laverfan wrote:

kingraf wrote:Didnt DelPo take a timeout in that 2011 match as well? Or was he's case that much more convincing? Because he lost no doubt...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQijqSdWKV0

You Decide.

Del Po horses around too - it's just as bad whoever does it, Nadal is merely the poster boy for a more widespread bad activity

bogbrush wrote:The normal rule is to look at who takes it, decide if you're a fan or not, and apply judgement on that basis.

You can be world-weary and wisely sceptical about people's reactions, but that is the whole point of my suggestion, to lance the boil by making sure that MTO's come at a cost so are genuine.

naxroy wrote:so 6 in 800 matches

6 in 11 years


lets bann him for life

You misunderstand why I am researching these. This is not to ban Nadal, but to find a better and equitable solution for BOTH sides of the net.

socal1976 wrote:Yes because an injury prone player could not possibly have the niggles in 12 out of 600 matches. But the more logical conclusion is that not only are the MTOs strategic but so are his fake injuries used to lull his opposition into a false sense of security only so Nadal can come back like Jason Voorheis in Friday the 13th and slash his opponent like big breast teenage girls frolicking in the woods.  

laverfan wrote:The larger question vis-a-vis Nadal is this? Is he taking an MTO because he may be losing the match, or he does have a genuine medical condition because of which he is losing the said match?

I have clearly articulated the conundrum, have I not?

Rules can be improved by studying exceptions to such rules. Nadal is one such exception, for MTOs and Time-Between-Points.

Djokovic used to have issues, before he had surgery which seems to have addressed the issues to a large extent? Can Nadal's condition be addressed?

If his doctors can sustain his knees and make him an elite player, they have enough skills to perform what is necessary so he can pursue what he loves.

We should discuss this a bit more sanely, rather than through gnashed teeth.

I don't know what else they can do for Nadal. I think he's had various problems for a decade now and surely, especially over the last 5 years, they've thought about everything possible treatment-wise? I don't want to derail this thread but injuries are just part of his game - and every pro for that matter. Due to different game styles, some players will be more susceptible to injuries than others so all defensive baseliners must appreciate they are going to suffer more injuries than the more attacking players (except DelPo who's an exception to the rule here).

I dont see point penalties etc as feasible. What about last year when Li Na cracked her head on the floor in the final? That obviously needed to be looked at. If there had been sanctions she might have carried on rather than risk losing vital points in a slam final, with the inherent risks with a head injury.

It just seems to me that the umpire has to take control. Unless it is something extremely serious the player should only be able to take an mto before their own service game and preferable not after 8 games have been played in a set. That would largely prevent effective gamesmanship.

summerblues wrote:

naxroy wrote:so 6 in 800 matches

Is that correct?  If I understand LF's list correctly, it has 12 MTOs, but I do not think that list purports to be complete either.

How do you decide whether or not you believe that a player is mostly honest with their MTOs?  Do you mostly take the "innocent until proven guilty" view (which would be just about the opposite of how I see it )?  Or do you think that many players tend to abuse the rule?  Do you judge by the number and time when the players pick their MTOs, or how do you go about it?

My apologies. Sure i had read somewhere that you wouldn't put it past him to have faked it because he was losing anyway. Good to know I was wrong!

Born Slippy wrote:I dont see point penalties etc as feasible. What about last year when Li Na cracked her head on the floor in the final? That obviously needed to be looked at. If there had been sanctions she might have carried on rather than risk losing vital points in a slam final, with the inherent risks with a head injury.

It just seems to me that the umpire has to take control. Unless it is something extremely serious the player should only be able to take an mto before their own service game and preferable not after 8 games have been played in a set. That would largely prevent effective gamesmanship.

I can see that it is sensible to make an exception for head injuries, because they are potentially life-threatening and victims are notoriously bad at responding sensibly to them. That apart, are you saying that players are so stupid that they need an umpire sitting up in the chair several feet/metres away from to tell them when they require help in place of what their own bodies are telling them? Furthermore, if players are that stupid why should they not suffer the consequences of such stupidity - they'll know their bodies as well as anyone and whether there is a problem that they want to play through.

How does an umpire take control, how does an umpire know the dividing line between serious and not or extremely serious and just serious? Does the umpire say, "don't be silly, it doesn't look like it hurts enough to me", it's not feasible, top players will not accept a refusal to let them have an MTO if that's what they want and they will argue the toss, what answer does an umpire have to "how do you know"?. If an umpire manages to take control as you suggest he/she is effectively condemning the player to losing points anyway if they prefer to play on gingerly until the MTO - just take the points off. How should words like "preferable" and "extremely serious" be judged, and why not just "serious"?

I think I am battling some misplaced notion that if a player is well enough to get out onto a Court and is injured or hurt it's some how so unfair on them or the spectators that the other player become irrelevant and the 'injured' player must be given every chance to play on, even at the expense of a rule that is so beneficial to the supposed injured party it is widely abused and the abuse is roundly hated by tennis watchers not least because it has demonstrably brought about significant momentum swings in matches.

Found this which might help reduce the trench warfare…

From the Oregonian:
Federer took an injury timeout in the fifth set of the Australian Open 2005 semifinal against Marat Safin after he fell behind in the set. He needed a back massage. He lost the match.

Federer took an injury timeout in the fifth set of the Masters Cup 2005 final against David Nalbandian after he fell behind in the fifth set. He needed a leg massage. He lost the match.

Federer took an injury timeout in the second set, down a set and a break, in the second round of Indian Wells in 2007 against Guillermo Canas to have his footblisters retaped. He lost the match. (He claimed his feet were healed at the next event in Miami. He lost again in a third-set breaker in the fourth round to none other than Guillermo Canas.)

The other two I am aware of, for Federer, are
v Murray @ TMC 2008
v Malisse @ W 2012

You fire stoker LF!!

laverfan wrote:Found this which might help reduce the trench warfare…

From the Oregonian:
Federer took an injury timeout in the fifth set of the Australian Open 2005 semifinal against Marat Safin after he fell behind in the set. He needed a back massage. He lost the match.

Federer took an injury timeout in the fifth set of the Masters Cup 2005 final against David Nalbandian after he fell behind in the fifth set. He needed a leg massage. He lost the match.

Federer took an injury timeout in the second set, down a set and a break, in the second round of Indian Wells in 2007 against Guillermo Canas to have his footblisters retaped. He lost the match. (He claimed his feet were healed at the next event in Miami. He lost again in a third-set breaker in the fourth round to none other than Guillermo Canas.)

The other two I am aware of, for Federer, are
v Murray @ TMC 2008
v Malisse @ W 2012

If any of them were tactical that's just as bad as anyone else up to tricks.

From the sound of it, had there been a penalty to be accepted there may well have no MTO vs. Safin or Canas - although the Nalbandian, Murray, and Malisse matches all took place at times when he was below par as I recall - anyway, I say in all cases take the a penalty and suck it up.

I don't think their should be a tariff for MTO's. It is there is the players require them. However, if the physio deems it to be tactical in anyway or if the treatment exceeds 3 minutes then introduce a penalty. I for one was in the camp at first glance that Nadal took an MTO to stop the momentum, but truly and honestly if a player can't hold his/her concentration for 3 minutes he/she has no place on a tennis court!

I know feds was troubled a lot with his back in wimby 2012, kept wearing that black shirt underneath.
Feds on changeovers int he last set vs murray shanghai 08 received back massages.
Going into shanghai 2005 he had an ankle injury I think, but I don't know if that was treated.
No nada about safin.

lydian wrote:You fire stoker LF!!

You do realize I have stayed away from Djokovic and Murray.

I do not want to start yet another trench war. There is enough of it already.

barrystar wrote:

laverfan wrote:Found this which might help reduce the trench warfare…

From the Oregonian:
Federer took an injury timeout in the fifth set of the Australian Open 2005 semifinal against Marat Safin after he fell behind in the set. He needed a back massage. He lost the match.

Federer took an injury timeout in the fifth set of the Masters Cup 2005 final against David Nalbandian after he fell behind in the fifth set. He needed a leg massage. He lost the match.

Federer took an injury timeout in the second set, down a set and a break, in the second round of Indian Wells in 2007 against Guillermo Canas to have his footblisters retaped. He lost the match. (He claimed his feet were healed at the next event in Miami. He lost again in a third-set breaker in the fourth round to none other than Guillermo Canas.)

The other two I am aware of, for Federer, are
v Murray @ TMC 2008
v Malisse @ W 2012

If any of them were tactical that's just as bad as anyone else up to tricks.

From the sound of it, had there been a penalty to be accepted there may well have no MTO vs. Safin or Canas - although the Nalbandian, Murray, and Malisse matches all took place at times when he was below par as I recall - anyway, I say in all cases take the a penalty and suck it up.

IMVHO, Federer in TMC 2005 was coming off crutches.

It was entirely in keeping with this year's injury-plagued Tennis Masters Cup that Roger Federer should be beaten in a fluctuating five-set final not so much by the brilliance of his opponent but more because his legs simply caved in. After all, three weeks ago he was on crutches having badly hurt his right ankle in a practice accident, and he believed himself fortunate to be playing at all when the eight-day tournament began.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2005/nov/21/tennis.gdnsport3

He had given Blake a walkover in Paris 2008 due to back issues. v Safin @AO 2005, he was on his knees when Safin hit the winning shot - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoYaSlbPHig (45:00+). Safin played a brilliant match, saving MP.

I think the point about serious injuries is a red herring. AFAIK, such injuries are already treated differently to non-acute injuries. You can stop play immediately for example. So all you would have to do is draw a distinction in the consequences for an MTO.

Lionel Hutz wrote: You can stop play immediately for example.

Quite agree, Lionel. The Fognini case in point. Sampras vomiting on the side of the court, but he still continued to play. There is also the case of Gasquet continuing play, despite being hurt.

Born Slippy wrote:My apologies.

No problem.

Born Slippy wrote:Sure i had read somewhere that you wouldn't put it past him to have faked it because he was losing anyway. Good to know I was wrong!

Just to make it clear that we are not confusing two things here:

I certainly would not put it past Rafa to fake an injury and even to play intentionally subpar to throw his opponent off.  He would obviously not be the first one to do it either.  Two years ago, Tomic was faking injury/tiredness for most of a set to throw Verdasco off.  He even gleefully admitted to having done so after the match.

But the way this match panned out it is clear Rafa did not do it here.

Seriously, I am with LF, if you are so weak mentally that a five minute break causes you to lose a match then you don't deserve to win in the first place. It is an established rule of the game and has been such for years. Deal with it. What next should player have to hold their pee if he is losing because it might upset his opponent for him to leave the court? I don't care frankly even if it is strategic although I have seen very little use of the MTO on the men's tour that I would deem strategic. Gamesmanship is part of the game, hence the term.

laverfan wrote:Djokovic used to have issues, before he had surgery which seems to have addressed the issues to a large extent?

Even though his health issues - sadly - resurfaced at 2:5 down in the 5th set of his USO final against Andy as Andy was going to serve for the match.

I certainly think that Rafa - and perhaps even more Nole - are bad abusers of the MTO, certainly worse than most, or Federer in particular (not that Federer is above gamesmanship either - I do not think he took the bathroom break against Davy because of nature's call).

But, I am conceptually willing to accept the possibility that it only appears to me so because of my bias (hence it would be nice to see some hard stats on this).

However, what does it really matter if Rafa or Roger are worse offenders?  Suppose it turns out that Fed is indeed the worse abuser - surely it is as much of a problem then.

My initial response at the beginning of this thread was that - as much as I hated MTOs, I was probably willing to live with the current state.  I certainly would not want to force the player taking the MTO to forfeit the whole game.  Maybe I could see them having to lose one point.  That would not have an unduly large impact on the match, yet might be enough of a deterrent for players who are otherwise healthy.  Plus it might also make it easier for the other player to swallow it - so they might not be seething in knowledge that the opponent is just abusing the rules.  After all they would be getting a free point out of it.

What about Fed does, when his opponent is hot he will often go in the middle of a game and change racquets as if the racquet is the problem. Look the rules make sense. They favor giving the player all the opportunity to continue. If Nadal was denied his rubdown and painkillers he probably would have withdrawn. And then we would have heard a shrill cacophony of whining about the withdrawal. We want players to be able to continue and not end the event. The broadcasters want it, the fans want it, and his opponent wants it. This crying about MTOs is really silly. You are a worldclass professional deal with it, if you can't you aren't a true champion and don't deserve to win. Simple period, mental toughness is required on the ATP tour, putting up with Ahole fans who yell out during points, douchie swiss guys yelling at your box, and yes MTOs.

If it's all about the show and the fans, then if you're struggling mentally, you should be allowed MTO to consult your coach or even a sports psychologist. Logically it makes sense to allow this, because otherwise a mental capitulation could lead from a great 7-6 first set to a 6-1, 6-2 non-event in the next 2 sets, and the fans don't get their money's worth.
If, on the other hand, mental toughness is part of the game, surely physical toughness should be as well.
Why differentiate between the two?

It's interesting how much of the opposition to my suggestion does not deal with it's essence - I am not suggesting, as Socal would have it, that MTO's be banned or that Nadal would not have been entitled to one on my scheme, merely that it should have come at a price to ensure that it was genuinely taken and that the indulgence afforded to one player did not disadvantage the other who is, of course, blameless for injury unless he has drawn it out by his excellent play, in which case he deserves an advantage. I have made it clear that whilst I think Nadal is the most obvious offender, there are others and I am as aggrieved if Federer were to use one tactically as anybody else.  I hate cheating whoever does it.
 
I don't buy the, "if you cant ride out 5 minutes delay you aren't a champion".  You could say "if you can't ride out a series of bad line calls you aren't a champion" or "if you can't play through a niggle you aren't a champion" or "if you can't ensure that your condition is right for the biggest matches you aren't a champion" - why should any player be forced to let go of a hot streak with the momentum in his favour because the opponent is cheating and lies about ill health to regain control.  What a cheat does during an MTO is quite profound - he regains control over the proceedings which he had lost, he is in complete control, he knows how he is feeling, he has the timetable going to his command.  The other has to wait losing body heat not knowing what the form is and he has to re-build the momentum taken away from him.  Margins are very tight between players and that can make a huge difference to both of them (hence the reason for abuse) - the player whose momentum has been stopped has to block out his knowledge/suspicion that his opponent has cheated and been protected by the rules, that's not easy and I don't see why he should have to do that when it's not part of the legitimate contest.
 
Socal slightly gives the game away by saying that it's called gamesmanship because it's part of the game - it's called gamesmanship because people are too chicken to call cheating what it is, usually when they are excusing their favourite player.  Cheating is part of the game, it's part of every game, which is why there are rules.

barrystar wrote: 
I don't buy the, "if you cant ride out 5 minutes delay you aren't a champion".  You could say "if you can't ride out a series of bad line calls you aren't a champion" or "if you can't play through a niggle you aren't a champion" or "if you can't ensure that your condition is right for the biggest matches you aren't a champion" - why should any player be forced to let go of a hot streak with the momentum in his favour because the opponent is cheating and lies about ill health to regain control.  What a cheat does during an MTO is quite profound - he regains control over the proceedings which he had lost, he is in complete control, he knows how he is feeling, he has the timetable going to his command.  The other has to wait losing body heat not knowing what the form is and he has to re-build the momentum taken away from him.  Margins are very tight between players and that can make a huge difference to both of them (hence the reason for abuse) - the player whose momentum has been stopped has to block out his knowledge/suspicion that his opponent has cheated and been protected by the rules, that's not easy and I don't see why he should have to do that when it's not part of the legitimate contest.

See I do buy it as history tells us that there have been many players who could've achieved way more with the right application both physically and mentally. Look at Ivanisevic. He would let the slightest thing both him and he couldn't see a match out. Wimbledon 2001 was the only time I ever think he applied himself mentally. Look at Davydenko and Nalbandian. One lacked mental focus and other lacked physical prowess. Both underachieved for the ability they had. For me it is those moments that absolutely tell you the truth of a player and what they are made of.

I do agree that yes streaky players for example that are in the zone to begin with and are quick starters will be undone by an MTO. Players like a Berdych or a Tsonga could be undone by a suspicious MTO because they are in one gear and one speed. Say if Nadal played Djokovic and pulled an MTO I would think that it wouldn't bother Novak because he is a slow starter and he himself knows how to reign in his momentum. Yes he and Nadal have pulled some dodgy MTO's, but is it a fault in the rule or is it a fault in the player?

If I were to change the rule then I would change when it can be called because I don't agree with it being called during a change over in the TB or something.

LK - I agree that there are players who are better in the clutch than others and mental strength is the hallmark of a champion. Some players will be better at dealing with MTO's than others and when push comes to shove they'll win more. What you don't deal with is why should any player have to overcome cheating by his opponent who pulls an MTO in the hope that he can disrupt his opponent's rhythm, rather than just excellent play? Is the advantage of having a sanction-free MTO regime so great that it is worth accepting that there will be abuse of it?

You surmise that some players won't be overcome by an MTO - it rather depends upon the timing does it not? If a player has got fantastic momentum at a key point of a tight match which he is overall losing on the scores and that is disrupted and he gets it back, but too late to turn the match around, he may lose without being guilty of being a one-paced or streaky player. Anyway, one still returns to the question that nobody answers, which is why should somebody have to establish his credentials as a winner in the face of abuses of an MTO regime which is so easily abused and which is abused? What is the value of the current MTO regime which means that it should exist as a benefit/potential benefit to those who would abuse it? What is the harm of an MTO regime which reminds players that in a game of physical fitness it is an indulgence to them to have a trainer on the Court mid-match, the value of which they must judge by having to accept a penalty as the price for it?

It would be a cultural shift, for sure, but the advantages would be (i) less unnecessary MTO's (ii) less abuse of MTO's (iii) fairer treatment of players who will, usually, be on top and taken out of the zone for a while and (iv) greater acceptance by the public of MTO's when they are called - much less chance of Nadal being booed as happened last week. As I have said, if an accident happens on Court which gives rise to a head injury that would not be covered.

The trouble with changing when it can be called (beyond asking that it must be at least between games rather than between points) is that (i) the danger of a small problem developing into a large problem is increased and (ii) it is asking a player to forfeit his chances in the match up to the next permissible time anyway. Therefore, the timing of an injury could have a huge affect on a match, when if there is a fixed 'price' the timing of an injury/MTO is far less significant.

So - why is the current regime so worthwhile that it is not worth making a change which is likely to reduce/minimise abuses?

I agree a change in the rule might make it less open to abuse, but again I think MTO's need to be shown for abuse. I agree no-one should have to overcome an MTO. The one which sticks out was the Del Potro v Nadal Wimbledon. What made that unique was that Del Potro was annoyed with when it was taken, but 'believed' Nadal was genuinally injured. As a consequence Nadal took the TB without showing any signs of injury or niggles that caused the MTO. IIRC Del Potro took an MTO in that match too.

I for one like you thought that at the time Nadal took an MTO on Sunday it was purely tactical and only changed my mind when I saw him clearly hampered by an injury. Again because of past demeanours, it is difficult to offer Nadal sympathy when he is actually clearly injured.

I think a tweek in the rules will mean MTO's are to be taken when they are really required.

Murray delayed his MC 2011 match v Nadal to address/avoid a potential MTO during the match. He did not win, but that is unrelated. Connors, OTOH, took a break during a match to get Cortisone injections and Borg also did it before a match to alleviate a groin injury

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19760630&id=UpspAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RJIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3770,7014954

laverfan wrote:Murray delayed his MC 2011 match v Nadal to address/avoid a potential MTO during the match. He did not win, but that is unrelated. Connors, OTOH, took a break during a match to get Cortisone injections and Borg also did it before a match to alleviate a groin injury

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19760630&id=UpspAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RJIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3770,7014954

"Swedish glamor boy Bjorn Borg"   

Barrystar, it is part of the game and I never said lets ban MTOs or that they should be completely unregulated. There is an appropiate application of that rule as with anything else. And really it is about mental toughness and not losing your focus. Gamesmanship is not cheating, cheating is taking PEDs or breaking rules. Making use of an existing rule possibly in a strategic way is not cheating. And frankly I have not seen this overwhelming evidence that MTOs are used in this manner on the men's tour. People assume that Nadal takes strategic ones what evidence has been provided for this belief of certain people. How exactly do you know the guys intent what instance are we talking about here?

I'd say that there is plenty of evidence from which it's clearly appropriate to infer that Nadal, and others, abuse MTO's. It's the timing of the MTO and the lack of difficulty afterwards and the reaction of the opponent as well as the fact that the problems do not reappear in later matches.

Faking injury to take advantage of a rule designed to help those who need help is cheating in my book. I have not read the rules, but I am sure the precondition to an MTO is need, the problem is policing that fairly so I say put judgement in the hands of the player to buy his indulgence.

I keep hearing about this mountain of evidence of strategic MTOs and i don't know maybe it is just me watching a different tour. I have not seen Nadal or other players strategically using MTOs on the ATP tour. It doesn't happen that often and when it does happen it usually is at best debatable. The issue here is that is there widespread abuse of the rule, I just don't see it. The players and the officials usually get it right. And we see the benefits of the rule here in a big final. All these people came to watch the match, the tournament directors have huge amounts of money invested, broadcasters the same. And because we don't want to make poor Stan (who went on to win) wait 5 minutes when he is playing well we should make it more likely Nadal is either hobbled or unlikely to continue costing every a lot of money? It behooves the game, even in the case of a few instances of abuse, to help the player keep it together and finish the match. If anything the final made me a bigger supporter of MTOs than before.

I agree, you would think its happening all the time from this thread. It isn't. Nadal has had 13 MTOs in total...and played fuller seasons from 03-14...so he's averaging around 1 per season. Considering he's played 800 matches since then that's an MTO rate of 1.6%.

How many MTOs have Djokovic, Federer and Murray had vs Nadal's 13?

http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/20120124/Irate_Cash_calls_for_crackdown_on_medical_timeout_tactics

"....or the numerous players who blatantly abuse the rules just to give themselves an added chance when things are getting tough and get off scot-free."

Is Cash watching a different tour?

What would Cash know about long gruelling matches? He's still pi55ed at Nadal beating him as a 14 year old   

Cash doesn't mention Nadal. He says "numerous players".

The ITF changed the rule because they thought too many players were abusing it
http://josephsoninstitute.org/sports/pvwh-sportsmanship/2010/02/tennis%E2%80%99s-newest-gamesmanship-ploy/

Are players more inherently honest now? Or do they simply know that it's not quite so easy to get away with it, but they'll still try if they think they can?

Point me in the direction of a recent strategic MTO.....

socal1976 wrote:I keep hearing about this mountain of evidence of strategic MTOs and i don't know maybe it is just me watching a different tour. I have not seen Nadal or other players strategically using MTOs on the ATP tour. It doesn't happen that often and when it does happen it usually is at best debatable. The issue here is that is there widespread abuse of the rule, I just don't see it. The players and the officials usually get it right. And we see the benefits of the rule here in a big final. All these people came to watch the match, the tournament directors have huge amounts of money invested, broadcasters the same. And because we don't want to make poor Stan (who went on to win) wait 5 minutes when he is playing well we should make it more likely Nadal is either hobbled or unlikely to continue costing every a lot of money? It behooves the game, even in the case of a few instances of abuse, to help the player keep it together and finish the match. If anything the final made me a bigger supporter of MTOs than before.

There you go again. I am not making a suggestion that would have deprived Nadal of the MTO. He would have had it in just the same way, except at a price. Wawrinka and the crowd would have been confident that NAdal meant it, no booing, and the match goes on. Of course there is abuse, it's difficult to prove beyond all reasonable doubt to someone who wants pedantically to deny it, but it happens and it should be discouraged further.

That rule was changed to stop mock-cramping MTOs....which of the top players have ever pulled that one? I think this is all being massively overplayed, and usually in the direction of Mr 1.6% Nadal.

This still makes me laugh....

When Nadal was 14 years old, 33 year old tennis great Pat Cash played a clay-court exhibition match against him. Cash, who was originally scheduled to play Boris Becker, was reluctant to play against Nadal, taking this rearranged match as an offense to his professional status. Cash lost the match.

Does it matter if it's the top players or not? The discussion is about what's best for all players. It might be in the early stages of a 250 tournament not on TV, or Masters 2nd round between 2 wild cards that no-one pays attention to.
Not surprisingly it gets highlighted and discussed on the odd occasion when a top player takes an MTO, but that doesn't mean a broader look at the issue isn't possible.

Clearly enough tennis players were abusing the MTO rule to make the ITF change it - what does this tell us about tennis players? That there are enough out there willing to cheat if they think they can get away with it. Would that have changed in the last 3 or 4 years? I very much doubt it.

But you're extrapolating the ITF changes to cover everything. ITF tightened it up to prevent mock-cramp MTOs. The MTO issues being picked on here are not cramp related...ITF has done nothing to tighten the rule up for non-cramp related issues. Nor do I see any widespread problem, its overblown IMO.

But you're avoiding the issue that there are clearly enough tennis players out there willing to cheat. The current MTO rule still allows them to do that, with no penalty. Saying 'cramp' was just one easy way of doing it.