Protected ranking - for and against; Roger and Rafa

okay, not doing this again, it's too much like hard work but thought I would painstakingly copy Neil Harman's article from today's Times (that is Friday 25th November).

Interest difference in opinion between Roger and Rafa - have to say for the good of the tour, I hope very much that Roger and the nays will win this one. Discuss :

Article in The Times by Neil Harman

"The top eight players in the men’s game have been asked in London this week what they think of their sport adopting the same two-year ranking system that has protected the best golfers and limited the opportunities for those outside to enjoy top-ten status. Roger Federer is dead against it.
As an intriguing backdrop to the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, not only has the position of ATP chief executive been prominent in the debating chamber — with Richard Krajicek, the Dutchman, a controversial front-runner — but so has something that would have a profound effect on fairness and opportunities for professional players to better themselves.
The Times understands that all those in the field for this event were sounded out as to what they thought of adopting a new approach and that, for the most part, the reaction was favourable. From his response yesterday, it is certain that Federer was not one of the “Ayes”.
The 30-year-old Swiss has spent more time in the top ten than anyone else playing the game at present, having been No 1 for a record 237 consecutive weeks and inside the highest echelon since October 2002. In many respects, a two-year “rolling” system would help to embellish his legacy — if it needs embellishing.
As president of the Player Council and just being who he is, his comments carry significant weight. “It’s not a good thing for the lower-ranked players,” Federer said. “It’s going to be a struggle for them to make a big breakthrough. The dream of [these players] of having one great tournament, then making a [ranking] move, is not going to happen.
“If we have a two-year ranking, things would be slow and nothing would really move.
“I can’t support it as the president and I have to look all the players in the eye. I know it could be a good thing for me or Rafa [Nadal] because we would stay at the top for a very long time. It would take something extraordinary for us to move down. For the lower-ranked players, though, it is simply not a good thing.”
For those in favour, among whom Nadal is prominent, it is obviously aimed at prolonging the careers of those who have already made it to the upper reaches.
“With a two-year rolling ranking system, if you stop being No 5 of the world, you’re not going to be the No 6 when you come back, but maybe you’re going to be No 14, 15,” Nadal has said. “But with the way the ranking is done today, that’s not happening. If you have an injury for three months, five months, you’re done.”
But Nadal, who blazed a route through the sport as a teenager, has not really had to go through the crises and rigours that affect 95 per cent of the circuit. The points distribution is already heavily weighted in favour of the high rollers. It becomes more and more difficult to establish a foothold on the career ladder and that cannot be fair.
When Tiger Woods was at the centre of a personal firestorm near the end of 2009, he held the world No 1 position on the PGA Tour for another year, although he did not play for several months and has not won a tournament since he returned. Yet it was not until a year later that Lee Westwood replaced him at the top of the rankings.
“I like golf but I couldn’t tell you who’s in the top ten right now,” Federer said. “I couldn’t even mention four players. This is where tennis lives, for the weekly and yearly rankings. You guys love it and it stirs debates about what is going on.”
There is also a protected ranking on the ATP Tour, which allows players who have missed at least six months of play to return with special exemptions over a period of nine months or nine tournaments. That has worked well.
On the subject of a new chief executive, Federer said that the process was continuing but that it was a difficult job because “you’ll always upset someone on some side”.
He said the Player Council could only offer an opinion but that the decision ultimately rested with the board, three of whom the players nominate. "





[i]

Thanks for bringing this up.

But it bloody annoys me again that they are trying to change something that works fine.

And typical Federer simply tries to be fair, while Nadal sees his short term benefit at the expense of lower ranked players.

That is teh proof that this is not a proper sport anymore but they are trying to turn it into a showbiz with big names being glorified longer than they should.

Awful idea to extend to two years.

It will destroy the record books.

Who wants a world number 1 that potentially hasn't won anything significant for a year? Like with Woods and golf. The rankings should reflect the here and now, not what took place 18 months ago.

Agree with tenez. This is just a marketing ploy to make more money out of the big names.

Catastrophic idea, and shame on Rafa for endorsing it. Excellent words from Federer, who let it be noted would have more than almost anyone to gain from it.

Yep, this is nothing but a way for the big money makers to remains highly marketable.

I hope Federers weight will help see this off.

Tenez wrote:Thanks for bringing this up.

But it bloody annoys me again that they are trying to change something that works fine.

And typical Federer simply tries to be fair, while Nadal sees his short term benefit at the expense of lower ranked players.

That is teh proof that this is not a proper sport anymore but they are trying to turn it into a showbiz with big names being glorified longer than they should.

agree 100 per cent with all you guys. Think this should be bumped next time someone wonders why Fed wins the Stefan Edberg Award year after year, over luverly, humble, says ever such nice things Rafa!!!!

Unfortunately sounds like the majority of the rest of the top guys will follow Rafa's lead - quelle surprise!

First time I have seen a Harman article that is critical of Rafa - I have been waiting for the scales to lift a little since the 'hairline fracture' report the day after Wimbledon final that Harman went to press with.

If we take the example of Wimbledon ranking on grass, in the last 2 years, Nadal has rmore points than Djoko so despite being thrashed this year by Djokovic, Nadal would still be number 1 on grass.

An absurdity.

At first I only disliked Nadal's game, but now almost everything about him irritates me.

I agree with Federer on this too- it's not often that that happens!

carrieg4 wrote:I agree with Federer on this too- it's not often that that happens!

Fed can irritate some people with his slight arrogance in manner and his habit of saying it just how it is. I can see that ,if you are primarily a Murray fan, he can be extremely agigravating with the needling that goes on between Murray and Fed (which the sycophantic British Press actually referee/fan fairly energetically!)

One thing you can be assured of with Fed though is that he will fight a clean fight on court, and that he because he has love and respect for the sport that has given him so much, that he will always work in its best interests.

time please wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:I agree with Federer on this too- it's not often that that happens!

Fed can irritate some people with his slight arrogance in manner and his habit of saying it just how it is. I can see that ,if you are primarily a Murray fan, he can be extremely agigravating with the needling that goes on between Murray and Fed (which the sycophantic British Press actually referee/fan fairly energetically!)

One thing you can be assured of with Fed though is that he will fight a clean fight on court, and that he because he has love and respect for the sport that has given him so much, that he will always work in its best interests.

Don't get me wrong, I have complete respect for his game but am not a great fan of his ego in general. Nothing to do with his relationship with Murray in particular.

carrieg4 wrote:

time please wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:I agree with Federer on this too- it's not often that that happens!

Fed can irritate some people with his slight arrogance in manner and his habit of saying it just how it is. I can see that ,if you are primarily a Murray fan, he can be extremely agigravating with the needling that goes on between Murray and Fed (which the sycophantic British Press actually referee/fan fairly energetically!)

One thing you can be assured of with Fed though is that he will fight a clean fight on court, and that he because he has love and respect for the sport that has given him so much, that he will always work in its best interests.

Don't get me wrong, I have complete respect for his game but am not a great fan of his ego in general. Nothing to do with his relationship with Murray in particular.

I am very impressed with his stance on this issue though

Thanks for another super effort TP, I hope you have treated yourself with a double biscuit with your tea/coffee !

I must say when I saw this two year concept in the press recently I didn't quite know what it was about, saw Nadal was for it, so didn't draw my attention further, I thought it was another "long season" moan.

Now that I read this article, I am unpleasantly surprised by what he wants. Federer is absolutely right about lower ranked players.
The question is would have Nadal wanted this 6 years ago when he was starting? Why now?
What does he want protected, his earnings? Hasn't he made enough?

If anyone is to want this system it should be Delpo, or Davydenko or Nalbandian, and a sea of other players that had serious injuries, but he's never said anything, just plodded on and came back slower than expected, but came back. You'll need roughly the same amount of time your injury took for your comeback.

Nadal is paying the price for his playing style which brought him many titles and a lot of money. What more does he want?

2 years - terrible idea. Why not 3 or 5 while we're at it? We could have Agassi still in the top 50.
You could not play for over a year and still be in the top 10.
What happened 2 years or 18 months ago is irrelevant.

JuliusHMarx wrote:2 years - terrible idea. Why not 3 or 5 while we're at it? We could have Agassi still in the top 50.
You could not play for over a year and still be in the top 10.
What happened 2 years or 18 months ago is irrelevant.

If it goes back that far we could have three Brits in the top 100! I'm warming to the idea

oh dear tennis would be immeasurably damaged by this, do hope they don't make this stupid change!

Yep. Nadal is the new official number 1 if you add results of the last 2 years. Congratulations Nadal! You are the best.

It's just bloody obvious you are!...isn't it?...no, no really! I mean it. I don;'t care what the others say!

Tenez

Can't see this happening. The golf situtation, with Tiger not playing at all and still being number one, was ridiculous. You would have to have a whole heap of new records if the present system was changed. There would be pre two-year ranking records and post two-year ranking records.
It's not the ranking system that needs to be changed, it's the number of tournaments played, and more importantly, the number of tournaments that players are REQUIRED to play that's wrong.

Glad Fed took the stance he did so I don't have to think any less of him (at least not because of this). I mean it's just a no-brainer. I can't empathise with Nadal's stance trying to protect players' ranking from injuries like that. Injuries are an unfortunate part of life affecting players unevenly yet the inescapable fact is that a player who gets injured gives those below him a greater chance to surpass him as a player and they should not be denied if an when they do.

I think Fed's statements captured the relevant points, the rankings are one of the main talking points, they're dynamic and prevent players from getting complacent giving the fans on average a better show. I can't be asked to do any speculation as to Nadal's motives as there's plenty of others here to do that.

sirfredperry wrote:..
It's not the ranking system that needs to be changed, it's the number of tournaments played, and more importantly, the number of tournaments that players are REQUIRED to play that's wrong.

Not even that, I would say. It's the intensity they play each point, that is the problem. On faster conditions, shorter rallies, the schedule would be fine.

I'm with Sir Fred on this one. The schedule does need reviewing. It will be especially tough next year with Toronto straight after Olympics and WTF straight after Paris. One suggestion I read was reviewing at the 500 rule - not sure where or what the specifics were.

Must confess I don't always get to read the newspapers much these days, but I'm sure Borg is the current Number One.
He is, isn't he .... ?? (and if I've got my wires crossed there .... well, no matter, he'll always be No. 1 in my eyes.... )


What a truly CRAZY idea this is.


Not for nothing have players and fans alike found themselves saying countless times over the years : getting to number one is only half the battle ; staying there is the far tougher challenge, and is what sorts the exceptional from the elite.


I can just see the ATP promotional campaign .....

"Worked hard to get to Number One but worried about holding on to your status ...?
Sign up now* to our super new Protection Racquet (geddit ?.. ) and we'll guarantee your Number One spot even if you proceed to lose first round of every tournament.
And if you sniff some new youngster climbing up who looks frighteningly good, just don't bother playing him. Take some time out. Do a Tiger !"

* offer valid for a limited period only. Well .... not that limited really. Two whole years in fact. Terms & conditions do NOT apply

The schedule is fine, its just this new phenomenon of needing to win everything in a year. Maybe it started with Fed and the others have maybe set that bar for themselves as number 1's. The thing is though Fed has always played within himself even when achieving this. For example when he took back the number 1 in 2009, you didn't see him desperate to win everything; he just went and played. I don't see why the other players can't do that. Just play a bunch of tennis matches in a year.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:The schedule is fine, its just this new phenomenon of needing to win everything in a year. Maybe it started with Fed and the others have maybe set that bar for themselves as number 1's. The thing is though Fed has always played within himself even when achieving this. For example when he took back the number 1 in 2009, you didn't see him desperate to win everything; he just went and played. I don't see why the other players can't do that. Just play a bunch of tennis matches in a year.

Exactly! Making the season shorter, will make it more intense, and more phsyically gruelling.

Proof???? a 2 month rest is not enough for Rafa to recover from matches he played 2 months ago. Maybe if he knew he had had to play the DC and WTF he woudl have killed himself even more at the USO.

All this nonsense of long season has to stop. They should just accept losing cause their talents don't allow them to get through the round more easily. Especially Nadal who is mainly responsible for that physical escalation in the game.

B in the 5th - Take your point. But Fed has spoiled things by being able to win pretty as opposed to winnng ugly and to win quickly by sheer talent rather than having to grind out matches. May be we won't see the long stints at number one so much now, as it's just too exhausting to be at the top for long. Certainly Fed's 237 successive weeks record is gonna take some equalling even if he's doomed to stay for ever behind Pete S for total weeks at the top.

Tenez

It is an accepted fact that the season is long. Players who don't meet the criteria to miss tournaments (ie over 12 years on tour etc.) cannot miss 1000s without incurring a zero pointer for that tournament and their next highest scoring 1000 tournament in the subsequent 12 months (unless I am reading the rules wrong). Then there is the requirement of four 500s on top of that along with GSs, Davis Cup and 250s (although not mandatory would be daft not to enter a grass one in the run up to Wimbledon). The long season stuff is patently not nonsense.

It's an accepted fact? Since when? Who for? The Rafa fans who want him to win everything he enters?

When federer loses nowadays to guys like Berdych or Tsonga, we accept it. We don't blame teh long season, nor does he? The only thing I heard him say is just to allow one or 2 more weeks over Xmas. Nothing else. He even said "like it was in 2009, it was fine"....

The problem comes essentially from the very same player who bends the rule between points to suit his game, now wants to bend the schedule to suit his physical cycle and finally wants to change the ranking to protect his position.

Are we going to let him run the sport? It's about time we stop him in his tracks. He will lose political power while he slides down the ranking and the spot light moves on to other players.

I am looking forward to that time!

It is an accepted fact in that the off season is short in terms of weeks - especially compared to most other sports. I don't remember anyone player or commentator actually saying that the season is not long - they just differ in whether it is a problem or not.

I am not blaming any individual losses on the long season and, as I have said previously, I am not a Nadal fan. The problem I can see with the length and intensity of the season is that it clearly leaves players susceptible to injuries which are bad for the game in the long term. My opinion has nothing to do with any player in particular so please dismount and put your high horse out to pasture

All the commentators say the season is too long as well as many of the players including Murray. Tenez, give it a rest about Nadal hey, we get the point you dont like the guy. If we're to believe everything you say he's the devil incarnate and is ruining tennis. Viewing ffigures and fans worldwide say otherwise of course, plus he's just won an award for the Rafael Nadal Foundation, but you dont comment on that of course - only the negatives as you see/interpret them as always.

http://www.livetennisguide.com/2011/11/24/rafael-nadal-honored-with-arthur-ashe-humanitarian-award/

Rafa is not my favourite tennis player, and his playing style means he never can be.

I don't like his dubious number of MTO's (dubious given their precise timing within the match and remarkable speed of recovery) nor his unacceptably long delays between points.

And as per my earlier post, I certainly don't approve of the madcap protected ranking scheme which he is so keen to see introduced

BUT ..... I do have huge respect for the guy and the many good things he has brought to the sport.

Tenez : give him a break. Please. He simply doesn't deserve the flak you throw at him

lags72 wrote:Rafa is not my favourite tennis player, and his playing style means he never can be.

I don't like his dubious number of MTO's (dubious given their precise timing within the match and remarkable speed of recovery) nor his unacceptably long delays between points.

And as per my earlier post, I certainly don't approve of the madcap protected ranking scheme which he is so keen to see introduced

BUT ..... I do have huge respect for the guy and the many good things he has brought to the sport.

Tenez : give him a break. Please. He simply doesn't deserve the flak you throw at him

SO you don;t like what I don;t like about him but we have to make do? Why?

It's our sport as much as his. In fact more ours than his. He will disappear from the scene while we will still be watching teh sport...unless it becomes his sport made by his rules.

A change of ranking woudl kill 20 years of ranking history. Like everything can;t you see that he is doing his best to kill teh sport we loved to watch before he arrived?

Nah he deserves all the flak he gets!

No one is saying Nadal is the devil incarnate, but perhaps his stance on this issue does make him seem somewhat self serving?

We constantly hear about how sporting he is, so when something that is obviously at odds with that image crops up it rightly merits discussion.

I can understand it might be hard to read this sort of thing about a player you admire, but it is simple enough to just ignore the thread if you don't like it rather than try to censor it.

noleisthebest wrote:Thanks for another super effort TP, I hope you have treated yourself with a double biscuit with your tea/coffee !

I must say when I saw this two year concept in the press recently I didn't quite know what it was about, saw Nadal was for it, so didn't draw my attention further, I thought it was another "long season" moan.

Now that I read this article, I am unpleasantly surprised by what he wants. Federer is absolutely right about lower ranked players.
The question is would have Nadal wanted this 6 years ago when he was starting? Why now?
What does he want protected, his earnings? Hasn't he made enough?

If anyone is to want this system it should be Delpo, or Davydenko or Nalbandian, and a sea of other players that had serious injuries, but he's never said anything, just plodded on and came back slower than expected, but came back. You'll need roughly the same amount of time your injury took for your comeback.

Nadal is paying the price for his playing style which brought him many titles and a lot of money. What more does he want?

I wonder what Djokovic thinks?

The injured players you mention may well have an opinion, but it's not as newsworthy as those of Federer and Nadal.

For what it's worth I think it should stay exactly as it is, but some posters sure can't wait to wade in overzealously.

Tenez : Rest assured, I'm 100% with you on the rankings (see my post 12.59) - not least the historical factor. They actually began as far back as 1973 with Nastase, so a well-established and highly efficient system

But on some other matters I was suggesting that you might want to give him a bit of credit now and then. That's all.

As lydian says, he's not exactly the devil incarnate !

lags72 wrote:Tenez : Rest assured, I'm 100% with you on the rankings (see my post 12.59) - not least the historical factor. They actually began as far back as 1973 with Nastase, so a well-established and highly efficient system

But on some other matters I was suggesting that you might want to give him a bit of credit now and then. That's all.

As lydian says, he's not exactly the devil incarnate !

But I am here to discuss the thread and the fact that once again, he is trying to change the game we like.

It's important to express our views or not let go. If you let go, you end up waiting a minute after each point...or you end up having a shorter season than has been necessary...or simply having a ranking that is simply not a true ranking.

Isn't that worth talking about?

I wish Lydian was telling us what he thinks about the 2 year ranking? Why is he in agreement with Nadal? If he is not, why doesn't he say so? And if so, why does he think Nadal is supporting it? Of course for non-egoistical reasons.

Tenez I don't think Nadal's reasons are self serving though it could look that way as it benefits him. Why can't you believe the reasons he gave, there's no reason for him not to have your benefit of the doubt.

Whilst I dislike the idea of a 2-year scheme I am not so convinced that it is an entirely self-serving move from Nadal. After all, he has not yet had an injury which has seen him plummet, perhaps he feels like he will get one and it is just that which is driving him here.

People tend to answer in a way that suits themselves, and based on their own experiences. It so happens here that Federer has stayed injury-free so he probably thinks that if you get an injury, tough luck - an argument for which there is some justification. I wonder what he would think if he had missed a 6-month chunk somewhere down the line though. I would guess that most injury-prone players would be in favour of the alternate system.

4th street, I don't think Fed's or Nadal's reasons are at all self serving and I don't think that either of their integreties should be questioned. It's like Fed said about having to look the players in the eye, it's the same for Nadal. I just think Fed is right on this one as I don't share the belief that players can or should be protected in this way against injury.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Tenez I don't think Nadal's reasons are self serving though it could look that way as it benefits him. Why can't you believe the reasons he gave, there's no reason for him not to have your benefit of the doubt.

The reasons Nadal gives are the same that I give. That is to protect ranking beyond reason. It's absurd but he says it in a nicer way than I do as you would expect. The fact is someone with no point at all comes on tour, wins a slam and a TMS and has enough points to get him to 8 in the world. So why do we need to preserve big names if a good performance is enough to put them back in the top 10?

I don;t doubt Nadal when it comes to turning everything into his advantage at the expense of spectators and more importantly fellow players.

Positively 4th Street wrote:Whilst I dislike the idea of a 2-year scheme I am not so convinced that it is an entirely self-serving move from Nadal. After all, he has not yet had an injury which has seen him plummet, perhaps he feels like he will get one and it is just that which is driving him here.

Sure. He is due one. I actually sense that he senses one is due for after USO 12. Just a gut feel.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Thanks for another super effort TP, I hope you have treated yourself with a double biscuit with your tea/coffee !

I must say when I saw this two year concept in the press recently I didn't quite know what it was about, saw Nadal was for it, so didn't draw my attention further, I thought it was another "long season" moan.

Now that I read this article, I am unpleasantly surprised by what he wants. Federer is absolutely right about lower ranked players.
The question is would have Nadal wanted this 6 years ago when he was starting? Why now?
What does he want protected, his earnings? Hasn't he made enough?

If anyone is to want this system it should be Delpo, or Davydenko or Nalbandian, and a sea of other players that had serious injuries, but he's never said anything, just plodded on and came back slower than expected, but came back. You'll need roughly the same amount of time your injury took for your comeback.

Nadal is paying the price for his playing style which brought him many titles and a lot of money. What more does he want?

I wonder what Djokovic thinks?

The injured players you mention may well have an opinion, but it's not as newsworthy as those of Federer and Nadal.

For what it's worth I think it should stay exactly as it is, but some posters sure can't wait to wade in overzealously.

I don't know what Djokovic thinks. Do you?

The idea is bad, and being zealous about tennis, I have a perfect right to say what I think without trying to make everyone happy which seems to be the trend in this politically correct world gone mad.

Tenez wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Tenez I don't think Nadal's reasons are self serving though it could look that way as it benefits him. Why can't you believe the reasons he gave, there's no reason for him not to have your benefit of the doubt.

The reasons Nadal gives are the same that I give. That is to protect ranking beyond reason. It's absurd but he says it in a nicer way than I do as you would expect. The fact is someone with no point at all comes on tour, wins a slam and a TMS and has enough points to get him to 8 in the world. So why do we need to preserve big names if a good performance is enough to put them back in the top 10?

I don;t doubt Nadal when it comes to turning everything into his advantage at the expense of spectators and more importantly fellow players.

Getting to the top 8 is rarely about amazing performances and more about consistent play, I mean not even everyone in the top 4 has been able to win a slam and 5-8 didn't achieve their rankings this year by winning masters titles. His point, which I disagree with anyway, was to protect the accumulated work of a player. It's just the other point of view which happens to be the one that would suit him the most but he's done nothing to not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Come on people, did we just get off the boat.

A player whose form goes to cr@p after the USO every year wants a scheme whereby if you're "injured" your ranking gets protected? And the same player, struggling to stay in touch, wants longer term points held in for ranking?

Right, he's such a philanthropist.

His form after the USO is mostly irrelevant to this as he's managed to earn his ranking largely without this. There's little evidence he's struggling to stay in touch as he' probably performed on average the same as he usually does around this time. Even if 2 year ranking was to be implemented, it wouldn't be any time soon and therefore wouldn't serve him a whole lot anyway.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:His form after the USO is mostly irrelevant to this as he's managed to earn his ranking largely without this. There's little evidence he's struggling to stay in touch as he' probably performed on average the same as he usually does around this time. Even if 2 year ranking was to be implemented, it wouldn't be any time soon and therefore wouldn't serve him a whole lot anyway.

It is relevant cause now instead of concentrating 5 months a year, he would give his best every other year.

The fact we are discussing this is absurd, the fact they do, is pretty unhealthy for the sport. It's like anyone in sales here were to ask their boss if last year achievements could be counted in this year target.

Tenez wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:His form after the USO is mostly irrelevant to this as he's managed to earn his ranking largely without this. There's little evidence he's struggling to stay in touch as he' probably performed on average the same as he usually does around this time. Even if 2 year ranking was to be implemented, it wouldn't be any time soon and therefore wouldn't serve him a whole lot anyway.

It is relevant cause now instead of concentrating 5 months a year, he would give his best every other year.

The fact we are discussing this is absurd, the fact they do, is pretty unhealthy for the sport. It's like anyone in sales here were to ask their boss if last year achievements could be counted in this year target.

Absolutely. At the risk of upsetting everyone, I have to say that I thought straight away that Rafa would use a two year ranking to take a little 'injury' time, particularly if he cannot stir up the ranks to revolt any more over the scheduling.

I am afraid I think this because I have watched him take so many tactical MTOs over the years and then play like a demi god - he does not always play with a straight bat imo on the court, and very often with scant consideration for his opponent, so I don't really expect him to act out of character on this issue.

Regarding tiredness etc...I think the last paragraph of this article says everything...

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=15220&zoneid=25

noleisthebest wrote:Regarding tiredness etc...I think the last paragraph of this article says everything...

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=15220&zoneid=25

THis is teh point I make in my OP. His Holydays were the last 6 weeks. His being tired now is poor excuse. If he has mental fatigue as some suggest, I don't know how not having hlidays and working his @ss off is going to help his mind.

But anyway, some will always be keen to find sense in this non-sense.

Well I guess it just comes down to I trust Nadal's integrity and you guys don't. I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm just saying I don't believe he has an ulterior motive for his position on this issue. I don't believe he wants to win or cares about ranking badly enough to compromise his morals. In any case I think you guys especially tenez are overreacting to something that's just a concept and is not going to be implemented anyway. Nadal's not on a campaign to ruin the sport.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Well I guess it just comes down to I trust Nadal's integrity and you guys don't.

Well it reminds me the time when fans were defending his time taking between points saying it was OCD. Now I believe almost everbody agrees it is to suit his gruelling physical game, therefore taking advantage over his opponent by bending the rule.

Nadal like his game,is about bringing his opponent's level down to his own...not trying to elevate his play to their levels.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Well I guess it just comes down to I trust Nadal's integrity and you guys don't. I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm just saying I don't believe he has an ulterior motive for his position on this issue. I don't believe he wants to win or cares about ranking badly enough to compromise his morals. In any case I think you guys especially tenez are overreacting to something that's just a concept and is not going to be implemented anyway. Nadal's not on a campaign to ruin the sport.

As far as I am concerned, I am not upset because Nadal is tired etc. that's his career and way of handling himself.
What I'm upset about is that he is now suddenly pushing the system that is only going to make matters worse.
As usual thin-skinned fans all see it as personal attack and fail to see the big picture which is NOT GOOD for tennis.