The Latest Interview (Nadal's , Who Else's)

Just as we have successfully discussed fast courts to death, to our rescue comes , who else but Rafa Nadal.

In his latest interview, he tackles another 606v2's favourite topics: time violation.

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=16795&zoneid=25

No prizes for guessing what he thinks about them....


The intro and Nadal's interview aside, I think that enforcing the 20 seconds rule would sort out the game quicker & better than anything else.

Since the umpires are obviously gutless and underpaid and don't have any say in all this, the onus is on tournament organisers to install visible clocks on courts and see what happens.

Lol, 666 is going to have a field-day with this one...

You know, in all this, I don't understand one thing. Even after all these interviews and expressing all these things like 2-year ranking system, court speeds, time between points, some people still come out and trumpet how is the most gracious and humble in the world...

Great idea for a thread! This hasn't been discussed before has it.

Spuranik, I advice you buy a dictionary. What does time violations have to with being humble? Are you confused?

Spuranik:
'2 Year ranking system'
He thinks tennis ranking should be more like golfs- with more long term success rewarded. I completely disagree with him, but he has his opinion just like you have yours. Is he not allowed his opinion, even if it is not valid for some does not make him 'ungracious'. Nice try.

'Court speeds'
WTF does this have to do with nadal?

'Time between points'
It's upto the umpire to enforce the rules. What does this have to do with him being humble again??? I could take 2 hours to serve and yet be the most humble guy in the world.

'Court speeds'= Nadal not humble this gets funnier the more times I read it

"The rules are there, but we cannot expect to play six hours and play rallies of crazy points and rest for 20 seconds for nobody."

If players can stick to rules in 90% of matches, surprising that it should be 'discretionary' in the remaining 10% matches.

How many six-hour matches has Nadal played in his career to use this as an argument?

Mats Wilander, IIRC, has played two or more 6-hour matches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_tennis_match_records#Davis_Cup
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Skoff

amritia3ee wrote:Great idea for a thread! This hasn't been discussed before has it. Don't worry Tenez will be here soon and you can bash Nadal at will.

Since you have watched all Nadal matches, do you know how many 6-hour matches has Nadal played in his career?

laverfan wrote:"The rules are there, but we cannot expect to play six hours and play rallies of crazy points and rest for 20 seconds for nobody."

If players can stick to rules in 90% of matches, surprising that it should be 'discretionary' in the remaining 10% matches.

How many six-hour matches has Nadal played in his career to use this as an argument?

Mats Wilander, IIRC, has played two or more 6-hour matches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_tennis_match_records#Davis_Cup
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Skoff

This 6 hour excuse it really poor. I remember by the end of 6 games in the 1st set that AO 12 final, Nadal's and Djo time-takings between points were shown and they both were taking well over 30 seconds. Just after 6 games. Also by the end of 1st set Avg time taken between points by Djo : 31 sec , Nadal :34 seconds.

Now did the 1st set or the first 6 games also lasted for 6 hours? This excuse is really poor.

Interestingly, he is making pretty much the same point as Tenez et al, albeit from a different angle. He appears to agree (not quite explicitly, but close to it) that the kind of tennis he plays requires more rest between the points than 20/25 seconds.

However, where some see rules being broken and unfair advantage being gained, he sees a need for flexibility to allow the game to follow its course.

Being a stickler for the rules, and also perhaps because I am not a big fan of his brand of tennis, I tend to agree with the former perspective.

Also, I suspect that the conditions are becoming more favorable for those who want to see quicker points. As others mentioned on this forum, I suspect that, if nothing else, the TV will start putting pressure on tennis to shorten the matches. I live in the US and tennis has to compete against more popular sports here. It does not have the luxury of being able to stage more and more 4-5+ hr matches and get away with it. And, like it or not, the US market is too big to be ignored by tennis.

laverfan wrote:"The rules are there, but we cannot expect to play six hours and play rallies of crazy points and rest for 20 seconds for nobody."

I am thinking strongly about a poster who (wants to) believe(s) that it's all about a bad habit! You know the poster who thinks I am biased...or not neutral.

Summerblues

We would like to welcome you here on 606v2 BUT I am afraid you posted that you were not a big fan of Nadal's brand of tennis. This forum is unbalanced and has too many pro Federer or Anti-Nadal. Under the pressure of some posters V2 is considering to introduce an Equal Opportinities Act to allow people of all boards to represent the natural Facebook's tennis players's Friends spread. In that respect Anti-Nadal posters are over quota here and we may not be able to have you here. We are desperately looking for Nole's fans instead, a rare statistic event. Having said that we are also short of Vincent Spaeda fans so you might apply as a Vincent Spaeda supporter and v2 might consider your application.

Are you from 606? Do we know you under another pseudo?

Oh BTW,,,Welcome to the Forum Summerblues. I was just kidding of course...(Well I hope ...those things are not of my resort thankfully).

No what are you talking about Tenez, I have seen summerblues post on MTL and he is an intelligent guy.

I agree that the umpire has to use his discretion not to spoil the flow of a big final like the AO with imposing penalties for time violations. The length of those rallies meant the guys needed a bit more time to catch their breath. It is a fine balancing act, not to disrupt the match and spoil it for spectators and not to let this issue get out of hand. I don't have much problem with the time taken at AO (except I lost the will to live sometime in the 2nd set for a while ) because both guys were taking their time against each other.

However, I echo those that said that this is a very disingenuous response by Rafa - just how many 6 hour matches has he played? - He is usually fairly ruthlessly efficient in lower rounds and certainly should not need to exceed the time.

No player is should be bigger than the sport,

But TP - No slow courts or length of matches should justify extra time taking. This comment in the interview link says it best:

Endurance/stamina/conditioning is an integral part of any athletic competition, which is why the rule exists. Keeping play moving requires the player to consider their fatigue and the fatigue of their competitor, and incorporate that analysis in their strategy throughout the match. The rule makes the match more strategic, which has always been a key component of tennis. There are breaks provided at change overs to get rest.

It is a rule and rules should be enforced. It affects play far more than foot faults, which have no affect on a point but are strictly efforced. If you are looking for a rule to ignore, ignore foot faults...

And he/she is dead right.

In principle, I agree with you Tenez. My first paragraph is a bit pragmatic because I just don't believe we are going to see Rafa held to account for this, well not until he is beginning to slide down the rankings and there is a new kid in town who ain't having it.

I think the players could have nipped this in the bud, years ago, by sitting down and refusing to resume play until Rafa was on court on time, up from his chair on time and not slowing down play as a matter of course when the momentum is against him.

Quite frankly they are in the best position to protest about this - and not this sly dig by Fed which will produce zero results. Murray handled Rafa really well at AO 2010 when he looked to the umpire in the first set as Rafa dawdled between serves. When the lower ranked players make the point, the issue is completely fudged. Rafa is very disarming and friendly and I think together with his long term No2 and No1 ranking, the rank and file have been......well a little disarmed (Miles M made this point on Sky, shortly after losing coaching role to AM). If Fed had the demeanour of a Mac, Becker, Connors, Lendl - it would never have got to this stage. Connors would have whipped up the crowd against Rafa, just as he used to do when Mac erupted. I don't think the majority of people who watch tennis realise that the rules have been flagrantly ignored, but a Connors would have made sure everyone knew!!!

I think Lendl is going to gird Murray's loins on this issue.

time please wrote:...I just don't believe we are going to see Rafa held to account for this, well not until he is beginning to slide down the rankings and there is a new kid in town who ain't having it.

I think the players could have nipped this in the bud, years ago, by sitting down and refusing to resume play until Rafa was on court on time, up from his chair on time and not slowing down play as a matter of course when the momentum is against him.

Yep...too many FB "friends".

If Fed had the demeanour of a Mac, Becker, Connors, Lendl - it would never have got to this stage. Connors would have whipped up the crowd against Rafa, just as he used to do when Mac erupted. I don't think the majority of people who watch tennis realise that the rules have been flagrantly ignored, but a Connors would have made sure everyone knew!!!

I think Lendl is going to gird Murray's loins on this issue.

There is no room for a Connors or McEnroe character nowadays. Too much money and pressure involved with sponsors forcing a conduct to their players to maximise revenue.

If revenue can double thanks to Fed and Nadal's success, it's 2 markets that need to be exploited. That is what it's all about and this is why Rafa shamlessly argues that if they want those "amazing rallies" tennis has to change the rule.

We still want to see Tennis as a sport whereas Federer, Nadal and co have long understood it's a money making show. They still want to win as it guarantees you have a good role in the show ...but it's a show.

It is a really good point you have made there Tenez: Connors and McEnroe have both talked about how they and especially Borg with his rock star appeal made tennis popular with the masses in a way it had never been before (although of course Wimbledon was a big part of the British sporting calendar). The three of them, together with colourful characters like Gerualitis (sic) and Nastase really appealed to the public who loved or loathed the protagonists.

I don't believe that Fed and Rafa see this as a show over a sport - I don't think sportsmen think like that. I do, however, think that the huge appearance fees, exhibition riches up for grabs and lucrative sponsorship deals means of course these guys are required to be something that we didn't expect other generations to be, even though theirs was a commercial age too, albeit not one that paid the same over the top wages that any top sportsman can expect now.

Of course by promoting this 'nice guy' image, friend to all in the locker room, tennis has been lucky in having Fed at the top of the tree who has a deep respect for the game and played by the rules. The ATP are being very short sighted, as are the slams, in allowing one of their box office stars to not adhere strictly to the game because it is a thin end of the wedge situation. Rafa does appear to sometimes overestimate his importance in the long term view of the game, when he calls for a bigger share of the takings because the top four are the box office stars - he shows little understanding of the need for tournaments to keep something in reserve to invest back into the venue and its facilities - the ATP would do well now to understand he will not play for ever and he is a participant in a sport and not the sport.

One of the biggest factors in perception has to be the internet and how quickly views are shared, reputations tarnished and every utterance examined on Twitter, facebook and various forums or comment columns on online newspapers - I think this lot are probably a little too self conscious about their fans - reality is the sports viewing public would watch them anyway and would still love the guys like Mac and Becker and Connors in this media conscious age imo.

time please wrote:... I think this lot are probably a little too self conscious about their fans - reality is the sports viewing public would watch them anyway and would still love the guys like Mac and Becker and Connors in this media conscious age imo.

It's beyond's players control. Look at how they are all manipulated to save each other from doping suspicions . "Oh I know such and such is clean" or "there is no doping in top athletes, it's impossible". Look at how the 20s rule is enforced upon a Cilic and a Harrison but not on a Nadal or Djokovic. Same for the on-court caoching rule.

If it was a sport more than a show that 20s rule coudl never be broken. As the comment I quoted says it has a much bigger impact than a foot fault yet we penalise one but not the other. In fact I am not even sure we account for foot faults teh same way across all players.

Apparently, during IW, Nadal is staying at a tournament director's mansion, playing golf etc....hard to imagine an umpire trying to enforce a rule during his matches, then.
They are almost becoming paid spectators these days.

What's the point of having them if they can't enforce the rules.

Does anyone have an idea of how much enforcing the 20 sec rule would actually impact the game in practice?

EG. a 30+ "amazing" rally scenario, then 20 seconds, then another one of them, 20 secs. then what? Series of unforced errors or stg else?

noleisthebest wrote:Does anyone have an idea of how much enforcing the 20 sec rule would actually impact the game in practice?

EG. a 30+ "amazing" rally scenario, then 20 seconds, then another one of them, 20 secs. then what? Series of unforced errors or stg else?

It's very clear that teh UEs would be much more frequent. They woudl simply be forced to take more risk and at the end the one able to score more easily, energy efficiently would win.
This is exactly what we see between Djoko and Nadal but because tehy take more time it simply takes longer to to come to that (5h+).

The biggest loser woudl obviously be Nadal as he is one of the least energy efficient in terms of rallying (Monfils being probably the worst in that department).

Just look at the Miami 2005 final where he lost the last 6 games in a row, the last time he played within 20s. Federer was surprised of Nadal's physical collapse. 2 weeks later by taking extra time he was able to rally for ever without dropping form playing Ferrero and Coria.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Does anyone have an idea of how much enforcing the 20 sec rule would actually impact the game in practice?

EG. a 30+ "amazing" rally scenario, then 20 seconds, then another one of them, 20 secs. then what? Series of unforced errors or stg else?

It's very clear that teh UEs would be much more frequent. They woudl simply be forced to take more risk and at the end the one able to score more easily, energy efficiently would win.
This is exactly what we see between Djoko and Nadal but because tehy take more time it simply takes longer to to come to that (5h+).

The biggest loser woudl obviously be Nadal as he is one of the least energy efficient in terms of rallying (Monfils being probably the worst in that department).

Just look at the Miami 2005 final where he lost the last 6 games in a row, the last time he played within 20s. Federer was surprised of Nadal's physical collapse. 2 weeks later by taking extra time he was able to rally for ever without dropping form playing Ferrero and Coria.

Interesting. How do you see Murray in that frame?

Murray seems able to recover quicker...or certainly hides his breathlessness better. For some time I was surprised he coudl play that game whiel keeping close to the 25s. However he seems to take more time between points recently.

I have ever seen him tired....injured very often but not tired.

Tenez wrote:Murray seems able to recover quicker...or certainly hides his breathlessness better. For some time I was surprised he coudl play that game whiel keeping close to the 25s. However he seems to take more time between points recently.

I have ever seen him tired....injured very often but not tired.

Well, he's the ultimate counter-puncher, sucks the energy out of the opponent. As soon as he starts playing aggressively, he's fagged out. Maybe that explains a thing or two.

Tiredness is no excuse for rule breaking. If a footballer makes a tired tackle towards the end of a gruelling match, he still gets booked/sent off. If a cricketer does a no-ball in his 30th over of the day at five minutes to 6 he is still called for a no-ball.
Rafa gets tired and plays a very physical game so he wants to change the between-points rules and have a rolling two-year ranking system. Of course, he's entitled to his opinion but I don't think that opinion should hold sway.

sirfredperry wrote:Tiredness is no excuse for rule breaking. If a footballer makes a tired tackle towards the end of a gruelling match, he still gets booked/sent off. If a cricketer does a no-ball in his 30th over of the day at five minutes to 6 he is still called for a no-ball.
Rafa gets tired and plays a very physical game so he wants to change the between-points rules and have a rolling two-year ranking system. Of course, he's entitled to his opinion but I don't think that opinion should hold sway.

Unfortunately it's more than opinion, it's a move for change (2 year ranking), remember teh word "strike" a few months ago?
Apparently a lot of these issues will be discussed in the next few weeks during the coming 2 US hard court Masters tournaments.
Nadal staying at IW director's house doesn't inspire confidence that things will move in the right way. You can imagine the after dinner "light" conversations....oh to be a fly on THAT wall

noleisthebest wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Tiredness is no excuse for rule breaking. If a footballer makes a tired tackle towards the end of a gruelling match, he still gets booked/sent off. If a cricketer does a no-ball in his 30th over of the day at five minutes to 6 he is still called for a no-ball.
Rafa gets tired and plays a very physical game so he wants to change the between-points rules and have a rolling two-year ranking system. Of course, he's entitled to his opinion but I don't think that opinion should hold sway.

Unfortunately it's more than opinion, it's a move for change (2 year ranking), remember teh word "strike" a few months ago?
Apparently a lot of these issues will be discussed in the next few weeks during the coming 2 US hard court Masters tournaments.
Nadal staying at IW director's house doesn't inspire confidence that things will move in the right way. You can imagine the after dinner "light" conversations....oh to be a fly on THAT wall

Well then it is up to the rest of the players who (apart from the top 4) cannot want a two year ranking system. Rafa is only valuable to a tournament director if there is someone facing him over the other side of the net - he is not 'showbusiness' all by himself.

Time for the player's council to get some teeth. I didn't realise talks beginning during next few weeks, perhaps Fed is testing the waters and trying to rally the troops and the press with his recent comment - I thought it was just out of the blue.

Hopefully decisions will be taken looking at long term solutions for the good of the sport over the next two decades rather than for the good of the current top players at the expense of the rest of the field, including these tournament director's next box office stars.

I'd be happier to see a change in the between-rallies timings than a move towards two-year ranking. The former is far more likely to happen than the latter.
I thought it was a bit rich when Rog was considered selfish by not supporting the two-year rankings when Fed himself pointed out that, personally, 2-yr rankings would help him but hinder up and coming players.
Just where would Raonic, Tomic etc be now if we had two-year rankings? Why should someone who did something good 23 months ago be able to benefit from it now?

sirfredperry wrote:Just where would Raonic, Tomic etc be now if we had two-year rankings? Why should someone who did something good 23 months ago be able to benefit from it now?

Exactly.

Me, my ranking and my time!

time please wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Tiredness is no excuse for rule breaking. If a footballer makes a tired tackle towards the end of a gruelling match, he still gets booked/sent off. If a cricketer does a no-ball in his 30th over of the day at five minutes to 6 he is still called for a no-ball.
Rafa gets tired and plays a very physical game so he wants to change the between-points rules and have a rolling two-year ranking system. Of course, he's entitled to his opinion but I don't think that opinion should hold sway.

Unfortunately it's more than opinion, it's a move for change (2 year ranking), remember teh word "strike" a few months ago?
Apparently a lot of these issues will be discussed in the next few weeks during the coming 2 US hard court Masters tournaments.
Nadal staying at IW director's house doesn't inspire confidence that things will move in the right way. You can imagine the after dinner "light" conversations....oh to be a fly on THAT wall

Well then it is up to the rest of the players who (apart from the top 4) cannot want a two year ranking system. Rafa is only valuable to a tournament director if there is someone facing him over the other side of the net - he is not 'showbusiness' all by himself.

Time for the player's council to get some teeth. I didn't realise talks beginning during next few weeks, perhaps Fed is testing the waters and trying to rally the troops and the press with his recent comment - I thought it was just out of the blue.

Hopefully decisions will be taken looking at long term solutions for the good of the sport over the next two decades rather than for the good of the current top players at the expense of the rest of the field, including these tournament director's next box office stars.

I wonder how much of a voice players actually have (bar the top few) and how many are prepared to do anything or say anything.
I mean they do have to get on with each other more or less being lumped together during most of the year, but I reckon there's a lot of unhappiness among players about many things.

At the end of the day, for most it's their job as they don't play for the glory, so it's really that aspect and whatever affects it that will bother them most.
The "lesser" players may feel inferior as they don't contribute to audience pull-in factor that much so are prepared to shut up and put up for the sake of ever increasing prize bonus.
I'd be very, very interested to know how many players don't like 20 secs rule violation as well as how may of them feel affected by it not being enforced.

Just wonder how some of the players would cope with the old conditions when you had to STAND by the net post in between change overs. Not quite sure when they came up with chairs for the players but they were certainly still standing in the early 70s.

From ATP data (DC not available...)

(Tournament, Opponent, time in minutes, based on the number of sets)

Please let me know if there are matches I have missed....

AO 2012

Berdych 256
Federer 222
Djokovic 353

USO 2011

Murray 204
Djokovic 250

Cincy 2011

Verdasco 218

W 2011

Del Potro 232

RG 2011

Isner 241
Federer 220

WTF 2010

Murray 192

USO 2010

Djokovic 223

W 2010

Petzschner 225

AO 2010

Kohlschreiber 210

To be continued for 2009 and further back....

What do these numbers actually mean LF, quality, not number-crunching wise?

noleisthebest wrote:What do these numbers actually mean LF, quality, not number-crunching wise?

The number of minutes is the length of time it took to complete the match. I am trying to find matches which are close to the magical 'six hour' mark that is referenced in the OP links.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:What do these numbers actually mean LF, quality, not number-crunching wise?

The number of minutes is the length of time it took to complete the match. I am trying to find matches which are close to the magical 'six hour' mark that is referenced in the OP links.

how does that relate to 20 sec rule, or the lack of?

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:What do these numbers actually mean LF, quality, not number-crunching wise?

The number of minutes is the length of time it took to complete the match. I am trying to find matches which are close to the magical 'six hour' mark that is referenced in the OP links.

how does that relate to 20 sec rule, or the lack of?

"The rules are there, but we cannot expect to play six hours and play rallies of crazy points and rest for 20 seconds for nobody."

I am using this statement in the article.

Tenez wrote:Summerblues

We would like to welcome you here on 606v2 BUT I am afraid you posted that you were not a big fan of Nadal's brand of tennis. This forum is unbalanced and has too many pro Federer or Anti-Nadal. Under the pressure of some posters V2 is considering to introduce an Equal Opportinities Act to allow people of all boards to represent the natural Facebook's tennis players's Friends spread. In that respect Anti-Nadal posters are over quota here and we may not be able to have you here. We are desperately looking for Nole's fans instead, a rare statistic event. Having said that we are also short of Vincent Spaeda fans so you might apply as a Vincent Spaeda supporter and v2 might consider your application.

Spookily accurate!!

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Murray seems able to recover quicker...or certainly hides his breathlessness better. For some time I was surprised he coudl play that game whiel keeping close to the 25s. However he seems to take more time between points recently.

I have ever seen him tired....injured very often but not tired.

Well, he's the ultimate counter-puncher, sucks the energy out of the opponent. As soon as he starts playing aggressively, he's fagged out. Maybe that explains a thing or two.

Ouch!! Next you'll be calling him passive and nowhere near the Top 3

Can we do something about Djokovic bouncing the crap out of the balls on BP's on a second serve? He will turn the balls into beanbags at his current rate. I can recall a BP in Dubai against Murray he bounced the ball over 20 times! That is my only gripe with him. I mean hit the ball already!

time please wrote:In principle, I agree with you Tenez. My first paragraph is a bit pragmatic because I just don't believe we are going to see Rafa held to account for this, well not until he is beginning to slide down the rankings and there is a new kid in town who ain't having it.

I think the players could have nipped this in the bud, years ago, by sitting down and refusing to resume play until Rafa was on court on time, up from his chair on time and not slowing down play as a matter of course when the momentum is against him.

Quite frankly they are in the best position to protest about this - and not this sly dig by Fed which will produce zero results. Murray handled Rafa really well at AO 2010 when he looked to the umpire in the first set as Rafa dawdled between serves. When the lower ranked players make the point, the issue is completely fudged. Rafa is very disarming and friendly and I think together with his long term No2 and No1 ranking, the rank and file have been......well a little disarmed (Miles M made this point on Sky, shortly after losing coaching role to AM). If Fed had the demeanour of a Mac, Becker, Connors, Lendl - it would never have got to this stage. Connors would have whipped up the crowd against Rafa, just as he used to do when Mac erupted. I don't think the majority of people who watch tennis realise that the rules have been flagrantly ignored, but a Connors would have made sure everyone knew!!!

I think Lendl is going to gird Murray's loins on this issue.


Agreed. Bogbrush made the point that one of the issues about Andy's 'failures' against the three is that he doesn't get in their heads enough - pointing out that when Nadal starts timewasting he should just tell the umpire

Remember Del Potro's "exploitation" of the rules riled Fed to such a degree he ended up losing the 09 final!!! No wonder Nadal wants this burying in the sand. If the rules were enforced properly he would be world No. 4

legendkillar wrote:Can we do something about Djokovic bouncing the crap out of the balls on BP's on a second serve? He will turn the balls into beanbags at his current rate. I can recall a BP in Dubai against Murray he bounced the ball over 20 times! That is my only gripe with him. I mean hit the ball already!

That's you on NITB's hit list!!

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Can we do something about Djokovic bouncing the crap out of the balls on BP's on a second serve? He will turn the balls into beanbags at his current rate. I can recall a BP in Dubai against Murray he bounced the ball over 20 times! That is my only gripe with him. I mean hit the ball already!

That's you on NITB's hit list!!

I don't see why

I mean if we are going to address the whole of the time between points let's open it up to all players. He is a crafty bugger when he is in the brown stuff and bounces the balls to a point a player blinks and yawns and the ball is upon him. Always on the big points on his serve.

legendkillar wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Can we do something about Djokovic bouncing the crap out of the balls on BP's on a second serve? He will turn the balls into beanbags at his current rate. I can recall a BP in Dubai against Murray he bounced the ball over 20 times! That is my only gripe with him. I mean hit the ball already!

That's you on NITB's hit list!!

I don't see why

I mean if we are going to address the whole of the time between points let's open it up to all players. He is a crafty bugger when he is in the brown stuff and bounces the balls to a point a player blinks and yawns and the ball is upon him. Always on the big points on his serve.

So that's why Andy lost the Aus Open final, last year. Fantastic, I've got a new excuse

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Can we do something about Djokovic bouncing the crap out of the balls on BP's on a second serve? He will turn the balls into beanbags at his current rate. I can recall a BP in Dubai against Murray he bounced the ball over 20 times! That is my only gripe with him. I mean hit the ball already!

That's you on NITB's hit list!!

I don't see why

I mean if we are going to address the whole of the time between points let's open it up to all players. He is a crafty bugger when he is in the brown stuff and bounces the balls to a point a player blinks and yawns and the ball is upon him. Always on the big points on his serve.

So that's why Andy lost the Aus Open final, last year. Fantastic, I've got a new excuse

In fairness Andy didn't have Nole in trouble at all in that match

List of long Nadal matches 2009 - and earlier...

Same format as earlier (Tournament, Opponent, Length of match in minutes...)

RG 2009

Soderling 210

Madrid 2009

Djokovic 243

AO 2009

Verdasco 310

Federer 259

Madrid 2008

Simon 203

USO 2008

Murray 211

W 2008

Federer 288


Chennai 2007

Moya 235

USO 2007

Ferrer 206

W 2007

Soderling 241

Federer 225

Rome 2007

Davydenko 219

AO 2007

Kohlschreiber 210
Murray 231

W 2006

Kendrick 226

FO 2006

Paul Henri-Mathieu 293
Hewitt 197

Rome 2006

Federer 305

Monte Carlo

Federer 230

Madrid 2005

Ljubicic 233

RG 2005

Grosjean 191
Puerta 204

Rome 2005

Coria 314

Madrid 2005

Coria 189

Miami 2005

Federer 223

AO 2005

Youzhny 217
Hewitt 233


At least based on this list, there are just two matches which have crossed the 5-hour mark... Rome 2006 and AO 2012.

AO 2012 does not cross the 6-hour mark for match time, but clock time is longer than 6 hours due to roof closing, etc.

So, one 6-hour match and we need to relax the 20/25 second rule.

20 bounces, that's about 7 seconds.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:What do these numbers actually mean LF, quality, not number-crunching wise?

The number of minutes is the length of time it took to complete the match. I am trying to find matches which are close to the magical 'six hour' mark that is referenced in the OP links.

how does that relate to 20 sec rule, or the lack of?

"The rules are there, but we cannot expect to play six hours and play rallies of crazy points and rest for 20 seconds for nobody."

I am using this statement in the article.

The problem I think is not the length of matches per se, of course, although it all adds up.

He wants more recovery time after longer rallies (regardless of how long the match is, he craftily used his last 6 hour match to illustrate it), because that is how he beats his opponents: by sapping their energy and outlasting them. Now that's all fine if he can sustain it within the rules.
He must not be allowed to break the rules in order to impose this style of play on others and gain unfair advantage in that way.

"I'm not complaining a lot" but Djokovic is just as bad for the time taken between points. So what you have said must refer to him as well. Only difference is that he has not tried to defend it. Then again Federer only fingered Nadal so he was the only one asked about it. Would be interesting to hear Djokovic's reply if he were asked.

Calder106 wrote:"I'm not complaining a lot" but Djokovic is just as bad for the time taken between points. So what you have said must refer to him as well. Only difference is that he has not tried to defend it. Then again Federer only fingered Nadal so he was the only one asked about it. Would be interesting to hear Djokovic's reply if he were asked.

Anyone needs extra time after long rallies. So far only Novak has been able to outlast and outrally Nadal consistently.

Nole is not a counter-puncher and it's not his style of play to prolong rallies, so I don't think he uses longer breaks against other players much.