Research into the use of the time violation rule - NEW petition expessing concern about it's inconsistant use

First topic message reminder :

I am doing a little research into the application of the time violation rule. Players are meant to take no more than 25 seconds between points. If they take longer they are meant to be given a warning on the first violation and on subsequent ones lose a first serve. It is proving difficult to find information on the number of penalties handed out and if the rule is being enforced correctly. If anyone is interested maybe they could help?

I would like to know of any instances when players have received a warning or loss of first serve and what the score was at the time.

How often players go over 25 seconds without being penalized.

The first question could be perhaps partly answered from memory and partly from noting new incidents

The second question could be answered by watching parts of any match and timing a few points. I've found this easy to do by using the timer that appears when you rewind or slow live TV as it shows the seconds but a watch or clock would work fine. According to the ATP rule book timing should start when the ball goes out of play and stop when the ball is struck for the next point. I have gathered some information but it's impossible to watch all matches so any information would be useful. 



NEW petition expressing concern about the inconsistent use of the time violation rule

Time limits for tennis players? Time for a response - a request to the ATP & ITF

We want to bring to your urgent attention the fact that growing numbers of tennis fans are raising serious concerns about the inconsistent application of the Time Violation Warning rule in ATP and ITF tournaments. This is beginning to spoil our enjoyment of this exceptional sport.

Umpires are currently issuing warnings randomly and arbitrarily, with some players who persistently go over the time limit not being penalised, and others regularly being given a warning.

In addition, it has been noted that the first warning of a match is suddenly given at a crucial point in a game - e.g. at break point - even when the time has been exceeded previously. We are concerned that this practice could significantly alter the outcome of a match.

We, the undersigned, urge you to find a way of regularising the application of the rule and respectfully request a formal response to the specific concerns highlighted in this petition.

Thank you.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/time-limits-for-tennis-players-time-for-a

temporary21 wrote:However by the letter of the law they are not doing their job properly at all. They were before the rule came in though

Did any rule actually change?

My impression was that the rule has always been the same - there is 25s limit but umpires have some discretion in its enforcement. My impression was that the only thing that changed was that ATP decided to move the needle in terms of how that discretion was applied.

I always thought that the talk of the "rule change" was just HEs attempt to misinterpret the issue.

But I could be wrong, Have to admit I am not 100% certain that no rule changed.

summerblues wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Or would a shot clock mean that players who currently take a long time would start adhering to the rule on every point?

I expect this would happen.  It is not hard to stick to about 15 secs on average, so with 25 sec limit, players would have plenty of time and they would very quickly learn to get on with it.

Yet we have heard many times about how hard it is to change behavioural patterns.

summerblues wrote:

temporary21 wrote:However by the letter of the law they are not doing their job properly at all. They were before the rule came in though

Did any rule actually change?

My impression was that the rule has always been the same - there is 25s limit but umpires have some discretion in its enforcement.  My impression was that the only thing that changed was that ATP decided to move the needle in terms of how that discretion was applied.

I always thought that the talk of the "rule change" was just HEs attempt to misinterpret the issue.

But I could be wrong,  Have to admit I am not 100% certain that no rule changed.

HE did seem to provide evidence of a rule change, although Rafa's post-match interview indicated otherwise.

summerblues wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:None of it is "reasonable" all or nothing, no matter who it is and how often.

Why?  So you do not care if Rafa is the worst offender?  As long as other people break the rule (even if it is the fraction of the time he does) you want them to be mentioned and punished as much as he is?

Surely that would be unfair.

Oh here we go again a Nadal fan cannot suggest for one moment that other players offend. THE RULE IS THE RULE.. how often you break it makes no difference you have broken the rule. See my analogy in my previous post.
Rafa will be punished as many times as he breaks the rule... and SO DO THE OTHERS
iF RAFA breaks the rule three times in a match he is penalised three times, if AN.OTHER breaks the rule twice he is penalised twice...Surely that is not so hard to understand is it... ??? or would you like to read a Nadal bias into that.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Oh here we go again a Nadal fan cannot suggest for one moment that other players offend.

Did I say that? I did not notice.

summerblues wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Oh here we go again a Nadal fan cannot suggest for one moment that other players offend.

Did I say that?  I did not notice.

Implication

Haddie-nuff wrote:Implication

Is not there.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

summerblues wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:None of it is "reasonable" all or nothing, no matter who it is and how often.

Why?  So you do not care if Rafa is the worst offender?  As long as other people break the rule (even if it is the fraction of the time he does) you want them to be mentioned and punished as much as he is?

Surely that would be unfair.

Oh here we go again a Nadal fan cannot suggest for one moment that other players offend. THE RULE IS THE RULE.. how often you break it makes no difference you have broken the rule. See my analogy in my previous post.
Rafa will be punished as many times as he breaks the rule... and SO DO THE OTHERS
iF RAFA breaks the rule three times in a match he is penalised three times, if AN.OTHER breaks the rule twice he is penalised twice...Surely that is not so hard to understand is it... ??? or would you like to read a Nadal bias into that.

But some people will undoubtedly complain the that shot clock was brought in to target one player so that he gets more warnings than everyone else - even moreso than he does now.

The whole thread is rife with the implications.. and those who want to see Rafa penalised and not others, is quite obvious from my viewpoint. AND before you say JHM its because he is my preferred player, I could also add he is your least favourite..so you would. No need to respond I already know your standpoint.

So a bit of shooting one self on the foot this thread for all Rafa fans?

Who would of thought

Only a blind one does not see that Rafa is the record holder of time wasting.

But then we all knew that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:HE did seem to provide evidence of a rule change

Did she?  I thought she just quoted the current rule but I was assuming that the old rule was just the same.

Are you referring to this bit?

hawkeye wrote:This is what the ATP rule book now says about timing.

25 Seconds Between Points.
aa) Start stopwatch when the player is ordered to play or when the ball
goes out of play.
bb) Assess time violation or code violation if the ball is not struck for the
next point within the twenty-five (25) seconds allowed. There is no
time warning prior to the expiration of the twenty-five (25) seconds

I had pulled out 2011 ATP rule book and - voila - it says this:

25 Seconds Between Points.
aa) Start stopwatch when the player is ordered to play or when the ball goes
out of play;
bb) Assess time violation or code violation if the ball is not struck for the next
point within the twenty-five (25) seconds allowed. There is no time warning
prior to the expiration of the twenty-five (25) seconds.

The only change I see is that they replaced a semicolon with a full stop between aa) and bb).

But some people will undoubtedly complain the that shot clock was brought in to target one player so that he gets more warnings than everyone else - even moreso than he does now.


Now I really do have to question your motives here... what an inane comment

He is not my least favourite. I should know!

You seem to have no idea whatsoever what I'm saying/thinking/posting.

JuliusHMarx wrote:He is not my least favourite. I should know!

You seem to have no idea whatsoever what I'm saying/thinking/posting.

On that you are correct.I could also say ditto...but I think it is deliberate on your part

The implication haddie mentioned is there. Just talking about the worst offender is not what the op is meant for not is it the correct way to go. I don't doubt Rafa is probably the longest between serves, but if you are legitimately interested in cleaning this rule up and not just about Nadal then matches not involving him need cleaning too.  Frankly I've lost track on what anyone thinks now

temporary21 wrote:The implication haddie mentioned is there. Just talking about the worst offender is not what the op is meant for not is it the correct way to go. I don't doubt Rafa is probably the longest between serves, but if you are legitimately interested in cleaning this rule up and not just about Nadal then matches not involving him need cleaning too.  Frankly I've lost track on what anyone thinks now

It is not about wanting to clean the game up its about seeing that Nadal gets his dues.. the others can do as they please even though Berdych in the same match got a way with murder.. but hey no matter Nadal got his punishment and now everyone is happy. Its not Nadal bias talking this time, quite the contrary. The man has already acknowledged his breaking of the rule.. but that has changed nothing..

Get a timekeeper on court, sat down beside the umpire whose job it is to time EVERY PLAYER no matter who
.

temporary21 wrote:The implication haddie mentioned is there.

I beg your pardon?

temporary21 wrote:but if you are legitimately interested in cleaning this rule up and not just about Nadal then matches not involving him need cleaning too.

Well of course.

summerblues wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:HE did seem to provide evidence of a rule change

Did she?  I thought she just quoted the current rule but I was assuming that the old rule was just the same.

Are you referring to this bit?

hawkeye wrote:This is what the ATP rule book now says about timing.

25 Seconds Between Points.
aa) Start stopwatch when the player is ordered to play or when the ball
goes out of play.
bb) Assess time violation or code violation if the ball is not struck for the
next point within the twenty-five (25) seconds allowed. There is no
time warning prior to the expiration of the twenty-five (25) seconds

I had pulled out 2011 ATP rule book and - voila - it says this:

25 Seconds Between Points.
aa) Start stopwatch when the player is ordered to play or when the ball goes
out of play;
bb) Assess time violation or code violation if the ball is not struck for the next
point within the twenty-five (25) seconds allowed. There is no time warning
prior to the expiration of the twenty-five (25) seconds.

The only change I see is that they replaced a semicolon with a full stop between aa) and bb).

Don't think the rule ever changed but the penalty for breaking it was.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/09/Feature/ATP-Board-Approves-Change-In-Time-Violation-Penalty.aspx

Seems to be a softer punishment for the server as they only lose a first serve rather than a point for the second and subsequent violations. Presumably this was done to make it not so severe when it was applied and therefore the umpires would be more inclined to call it. If I read it right under the old rule some of the examples given in the thread would have immediately resulted in the loss of a service game and set. At least with the current rule there is still a second serve.

I seriously don't think a shot clock is necessary. It will be terrible for everyone. - the players, the umpires and the spectators.

I think enforcing the rule with discretion is the way forward. Like what Rafa said, in the past the umpire didn't mention anything about the 25 sec rule at the net during the coin toss but now they do in every match. The difference is in the past the players would take their time if need be because they're not warned before hand about adhering to the 25 sec rule. Now that it's mentioned in every match, there's no excuse for players not to adhere, so naturally players would quicken up. Rafa for eg would take more than 35 secs quite often in the past, but right now he did hurry up a bit. It's only in crucial points that he took longer than usual. I do believe he'll improve further down the road once he gets used to the quicker pace of play these days. Other players are also getting used to the rule and Rafa being the worst offender would naturally take a longer time to adapt. I'm positive that he will adapt in the end.

Calder106 wrote:Don't think the rule ever changed but the penalty for breaking it was.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/09/Feature/ATP-Board-Approves-Change-In-Time-Violation-Penalty.aspx

Seems to be a softer punishment for the server as they only lose a first serve rather than a point for the second and subsequent violations.

Ah good thanks, it is coming back to me now.  Yes, the only rule change that was made was to soften the impact of the violation.

If one believes that the old rule allowed for umpire discretion, then one has to believe that the new one does too - since the rule is identical.

summerblues wrote:

temporary21 wrote:The implication haddie mentioned is there.

I beg your pardon?

temporary21 wrote:but if you are legitimately interested in cleaning this rule up and not just about Nadal then matches not involving him need cleaning too.

Well of course.

To put it simply, if you think that haddie wants people punished just the same as rafa, then you havent read her posts at all, something you advised everyone else not to do. She thinks other people who also break it aren't punished enough.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:I seriously don't think a shot clock is necessary.  It will be terrible for everyone. - the players,  the umpires and the spectators.  

I think enforcing the rule with discretion is the way forward.  Like what Rafa said, in the past the umpire didn't mention anything about the 25 sec rule at the net during the coin toss but now they do in every match.  The difference is in the past the players would take their time if need be because they're not warned before hand about adhering to the 25 sec rule.   Now that it's mentioned in every match, there's no excuse for players not to adhere, so naturally players would quicken up.  Rafa for eg would take more than 35 secs quite often in the past, but right now he did hurry up a bit.  It's only in crucial points that he took longer than usual. I do believe he'll improve further down the road once he gets used to the quicker pace of play these days. Other players are also getting used to the rule and Rafa being the worst offender would naturally take a longer time to adapt. I'm positive that he will adapt in the end.

Without doubt the most sensible idea Ive seen. I cant not agree with it.

temporary21 wrote:

summerblues wrote:

temporary21 wrote:The implication haddie mentioned is there.

I beg your pardon?

temporary21 wrote:but if you are legitimately interested in cleaning this rule up and not just about Nadal then matches not involving him need cleaning too.

Well of course.

To put it simply, if you think that haddie wants people punished just the same as rafa, then you havent read her posts at all, something you advised everyone else not to do. She thinks other people who also break it aren't punished enough.

What does that have to do with anything?  The implication comment was not about that.

May I remind you:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

summerblues wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Oh here we go again a Nadal fan cannot suggest for one moment that other players offend.

Did I say that?  I did not notice.

Implication

So, Haddie is saying that I imply that "a Nadal fan cannot suggest for one moment that other players offend".  You happily concur with her.

Surely you owe me an apology?

temporary21 wrote:

summerblues wrote:

temporary21 wrote:The implication haddie mentioned is there.

I beg your pardon?

temporary21 wrote:but if you are legitimately interested in cleaning this rule up and not just about Nadal then matches not involving him need cleaning too.

Well of course.

To put it simply, if you think that haddie wants people punished just the same as rafa, then you havent read her posts at all, something you advised everyone else not to do. She thinks other people who also break it aren't punished enough.

Thank you I was beginning to think my computer was typing in Arabic. You are spot on

Then why go after HN with an accusation shes never mentioned when she asked that the rule be applied strictly. Perhaps you owe her an apology.

Why?  So you do not care if Rafa is the worst offender?  As long as other people break the rule (even if it is the fraction of the time he does) you want them to be mentioned and punished as much as he is?


There is an implication in this comment.. you imply that I only want other players to be penalised because Rafa is... that is not the case. I am saying whether Rafa cleaned up his game tomorrow, all players now and in the future should be penalised for breaking this rule. If it is to be seen that it is a fair and reasonable ruling then all players should receive the penalty if they do it once or a dozen times. Temp owes you no apology he can understand the point Im making but because Im a Nadal fan it is assumed I only have one viewpoint..................wrong

This is getting nowhere, to try and focus this back here are some key points, I ask what you all think of them

1) Is Rafa the worst offender of time?
2) Is he the only offender or is it being breached across the board?
3) Is the current supposed method of timing it working?
4) Is the rule being applied evenly across the board?
5) Do you think being more lax and putting it to umpires discretion is a better idea?
6) Should we put a shot clock on the court so if we are strict, players know exactly how long they have left.

1. Yes
2. I think almost all players breach it
3. No I think its to draconian and impossible to enforce
4. Its not being applied as intended right now
5. I prefer this method, under this method the current time violations people are getting are about right
6. Only if we go strict on it.

temporary21 wrote:Then why go after HN with an accusation shes never mentioned when she asked that the rule be applied strictly. Perhaps you owe her an apology.

Did I "go after" HN?  With "an accusation" at that?  I may have misunderstood her, that happens, but if she explains herself I am not going to be forcing into her mouth something she did not mean to say.

Unlike yourself.

You just DID force into her mouth something she didnt say sb. Now maybe you all calm down and we can get this back on track.

summerblues wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Then why go after HN with an accusation shes never mentioned when she asked that the rule be applied strictly. Perhaps you owe her an apology.

Did I "go after" HN?  With "an accusation" at that?  I may have misunderstood her, that happens, but if she explains herself I am not going to be forcing into her mouth something she did not mean to say.

Unlike yourself.

Im sorry sb but you can not have been following my posts on this if you do not understand my standpoint ..I cannot make my position more clear.. NADAL needs to be penalised for his violation of the time rule.. BUT SO DO OTHERS
no matter whether they are in breach as many times as him or not.. you cannot penalise a player for taking 27 secs and not penalise another for taking 30 when they are playing each other in the same match.. where in Gods name is the justice in that.. lets forget it was Nadal who had been penalised and said it was Djokovic would it still apply ??

Haddie-nuff wrote:Why?  So you do not care if Rafa is the worst offender?  As long as other people break the rule (even if it is the fraction of the time he does) you want them to be mentioned and punished as much as he is?

There is an implication in this comment.. you imply that I only want other players to be penalised because Rafa is...

As I said, I may have misunderstood you. However, more importantly, that is not the implication you accused me of. You accused me of this implication:

Nadal fan cannot suggest for one moment that other players offend

That is very different and certainly not what I either said or implied. And yes, if this were real world, temp would definitely owe me an apology. Though I agree, this being a tennis forum, I am not going to be too hung up if he/she fails to apologize.

Apologise for what exactly? Considering how abrasive and rude you were to Haddie for twisting her point an apology is the least you should have to do. More so you DID imply she wasnt allowed to complain by lying about her point that she just wanted people to suffer becaue nadal did.

Thats the end of the matter. We call it here and move back onto the topic.

Haddie-nuff wrote:no matter whether they are in breach as many times as him or not.. you cannot penalise a player for taking 27 secs and not penalise another for taking 30 when they are playing each other in the same match..

Going back to the topic.

My preference would be to penalize every time they go over 25 secs.  So I think we both agree there - all players (Rafa, Roger, etc) would get penalized whenever they go over 25 secs.

However, that is not happening.  So, a related question ix:  is the current rule application at least somewhat reasonable?  In that context, it is not so obvious that if a player takes 27 secs and gets penalized then another one who takes 30 secs should be penalized also.

For example:  In the current setting, umpires have some discretion.  They could say - as long as the player stays within 25 secs "most of the time", we will not penalize them, but if they go over most of the time, then we will penalize a certain portion of those.  Is this perfect?  No.  Is it obviously horrible?  I would say not either.

temporary21 wrote:Apologise for what exactly? Considering how abrasive and rude you were to Haddie for twisting her point an apology is the least you should have to do. More so you DID imply she wasnt allowed to complain by lying about her point that she just wanted people to suffer becaue nadal did.

Thats the end of the matter. We call it here and move back onto the topic.

Are you writing this in your mod capacity or as a regular poster only?

If it is the latter I will just have it under "nonsense", if it is the former I think we have a problem.  You now additionally accused me of lying - once again with no justification and incorrectly.

summerblues wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:None of it is "reasonable" all or nothing, no matter who it is and how often.

Why?  So you do not care if Rafa is the worst offender?  As long as other people break the rule (even if it is the fraction of the time he does) you want them to be mentioned and punished as much as he is?

Surely that would be unfair.

Then explain this comment. What does Rafa have to do with the quoted part? Again the players shouldnt matter in this debate.

This is a clustercheese of misunderstanding it seems. Youve misunderstood Haddies point, and Haddies misunderstood your misunderstanding (or something?). Consiering how little this matters in the grand scheme maybe best for us all to drop this whole part?

temporary21 wrote:

summerblues wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:None of it is "reasonable" all or nothing, no matter who it is and how often.

Why?  So you do not care if Rafa is the worst offender?  As long as other people break the rule (even if it is the fraction of the time he does) you want them to be mentioned and punished as much as he is?

Surely that would be unfair.

Then explain this comment. What does Rafa have to do with the quoted part? Again the players shouldnt matter in this debate

First, you accused me of lying so the onus is on you to prove it rather than on me to prove otherwise - i.e., I do not have to explain anything.  

Nevertheless, I will explain what I meant.  Haddie says "None of it is 'reasonable' all or nothing, no matter who it is and how often".

I read it to mean that either you do punish (if a player goes over 25 secs) or do not (if they don't) and that it should not matter how often they go over 25 seconds.

Hence my comment.  It looks like I misunderstood what HN meant, but it does not strike me as such a crazy misunderstanding (you will note that JHM seemed to concur with me post in his reply too).  Also, my comment was not an accusation, it was a pretty natural line given what I understood HN to mean.

To accuse me of "lying" based on this is just ridiculous.  At best you can say I was wrong - but where did you get the deliberate intent?  Have you no shame?

temporary21 wrote:maybe best for us all to drop this whole part?

Oh sure, I am happy to drop it.  Just wanted to make it clear how I felt about some of the accusations leveled at me.

It strikes me that there has been misunderstandings all round.

I feel that in any event, leaving players out of the debate, that it largely comes down to what constitutes an "umpire's discretion" this depends on the umpire. What they personally consider fair and reasonable, varies from umpire to umpire, and it is that inconsistency that is the root of the problem. Players can get away with more in one match than the other. Guidelines need to be layed down and applied religiously or not at all.

I don't know of anyone who cannot take a penalty if it is applied fairly.

Right but how does your point relate to Nadal specifically? More importantly how does that interpretation lead you to saying Haddie wants people as punished as Nadal

" you want them to be mentioned and punished as much as he is?"

I dont see her quote leads that at all, and is untruthful in the circumstance, and this is the crux of Haddies problem. Now youre both being sharp to one another.

What it seems is youve misunderstood haddies point of "all or nothing" it didnt mean "one offense and theyre all the same" its means "punish for each offense no compromise".

THIS is then misinterpreted by Haddie, Im mentioning your misinterpreting Haddie... whos misinterpreting you... etc etc.

Perhaps explain to me then, did you mean "Haddie thinks everyone who breaks the rule should be considered equally guilty?" if so then that clears everything up, but it still does not explain what Rafas got to do with it specifically.

Thread will be reopened shortly.

Please read this first https://www.606v2.com/t58904-important-notice-please-read

On both sides of the argument, let's keep calm everyone

How do I get the Founder title and Black name font, please?

Yeah its understood now, it was accidental implication based on a misunderstanding of the original post which was not explained well.
Phew...

falzy, after all this, you have not forgotten you were going to time the final, right?

Nope I have my program at the ready

Astonishing, Murray is actually slower than rafa at the mo! I woudnt say either are doing that well neither.

Hah. Will be interesting to see the numbers. They do feel quite slow to me.

STAT TIME: WARNING BIG POST

heres the data, stop watch recordings from time and date .com r is rafas time, m is murrays. First points were not recorded, neither were times when lines were checked or the crowd seriously distracted.

r<-c(28.9,26.8,27.4,30.4,24.5,25.6,22.9,23.2,32,28.5,27.3,19.7,
28.8,26.7,22.2,24.3,27.9,35.6,33.6,32.2,27.9,31.6,28.8,27.7,27.7,37.6,31.5,
28.7,27.8,26.3,26,26.2,27.2,26.8,24.7)

m<-c(23.2,24.3,24.2,24.4,31.1,33.6,29.2,22.1,29.4,28.7,30.9,28.8,
31.5,33,33.9,23.2,30.9,26.5,26.3,24.4,31.5,32.9,25.8,26.7,
18.8,25.7,22.9,29.4,30,29.1,26.6,31,31,21.1,29.7,33.8,30.1,31)


Rafas stats

average: 27.85 seconds
standard deveation: 3.6 seconds
average time taken when hes over time :4.05 seconds
proportion of points over time:80%

Muzzahs stats

Mean time:28.07
standard deveation:3.88 seconds
average time taken when hes over:4.9 seconds
proportion of points over time:73%


Results: A damning indictment for Nadal it would seem.. until you look at Murrays stats!

Rafa takes on average about 28 seconds, 3 seconds over the time, he broke the rule 80% of the time, taking 4 seconds over time when he broke the rule. He varied in time by about 3.6 seconds.

Murray, quite astonishingly, was probably even worse!
On average he took longer than Nadal just over 28 seconds, took on average 5 seconds longer when he did do so, and varied a bit more. One shred of comfort, he broke it only (heh) 73% of the time, not much of an improvement. In short he broke the rules marginally less, but not by much, but when he did he was worse, and slower on average.

Neither stats are glowing in terms of keeping strictly to the rule. On average theyre 3 seconds slower, whether this is no big deal, or a disgrace is up to you, id note had I not been timing I wouldnt have noticed.


One final thing, noone, to my knowledge got called a tv.

If you now asked me "is it fair Nadal gets most tv's" id say a resounding no! Murray should get nearly as many, if not maybe more than rafa! Nadals stats frankly dont look much different to Murrays, I certainly wouldnt say he was serially offending more than his opponent.

This result shocked me, I didnt think Muzz would be comparable to Rafa, what it shows is that this issue is definitely wider than just Nadal, the idea hes by far the worst offender suddenly looks ridicuous. Id be very interested how long Novak takes.

On rafas serve action, hes up to the line in plenty of time, hes got time even after his hair fiddling. The issue comes after pulling his hair behind his ear, that bit where he balances himself and tosses up takes too long and it costs him. Oddly I found little evidence thats hes specifically slower on big points, he was sometimes quite slower, other times right on the average. Those looking for reason to fins Nadal as doing this maliciously wont find much here, theres not much here to suggest anything but his natural rythm is a bit slow, but NO slower than Murray


In short, yeah... the ATP might want to start spreading their gaze, if this is a problem to you, its more than Rafa youve to worry about.

Obviously, for this match, they both should have got a warning at some point. We don't know if this match is representative of each player, but I don't think anyone has a problem with the ATP spreading their gaze.

Am I surprised ?  
Nothing more to be said I take it ???