Nadal's super quick serving.

This guy used to be so fast, he even put Roddick and RF to shame back in the day...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzKuv4j67aw&feature=player_embedded#!

I do believe for Nadal to win off clay again, he has to go back to basics and play as quick as this, not letting his man able to breathe. Think that we all can see he has altered his game too much, if he goes back to his super quick 1999 self, I believe Djokovic may struggle with him like he often does with Federer and (at times) Niko Davydenko when they take the ball on early and play faster.

P.S; If Rafa suddenly changes his game and plays super fast, I will take the credit and expect a royalty in the region of 20% of future successes'.

Yours Truly,

Josiah

That was an amazing video!

Makes me feel a little sad about Gasquet though as he hasn't really lived up to his full potential.

good research, even gasquet'as video is amzing. its a shame that talent didnt translate into wins (for gasquet)

hawkeye wrote:That was an amazing video!

Makes me feel a little sad about Gasquet though as he hasn't really lived up to his full potential.

Despite all the hype about Gasquet, even after he beat Federer in 1 of the MS I never felt he was ever likely to do well in the slams. His big chance in slams for me was his semi final on Centre Court vs Rog, just a shame a great ball striker is a really poor reader of the game, he's just the right shape to last 7 times over bo5

He can't play that fast, he has to take huge breaks or he expires after a couple of sets.

BB - you've been listening to Tenez too much! Nadal beat Federer in 2004 playing plenty fast enough, and won 5 setters in 2003/2004 playing fast...he just chose to adopt a different and more measured routine from 2005.

lydian wrote:BB - you've been listening to Tenez too much! Nadal beat Federer in 2004 playing plenty fast enough, and won 5 setters in 2003/2004 playing fast...he just chose to adopt a different and more measured routine from 2005.

It is not just Tenez or BB but others, some of these are very publicly visible and recorded, which does not help Rafa at all.

Nadal was asked to speed up play by Carlos Bernardes during his match with Mayer in the first set during the two set points at 5-4.

Time between points - https://imgur.com/RJ52w

Average time between points - https://imgur.com/2bVcv

Jason Goodall mentioned it a couple of times and called it 'good officiating'.

lydian wrote:BB - you've been listening to Tenez too much! Nadal beat Federer in 2004 playing plenty fast enough, and won 5 setters in 2003/2004 playing fast...he just chose to adopt a different and more measured routine from 2005.

Yeah, he decides to flout the rules for no other reason that to have it "more measured"?

Looking at the way he runs out of steam increasingly frequently and quickly against Djokovic it makes perfect sense to me that it's a recovery routine.

bogbrush wrote:Yeah, he decides to flout the rules for no other reason that to have it "more measured"?

Some one in ATP TV broadcast team has a clock running and can show it as quickly as the two pictures that I posted show, especially when Rafa is involved, does corroborate Rafa's critics more than any other players. It also shows up in Djoko matches.

Lydian... Rafa critics may have a legitimate grouse.

I even saw 58sec clocked v Mayer.

But look no further than Miami 2005 and 2 weeks later MC05 to see that it was a deliberate act to prevent Nadal's gruelling style to run out of steam like in that Miami final where he lost the last 6 games in a row.

Only those who don't want to see it, won't acknowledge it.

laverfan wrote:

lydian wrote:BB - you've been listening to Tenez too much! Nadal beat Federer in 2004 playing plenty fast enough, and won 5 setters in 2003/2004 playing fast...he just chose to adopt a different and more measured routine from 2005.

It is not just Tenez or BB but others, some of these are very publicly visible and recorded, which does not help Rafa at all.

Nadal was asked to speed up play by Carlos Bernardes during his match with Mayer in the first set during the two set points at 5-4.

Time between points - https://imgur.com/RJ52w

Average time between points - https://imgur.com/2bVcv

Jason Goodall mentioned it a couple of times and called it 'good officiating'.

Very good spot.

I don't think we can talk of "good officiating" when a player makes a mockery of the rules like this. The umpire should have warned Nadal earlier and given a penalty point. It turned out that his continuous infractions are well over the most pessimistic analysis made on this site some time ago. It is on average breaching the rule by more than half the legal time allowed. Unacceptable.

We will see more and more of Nadal's being warned as he loses his hold on the number one spot.

I woudl not be surprised if Nadal wanted to punish the Shanghai's TD by letting a referee warn him in his match v Mayer. We have learnt that he is a demanding and capricious player.

Tenez wrote:I even saw 58sec clocked v Mayer.

I do not recall one, but will check again. Can you point out at what point during the match?

Tenez wrote:We will see more and more of Nadal's being warned as he loses his hold on the number one spot.

I woudl not be surprised if Nadal wanted to punish the Shanghai's TD by letting a referee warn him in his match v Mayer. We have learnt that he is a demanding and capricious player.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if all his recent moaning and complaining was simply a reprisal for havibg been warned in numerous occasions for time infraction in recent tourneys......

Really not sure when .....but I am sure having seen it clocked in the same way as you picture it.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Tenez wrote:We will see more and more of Nadal's being warned as he loses his hold on the number one spot.

I woudl not be surprised if Nadal wanted to punish the Shanghai's TD by letting a referee warn him in his match v Mayer. We have learnt that he is a demanding and capricious player.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if all his recent moaning and complaining was simply a reprisal for havibg been warned in numerous occasions for time infraction in recent tourneys......

CLearly Toni has been asking for the game to change in a recent interview...clearly to make it easier, or less painful, for his protege.

Tenez wrote:Really not sure when .....but I am sure having seen it clocked in the same way as you picture it.

I will check. It seems a bit odd to have such a long duration.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:Really not sure when .....but I am sure having seen it clocked in the same way as you picture it.

I will check. It seems a bit odd to have such a long duration.

Oh no! I have clocked it plenty of times but on that occasion it was the cameras clocking it.

Ok - Found it! Easy actually...we need a long rally in a pressure situation...so look no further than 6 all tiebreak...5all.

The clock shows 53s actually but the time to hit the ball...make it 54 or 55s.

Tenez wrote:Ok - Found it! Easy actually...we need a long rally in a pressure situation...so look no further than 6 all tiebreak...5all.

The clock shows 52s actually but the time to throw the ball...make it 54s.

Wouldn't it be useful to send these pictures to both the ATP and ITF governing bodies to see if they mind?

But the worst thing, JK, is that 20s (or 25s) is the time allowed to serve both first serve and second serve. So, when he actually makes a let or needs a second after 45 second, the time to pick other balls or serving the second serve easily goes over 55s in most points.

This is why all his 4 and 5 setters easily last over 1h than what we used to have before 2005.

There is a serious case to question howhe woudl have done in all those 5 set matches he won had he been deprived of a full hour of extra breathing. It seems so apparent now that he woudl have struggled like he did in Miami 2005 when he actually had no energy left to send the ball over the net.

Tenez wrote:But the worst thing, JK, is that 20s (or 25s) is the time allowed to serve both first serve and second serve. So, when he actually makes a let or needs a second after 45 second, the time to pick other balls or serving the second serve easily goes over 55s in most points.

This is why all his 4 and 5 setters easily last over 1h than what we used to have before 2005.

There is a serious case to question howhe woudl have done in all those 5 set matches he won had he been deprived of a full hour of extra breathing. It seems so apparent now that he woudl have struggled like he did in Miami 2005 when he actually had no energy left to send the ball over the net.

You do know your assertion here is contradictory to the theme of your Nadal bashing where he beats his opponents with his lungs rather than skill and how his opponents lose long matches because they're exhausted.

It's contradictory because if he takes so much recovery time between points, then surely that also gives his opponent some recovery time, don't you think?

It does mthierry indeed give his opponents more recovery time, but it also means that Rafa dictates the rhythm of play and disrupts the other player's concentration.

Ljubicic complained in an article recently when the idea of having a clock on court that showed seconds between points was mooted. The problem has been that Rafa is box office - if he slid outside the top ten in a few years, I am sure we will see more decisions against him by the court officials.

To be quite honest I don't see the point in a rule that is seldom enforced against some of the top guys, only the lower ranked players.

It's not contradictory at all and anyone playing tennis to a decent level understands the logic, not my logic btw, the one developed by Toni. He is the one that realised he had to extend that time between point after Miami.

Very simple....again...unless you don't want to understand it.

If someone's game is based on the physicality of his shots, having more time in between points is going to help him more than his opponent whose game is not based on power but placement of risky shots. The energy Nadal needs after each shot is greater than all his oponents but his shots don't need thin margins. Nadal doesn;t bank on the precision of his shots but on the energy to retrieve points and blast those shots with as much power as possible to get enough length and spin to make his shots difficult or risky to attack.

As the match goes on, the sharper player is more likely to lose his edge than Nadal whose edge is not that important but who needs to keep the energy level all along to bring teh game to a physical level, away from any influence sharpness may bring to the outcome of the match.

Instead of calling me a Nadal basher, why don;t you try yourself to explain why Nadal suddenly extended his time between points after Miami 05?

Be simply objective for once.

TP - Breaking the opponent rhythm is a good side effect for Nadal but certainly not the main purpose of his extra time taking.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:Really not sure when .....but I am sure having seen it clocked in the same way as you picture it.

I will check. It seems a bit odd to have such a long duration.

They showed that during that match after Rafa managed to hold off a set point in a long rally.

Tenez you stole my point right there , I was just about to write the similar. Some fans assume that all players have the same game style and play similar tennis like robots manufactured by one company that whatever affects one will also affect the other. Nadal's long time takings between points is both a recovery routine and also strategic to disrupt the opponent's rhythm and concentration. This is so true because he takes even more long time on important points like break points or set points. I also think those MTOs are just as strategic.

Great sportsmanship!!

Indeed raiders! It's simply self explanatory. I did mention that 3 years ago on 606 and at the time, not many thought Nadal's motivation was to gain a benefit and put it down to OCDs...

I think now everybody agrees it's a purposeful routine.

Tenez wrote:Ok - Found it! Easy actually...we need a long rally in a pressure situation...so look no further than 6 all tiebreak...5all.

The clock shows 53s actually but the time to hit the ball...make it 54 or 55s.

24-shot rally preceding the point - https://imgur.com/dHFTM

53-second clock after Bernardes asks for quicker play, first serve - https://imgur.com/qtcpc

This one makes some sense because of the long rally on the previous point.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:Ok - Found it! Easy actually...we need a long rally in a pressure situation...so look no further than 6 all tiebreak...5all.

The clock shows 53s actually but the time to hit the ball...make it 54 or 55s.

24-shot rally preceding the point - https://imgur.com/dHFTM

53-second clock after Bernardes asks for quicker play, first serve - https://imgur.com/qtcpc

This one makes some sense because of the long rally on the previous point.

No. that's not true nor correct! The length of the rallies should not dictate the time between points. It should be the other way around. The time between points should push players to take more risk so that that they don't kill each others in rallies because they only have 20s to recover.

You can see in that rally that this is exactly what Mayer does. He has nothing left in the tank and goes suicidal by pulling a FH wide. If Nadal is forced to play within 20s he would be forced to pull the trigger earlier himself. That would allow his opponents to stay fresher longer in teh match. Nadal woudl be playing the game everybody did before he arrived 7 years ago. This 24 rally explains perfectly why it is in Nadal's interest to take time between point...though on this occasion Nadal lost the set and match. Had he been as fit as he is in slams, he woudl have won over the distance without the shadow of a doubt.

So Nadal's fitness is supposed to drop inbetween slams? Sorry I dont buy that.

Tenez wrote:The length of the rallies should not dictate the time between points.

It does, and umpires do take it into account when judging time violations. Rafa was asked to speed up by Bernardes twice.

Tenez wrote:The time between points should push players to take more risk so that that they don't kill each others in rallies because they only have 20s to recover.

Taking more risk in a shot and long rallies are not mutually exclusive. A long rally can also kill a player, remember the 642-shot rally.

Currently, there is no rule that prevents a player from hitting their opponent on body parts with a ball (despite an existing body serve). Should there be?

I can always make the counter-argument, that the 20s (25s) rule between consecutive points is obsolete and arbitrary, because players can now play longer rallies and hence it should be relaxed/modified to 45 seconds to allow adequate recovery. I can question the very basis of the 20/25 second rule. There is no sacrosanctity of the number 20 or 25.

Why should Djokovic not bounce the ball 25 times for his first and second serve, both?

Laverfan actually raises an interesting point there.....as the game has become quicker & physical due to slower conditions, better traning and technology, etc, isnt there a case for the time between points being extended rather than sticking to time limits that were created for a different game we have now? (not that it would particularly make tennis more viewable!)

Which therefore begs the question, to make the 20/25s rule more appropriate again, we need to speed the conditions back up!

laverfan wrote:I can always make the counter-argument, that the 20s (25s) rule between consecutive points is obsolete and arbitrary, because players can now play longer rallies and hence it should be relaxed/modified to 45 seconds to allow adequate recovery.

But you are making a very poor case LF cause the 20s rule was created in the first place to speed up the game cause some physical players back in the 70s or 80s, I can't remember exactly, were already taking too much time. People forget that in the 80s, a rally with Wilander could last 3mn! yes 3 mn! The game is only more physical now because some are allowed to take that extra time....and not the other way around. Neither Djoko and Nadal coudl play the way they did in that USO11 final had they had to stick to the 20s rule. With your and Lydian's "logic", there is a case for changing the dimensions of the courts now cause the players are too fit and we need to make the courts wider to allow shorter rallies. Where do we stop?

Besides, the rules say :

The Umpire shall use his discretion when there is interference which makes
it impracticable for play to be continuous.
The organisers of international circuits and team events recognised by the
ITF may determine the time allowed between points, which shall be a maximum
twenty (20) seconds from the moment the ball goes out of play at the
end of one point to the time the ball is struck for the next point.
b. Play shall never be suspended, delayed or interfered with for the purpose
of enabling a player to recover his strength, breath, or physical condition.However, in the case of a treatable medical condition, the Umpire may allow a
one-time three minute time-out for that medical condition.

so, the referee cannot delay the game at his discretion unless he has a good reason outside the game itself.

It does, and umpires do take it into account when judging time violations. Rafa was asked to speed up by Bernardes twice.

=====================

It does but it shouldn't. The rule is for everyone to be followed. And NO rule says that just because the rally was longer, the time rule can be violated. This is the point here. Rules are to be followed and somehow the modern umpires are not doing enough of it and some players are taking advantage of it. This is another topic, but I do remember Berdych after the WTF 2010 match against Nadal in the RR said about the Nadal's drama over the hawkeye ruling. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/11/26/uk-tennis-finals-nadal-idUKTRE6AP47920101126?pageNumber=1 . This is the same Bernardes you are mentioning.


Taking more risk in a shot and long rallies are not mutually exclusive. A long rally can also kill a player, remember the 642-shot rally.

=======================

You say as if 642 shot rally happens every game, every match. The risk in making a great shot is same for every player. The court size, the lines are same for everyone. The greatest shots are the one with least margins for error and thats why they are the greatest shots. The closer one goes to the limit, the higher is the risk and its the same for every player. But the risk involved in staying and rallying is not same for every player because all players are not identical robots. Some players have better fitness, power, stamina of legs and huge lung capacity than others and its less risky for them to stay in a rally. Such players will always try to make the rally longer because as the rally goes long, it starts working in their favor.

Currently, there is no rule that prevents a player from hitting their opponent on body parts with a ball (despite an existing body serve). Should there be?

================================

How is this argument in any relevance to the topic being discussed? We are not taking about making new rules. The thing is if a rule is there, it must be followed.

I can always make the counter-argument, that the 20s (25s) rule between consecutive points is obsolete and arbitrary, because players can now play longer rallies and hence it should be relaxed/modified to 45 seconds to allow adequate recovery. I can question the very basis of the 20/25 second rule. There is no sacrosanctity of the number 20 or 25.

======================================

Its not you who decide the rules and how it should be modified. Its the ITF and they see the 20 ( 25s) as the right time between points. If you think its obsolete, I don't know how many rules in every sports will become obsolete just because some people think its obsolete. Players can play longer rallies now??? This sounds absurd. As if player earlier were prevented from playing longer rallies and must finish the points within 4-6 shots.And now they are forced to play at least 3 20+shots rally every game and hence must be allowed longer time between points. This is a strange argument leverfan. No one forces the players to keep playing low risk lung busting game. If they do it, its their choice, rules can't be bent for them.

Why should Djokovic not bounce the ball 25 times for his first and second serve, both?

========================================

Yes. Make tennis a mockery game. Why shouldn't Dimitrov take 0 sec-10 mins between points? why should Karlovic wait for the opponent to get ready to receive before serving? Why shouldn't players be allowed an on-court coaching? Why shouldn't players be allowed to walk off the court for any time they want and come back at their leisure? Why WHy???

Tenez, the rules you quote don't exactly match Rule 29 in this http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_54584_original.PDF
but the essence is the same.

LF, even if you think the 20s rule is obsolete, it is still the rule at the moment and should be adhered to. If you ask why Djoko should not be allowed to bounce the ball 25 times, I could ask why he shouldn't be allowed to bounce it 250 times.
Personally I think a new rule of no towelling down between points ought to speed things up enough.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:I can always make the counter-argument, that the 20s (25s) rule between consecutive points is obsolete and arbitrary, because players can now play longer rallies and hence it should be relaxed/modified to 45 seconds to allow adequate recovery.

But you are making a very poor case LF cause the 20s rule was created in the first place to speed up the game cause some physical players back in the 70s or 80s, I can't remember exactly, were already taking too much time. People forget that in the 80s, a rally with Wilander could last 3mn! yes 3 mn! The game is only more physical now because some are allowed to take that extra time....and not the other way around. Neither Djoko and Nadal coudl play the way they did in that USO11 final had they had to stick to the 20s rule. With your and Lydian's "logic", there is a case for changing the dimensions of the courts now cause the players are too fit and we need to make the courts wider to allow shorter rallies. Where do we stop?

Besides, the rules say :

The Umpire shall use his discretion when there is interference which makes
it impracticable for play to be continuous.
The organisers of international circuits and team events recognised by the
ITF may determine the time allowed between points, which shall be a maximum
twenty (20) seconds from the moment the ball goes out of play at the
end of one point to the time the ball is struck for the next point.
b. Play shall never be suspended, delayed or interfered with for the purpose
of enabling a player to recover his strength, breath, or physical condition.However, in the case of a treatable medical condition, the Umpire may allow a
one-time three minute time-out for that medical condition.

so, the referee cannot delay the game at his discretion unless he has a good reason outside the game itself.

Your rule is an ITF rule, not an ATP rule, so it is irrelevant. Shanghai is an ATP event, not an ITF event.

Here is the ATP rules... ( Warning: This will download a PDF on your computer - http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atpworldtour.com%2F~%2Fmedia%2F2F1A2D2FDD954D1BBC96BDEDFBF40D53.ashx&rct=j&q=atp%20rule%20book&ei=9uGZTvKiG5O5tgf28fT6Aw&usg=AFQjCNHn5owgwHaPgQk50UrSPVFt6tdI-A )

Please read Section VII, 7.22 - M - Continuous Play/Delay of Game

Play shall be continuous, except that a maximum of twenty-five (25) seconds may elapse from the moment the ball goes out of play at the end of one point to the time the ball is stuck for the next point. When a changeover ends, ninety (90) seconds may elapse. The procedures for enforcing this rule are as follows:
1) 25 Seconds/Continuous Play a) Start Stop Watch. The chair umpire must start the stopwatch after the ball
goes out of play or when the players are ordered to play. b) Time Violation or Code Violation. A Time or Code Violation must be assessed
if the ball is not struck for the next point within the twenty-five (25) seconds allowed, except if the chair umpire extends the time for special circumstances defined by the ATP. There is no time warning prior to the expiration of the twen- ty-five (25) seconds.
c) A player may not receive back-to-back Time Violations because consecutive delays shall be penalized by a delay of game Code Violation, unless there has been a non-continuous game changeover.

The number 25 has no special meaning, does it? Do you know why it is 25 and not 30?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Tenez, the rules you quote don't exactly match Rule 29 in this http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_54584_original.PDF
but the essence is the same.

LF, even if you think the 20s rule is obsolete, it is still the rule at the moment and should be adhered to. If you ask why Djoko should not be allowed to bounce the ball 25 times, I could ask why he shouldn't be allowed to bounce it 250 times.
Personally I think a new rule of no towelling down between points ought to speed things up enough.

Yes sadly the ITF is recently trying to make it easier for the tournament organisers to apply their own rules which is really a shame, like giving the end of set extra time to allow longer TV advertising....but the 20s rule is unchanged nonetheless.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:It does, and umpires do take it into account when judging time violations. Rafa was asked to speed up by Bernardes twice.

=====================

It does but it shouldn't. The rule is for everyone to be followed. And NO rule says that just because the rally was longer, the time rule can be violated. This is the point here. Rules are to be followed and somehow the modern umpires are not doing enough of it and some players are taking advantage of it. This is another topic, but I do remember Berdych after the WTF 2010 match against Nadal in the RR said about the Nadal's drama over the hawkeye ruling. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/11/26/uk-tennis-finals-nadal-idUKTRE6AP47920101126?pageNumber=1 . This is the same Bernardes you are mentioning.

Let us not digress by mentioning Bernardes. He did ask Rafa to speed up.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Taking more risk in a shot and long rallies are not mutually exclusive. A long rally can also kill a player, remember the 642-shot rally.
=======================
You say as if 642 shot rally happens every game, every match. The risk in making a great shot is same for every player. The court size, the lines are same for everyone. The greatest shots are the one with least margins for error and thats why they are the greatest shots. The closer one goes to the limit, the higher is the risk and its the same for every player. But the risk involved in staying and rallying is not same for every player because all players are not identical robots. Some players have better fitness, power, stamina of legs and huge lung capacity than others and its less risky for them to stay in a rally. Such players will always try to make the rally longer because as the rally goes long, it starts working in their favor.

Yes, a 4800-rpm topspin shot is as risky, if not more, then a flat BH DTL at 111 mph. It is a different kind of risk. Hitting a ball within a few millimeters is not the only risky shot in Tennis.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Currently, there is no rule that prevents a player from hitting their opponent on body parts with a ball (despite an existing body serve). Should there be?

================================

How is this argument in any relevance to the topic being discussed? We are not taking about making new rules. The thing is if a rule is there, it must be followed.

Just showing the readers that if a rule does not exist, does not mean it is allowed, and conversely, if a rule does exist, it can be applied with some discretion. Remember Petzschner with a footie winner in his USO doubles.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I can always make the counter-argument, that the 20s (25s) rule between consecutive points is obsolete and arbitrary, because players can now play longer rallies and hence it should be relaxed/modified to 45 seconds to allow adequate recovery. I can question the very basis of the 20/25 second rule. There is no sacrosanctity of the number 20 or 25.

======================================

Its not you who decide the rules and how it should be modified. Its the ITF and they see the 20 ( 25s) as the right time between points. If you think its obsolete, I don't know how many rules in every sports will become obsolete just because some people think its obsolete. Players can play longer rallies now??? This sounds absurd. As if player earlier were prevented from playing longer rallies and must finish the points within 4-6 shots.And now they are forced to play at least 3 20+shots rally every game and hence must be allowed longer time between points. This is a strange argument leverfan. No one forces the players to keep playing low risk lung busting game. If they do it, its their choice, rules can't be bent for them.

Are we going to reduce some player's 'lung' capacity to 'equalise' the game?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Why should Djokovic not bounce the ball 25 times for his first and second serve, both?

========================================

Yes. Make tennis a mockery game. Why shouldn't Dimitrov take 0 sec-10 mins between points? why should Karlovic wait for the opponent to get ready to receive before serving? Why shouldn't players be allowed an on-court coaching? Why shouldn't players be allowed to walk off the court for any time they want and come back at their leisure? Why WHy???

Let us stay away from hysteria. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

As stated in response to Tenez, this not an ITF tourney, it is an ATP one, with different rules.

laverfan wrote:
Your rule is an ITF rule, not an ATP rule, so it is irrelevant. Shanghai is an ATP event, not an ITF event.

Why do you think I was using 20/25s in my earlier posts? I knew that! But the ITF rules say the same thing as the ATP's barthat extra 5s. So instead of picking up on an irrelevant point we both agree on, please answer the questions I raised instead of moving the goal post....again. In essence how can you "make a case" for longer time taking?

JuliusHMarx wrote:LF, even if you think the 20s rule is obsolete, it is still the rule at the moment and should be adhered to.

Absolutely, (btw, 25 seconds for ATP). I am not advocating the rule should be broken. I am questioning the choice of 20 vs. 25 vs. 30 vs. 45 in the same rule.

JuliusHMarx wrote:If you ask why Djoko should not be allowed to bounce the ball 25 times, I could ask why he shouldn't be allowed to bounce it 250 times.

Yes, I just picked 25 to show the arbitrariness of a specific number in a rule, and you did reinforce the same with the number 250. Thanks.

laverfan wrote:
Yes, a 4800-rpm topspin shot is as risky, if not more, then a flat BH DTL at 111 mph. It is a different kind of risk. Hitting a ball within a few millimeters is not the only risky shot in Tennis.

Plain wrong LF....once again. In fact the more rpm, teh more likely you are to clear the net and the more likelyto keep the ball in court....especially as teh shot is hit when the ball slows dow, 3m behind the baseline.

But most of your responses are technically wrong one way or another. The problem is that you think you can argue from either side of the fence with ease like a sophist but you need to be more rigorous in your logic.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:
Your rule is an ITF rule, not an ATP rule, so it is irrelevant. Shanghai is an ATP event, not an ITF event.

Why do you think I was using 20/25s in my earlier posts? I knew that! But the ITF rules say the same thing as the ATP's barthat extra 5s. So instead of picking up on an irrelevant point we both agree on, please answer the questions I raised instead of moving the goal post....again. In essence how can you "make a case" for longer time taking?

The question is when the rule for 20 (ITF)/25 (ATP) was originally formulated, there were some basic assumptions made about the abilities of the players, the playing conditions, etc. There was a logical approach used to choose the time that was chosen. Have the conditions changed sufficiently, to revisit the number used? For example, was average number of shots in a rally a factor in the choice of this number?


"we would do well to remember what it was like watching the game back in the 1980's, when all time greats Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, and Ivan Lendl were allowed 30 seconds between points. Matches back then almost invariably took longer to complete than today's contests. "

http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=6943

laverfan wrote:Yes, I just picked 25 to show the arbitrariness of a specific number in a rule, and you did reinforce the same with the number 250. Thanks.

25 isn't entirely arbitrary. 15 seconds is almost certainly too short and 35 is almost certainly too long. 20 seconds seems a reasonable minimum, 30 seconds a reasonable maximum, and 25 is nicely in the middle. It seems a pretty fair time, rather than a completely arbitray one.
With a bit of umpire discretion, it can be stretched to 30 seconds occassionally, but when you see 35, 40, 45 seconds fairly regularly between points, that should be clamped down on far more than it is, IMO.

Back in the days of 30 seconds between points - was that to make up for the lack of chairs during the changeover?

laverfan wrote:
The question is when the rule for 20 (ITF)/25 (ATP) was originally formulated, there were some basic assumptions made about the abilities of the players, the playing conditions, etc. There was a logical approach used to choose the time that was chosen. Have the conditions changed sufficiently, to revisit the number used? For example, was average number of shots in a rally a factor in the choice of this number?


"we would do well to remember what it was like watching the game back in the 1980's, when all time greats Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, and Ivan Lendl were allowed 30 seconds between points. Matches back then almost invariably took longer to complete than today's contests. "

http://www.tennischannel.com/news/NewsDetails.aspx?newsid=6943

But again, because the game was becoming more physical already then, they decided to shorten...NOT EXTEND the time between points. The purpose is clear not allow stamina to be too big a factor.

The rule is what it is and we cannot simply penalise all those who developed their game based on those rules in favour of those who would benefit from breaking it. It's simply absurd!

Tenez wrote: With your and Lydian's "logic", there is a case for changing the dimensions of the courts now cause the players are too fit and we need to make the courts wider to allow shorter rallies. Where do we stop?

Tenez as always you make me laugh - YOU were the one who on 606 either wrote a thread or long post advocating that the courts SHOULD be made wider as it was harder to get balls past Nadal!!! If 606/H2G2 wasnt down I'd find it for you!

The question is why was 25 seconds chosen in the first place? (whenever it was put into force...)

Also, hitting with 4800RPM does not mean the ball has to fly higher over the net? Nadal chooses to "parabolise" the ball more so that it rears up off the court even more when the 4800rpm bites into the surface. Anyway, lets not get into the risk/talent discussion again...how many players do you know can hit 4800rpm on tour? Strength has nothing to do with hitting that level of rpm (or else "strong" guys like Verdasco, Ferrer, even Murray could do it...but they cant). Its pure talent of timing with incredible racquet head speed, but thats by the by. We'll never agree on Nadal needing more time between points, I've never bought it because Nadal was winning long 5 set matches before Miami 2005 (which you always use...) for which I posted a good number of actual matches where the matches went beyond 3 hours and Nadal was the winner. Seemed he didnt need more time back then. Also, Nadal uses the same amount of time between points whether he's just had a 20 shot or 4 shot ralley...its just the new routine he adopted to mentally prepare himself and get in the zone for every point.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:
Yes, a 4800-rpm topspin shot is as risky, if not more, then a flat BH DTL at 111 mph. It is a different kind of risk. Hitting a ball within a few millimeters is not the only risky shot in Tennis.

Plain wrong LF....once again. In fact the more rpm, teh more likely you are to clear the net and the more likelyto keep the ball in court....especially as teh shot is hit when the ball slows dow, 3m behind the baseline.

But most of your responses are technically wrong one way or another. The problem is that you think you can argue from either side of the fence with ease like a sophist but you need to be more rigorous in your logic.

The higher the clearance over the net, the more topspin is needed to bring it down into the court within the current dimensions of court. Just watch Borg's net clearances.

A topspin shot is hit by sliding the racquet up and over the ball as it is struck. By dragging the racquet over the ball, the friction between the racquet’s strings and the ball is used to make the ball spin forward, towards the opponent.

http://www.unc.edu/~sheng1/spin.htm

In a flat shot, the racquet is not dragged across the surface, but the center of gravity of the ball is hit in a straight line. A 'perfect' flat shot will always land outside the court and hit the back vertical wall, if any. Lydian and you have been over this several hundred times, why are we discussing this again?

The topspin requires more energy from the player than a flat shot. All players can hit both shots, it is a matter of how much angular momentum a specific player imparts to the tennis ball.

lydian wrote:Also, hitting with 4800RPM does not mean the ball has to fly higher over the net? Nadal chooses to "parabolise" the ball more so that it rears up off the court even more when the 4800rpm bites into the surface. Anyway, lets not get into the risk/talent discussion again.

Yes, we went there once and you lost the argument again. rpm is essentially power related. That's why Nadal has got biceps and that's why when he lost those biceps in fall 2009 his rpm and length went down....as opposed to flat hitting which essentially requires a constant and subtle energy.

But let's keep the topic in mind ...extra time taking.

Regarding me suggesting increasing the size of the court, yes, I did...but unlike you I never said that wide or long shots shoudl be called "in" nowadays which is what you are effectively saying when defending extra time taking.

laverfan wrote:

The higher the clearance over the net, the more topspin is needed to bring it down into the court within the current dimensions of court. Just watch Borg's net clearances.

A topspin shot is hit by sliding the racquet up and over the ball as it is struck. By dragging the racquet over the ball, the friction between the racquet’s strings and the ball is used to make the ball spin forward, towards the opponent.

not sure what's your point again but hey.....

JuliusHMarx wrote:Back in the days of 30 seconds between points - was that to make up for the lack of chairs during the changeover?

More than likely. It also makes me wonder, if the athletes of yesteryears were somehow 'better' than today's 'spoilt' lot.

laverfan wrote:More than likely. It also makes me wonder, if the athletes of yesteryears were somehow 'better' than today's 'spoilt' lot.

Spoilt? Hand me my towel, hold my parasol, just going for a wee, think I'll have a quick massage. Spoilt? Surely not.