Slow play: Gamesmanship or process?

[Moxie]

There was a lot of talk about Nadal's slow play on the thread about Bernardes, and it seemed to be distracting from the more immediate topic. I thought I'd extract the discussion here, so we can duke it out, separately.

Obviously, there is a time rule. But is every player who tends to slowness really gaming the opponent, or is he responding, mostly, to his own internal rhythm? Surely tennis has it's rabbits and sloths. And rushing play can be as much gamesmanship as slowing play down. However, different players have different natural tendencies, which I don't think are about gaming, but about their own procedure. Federer tends to jump to the line and serve, and so does Ferrer, and they are very different players. Roddick was in that camp. There are the slow movers, like Del Potro and Isner. And there are the guys who like time to process and think. Nadal is the big offender, but Djokovic is one, and probably Murray in here, too, as they all get time violations rather regularly. When Nole first broke out, all of the commentators were trying to find a pattern in his ball bouncing before the serve, and there was none. He just said: he was thinking. Obviously Nadal is more patterned, but he is also gathering himself, as is Murray. These are great players, and they have their methods. Is it more about them and their process than disconcerting the other guy? How much does it really disrupt their opponent if they go a few seconds over time, albeit habitually? If it's their own process, is that "gamesmanship?" Discuss.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Both. Can't isolate one from the other. I don't think Nadal when he first burst on to the scene thought "I'm going to have this super irritating routine to piss off my opponent." He just had this routine since he's borderline OCD. He also didn't take time in between points to piss his opponent off, but rather because he likes to play at his own pace, whether it is to catch his breath, be ready, or whatever. Hell, maybe it initially happened because he had no confidence in his serve.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is he isn't willing to change considerably, at least not enough to be within the allowed time limit, and I'm sure he's aware of that. He doesn't seem to be particularly concerned either, which in turn makes it gamesmanship as he has disregard for his opponent and whether or not he's affected.

 

[nehmeth]

I remember as far back as 2009 during the Madrid final between Novak and Rafa (the two primary serial abusers of the time limits), we would joke that it went at least an hour longer due to the time in between points. After the 2012 Australian Open final between the two of them, it seems word went out to be more vigilant with the time constraints.

Process or gamesmanship is difficult to determine. After a 40 shot rally, 25 seconds isn't enough time. After an ace serve, 15 seconds is too much time. Taking the full 25 seconds after every point is (to me) gamesmanship. Going 5 seconds over every time is a disregard for the rules.

If the top players are able to have elite umpires removed upon request, how is there ever going to be any respect for the rules themselves. That said, Moxie I heard there was a call that came in requesting you to umpire the quarterfinal between these guys. I think it was Uncle Toni. It's okay though as I heard Becker had called in a request for Billie. :snicker

 

[Federberg]

^As a neutral observer I say Carol should be the one to umpire. We do want a fair contest after all! :laydownlaughing

 

[DarthFed]

I honestly never have seen that as gamesmanship (and you know what I think of Nadal). I think it is simply to his advantage to take as much time as possible due to his style of play. Rafa's never had a big serve so there are a lot of long points on his serve and he uses a lot of energy. So it is in his interest to go over the time limit. And of course he has no regard for the rule whatsoever and that's the main reason he wanted Bernardes out. It's a huge deal if he starts getting consistently called on that and he knows it.

 

[tented]

Both. Can't isolate one from the other. I don't think Nadal when he first burst on to the scene thought "I'm going to have this super irritating routine to piss off my opponent." He just had this routine since he's borderline OCD. He also didn't take time in between points to piss his opponent off, but rather because he likes to play at his own pace, whether it is to catch his breath, be ready, or whatever. Hell, maybe it initially happened because he had no confidence in his serve.

In the documentary "Rafael Nadal: The Secrets of A Giant", a guy from Mallorca, who (I think) owns the tennis club where Rafa began playing as a boy, and has known Rafa forever, said that when he was young, Rafa would play so quickly Toni introduced routines to slow him down.

The example this guy mentioned, which I believe was the first of the rituals, is Rafa's routine of always taking 3 balls, examining them, throwing one back to the ball kid, pocketing one, then serving.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is he isn't willing to change considerably, at least not enough to be within the allowed time limit, and I'm sure he's aware of that. He doesn't seem to be particularly concerned either, which in turn makes it gamesmanship as he has disregard for his opponent and whether or not he's affected.

Well put. Rafa is to blame for being a serial offender of taking too long between points, but I also think the umpires are to blame as well for not enforcing the rule more consistently. I wrote somewhere on here ages ago that if the umpires were to enforce it regularly, Rafa would be forced either to speed up, or accept the fact that he was going to lose first serves, points, games, etc.

 

[Federberg]

I actually don't have much of an issue with the length of time he takes in his service routine. Obviously some common sense should be applied if it's a long rally before. But it's a big difference if he is routinely breaking up the server's rhythm. I've seen that before, and that is gamesmanship. Even then I actually give some leeway if it's done under exceptional circumstances. A breakpoint for example, but not all the time. It's a common tactic. But if the opposition plays quickly, you MUST play at the servers rhythm. To continuously and deliberately disrupt the players rhythm is not sporting, and it frustrates the heck out of me when umpires don't do their jobs

 

[tented]

Obviously some common sense should be applied if it's a long rally before.

Agreed. Which is why I don't like the idea of a shot clock. There's an organic rhythm to a match, and an umpire needs to be attuned to it. After something like that crazy 50+ shot rally between Rafa/Novak in the USO final, it's silly to expect a player to be ready to go again in 20 seconds. But if it's an ace, then there's no excuse to go over the time limit.

 

[Federberg]

^I know what you're saying, but I do think the shot clock is necessary. If it's there for all to see but the umpire has a common sense override I don't see the harm in it. At the end of the day this is first and foremost an entertainment business. That final in Australia was the absolute pits, and something like that should never be allowed to happen again. Frankly if there is a shot clock it will probably force these guys to actually try to win the point instead of just playing attrition tennis. Just like there was a recognition that tennis had to change when it was just becoming a serve-fest, something needs to be done now to encourage more attacking entertaining play. It's one thing if it's clay and attritional tennis is the name of the game, but on hard courts? No, not having it

 

[Moxie]

Obviously some common sense should be applied if it's a long rally before.

Agreed. Which is why I don't like the idea of a shot clock. There's an organic rhythm to a match, and an umpire needs to be attuned to it. After something like that crazy 50+ shot rally between Rafa/Novak in the USO final, it's silly to expect a player to be ready to go again in 20 seconds. But if it's an ace, then there's no excuse to go over the time limit.

^I know what you're saying, but I do think the shot clock is necessary. If it's there for all to see but the umpire has a common sense override I don't see the harm in it. At the end of the day this is first and foremost an entertainment business. That final in Australia was the absolute pits, and something like that should never be allowed to happen again. Frankly if there is a shot clock it will probably force these guys to actually try to win the point instead of just playing attrition tennis. Just like there was a recognition that tennis had to change when it was just becoming a serve-fest, something needs to be done now to encourage more attacking entertaining play. It's one thing if it's clay and attritional tennis is the name of the game, but on hard courts? No, not having it

I go more with tented's thinking, that some points call for more of a break than others, and that's what the umpire is there for. Let's not kid ourselves...the length of the AO 2012 final wasn't only because they both play slow. It's also because they are baseliners and play long, punishing points against each other. A shot clock wouldn't have changed that. I think even Federer recently said he didn't like it because it would distract the spectators.

During the Sock match today, Courier was making the emphatic point that Nadal shouldn't get hit with violations on important points, as he was today, on a break point. Why then? Why not earlier? Is that not imposing themselves into the conversation? That was Courier's point. He said: enforce it early and often, and you'll get a result. But don't get in the mix on important points.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I am of the opinion that there should not be a shot clock and the umpire should get some
discretion in applying the suggested time limit. The spirit of the rule should be enforced
and not the letter of the rule. The spirit of the rule is allow to match progress in reasonable
tempo. The discretion and the extra time allowed should be based on other things like rally
length on the previous point, crowd noise etc., but not on whether it is match
point, set point, game point or break point.

If one says that "time violation" should not be called on important points, then one could
also extend the argument and say "foot fault" should not be called on important points or
take it to the extreme and say that the serve should not be called out on important points.

 

[Moxie]

No, the time violation is different, because it's not given in the exact moment, but tends to be extracted cumulatively. Therefore, when to apply the 1st or 2nd one IS a bit of umpire discretion. I don't think anyone believes that Rafa got a warning on his first infraction and was assessed a point penalty on his 2nd.

 

[I.Haychew]

My opinion is that you can eliminate the possibility of "gaming" if you incorporate a "serve clock". I don't care if you blast an ace on every point or if you engage in 100 shot rallies every point. Set a time limit and enforce it EVERY time. That way, no one has a legitimate female dog.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

No, the time violation is different, because it's not given in the exact moment, but tends to be extracted cumulatively.

No, that is not how it is intended.

The first time it happens the server loses the first serve and it is called time violation.
Two consecutive time violation is a code violation which leads to loss of a point.

However, in practice umpires often give informal warning (which they are not
required to do so) before giving time violation. Actually, they even let it go for a
few times before they give the warning. Perhaps, they can straighten up there and
give warning right at the first time to send a message.

But, there is no cumulative thing, neither in the letter nor in the spirit of the rule.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There is no such thing called "time violation" is cumulative.

Here are some relevant items verbatim from the rulebook:

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 twenty-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.

 

[Federberg]

Obviously some common sense should be applied if it's a long rally before.

Agreed. Which is why I don't like the idea of a shot clock. There's an organic rhythm to a match, and an umpire needs to be attuned to it. After something like that crazy 50+ shot rally between Rafa/Novak in the USO final, it's silly to expect a player to be ready to go again in 20 seconds. But if it's an ace, then there's no excuse to go over the time limit.

^I know what you're saying, but I do think the shot clock is necessary. If it's there for all to see but the umpire has a common sense override I don't see the harm in it. At the end of the day this is first and foremost an entertainment business. That final in Australia was the absolute pits, and something like that should never be allowed to happen again. Frankly if there is a shot clock it will probably force these guys to actually try to win the point instead of just playing attrition tennis. Just like there was a recognition that tennis had to change when it was just becoming a serve-fest, something needs to be done now to encourage more attacking entertaining play. It's one thing if it's clay and attritional tennis is the name of the game, but on hard courts? No, not having it

I go more with tented's thinking, that some points call for more of a break than others, and that's what the umpire is there for. Let's not kid ourselves...the length of the AO 2012 final wasn't only because they both play slow. It's also because they are baseliners and play long, punishing points against each other. A shot clock wouldn't have changed that. I think even Federer recently said he didn't like it because it would distract the spectators.

During the Sock match today, Courier was making the emphatic point that Nadal shouldn't get hit with violations on important points, as he was today, on a break point. Why then? Why not earlier? Is that not imposing themselves into the conversation? That was Courier's point. He said: enforce it early and often, and you'll get a result. But don't get in the mix on important points.

Lol! I'm shocked you agree with tented (joke!)

Not sure what Roger is talking about.., distracting spectators? I suspect it would be like Hawkeye. As for timing of enforcement. The rule breaches are even more egregious at critical moments. You only change behaviour when you have apolitical dispassionate enforcement. This is entertainment as I said before, tennis will lose out if they don't address this.

As for the AO final they played attritional tennis because they could, and lack of rule enforcement encouraged it. If they knew they would be called up on slow play they would have been more predisposed to more attacking points. But that isn't even what I'm saying... I do think that the umpire should have the right to override. Common sense should always apply but we should see the breaches.

Anyway let's not distort this thread by talking about that AO final, we won't change each other's minds

 

[brokenshoelace]

It literally takes 15 seconds of thought to see why a shot clock is a bad idea. It might fix one problem, but it will create a handful of others.

 

[Federberg]

^:laydownlaughing
Instead of sniping mate, join the debate. Tell us what the handful of problems that would be created are. It is a forum to share views after all

 

[brokenshoelace]

1) it's distracting for all parties involved, including the crowd, who might start to make noise if the shot clock is about to run down, at which point the player could use that as an excuse to stop his service motion/routine by claiming the crowd isn't quiet.

2) what if a player is bouncing the ball and it inadvertently bounced off his foot? Does he get penalized? Does the shot clock restart?

3) what if two players had just went through a 50 stroke rally and neither are in much of a rush? You still penalize the server?

4) what if a player is protesting a call or has a legitimate issue with something that went down on the court?

5) what if a player messes up the ball toss in windy conditions?

6) what if there's a gust of wind and clay flies into the server's eyes so he has to wait?

You could answer that the umpire could show discretion and use his judgment, but he can just do that now all the while properly enforcing the rules without needless headaches.

 

[Federberg]

^All valid points. I'm sure there were lots of reasons not to implement hawkeye, but after extensive consultation that was implemented. The rules were made very clear, the fans and players bought into it and here we are now, probably all imagining that we can never go back to a system without hawkeye. I'm quite sure that a similar thing can be done with a shot clock. It seems to me that the way to test the waters is to roll it out at challengers or 250s or something first. See if it works, see what amendments need to be made to make it effective and then move on from there. It doesn't make any sense to me to dismiss the concept out of hand without at least trialling it.