Tennis History “What If’s”

[Jelenafan]

Tennis introduced the Tiebreaker in Majors in 1970 at the USO. Jimmy Van Allen’s “sudden death tie breaker” , ie best of five nine points was used there for five years. It truly was sudden death because if the players each had 4 points it was match point for and against each player simultaneously.

Wimbledon adopted it for one year in non fifth sets but of course it was replaced by what Van Allen derisively labeled “ lingering death”, (best of 12, win by 2 points) which he also introduced.

Would have been interesting to see if tennis had kept sudden death and if all theMajors had introduced tie breaks in the 5th set years earlier than they did. ( Only the USO has had some sort of tie break for the 5th set sine 1970).

 

[shawnbm]

Big what if for me has always been Ancic with his mono and Haas rolling the ankle when number two in the world. What would have become of them, although tommy did quite well afterwards.

 

[Moxie]

I hope this doesn't seem too mean, but Djokovic's outburst against the crowd v. Anderson had me thinking about other ones. (Fans will say he's "emotional," while detractors think he's sometimes "ill-behaved.") At RG 2016, Novak narrowly escaped disqualification in his QF match v. Berdych when he threw his racquet and it only missed hitting the line judge because that linesman happened to be looking that way, and deftly avoided it. Had he not been, that would have been: No RG win for Novak, no Nole Slam, no Career Slam, and he'd be sitting on 15 not 16 Majors. That's a huge shift of difference in a moment of luck that went his way.

 

[Bonaca]

I hope this doesn't seem too mean, but Djokovic's outburst against the crowd v. Anderson had me thinking about other ones. (Fans will say he's "emotional," while detractors think he's sometimes "ill-behaved.") At RG 2016, Novak narrowly escaped disqualification in his QF match v. Berdych when he threw his racquet and it only missed hitting the line judge because that linesman happened to be looking that way, and deftly avoided it. Had he not been, that would have been: No RG win for Novak, no Nole Slam, no Career Slam, and he'd be sitting on 15 not 16 Majors. That's a huge shift of difference in a moment of luck that went his way.

You are right, that’s a “point-of-view- thing.
Imagine what would happen if ATP judges the time- counting between points more serious? Maybe we wouldn’t talk about Nadal. It’s a part of his game, but notorious against the rules.
It’s obvious that the mean guys receive special protection. In a way understandable, every sport is business , they want to protect the big money!

 

[Moxie]

You are right, that’s a “point-of-view- thing.
Imagine what would happen if ATP judges the time- counting between points more serious? Maybe we wouldn’t talk about Nadal. It’s a part of his game, but notorious against the rules.
It’s obvious that the mean guys receive special protection. In a way understandable, every sport is business , they want to protect the big money!

You've completely missed my point. I'm not actually making a judgement about Novak's behavior in this comment, I'm merely pointing out how close he came in that moment to missing out on a career-defining title. If you want to try to make an equivalency with that and slow-play, that's your choice (however ludicrous,) but let me point out that no one gets disqualified for it, and also that Djokovic is often guilty of it, too.

 

[Bonaca]

You've completely missed my point. I'm not actually making a judgement about Novak's behavior in this comment, I'm merely pointing out how close he came in that moment to missing out on a career-defining title. If you want to try to make an equivalency with that and slow-play, that's your choice (however ludicrous,) but let me point out that no one gets disqualified for it, and also that Djokovic is often guilty of it, too.

My fault.

Equivalency in terms of deciding matches. It’s the what if Thread. It would change his whole rhythm and he would create much more UFE in my opinion.
There is no slower player than Nadal between points. Very important part of his strategy and success.

 

[Moxie]

My fault.

Equivalency in terms of deciding matches. It’s the what if Thread. It would change his whole rhythm and he would create much more UFE in my opinion.
There is no slower player than Nadal between points. Very important part of his strategy and success.

There's no equivalency, because I'm talking about one specific match from Djoker. But your "what if" is 'what if Rafa had been forced to play faster all along?' You think his slow play decides matches? You say it's a "strategy," which implies directed outward, or, in other words, is gamesmanship. I would say it's directed inwards...i.e., that it's meant to help him focus himself and is not really intentional, more habit. But I have a hard time believing that he's beaten all of these other players over the years because they're, what? Impatient? Make the case.

 

[Bonaca]

There's no equivalency, because I'm talking about one specific match from Djoker. But your "what if" is 'what if Rafa had been forced to play faster all along?' You think his slow play decides matches? You say it's a "strategy," which implies directed outward, or, in other words, is gamesmanship. I would say it's directed inwards...i.e., that it's meant to help him focus himself and is not really intentional, more habit. But I have a hard time believing that he's beaten all of these other players over the years because they're, what? Impatient? Make the case.

No certainly not every match. mostly not. But i believe it has an influence in some matches. Even in important ones.
You are right, I look at it as kind of strategy I dislike very much. Some could call it gamesmanship. He wasn’t forced to change it, so everything about it is subjective theory.
But I have to admit I am mixing his tics and other on court-behaviour into it. It is clearly characterised by my aversion against him.

I misunderstood your comment about Novak which was the motivation for my post. No offense.

 

[Bonaca]

I want to add one of my biggest what if , in accordance to my countryman Don Fabio:

What if Monica wasn’t stabbed by the German maniac.

 

[Jelenafan]

I want to add one of my biggest what if , in accordance to my countryman Don Fabio:

What if Monica wasn’t stabbed by the German maniac.

Ok, while technically not within our parameters (men’s tennis) it borders on the surreal how the assailant got exactly what he wanted. The dominant force in women’s tennis ( Seles) , who had won 7 out of the last 9 Majors was sidelined and the emotional/mental trauma resulted in her never regaining peak form again. Graff regained #1 and went on a tear of multiple Majors.

It wasn’t Graff’s faul but it’s impossible for me to weigh her overall career accomplishments without thinking it took a crazed freak deliberately acting out with a specific agenda to get those final numbers.

 

[Bonaca]

Ok, while technically not within our parameters (men’s tennis) it borders on the surreal how the assailant got exactly what he wanted. The dominant force in women’s tennis ( Seles) , who had won 7 out of the last 9 Majors was sidelined and the emotional/mental trauma resulted in her never regaining peak form again. Graff regained #1 and went on a tear of multiple Majors.

It wasn’t Graff’s faul but it’s impossible for me to weigh her overall career accomplishments without thinking it took a crazed freak deliberately acting out with a specific agenda to get those final numbers.

Absolutely. Not her fault.
I think most of us would agree , Graf wouldn’t won what she won after that incident. Monica was so dominant at that time. She was a hurricane, something knew, to me something special.
What a pleasure it was, to witness her beating the arrogant , emotionless German ***** fair and constantly. I enjoyed it so much!

 

[Moxie]

No certainly not every match. mostly not. But i believe it has an influence in some matches. Even in important ones.
You are right, I look at it as kind of strategy I dislike very much. Some could call it gamesmanship. He wasn’t forced to change it, so everything about it is subjective theory.
But I have to admit I am mixing his tics and other on court-behaviour into it. It is clearly characterised by my aversion against him.

I misunderstood your comment about Novak which was the motivation for my post. No offense.

No offense taken that you didn't get my original intent. I understand that you and others find Nadal's tics and slow play irritating, but to imagine that he would orchestrate such behavior as an irritant to others, to me that stretches credulity. If it weren't primarily for his own concentration and organization of mind on the court, if it weren't for his own benefit, personally, then I think it would distract him as much as it might others. I'm not saying that gamesmanship doesn't exist and that they don't all engage in it, from time to time. However, and as I have said before, if Nadal is one of the mentally toughest competitors in the game, and I think we all agree that he is, then you have to at least believe in part that the tics, and the deliberateness with which he plays is part of focussing himself. By that I mean that it has an inward purpose and isn't specifically designed as an outward disruption. If you think Nadal's slow play has influenced the outcome of a specific important match, or unimportant one, I'd be interested in an example.

 

[Bonaca]

No offense taken that you didn't get my original intent. I understand that you and others find Nadal's tics and slow play irritating, but to imagine that he would orchestrate such behavior as an irritant to others, to me that stretches credulity. If it weren't primarily for his own concentration and organization of mind on the court, if it weren't for his own benefit, personally, then I think it would distract him as much as it might others. I'm not saying that gamesmanship doesn't exist and that they don't all engage in it, from time to time. However, and as I have said before, if Nadal is one of the mentally toughest competitors in the game, and I think we all agree that he is, then you have to at least believe in part that the tics, and the deliberateness with which he plays is part of focussing himself. By that I mean that it has an inward purpose and isn't specifically designed as an outward disruption. If you think Nadal's slow play has influenced the outcome of a specific important match, or unimportant one, I'd be interested in an example.

It is hard to prove that, you can not know what UFE of opponents is due to this, but i am sure it provokes impatience.
I will look for an article i read about him a few years ago, think it was a british or US article, about his between-points- strategy.
Dont get me wrong, it is smart because it works so well for him. It is part of competition, psychological skill. I dont know what was his initial motivation, but he surly recognized the advantage against most players, he brought it to perfection.
I personally just dont like it. Sort of/part of ugly way of winning , i think Brad Gilbert used this term once.
beside that it is against the rules to take so much time between points regularly.

 

[Moxie]

It is hard to prove that, you can not know what UFE of opponents is due to this, but i am sure it provokes impatience.
I will look for an article i read about him a few years ago, think it was a british or US article, about his between-points- strategy.
Dont get me wrong, it is smart because it works so well for him. It is part of competition, psychological skill. I dont know what was his initial motivation, but he surly recognized the advantage against most players, he brought it to perfection.
I personally just dont like it. Sort of/part of ugly way of winning , i think Brad Gilbert used this term once.
beside that it is against the rules to take so much time between points regularly.

UFE's are not caused by waiting for a player to serve, or to come to net to shake hands. Nadal does cause those by forcing players to hit extra balls, but that's a different kind of impatience. Players have beaten him by taking his time away. It's not an insurmountable obstacle. It's his tennis that wins him so many matches.

 

[Bonaca]

UFE's are not caused by waiting for a player to serve, or to come to net to shake hands. Nadal does cause those by forcing players to hit extra balls, but that's a different kind of impatience. Players have beaten him by taking his time away. It's not an insurmountable obstacle. It's his tennis that wins him so many matches.

No doubt about that, his game , tennis skills, talent , power and stamina wins him nearly every match.
My point is that this enormous waiting between points and the tics before serving have an influence on the other side of the net, mostly in his favour. Impatience / anger are surely possible reasons for UFE, and could be provoked by this. How often and whether decisive, can not be answered from me.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You are right, that’s a “point-of-view- thing.
Imagine what would happen if ATP judges the time- counting between points more serious? Maybe we wouldn’t talk about Nadal. It’s a part of his game, but notorious against the rules.

Nothing would have happened other than him hitting a few more second serves due to the time vilation. A shotclock was employed at the Australian Open. French Open and US Open last year (not sure about Wimbledon), Nadal reached a final in one tournament and won the other two.

 

[Bonaca]

Nothing would have happened other than him hitting a few more second serves due to the time vilation. A shotclock was employed at the Australian Open. French Open and US Open last year (not sure about Wimbledon), Nadal reached a final in one tournament and won the other two.

You sure? I think it would derrange and affect his game a bit more. But who knows.
Yes shotclock was there but no serious enforcement. The top dogs are protected, shotclock - production is a joke.

 

[mrzz]

Guys, it is really too much to say that rushing up Nadal's serve would have zero effect. If you are forced to do anything different from your natural approach on a court it might affect you. The timing of the serve is also obviously related with how long you have to catch your breath, so for a guy running around like mad that is obviously a big deal.

The argument about the last majors is a good one, but as Bonaca put the enforcement could be a bit better, but still, it was there and it indeed changed the timing of the matches. On the other hand, the last majors have been a bit, well, odd for Nadal. Maybe he had more margin in those than on average (which is odd, but anyway not that many close matches on those tournaments if I remember it right). Anyway this shows that this change, in retrospect, would not mean going from 19 to 2, but it is completely reasonable to assume that it could have cost him 2 to 3....

 

[Moxie]

You sure? I think it would derrange and affect his game a bit more. But who knows.
Yes shotclock was there but no serious enforcement. The top dogs are protected, shotclock - production is a joke.

There had been a lot of call for a shot clock, particularly for those looking at Nadal. Now there is a shot clock, and the complaint is that it isn't really enforced. Nadal does get warned a lot, even docked, so I'm not sure how much you can say that it's a "joke." It seems like a bit too much whining. People want something, then they get it, then they're still not happy, because it hasn't stopped Nadal's winning. To say he's being "protected" by the, what?, "powers that be?" because he has learned to work with a shot clock is a bit of a stretch. If he were being protected, perhaps there wouldn't be a shot clock. Or, see below.

Guys, it is really too much to say that rushing up Nadal's serve would have zero effect. If you are forced to do anything different from your natural approach on a court it might affect you. The timing of the serve is also obviously related with how long you have to catch your breath, so for a guy running around like mad that is obviously a big deal.

The argument about the last majors is a good one, but as Bonaca put the enforcement could be a bit better, but still, it was there and it indeed changed the timing of the matches. On the other hand, the last majors have been a bit, well, odd for Nadal. Maybe he had more margin in those than on average (which is odd, but anyway not that many close matches on those tournaments if I remember it right). Anyway this shows that this change, in retrospect, would not mean going from 19 to 2, but it is completely reasonable to assume that it could have cost him 2 to 3....

One of the aspects of umpire discretion as to when to restart the shot clock is how long the last point was. Bonaca might call this Nadal being protected, but long base-line rallies is a feature of today's game, not just Nadal's, so umpire's deciding when to restart the shot clock benefits many players. As to "rushing" Nadal's serve, yes, the shot clock has that effect, but he'd also shortened his obsessive routine over the years, anyway. I don't know that you can say he's especially "rushed" so much as not indulged. That's not terrible for him, either, if you ask me. He serves better than he did when he dawdled, years ago. His routine has not been one thing, over the years. Even Front will tell you that he didn't have a slow routine early on. At it's worst, it included his socks, so that changed.

So no one may be able to say that it would have had "zero" effect to have had a shot clock on Nadal from years back, neither can we say he wouldn't have adjusted to it. But I challenge you to come up with how it might really have changed his 19 Majors, and other records and achievements. He's an adaptable player. One could argue more than most. And to reduce his achievements to some notion of indulging slow play seems WAY over-determined, to me. I'm not sure what to say about your implication that he didn't face much competition in his last 2 Majors, so the shot clock might not have featured. Is that what you're saying? I still think it's forcing a point to say that he'd have lost even 2 Majors he won, were he forced to play faster. Which ones would you suggest? Surely none against Novak, who is not speedy, himself. Wimbledon against Roger? AO against Roger? Any of his RG wins?

 

[Carol]

What if the Spanish government weren't criminals and investigated Fuentes' blood bags like they should have and revealed the names. :chainsaw:

Probably you would be very disappointed when you would find out how many names from foreign countries were involved in that shit :lulz2::bloodsucker1: