General TennisRoger Federer

Should Tennis Introduce a Shot Clock?

With a small number of players exploiting the rules and taking far too long between points is it about time Tennis introduced a stop clock so that Umpires could start enforcing the rule better?

From 2013 onwards both the ATP World Tour and ATP Challenger Tour decided that a time violation between points (25 seconds) will be penalised in the first instance with a warning. For the second and all subsequent violations, the penalty will be a fault for the server and a point penalty for the receiver. The ITF has the exact same rule but only allows 20 seconds. This slight rule change was introduced to allow Umpires to enforce the rules more consistently after numerous players were exploiting them but not facing the consequences.

However, Umpires are doing a terrible job at ensuring this rule applies to all players. At the French Open Final between Sharapova and Halep, the Russian took over 30 seconds between first and second serves but wasn't given a single warning in the entire match. Nadal was a similar offender in his 2nd Round match against Lukas Rosol at Wimbledon often taking 30 seconds between points. And when we have John McEnroe saying:

It shouldnโ€™t be a big deal. Think of how many tickets this guy sells. If all he does wrong is takes a couple of extra seconds in between points, his opponents should be able to live with that.

Which in short basically says that the top guys are bigger than the sport itself and they can shape the rules as they wish. In other words, a completely uneven playing field. As if the homogenisation of courts wasn't enough to protect the Cash Cow's the ATP, we have respected pundits giving them free reign over the rule book.

After Nadal's excessive time between points in his 2nd round match, the debate was raised again by Lukas Rosol and Roger Federer who believe the game needs to be sped up. ESPN also ran a section on the topic with Brad Gilbert and Daren Cahill who both agreed that time between points, and toilet breaks etc need cutting out. Gilbert said he played over 800 matches in his career and didn't leave the court once. Either players bladders are getting weaker or they're taking the piss ๐Ÿ™‚

You cannot take 25 seconds. I mean, I know you need to focus. That you can do in 10 seconds. Just canโ€™t be that we only see two points per minute. I just feel like we need to keep up the pace and obviously play according to the rules.

Federer on time between points.

Check out the video below:

I personally think a shot clock is long overdue. I think one of the main reasons Umpires don't enforce the rule is because they're scared of a players reaction but also getting the crowd on their back. All good umpires want to have as little impact on the match as possible and they don't want it to appear as though their decisions play much part in the outcome if they can avoid it.

A shot clock removes that fear for them, it's there for the whole world to see – the players, the crowd, the umpires and the TV viewers at home. They can clearly see when a player is cheating by taking too long between points, there's no debate about it – the clock doesn't lie.

If a shot clock were introduced it would also level the playing field which can only be a good thing. Firstly we'll start to see more attacking Tennis for everyone to enjoy. By removing the shorter recovery time between points players will have to decide whether they want to play overly defensive, side to side tennis or a more attacking style. It's a cost benefit analysis for them and I think they'll have to take the shot making route to end points quicker otherwise they're going to run out of gas much quicker.

It also makes it far better for TV viewing if points are played at pace, nobody wants to sit around for 5 hours watching the same match with so much dead time n between points. Snooker had a real problem with players taking too long between shots so they introduced a 25 second shot clock at all Premier League Snooker Events, Sky's Flagship Snooker Coverage, no surprise that viewing figures went up as a direct result :). I can only see the same happening for Tennis.

Should Leeway Be Given for Long Rallies?

Djoker Tired

This is where I disagree with Fed who says after a long rally you should get more time. I don't really think players who engage in a long rally should get any special dispensation. I can't think of any other sport where the rules say “well that last minute, point, quarter, spell etc was so intense, you can have a bit longer to recover”. In boxing, you don't get longer in your corner if you burnt yourself out in an earlier round by throwing bombs and missing, in Basketball you don't get to take a longer break if your opponents are tiring you out. One the clock starts, it starts. Simple.

When you start giving leeway you instantly introduce the possibility of players trying to game the system. If the shot clock is set to 20 seconds, there's no questions whatsoever and all that's rewarded is smart play and physical fitness.

I think the sooner this is introduced the better. Will the powers that be risk upsetting a handful of their top starts? Doubtful but we'll see. Maybe Stan the Man can become the enforcer on the Player Council and make it happen.

What do you guys think? Should there be a shot clock in all forms of Tennis from Challenger through to Grand Slam?

Photo Credit.

Jonathan

Huge fan of Roger Federer – I’ll pretty much try and watch all his matches from Grand Slam level right down to ATP 250. When I’m not watching or tweeting about tennis I play regularly myself and use this blog to share my thoughts on Fed and tennis in general.

Related Articles

310 thoughts on “Should Tennis Introduce a Shot Clock?”

    1. You were penalized for going over the shot clock limit. Try serving in a reasonable time ๐Ÿ™‚

  1. I completely agree with you re: long rallies. Fitness is a big part of being a professional athlete so if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

    BRING ON THE CLOCK! I want to see Nadal get his wedgied ass handed to him!

  2. Against Rosol, in the second set breaker, Nadal was blatantly flouting the rule. I don’t agree with the leeway being given after long points, but I can understand when a long rally has been tiring. (AO’12 final) Nadal, however, was unbelievable. Even more so, the referee stated that there had been no violation even after Rosol asked. It surprises me that racquet smashing gets a warning more frequently than such clear gamesmanship does.

    1. Yeah it’s just poor sportsmanship from him. And it clearly is used to gain an advantage.

      Nadal fans say the H2H with Federer tarnishes Federer’s legacy. So by the same token, Nadal’s constant abuse of the rules tarnishes his too as he clearly doesn’t understand fair play.

  3. A clock is simply a joke. People love to see long rallies and players giving their 100 % in every point. The time between points was a never a big deal till some players or people use it as an excuse to their loses. How can you recover in 20 seconds from a 20 or more shots point in a 4th or 5th set?? As a said a JOKE.

      1. Referees have to do their job better and that’s all. This rule needs the judges to understand the game and see if the time violation is justified or not. On the other hand I don’t understand why the time on GS is 20 sec instead of 25 sec when you have longer matches.

      2. Because you asshole, you son of stupid Spanish whore, the stakes at non-Slam tournaments are much lower, and the games finish sooner, so nobody really cares. When the stakes are high at slams, Spanish thugs like Nadal abuse the rules to gain an advantage over their opponents, and steal titles from there. Unsurprising, stealing and thievery are part of your culture.

        TheCookieThief
        “I piss on you Espana, I piss on you King Felipe, I piss on you Nadals.”

      3. The swearing stops when Pablo leaves this blog. This is the only non-technical blog I comment on, and I don’t want some two bit stupid Spanish thug insulting Roger Federer and his fans here, that he has been persistently doing across all posts.

        TheCookieThief
        “I piss on you Espana, I piss on you King Felipe, I piss on you Nadals.”

      4. It’s embarrassing though. Nobody wants to read personal attacks so just keep it on topic.

        I read comments on YouTube and on Tennis-x daily about Fed’s wife and kids, that’s insulting Fed. Saying Nadal has a better forehand isn’t really an insult, just an opinion.

      5. Insulting Federer fans for saying something nice about Federer on a Federer blog is alright? Not accepting numbers and facts presented to them, dismissing them for no apparent reason, and continuing with their irrational rant is ok? Constantly hearing how bad Federer is compared to Nadal, as an agenda by some, on a Federer blog where we come to celebrate all things Federer is allowed?

        If they can’t have a civilized debate, why should I/we?

      6. And I’ll tell you what’s embarrassing. What’s embarrassing is that a retarded Nadal fans come to this blog for his gleeful sadistic pleasure, and finds every possible, rational or irrational way, to belittle Roger Federer and his fans. Whether Roger wins, or loses, he has something negative to say. It’s one thing making your point, and conceding on certain occasions. But this guy simply doesn’t accept facts and numbers presented to him. Heck, his own country men are suggesting him to leave this blog and comment on Nadal boards, where he would be a potential GOAT commenter.

        I have seen, time after time, this troll working up a nice discussion between us Federer fans here. Basically, he just poops all over the place and you can’t have a coherent discussion with anybody.

        Question is, do the majority of the readers on this blog think that Pablo is rational, and I’m being irrational? If that’s true, then I’ll be peRFectly happy to leave this blog.

        My fellow readers, do let me know what you think.

      7. The point is being rational or irrational, the point is being respectful and debate by giving arguments. I understand if you are not capable to do it you have to use insults but that is not what normal people do.

      8. Pablo, go back and read all the comments you made on this blog, how you stopped responding and never conceded when someone gave you numerical proof. You were given that treatment, because you “disrespected fans on this blog”, and “never accepted their logical proof” because you chose not too.

        You were only given back what you deserved. There are a lot of other readers who have some sort of argument or disagreement with me. I never treated them like you? What does that tell us about you?

        That you are here just for your gleeful sadistic pleasure. You are here only to insult Federer fans on a Federer blog because you enjoy. You are the one who is not capable of behaving decently when commenting on a rival blog. You, Pablo, don’t look like a normal human being.

        I’ll leave it at that.

      9. I agree… with both Jonathan and Sid. Pablo is annoying as hell and has no business frequenting this blog if all he has to add are things that make no sense or add to the negativity. I mean if you don’t like Federer, we get it- it’s your personal choice. But coming to what is CLEARLY a Federer fan blog and just writing random stuff (some of which is true) without giving it thought and dismissing data as and when it suits your agenda makes for a painful comments section for me personally. But that’s just me. I often find myself skipping the comment’s around Pablo because now I automatically assume that they’re going to be baseless Fed bashing. It just goes to showcase your massive inferiority complex Pablo. Just go to a Nadal fan blog where your comments will be more than welcome.

        As for Jonathan’s comment- yeah the swearing and the signature is a bit hilarious albeit excessive (although I’m fine with a little bit every now and then)

        Simple solution- if Pablo has nothing positive to add here and refuses to go, why don’t you just block him. Would stop Sid from descending on him.

        Also Pablo- You should realise one thing that Jonathan hasn’t blocked you despite your random nonsense that clearly annoys all of this blog (except on the occasions that you make sense, rare as they may be), me included. If it were any one else, they would already have blocked you. Sid would have probably tracked you down and nuked your location, if he isn’t already on it. I think you should realise that you aren’t welcome here and just leave man.

      10. [Sid would have probably tracked you down and nuked your location]

        LMFAO I’m devising a plan as I type. Pablo Borrego Delgado, better watch your back ๐Ÿ˜‰

      11. I agree with Sid.You should also start making tough decisions like Ruan. He is just killing the discussions.

      12. Ok. I am not on this blog very often, mostly to “celebrate” with Fedfans after a Grand Slam win. But I have been checking out this blog since the very beginning; yes, before all the fancy layout changes. So I do not know all of the commenters here, but know that Sid is a very frequent one here.

        That said, I am uncomfortable to find Sid using the language he did toward Pablo. I don’t know Pablo, and if other commenters find him annoying, then fine, but please express yourself without using personal attack, the offensive use of the word “retarded” and bordering sexist language – “son of a Spanish whore”, I understand that this expression is widely accepted by native English speakers, maybe because of cultural context but Pablo’s a big boy, I’m sure, his mother’s character does not have to be commented on because he should have to take responsibility for his own actions. Also, the anti-Spanish insults leaves a very bad taste to my mouth, and I say this as someone who’s from a country formerly colonized by Spain.

        It reflects badly on Jonathan’s blog to find comments like this. And if anything, leaves a very poor impression on Sid’s character.

      13. Christine, I’ve apologized to one and all for my derogatory comments. Even though they were elicited as a reaction, something that’s been building up over a long period of time, in my attempt to insult a particular character, I was wrong in insulting an entire race, culture, or demographic. Please don’t judge me by that manic barrage of comments.

      14. OK. When and where did you apologize, Sid? Honestly, if the “idiot” Pablo managed to refrain from personal attacks and offensive language then you should have as well. Maybe instead of taking the time to type out a reply, scroll past his comments instead? I can literally only “judge you” based on your comments.

    1. The rules themselves are set by the player’s council. If they believe 20 seconds is a reasonable time, there’s no reason to question their ability to recover within that period.

      1. True, 20 seconds is ample time. Test it on your stop watch, it’s a long time between serves.

        When I play I’m prob about 10 seconds and that includes collecting balls.

      2. 20 seconds is nearly half the time, that is, the 45 seconds you get between game breaks. That’s an ocean of time!

    2. And if it was “just an excuse” used by some players. Then there should be no issues with a shot clock, as they would still lose but this time have no excuses ๐Ÿ˜€

      1. Nobody needs 20 seconds between serves. About “10 seconds should be more than enough”. You don’t need to pick your butt, smell it, touch your ears, and nose, towel off between aces. That’s why you need that extra time, you sick Spanish motherfucker? You Nadal bitch? Keep drinking that Nadal and Toni protein shake, you sick Psychopath.

        TheCookieThief
        “I piss on you Espana, I piss on you King Felipe, I piss on you Nadals.”

      2. It is definitely possible. I see club players doing it week in and week out.

        When the floodlights are about to go off you’d be amazed how quick people can serve.

        20 seconds is a long long time.

      3. Maybe during an entire match, you could be given three free passes to go over the limit. On all other occasions, it should be a direct point penalty, two points after a certain number of violations, and/or a game penalty.

        I wish they had done something like this way back in 2007.

      4. It is. Federer does it. I don’t think he has EVER exceeded the time limit. Through his career. And he’s won a fair deal- I doubt even the biggest Nadal fan could deny that. More than Nadal at the moment. So saying that it’s impossible is clearly ridiculous. It has been done.
        Other players do it. So why can’t Nadal.

        Rules are rules. You can’t break them for certain people. And you sure as hell can’t say that I’ve brought it down from nearly 60 seconds to 35. You had no business taking 60 seconds between points in the first place. You’re not doing anyone a favour by doing so. You;re still exceeding the time by a mammoth 15 seconds, and that should be penalised.

        Are you telling me that he can’t cut out any of the following!!!??
        – Bottle alignment
        – Taking two towels after every service winner that lasts just a single shot
        – Scratching his butt
        – Wiping his brow
        – Wiping his nose
        – Wiping his brow again
        – Bouncing the ball a million times
        – And then if he feels like it, start the entire procedure all over again.
        – Crossing lines with just his right foot.
        – Making people wait EACH and EVERY time before a match.
        – Taking bathroom breaks when a player is serving for a match!!!? (can’t it wait 3 minutes? Either the match will be over and the dude can pee his brains out or he’ll have broken and will get time between games- I refuse to believe it is anything but gamesmanship. Federer has done it, but ONLY between sets.)

        Are any of the above essential? If yes, tell me why. Point wise. Let’s hear your explanation.

        I know you’re going to say his rally length is long. But whose fault is that. He knew that the rule is 20 seconds. He should have tailored his game so that he can recover quick enough. Federer does it. So does a lot of the tour. Why should he be the only exception?

        Also, if you say his points are longer (and yes, they are) why does he have to do ALL this after a rally that lasts two shots. By your logic if a long point requires more time, then a short point should require less time. Why does Nadal STILL violate the rules in such cases?

        No wonder Federer wins all the Sportmanship awards and the Fan favourite awards.

      5. maybe if it were strictly limited to 20 seconds max, in a long 5 set match on grass, it would encourage the baseline dominant rally players to learn to construct quicker points so as not to easily fatigue.

      6. Gaurav,

        I really like your comment, especially this one:

        “By your logic if a long point requires more time, then a short point should require less time. Why does Nadal STILL violate the rules in such cases?”

        Can’t wait to see the respond for that one. What other excuses will come from this nadal-excuses-book?

      7. Thanks Amar.

        I notice Pablo’s replied on the blog, but he conveniently ignores facts as and when they suit him.

      8. Sorry Gaurav, since you said Nadal’s biggest weapon against Fed is his serve I’m not taking you very serious. Too long comment to read

      9. Pablo- I never said that. Please point out where I mentioned “Nadalโ€™s biggest weapon against Fed is his serve”

        Also, I made it in points so that it’s easy to read. Trust you to come up with some bullshit to suit your agenda.

      10. Another excuse (just like their idol, seems like Nadal fans also develop this ability to create excuses), just say it, you don’t know how to answer Gaurav, no?

        I’ll make it short then,
        “By your logic if a long point requires more time, then a short point require less time. Why does Nadal still violate the rules in such cases?”

  4. I mean just watch any of Rafa/Novak’s Grand Slam matches it is absolutely ridiculous how much time these two waste in between points. Roger was absolutely right when talking about viewers perspective.

    And yeah that 08 final would not have finished in the dark if Rafa had minimised his antics.
    There needs to be enforcement not only as a matter of principle but for the wider good of the game.

    1. It’s absolutely ridiculous how they push each other pyshically and mentally in every match. These two have brought the biggest show in tennis of the last years. If they had to serve every 20 sec fan couldn’t have seen that. I didn’t see any tennis fan claiming against the time when it is a Nole-Nadal match and actually the audiences speak for themselves.

      1. The entertainment isn’t the issue here though. The biggest problem is it being twisted in the form of gamesmanship and the enforcement of the rules being unequally distributed. As long as the rule exists, it should be observed and enforced in the correct manner. The players themselves have submitted themselves to this rule, so it’s really a moot point as to whether or not the 20 second restriction is correct or not.

      2. The issue is having a rule that makes no sense. Why 5 sec less than in a GS? when in a GS you actually get more tired. Referees need to understand the game and distinguish between justified time violations or not.

      3. The issue here, Pablo, is that, why did Dopal have to be given on an average 10 extra seconds between serve, compared to Roger.

        The issue here, is that, given the about 218 times Nadal serves, he took a cumulative total of 35 extra minutes compared to Roger. That’s a lot of time to recuperate from his physical style of play.

        Accept the fact, or get the fuck out of here.

        TheCookieThief
        “I piss on you Espana, I piss on you King Felipe, I piss on you Nadals.”

      4. [I didnโ€™t see any tennis fan claiming against the time when it is a Nole-Nadal match and actually the audiences speak for themselves

        Because, that audience was largely, or nearly completely comprised of Nadal and Nole fans. Why would they not support extra time between serves if it gives their favorite players an advantage over the “rest of the field” that is perfectly find serving under 20 seconds?

        Is physical play the reason for needing extra time? Or is it simply because they do it for their own convenience? Keeping time short ensure players find ways to finish points quickly. That requires ability and skills too. Why should players who are creative in ending points be punished to benefit the top 2 who love playing grinding tennis?

      5. Wait. Any fan?

        Thousands of fans.

        And if Nadal OR Djokovic were the biggest entertainers, why haven’t eaither EVER won a Fan’s favourite Award? Federer often wins twice as many as the entire field combined (ie: He alone wins more votes than Nadal/ Djokovic).

        Of they clearly are the biggest entertainers, why don’t the awards back your claim???

        We’re giving you factual evidence. Don’t just dismiss it for the sake of it.

      6. No, the reason they have less time at a Grand Slam is because it IS meant to be tougher. What’s the point of a marathon, if it is easier than the practice.

      7. Anti-Nadal fans were those who claim about that epic match. Experts and ex champions still praise it.

      8. You are confused with what someone perceives as the “quality” of a match. How the match unfolded may have been what they liked. But it still doesn’t change the fact that time rules were abused. It’s not the Nadal-Djokovic match in focus. You know, other players play professional tennis too. And the blatant time abuse by Nadal has cost others multiple titles.

        I heard Nadal took an outrageous amount of time between serves in that tie breaker with Rosol. I haven’t seen it but others have posted it. Explain why?

      9. 1. If Novak and Rafa have brought such AMAZING “BIGGEST SHOW IN TENNIS” to the world – as Gaurav says : ” why havenโ€™t either EVER won a Fanโ€™s favorite Award? Federer often wins twice as many as the entire field combined (ie: He alone wins more votes than Nadal/ Djokovic). Of they clearly are the biggest entertainers, why donโ€™t the awards back your claim??? Weโ€™re giving you factual evidence. Donโ€™t just dismiss it for the sake of it.”

        Perfect.

        This is exactly right. I have nothing against Nole and Rafa personally – but I find their tennis rivalry simply boring compared to Fed playing either.

        And so comparatively – apparently do the voters and the sponsors. I mean look, Fed has won ONE slam in the last FOUR YEARS AND A HALF YEARS. ONE! And – despite the fact that Nole and Rafa have been crushing the competition bringing “the greatest tennis the earth has ever seen” – Fed is still hands down the most popular guy in any tourney he’s in. Heck – Andy wasn’t even the fan favorite when he played Fed in SW19 ’12!!

        I think people know who has brought the “biggest show in tennis” to the world and he’s currently ranked 4.

        2. I agree with Jonathan that there is nothing good in swearing at Pablo and we should be respectful to him. (And I like Sid and his tennis analysis crushes it).

        3. I don’t have a problem with Pablo bringing helpful analysis from time to time, but I really really have no idea why he likes to come onto a Fed fan site and knock Fed and hoist up the Nadal flag so often and become – by our own allowance – the distracting center of some otherwise really good discussions on where Fed is at. I don’t get it.

        It seems wrong and kind of an ill-treatment of all these Fed fans who simply love their athlete even if he’s in the sunset of his career.

        So….Fed’s slower. Fed is not really a favorite anymore. Fed might lose his slam record. Fed is probably going to lose to Nadal most of the time. Many people think Nadal is better. We get it. All reasonable conjectures. Noted. But I don’t get why he has to do that and why he doesn’t just go celebrate Nadal – a great athlete – on one of his many sites. I’m sure Pablo would be welcomed.

        Nothing against you Pablo. Just don’t get it.

      10. Again, Pablo conveniently side stepping the facts. Not one place have you responded to facts.

  5. I am fully supportive of ‘serve clock’, it would be fair to all players as I think there is general grieve amongst the players that top 4 gets free pass from umps. Umpires are equally to blame for not enforcing this rule . Clock will ensure umpires do their job while on chair. Its long overdue ATP and ITF gives fair treatment to all players and help the sport with correct pace of play.

  6. Hey People,

    Should tennis introduce a stop clock??? The answer is a resounding yes. Is 20 seconds ideal in a GS when a best of three match has a 25 second limit? I would say no. First, there must be some uniformity as far as the timings are concerned. As Pablo pointed out, players tend to use up more energy in a best of 5 set match (that is the ONLY POINT on which I agree with Pablo- I still want him to get the f out of this blog).

    I would suggest that players be allowed 18-22 (will not pick a single number) seconds between points in the first two sets of a GS match and any ATP tourney as well. They can be allowed 23-27 seconds in the next subsequent three sets. However the time between a first and a second serve must not exceed 10 seconds. That would be a more sensible rule.

    Regarding player being given a bit of leeway as far as longer points are concerned, I am not sure what can be done about it. There was a Murray Djoker rally in the US open which lasted like 60 shots. Nadal and Djoker often play in excess of 15 shots. As far as leeway goes, I would say if the sum times consumed by two consecutive service games exceeds a certain time limit because of the longer rallies, then the break can be extended by a minute so that the players can compose themselves and recover for the next two games.

    But that’s about it. I agree with Jonathan, that a player cannot be given leeway in the middle of a game when he is serving irrespective of how long the rally goes. It is up to the player to shorten it if he is capable of doing so.

    Medical timeouts must also be restricted to the maximum extent possible. Unless a player suffers a discernible injury during the course of a match like say falling onto the ground like Djoker did recently does the situation merit a timeout. Fed fell awkwardly onto the ground in his match, but he didn’t batter an eyelid. He went back to the baseline to serve. That is the sort of professionalism to be expected from a player. And Djoker’s fall did look painful, so I would say he deserved to take a timeout. In all other situations, a player should not be allowed to take a timeout or a bathroom break (they sweat enough on the court- I don’t see why they would need to use the rest room), at least not when a player is down a break.

    And Pablo, people don’t use that as an excuse when they lose to Dull. How many times has Dull been down 15-40 in a service game because the opponent went bonkers on the return of serve and what does he do next??? He takes effing 35 seconds to serve on BPs.

    In conclusion, the time limit must be enforced and players must be reminded of it during the coin toss.

    Yours sincerely,
    S.Anirudhan

  7. Is shot clock the answer ? I mean then there might be too much of a crowd involvement and I do think that sometimes that extra leeway maybe required in some points.Having said that if it reigns in bastards like Nadal then I am all for it.

    1. Sometimes if fine, but taking on an average 10 seconds longer than your opponent (Wimbledon 2008) is clearly abusing the rules. Nadal’s game slowing tactics, as admitted by Aunt Toni the whore, cost Roger the 2008 Wimbledon.

      TheCookieThief
      “I piss on you Espana, I piss on you King Felipe, I piss on you Nadals.”

      1. Abusing the rules is not taking 10 seconds more than your rival, it is taking more than it is allowed and there are referees to determine that.

        I can open another debate. Is it necessary to establish a minimun time between serves as well? Some players could say their opponents are being too quick so in the clock we should set an interval of 5 sec to serve no matter what. A JOKE. A bad excuse of bad loosers.

        What they have to do is a coherent rule the players can adapt because when the 3 best players of the circuit are stuggling to carry out the rule means sth is wrong with it.

        I would like to point out other thing. Roger is not being very clever by criticising Nadal specially with the likely fact of facing him in the SF. I wouldn’t give him extra motivations…

      2. There is already a rule that says – an opponent plays to the servers speed.

        So there is no “serving too quick”. If a player is ready to serve and the opponent continually fails to be ready, then the serve is entitled to serve. The complaint would fall on deaf ears.

        Too many players are failing to abide the rules for their own gain. There is nothing wrong with the rule, it works perfectly, but it isn’t enforced properly due to weak umpires. Shot clock is good because it’s visible for all to see. No excuses.

        Agreed on the Nadal thing though, if Fed has riled him up it could be bad news.

      3. Hey idiot, 25 seconds was the limit at Wimbledon. He took 30 seconds on an average. And much longer on key points.

        Your argument is irrational. Tennis has a rule which says that, “the game is played at the pace of the serve”. What part don’t you understand? You have to be in receiving position, once the server is ready. You may get a second or two as a courtesy. You don’t towel off after your opponent aces you, and make his wait. Tennis isn’t played at the pace of the receiver, but at the pace of the server, so long as the serve does it within allowed time.

        The argument wasn’t about Djokovic-Nadal, the argument was about Nadal vs those players who need way less than the allocated time between serves.

        So, don’t use lame excuses to support abuse of time rules. As for your suggestion to not give Nadal any more motivation. He doesn’t. He has already stolen enough for Roger Federer, with this time wasting and time out tactics. Another one isn’t really going to make a difference now.

        If it weren’t for Jonathan, I would’ve crucified you again. Don’t speak stupid things. Stay rational.

      4. Jonathan pretty much mentioned the same thing in the previous comment. The most you can ask from a server is a second or two to settle down when they are serving.

        The 2008 final has razor thin margins, and was decided by a few key moments. Not only did Nadal on an average go over the limit, he took more than 35 to 40 seconds at very important stages. In a game decide by a couple of points, that’s a huge advantage.

      5. Jonathan He riled him up indeed. He already answered him in the Spanish medias, I dunno if the international medias have translated it.

      6. The argument is about Murray and Djokovic as well because they also surpass the time on average. Actually in the AO2012 Final Nole was slower than Nadal.

      7. Don’t use Novak’s serving slowly as an excuse. Just because another player does it too, doesn’t make it right. You can’t tell a cop who pulls you over for speeding that everyone else is speeding too.

        As for riling him up, he is always riled up because of all the roids he takes that make him combative. Of course he is going to say things like, “it’s so physical, we need more time”. No you don’t. A vast majority of the players don’t need that much time. You don’t need it either.

        50 seconds between serves at Wimbledon 2008 on certain points? Are you kidding me!

      8. Djokovic has been a serial offender of this rule too. Lately he has sped it up but is still known to take too long on big points. Why should you get longer to steady yourself on big points when your opponent doesn’t need as long to mentally focus? You are gaining an unfair advantage.

        I kinda disagree about 2008 being on razor thin margins thing though or it cost Fed the match. There are so many factors at play – of course slowing Federer down probably played some part as we know it breaks his rhythm. But Fed was never in the lead in this match, he was down 2 sets to love. Did well to take it to 5 but then faltered in the darkness. Not to mention it was a terrible year on tour for him, he lost to several opponents outside the top 10.

        But my idea for the shot clock isn’t to go back in time, those matches are done and dusted. It’s about ensuring a level playing field for all players, not just Fed vs Nadal matches. The rules are enforced selectively depending on who is playing at the minute, a clock removes that completely and levels the playing field.

      9. I haven’t seen his response. I don’t think Roger’s attack was personal though, he was asked about time between points and he answered. But Nadal has chosen to take it personally, and historically that spells bad news for Fed as he will be out for blood if they meet.

      10. The truth is, in the end, tennis is a game that’s decided by a few big points, and getting a time advantage in those crucial moments is the difference between winning or losing a trophy.

        Yes, in 2008, Roger was facing a myriad of other problems. But in the end, it went to 9-7 in the final set, didn’t it. You can’t tell me that Nadal taking extra time during that final set did not help him get some crucial holds. That holds no water, whatsoever.

        A clock completely eliminates the subjectivity. Agreed.

      11. Yeah it probably did.

        Best thing will be – implement the shot clock and see if the results change between players who are known offenders.

  8. This particular person does NOT enjoy long rallies. 17 shots of forehand to backhand, and then somebody sets up an actual point? No thanks. Now I don’t really enjoy Ace, Ace, Ace, Game either; maybe once in a while, as a Wow factor – but it loses its Wow factor if it’s done all the time.

    That may be more a part of a court speed discussion, but I think it’s also appropriate here since it also has a bearing on match length.

    My first reaction to the idea of a shot clock was ew, no! We should enforce the rule we’ve got! Yet that manifestly isn’t happening. Very interesting point, Jonathan, about snooker’s introduction of a shot clock and subsequent increase in viewers; I had never heard that. Avi, I also hadn’t heard that the time rule is set by the player’s council – I guess that would explain why the ITF has a different time limit, as it’s the ATP players council. I do think it’s silly for it not to be the same rule across events.

    How would a shot clock actually work? Would it buzz at the time limit & be tied in to the scoreboard? I don’t know. What if somebody actually IS injured, would the shot clock get turned off? Who would decide? There was a bit… on the Wimbledon live blog? – about an occasion years ago when, after a very long rally – longer than today’s rallies – , one of the players collapsed with cramps, and was promptly given a time violation. That’s not right either…. yet I could see that getting abused too.

    I’m not sure what the answer is, but it’s clear that what we’ve got now isn’t working.

    I wasn’t really keen on Hawkeye either at the beginning, but it seems to be working out pretty well. Maybe it’s partly just resistance to change.

    1. I’m a big fan of Snooker as well and they didn’t introduce it in the most important events because it would change the game. There are certain situations where you need time to think and having an alarm next to you beeping cleary change the game.

      1. Is it physical for just one player, and not his opponent? So in your world, one player should be allowed a total of an extra 35 minutes over the course of a match, just because he plays more physical than the other? Which also ends up resulting the last stages of the match being played in the dark?

        An alarm next to you is annoying, but your constant extra time while your opponent is waiting and has to be constantly hunched on his back, is not annoying at all?

      2. Ebdon abused it though like Nadal. Taking excessive time between points when there really no need.

        If the shot clock reaches 0, it’s an instant time violation. Players are soon going to learn.

        Snooker isn’t the best example, other than the fact they used it and it worked. Shot Clock works well in Basketball.

      3. It is annoying if your opponent exceeds the time allowed not the fact of being slower than you. And anyway it’s referees’s problem.

        And again I have to say 20 seconds it is a joke for a 5 set match.

      4. More than two thirds of the time is spent idle in tennis. Key example: Wimbledon 2008. That’s a joke. Nobody needs more than 10 seconds between serves. 20 seconds is way too much.

        There must be a shot clock. If 20 seconds is not enough, then you need to play less physical. This is where the talent of players like Roger Federer to find ways to finish the point comes to the fore.

        I’ll tell you what’s a joke: You.

      5. I have to tell you he is not very good by finding ways, actually he is still trying a way to beat Nadal in a GS since 2007 ๐Ÿ™‚

      6. 20 seconds is ample time.

        I’m not sure there can be a fair way to give players longer after long rallies – as what if one player is fine physically and the other is flagging? That is then unfair on the guy who has recovered fastest.

        You could play a 30 shot rally, but one player does 90% of the running. Should he have more time to recover because his opponent gave him the run around? I don’t think so.

        The only real way of doing it would be Umpire’s discretion when he knows both players are on out on their feet, and he can press a button that adds 10 seconds to the clock. Can only be used 3 times per set like Hawkeye.

      7. [I have to tell you he is not very good by finding ways, actually he is still trying a way to beat Nadal in a GS since 2007]

        Correct. He found ways to beat him, and Nadal found ways to take time outs. Monte Carlo 2008, Hamburg 2008, Paris 2011 among other things.

        *The year could be wrong.

      8. Wimbledon 2008, where Nadal took 10 seconds on an average longer than Federer. I can’t comment on AO 2009 because I don’t have the numbers for it.

      9. This post isn’t called, should there be a shot clock for just Nadal matches. It’s for general use across the men’s and women’s game.

        Sharapova is an equal abuser. She took 30 seconds between 1st and 2nd serves. That is unreal.

        A shot clock levels the playing field. I can’t believe anyone would have an issue using it, the rule us there already, this just makes it crystal clear for everyone involved – player, umpire, crowd. There are no downsides to using it.

        Hawkeye has made the sport better, probably worked against Fed on the whole as his challenges are terrible. Doesn’t mean I think it should be scrapped ๐Ÿ˜€

      10. It’s not possible to implement. What do you do when the crowd screams before you serve? or when you make a bad move and you need time to recover? or after a 30 shots point?

      11. What do you do if and when the crowd screams during a point? You continue playing.

        And so it is with serves. You have to get used to crowd noise during serves. That’s not a reason to not use a shot clock.

        If you play a 30 shot point, then you are not managing your points and/or clock correctly and should use it as an excuse. It’s like saying that I need to put in more effort to prepare for an exam. Can I get more time than others who are smarter, and faster?

        And, what do you mean “you make a bad move”?

      12. Tennis is not an sport of managing the way you play based on the time you need to serve.
        If you want to do that. Name it different.

        “Make a bad move” I wanted to mean when a player falls down or twists his knee. It is his fault because he didn’t managed his points/clock??

      13. And why is tennis not that way? Why was there even a rule for time taken to serve? Why have a rule then and simply allow as much time you need? Nobody is saying that you cannot take as much time as you want to “finish” the point. The rules simply talk about the time taken “between” points. Big difference. How players manage to serve in time is at their own discretion.

        If a player falls downs, or is hurt, there is no reason why they don’t get extra time. I’m pretty sure Nadal will run with your suggestion and now, in addition to MTO’s, have these little incidents of “making a bad move”. Don’t be irrational. Everyone understands when a player is hurt or not.

      14. In the 2008 Wimbledon final for example, the game was what 5 or 5 1/2 hours? That’s well over two hours were spent in breaks, including changeovers, set breaks, an time between serves. That’s a lot of time. That’s 40% of the time players are “resting”. That’s more than enough time.

      15. Pablo what’s your disdain against the rule already in play? Is it because Nadal takes an extra 10 seconds for all his rituals, takes half a minute after an ace? Or uses bathroom breaks to throw off the opponent. This is about making the whole sport fairer and not putting the top players above everyone else, why don’t you want that for?

      16. Yup, this rule isn’t about singling out players. It is about making the sport more of a level playing field and fair for all participants.

        Sharapova is an even worse offender than Nadal and she probably won the French Open because of it. She was looking leggy throughout but bought herself too much time by taking 30 seconds between 1st and 2nd serves.

        No player is bigger than the sport and none of them deserve special treatment. If Fed suddenly started taking longer between points then I’d say the same thing. In fact Fed has taken quite a lot of toilet breaks when he’s been down 2 sets to love. So he’s done the same thing plenty of times too. Usually though he comes out and loses the fifth set 6-2 lol.

  9. Jonathan, a very timely piece – you are absolutely right. The introduction of a time clock becomes necessary, which is not only fair to other non-violating players but also good to tennis fans. Tennis is nowdays such a large commercial business in addition to being a sport. It is absolutely necessary to make it fair and square – this is very good to tennis. People have short memories – think back what some people said when Hawky Eye system was introduced in the first place. Lots of journalists, ex-tennis player commentators and some ex-champions rubbished the idea and could kill the fun, did it?. I for one as a tennis fan think it is an excellent idea, though our maestro had doubts. The introduction of a time clock could follow the same path. In addition, it could relieve some pressure off umpires as well. I am so purprised that it has not happened.
    In terms of implementations, there should be a small compromise – extending it to 25 seconds and extending further to 30 seconds only in GS, in the 5th set and when temperature is 28C or more. A violater should lose a point automatic.
    Pablo, get real. Sretching or violating the rules is embarrasing and does not MATCH the status of a great champion. True, at moment, re-inforcing the rules is completely left to umpires, which can be intimadated by top 10 players, especially some of those who are sometimes mentioned in a conversation or discussion of a GOAT, which is very funair. ATP should introduce this so that umpires can do their jobs properly without being abused by some top players and tennis fan don’t have to sit through the matches that should have finished hours earlier. Yes good rallies are breathe-taking sometimes but doing that again and again and each time takes more than 30 seconds in-between points is a joke! Tennis fan like you should play tennis computer games – you get the same thing every time and all the time. Watching that in real? give me a break – that just kills any interest or excitement. You might be the only one who is interested in watching 30 stroke rallies for every point with the player still standing after that to throw in a thug bunch to win the point.
    Jonathan, we should start a compaign to the ATP to introduce this for the future of tennis.

    1. [In terms of implementations, there should be a small compromise โ€“ extending it to 25 seconds and extending further to 30 seconds only in GS, in the 5th set and when temperature is 28C or more.]

      Why? If a vast majority of players serve well under 20 seconds, why should that time be stretched? These guys are professionals and train under stressful conditions. Why should some players who have a physical style, get the benefit of getting more time in high temperatures, when there are a ton of skilled players who can finish points quickly and don’t need extra seconds.

      Explain how that’s fair to the rest of the field?

      1. Sid, personally I would agree with you, Jonathan and many others 100% that the current rule of 20 seconds should be implemented as it is. However, if we look at who is the biggest violaters of the rule, they are Nadull and Novack, especially Nadull. Realistically, the ATP would be nervous, if current No 1 and 2 players oppose the idea. This idea is more relevant to players who go deep in GS normally. It sounds biased against lowly ranked players but this is a reality. So I would not be surprised, if the ATP listens to Nadull and Nole more than players outside top 50. I know that this sounds a bit unfair. Therefore, unless there is some kind of compromise somewhere and if both Nadull and Nole oppose the idea, it could hurt the appeal of the ATP and thus divide the tour. I would say that implementing this rule at Wimbledon and USO is relatively straightward, whereas there could be issue at AO and FO where either temperature is relatively extreme or points are typically long. The additional benefit of a slight compromise is that it will give umpires a good opportunity to dish out penalty without hesitation, whenever the shot clock rule is violated.

      2. Nicely said Gang.

        And if it’s really the decision of the ATP Council, ie players, it’s not really up to us what that number is, is it?

      3. Gang what you are saying is that the their should be a compromise for top players just because they are listened to more or earn more ยฃยฃ in ticket sales. That would be completely wrong. It has to be done according to the rule that is already in place. No compromises, just enforced.

      4. I would enforce the rule of 25 sec by referees being stricter but I still think 20 sec is very few for a GS match. I would like to see the stats of the all the different players but I’m pretty sure quite a lot are using more than the 20 sec. It’s understandable that if 3 of the best players in the world can’t adapt maybe it is because the rule is too strict.

      5. I don’t think there’s any question of them being *unable* to adapt, just that they don’t choose to. I timed Djokovic several times this evening, and he was always within 20 seconds when I did it, so it’s not that it’s impossible.

      6. Just to add : Guys, Pls correct me if I am wrong : Let us, for a moment assume, that the following logic is true : That is, if the rallies are longer, serving within 20/25 secs is a problem. Then my question is, are the rallies long only when Nadal is serving? When Nadal’s opponent serves, rallies are more or less long then as well, as players are still the same.. How is that the other guy does not need the longer time? Or they are still able to make the rule?

  10. And, the El Tri poops. Leaving a player unmarked at the top of the area. Where’s Katyani when you want to see her screaming? ๐Ÿ™‚

    1. Man oh man Holland were very very close to losing that one- also is Van Persie injured? didn’t seem to be into this game when he was on…

    2. Dude, I was too busy celebrating our win ๐Ÿ™‚ Oh my God, it looked sooooooooo bad the last minutes. 3 or 4 minutes more and we would have lost. But you see, Holland kept believing and fighting and then came the 88th minute…. and we are through ๐Ÿ™‚ I will not say this again…. but I actually cried a bit when we won ๐Ÿ™‚ And now…. 3 matches to go…… yep, one WC 2014 title coming up ๐Ÿ™‚

      Sweet Alysha, we are called the Dutch Lions for a reason you know. Kings of the jungle, we always get our prey ๐Ÿ™‚ Injured or not, tired or not, behind or not, heat or no heat…. always in for the win ๐Ÿ™‚

      Go Holland…. Go Roger ๐Ÿ™‚

      1. It can’t get any closer than the Brasil cross bar being rattled in the 120th minute. Nothing comes close to it. Cesar was badly beat. Two more inches and it was all over. Brasil have been brought back from the dead ๐Ÿ™‚

        Holland were lucky to win. The Mexicans do not know how to defend a one goal lead with minutes left. How can their No.20 be simply standing there on the top of the goal?

  11. Shot clock, absolutely. Twenty seconds from when the score is changed until the ball hits the service court. Take away one serve, please. No pause between every second game. Today, most of the time is spent sitting, getting towels, fixing hair and pulling shorts. There’s no fun in that. Would be nice to see more tennis and less of everything else.

      1. I mean, just one serve. Why two serves? Why the chance to a free point? Sure, 100 years ago, the equipment required it but today? And it only slows down the game. More standing at the line, adjusting shorts and hair and all that. Also, with one serve, courts could become faster again.

      1. Right? I mean, how low can you get than when your opponent is serving for the match, aces you, and you go to towel off and actually have him wait at the line for the next serve. It shows you that Rafael Nadal is a unmitigated, legendary asshole.

        I simply have to post my signature on this one.

        TheCookieThief
        “I piss on you Espana, I piss on you King Felipe, I piss on you Nadals.”

      2. Shamtoot, that’s what I like about you. Regardless of how many cruel, mostly honest but at time rhetorical digs I take at your favorite player, you understand that you are a guest here, you respect the blog, and you respect its readers.

        How I wish a certain Spaniard would take a leaf out of your book ๐Ÿ™‚

  12. Ideally umpired should be able to enforce it without it, but we all know that ain’t happening. So defo a shot a clock would be nice ๐Ÿ™‚ good write up Jonathan ๐Ÿ™‚

  13. I also think it’s absolutely required that they introduce the shot clock although I highly doubt it will happen any time soon. Only top players can abuse the rule, I’ve seen a lot of matches where lower ranked players were quickly penalised the moment they violated the 25 seconds. It’s the same with doping in my opinion. Top players are allowed to do it because they bring in huge amounts of dinero. However, the ATP always catches some guy ranked at 200 something just to show us that rules do apply.
    On to Pablo – he is hilarious and lunatic. He cannot accept any well structured argument and will always counter with the same stuff. I don’t think Sid is right in everything he says but he surely is right about how annoying guys like Pablo can be. I always laugh at his opinions because he is just a troll

  14. Bring in the shot clock! Which is the reason why I never watch a Nadal game! It’s boring me to death! And his rituals are sickening! And hey Nadal fanboy, if you will not leave this blog, can I make a request? I know Pablo is not your real name, can you please have another name? You are tarnishing the name of the 2 men I love most, my father and my son. Pleeeeeaaaseeee!!!!!!

      1. Hey Sid… Why should he? This is why he is here. Stirring up the things and having us thrashing on him. The more u get angry, more he enjoys. He just wants it. There exists a special kind of people in this world who likes to be slanged. After making each comment he waits for your response to have fun. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason for him to keep in touch with this blog…

  15. I’m not sure about the shot clock, but I’m starting to think that if someone could come up with some sort of “bladdermeter” for toilet breaks we’d be on to a good thing …

      1. Unless, of course, there’s a genuine medical or biological reason for it – but then it would be incredibly intrusive to have to determine that, of course.

  16. Funny how this topic is brought up in Wimbledon of all places- just shows how terrible of a job is being done as you said to enforce the rule. Umpires were strict when the rule first came out but don’t know what’s happened now to that! Good on Rosol for stepping up and saying something, he’s totally right that the top players get protected and this is only one of many ways that are indeed given consideration in the game.

    I do not like the idea of a stop clock at all whatsoever, it will make the game way too tedious and on a schedule like. How would it work exactly, would it be displayed on the stadium? Or only to the umpire’s eyes and work like the let machine? But it seems like the only option right now because it’s unbelievable how players take advantage of the rules and the ATP and the ITF need to establish their authority here.

    Don’t think it will happen though Jonathan, they obviously haven’t enforced it because they are gaining money from this. Everything in tennis revolves around money and commercial value more or less. Should tennis introduce a stop clock? probably. Will it? nah

      1. The topic is everywhere because Federer was asked about it in a presser and said that the Players’ Council had been discussing it, isn’t it?

      2. Roger Federer did not initiate the topic, contrary to what the stupid Pablo is suggesting. He was clearly responding during an interview, when asked if, “He deliberately speeds up the game to get out of the court quickly”.

        Whoever thinks otherwise, watch the video, and stop spreading lies.

    1. Fed was asked in both his press conference and in his after match interview. It’s something pundits have been bringing up too, as well as TV companies displaying the graphics on screen for average time between points – it’s a hot topic and because of that Roger was asked about it. It didn’t become a hot topic because Fed decided to bring it up.

      1. I’m sure you know he gave it more coverage with his comments. He even exagerated it by saying 10 sec should be enough when it is clearly an absurdity. Or saying fans can’t bear it when it’s obviously false. Even is better for the crowd, they can stay more time for the same money ๐Ÿ™‚

      2. [saying 10 sec should be enough when it is clearly an absurdity]
        It’s an opinion. Why is it absurd? Is it because Dopal takes more than 20 seconds?

        [saying fans canโ€™t bear it when itโ€™s obviously false]
        Proof? Numbers?

        [they can stay more time for the same money]
        Meanwhile, certain players get more time to think of a strategy to win the point.

  17. To answer Alysha’s question, the way the shot clock will be used will depend on the player serving: –

    1 – When Roger Federer is serving, the shot clock will never reach it’s limit. Using a shot clock would be redundant, so, no shot clock will be used.

    2 – For Rafael Nadal, there will be three different shot clocks that will beep at 5 seconds (towel off), another 5 seconds later (for the butt pick and smell), yet another 5 seconds warning later (for picking his nose, bouncing the ball etc.), and finally a last one 5 seconds later that will sound like a Mariachi band singing, “No, no, no, no, Rafa, what are you doing?”, indicating he has lost the point.

    3 – For Djokovic, a special shot clock will be used that will actually do a “tick tock” sound through the PA system, in rhythm with his ball bounce.

    4 – For Del Potro, a multi purpose shot clock will be used that will additionally be timed for making a challenge within 5 seconds.

    5 – No shot clock will never be used in Serena Williams matches to prevent the risk of it being shoved down the umpires [beep] throat.

  18. Shot clock is a must. 20 seconds between points and 10 seconds between first and second serves. Once implemented you’ll be surprised how fast dull gets used to skipping smelling his stinky ass between first and second serves. NBA doesn’t feel the need to have a longer shot clock in the forth period or in play-offs or the finals. Why should it be any different in tennis?
    It’s a little silly that people like Pablo are allowed to post in a blog purely for Federer fans to discuss how they enjoy the pure joy Roger brings to us with his amazing tennis. It’s almost as bad as letting some ass post some sick porn in a site frequented by people who discuss beautiful art and music. I know freedom of speech and all that bull. It does take something out of the joy of visiting this blog. Now it is another one of the million sites that has some tennis discussion/arguments.

    1. Being a Federer fan isn’t a pre requisite for commenting. The blog is here to debate things sensibly. If things get out of hand, I remove comments that aren’t adding anything. But everyone can have an opinion.

  19. For the mens, it should be 15 secs in the 1st set. In 2nd to 3rd sets it should be 20 secs. And for the 4th and 5th sets it should be 25-27 secs.

    1. Hm, don’t agree on that one- what if the sets don’t involve long rallies and etc? I do agree with Fed there should be some discretion when long rallies are involved but not to the point where you abuse the rule already in play. Maybe the shot clock can be extended if a rally exceeds a certain time limit or number of shots? Hard to call on this aspect- relies heavily on the umpire’s subjectivity and opinion…

  20. Fair and square Jonathan, and I totally agree with your post ๐Ÿ™‚ time violation need to be stopped, its too much. About the โ€œShould Leeway Be Given for Long Ralliesโ€ the answer is yes, IMO, it should be decided by the umpire and use his fair judgment. yes, it might be abused, but let us be fair, some players do depends on physical style, and some are much much talented where they need 5 sec only ๐Ÿ˜‰

    By the way, when exactly the time start? The second the point is finished?

  21. Hi Jonathan

    Have been reading your posts with interest as always – have finally got over my diasappointment of not seeing Fed at Wimbledon ad having to watch Dull – and it was dull – I wish his mother would tell him to buy underwear that fits – not only do you have to contend with the constant wedgie but he now insists on nearly every time playing with his ball bag!!! Anyway back to topic – I think a shot clock would be great set at 20 seconds they could have it on the screen they show the scores and the replays on. The other point I would like to maKe is directed at Sid the Cookie thief –

    I PESONALLY WOULD MUCH RATHER READ SID’S COMMENTS (THAN THOSE OF PABLO – WHO REMINDS ME OF A DOG WITH A BONE ) SID YOU TALK SO MUCH MORE SENSE AND EVEN MAKE ME LAUGH – PLEASE STAY DO NOT GO AWAY

    1. He makes me laugh as well. I can imagine him breaking the keyboard and the screen every time a post sth. Insane

  22. Agree definitely with the shot clock idea. What did Roger say recently? Either you have rules and they are enforced for everybody, not just the poor guy playing out on court 12, or you don’t have rules and we can all do what we like. I think any leeway for long rallies should be exceptional too, and justified by the umpire. Long rallies after all mostly happen just because neither player can figure out how to win the point!

    I personally think toilet breaks should be banned too. I read on here somewhere a quote from (I think) Brad Gilbert, who said when he played there was no such thing as a toilet break. Either their bladders are getting weaker or they’re taking the piss!

    And Sid, I don’t really like your signature. Makes me cringe every time I read it. But I would prefer to put up with it rather than have you leave the blog, if that is the only choice.

      1. I don’t see any problem on that or any possible advantage. Players also must be ready for that.

      2. It’s clearly used as a regrouping tactic or to throw an opponents momentum. Pretty dirty tactic.

        As a player you should be able to handle it, but why should you have to? I’ve seen players get refused toilet breaks who are lower ranked, and the big boys just trot off as they please.

        Sharapova took a 10 minute break when she lost a set at the French. Ridiculous really.

      3. On the other hand Jonathan, I don’t think Nadal does it in purpose to damage his rivals, it is just his way to get the concentration. And I agree is pretty weird, he is a very compulsive person.

      4. “You have to handle it because it is allowed”

        I think that’s the problem though isn’t it? Players are deliberately manipulating the rules in play to gain an unfair advantage over their opponent. Take example Azarenka at the Australian Open last year, took a medical timeout in the semi final against Sloane Stephens because she couldn’t convert match points? Or Novak I remember taking a toilet break before Murray could serve for the match at the US Open in 2012 and Nadal at Indian Wells in 2012 before Fed could serve for the match. It’s not so much about the rule being allowed, it’s about how it should be applied in different cases in the critical stages of the match, it needs urgent attention.

        Also there is no doubt in any one’s mind that Nadal purposely does it to upset his rival and throw them off their game, absolutely no doubt. The amount of time he was taking in the tie break against Rosol was so obvious and it was frustrating to say the least that the umpire had a care factor of 0, it’s like the players have more authority than the rules and that should be a huge warning sign in the merits of this sport.

  23. For Jonathan. .. a very timely post and great article that has your readers replying with answers and more questions to what is a hot topic of if a shot clock should be introduced? ?
    Me personally think with reasons given by yourself and fellow readers that a shot clock is over due for mens and women tennis. They need to seriously sit down and discuss all possible outcomes and implement a fair time allowed although even though its in the rule books clearly without marginalising and singling out the perpetrators that deliberately bend the rules. Once a shot clock is their then the referees, Umpire can enforce the rule much more accurately and so thorth!!!

    For Sid…. Although I agree with all your points you have written against Pablo. The only thing I don’t like is that you are attacking the entire Spanish race. Which is really unfair as we all know that their are good and bad in all races. Yes I personally don’t like cheaters and people like Pablo who deliberately get under your skin. Please I think people like him who are un-educated and ignorant will never learn as they don’t have the capacity or common sense to understand what they are doing. Therefore by swearing and giving him personal attacks will only fuel him more, and once you go down to his level of trass talking ypu have inevitably lossed the argument. No matter how well you have articulated and presented your argument, Mr Pablo will come back time and time again with hurtful and stupid comments against Federer. Please Sid I don’t won’t you wasting your energy on someone who as all fellow readers know here what Pablo is about. The best thing to do is not even read his comments and not to reply to his idiocy! !!! Thanks Sid I know you will understand. Kind regards Serajul.

    For Katyani…. wow that was very lucky by Holland. Even though I was supporting them A Robben should of been given a penalty in the first half. The last one was a clear dive and a Oscar winning one in that. So I wasn’t that happy the way they won. Bcos Holland has fantastic players they don’t need to cheat to win. I felt sorry for the mexicans especially their fantastic goal keeper, man alive all tournament he has made unbelievable saves!!! ๐Ÿ™‚ Go Holland , Go Roger Federer! !!

    1. Hey Serajul, I have to agree with you. Robben is one of the best players…..but he is also a overactor. Me personally, I HATE schwalbes. Unnessecary cowardly acting by (lets face it) grown miljonairs who act like their fall is a thousand times more painfull than what for example a boxer or wrestler indures. I don’t like it when a player does that, even if he is from Holland.
      When Spain beat Holland at the WC 2010, I was disappointed, but happy for Spain because they deserved to win. They were playing soccer and Holland was fighting and kicking their way to a win. So Holland lost and deserved that.
      Robben did apologise for a schwalbe in the first half, but the penalty in the second was deserved. I have to be honest, I was quite happy happy happy that we won and are through. Our team never gave up and believed even when it looked too bad. Go Holland ๐Ÿ™‚ Go Roger ๐Ÿ™‚

      1. Oh and Serajul, I thought the surprise of the WC was the Mexico Goalkeeper. Oh my God, he was sooooooooooo amazing. Became his fan immediately. If he had not had to play us, I would be sooooooo rooting for him ๐Ÿ™‚

      2. I don’t understand why you support a team that wins in a wrong way by clearly cheating. Wasn’t that your philosophy? ๐Ÿ™‚

      3. Hey Pablo, did you not read my comment till the end?? Holland is MY country and yet I am honest and “women enough” to admit that Spain deserved to win WC 2010 for their play and that we deserved to lose for our play. Did you not read that?? That is the most honest thing I can say about the Spain and Holland final.

        About yesterday, yes…. Robben overacted too much, but that does not take away what the WHOLE Dutch team did. They fought, fought and believed even till the very end. Don’t let Robben’s single act take away the win Holland deserved.

      4. Just surprised me because I know you are very sensitive with the sportmanship thing ๐Ÿ™‚
        I have to tell you I used to be a fan of Dutch football (Cruyff, Neeskens, Van Basten, Gullit, Bergkamp…). What players! But now you play totally different.

      5. “Just surprised me because I know you are very sensitive with the sportmanship thing”

        Oke King of Clay, you have to explain this one to me. I don’t understand what you mean, but I can guess it is a dig to me about Roger and Rafa….. Please explain.

        And… we have still very good players…. ๐Ÿ™‚

    2. I encourage you to tell me when exactly I insulted people or when I have been disrespecful. The problem comes when people dislike others because they disagree with them. I’m a fan of Federer as well although I have to say since I started to read this blog It made me less fan of him.

      1. For once I agree with Pablo as I don’t recall him making things personal. The arguments on here are getting tedious. I guess most Fed fans love drama.

        My site isn’t some Roger Federer blind worship zone and you don’t have to be a Federer fan to comment here. Yes it helps, but this is a Tennis Blog. I created this site to discuss Fed, other players and just general tennis discussion like this post is about.

        If you are consistently in the game of writing off Nadal’s successes due to rule bending or looking for excuses it actually looks pretty bad on Federer fans. It actually comes across as Fed fans worried that Nadal is a better player or is going to win more slams. The same goes for Nadal fans who troll Fed as old, weak era etc, if it was a clear cut thing that Nadal was better then they wouldn’t need to. Fact is they’re pretty close in certain areas and further apart in others. It’s a pointless debate that will rage and rage and nobody comes out on the good side of it, so just leave it for a pub debate over a few beers.

        I have no doubt that medical timeouts and his other little ticks all come together to help him win matches. But so do his insane court coverage and top spin forehand. I’ve seen him win a ton of points he should clearly have lost because the guy hit 4 or 5 shots that were winners against other players.

        I don’t like Nadal’s style of play or enjoy watching his matches, I’ve seen him live numerous times and his routines are extremely annoying to have to sit through. But you can’t really cast off all his achievements as he’s won 14 slams doing so is just daft.

      2. Jonathan,

        I see that you are clearly supporting Pablo and his behavior. How often do you see him saying things like, “I read something and can’t take you seriously so I’m not going to answer”?

        This is not a Federer blind worship zone that’s why I, and many others here have criticized Federer too, on many occasions. Nobody is arguing that his court coverage doesn’t help him, but without his gamesmanship, time wasting tactics, and MTO’s he would’ve had no more than 10 slams by now. He has achieved a lot, but he has also used unethical means to win several of his titles.

        I understand you want to come off as neutral because you eventually want to continue this blog as a tennis site, as Roger fades away, and others rise. You have to go with “that” player who is dominating at the moment, just like any other blogger, or journalist. I totally get that.

        As for Pablo, calling a Federer fan “drunk” simply because he said that “Roger is an excellent/best volleyer” is not an insult? Where’s the proof instead of the insult? Where’s the debate to counter that the time between points is not enough? None! Maybe you get along well with Jonathan because of your insightful comments and one liners. And how about your “I can’t take you seriously” tactic when you are losing a debate? You’ve insulted me too on several occasions. If you’re going to do that, then you should be prepared to be hit back.

        And finally, Jonathan, it’s abundantly clear to me now that you do not want me on this blog. Just let me know or send me an e-mail and I’ll be out of here in no time.

        It’s one thing running a neutral tennis blog, but totally different condoning the behavior of trolls like Pablo, who are bringing no value to the blog, and are simply here to make Federer fans, who are the overwhelming majority here at this time, feel bad about their favorite player.

      3. It’s rather funny you start pointing out my comments when you insulted me in all the possible ways (and Spaniards and even latins!). The difference reside in the fact I don’t take you serious because I consider by doing that you insult yourself.

        On the other hand I reckon that having me in the blog is enriching at least for people who are able to debate without being disrespectful. If you can’t do that you clearly have a problem of education.

      4. I’m not supporting anyone, just pointing out everyone needs to chill out.

        “Nobody is arguing that his court coverage doesnโ€™t help him, but without his gamesmanship, time wasting tactics, and MTOโ€™s he wouldโ€™ve had no more than 10 slams by now. He has achieved a lot, but he has also used unethical means to win several of his titles.”

        Yes I agree with that – but it doesn’t mean everyone else has to or they have to accept that line of argument.

        “As for Pablo, calling a Federer fan โ€œdrunkโ€ simply because he said that โ€œRoger is an excellent/best volleyerโ€ is not an insult? Whereโ€™s the proof instead of the insult? Whereโ€™s the debate to counter that the time between points is not enough? None! Maybe you get along well with Jonathan because of your insightful comments and one liners. And how about your โ€œI canโ€™t take you seriouslyโ€ tactic when you are losing a debate? Youโ€™ve insulted me too on several occasions. If youโ€™re going to do that, then you should be prepared to be hit back.”

        Now we are just nit picking. I don’t get why people take these things personally. It’s just Tennis.

        “Itโ€™s one thing running a neutral tennis blog, but totally different condoning the behavior of trolls like Pablo, who are bringing no value to the blog, and are simply here to make Federer fans, who are the overwhelming majority here at this time, feel bad about their favorite player.”

        Value is subjective. People are welcome to comment here as long as they aren’t insulting people or commenting just plain weird things. There’s plenty of weird comments put on here that never make it past the moderation queue.

        Pablo knows how to push peoples buttons. Chats plenty shit for sure. But I don’t think that’s a valid reason to stop someone commenting.

      5. [Thereโ€™s plenty of weird comments put on here that never make it past the moderation queue]

        Only a few of my comments were taken off (clearly for obscenity), so I take it as a compliment that what I post is not garbage.

        Nobody has to agree with what I say, no matter how true it is. But the rebuttal should be rational. Something like “blame Nadalโ€™s rituals is just RIDICULOUS” is not a rebuttal. And is not even true. “Stop drinking” is not a rebuttal. “Won’t read or reply because I can’t take you seriously” is not a rebuttal.

        It’s true that Ruan cleans up his blog by eliminating trolls, and stupid comments. Just a suggestion, you should do that do. If someone is being a tool with a rebuttal, you’ve got to step in to keep the sanity.

        Pablo isn’t going anywhere. He was bred to be the way he is and that’s never going to change. But you can at least make a concerted effort to keep him in line.

      6. Pablo, King of Clay, there you go. Another of your irrational rants. Clearly, you do not provide rational rebuttals. Everyone knows that. And then you insult others by calling them drunk, and idiots. My insults were directed solely at you. And it is true, like it or not, that Spaniards typically are like that. It’s coming from experience. You don’t have to agree to it though.

        Problem with education? I don’t want to argue with you because we’ve all seen how well you provide your rebuttals. Outside of my insults to you, which were triggered by you, I’m happy with my comments, and so are the majority here.

  24. I agree that Something Needs To Be Done. I’m just not sure how a shot clock would be implemented in practice: it would obviously have to be visible to all the players, and to the umpire, which means the crowd might get in on the act as well. That might work okay in the atmosphere of somewhere like the WTF, perhaps, but I’m not sure I could see it at Wimbledon. What if you had, say, the crowd counting down the last 5 seconds as the player prepared to serve? That would be very contrary to the usual habit of being quiet when players are about to serve, and might be just as disruptive for the “innocent” party – if not more so.

    1. Yeah not a bad point if the crowd start getting involved. What if it’s just on the umpires screen and makes a bleep when the player has gone over?

    1. Yes, Katyani, they do. There’s Heather Watson, Naomi Broady, Dan Evans, James Ward …

      I’m afraid they’ve been like this ever since Tim Henman came along. Their coverage used to be far more even-handed (and contain a lot more doubles matches, too). Oh, and Andy’s playing now, isn’t he? That means that at 4.30 they’ll probably boot the Wimbledon coverage off BBC2 (where I’ve got the recorder set) and onto BBC1. Just when Andy was getting to a point when one of his matches might be worth watching …

      1. Are you sure they do Allison? Did you know Dimi is playing right now and that Nole WILL be playing later on?? It is all about Andy. Now at the roof closing I am looking at “Murray Dominance”…..

      2. Yes, and it’s got a lot more jingoistic in recent years (along with much of their other sports coverage – see this year’s Winter Olympics for an example). Quite enough to feature Andy virtually to the exclusion of everything else – or that’s how it feels – but last year’s coverage was so OTT it just wasn’t true.

    2. Hi Katyani

      The BBC do know there are other players but presume (wrongly) that the Brits are the only tennis players people are interested in – I often shout at the TV when in rain delays all they show is Murray – over and over again

      On another note so pleased Netherlands won I hope they go all the way (except if Switzerland are still in it of course – who are always my first choice!!!)

      1. Hey Trudi, but it is getting ridiculous. The same people who are chanting “Andy Andy” are the same people who will dump him in a minute at the WTF (just like 2012). Even if you like Andy, you will get a little bit fed up with him seeing him ALL over BBC.

        By the way Trudi, were you the one who had her 25th wedding anniversary a couple of days before??

        Oh and I am rooting for Switserland because of Roger, but not when they will have to play us ๐Ÿ™‚

      2. Hey Jonathan, Robben is a diver, no arguements there. But the penalty was deserved. Even in the first set he had one coming. I was surprised though that he let Huntelaar take the penalty. Robben is a great player, but honestly very selfish, wants to make the goal himself, even if another player is in a better position.

      3. Katyani, the BBC is a Brithis channel it is normal they are proud of a British player who won Wimbledon after I dunno a lot of years.

      1. If I were Nadal and I could choose between Andy and Nole, maybe I would pick Nole right now. Murray is looking a lot better and Rafa has mental advantage over Nolein Slams.

      2. I think Nadal has a mental edge over just about every body in slams. Murray has bent over for him many times. I mean Wimbledon 2011 he had big chances in that match but missed some sitter shots to let Nadal back in.

      3. Would still give the other three the benefit of the doubt at Wimbledon for some reason. Also BBC is getting their dream (quarter) final of Dimitrov/Murray… If you think the BBC is bad, Australian broadcasting hasn’t shown one Federer match at all so far all because of Kyrigos, it’s either a replay or one of his live matches, Nadal gonna eat him up though later today.

  25. To McEnroe’s argument that, “Nadal, because he sells so many tickets, should be given the luxury of taking more time between serves”.

    Tennis is in many ways, a game like chess. During that little time you get between serves, not only are you toweling and catching your breath, you are also thinking. You are reaching back to the various plays you have been working on, you are thinking of the patterns that have worked well for you in the match till that point, you are replaying the possibilities of how your next point will pan out. The more time you get, the more you think of using the best option. It’s like chess.

    A lot of people suggest how mentally strong Nadal is on break points and during key moments. No, he is not. He simply creates more time by abusesing the rules, to chalk out a strategy. Meanwhile, his opponents, under duress, serve in time, especially Roger, who still serves well under the limit, even on break points.

    Abusing the time rule is unfair to the opponent. Nadal’s mental fortitude during key moments of the match owes a lot to the time tactics he uses. He has stolen a lot of trophies from his opponents doing that, and by taking MTO’s.

    Tennis is also a game where you need to keep the circulation going, the adrenalin flowing. The moment an opponent starts dominating, is serving for the match, or is a set up, Nadal “requires” an MTO, or slows the game down to a crawl, to bring their heart rate down, and throw them off their rhythm. Is an opponent supposed to skip ropes while he is on vacation, or is loitering around on the baseline preparing to serve?

    Though it’s too late, and Nadal has already reaped huge benefits from his time wasting strategy, this injustice must stop. Stealing titles from others may be what they’ve been taught to do, but the tennis authorities, and player council must step in and make a change.

    1. Nadal definitely abuses the rule. But he is one of the clutchest players on break points whether facing or receiving. No doubt the extra time gives him time to focus when serving and the rule needs to be enforced but he clearly senses the moment on big points.

      1. He clearly senses the big moments, takes his own sweet time to think of a strategy, and recover from his physical, pounding style, which is not fair to the opponent. His time wasting tactics have cost Roger Federer at least three slams.

        As for Pablo (aka King of Clay), nobody is making a daft argument that he won all his title using time tactics. Clearly, he has dominated in nearly all of his clay wins. But on other surfaces, during various rounds, he has unabashedly used a ton of extra time to recover in key moments. It all adds up and counts toward a title.

        So, stop making daft arguments, and say things that I did not say. Stay to the point because you’re coming off as an idiot.

      2. That’s a really bad excuses and I’m sure Roger Federer himself doesn’t think that. He may think he loses because Nadal is leftie as he pointed it out sometimes wich I also find another bad excuse but blame Nadal’s rituals is just RIDICULOUS.

      3. It’s not the rituals that are being used as an excuse. Don’t spread lies. It’s the time taken between serves. Please stick to what others actually say.

        So you do not believe Pablo aka King of Clay, that when facing a key or break point, using 30 seconds, even up to 50 seconds at times, is of no help to the server? Explain how it does not benefit the server. And explain how it is fair to the opponent who follows the rule every single time, and serves well within 20 seconds.

        Don’t just make rhetorical statements. Please give an explanation.

      4. Well there’s a big reason Uncle Toni made Nadal play left handed and that’s because you don’t encounter them very often.

        As a left handed player myself I know full well there’s an immediate advantage.

        The rituals argument isn’t ridiculous either. Things like that can seriously frustrate an opponent when they know they are being used on purpose as a delaying tactic or to slow up play.

        I have played opponents who when collecting balls to serve with, will come to the net, and only pick 1 ball up, despite there being 3 all within reach to collect in one go. Common sense says pick all 3 up to save a later trip. Seriously infuriating. Hasn’t caused me to lose, but it can be a distraction ๐Ÿ˜€

        It works two fold – more time to recover and also a way to grate on an opponent as they are continually breaking the rules.

      5. You don’t understand one thing. It’s not Nadal’s fault referees allow him to do it. And it doesn0t give him any advantage because Roger handle it perfectly and if he can’t he wouldn’t be as good as he needs to be.

      6. Jonathan I’m sure Roger knows Nadal doesn’t do it deliberately.

        You are wrong, Toni didn’t force him to play left handed, that is just a story. And if it was a big advantage don’t you think it should be more top10 and GS winners in the last 20 years?

        Maybe if he played right handed he could be better, they say his lack of serve speed is due to that.

      7. You have said yourself that Roger loses to Nadal because his backhand is not good enough.

        So in making that statement you basically admit that is due to Nadal exploiting it with his forehand.

        There is no way if Nadal was right handed he could use that tactic as he’s trading backhand to backhand.

        The left handed aspect is a huge factor. Any coach you speak to knows this.

        If Nadal was right handed he’s probably still winning slams but he’s probably winning less and the H2H with Fed is going to be closer.

        Maybe Nadal is still in front. Who knows. Or maybe he figures out how to break down the Fed forehand. But assuming he has the exact same shots and playing style just uses his right hand he is way less effective.

      8. [And it doesn0t give him any advantage]

        Explain how? Taking more time between serves helps you recover, mentally and physically, to deliver your favorite serve. It gives you more time to to think of a strategy, as I’ve explained.

        [should be more top10 and GS winners in the last 20 years]

        First of all, I’d say 95%, perhaps even more, grow up as right handed. That doesn’t mean that any left handed player who picks up a racquet will be a winner. Think rationally. The argument here is not that left handers should win left right and center. You still have to have to work as hard as right handers. Once you’ve reached that stage, your being a lefty gives you a that edge, that advantage. Clearly, we see that in Roger’s matches. Not just that, Roger’s SHBH, the grip, his court position, and equipment he uses, play well into Nadal’s patterns.

        [You are wrong, Toni didnโ€™t force him to play left handed, that is just a story]

        Again, nobody said he forced. He asked him to switch to being a lefty because he knew it was an advantage. From what all of us have read, that’s true. If it’s not true, can you tell us how you know? Also, please tell us then why he switched to being a lefty? Had an epiphany?

      9. Why do you think there is no other big lefty player in the last 20 years? Nobody knows what would happen. I think Nadal would beat Roger by any strategy, just doing that it is easier, he is superior in most of the aspects of the game.

      10. Jonathan, you and I have played a lot of tennis. I’m a righty with a SHBH. You are a lefty. The two of us completely agree that lefty patterns have hurt Roger in their H2H. But Mr Pablo King of Clay is NEVER going to agree. That’s not his style. He just “assumes” that’s not an advantage. He isn’t going to concede, regardless of how wrong he is.

      11. Shame you don’t understand Spanish or French. They made a fantastic documental about Nadal and where Toni explains that laughing on the story. Rafa used to hit the ball with both hands when he was a kid and Toni decided once Nadal grew up to choose one side because there were no Tennis Star playing with both( He explains that). He chose left side because Rafa hit the ball stronger, just that and without thinking in other reason. He says in the documental that they even don’t know now what Rafa was.
        They also comment other interesting things like they didn’t want him to be that strong but they couldn’t stop it. Or how Toni educated Rafa since very young. Pretty interesting documental.

      12. Woow, this post is going to be on the popular thread soon

        Jonathan,
        I respect your decision to not choosing side, let Pablo/King of Clay writing comment on your blog. Like you mentioned this is a tennis blog, and everyone has the right to put comments here

        Sid,
        I read somewhere above, you said that Jonathan didn’t want you in this blog, which I have to disagree with you this time. Jonathan, me, and I am pretty sure others too, are going to miss you if you leave.

        And finally Pablo/King of Clay,
        This post is just Jonathan asking the opinion ‘Should Tennis Introduce a Shot Clock?’
        Jonathan and everyone in here is not the one who decide if there is going to be a shot clock or not, we are not the council/ATP/ITF. You don’t need to call people ridiculous, a joke, insane, cheater, drunk, fanatics, implicitly or explicitly.

        Even if this clock is happening, it will be applied to all players, not only Nadal. Then why you have to worry? Is it because you know Nadal is the offender of the rule? Or maybe because deep inside you feel that Nadal is not supposedly having 14 (and will not get anymore) slam if this clock applied? If you are sure that Nadal is the Greatest, you shouldn’t be this worry. If he is the GOAT, he surely can win without having to get the extra power from smelling his a** on every point.

        Anyway you don’t need to answer/reply on me since you already ignored my questions for several times now (maybe because you just don’t know how to answer it). This will be my last comment directed to you. I am praying to have the strength to ignore your comments, no mater how your comments make me feel

        To other fellow Fed fans here,
        I can only suggest you do the same (especially you Sid, I love the old Sid, not the race-insulting-Sid ๐Ÿ™‚ ). I have an annoying cousin when I was 10. Me and my brother pretend that he is not exist, literally, for one day. He is crying at the end of the day (I am not proud of it, but it is effective)

        Last but not least, Go Roger!

      13. I don’t like the idea of the clock because I think it would change the game and because I don’t see how to implement it. What they have to do is to enforce the current rule and change to 25 sec in GS like in other tournaments.
        I do not think Nadal woud be a worse player if he had to serve 5 sec before. In the first years of his career when he won RGs he was quicker and I repeat I’m sure Nadal doesn’t do it deliberately to damage his rivals, it’s just his crazy rituals acquired through the years.
        I’m done with his topic.

      14. All things being the same and the only difference that Nadal plays right handed then the rivalry with Fed is much closer. No idea who wins it as its likely neck and neck.

        Nadal probably has more success vs Djoker though as he’s going into his forehand.

      15. Perfectly put Amar.

        The only reason any one would disagree with a clock is because they implicitly know that they are (or are fans of the player) breaking the rules.

        No surprises that Nadal fans will come up with any nonsensical argument to counter it.

        At the end of the day, a rule is a rule. It applies to everyone. It’s absolutely unfair to take advantage of the rule when there are others who abide by it. No one is saying that we should implement a shot clock only for player x and not Roger. Roger will be equally affected by the clock. And were Roger to surpass the time, he should be penalized too.

        In my opinion this is what makes Federer the perfect player- not just his on court game but everything else that goes with it. That’s what makes him a step above all the rest even at this age and the reason of his popularity above every other player- the so called “biggest entertainers of our time” (source: ATP Fans Award, Sportsmanship Award, Forbes, Time)

        And as to not knowing how to implement it!!!?? Hilarious.

        Just put on a screen with a timer that counts down from 20. Simple.
        And when it reaches zero it goes BEEEEP and sends an electric signal into Nadul’s butt. Maybe it’ll help him out with that wedgie that he’s ben trying to excavate for the last 10 years.

    2. “To McEnroeโ€™s argument that, โ€œNadal, because he sells so many tickets, should be given the luxury of taking more time between servesโ€.”

      Maybe someone should tell JMac that shouldn’t the rule be 10 or 20 seconds, because Roger takes that much time and he is the one who sells the MOST tickets? ๐Ÿ™‚

      By the way, in defense of JMac… he did give Roger two compliments today ๐Ÿ™‚ Getting there. Baby steps ๐Ÿ™‚

      1. McEnroe is one of the best players of all time. It is privilege to have him commenting on the TV. I would like to see Roger or Rafa doing the same in the future.

      2. [Getting there. Baby steps]

        Katyani, he meant Roger trying to build a soccer team ๐Ÿ™‚

        McEnroe was the most unsporting player of his time. He had no respect for the game or the umpires and was virtually a ticking time bomb. In many ways, he shares those characteristics with Nadal and so the undying love between the two. McEnroe is a disgrace to the sport of tennis.

      3. Ask Bjorn Borg his biggest rival what he thinks. I hope you don’t feel hurt if I tell you I consider Borg’s opinion more important than yours ๐Ÿ™‚

      4. Bjorn Borg and McEnroe played in an era of quick courts, weak equipment, and at a time when front court play was dominant. There was only so much you could do with the equipment then. How can you even compare that with the modern era? The texture of the game is completely different now.

        If modern courts were fast, and/or the equipment not as powerful, Roger would rarely lose to Nadal.

        Once again this shows that you simply randomly compare anything with anything, without understanding the intricacies.

      5. I think I may have given the wrong answer to what you were implying.

        The question is: Did McEnroe consistently insult, or not insult umpires during this time? His conduct may have been impeccable during Borg games, and hence Borg’s opinion. But we have proof of what a brat McEnroe was on the court.

      6. One weird thing I find about you is how you criticise the bad behaviour, the insults etc when you are the most disrespectful person I have found on any website. You should be the biggest fan of McEnroe.

  26. I think Nadal’s OCD rituals are an ingenius way – consciously or not- to reroute tension onto these meaningless behaviors and away from the point he is about to play. I think they allow him to fake his nervous system out and take at least a trace of pressure off of himself in the match. And that trace makes all the difference.

    Just a theory, but I think this is part of why he is so killer clutch.

    Also – If he and Fed have to meet, I hope Fed dismembers him brutally with crazy shockingly good serve and net play.
    A man can hope.

  27. Folks, I’m moving on from this blog. Actually wait, there really is no other blog I comment on so that’s it for me, and tennis blogs ๐Ÿ™‚

    I think it’s about time I took the high road and left. Nothing, or nobody is going to change the trolls here. Not to mention they bring the worst out of me, that’s how talented they are. Unfortunately, I got no support from Jonathan. I’m not like a certain someone who would loiter around at a place where they are not welcome. I’m not the type of person who would go to someone else’s house, and be insensitive to their feeling, and find ways to needle them, regardless of whether I’m right, or wrong. Only classless people do that.

    I have very high hopes Roger will do well this Wimbledon. He does have that dreaded SF coming up – if he gets there, and though we haven’t seen anything from him to indicate he can overcome the Doper, I have hope that he will have a tremendous serving day, and play aggressive tennis to win it.

    I used to come to this blog to spend some time with fellow Federer fans, share thoughts, exchange funny comments. I enjoyed my time here, commenting, chatting, posting (well, at least until the trolls started immigrating, and growing teeth and nails). I hope you guys enjoy Wimbledon. I just want to read your good bye notes ๐Ÿ˜‰

    TheCookieThief

    1. Sorry for repost my comment, i just want to make sure Sid read this

      Woow, this post is going to be on the popular thread soon

      Jonathan,
      I respect your decision to not choosing side, let Pablo/King of Clay writing comment on your blog. Like you mentioned this is a tennis blog, and everyone has the right to put comments here

      Sid,
      I read somewhere above, you said that Jonathan didn’t want you in this blog, which I have to disagree with you this time. Jonathan, me, and I am pretty sure others too, are going to miss you if you leave.

      And finally Pablo/King of Clay,
      This post is just Jonathan asking the opinion ‘Should Tennis Introduce a Shot Clock?’
      Jonathan and everyone in here is not the one who decide if there is going to be a shot clock or not, we are not the council/ATP/ITF. You don’t need to call people ridiculous, a joke, insane, cheater, drunk, fanatics, implicitly or explicitly.

      Even if this clock is happening, it will be applied to all players, not only Nadal. Then why you have to worry? Is it because you know Nadal is the offender of the rule? Or maybe because deep inside you feel that Nadal is not supposedly having 14 (and will not get anymore) slam if this clock applied? If you are sure that Nadal is the Greatest, you shouldn’t be this worry. If he is the GOAT, he surely can win without having to get the extra power from smelling his a** on every point.

      Anyway you don’t need to answer/reply on me since you already ignored my questions for several times now (maybe because you just don’t know how to answer it). This will be my last comment directed to you. I am praying to have the strength to ignore your comments, no mater how your comments make me feel

      To other fellow Fed fans here,
      I can only suggest you do the same (especially you Sid, I love the old Sid, not the race-insulting-Sid ๐Ÿ™‚ ). I have an annoying cousin when I was 10. Me and my brother pretend that he is not exist, literally, for one day. He is crying at the end of the day (I am not proud of it, but it is effective)

      Last but not least, Go Roger!

    2. Come on Sid. Don’t go. Don’t leave. Fed fans for life. Don’t let “Rafa fans” drive you away. Stay for the Real Goat, Roger. And…. come on….. it is almost close to your birthday ๐Ÿ™‚

      Don’t you also want to be here for Roger’s 25th GS title? ๐Ÿ™‚ ๐Ÿ™‚ ๐Ÿ™‚ And don’t you also want to be here to see your Sensual Sabine win her first Wimby by defeating the Female Rafa?? ๐Ÿ™‚

      1. I agree with Sid.Pablo has completely spoiled it for us and I don’t know who Jonathan thinks he is supporting. Better start taking tough decisions like Ruan or you are gonna lose your most passionate readers. And Sid I still hope you come back once the blog is free of trolls.

    3. Hi Sidid.
      I’m not writing a goodbye message because you just don’t have to go. This is a Federer fan site and you are ine oh his best fans. So don’t let trolls and stupid people win. You should just stay and ignore them, because they just don’t even deserve a response. I’m sur that the majority of the readers of this blog will agree with me.
      @Jonathan: can we vote about banishing Pablo? I think if everyone want him to go you could block him.

    4. Hey Sid,

      Good decision, Life is too short to be wasted on Trolls.

      I do not read comments anymore, & just check the blog for links, because Roger fans who read in Europe run into articles about Roger and post it here, things that I would never see in US.

      I have said this before and I say it again, Pablo is Jonathan or paid by Jonathan to say BS that Jonathan will not say himself. It is to increase traffic, maybe Jon is getting paid for each click, like youtube.

      This blog has become a joke. You should not let the trolls get under your skin and to sink so low to Pablo’s level and insult all Spanish people, there are good people even in Spain, although their government is as corrupt as most government. Nadal is a disgrace to the sport, a cheater who would be banned if he played a sport that was governed by objective people, like Track & Field. Dopal isn’t worth building up anger in your life or mine.

      Pablo isn’t worth it either. In fact if no one responds to him, the SOB will have to find another site to feed & satisfy his sick mind.

      P.S. Jonathan, Roger won Halle & the article received 176 comments, you are dead wrong, most commented articles have nothing to do with their popularity. Remove or adjust the title for most popular, 99% of people here do not enjoy Roger losses or celebrate them.

      Jonathan, I suggest you talk to Ruan & understand why he has specific rules about commenting. I understand the self-serving psychology of any blog, nevertheless, if you don’t treat your most loyal readers right, you’ll be writing for yourself & to yourself.

      http://ruansfedererblog.com/commenting-rules/

    5. Come on Sid! What is it about leaving?? You absolutely don’t have to! Just as much as you don’t have to let the worst of you come out because of some provocative comments!
      The majority here are annoyed if not extremely irritated by Pablo’s insistance to refuse facts and celebrate his hero when not welcome and even when everybody is asking him to just cut it out.
      But I’ll be honest, as much as I like reading your comments, some of your latest words and the signature are annoying me too (and I fully understand the reason behind it). This is not the Sid I enjoy reading… and you shouldn’t go this far. It’s just not worth it. It didn’t change anything anyway… and please don’t see it as siding with trolls.
      I have never been the blog type but this blog got me and made me addicted mostly because of Jonathan’s quality writing and the rest of you commenting. But if everybody is angry and if we spend our time arguing it os no more fun!
      Once in while and when it is justified, it’s okay bit not the way it has become lately…
      So Sid, come back to your old self and just ignore Pablo like a lot of people do now. God knows he makes me so angry sometimes, but since I decided to just ignore him I feel much better.
      Pablo, or King of Clay or whatever you want to call yourself, I can’t deny that I used to find some of your comments funny but not anymore. Not when you insist to go against everyone around here. We get it. Nadal is the best for you. Fine. We don’t agree though. No matter what you do. If you are really a Fed fan as you claim, stop with your nonsense. None of us are going to change our minds. You are only fueling angry and completely useless threads lately…
      Jonathan, I don’t envy your position man, bit something has to be done. Sid is not the only one who seems to react aggressively to some comments… and I got used to this blog too much to accept to stop enjoying it ๐Ÿ™‚

    6. Sid, Pablo and friends yes whilst annoying cannot be shunned away because they are Nadal fans as Jonathan said. I’ve learned there’s no way you can argue with them, they have a right to their opinion and you have to respect it as much as you don’t agree with it or support it. This is a tennis blog as well as a Federer blog, and it sucks that this post which was focused on making the sport a fairer playing field turned into ANOTHER debate about Federer/Nadal and this back and forth joust. There will never be an outcome in that debate so what’s the point of igniting or participating in it, they just want to rile you up, not worth it.

      You have such great analysis and points and such a valued contributor on this site, it would such a shame to lose you for this reason, Jonathan cannot be bias here because he is a Fed fan, he needs to be the moderator here so you can’t expect to support you to get rid of them- that’s just going to look like we’re sour Fed fans. We survived the poor 2013 season, I’m sure you can survive a few Nadal fans ๐Ÿ˜€

      No matter what they say, YOU can always have your opinion and no one can take that away from you. It’s going to be hard but you can ignore them and let the tennis do the talking! Come that Fedal SF if it happens, sure Fed is going to be the underdog here and whoever here might say he has zero chance but that doesn’t stop anyone from having hope on the court and believing in their abilities. Roger has been denied many titles/records in his career and how many times have people written him off? But hey he’s still here playing. John Mcenroe may have said a lot of questionable things in his life but there is one thing that I most certainly agree with and it’s that Roger Federer loves tennis. So Sid the question is if your love for the sport and maintaining this great community we have triumphs your hate for those who oppose you. Just think about it.

    7. Folks, I’ll check the pulse of the blog quietly just to see how much trolling is going on. Jonathan feels pity for trolls I’m sure and doesn’t want it to look like he banned a hardcore Nadal troll. So, I can’t blame him as he is the blog owner. He does have a soft corner for trolls though as they spice things up.

      Alysha, and everyone else, thanks for your kind words. And Alysha, yes, Dopal is going to have a change in diet and enjoy some Kyr-gyros sandwich, topped with tzatziki sauce soon ๐Ÿ™‚

      Also, Jonathan is not “the troll”. I’m most definitely am not “the troll”, nor Jonathan (in which case all trolls would’ve been nuked into oblivion by now). However, Jonathan could be a robot, given the alarming frequency at which he churns out posts, and has time to reply to everyone ๐Ÿ˜‰

      Enjoy the games (tennis and football). I’ll check the troll factor and see how much you guys ignore it. Maybe I’ll learn from you.

      P.S. Apologies to the demographic I hurt with my comments and signature.

  28. Sorry to see you go Sid. I have loved a lot of your smart analysis.

    I do understand Jonathan not wanting to banish people and I really do agree with him also asking folks not to insult and swear and be respectful. And I respect you and appreciate you recognizing that not being a good thing (as you said, “they bring the worst out of me”).

    But I also share your desire to have a fan site – (and functionally this is obviously a Federer fan site) – where non-fans don’t “troll” and distract and disrupt otherwise good fan commentary on Roger with provocative statements – educated or not. There is no harm in a being a fan and wanting to talk to other fans without being constantly interrupted and argued with about why Nadal is better and Fed is worse on a Federer fan site. And sadly that is simply not possible here.

    No disrespect to you Pablo, but I’ve never understood why you can’t just enjoy your guy on a Nadal site and let us Federer fans enjoy the sunset of our guy. I like some of your comments, but much of what you posts is simply provocation and distracting for a Fed-fan site. And I don’t get it.

    Fed loses to Nadal. Got it. Nadal is amazing. True. Nadal may one day be undisputed be “best ever”. Ok.

    If this were not a Fed fan site your comments would make more sense. But it just seems antagonistic here to so many. So with no personal insult to you meant Pablo, I wish you would make your arguments somewhere more appropriate.

    And as a big Fed fan, I’m sorry to see Sid go – much as I have not liked what he called “the worst of me”.

    1. Alb, if you happen to be Spanish or a Latino, please accept my apologies, and also others who are of that ethnicity. Sometimes you get pushed to the limit and say things that you don’t actually mean, just so you can show your displeasure.

      This was never about me and “the trolls”. Blogs happen to be personal spaces for many, more to some than others. We all believe in something, it could be anything, an athlete for example. Roger Federer has perhaps a year or two active years left. We want to celebrate his achievements and enjoy the rest of the time and not be constantly needled by trolls. That’s not how, at least I, want to spend my time. Last I checked, this was a Federer fan site, biased to Federer. Every good thing we talk about Federer has to receive a negative comment from “the trolls”, who also continue to praise his arch rival, not what I want to be inundated with. An entire thread is destroyed with how great Nadal is, and how great Spain is. We, at least I am not here to celebrate Nadal or Spain. No, Sir.

      There are tons of Nadal fan sites out there that I’m sure chastise Federer in unspeakable ways, and praise his rival. I have the decency to not troll them. Even if I did, I know I will be met with far worse treatment that the one I’ve given, or been forced into giving, to “these trolls”. Is it so hard to expect that readers on this blog are left in peace? We get it that “these trolls” are Spaniards, and would lay down their lives for Espana if needed, and that they will run inquisitions to convert every Federer fan into a Nadal fan. But there are other ways to do that, than doing the lowliest of things and spoiling someone else’s personal space.

      “The trolls” have made their point. Nadal is the best. The GOAT. Spain taught the world how to play beautiful football and are the greatest team in history. Federer won only in the weak era. Timeouts should not be enforced because players should decide how much time they need. Wimbledon/grass is not the toughest surface to win on. Spaniards are the most honest, ethical, and courteous people in the world, and have a history of being fair. Alright, can they please leave now and let us enjoy the last few years celebrating our favorite player on this blog?

      1. Sid,
        you have all the right to celebrate your Fav. player and I am with you on this. This is Roger Federer Fan Site, yes it touches so many other aspects in tennis and some other tennis topics, but it is Fed FAN BLOG at the end of the day. so if others have fair argument, say it, make your point and that’s it, repeating things over and over again shows how much you really wants to come and troll.

  29. I am completely disappointed with both Pablo and Jonathan. I know I am irking Jonathan here on his own site but I really don’t get what Pablo brings to the plate here. In fact I could already see this exact scenario happening where Sid would be forced to leave. I mean come on Jonathan ,you think Pablo is adding value ? I am telling you, go look at all his comments and tell me how many of them made any sense at all . I am not talking about making sense from a Fed fan’s perspective ,I am talking about any logical sense. Maybe a maximum of 5 percent ?? Seriously guys there should be something done here. I mean that Troy Nyugen guy/girl was just a joke and it took Jonathan almost a month ( or more) to ban him. I hope there is something that would change Jonathan’s mind or I am telling openly you guys better start following Ruan’s blog insead.Not because it is better but seriously when I come to read a blog for relaxing after a crazy day I am only getting more pissed off these days. Atleast you should take your readers opinions on this matter because the way I see it , it is you and Pablo/The King of Clay/Piece of shit vs the rest of us.I hope you take a logical decision because I too love this blog and it makes me will very bad seeing what is happening here and I am sure Sid is only feeling worse.

  30. And this is to you Pablo ,you piece of human shit. I have always wondered what really sick human beings think like and you have given me a wonderful insight into how guys like Nadal and Armstrong think. I mean justifying every single thing you think as correct and just talking bullshit. It just pains me that you are destroying a wonderful blog for no reason. And I hope you don’t sneer when you read all these replies and think about how we are wasting our time here.I mean I am sure everyone here is dong great in life.I mean I sure am and unlike you who is surely jobless I don’t want to see people arguing with you for no other reason than that you are irritating them. So just please go away and let this blog return to blog it was in all its glory. Or else just die in hell.

  31. I don’t get why the wimby officials give nadal all the love with him playing on centre all the time as nadal will play once again centre tomorow and roger playing on number 1.
    First of all roger has a opponent which is higher ranked then nadals is as he is playing a qualifier and who has won wimby 7 times, I would understand if this was the french.

  32. i’ve also wondered if Pablo is Jonathan to be honestโ€ฆwhat if Jonathan is Sid??? Or Sid is Pablo and Jonathan is a robot?

  33. The thing is, Sid. We all make choices on what we do, read, react to, etc. Jonathan chose to create this blog. We all decided to join and comment.
    When Pablo comments, I choose not to read it. I also choose not to react to his comments. There is no point in flogging a dead horse. Pablo and his opinions will not change. Why put fuel on the fire?

  34. This is the first time that I have ever seen this blog. I read the article because of the matter of the rule regarding time between serves. My favorite player is Rafael Nadal, although I appreciate all the great players, and even those that are merely good. Please do not assume that all Nadal fans are trolls. I have seen trolling comments on the ATP website by alleged fans of various players. Trolling is sociopathic behavior. Individuals who troll enjoy inflicting pain on other people with their comments. In my opinion, trolls aren’t authentic sports fans at all, because at its best, sports, like all human activities, needs to be based upon respect for others. Trolls lack such respect.

    So what to do about them? Well, first of all, site administrators should ban or block individuals who engage in a pattern of trolling. Secondly, and in the meantime, try not to let them get to you, because that’s what they want. Confront them, yes, but don’t lose your cool, your equanimity over them. If you do, you’re rewarding them for their trolling.

    Peace and best wishes to all Roger Federer fans, and to all people of good will.

    A Nadal fan

    1. I agree. Trolls must be banned. The thing is that many anti-Nadals call trolls to nadal fans who disagree with them.

    2. Every player has troll fans. Federer included, most of them are ready to jump ship to Dimitrov though now.

      I’m not just going to ban people though because they make a comment that not everyone agrees with. That would put me in the league of the EU.

  35. Despite being years from his prime, Federer was just announced in the Forbes most powerful athletes as the highest ranked tennis player. Again.

    Comes just after he was announced as the highest paid tennis star. Still.

    So much for Pablo’s theories about Nadal- Djokovic in their prime being the biggest entertainers. A 32 year old bordering on 33 who won his last slam almost 2 years back is STILL more popular than them, thereby attracting all the sponsors/ money (in effect putting him on the Forbes or any such list).

    Although I’m sure Pablo will find some ridiculous explanation to brush aside fact.

    1. I don’t have any doubt about who are the bigest entertainers. On one hand we have the guy who holds the GS winning record and with million of fans BUT he won 2 Slams in the last 5 years and on the other hand we have the No1 and 2 who happens to fight for every single Slam from 5 years to now. And with millions of fans on his back as well.

      1. Seriously Jonanthan do something.I mean I was going to say that Federer just won and after this bastard comment I don’t even want to come here.

      2. Pablo can’t have a bad word said about Nadal. But then calls Fed fans fanatics. Come on man, at least be consistent.

        Guarav is right Fed’s decline started in 2008, he’s won 2 slams in 5 years, yet nobody has toppled him as the figurehead of the sport.

        He still leads the endorsements list by a country mile whilst Djoker is advertising Peugeot, which somehow I don’t think he drives ๐Ÿ˜€

        Nobody is questioning that Djoker and Nadal have dominated slams between them for the last 4/5 years, their names are on the trophies but in terms of popularity they still fall very short. The figures are in black and white. Dull and Djoker are popular no doubt, because they are winning, kids instantly associate with winners. But Fed’s popularity hasn’t wained.

        I mean look, there is a distinct shortage of Nadal blogs for you to comment on clearly. Where are they all?

        If you have visited tournaments before then you can’t hide from the fanfare that surrounds Fed. He has more crowd at practice sessions than some matches.

      3. And still he’s more popular than your “king of clay” and Novak combined.

        Source: ATP Fan’s Fav. (11 years running by the way. Nadal/ Novak- 0)

        No wonder you guys are so insecure, having to come and defend your ‘guy’ on what is clearly a Federer fan site.

      4. What were you trying to prove from it though? It made sense in terms of a factual analysis of who has won Grand Slams in the last 5 years. Although you forgot Murray, Del Potro and Stanimal.

        But Guarav’s comment was about popularity.

      5. You talk about popularity, I talk about enterteinment. IMO is a lot more entertainer to watch a close and competitive GS Final than anything else.
        Michael Jordan has more fans than any other player and more endorsements etc. But I enjoy more watching LeBron and he is the one who gives the quality of the game (I’m not saying Federer is like a retired, just an exagerated example)

      6. Ok, start using the words “I think” or “Creo que” if you prefer. Just so we know they are your opinion rather than you trying to pass them off as facts or the view of the entire world ๐Ÿ˜€

        I personally prefer watching Federer even though he isn’t winning slams lately.

      7. In a year like 2011 when everything Nole touched became gold….
        In a year like 2012 when Andy became England’s gold….
        In a year like 2013 when everything Rafa touched became gold….

        Still Roger won the Fan Favourite Award for every of those years (even in decline/out of prime). What does that tell you?? Goat ๐Ÿ™‚ Of millions of fans ๐Ÿ™‚

  36. I dont like giving advice to Jonathan who maintains one of the best tennis blogs out there but I really ask myself what this Pablo dude is doing here. He’s a cave troll and his only arguments are Nadal is the best, Roger is boring. No real insights, just fanatic views that make people mad. Instead of having tennis related stuff, this blog is now a tug-of-war with a troll. Too bad.

  37. Hey Sid, you are not going anywhere. There. I have spoken ๐Ÿ™‚
    Like Alysha says, if we can survive “Roger 2013”, you and we can all survive some Rafa fans.

    And lets be honest, see it as a compliment. He has nowhere to go. Are there any Rafa fans sites like this one??? I know there are a lot of Roger. But where is a Rafa fan going to go with no Rafa fan site?? To Bleacher Report?? Oh my God, I stopped commenting there because of the hate Rafa fans have for Roger. It became discusting and depressing.

    Sid, in real life you would ignore someone like Pablo. So…. do it here too ๐Ÿ™‚ Fed fans for life ๐Ÿ™‚

    1. I used to run a newsletter that collated articles from all the tennis blogs around – there aren’t any Nadal fan blogs I could find.

      Maybe some in .es domains but English none.

  38. Today Switzerland vs Argentinie. Unfortunately this is where it stops for Hopp Suisse I guess.
    And I am not too worried about Roger vs Robredo. If Roger can beat Nishikori after having lost to him twice in a row, he can certainly beat that Robredo dude. Go Roger ๐Ÿ™‚

      1. Jon, they are defending their butts off ๐Ÿ™‚ 0-0. Sorry Switzerland for underestimating you. I thought Argentiniรซ would walk all over you. Hopp Suisse ๐Ÿ™‚ Hope you get through ๐Ÿ™‚

  39. First time using the livechat here, because I couldn’t watch the game (streaming is banned in my office network). Nice chat session guys…

    To the QF, Allez!

  40. Watching Nadal vs Kyrgios
    He is a funny boy, a lot of showmanship, with a lot of funny expression when he win the point (even if he losing the game). Hahaha…

    Leading 1 set to 0, 4-4 2nd set
    Nadal is a bit annoyed with Kyrgios I think, hahhaa…

  41. Did anybody notice that Nadal took a timeout immediately following the 1st set as he usually does following any set he loses. Well, no problem, Kyrgios is taking the fight to him. He leads two sets to one. Dull will have to win this in 5 sets.

    1. Where has this Kyrie Kid been?? He is playing amazing and above all, is not intimidated by Rafa. Just broke him. Keep it up Nick ๐Ÿ™‚

      1. So far, Fed didn’t have any problem handling youngster with big serve (Isner, Jerzy and Milos).
        But I saw Kyrgios has more to offer than those three. Not only a serve bot.

        QF Raonic against Kyrgios, we’ll see

      2. Hey Tilas, if it comes to that Fed HAS to take him ๐Ÿ™‚

        About Nick….. he doesn’t look that bad you know ๐Ÿ™‚ Don’t reply, it’s a girl thing ๐Ÿ™‚

  42. On the third set, Nadal raise his racket when Kyrgios is ready to serve (asking more time, perhaps). Kyrgios didn’t bother and ignored him. Good Job, that’s your serve, you are in control of time…

    1. You know all that “trolling” I complained about? It doesn’t hurt any more ๐Ÿ™‚

      Thank you, Australia! Thank you, Nick Kyrgios! I am a fan of whoever beats Dopal at a Slam.

      1. +1

        Wimbledon just canceled that shipment of shot clocks they ordered ๐Ÿ™‚

  43. Anyone else feeling a little disappointed? I actually think Roger had a realistic chance of beating Nadal in a slam here, and honestly I haven’t felt that way in a long time.

    Oh by the way, I’m a long time lurker and this is my first post here. ๐Ÿ™‚

    1. A better chance than his recent matches on other surfaces? Yes. I still think that if Dopal had made it that far, he would’ve been playing well enough to overcome Roger. Sounds pessimistic. I’m just being realistic.

  44. wow this was shocking! Rod Laver predicted thisโ€ฆwell he didn’t predict but said Kyrgios had a decent shot. Nadal must have been hurt though ๐Ÿ˜‰

  45. Yep like you Amar I am really pleased and happy. Nadal is out!!!! Go on Nick I hope he doesn’t disappear like the rest who went onto beat Nadal.But oobviously if he does get that far and meets Federer I hope Roger comes through. This has now opened the door for Roger. As he doesn’t have to meet his nemesis. Federer has to somehow make the most of the this and get to the final and win his 8th title here. Come on Roger please this is your chance.

      1. No Sid I don’t think Stan is a tomato can. I just think if he can get through he has a lot better chance of getting to the final without having to play Nadal in the Semi as Nadal sure in hell give Roger a harder time with his style of play, he would somehow grindout a win and beat Federer on this slowed down grass court. Anyway one match at a time. Adios Nadal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Close