Breaking Down the No. 1 Ranking Between Federer, Nadal
by Sean Randall | July 27th, 2008, 5:12 pm
  • 230 Comments

What a surprise, Rafael Nadal wins again, beating Nicolas Kiefer 6-3, 6-2 to claim the Toronto Masters.

I won’t go into that match now or the Cincy draw – I’ll do that later, but I am going to breakdown (or try to!) the No. 1 race which I know some of you were trying to do earlier.

From what I’ve read in ATP stories and in their rules, here’s how I understand it (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I am by no means an expert in this).

Entering the Canada week, Roger Federer had 6600 points to Rafael Nadal’s 5830, a lead for the Swiss of 770 points.

Since we are on 52-week rolling ranking system, points accumulated in Canada and in Cincinnati in 2007 will not be removed this year until August 11 (Canada) and August 18 (Cincy), respectively. Both events were played a few weeks later last year than this year.

On August 11 Roger will lose 350 points from his Montreal runner-up to Novak, and then on August 18 he’ll drop 500 from his Cincy title run over James Blake. So he’s defending a total 850 points this summer going into the US Open.

For Rafa, on August 11, he will drop his 225 points from the semifinals of Canada last year, and 5 points on August 18 from his second round (after a bye) retirement to Monaco. That leaves Rafa with a total of 230 points to defend before the US Open.

Neither Federer nor Nadal will drop any points this week for the July 28th rank date or the August 4th rank date. Sort of…

On to the present day…

Roger Federer, who lost in the second round received 5 ranking points from Canada. Because he received a bye in the first round he will not pick up the allotted 35 points given to second round losers. By rule, the addition of those 5 points into Roger’s “Best 18” means something has to go to make room, and Roger’s only has four events so he has room with which to work.

So Federer will add 5 net points to his previous total of 6600 giving him 6605.

Nadal will also be adding to his best 18, but what’s going to go away to make room? According to what I see it’s 25 points from Rotterdam.

That means Nadal will add 500 points for his title today, then lose 25 to make room which puts him at 6305, 300 points behind Fed’s 6605.

Next week in Cincinnati offers up the same points as Canada:
Winner: 500
R-Up: 350
SF: 225
QF: 125
3rd RD: 75

And the rankings going in will be:

Federer: 6605
Nadal: 6305

But to make room for any Cincinnati points Rafa will lose 75 points from Dubai while Roger loses a zero from Dubai.

That means Roger will effectively start Cincinnati at 6605 (6605 – 0 from Dubai) while Rafa’s adjusted total is 6230 (6305 – 75). So in real numbers entering Cincy we have:

Federer: 6605
Nadal: 6230

Roger’s real lead is thus 375 ranking points this week.

So to make up 375 points and to entertain a chance at becoming No. 1 on the August 3rd ranking, Rafa will have to win the title in Cincy with Roger losing before the quarterfinals.

By my math if Rafa wins Cincy he will jump to 6730. But if Roger reaches the quarterfinals he will also have 6730 (6605+125) resulting in a tie! And would you believe according to the ATP rules I’ve read such a tie would be broken by total Grand Slam/Masters/Masters Cup points which Roger leads Rafa in for the last 52 weeks by my count of 5955 to 5585. So Roger will remain No. 1 by reaching the quarterfinals in Cincinnati if all my math calcs and interpretation of the rules are correct.

Looking ahead…

With Canada behind us, if we jump ahead and remove the points from Canada/Cincy last year right now we get:

Nadal 6100 (6305 – 230 + 25 Rotterdam)
Federer 5755 (6605 – 850 + 0 Dubai)

So per my math Fed’s really 345 points behind Nadal for the No. 1 ranking (and the top seed at the US Open) on August 18 which isn’t a lot considering there’s still 900 points to be had (500 in Cincy and 400 at the Olympics).

But if Rafa can just stay ahead of Roger in rounds at Cincy he’ll likely clinch the No. 1 after Beijing at the latest. If Rafa keeps even with Roger at Cincy he’ll likely force the Swiss to win Beijing to have any chance to being No. 1 at the US Open.


Also Check Out:
At 31 How Much Better Can Roger Federer Get?
Ernests Gulbis: “My Long-Term Goal In Tennis Isn’t To Be Top 20, It’s To Be No. 1!”
Roger Federer: Last Year Wimbledon Was A Major Disappointment, Now I’m Happy To Back In SFs
ATP CEO Brad Drewett Diagnosed With ALS, Will Step Down From Post
Rafael Nadal Clinches Year-End No. 1 Ranking

Don't miss any tennis action, stay connected with Tennis-X

Get Tennis-X news FREE in your inbox every day

230 Comments for Breaking Down the No. 1 Ranking Between Federer, Nadal

Fedex Says:

Sean,

Roger will not lose the estoril 175 because he has only estoril, halle and basel. Dubai he has zero, so it does not matter. Effectively, he will add toronto and cincy this year without losing any of his “best 5″ becuase he has only 4 tournaments thus far in the non-GS, non-MS category.


Kimo Says:

I think you made a mistake, but I’m not sure though….

I believe that the points from the Four Slams and those of ATP Masters Series events always count. There is always “room” for them. After that, you get to count your best 5 tounaments that aren’t majors or AMS’s.

Ergo, Fed will still keep his points from Dubai, Estoril, Halle + Majors + AMS’s.


Sean Randall Says:

Thanks FedEx, great catch on the “Five”. Let me revise!

Now Updated.


Sean Randall Says:

Kimo, it is my understanding that you need to “make room” for additional Master Series events, so your five will become four then three as these additional events in Canada and Cincy are added.


tiberiu Says:

Tomorrow, the new ATP top will be like this:
Federer = 6600 – 350 (Montreal last year) + 5 (Toronto this year) = 6255 p ATP
Nadal = 5830 – 225(Montreal last year) + 500(Toronto this year) = 6105 p


matt Says:

Yes, after Fedex comments, now Sean has put the right numbers.

I’ve read (in a Spanish forum) Nadal will skip Cincy (which is a mistake in my opinion), so he won’t be nº1 before August 18.

Anyway, if you look at the 2008-Race:

Nadal: 1055
Federer: 686
Djokovic: 674

So Federer is 369 Race-points (=1845 Entry-points) behind Nadal. That’s too much, so Nadal will almost sure end the Year as nº1.


Sean Randall Says:

Matt, thanks. Federer can make up the 369 and pass Nadalby running the table from here on out, that is winning Cincy (100) + Beijing (80) + US Open (200).

Of course that’s if in fact Rafa skips Cincy, Beijing and US Open. (Haha)

But it does show that Roger’s not completely out of it for the year-end No. 1. Of course that might change come September 8th.


matt Says:

tiberiu, you’re wrong.

It is just as Noel and I said yesterday and now Sean has shown above.

In 2004 it happened the same and they (the ATP) did just what Noel, Sean and myself have been saying.


Sean Randall Says:

I also do not think Rafa will skip on Cincinnati. Unless he’s seriously injured or extremely exhausted it just doesn’t make sense being so close to No. 1 now.


tiberiu Says:

Matt, I prefer to wait for tomorrow to see the official ATP top. Meanwhile, on Eurosport site writes that Nadal must reach the Cincy semifinal to be no 1. And Federer doesn’t count in this equation.


Fedex Says:

Tiberiu:

The new atp rankings tomorrow will be – 6605 for Fed and 6305 for nadal.

If atp could have avoided this confusion it would have been as you told.

Talking of confusion, what is atp’s rationale for awarding Indianapolis 70 race/350 ranking points. Simon leads the open series (ahead of Rafa) because he has 115 points – 70 from Indy and 45 from toronto.

Are la, washington and new haven giving 70 points each too? If yes, fed/nadal can just play those 3 and pick up a truck load of points! they can even skip the US open to get some rest! ;)

If davydenko decides to play all those 3 and wins, he might get within touching distance of the no.2 in the Race.

Speaking of the race – as of tomorrow, Rafa will be 370 race points ahead of Federer! That is – ahem, Federer-like!


matt Says:

I can’t understand (skipping Cincy) neither.

Perhaps it was just a rumor circulating in that forum.

And yes, you’re right. It is not impossible to make up those 369 points, but to do so it is Nadal who must fail severely from now to the end of year.(Not only Federer winning a lot).


matt Says:

Fedex,

Indianapolis gives 35 Race-Points (=175 Entry-Points). You can check it here: http://www.atptennis.com/en/tournaments/profile/419.asp


Fedex Says:

I think there is a change this year. I remember Gilbert and Cahill talk something about that today. Unfortunately I was on one of those pay per minute phone calls :D and couldn’t get the whole info.

Tell me how does Simon have 115 points in the us open series?


Sean Randall Says:

Simon got 70 from Indy W + 45 for Canada SF.

The US Open Series points are not the same as the ATP Race points across the board as I understand it.


lady Says:

Sean,

Wasn’t Roger supposed to defend 350 points at Toronto? Out of which he gets only 5 points. So, his total should be 6600 – 345 = 6255 after Toronto.

Not 6605.


Sean Randall Says:

lady, as I wrote, by rule points stay on for 52 weeks, so Canada points from 2007 will fall off on August 11, 52 weeks after they went on last year.


Fedex Says:

Sean,

That makes sense. The USTA wants to give additional weightage to non-Masters to attract money-thirsty players like davydenko. You can delete my earlier post to save people the confusion.

Atp ranking, Atp race and now USopen series points! Looks like the Tennis heads are bent on selling the sport to the GEEKS of the world!


Andy Says:

Wow! Everyone’s been saying Nadal was catching up but I didn’t realize it was almost mathematically inevitable. Perhaps someone can share some tennis history here with naive readers like myself…. When was the last time a player who had been a dominant No. 1 was overtaken? How did the ousted No. 1 respond?

Andy


Voicemale1 Says:

I like the idea of Nadal skipping Cincinnati. He only has 5 Ranking Points to defend, going out in a 2nd Round Retirement last year. Federer has 500 Points to defend for winning last year, and given how Federer’s been struggling this year he’s no cinch to win there again. Nadal is smart to skip it and save the wear & tear on his body for the one that really matters: the US Open, where it’s Best of Five Sets for two weeks. And Nadal only has to get past the 4th Round there to match his Ranking Total from last year. Another loss by Federer in Cincinnati (which is possible) and Nadal could possibly become #1 by sitting home for a week. And if Federer does well there, he still has to win the US Open to keep his pace ahead of Nadal. The court in Cincinnati is like glass, the fastest hard court in the US according to Messrs. Cahill & Gilbert, so it suits nadal less. Given all of that, Nadal has really nothing to gain by playing there. He will become #1 this year at some point, so I say he should manage his schedule in a way to keep him at optimum for the ones that really count. And besides, after the US Open he has the Davis Cup Semi-Final to play too. He should skip Cincinnati.


lady Says:

I got it. Thanks.

It all makes sense now!


Von Says:

The US open series points were upped this year from 35 for the smaller tournaments to 70. If a player wins the slam and the US Open series points he gets an additional $1 milion added to his prize money. Last year Federer won the US Open Series points and the USO, and received an additional $1 million, grossing a total of $2.2 million in total prize money.


JCF Says:

“Since we are on 52-week rolling ranking system, points accumulated in Canada and in Cincinnati in 2007 will not be removed this year until August 11 (Canada) and August 18 (Cincy), respectively. Both events were played a few weeks later last year than this year.”

I’ve heard conflicting reports about this. Some say the computer won’t be updated at all until the right time, others say points will be added but not subtracted. The ATP has contradicted itself at least once.

“Roger Federer, who lost in the second round received 5 ranking points from Canada. Because he received a bye in the first round he will not pick up the allotted 35 points given to second round losers. By rule, the addition of those 5 points into Roger’s “Best 18” means something has to go to make room, and Roger’s only has four events so he has room with which to work.”

Okay, this part is what I was missing, assuming you are correct. I didn’t think Toronto would be counted as one of the 5 “Other” results, since it is an AMS, and all AMS are counted. Are you certain of this? If one of the Canada AMS (07 or 08) has to be relegated to “Other” status, how do they decide which one?

I trust your math, I just hope you got the rules right.

“By my math if Rafa wins Cincy he will jump to 6730. But if Roger reaches the quarterfinals he will also have 6730 (6605+125) resulting in a tie! And would you believe according to the ATP rules I’ve read such a tie would be broken by total Grand Slam/Masters/Masters Cup points which Roger leads Rafa in for the last 52 weeks by my count of 5955 to 5585. So Roger will remain No. 1 by reaching the quarterfinals in Cincinnati if all my math calcs and interpretation of the rules are correct.”

That’s very interesting, but a stupid way to do things. That would mean that if Fed lost his rank after the US Open but regained a tie in Madrid, he might be ranked #2 this time.

If I were deciding it, I’d put both players listed as Ranked #1, but Federer will be Seeded 1 because he’s held the ranking longer. Not that it really matters who is seeded 1 since they will always be on opposite sides of the draw and everything else is drawn out of a hat.

Anyway, good work Sean!


jane Says:

Voicemale1

You make a good case for Rafa skipping Cincinnati. I would add to that this support – I believe he is planning to play both doubles (with Robredo) and singles during the Olympics, so a break now, with virtually no points to defend, will have him well-rested for the Olympics and the USO.

But he is on the draw, so why do people think he’s skipping Cincy; has he announced that somewhere and I’ve missed it?


FoT Says:

Hey, Nadal will be #1 when he gets #1…You guys are wracking your brains trying to ‘figure it out’! With the season he has, relax…it will happen.

And Andy, before Roger took over #1 in 2004, there were several #1 players who had the ranking, lost it, took it back, etc. Roger broke the consecutive week record for holding #1. People always remember Pete’s 6-year run for #1, but they forget that he did not keep it for every week during those years. Roger has kept it for every week. That’s the difference.

Sure, I’ll be sad when Roger loses his #1 ranking, but if anyone deserves it – it’s Nadal. In any normal situation in tennis he would have been #1 already with the total points he has in previous years. That should tell you how dominant Roger has been as a #1 player.

When Nadal get’s the ‘official’ ranking as #1, I will come and congratulate all his fans. But until then, I’m going to enjoy these last weeks of Roger’s consecutive record run! *wink*


Voicemale1 Says:

Jane:

Thanks. And Matt said he’d read on some Spanish Blog from Mallorca that people who allegedly are “in the know” about Nadal’s comings & goings claim there that he’ll be skipping the event. But no official word yet.


Sean Randall Says:

FedEx, I really pay zero attention to the US Open Series standings. I’m not sure anyone really does for that matter until late in the US Open.

JCF, it’s my understanding per the rules – and i could be wrong on this – that you can only have 18 events count, and a 19th if and only if it’s the Masters Cup.

That said, all Masters Series/Slams must also count within that 18. So this season because of the Olympics some AMS events – Canada and Cincy – will actually be reflected twice within the rankings. As such, the five “other” tournaments will have to be decreased accordingly to make room for the extra AMS events as they get added. Hope that helps.


Shital Green Says:

Sean,
Ref: “But to make room for any Cincinnati points Rafa will lose 75 points from Dubai while Roger loses a zero from Dubai. That means Roger will effectively start Cincinnati at 6605 (6605 – 0 from Dubai) while Rafa’s adjusted total is 6230 (6305 – 75). So in real numbers entering Cincy we have:
Federer: 6605
Nadal: 6230
Roger’s real lead is thus 375 ranking points this week.”

We discussed this yesterday all day and already finalized it. You don’t take Rafa’s 75 points before the outcome of Cincy, just like his 25 points were not taken off Rotterdam before Toronto. Only on August 4, you take off Rafa’s 75 points from Dubai.
————————————————-

There are two calculations: (1) 150 points and (2)300 points difference between the 2 players entering Cincy. Former is pragmatic (because it will not count the same MS twice) but will not show up on ATP; and latter is technical (52 weeks + adding twice the same 2 MS, etc.) and will show up on ATP board on Aug. 11.

According to the pragmatic math, if Fed wins Cincy and Nadal makes it to semi, Nadal will be No. 1 (Nadal 6325; Fed 6255).

According to the ATP’s technical math (which is based on 52 weeks, etc.), Rafa will have to reach Final at Cincy, and Fed will have to bow out early, to take the No. 1 position BEFORE Aug. 18.
You can accept it or ignore it whatever suits you.

When the ATP Ranking is officially recalibrated on Aug 18, removing all the confusions, we are back to the outcome of the pragmatic math plus Olympic points. In which case, granted Federer wins Cincy, Rafa just needs 150 points out of Cincy + at least equal to Roger’s points at Olympic, to take No. 1 position officially.
This is THE FINAL math.


Shital Green Says:

JCF,
ATP ranking after today’s Final has already been updated. Go visit the site.


Fedex Says:

A match/game involving the defending champion should always be broken by the contender Overtaking the current champion. Since the No.1 “game” will always involve the “defending champion” – a tie should mean no.1 does not change hands.

I guess the atp method makes sense too. GS and MS are the most important after-all!


Sean Randall Says:

Shital thanks, but you’ve lost me!

Taking your scenario – Federer wins Cincy, Rafa reaches the SF, this is how the rankings would look per my numbers on August 4th:

Federer 7105 (6605+500)
Nadal 6455 (6603+225-75 Estoril)

So how would Rafa be No. 1?


JCF Says:

“That said, all Masters Series/Slams must also count within that 18. So this season because of the Olympics some AMS events – Canada and Cincy – will actually be reflected twice within the rankings. As such, the five “other” tournaments will have to be decreased accordingly to make room for the extra AMS events as they get added. Hope that helps.”

Theoretically, if your 5 “other” events each got you more points than your spare Toronto (e.g. 5 pts), will one of your better results then have to make way for the 5 pts? That would suck.

Oh well… in a few weeks, none of this will matter. The discussion is only about 2 weeks worth of temporary ranking points.

Rafa knows he will get it sooner or later and isn’t fussed. He’d rather focus on winning the US Open than worry about getting #1 a few weeks earlier. Fed is the one sweating it out not him, so I think it’s a good idea to skip Cincy.

Shital, thanks for the final math. That helped. The pragmatic math isn’t official, but it’s the only one that will matter on Aug 18.

“A match/game involving the defending champion should always be broken by the contender Overtaking the current champion. Since the No.1 “game” will always involve the “defending champion” – a tie should mean no.1 does not change hands.”

That’s the way I see it too. The challenger is second place. But if Fed’s points drop and he ties it again, Fed will be the challenger, and thus #2.


NachoF Says:

This is awfully complicated… it would be crazy if Federer could come out on top at the end of the year…terribly unfair though..


Fedex Says:

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/pointsbreakdown.asp?player=N409

If you check Nadal’s ranking breakdown, you will see Rotterdam pushed to “non-countable” tournaments. So Sean is spot on with the analysis.

JCF:

Two no.1s seems a cop-out to me. Tennis rankings is not rocket-science to let things remain open ended. While the ATP method may not be the most likeable solution it is way better than a shoot-out that happens in football finals all the time. Now that is a place where you could use 2 winners. Though I always feel they should play until golden goal!


JCF Says:

Fedex,

Normally when there’s a tie for some other stat, you’d have two #1s, no #2, then a #3. For a ranking, anything else is controversial.

You already get less points for non-MS or GS, so you would have to do better for those points to be equivalent. The way the ATP does things is by saying “these events are better than those”. They can already make that statement by issuing more total points for those tournaments than smaller ones, and counting fewer small tournaments. Why the need to prioritize points?


andrea Says:

my head is spinning with all these numbers.

i think i will check in after the olympics and see who is #1 and #2!

i have a feeling roger won’t be out in the second round of cincinnati.


Fedex Says:

The no.1 ranking is not any other stat. It could very well be the holy grail of our sport. (Apart from Wimbledon, not too many contenders can make a justifiable case). The World Cup of our sport. Given that, you need to find ONE and only ONE no.1

As to the need for priorotizing points, one of the main issues with the no.1 ranking as the atp does it is that quantity may outweigh quality. To me 6000 points with 17 tournaments is slightly better than 6000 points with 18 tournaments. Hence it makes sense to use the 13 MANDATORY tournaments as a tie-breaker.


zola Says:

Sean,
it is also interesting to look at the race numbers. I think eventally when all the Olympic etc is gone and the ATP calendar is on time, this will reflect on the real ranking as well:

ATP RaCE
First: Nadal, R. 1055

2nd Federer, R. 686

3rd Djokovic, N. 674

The gap between Rafa and Roger is about 300 points. That’s 3 master series or 1 GS and 1 MS that Fed has to win and Rafa has to exit in the first round just for Fed to catch up!

So, to me, Rafa just needs to play his tennis and rest his body and don’t even think about the rankings. They will come eventually!


Fedex Says:

FoT:

That consecutive year end no.1s is one of the toughest records to break. As a fan of Pete before Roger stepped in, I would be fine if Roger allows Pete to keep that 1 record. Roger has pretty much ripped up most of Pete’s legacy.

That said Roger still has a little bit of work to beat sampras’ 7wimbledons 286 weeks at no.1 and the 14slams. Borg and Sampras might be the biggest beneficiaries of Roger and Rafa’s careers overlapping. Both would have been consigned to the dust by now if Rafa came a few years later than he has. Roger and Rafa’s career overlap means a few of Borg/Sampras’ records will survive.


TD (Tam) Says:

Sean- “What a surprise, Rafael Nadal wins again, beating Nicolas Kiefer 6-3, 6-2 to claim the Toronto Masters.”

Tennis-X’s bias is showing again. Admit it Sean that you would never say such a thing had it been Federer to dismantle Kiefer in a one sided final (yawn).

Domination by one player doesn’t look good to you Federer fans anymore? What a surprise.


Sean Randall Says:

TD, care to elaborate? Bias?? Federer???


Sean Randall Says:

Zola, yup. If Rafa keeps doing what he’s been doing the ranking will catch up. He’s doesn’t even need to win titles really, just go deep and keep pace with Roger and he’ll be on his way…

JCF, correct. If one of your “other five” is better than an AMS, then yes you are screwed.


Fedex Says:

Also,

I want to add that when Federer finished 2003 about 15 or 25 racepoints behind Roddick, I wondered if that would comeback to haunt Federer if ever he is in pursuit of the 6yr end No.1 record. (This record more than any other record requires the player to be at the right place (No.1) at the right time (end of year!).

If Fed had achieved the no.1 that year, this year’s no.1 ranking would mean even more to him. All said and done, at this point Fed has achieved enough to carve out a niche for himself in the tennis firmament. Everything from now on is about what he wants from his life. Does he want to enjoy the game or does he want as many laurels as he can reap. If it is the latter, a lot of personal things will have to be put on hold.

I donot know if there are people who achieved the best they could, simultaneously, on both the career and personal front.


Sean Randall Says:

FedEx, I believe it was around this very time five years ago if my memory hasn’t failed me that Federer had matchpoints on Roddick in Canada. Had he converted he would have become No. 1 following the event and quite possibly have held it through the remainder of the year.


zola Says:

Fedex
***Borg and Sampras might be the biggest beneficiaries of Roger and Rafa’s careers overlapping. Both would have been consigned to the dust by now if Rafa came a few years later than he has. Roger and Rafa’s career overlap means a few of Borg/Sampras’ records will survive.***

so true. But then we would have missed the magnificent rivalry and great matches between these two. I think they both helped the other one become a better tennis player. I think tennis needed them both at the same time.

FoT
I agree completely. Rafa will be No 1, when the rankings say he is. The important thing is that he is playing great. The hype right now shows how difficult it is to surpass Fed, even in a year that he is not playing his best. Just unbelievable.


Fedex Says:

Sean,

Yes, it was in 03 Montreal where Fed let his chance slip by. Ofcourse Nalbandian beat him at Cincinnati and the USopen later on and Henman at Bercy. At the Masters by the time Fed went into the phone booth and came out as superman, Roddick did enough in his group to be the no.1.

In a very ironic way, that may not prove to be significant unless he pulls this year’s No.1 out of the proverbial hat. Unfortunately, that hat has not yielded much this year. Time to get a new hat, maybe? :)

TD:

Even the most fanatic Rafa fans know that the tougher ordeals were done the day before yesterday and yesterday. Atleast Simon had form on his side – Kiefer had zero chances after he spent almost 3hrs in the semi-final.

I am sure Rafa and his fans are just fine without your “concern” for Rafa getting a fair deal. We all know what your beef with Federer is. Rafa and his fans are more mature than you, so you are barking up the wrong tree. Try the Djokovic fans. They can relate to you Andy fans. (In all fairness Djokovic has a much better head to head against Nadal than Roddick ever had against Federer)


Fedex Says:

Zola:

True, we might have missed all the wonderful matches these 2 dished out over the last 3years. I hope they can keep up with their physical conditioning (nadal) and mental conditioning (federer) to give us a few more years of lights-out tennis.

Imagine the 2006 Fed against the 2008 Nadal over an entire calendar year. Put another way, the 2008 wimbledon final – quality tennis through out the year from those two (ofcourse with random results to keep the “Roddick/Djokovic” fans interested and not complaining about a single player dominating everything ;) – although something tells me that those fans will be just fine if Rafa keeps winning all the time!

Here’s to either Federer/Nadal dominating the next few years :)


NachoF Says:

Just by looking at the semifinals I feel like, since Federer has lost his groove, Djokovic doesnt look like the same as last year, and every tournament having new guys show up on the top spots only to not be seen or heard from anymore, the overall quality of tennis has decreased …. watching Nadal win his matches with ugly tennis is making me sick… and I just hope we find someone that is ready to beat him with awesome strokes from the baseline before he becomes the most dominant player for a long period of time.


jane Says:

There will be others besides Rafa NachoF – though I disagree that his tennis is ugly.

I agree that Djokovic didn’t look his best at Wimbledon, for sure, or in Canada, but he’ll be back. And then there is Murray, who is showing he’s got the stuff to beat even Rafa on hardcourts. That was a close semi – even the second set was closer than the scoreline suggested. Plus, if Gasquet can ever get it together – look out.

There’s no doubt Rafa’s the best right now, but there are a lot of other exciting players to hope for! And it’s not like Roger has disappeared or anything either.


jane Says:

In fact, I have to disagree with this statement that ” the overall quality of tennis has decreased”.

Right now, with the fantastic four – Rafa, Djoko, Murray, Gasquet – that we saw in Canada this weekend, I’d say the quality is excellent.


JCF Says:

NachoF,

“watching Nadal win his matches with ugly tennis is making me sick… and I just hope we find someone that is ready to beat him with awesome strokes from the baseline before he becomes the most dominant player for a long period of time.”

If players are going for beauty before effectiveness, and losing, then I’d say they have their priorities wrong. James Blake would be an example of one of those showmen. He is more interested in putting on a good show than winning the match. That’s a losing strategy.


zola Says:

Fedex
I don’t know the story between you and Roddick/Djoko fans, but I would like to keep Rafa out of it!

Even the greatest players, Sampras, Borg and one day NAdal will end their dominance. I don’t know if this is the year for Fed or not, but I think if the media tried to celebrate Fed’s achievements instead of mourning and predicting doom for Federer, things could have been a bit different.

About the semis, RAfa too, had a very tough match with Murray and then another tough one with Gasquet. So his was no paty either. Remember that Kiefer’s match ended earlier than Rafa. So RAfa had at least 2-3 hours less rest than kiefer.

I don’t know how far RAfa can go ( I hope very far), but certainly the standard set by Fed is very high. Just keeping these points for the next year will be a great challenge. As Sean said, I hope Rafa can go deep in tournaments and can keep this up. VAmos to both Rafa and Federer.


zola Says:

sorry
obviously this sentence is wrong:

***had a very tough match with Murray and then another tough one with Gasquet.***

It should be:

**had a very tough match with Gasquetand then another tough one with Murray.**


zola Says:

Nacho F

I find Nadal’s game very beautiful. I love his movement on the court and his many magnificrnt shots. His backhand slice is a beauty, his double handed backhand, the way he pushes the opponent off the court with his fore hand inch by inch, the drop shot, the athletic overheads, …not to mention the energy and the intensity he brings to the court, …just beautiful and I love them.


NachoF Says:

Im not sure players are going for beauty before effectiveness, its just that the style of play can be elegant or not (I know its a matter of opinion anyway)… I personally loved how Federer was able to win matches without having to run much, and just delivering incredible power shots from side to side… it is evident that now thats over and the best player wins his matches by running like crazy, sweating like crazy, showing his fist like crazy and there doesnt seem to be anyone able to put a stop to him…..


zola Says:

NachoF

Federer moves great. I love to watch his slow motion ground strokes. That doesn’t mean anyone who doesn’t play like him plays “ugly”. Rafa plays an open stance style with extreme top spin. You don’t like it, it’s allright. But you don’t need to disrespect Rafa the same way you don’t want anyone disrespect Federer.


NachoF Says:

“Federer moves great. I love to watch his slow motion ground strokes. That doesn’t mean anyone who doesn’t play like him plays “ugly”. Rafa plays an open stance style with extreme top spin. You don’t like it, it’s allright. But you don’t need to disrespect Rafa the same way you don’t want anyone disrespect Federer”

Fair enough, it wasn’t my intention to do that… notice I did call him “the best player”


zola Says:

NachoF
Thanks. I know Fed will bounce back and you can enjoy his tennis for a long time.


jane Says:

NachoF – It seems to me if you admire Fed, and he’s still technically number 1, so definitely “around”, you’d like Gasquet too? They do have some similarities in their styles of play. Maybe Reeshard will get it all together and you’ll have a player who you enjoy watching, and likely one who can beat Rafa here and there. I think if that first set tiebreak hadn’t gone to 20-20 or whatever, then Gasquet could’ve given Rafa and run in the 2nd set.

Anyhow, on to Cincy. Anyone hear if Rafa is playing there or not?


JCF Says:

NachoF, what do you think of the Williams sisters?


NachoF Says:

I know, Gasquet is awesome how he plays… if only it could transform into actual good results and not just flashes of sporadic brilliance….
anyways, about Cincinnati, what exactly do they do with players that decide not to play days before the tournament… if Nadal is not gonna play, it doesnt make sense for him to be second seeded in the draw dont you think??


zola Says:

Jane
Rafa said in his presser that he will go to Cincy tomorrow. He has never done well there. I think the humidity bothers him. Besides he muct be tired form playing all week in Toronto. I don’t expect him to go very deep there.

Gasquet and Murray played excellent. Gasquet for one set and Murray for two. But still not enough to stop Rafa.

Gasquet plays great. He needs fitness and some belief. After seeing him play RAfa I agree with those who call him “baby Federer”. Murray was more like “baby Nadal”. He didn’t use top spin like RAfa, but his court covereage, defense and touch looked a lot like Rafa!


NachoF Says:

“NachoF, what do you think of the Williams sisters?”

haha, thats a tough one…I know their style of play would fit what I have said I enjoyed watching… but part of my preference is that a player project elegance in tennis, cause its supposed to be an elegant sport in my opinion, and thats why Federer’s style of play, added to him being very quiet and respectful (most of the times), trying to dress classy, etc. is why I always admired his tennis…. the Williams sisters might have the kind of play I enjoy watching, but all the yelling and moaning and crying along with the fashion madness that goes on the WTA has lead me to not follow it much anymore


Wade Says:

Look I wouldn’t care what you are ranked I’d rather be No. 2 in the world (like Nadals case) and win more tournaments then be No. 1 (like Federers case this year) and not win any apart from making more finals then No. 2. So if I won a lot of tournaments I wouldn’t give a shit what ranking i was in the world as long as you win though being seeded helps in big tourney’s! But go Nadal I’ve been a Nadal fan from the get go and to see finally a new freakin number 1 in the world would be magic especially Nadal a CHAMPION!


Kroll Says:

Fedex

“Borg and Sampras might be the biggest beneficiaries of Roger and Rafa’s careers overlapping.”

That statement makes no sense, whatsoever. Both had formidable opponents to contend with on their own so its not like they were given a free ride. Rafa and Fed’s overlapping careers mean absolutely nothing, its just the natural order of things. I mean it must be pretty damn improbable that a single guy never finds an equal during the course of his career so all this ‘if he hadn’t been’ talk is a bit frivolous.

——————-
zola

“I don’t know if this is the year for Fed or not, but I think if the media tried to celebrate Fed’s achievements instead of mourning and predicting doom for Federer, things could have been a bit different.”

The time for celebrating his achievements is when he Finishes his career, as with all great players. This is precisely the time to predict his doom, speculate or mourn or whatever. He’s been enough of a media darling for years so I don’t see why he should be complaining.


zola Says:

Kroll
Fed has been a media darling because he has won more than anybody else.

It is true for many athletes. As soon as they are down, the media jumps at them. I have read too many aticles criticizing Rafa or predicting his doom when he lost on hard courts, even at the beginning of this year. I don’t like it for Rafa and I don’t like it for Fed.

I will criticize Fed when he is at his best. Kicking him when he has lost one match after a great final is too harsh and unfair. They have to give the players some breathing room.


nadalian Says:

It might seem that Rafa could just opt out of Cincy this year,but I truly believe that the whole race to the #1 Ranking is a spectacle that the media and the tennis world are more focussed on than rafa personally is. His media sessions indicate his natural desire to be No. 1 but he really does not demonstrate an all-out desperation to snatch it as fast as possible cause he really focusses on playing his best tennis on a match-to-match basis and if he wakes up the next morning and realize he’s done enough to eran the coveted spot, then that’ll be awesome but I seriously doubt it’s something that he plans his daily schedule around. There is every possibility that even if is has decided to withdraw from Cincy,it could be due to his body just asking for some rest or him wanting a little extra time to better prepeare for the Olympics. It’s actually quite unlikely he’s spent a load of time with analysts going over scenario analysiswith different permutations and then decided that Cincy’s out. Rafa’s just not made in that mould he’s much too basic to think along those lines..


Kroll Says:

zola

“I have read too many aticles criticizing Rafa or predicting his doom when he lost on hard courts, even at the beginning of this year.”

The criticism aimed at Rafa and Fed are of a different nature so let me separate the two. Before this year Rafa was good on hardcourts but hardly stellar. He got bushwacked twice by much lesser ranked(but superb )players in two of of grand slams and often appeared unconvincing. So there was always good reason to doubt his ability to reach the highest level on hardcourts. I always questioned his commitment on hardcourts before this year (he played stuttgart last year after wimby and made his knee worse there…why?)
IMO he hasnt yet proved himself on hardcourts though I now believe he will. But the point here is that praise has to be earned. You like to believe in him because you are a fan but People dont need to…

Fed on the other hand has already earned his respect and nobody’s denying that. When you are winning and on an upslope, the media praises you, but the respect you earned Stays. When he is not winning its natural to speculate on his future. And besides you are trivializing this as just some loss but in reality its a pattern. He set super high playing standards and he’s way off that this year. So its natural to wonder if its the start of a slide. You can be as nice as you want, but im saying that to do what the media (and many others including me) are saying is natural. We Know he is one of the greatest of players, but does he have the character to bounce back? Sampras did but I am far from convinced that Fed does too. You can believe that he will but I or anyone else Dont have to.


Jesus Says:

Everyone is wrong apart from WADE!
His the only one that states about who gives a crap what ya ranked as long as you win freaking tourney’s. I’d rather be number 2 in the world that won more tournaments then the number 1 in the world who made more finals just like it is now between Nadal and Federer. Spot on Wade and Go Nadal US Open is yours my friend.


Santa Says:

Yer i suppose Wade is right aslong as you just win!


tiberiu Says:

Merci for information, I wasn’t informed about this change in ATP ranking.
Anyway, if Nadal will become no 1 in Cincy, Federer will have the time to digest this, like a presidential change.


addie Says:

Nadal actually has a better chance of becoming #1 the week of Aug 11 rather than Aug 4. Don’t really wanna go into the math cos it can get really confusing, but the upshot is that Nadal needs to make up 375 points in Cincinnati to catch Federer on Aug 4, but only 175 points to be #1 on Aug 11.

As long as he makes the SF or better this week and Federer loses two rounds earlier, eg. a win vs. SF or final vs. quarterfinal showing, he’ll get there. Looking good for Rafa…


Kevin Says:

Nadal now is 369 race pts ahead Federer. Sooner or later he will be no.1. Could Federer take back his No.1? We could see the imporvement at Nadal’s game this year, even Fed could have his top form as 2006 and 2007 back, it is 50/50 game. Really Fed needs some break through match to pick his confidence again. Even if Fed bounce back, I think it will be the next Wim when he could have chance to get close to Nadal.


zola Says:

Kevin
very true. It is all catch up and uphill for Fed and it is a new and unpleasent territory for him. I don’t care if Rafa is No 1 this week or a month from now. I hope he can stay healthy . I know the results will come.


jane Says:

Kroll,

You make a lot of sense, as usual.

zola,

Thanks for the update on Rafa & Cincy; I hope he cinches number 1 soon. All this math is making nauseous.


prafull Says:

Now I demand an apology from Mr. Guerry Smith who posted an absolutely ridiculous article about Nadal not being Number 1 on this site few months ago.


jane Says:

One point about Rafa and hardcourts, though – we know he’s won titles on the stuff – even against Roger -so there’s no doubting his capabilities. (He’s clearly been working on court-positioning so that’s good.) But he’s never won a major on hard, so that’s, I think, what many of us want to see if he can do it or when.

zola – I’d say Murray’s style is more like Djoko’s than Rafa’s – Murray hits deep, flat shots, and both he and Djoko move well. But Murray has better touch at net, like Rafa. Djoko could work on that. Both Murray and Djoko have improved 2nd serves, but they need more consistent 1st serves.


zola Says:

Jane,
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Rafa started his career from clay. That’s the uphill. The calendar as Federer purposefully emphasized: “has nine months of hard courts”. It has made for a harc courter to be No 1, not for a clay courter. But at the same time the curse holds for those hard courters who are unable to adapt their game to clay.

With a very tight clay court schedule, it was always hard for Rafa to regroup at the second half of the year. Last two years there was also the disappointment of losing at Wimbledon. That took a lot out of Rafa last year, sililar to what Fed is going through this year.

This year Rafa has changed his game a bit and is more motivated. He may or may not win a major on hard this year, but he will some time. He has done the hard part. Won clay and grass back to back. He has titles on hard courts against Federer when he was at his prime and Rafa was playing his clay court game. Now with the improvements and confidence, I don’t see why he can’t.

I wrote this long ago in RM.com, when Rafa was losing on hard courts. At that time he was talking about changing his game. I wrote that once he has done that we will see what dominance means. We had a glimpse of that in Toronto during his wins over Gasquet and Murray who both played the match of their life for a set or two. I have no doubt Rafa will improve further and will be very dominant and forceful even on hard courts. Now he has to work on a schedule that can keep him injury-free.

Murray’s game against Djoko reminded me constantly of Rafa. The way he defended and reached to each ball. The top-spin forehand. Maybe he is a mix of both. I think him and Gasquet will have great results this year.I see Murray more of a danger than GAsquet for the top players, just because Gasquet is too fragile in his mind. But both are a pleasure to watch.


zola Says:

oops, many typos! among them it should be rn.com, not rm.com!


zola Says:

Jane ,
as far as the math is concerned, I prefer to wait till Aug 18 till the points come off.
I also look at the RACE points. Rafa is 1055 points and Fed is 685 or something like that. about 300 points apart and that’s a lot!


Rsutherland Says:

As a newcommer to TennisX, please excuse me for responding late. However two prior comments have promted me to engage.
A) To Kroll: on one hand you preface your comments about Rafa’s hardcourt playing with ‘before this year…’ then later write that he has ‘yet to prove himself on hard court’. ‘Yet’? Post Toronto (you know,just last week)… Why the ‘yet’?
To NachoF: Why use an incendiary adjective – ugly – to describe Nadal’s tennis? It is fine to have a preference in style (though tennis is not the ballet) but couldn’t you try ‘less elegant’ or the like?
My God, I just had to defend Federer from a detractor that citicized his ‘skinny arms’ and ‘facial expression that makes him look like he is smelling a rotten fish’.
I find these all to be odd and irrelevant priorities.


NachoF Says:

“To NachoF: Why use an incendiary adjective – ugly – to describe Nadal’s tennis? It is fine to have a preference in style (though tennis is not the ballet) but couldn’t you try ‘less elegant’ or the like?”
True, true.I guess I went a little overboard there… give me a break, english isn’t my first language.


Kroll Says:

Rsutherland Says:

“A) To Kroll: on one hand you preface your comments about Rafa’s hardcourt playing with ‘before this year…’ then later write that he has ‘yet to prove himself on hard court’. ‘Yet’? Post Toronto (you know,just last week)… Why the ‘yet’?”

Because winning one masters title is not a leap for him, he has already done that in the past. The point I was making was with reference to a)consistency through the season and/or b) winning one of the two hardcourt majors. So we ll find out now wont we?


Kroll Says:

jane

“I’d say Murray’s style is more like Djoko’s than Rafa’s”

I totally agree, the super-flat crosscourt backhand, the serve (Djoko is better here though) and a forehand which now mirrors Djoko’s in many ways. And of course overusing the backhand. Neither of them have a slice really which Rafa now excels at.


Kroll Says:

oops i meant “overusing the drop shot”


Vulcan Says:

Wow Roddick vs Kohlschreiber (most likely) tommorrow, after their match in Australia Im gonna be tuned in for that one.


zola Says:

vulcan,

how was the match in Australia? I completely forgot. I think here with the home crowd Roddick is the favorite ( and he has already won Cincy before).


Giner Says:

“I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Rafa started his career from clay. That’s the uphill. The calendar as Federer purposefully emphasized: “has nine months of hard courts”. It has made for a harc courter to be No 1, not for a clay courter. But at the same time the curse holds for those hard courters who are unable to adapt their game to clay.”

Esteemed commentators, coaches, and captains have remarked that clay is the best surface to grow up on. Players raised on clay can adapt their game to faster surfaces better than players raised on faster surfaces can adapt to clay. It’s because it’s slower and they learn to construct their points better, and it’s more physical.

“Murray’s game against Djoko reminded me constantly of Rafa. The way he defended and reached to each ball. The top-spin forehand. Maybe he is a mix of both. I think him and Gasquet will have great results this year.I see Murray more of a danger than GAsquet for the top players, just because Gasquet is too fragile in his mind. But both are a pleasure to watch.”

Murray I observed does play an aggressive game like Djoko. He has a big forehand and his backhand was on song against Rafa. He returned Rafa’s first serves beautifully for winners down the line. The risk with this kind of game is of course hitting errors. You could win big but also lose big depending on the day.


Vulcan Says:

Zola, it was an epic 5 set classic. Full of all kinds of twists and turns and marked by one of Roddick’s longest tirades in history (unfortunately he looked like a total buffoon after a shot spot replay showed that his entire argument was fallacious). I’ll bet even John McEnroe would be more timid in these days of the shot spot. But I must say, watching McEnroe commentate, he does have some of the sharpest eyes around.


Vulcan Says:

Regarding Rafa dropping out of Cincy…please folks unless you are absolutely sure of something don’t spread these kinds of rumours…many sources of information on the internet are just not reliable. With that said, speaking about it in hypothetical terms – he’s chasing the number one spot and greatness at the moment so im sure he can find the extra energy to at least make it through a couple of rounds…although some potent adversaries loom in his quarter including Ferrer, Youzhny, and Monfils.


Von Says:

“Full of all kinds of twists and turns and marked by one of Roddick’s longest tirades in history (unfortunately he looked like a total buffoon after a shot spot replay showed that his entire argument was fallacious).”

I’ve seen worse by other players. Anyone saw the match Nadal v. Murray with time violation argument with the umpire. That was a beauty — Nadal threatened to call the Tournament Referee should the Umpire give him another time violation. What do we call that? I call it intimidation. And, how about the ’07wimby for duration of time for tantrums?


Vulcan Says:

Youv’e seen worse?…Im sorry but please dont insult my intelligence. I don’t know what your definition of a childish tantrum is (you chose to use that word I gave him the benefit of the doubt and used tirade) but Rafa does not berate umpires. Roddick openly insulted the umpire and in my opinion should of been fined or disqualified.


Von Says:

Giner:

“Murray I observed does play an aggressive game like Djoko. He has a big forehand and his backhand was on song against Rafa. He returned Rafa’s first serves beautifully for winners down the line.”

I agree that Murray’s game is similar to Djoko’s. They can both hurt their oppoent from both wings. In that match against Nadal, Murray’s second serve was also very effective. Additionally, a new aspect to Murray’s gme, he’s been returing very deep while flattening out his strokes. He’s one of a handful of players who can return an effective winner while being fully stretched out 10-15 feet behind the baseline. Within the last 3 months Murray’s game has improved tremendously. He most probably could have kept the second set a lot closer if he didn’t have that knee problem. I don’t understand why the umpire made him wait for medical treatment when he made the request. That’s a perfect example of how badly umpires can mess up and cause a player to become agitated and lose their composure.


Von Says:

“Youv’e seen worse?…Im sorry but please dont insult my intelligence.”

Yes, I’ve seen worse, and I’m in no way insulting your intelligence. Where did insulting your intelligence come in? I cited the ’07 wimby, where Federer was all bent out of shape and had some tantrums, while berating the umpire for a couple of changeovers. Not to mention the fact he wanted Hawkeye to be turned off. And, I also cited the Murray match, where Nadal had a heated argument with the umpire for his time violation. If you saw that match you would know what I’m talking about. Nadal threated to call the tournament referee if the umpire gave him another time violation. As a result of which, the umpire ignored Nadal’s subsequent abuse of the 25 second rule. I remember the commentators stating that it is apparent Nadal does not care to follow the rule because he again exceeded the 25 second time limitation.

If there’s an insult to anyone’s intelligence it’s not from my end. Nadal is not perfect as some would like to think and his abuse of the time limitation is unfair to his opponents.


Vulcan Says:

LMAO @ Federer “berating”…emm yeah Federer is known for “berating” umpires


Vulcan Says:

As far as Nadal “abusing” the 25 second rule…I didnt see the match you were talking about..perhaps you could be so kind as to specify which one it was…but I have seen many matches were Nadal has been called for time violation and has done nothing other than simply continue to play. If the umpires dont call him on it what is he supposed to do?…call it on himself?


Fedex Says:

http://nikelebron.net/2008/07/18/lebron_james_olympic_tour_at_nike_world_headquarters/

Look at the 3rd picture from bottom. King James wearing a RF cap! Its a great treat for fans of the 2 Kings – James and Roger!


Von Says:

“LMAO @ Federer “berating”…emm yeah Federer is known for “berating” umpires.”

Ditto, here. I’m laughing also that people can be so selectively blind and biased. I see you didn’t mention the umpire time violation episode with Nadal again, or is that another LMAO comment.

It’s Ok for some to make broad and overly dramatic statements about some players, but God forbid another poster should dare to point out the obvious unsavoury behavior regarding another fan’s favorite player, then it isn’t fair play anymore.

I hope tomorow Roddick does get into one of his tirades big time, then it will really give his critics something to justifiably talk about and become irritated.


zola Says:

Vulcan
I will look on youtube to see if there are some clips of that match. Maybe I missed it because of the time difference. Yes, I think Roddick needs some anger management regarding his treatment of his lower ranked opponents and the umpire.

Regarding Rafa in Cincy, I have not read anything about him pulling out. He has played a lot this summer and I don’t know how his body will hold up. On the other hand , he is on a roll now, …so we will see. But I won’t be surprised if he is beaten early. He has a tough draw and he has never done well in Cincy.


Colin Says:

I couldn’t give a flying %#&!! whether Federer or anyone else is No 1. As we all know, it’s possible for someone to be , at least for a time, No 1 without having won a Major. I’m sure Nadal would be far more excited at the prospect of winning the US Open than he would about getting to No 1. It’s winning tournaments that defines a top player, not the mathematical results of getting those wins.


Von Says:

In my 5:23 pm and 6:28 pm posts, I elaborated on the match in question. However, I’ll be kind enough to reiterate my comments. It was the SF match in Toronto on Saturday evening, Murray v. Nadal. Nadal received a time violation and was livid. After his outburst with the umpire wherein he threatened to call the tournament referee should the umpire give him a repeat time violation he proceeded in subsequent serves to again abuse the 25 second rule. The commentators were talking about one occasion in particular where he again exceeded the rule limit and their words were to the effect that here’s one that’s even worse than the one for which he got the violation, and should get a tanother time violtion. They further mentioned that it’s as though Nadal doesn’t seem to pay attention, but just goes about doing things his way. The umpires DO call him out on his violations but he’s a passive resistance type, he’ll do as he chooses without saying too much. There’re more than one way to skin a cat!


Von Says:

I love these arm-chair psychiatrists, mental health therapists and/or diagnosticians who have analyzed Roddick and are able to determine what Roddick needs in terms of psychiatric treatment. How about taking up a collection for some treatment sessions for him. And, while you’re at it, how about some treatment for your obsessive desire to berate other players except your own, and the proprietorial obsession over Nadal from his ONLY FAN. I’m so happy to see the alliances that can be formed because of Roddick. I’m LMAO now. :) At least I’ve donated some comments that can liven up this thread for the critics to have a worthwhile subject to obsess about. Carry on smartless-ly.


jane Says:

Kroll,

“oops i meant “overusing the drop shot””

I like to call it dropshotitis. Both suffer from this illness, but it cost Djoko the match against Murray as he (mis)used it twice in the tiebreak – doh!

Re: players & umpires,

They all spaz on the umpires sometimes, some more vehemently than others, but unless the umpires penalize them there is not much we can do.

Both Rafa and Djoko have been maddened by time violation calls between points; Djoko has cut down his ball bouncing tremendously, which was very noticable in Toronto, and so hasn’t been called on it as much. Rafa was called on it in the Murray match and took issue with it because he said he was taking the same time as always, so why call it now. Federer’s beef is usually with the Hawkeye system, or in Canada with the crowd, and I’ve seen him get on the umpire’s back about both. Roddick’s outburst in Toronto was fair, actually; he had a play on a ball that was overruled so he was mad. The one at the AO was overdone, mainly because he yelled out an insulting comment about the umpire, but the one in Canada was fair enough. I think at the AO the context was important – wasn’t it, like, 2:00 in the morning or something? Likely he was already a little worn down. Sometimes umpire’s calls are tipping points.

Anyhow my point is that most if not all players take issue with calls and umpires from time-to-time.


Giner Says:

Colin, that happens a lot more on the women’s tour than on the men’s. There are a handful of players in the top 6 or so that were close to getting number 1 and still can, despite not having a slam in the past 52 weeks, or at all.

The only man who’s ever been numero uno without ever winning a slam is Rios. There might have been a few who were #1 slamless but won them later, and some who won multiple slams for years before finally getting it.

And you are right. You would think, or hope, that Nadal’s priority would be winning slams first, before worrying about a ranking. In another era he would have already done enough to be #1 with previous results.


Giner Says:

Jane says:

“I like to call it dropshotitis. Both suffer from this illness, but it cost Djoko the match against Murray as he (mis)used it twice in the tiebreak – doh!”

Some players use the drop shot when they aren’t sure what shot to play. Drop shot is one of those shots commentators either love or hate. When a player executes one beautifully, they’ll say “what a lovely drop shot! Exquisite touch! Clever disguise, opponent had no chance of reaching it, blah blah”. But if they missed the shot, the remark would be “What a stupid shot to play.” or “Bad time to be trying a drop shot” or “this is not the surface you would use that shot for”. There’s some degree of double standards there.

“Both Rafa and Djoko have been maddened by time violation calls between points; Djoko has cut down his ball bouncing tremendously, which was very noticable in Toronto, and so hasn’t been called on it as much. Rafa was called on it in the Murray match and took issue with it because he said he was taking the same time as always, so why call it now. ”

He gets called on it in every match, but doesn’t let it bother him. It bothered him that time because it was on break point, then he rushed his serves and double faulted. That was why he got pissed off. He had taken his time a few times and wasn’t given a violation, so he must have thought he was taking an acceptable amount of time, or at least that no one was objecting to it. It just wasn’t the best time to get one. I don’t think he would have objected to it if it was on an earlier point.

He lives on the edge ignoring the warnings. Because if he gets another violation, it’s a point penalty.

Everyone has different ways of ticking. Some use their rage to fire themselves up, some move quickly between points, others, well.. take their time.

I hope he doesn’t take his time on every point. There are occasions when he definitely takes too long (and he didn’t get a violation for it, strangely). He should speed it up. But I also hope umpires are sensitive when they do give the violation, and not choosing say, set point or break point. Call it early in the 1st set and see what he does.


zola Says:

Jane,
many players disagree with the umpire. Few of them shout profanities at the them and at the opponent though.

Any player can ask for a tournament referee to intervene. That’s what the referees are for. That should not be intimidating if an umpire is confident in his call.

I am trying to avoid this discussion, since I already see some hysteric reactions.

Giner
I think Safina has saved the WTA for now. The more I watch her matches the more I like her. She might have a good chance in US Open.


jane Says:

Giner,

Agree on the double standard re:drop shots & commentators, but in that match Djoko’s were badly timed. If he could’ve won that tiebreaker, he could’ve pushed it to a 3rd set and then who knows? The point is that a tiebreak might’ve been a moment for a less risky shot. And I shouldn’t've said it cost Djoko the match (his first set wasn’t too great) but it may’ve cost him the set.

I also agree that umpires should time their “violation” calls wisely. Don’t call one on break point or set point for fairness sake. Give the player a heads up first, i.e. “you’re pushing it on serve violation” and then make the call. The same thing happened to Djoko in the AO semi or final, and Djoko was not mad at the violation call itself but at when it was called. Also that he’d not received any prior warning in the match. Fine lines perhaps, but sometimes momentous ones – hence the occasional spaz out. Unless you’re John “you can’t be serious!” McEnroe, wherein it’s, like, spazzin every match.


Ryan Says:

Its one of the reasons nadal wins tight matches.He abuses the time violation rule on every point.Its no wonder he’s able to save so many break points.I agree with Von I did see nadal yelling at the umpire for giving him the time violation.Who does he think he is ? Just like in football the players should be given a red card and sent out if they talk too much.He has to obey the rules just like everyone else. Everybody talks about what a great guy nadal is.He’s so humble,he’s so nice blah blah.I’d say its better to be honest like djokovic or federer than to be a hypocrite like nadal.


jane Says:

zola,

Yes – but remember that players have different personalities hence they react in different ways – some, as I said above, more vehemently that others. Roger was really cranky with the crowd in his Simon match – not kind at all – don’t know if you saw that. But I am not judging the platers or the player’s reactions; I am merely commenting that they all freak out occasionally, and in different ways, depending on the situation, the call, their personality, etc. There are many extenuating factors to consider.


Oleg Says:

With regards to Nadal or Djokovic’s time violations, frankly it’s up to the chair umpires to impose the rules from the get-go.
They should call the violation from the first point and not start calling violations in the middle of the match. If you call it, call it from the first point, otherwise accept that the players will take all the time they want.


Von Says:

“I am trying to avoid this discussion, since I already see some hysteric reactions.”

No kidding!! Who’s having hysterical reactions? It’s not possible to have hysterics via the written word. FYI hysteric means: “a fit of uncontrollable laughter or weeping”. How can that happen on these threads?

There’s a method to my madness for making reference to Nadal’s time violations, etc., and this is due to the innumerable times, which are uncalled for, whereby Roddick is blasted by a certain few, who seem to derive pleasure from obsessing over Roddick’s umpire tussles. In the past, I’ve not mentioned anything pertaining to Nadal’s quirks and idiosyncracies, but will do so hereinafter. Why? Because I feel this Roddick and/or Djokovic criticism has escalated beyond proportions, and is repeated ad nauseam.

“This is the short and the long of it”.


Ryan Says:

I think the umpires call it in the middle of the match especially during break points because the their opponents are losing their chances and is being denied their chance to win games.It doesnt matter much to the opponent if someone violates the time rule when they are leading 40-0 in their service game.But it is a big deal when it is 0-40.I think the best way the to make people like nadal or anybody to obey the time rules would be to impose a point penalty everytime they do that.That’ll teach people like him not to mess with the rules.


zola Says:

Jane,
Yes, I understand that players have different personalities. Some just plain lose it on the court and that’s just not pleasant to watch a player abusing the umpire or the lower-ranked players.

I agree with Oleg. The time violations should be given from the first point. Then the player will know the time they have taken is longer than anticipated. I think the problem is that the umpires enforce the rule when they want not when they should. I think actually a referee on the court was a very good idea.


Von Says:

Ryan:

“I agree with Von I did see nadal yelling at the umpire for giving him the time violation.”

Thank you for affirming my statement. I was beginning to wonder if I had dreamt it, because it went selctively unnoticed. what irks me with Nadal is his passive-aggressive behavior and total disregard for the rules. He receives the violation and continues to push it on subsequent serves, as if he’s daring the umpire, and he gets away with it, due to some of the umpires’ cowardice. They’ll pick on someone like Roddick because they know he blows up and it makes them look good, but on several occasions they are unfair. My opinion of a player abusing the time rule is one of dishonesty coupled with gamesmanship — pure and simple.

Did you also see that display by Nadal behaving like tarzan when he won a point against Murray? He had his eyes closed, moving his head vigorously from side to side and shaking his whole bady in elation, fist pumping etc. As “irritating” as Roddick is thought of by his critics, I’ve NEVER seen him display such behavior when winning a point against a lesser ranked opponent, or any opponent for that matter.


Von Says:

If it’s not pleasant to watch a player lose it on court then turn off the TV and/or watch something else. I do it with some of Nadal’s matches when i see him repeatedly abusing the time rule. It’s frustrating to watch him at times, and it happens a lot when he’s vigorously engaged in a long point. He causesz the match to become drawn out. It’s almost like he uses that time to regroup and recoup some lost energy. whichever way we look at it, it’s gamesmanship and dishonest.


Sean Randall Says:

Regarding the time violations, etc.

A simple fix for this ongoing issue is having a VISIBLE shot clock or “serve counting” down the time remaining to serve after each point. NBA has it. NFL has it. No reason tennis cannot adopt a similar method of accurately enforcing the rule and speeding up the game at the same time. And it takes out the guesswork for the players and fans as to just how much time is left to serve.

I think someday we will have this. Perhaps within 4 years.


Kroll Says:

Jane
“Both Rafa and Djoko have been maddened by time violation calls between points”

Actually the issues that other players have that you mentioned, like Fed’s distrust of hawkye on which I want to elaborate a bit, are, I think, less important. Here we are talking about contravening or frequently testing the limits of an age old rule, hardly something that came up today did it? So they grew up under these rules and so there is absolutely no excuse for what they end up doing. I enjoy Rafa’s matches the most but every now and then his routine topped with seven bounces gets on my nerves. Truth is, Nobody should be accommodated on rules, especially for silly reasons of arbitrary compulsive behaviour.

Regarding Fed’s annoyance with Hawkye, I think its mostly because he makes loads of stupid challenges and somewhat because he probably thinks he needs to be right, being the world No. 1 and all (hardly a sleight of character, I think anyone would feel that).

But I personally have doubts about some aspects of hawkye. You see when the ball hits the ground, it doesn’t get flattened against the surface like a pancake, its more like the surface of a car tyre, with a heavy load on it. There is a flat contact region but a large curved region too. Now hawkye comes up with this silly high magnifications when its really measuring the top-view of the ball’s collision, NOT the actual contact area. So they should really have a well defined margin of error which considering the resolutions they have, seems hard to believe. I expect most people would like to defer to “expert” opinion but I ve frequently found that there Is none.


zola Says:

Von,
now I see why you are a Roddick fan! enjoy your ride!
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not going to be part of it! I can discuss tennis with you when your tantraums are over!


Kroll Says:

Sean

I don’t see that working as that would be way too distracting for the players, since tennis is an individual sport and requires a lot more focus. I mean court silence is a requirement when the point is being played in tennis, hardly something that happens in NFL and NBA does it?

And honestly this is a pretty basic requirement, it should be self policed considering 20 s is pretty long for serve. If they rigorously implement for a few cups, everyone would tow the line, I m sure.


zola Says:

Kroll,
I think the issue here was not the time warning itself, but the timing of it. I agree that the rules should be enforced and from the very first violation. Actually it will be great to have a digital chronometer on the court timer, so that the audiance and the referee both can see the time. I think yesterday Kiefer took a lot of time between some points and there was no warning to him.

About Hawk-eye, I think I read somewhere that there is a 3% error margin on that and there has been times that it has been wrong. Actually Rafa suggested to put Hawk eye on clay and then they would be able to estimate the errors. I think the sunlight etc. makes a difference as well.


Sean Randall Says:

Kroll, distracting? How? The umpire starts it after the point, stop it just at the start of the serve. Why it would it distract anyone? If you want you could also put the clock under just below the umpire chair if you needed it outside of the server/receiver sightlines, but otherwise I see no real distraction. And over time guys would get in tune to playing faster.

The only issue could become if a rogue umpire starts the clock too soon after the point to stick it the player.


zola Says:

Sean,
I think we wrote at the same time. I really like the idea of the “timer”. They should at least experiment with it.


zola Says:

Sean,
there is a court timer that has the match score, match time etc., it can be there and won’t distract the players. The umpire will start and stop it. It will make the life easier for the player, the umpire and the viewers.


Kroll Says:

I must add, if Rafa can bring all these incredible improvements in his game over a period of just a couple of years, I am sure he can work a bit on keeping the serving time down. Its hard to believe that someone with his obvious determination and focus cannot bring about a change so trivial. He doesn’t because he doesn’t Think he needs to, and that is easily remedied by being strict about the rule.


Sean Randall Says:

Zola, the umpire already has a timer in his hand (I believe), so all that needs to be done is hooking that up to a LCD screen or an existing board for display, that’s it.

And it will cut down on the damn towel-offs after every point. Enough of that…


Kroll Says:

Sean
Thats fine, I had the mental image of a large clock ticking away loudly, so my mistake.

zola
Fair enough about the time keeping. I agree with you as with Sean.

Regarding the 3% error in Hawkye, its a measure of the optical error, not a comparison of the imaging and collision area. I am pretty sure Hawkye hasnt done any tests about this, which I guess leads to your comment about Rafa’s excellent idea. A basic requirement of good probes is calibration and I wouldn’t put it past them to ignore such trivial details. Heck, they make frequent calibration errors in satellite imaging, so Hawkye is hardly special is it.


Von Says:

Zola:

Yes, I’m happy that you can see why I’m a Roddick fan. You’re insuating I’m like him in my behavior? I can tell why you’re a Nadal fan, because you’re devoid of honesty. I tell you what, if we were to be seen side by side visually in a debate, I’ll win hands down. Why? I have more merit to my arguments than you have. I don’t resort to name calling and sarcasm, when I can’t win an argument. And, pray tell me, Why is it you have to stoop so low every time you can’t win a point against the truth, you have to place a handle on it? E.g., I’m having tantrums. FYI, tantrums are actions similar to hysterics which cannot be seen from the written word. Anyone reading these comments with a fair mind, would see who’s having the tantrums. I’m merely stating the facts as presented and my unbiased observations. But, guess what, I’m a brat and one who indulges in profanities, and every disgusting form of behavior just like Roddick. At least he’s got personality, and guess what, SO HAVE I.


zola Says:

Sean,
I don’t have any objection to towelling off. players sweat!

Kroll,
yep, I guess they can even calibrate it on each court on different times of the day using a powder or sand on the lines prior to each tournament.

btw, who manufactures the Hawk eye? is it one company or is it several of them?


Kroll Says:

Von
“I don’t resort to name calling and sarcasm”

I resent this statement, the former is immature but the latter is an art! And I like to employ it irrespective of whether or not I am losing so ..

and

“one who indulges in profanities”

There is no such thing is there? All part of the English language now I think, but sadly still not part of standard forum talk. That should change though, there was time when ‘Jesus’ was a blasphemy and “Heck” was profane so…


jane Says:

Kroll,

“if Rafa can bring all these incredible improvements in his game over a period of just a couple of years, I am sure he can work a bit on keeping the serving time down.”

Bingo!

Djoko had that annoying ball-bouncing habit, which he publicly acknowledged as a bad habit and said he was working on. And in Toronto, the announcers said he was down to bouncing the ball only a few times – up to 7 or 8 on big points. So it is an improvement; it can be done.

Rafa’s habit is “quieter’, less noticeable, so maybe he gets away with it more.

But if the umps enforced the time issue from the get-go, he’d have to cut back the time he takes too.

I think sometimes the opposition don’t mind it so much because Rafa gives them such a work-over on the points that they’re happy for the extra rest.


jane Says:

Actually Kroll, Jesus and Santa were both on the blog earlier today – don’t know if you noticed?


Kroll Says:

this should help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk-Eye

I actually first encountered hawkeye in cricket ,which I am a fan of. It does a lot of dubious things there like claiming to calculate the swing (movement in air of a spinning ball) of a cricket ball which is in fact a complex aerodynamical problem that takes months to calculate on the best of supercomputers (which Hawkeye doesn’t have). In fact, they have a lot of similar claims so I assume in general that, while being revolutionary in the field of sports as far as the imaging is concerned, their claims to any kind of “physics”, I would as a rule, question.


Kroll Says:

Its a single company, British and they had it in cricket, a while before they had it in tennis. I first encountered hawkeye in cricket ,which I am a fan of. It does a lot of dubious things there like claiming to calculate the swing (movement in air of a spinning ball) of a cricket ball which is in fact a complex aerodynamical problem that takes months to calculate on the best of supercomputers (which Hawkeye doesn’t have). In fact, they have a lot of similar claims so I assume in general that, while being revolutionary in the field of sports as far as the imaging is concerned, their claims to any kind of “physics”, I would as a rule, question.


Kroll Says:

jane Says:

“Actually Kroll, Jesus and Santa were both on the blog earlier today – don’t know if you noticed?”

Sigh… sockpuppets inevitably. And not the least bit funny, a wasted opportunity IMO.


Von Says:

Kroll:

“There is no such thing is there? All part of the English language now I think, but sadly still not part of standard forum talk. That should change though, there was time when ‘Jesus’ was a blasphemy and “Heck” was profane so…”

I was just echoing a statement made about players, e.g., Roddick using profanity on court. I find it nauseating that grown people are obsessed with regard to a profane word. My Go, if one were ro ride on the New York Subway, they’d certainly get an education in profnity. I don’t indulge in profanity, but I certainly don’t get bent out of shape if I hear said by someone who’s not speaking directly to me. Some people seem to think that if they decry thisz typ of behavior it puts an invisible halo around their heads and places them a cut above the rest. for me, that’s a lot of phoney baloney and is more or less a means to inflate a poor inferiority complex. for instance, I’m better than the masses because i don’t indulge in such low class language. Get real, I say; who cares.


Von Says:

jane:

“Rafa’s habit is “quieter’, less noticeable, so maybe he gets away with it more.”

I think the umpires feel, like the commentators mentioned, it’s a waste of time, the guy just doesn’t care.

Djoko cares, this is why he is making a conscientious effort to rectify his incessant ball bouncing.

“I think sometimes the opposition don’t mind it so much because Rafa gives them such a work-over on the points that they’re happy for the extra rest.”

I think the majority of the players find it extremely irritating. I remember Blake talking to an umpire before one of his matches with Nadal to the effect that the umpire should keep an eye out for Nadal’s abuse of the time rule.

______________

Kroll:

So you’re a cricket fan? I have some famous cricketers in my family, but that was a long time ago. They’re now retired.


jane Says:

Von,

“I think the majority of the players find it extremely irritating.”

Some do, for sure. I remember Agassi didn’t like it, but he is such a speed-meister so he’s bound not to like it.

Some use the time to catch their own breath.

Depends on the player I guess.

But – regardless of player reactions – the fact the it bothers some players is enough to enforce the time factor. An enforcement of the rule on a regular basis would mean that Rafa would have to speed it up a bit.


jane Says:

Anyone following Cincy results? I see Gulbis is through this time; wonder if he’ll go further this week, given that it’s a super fast court. Safin’s out.


Fedex Says:

I have never realized what the sacntity of those 25seconds is? Is there documented evidence that taking more time than that is slowing the game down enough to turn the audience off? I know a lot of people who have taken to tennis because of nadal and no one has had any problem with his slow game.

I would rather have players take more time and play a smart game like nadal and djokovic do ( on most of the occasion) than rush through the points and play a stupid game like roddick does.


Von Says:

Fedex:

I knew you would eventully stop by to throw some nasty comments Roddick’s way. There’s a list of anti-Roddick posters who can’t resist the urge to take some swipes at him, and guess what, you’re close to the top. Feel free to use some more Roddick stupid game aspersions or anything else that tickles your fancy. Enjoy. will there be a post from: Roddick is a Donkey, soon to follow?


Sean Randall Says:

Von, stop it. Roddick does play stupid. Get over it…


jane Says:

Fedex,

I don’t know the origin of the 25 second rule; it would be interesting if someone could enlighten us on that. Sean – you know from whence said rule comes? In other words, who thunked it up?


zola Says:

Jane,
Rafa said in a Q&A in timesonline ( I think during Wimbledon) that he is tryiong to reduce the time between the points and I am sure he will cut it further down.

Actually as you said ( and Agassi said it too) some players use it to catch their breath.As I said beforre Rafa is not the only one.

I didn’t watch any matches today. Just know some results because of my ATP bracket!( which has already four misses!). I am glad Gulbis went through. Ginepri-Fed will be interesting since they both have the same coach!

Fedex,
I think if the players are bothered by the time violation, they can always tell the umpire ( Tsonga did on two occasions). of course a rule is a rule and should be enforced, but from the first violation. Not selectively.
Similarly if a player shouts profanities at the umpire or a player, they should be fined.

Kroll
I think they already claimed that they have measured the spin of a tennis ball. I think the average is about 2500 or so rpm. and they said Rafa’s is at least twice! I don’t know how they did it!


Kroll Says:

Von

“I have some famous cricketers in my family”

Ur kidding! I thought you were American, girl!

have Fedex

Unless the point of your mail was to merely bait Von, I d say that its silly reasoning. They might be great players who take loads of time to serve, but they can hardly claim to be great Because of the time they take to serve. Thats inane. Professional tennis should not make arbitrary allowances for players compulsive behaviour irrespective of the quality of their play. Besides I ve found many of my friends, who are Rafa fans, complaining about Rafa’s slow serving time, so I don’t know what ur on about . The worst times are those when he misses the first serve, that really gets to me sometimes.


Kroll Says:

zola

Measuring the spin is an imaging problem and while impressive, I can believe it. But measuring the Swing(which is the motion caused by interaction of the spinning ball and air) is a complex aerodynamical problem which is something Hawkeye could not have possibly done esp in runtime like they do. My implication is that, seeing and predicting are rather two different things, the latter being a lot harder in such situations.


Giner Says:

“About Hawk-eye, I think I read somewhere that there is a 3% error margin on that and there has been times that it has been wrong. Actually Rafa suggested to put Hawk eye on clay and then they would be able to estimate the errors. I think the sunlight etc. makes a difference as well.”

There are certain times of the day when Hawkeye must be disabled because it won’t work.

It touts accuracy to within 5 mm. I don’t know what that is in inches, or if you have a unit of measurement smaller than inches, but it is quite small, and not a standard of accuracy you would expect a line judge to have.

Whatever case you make for it being inaccurate, or not 100% accurate, it is clearly more accurate than the human eye. Some of the calls line judges made are shown to be way off.


Shital Green Says:

Let me paraphrase what you guys have been saying and add something to it. Djokovic used to bounce balls forever (one time 24 times or something like that). People used to count the bounce and show their displeasure about it, and he has reduced them to 6-8 now. We don’t hear it any more. Recently, Rafa is the only player among the top 10 that gets time violation (TV) a couple of times in every tournament. At Toronto, except one or two matches, he got violation on every match. He disputed about one at the semi. Not a big deal.

Federer expressed his discontent facially about Nadal’s TV on court during Wimbledon final, and vented it out in the French interview afterwards (if you understand French, check it out on Youtube).
I think Nadal is working on time violation. He is taking a bit more time to work on time. He is improving on all areas, and some areas may take more time, but I am sure he will get there.

For my viewing, I don’t mind whether it is Roddick or Rafa if they have doubt about a call and decide to question the umpire briefly. Something like what Safin did today about a foot fault call could be disturbing to some. While watching, I just hoped he stopped sooner.

If a player’s complaint is within limit and does not halt the match for more than reasonable time, it could also make the match entertaining.

You express your liking or disliking instantly during the match (expressionism at the popular level), and you forget about it. It is not something you want to remember and bring it to the forum to replay it, except you have some scores to settle at the personal level. This is not a worthy topic for discussion at all, unless we want to degenerate into some kind of meaningless chatter (or “Victorian gossiping”?).


jane Says:

I don’t disagree with the 25 second rule; however, I am curious about how “they” decided on that magic number.

By contrast, some players – like Agassi, maybe Roddick too – play fast; they’re ready to smash the next serve before the opposition is ready to return it.

Is there a minimum amount of time between points? Or only a maximum?

Also, isn’t there another rule that the game is to be played “at the server’s pace?” I guess so long as the server doesn’t take more than 25 seconds.

I’m confusing the matter more I guess – apologies – am procrastinating again!


JCF Says:

Sean Randall Says:

“Von, stop it. Roddick does play stupid. Get over it…”

What I have seen him do before is try something that didn’t work, but instead of abandoning it, he kept trying it until he gets it right. He’s one of those guys that won’t admit defeat.

There was a match he played against Hewitt in Houston TMC, and he kept coming into the net (he was in the process of improving his volleys, and thus using it more often), except his volleys were poor. He kept at it, and kept failing, and in the end lost the last 20-25 points in a row. The commentator called him ‘pigheaded’. Some players are like that with respect to drop shots. They miss one, and keep trying it until they get one in.

He should have abandoned it when he first noticed it wasn’t working. Practice your shots on the practice court, and bring it into a real match when you’re confident with it. I’m not sure if his volleys have improved since then, but he wasn’t a natural. I’ve seen a number of bad tactical games he’s played against Hewitt actually. It makes me cringe, because I hate Hewitt. He did the same thing in AO. Hewitt got in his face as he normally does when he’s winning (the more he is winning by, the louder and more frequent the ‘come on!’… it is so disrespectful), and matches that Roddick should have won against him, he ends up losing.


Von Says:

n Randall:

“Von, stop it. Roddick does play stupid. Get over it…”

Is this a justification for your “Roddick Stink up Wimbledon” comment. Why don’t you tell those hwo are obsessing and Roddick to stop it?


Von Says:

Kroll:

“I have some famous cricketers in my family”

Ur kidding! I thought you were American, girl!”

Born British. Moved to the US at age 19. Henc, the British heritage = cricketers.


zola Says:

Kroll,
I think they measure the spin genrated by several players’ shots and took the average .don’t think they have measured the swing.

Giner,
I think that’s the argument for hawkeye. That while it has an error margin, it is still better than the human eye. But on some occasions the shadow interferes with the measurement and there can be some really bad calls.

Jane
I agree. I want to know when and how they decided on 25 seconds and is there a minimum time. Maybe that needs to be changed as well.
that would be interesting to know. Again I think it was Agassi who said that some players like Federer serve too soon and take time away from the other player. I don’t think there is a lower limit limit though.


Sean Randall Says:

Von, negative. Just reminding you that you don’t need to be on the defense at all times. Why not let others defend your favs or simply let it go?


JCF Says:

“For my viewing, I don’t mind whether it is Roddick or Rafa if they have doubt about a call and decide to question the umpire briefly. Something like what Safin did today about a foot fault call could be disturbing to some. While watching, I just hoped he stopped sooner.”

Ah yes, he does that. So does Hewitt. Hewitt foot faults a lot, sometimes 10 times in a match, and gets riled up every time he’s called for a foot fault. All these guys have to do is stand back a few inches and there won’t be any foot faults.


Von Says:

Sean Randall:

No problem, they can criticize Roddick ad nauseam. I hope you’ll be fair both ways to tell them to stop when they’re obsessing over Roddick’s perceived behavior.


Kroll Says:

zola

“….don’t think they have measured the swing.”

That was my point. In cricket, they actually predict the the motion of a swinging ball, and hence my doubts about them in general.


zola Says:

Shital
***You express your liking or disliking instantly during the match (expressionism at the popular level), and you forget about it. It is not something you want to remember and bring it to the forum to replay it, except you have some scores to settle at the personal level. ****

right on!

Kroll,
wikipedia on hawkeye with some history on its use in tennis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk-Eye

it says it was tested by USTA and ITF, but doesn’t say how!

******
Fed and Roddick are on tomorrow in Cincy. Should be interesting!
And Marat goes out to Tursunov? OMG! Marat! Marat!

Is anybody doing the ATP bracket challenge for Cincy?


Fedex Says:

http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Hawk-Eye%20Line%20call%20explained_Final.pdf

That is the analysis on the Hawk-eye website. Hawkeye’s accuracy is within 3.6mm and the call was 1mm IN. Nevertheless it is a useful tool and like all machines, the lower limit of its intelligence will depend on the intelligence of the person/people using it.

Von:

Roddick is the smartest guy since Moses to hold a racket. Oh wait! Moses never played tennis. Roddick is the smartest guy to hold a racket. Hope that helps you sleep peacefully tonight. Take a chill pill, if you cant!


Shital Green Says:

Jane,
It is and is not 25 seconds. ITF and/or ATP run tournaments like Grand Slams, Masters Series, International Series observe 20 seconds.
(1)The organizers of international circuits and team events recognized by the ITF may determine the time allowed between points, which shall not at any time exceed 20 seconds from the moment the ball goes out of play at the end of one point to the time the ball is struck for the next point.

(2) When practical, in USTA sanctioned tournaments using a certified official in direct observation of the match, the time which shall elapse from the moment the ball goes out of play at the end of the point to the time the ball is struck shall not exceed 25 seconds.
a. Play shall never be suspended, delayed or interfered with for the purpose of enabling a player to recover his strength, breath, or physical condition [injury time out is a different case].
b. first time, the violator is given warning
c. second time, the violator will lose a point

(2) Also, an umpire can make a “let in service” call if a player serves before the opponent is ready, so there is a rule in place to check a hasty serve.
a. If no intention is detected, there is no penalty for serving before the opponent is ready, though the umpire can warn him.

(3) The Receiver shall play to the reasonable pace of the Server. The Receiver may be given a “Time” Violation for unduly delaying the Server or a Code Violation if the Chair Umpire deems “gamesmanship”
as the reason for the delay.


zola Says:

Shital
ATP rule book 2008 says it is a maximum of t5 seconds, not 20seconds.
***********
M. Continuous Play/Delay of Game
Play shall be continuous, except that a maximum of twenty-five (25) seconds may elapse
from the moment the ball goes out of play at the end of one point to the time the ball is
stuck for the next point. When a changeover ends, ninety (90) seconds may elapse. The
procedures for enforcing this rule are as follows:
1) 25 Seconds/Continuous Play
a) Start StopWatch. The Chair Umpire must start the stopwatch after the ball goes
out of play or when the players are ordered to play.
b) Time Violation or Code Violation. A Time or Code Violation must be assessed if
the ball is not struck for the next pointwithin the twenty-five (25) seconds allowed,
except if the Chair Umpire extends the time for special circumstances defined by
the ATP. There is no time warning prior to the expiration of the twenty-five (25) seconds.
c) A playermay not receive back-to-back Time Violations because consecutive delays
shall be penalized by a delay of game Code Violation, unless there has been a noncontinuous
game changeover.

**********
http://www.atptennis.com/en/common/TrackIt.asp?file=/en/players/ATP_Rulebook.pdf


jane Says:

Hey Shital Green-

Thanks for those rule statements; they do clarify the questions I had about both ends of the serving (and hence receiving) spectrums.

It also clarifies that a lot of the onus falls onto the umpire, thus the earlier suggestion, I believe of Sean, of having a clock mounted somewhere so there is a reminder for the players.

I like the adjective “reasonable” to describe the pace of the server – we all know how easy it is to judge what is “reasonable” hey? It must get a little muddy for the umpires at times. Mostly, they have a pretty good seat, even if sometimes a little hot.


Shital Green Says:

Zola,
You are right about ATP. I was just going to make correction. The one I posted was from ITF, Rule 29, which applies to Grand Slams (not sure about TMC, which is jointly run by ITF and ATP). I was looking for ATP Rule Book. It took me more time than you did.
Thanks.


zola Says:

Shital,
no problem! now I know that it is 20 sec for GS and 25 for MS! thanks to you too.


Von Says:

Both Wawrinka and Ancic have pulled out of Cincy. Wawrinka has a bruised right tibia and Ancic cited illness as his reason for pulling out.


Rsutherland Says:

Von: Oh my God what a bad sport you are regarding Nadal. His displays are so minor compared to so much of what I see on the court from other players including, and most recently, Murray. I like Andy Roddick too but he breaks rackets. You compare Nadal’s fist pumping negatively to that?
In terms of time violations; that is what umpires are for. Perhaps you would like to apply for that job since apparently you feel more qualified.
No. Your problem is that Nadal is winning – on every surface and at such a young age – and alas, you just cannot stand it…nor do anything about it except whine. How sad for you.


Rsutherland Says:

Oh, and incidentally Von, haven’t you noticed how well received you and your tirades are on here? Considering your self-aggrandized ablilty to analyze so comprehensively, you may consider a little self examination while you’re at it. On the other hand, if you are aware but simply do not care, I recommend for you a very large shovel.


Ezorra Says:

Fedex says:

“I would rather have players take more time and play a smart game like nadal and djokovic do (on most of the occasion) than rush through the points and play a stupid game like roddick does.”

Up until “…play a stupid game….”, i thought your comment is absolutely brilliant!

Since i am nadal’s fan and nadal himself never turn down other players to make him look better, i’ll do the same stuff!


gm Says:

I Can imagine why it bothers you so much, how long it takes rafa to serve.

It wouldn’t make a big difference in his game, since he’s still improving it. Although, he has made a lot of progress, he has a long way to go.

When he won roland garros, people said he was a one surface man. When he won wimbledon, people said he counldn’t win a hard surface tournament. Now that he has won Toronto, peolple focus on the only thing left THE TIME HE TAKES BETWEEN POINTS.
Some people should just face the truth….Right now, he’s the best player


Kroll Says:

gm

read inline,

“”When he won roland garros, people said he was a one surface man.”"

Well after winning the first RG, he was rubbish in all other majors so why on earth would people claim otherwise?

“”When he won wimbledon, people said he counldn’t win a hard surface tournament.”"

When he got to the first wimby final, people were already making Borg comparisons so its not like he had to wait for a win to earn praise. And he has been decent on hard courts till now so there is no reason to proclaim him as the king of hardcourts yet is there?

“”Now that he has won Toronto,…”"

He won Toronto in 2005 so its hardly a NOW thing is it?

“”…peolple focus on the only thing left THE TIME HE TAKES BETWEEN POINTS.”"

Actually “peolple” (Spell much?) have been talking about this for a long time so its nothing new is it?

You would perhaps have preferred that everyone announced him as the GOAT the moment he won the first RG? How lame is your comment really? And lost on facts. For a fanboy, you my dear, are an embarrassment.


Kroll Says:

Ezorra

“”Since i am nadal’s fan and nadal himself never turn down other players to make him look better, i’ll do the same stuff!”"

How wonderfully noble!
But seeing as Nadal is an international sports star, which naturally demands higher standards of behaviour, and you are a nobody, we can safely ignore your high horse status.


Seeing Says:

Von, the amount of time you’ve spent to post anti-nadal drivel and pro-Roddick propaganda is an astonishing witness to the time you’ve spent on your own agenda. No matter what a nobody posting here says, Nadal is red-hot this year and is fantastic for tennis. Nitpicking such a small aspect of his game that he is trying to improve isn’t going to put Andy in any better stead.


Fedex Says:

“He won Toronto in 2005 so its hardly a NOW thing is it?”

If you are going to be so pedantic, then Nadal won MONTREAL in 2005 and not Toronto. Hope you realize they are two different cities?

Ezorra:

Being good and polite is scorned at, in these parts of the World Wide Web, so jump in and join in the mud-slinging.


Fedex Says:

“Nadal is red-hot this year and is fantastic for tennis. Nitpicking such a small aspect of his game that he is trying to improve isn’t going to put Andy in any better stead.”

Well said! Von’s response to ” Andy Roddick is commiting a mistake X is to say Rafael Nadal has committed mistake Y” Then she goes around banging her head against the keyboard why people criticise Roddick!

How can anyone equate a perpetual offender (Roddick) to one who crosses the line once in a year or a decade. The chair umpire in the Nadal-Murray match had absolutely no sense of how to handle a potentially problematic situation. He made Murray wait for the trainer till the tie-break is over. He could have let Nadal know during one of the changeovers that he will be given a violation if he exceeds the 25seconds. Why did he choose the break-point to make his call?

Ofcourse you have to follow the rules. One needs to know it is the spirit of the rule that is more important than implementing the rule coldly like a machine!


Kroll Says:

Fedex

“If you are going to be so pedantic, then Nadal won MONTREAL in 2005 and not Toronto. ”

I Was being pedantic (or trying to be) so that puts me in a fair, and well deserved, spot I figure. But doesn’t detract from the point I was making, right?

“Hope you realize they are two different cities?”

You don’t say!

“….mud-slinging.”

You overstate. A few specks of dust at the very worst, I would have thought.


Roddick, Federer, Djokovic Out for Form in Cincy; Nadal out for No. 1 Says:

[...]  Breaking Down the No. 1 Ranking Between Federer, Nadal [...]


Rsutherland Says:

Drat it all Von… Because of your unfortunate anti-Nadal comments, I just can’t seem to give you a break. But shucks, why should I?
Here are three sentences you wrote to Zola on your post of July 28th 9:40:
1)”I tell you what, if we were to be seen side by side visually in a debate, I’ll win hands down.”
2)”FYI, tantrums are actions similar to hysterics which cannot be seen from the written word.”
3)”Anyone reading these comments with a fair mind, would see who’s having the tantrums.”
Now concentrate really hard here. Can you not see how blatantly you contradict yourself from sentence 2) to sentence 3), hence casting perhaps a tad of doubt to your claim in sentence 1)?
I put my money on Zola.


zola Says:

It was certainly a heated discussion last night, but it is over now. Let’s move on and discuss tennis.

I just read this:

Federer, Borg to team up against McEnroe and – Nadal?

http://tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=140786

Apparently there will be an exhibition in November between Fed-Borg and JMac and a partner, who might be Rafa!
I think that will be just a great exhibition. Last year USTA showed Fed-Sampras on thgeir web site . I hope they do the same with this one too!

Also, is anyone doing the ATP bracket for Cincy?


Sean Randall Says:

FedEx, Matt or anyone else, perhaps you can enlighten me.

I’ve seen it/heard it that if Federer loses before the semifinals and Rafa wins the title, Rafa will be No. 1. But per my numbers that’s not correct. If Fed reaches the quarterfinals (not he SF) he’ll hang onto No. 1.

Again: If Fed reaches the quarterfinals and Rafa wins, my numbers are as follows:
Federer 6730 (6605 + 125 QF – 0 Dubai)
Nadal 6730 (6605 + 500 – 75 Dubai)

This results in a tie for No. 1 and the tie would go to Federer based on total Slam, Masters Cup and Masters Series points.

So again, by my numbers that means Federer keeps No. 1 by reaching the quarterfinals. But others have it another way so someone, somewhere is wrong, I think???


Shital Green Says:

Sean,
I did not respond to you earlier when you asked me about the Ranking that will come out on Aug. 4th. Your math is correct as far as what will show up on ATP Ranking board on that day is concerned. Your math is official /technical, and you are right up until August 17th.
After that suddenly, as you know your present math will not hold. On August 18, when everything comes back to normality (when 1 MS is counted only once, not twice and International Series points are restored), you will look back and say Rafa actually did not have to reach beyond semi at Cincy to ascend to No. 1. Then, Rafa will have 6325 and Fed 6255, even if the latter wins the title.
The pragmatic math I was talking about will eventually reconcile with official/ technical math on Aug. 18, so nobody is missing anything, and both sides are right.


Fedex Says:

Sean,

Off the top of my head – the difference could be that when you break the tie, what counts as Masters Series points?

Do they include the usual 9 + 2 (Canada and cincy repeat!)

If they do so and fed reaches quarters in cincy and nadal wins:

Nadal has 6085 points?
Federer has 6070 points, I think.

So the tie gives Nadal the no.1 :)


Sean Randall Says:

Thanks Shital.

FedEx, yup. That’s the difference. My math above is wrong with respect to a possible tie. It would be Nadal 6085 and Federer 6080 so Nadal takes over by a scant 5 points!


Fedex Says:

Looks like my back of the envelope math let me down

Here are the corrected numbers (hope i have not bungled this up too!)

Anyway 1st the 4GS in chronological order, then Masters cup, then TMS in chronological order and then last years, canada and cincy points!

Nadal’s GS+MC+11MS (assuming he wins Cincy) will look like

450+1000+1000+150+200+225+350+500+5+500+500+500+125+225+5

= 6080

Federer’s numbers will be:

450+700+700+1000+750+225+125+350+125+350+5+125+350+75+500+350

= 6180


Fedex Says:

oops! the numbers have confounded us!


Fedex Says:

If you want to verify my math, the best possible way is to make sure I have the points correct for each of the events and just cut and paste the whole summation/series in google! (placing an equal to sign at the end is optional!)

Google will do the math for you! Just another cool thing google can do for us!


Fedex Says:

Final nadal numbers

450+1000+1000+150+200+225+350+500+5+500+500+500+125+350+225+5

= 6085! (Sean got it right!)


Sean Randall Says:

Okay, once and for all!

Federer:
650 Tennis Masters Cup W
1000 US Open W
700 Wimbledon F
700 Roland Garros F
450 Australian Open S
500 ATP Masters Series Cincinnati W
350 ATP Masters Series Hamburg F
350 ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo F
350 ATP Masters Series Madrid F
350 ATP Masters Series Canada F
225 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells S
125 ATP Masters Series Rome Q
125 ATP Masters Series Miami Q
75 ATP Masters Series Paris R16
5 ATP Masters Series Canada R32
125 Cincinnati QF
6080

Nadal
200 Tennis Masters Cup S
1000 Wimbledon W
1000 Roland Garros W
450 Australian Open S
150 US Open R16
500 ATP Masters Series Canada W
500 ATP Masters Series Hamburg W
500 ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo W
350 ATP Masters Series Miami F
350 ATP Masters Series Paris F
225 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells S
225 ATP Masters Series Canada S
125 ATP Masters Series Madrid Q
5 ATP Masters Series Rome R32
5 ATP Masters Series Cincinnati R32
500 Cincinnati W
6085

So…6085 > 6080. Tiebreak goes to Rafa if he wins and Roger reaches the quarterfinal.


Sean Randall Says:

FedEx, well I got it wrong initially thinking if in the event of a tie it would go to Roger 5955 to 5585, but that was w/o the Cincy points it appears.


Fedex Says:

Final Federer numbers

450+700+700+1000+650+225+125+350+125+350+5+125+350+75+500+350

= 6080!

So nadal wins the tie by 5 points.


Fedex Says:

That’s the reason you have the blog, Sean! Summarized it quite good!

I still think my numbers and math could be verified in the easiest possible way, though (thanks to google!) :D


Fedex Says:

How pissed will Roger be if Roddick beats him in the QF and then Nadal wins Cincy to claim the no.1 ranking in a TIE!

The press will have a field day with Roger’s opinion on the tie-breaking system that the ATP uses :)


zola Says:

Sean, fedex, thanks a lot for the numbers.Great job!

I thought they would count the number of GS’s and MS titles, then Fed would definitely win the tie.

Fedex
Google does calculations too?
OMG! it’s becoming the Walmart of the internet!


Sean Randall Says:

Yup FedEx, I’m rooting for that very scenario! Though I doubt it happens.


Fedex Says:

Zola:

Sean did the coherent part, I merely kept throwing up all sorts of numbers till they matched Sean’s!

Is that a insult/compliment to google? :lol:


Fedex Says:

A tie would be cool!


zola Says:

Fedex!
are you the owner of google?

well, it is a magnificent tool, but the way it has started to take over everything is scary! Yeah, maybe walmart is not a good example! GE?


zola Says:

Fedex, Sean,
I am for a tie too! that would be wonderful but very tough chance.

I think we have to see how they play. The winner might as well be Murray or GAsquet!

Actually if Rafa doesn’t win Cincy, I wouldn’t mind if Murray wins it!


tiberiu Says:

Time violation is an arbitrary decision.
Not only the umpire must have a watch, but there must be a special watch for the player and for the audience (like in basketball).


Von Says:

Shital Green:

I’m somewhat confused concerning the following posts, and I hope you can alleviate some of my confusion:

“Shital Green Says:

Zola,

My post is well calculated in the choice of words. If you don’t know English, “inadvertently” means “without intending,” which frees Rafa from any responsibility, and it moves in the direction of putting the “intention” on perception of readers, including Federer, and that sentence is interrogative, not affirmative, and starts with “Or,” meaning alternative. The second sentence starts with “Could,” suggesting uncertainty (with less force than “can”) and ends with a question mark. And the clause after “as” has nothing to do with Rafa because it is in passive form, meaning questions by media/people are self evident (who is questioning Fed’s No. 1 position is less relevant than the act). Nowhere in the post I indicate that this is my position or this is what I think. I simply “wonder.” This section ends with, “What yo’ll think?” That question seeks response from others. Asking what other people think is not “grilling.”

Compare your quoted paragraph with the one before that, which starts with, “Even when most of the world has already accepted Nadal as the No. 1 by this time, Nadal will wait…” Every sentence in that paragraph starts with more certainty. First sentence is an affirmative sentence, with unequivocal acknowledgment of Rafa’s achievement.I have only praised Rafa there. Then, each question begins with “Is,” followed by “will,” not “Could.” I hope you know the difference.

Had he said, “I feel what I should feel” “I feel I am getting there,” I would have no comment. I have no problem with what he said about feeling No. 2, either. I was only wondering the effect of that statement on Federer, not on what Rafa intended.

You said, “He talks with his racquet and deosn’t like to brag.” Let’s say you are Rafa’s spokesperson, as you evidently act like one, and you are speaking to the media, then that speaking through racket would still sound like bragging, despite your intention being otherwise. If Rafa said the same, it would be, “I speak through my racket. I don’t brag.” This would be bragging, too. Do I have problem with that? No, I would say Rafa has changed.

What’s your response to sounding blatantly “irritating” to Roddick and Djokovic fans? Are you being nice by calling other players “irritating”?

Posted July 26th, 2008 at 7:13 pm

______________
Last evening you posted the following:

“Shital Green Says:

Let me paraphrase what you guys have been saying and add something to it. Djokovic used to bounce balls forever (one time 24 times or something like that). People used to count the bounce and show their displeasure about it, and he has reduced them to 6-8 now. We don’t hear it any more. Recently, Rafa is the only player among the top 10 that gets time violation (TV) a couple of times in every tournament. At Toronto, except one or two matches, he got violation on every match. He disputed about one at the semi. Not a big deal.

Federer expressed his discontent facially about Nadal’s TV on court during Wimbledon final, and vented it out in the French interview afterwards (if you understand French, check it out on Youtube).
I think Nadal is working on time violation. He is taking a bit more time to work on time. He is improving on all areas, and some areas may take more time, but I am sure he will get there.

For my viewing, I don’t mind whether it is Roddick or Rafa if they have doubt about a call and decide to question the umpire briefly. Something like what Safin did today about a foot fault call could be disturbing to some. While watching, I just hoped he stopped sooner.

If a player’s complaint is within limit and does not halt the match for more than reasonable time, it could also make the match entertaining.

You express your liking or disliking instantly during the match (expressionism at the popular level), and you forget about it. It is not something you want to remember and bring it to the forum to replay it, except you have some scores to settle at the personal level. This is not a worthy topic for discussion at all, unless we want to degenerate into some kind of meaningless chatter (or “Victorian gossiping”?).

Posted July 28th, 2008 at 11:14 pm

zola responded as follows:

“Shital
***You express your liking or disliking instantly during the match (expressionism at the popular level), and you forget about it. It is not something you want to remember and bring it to the forum to replay it, except you have some scores to settle at the personal level. ****

right on!”
_____________

This is where my confusion lies. Am I to take it since Zola agreed with your post and it appears that you two have mended the fence, so to speak, that the above quoted portion of your post of 7/28/08, at 11.14 pm, by Zola, was meant for me? Please explain. Thanks.


Von Says:

Rsutherland

“Von: Oh my God what a bad sport you are regarding Nadal. His displays are so minor compared to so much of what I see on the court from other players including, and most recently…”

You stated on a previous thread that you post on otherr forums and you recently had to rebutt some unfavorable comments made toward Federer. Now, you’re here, rebutting mine without the full knowledge of the history behind my comments. I’d like to ask a question, Is this your modus operandi, moving from forum to forum doing rebuttals to posts you don’t like?

For the sake of your enlightenment, and you have a choice to believe me, or form your own opinion, I don’t ever recall having posted anything negative concerning Nadal previously. This was the first time I’ve spoken up, and the reason is very simple, I feel that too much criticism is shovelled toward other players by SOME of Nadal’s fans, and because no one rebutts it, the offenders feel he’s above reproach, hence my comments regarding the time violation. He’s not perfect, and those of his fans who incessantly criticize other players should be aware of this.

You further stated in another post:

“Drat it all Von… Because of your unfortunate anti-Nadal comments, I just can’t seem to give you a break. But shucks, why should I?”

I don’t need a break or want one. My above-mentioned comments explains my position. However you choose to digest that information is up to you.


zola Says:

Von,

All this because I wrote that Roddick’s outbursts on the court are getting tiring. That was it. Nothing more and nothing less and you have converted this to world war III!
here’s the link to my comment:

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2008-07-23/550.php#comment-41895

All those long, angry, hateful posts about Nadal, other posters, me,…all because of this comment!

You have too much time on your hand!


Von Says:

Zola:

The sole reason I’m answering you is due to that link where you are trying to establish that’s the ONLY time you have said anything. I love how you summarize and trivialize your incessant comments to just that one post; would you like the links to the other posts you’ve posted? How many times in the past have you done the same thing? If it were that one post it would not have irked me, It’s several, and when you get on a roll, it’s non-stop. Don’t start with the too much time stuff — I only post on this forum, while you post on several others. Who has more time?

Anyway, you have a ton of support, Nadal fans, behind you. Unfortunately, due to the theme of the posts on this site the majority of Roddick fans have moved on to other forums. Hence, I’m in a minority. Post how much and whatever you want on any player, I won’t dignify it with an answer. Hopefully, the criticism will lose it’s flavor, and then again, maybe not.


zola Says:

Von,
pls feel free to provide as many links as you want.

What are you suggesting? That no one can say anything about Roddick or this is the scene you will make?

people can give their opinion. You don’t like time violations, pant picking, head shaking, Vamoses, whatever, … by Nadal, state it by all means. Read the posts here and you will see it is possible to disagree without being angry!

But you use harsh, hateful words just to get back at people and make it impossible to discuss anything.


Giner Says:

*************************
NachoF Says:

“NachoF, what do you think of the Williams sisters?”

haha, thats a tough one…I know their style of play would fit what I have said I enjoyed watching… but part of my preference is that a player project elegance in tennis, cause its supposed to be an elegant sport in my opinion, and thats why Federer’s style of play, added to him being very quiet and respectful (most of the times), trying to dress classy, etc. is why I always admired his tennis…. the Williams sisters might have the kind of play I enjoy watching, but all the yelling and moaning and crying along with the fashion madness that goes on the WTA has lead me to not follow it much anymore
*************************

I don’t understand this… What do you find so enjoyable about the Williams sisters? You say you prefer style, elegance and grace, but Serena and Venus whack the ball with the same kind of elegance as King Kong swatting planes atop the Empire State bldg. They are effective, but their movement and shots look very clumsy. They are unorthodox, like Rafa, but I can’t understand how you can dislike one but like the other.


Daniel Says:

I think somebody is missing grendel!


Giner Says:

***********************
Kroll,

“”When he won roland garros, people said he was a one surface man.””

Well after winning the first RG, he was rubbish in all other majors so why on earth would people claim otherwise?
***********************

Kroll, just wondering… when Federer won his first Wimbledon in 2003, did you think he was rubbish on all other surfaces? He had not gotten past the 4th rd at AO or USO, and had no hard court AMS titles.


Von Says:

Zola:

“But you use harsh, hateful words just to get back at people and make it impossible to discuss anything.”

I think you have it the other way around. The following is what Shital Green stated to you about you.

“Shital Green Says:
Zola,
Ref: “you would have grilled Nadal further had he said that “yes, I feel like No 1.″

First off, I like Rafa. When and where have I “grilled” Rafa, now or in the past? Why would I “grill” him? Do I have to take your permission before I speculate about an event and its possible effects? Did I say anything definitively bad about Rafa above?

I have not seen Nadal talking down to others like you do either about other players and/or their fans. Has Nadal ever said Djoko and Roddick are irritating like you have and still do? If you think you are his fan, following his example of the way he speaks about others would be true homage to him. Otherwise, I would just have to say you oppose Rafa’s example of respect for others. One does not have to be insensitive and reactionary to be a fan.”

Posted July 26th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Don’t even go to the harsh/hateful stuff — you’ve got carte blanche on that and earned a degree. Anyway, enough said and I’m done with this.


Giner Says:

Sean,

“Again: If Fed reaches the quarterfinals and Rafa wins, my numbers are as follows:
Federer 6730 (6605 + 125 QF – 0 Dubai)
Nadal 6730 (6605 + 500 – 75 Dubai)

This results in a tie for No. 1 and the tie would go to Federer based on total Slam, Masters Cup and Masters Series points.”

Did you adjust the MS points AFTER Rafa’s Cincy win and Roger’s QF loss? There would be 2 Cincy’s to count.


Giner Says:

^^^

Nvm to above post. You guys already sorted it out. Looks like the ATP knows their maths after all.


Shital Green Says:

Von,

You have been highly appreciative of Rafa, at times more than I have been. As far as I know, you have not commented negatively on Rafa at all until the argument began with Zola. You were rightly opposing Zola’s insensitive criticism of Roddick, and she cleverly turned it into Rafa vs. Roddick and rallied Rafa’s fans against you as if you were Rafa hater (something like a Rovian trick in American politics). I recalled she did the same with Djoko in the past, so I wanted to be careful this time.
I jumped her when she curtly/disrespectfully replied to my post(s) in a manner Rafa belonged to her exclusively. I just avoided that trap that you just fell for (you fell for the provocation to go against Rafa, while you were fighting with Zola’s remarks). I went after her because I had an issue with her insensitivity and blunt reply, not with Rafa. And I inserted in that issue her respecting other players’ fans.

Looks like she has realized it is not right thing to do, though she did not admit it verbally. Her silence and resumption after a short interval were signs that, if I understood right, she did. I hope she did (future will reveal the truth), but if she did not, then I would have to understand she used Machiavellian strategy: Her “right on” comment could be a move to provoke or alienate you (she might have picked up part of my comment to twist your mind to read it as an indirect jab at you so that you will go against me and feel lonely around here). I could be wrong, though.

And I am not concerned about breaking and mending any fence with Zola, though it is preferable to mend than break. As long as she speaks with some civility, that is good enough for me.

None of my quoted posts was meant for you. You were not implicated anywhere in my post, not even remotely. All of those quoted posts were addressed to Zola (except the last one), in case you overlooked. All I can say to you as a friend is make a carefully crafted move when you have to (read para 1 again). Let’s just move on for now.


Giner Says:

By the way… Fed almost got ousted by Ginepri in his opener.

I don’t think Nadal will make up 300 points over Federer in this tournament, so the ATP’s special tiebreak maths isn’t going to come into play. But none of this special maths will make a difference in a week’s time anyway.

The Olympics will be Roger’s last chance to hold onto his #1 seeding at Flushing.


Giner Says:

So much drama on these forums… Von, Zola, Shital, Fedex et al. You should all audition for a season of Big Brother! :D


Von Says:

shital:

Thank you so very much. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your comments — I”m all choked up that you are so truthful and sensitive. Feeling lonely is not the word; I feel alienated. I had a strong feeling that portion of your post was meant for her, but she seized upon it to use it in her favor — she’s very crafty. Her usurpation of that particular situation speaks volumes.

I’m grateful that you have such a good memory and you can attest to the truth that I do not state anything negatively about Nadal. I give him a lot of praise, somewhat more than he deserves. However, this one time was just to prove a point that no one player is perfect and they all have flaws, and we should be cognizant of that when we begin to ridicule other players.

You are correct, Zola has craftily turned this situation around, taking the focus of her crude remarks against Roddick/Djoko, from herself and projecting them onto me using Nadal as the victim.

As regards her realization of what’s the right thing to do, I doubt it. Yesterday again, she couldn’t resist the urge to state Roddick needs anger managemmnt, so as you can see, she hasn’t learnt anything nor will there be a change in her thinking. A leopard does not or cannot change its spots.

What I find particularly sad is her inability to realize that we can appreciate our fave player without the need to destroy another. I don’t understand this obsessive need of hers to consistently engage in this type of destructive criticism. What’s even more sad is her mind set wherein she believes Nadal is her PROPERTY and his ONLY fan. There’s a psychologicl flaw here and one which I will not discuss, but believe it exists and is very unhealthy.

Shital, once again, thanks ever so much for being a TRUE friend. speaking the truth and offering consolation at a time when I felt lonely/ alienated for most of yesterday and today.


Fedex Says:

Giner -

DONOT MAKE FUN OF KINGKONG! EVER!

I tell you, the dram is more fun from the inside. Jump on to the stage and turn your darkside on!


Fedex Says:

Dear Von,

How about you psychoanalyze yourself before you offer your pathetic services to sane people?

Please restrict this bovine manure to personal mails between yourself and Shital. (Incase you are actually 2 different people!)

Many Thanks,
Fedex and other psychoanalysis-intolerant members of tennis-x!


Fedex Says:

Dear Shital:

Please read my letter to Von and do the necessary to keep up the drama on tennis-x!

Many thanks,
Fedex and other drama-thirsty memebers of tennis-x.

P.S: Giner says he/she can bring King Kong in for more dramatic effects.

P.P.S : Convey my regards to Jane. Please send her an invite to the drama unfolding on tennis-x. Her contribution to the sisterhood at tennis-x is much appreciated.

Godbless and Godspeed!


zola Says:

Von, Shital,
have a great time….
doing whatever you are doing!


Shital Green Says:

Fedex,

I had asked you before not to mention my name in your post because I found you early on “bovine manure” head. This is one final response to prove your mental deficiency because you just trespassed into the conversation that you were uninvited. Just to remind you, we have something called personal space within the public space in America.

Refer: “How about you psychoanalyze yourself before you offer your pathetic services to sane people?”

Please bear with me. This could be too much to digest for a “bovine manure” head.
Let me start with two questions: Do you know what “psychoanalysis” is in the first place? Assuming you don’t, how can you be “intolerant” to something you don’t know unless you are “[in]sane”?
You don’t have to read all of Freud’s and Lacan’s works to know what psychoanalysis is in the context you butted into. Just read “Dora: A Case of Hysteria.” From the use of your term “bovine manure,” I can guess that you have been either repeatedly told at school and home that your mind is reflective of manure, so now you are directing it to others as a cover for your childhood experience. Or, there has to be childhood trauma, bad experience, related with manure. It is possible that you played more than once with human excrement after birth (you were scatological in the womb), and you have been suppressing that experience for a long time. Now, in your synecdochal use, you translated that experience of human excrement into “bovine manure” for an intolerant use, but at the same time you have unconscious urge toward human excrement in the “displacement.” You were a psychoanalyst yourself for healing your trauma, but since there is still this unconscious urge for human excrement combined with your physical symptom of constipation supporting your mental condition, you are not fully recovered yet, and you know this. So when you call other people’s conversation “bovine manure,” you are seeking a shelter in them so that you can perform “counter-transference,” play psychoanalyst by denying it and at the same time looking for a patient (your accusation above, “psychoanalyze yourself,” is an expression of that desire to cure others because you see them as ill). To authenticate what I am saying, see the landmark work on this topic: “The Language of Psycho-Analysis” by Jean Laplanche, JB Pontalis.

You said something bad about me. I responded to you. We are even now. I will not read and respond to your posts, ever in the future. I’d appreciate if you do the same.


JCF Says:

Fedex, I told Giner you were some blind Federer fanatic (it might have been the name you’ve chosen, and I know I’ve had a disagreeable exchange or two with you, sorry!), but I must say I’ve misjudged you. You’ve turned out to be quite an interesting person. Not only are you not blind in your support of Fed, you seem to look at other players fairly and without bias also. My apologies. I didn’t know you as well as I presumed to.

The King Kong analogy isn’t what I would have used. I would have said Serena looks like an elephant swatting a fly with its trunk, but I guess KK does work. I will agree that if NachoF dislikes Rafa for the reasons he states, it’s difficult to not dislike the Williams sisters for the same thing. Rafa does not play elegantly (I am a bigger Rafa fan than I am a Fed fan, but even I have to admit that Fed’s matches are more beautiful and enjoyable to watch), but the Williams sisters look a lot worse. When they bend down to return a low ball, it really does lack graceless.

But if it works for them, good on them. I just hope they work on their press room performances a bit.

I would like to make it clear again that I prefer watching Fed’s matches over Rafa’s any day of the week. He shows us magic that only he can produce and doesn’t seem to ever run out of ‘tricks’. When they play each other though, it’s a treat, which I hope happens this week, though doubtful.


JCF Says:

“I had asked you before not to mention my name in your post because I found you early on “bovine manure” head. This is one final response to prove your mental deficiency because you just trespassed into the conversation that you were uninvited. Just to remind you, we have something called personal space within the public space in America.”

Shital, this is a public forum. Anything you or anyone posts is fair game for anyone else. If you want a private conversation take it to email.


Ezorra Says:

Kroll says:

“How wonderfully noble!
But seeing as Nadal is an international sports star, which naturally demands higher standards of behaviour, and you are a nobody, we can safely ignore your high horse status.”

same to you! nobody wants to hear want you’re saying… another thing is, nobody has ever claimed that Nadal is GOAT or what not. even nadal’s fan like me never done that! are you trying to create new issue about nadal since there is nothing much to say about him other than his improvement on court.

and i still cannot understand why you see nadal as your enemy? i mean, the way you write about him is like he is your enemy. do you have any problem with him?

come on.. jane, shital and some other commentators here are other players’ fan, but they never turn nadal down like you did… be professional! this is tennis we are talking about, its not the end of the world!


Kroll Says:

Ezorra

I am actually sorry about my comment, I was having an all-nighter with too much work, was frustrated and picking at a bunch of fanboys on an anonymous forum seemed like the perfect way to let off steam. But maybe not. So sorry. Also the following comment is a funny one

“”and i still cannot understand why you see nadal as your enemy? i mean, the way you write about him is like he is your enemy. do you have any problem with him?”"

Bizarrely enough, Rafa is my favourite player, I was never actually criticizing him, merely criticizing comments for going overboard about his rise. If you understand the way his success has come about, its ridiculous to think that we should all have percieved his present status. It wasnt obvious, never really, but he worked for it and has done so superbly. That in my mind is a great quality. I was always hoping that he would be here but it was never really obvious(unless you are a fanboy when hope and expectation are really the same thing often). You see, nobody deserves respect, it needs to be earned, and he’s done that. Instead of merely appreciating that, we have comments about how we should have always known he was meant to be, which is inane.

And regarding your comment, I think his off court persona is a bore and I couldnt care less if he’s nice to others or whatever. I think its the respect he shows to opponents Oncourt that matters. Again thats not because he doesent abuse or break his racket or whatever. Its because I ve never ever seen him being complacent on court, irrespective of who his opponent is, and that is the greatest respect that a player can get in sport, IMO. Thats something you can hardly say about Federer is it? So there.


Von Says:

Fedex:

“Dear Von,

“How about you psychoanalyze yourself before you offer your pathetic services to sane people?”

If you have an inkling of psychology, you’ll know that it’s not possible to psychoanalyze onesself, and my opinions differ from yours as to those Whom you deem to be sane,

“Please restrict this bovine manure to personal mails between yourself and Shital. (Incase you are actually 2 different people!)”

I don’t think it is your prerogative to dictate to me what I should do or to whom I should direct my comments. I do not stipulate to you what you should do. As a matter of fact, I don’t care to whom you post. I have freedom of speech and freedom to do as I see fit, and it’s really none of your business. You are questioning whether Shital and I are two different people,is this because you have several personalities and/or identities? Only someone who has such a disorder would accuse others of such.

“Many Thanks,
Fedex and other psychoanalysis-intolerant members of tennis-x!”

I don’t know who are the psychoanalysis-intolerant members of Tennis.X, and I wasn’t aware of such a group. However, since there seems to be one, and you have been chosen to be the spokesperson for them, I would appreciate it if you would please reveal their identities because I would like to avod any contact whatsoever with them.

I am only assuming, but from a pattern that you have established, it appears you have several personalites and/or identities, thus, I feel it is logical to state, you are a very complex personality and one who derive immense pleasure from the persecution of others. It is difficult for me to understand that an adult (assuming you are one) would engage in such conduct unceasingly.

Could you, if it’s not too much of a problem please enlighten me as to what crime I have committed against you? I can’t think of any, but I would sincerely like to know what’s the basis for the hostility and intense hatred you have towards me.

Finally, you ended one of your posts “Godbless and Godspeed!” I am puzzled, that someone who knows of God and uses His name as freely as you do, would behave the opposite of what God represents in our lives. It tells me that you know right from wrong but is very distorted in your thinking. I’ll make a deal with you, I won’t direct any posts to you regardless of what you state, and in return, all I ask that you leave me alone. Treat me as non-existent. Thanks.


Ezorra Says:

Kroll;

What i’m trying to say is tennis is not the world after all. It just… tennis… means that people may perceive the situations or persons or the games that exist on/off the court very subjectively. Some might see nadal as humble person and others might see him as faker. It’s normal but just because i see nadal as role model or what not; it doesn’t mean that you have all right to revile me! It just the matter of opinion. Nobody right as nobody wrong…

Like when you say that nadal’s personality/persona off the court is bore; I respect it but I don’t care about it either… fair right?


Ernie Says:

People should realise that “Fedex” is probably the same poster as “Jack” (and who knows what other names he/she has used).

I base this on his dislike of Djokovic/Roddick, and his attacks on Von/Shital/Jane.


Von Says:

Ernie:

“People should realise that “Fedex” is probably the same poster as “Jack” (and who knows what other names he/she has used).

I base this on his dislike of Djokovic/Roddick, and his attacks on Von/Shital/Jane.”

Thank you for being so astute and having the courage to speak up on our behalf. I mentioned this a while back, but it seems that no one else wants to make the connection. I also believe “Jack” is “Joker”, “FedNadal” and “Fedex”.
“Joker” originally was a Djokvic fan but changed after Djoko lost some tournaments after the AO. Then “FedNadal” emerged, followed by “Jack” for a week or so and now we have “Fedex”. His pattern and writing is the same. He dislikes Djokovic and Roddick, Roddick even more, and hates the fans of those players, viz., jane, Shital and myself (Von). It’s very pathetic and blows my mind that someone would go to such lengths to persecute others for their liking of a particular player. It reminds me of the days when people were persecuted for their religion. Thanks again, Ernie for making the connection.


finn Says:

well, it’s official, nadal will be number at the very latest on monday the 18th, federer just lost to ivo karlovic


JCF Says:

Von

*********************
Thank you for being so astute and having the courage to speak up on our behalf. I mentioned this a while back, but it seems that no one else wants to make the connection. I also believe “Jack” is “Joker”, “FedNadal” and “Fedex”.
“Joker” originally was a Djokvic fan but changed after Djoko lost some tournaments after the AO. Then “FedNadal” emerged, followed by “Jack” for a week or so and now we have “Fedex”. His pattern and writing is the same. He dislikes Djokovic and Roddick, Roddick even more, and hates the fans of those players, viz., jane, Shital and myself (Von). It’s very pathetic and blows my mind that someone would go to such lengths to persecute others for their liking of a particular player. It reminds me of the days when people were persecuted for their religion. Thanks again, Ernie for making the connection.
*********************

Not to question your detective skills or anything, but I very much doubt that FedEx and FedNadal are the same person as Joker. Joker was VERY anti-Nadal (he’s like the Nadal version of ‘fed is afraid’), and these guys don’t seem to be. Joker is also a lot less intelligent in the way he writes.


Von Says:

JCF:

No problem on my so-called detective skills — I’m not lways right; feel free to correct me anytime. I don’t remember Joker being anti-Nadal. I know he liked Fed. Fed-Nadal and FedEx could be the same person though; both like Federer and Nadal. One thing I know about FedEx is that he’s European or British — his spelling and the P.P.S. which Europeans use for several postscripts. For the British, Ps. for postscript is enough. Anyway, whoever is the Roddick/Djokovic hater, I would just like for them to not target us. Post whatever they want about the players, but there’s no need to get personal with the posters. That’s all I ask. I noticed that you and FedEx have become friends, :) so maybe he’ll listen to you regarding the nasty posts, that is when he surfaces again. He hasn’t posted in a couple of days. Or maybe, he’ll be reincarnated with a new post name. whatever tickles his fancy.

Top story: ATP/WTA Preview: Loaded Women's Field at China Debut Event
  • Recent Comments
Rankings
ATP - Sep 22 WTA - Sep 22
1 Novak Djokovic1 Serena Williams
2 Rafael Nadal2 Simona Halep
3 Roger Federer3 Petra Kvitova
4 Stan Wawrinka4 Maria Sharapova
5 David Ferrer5 Na Li
6 Milos Raonic6 Agnieszka Radwanska
7 Tomas Berdych7 Caroline Wozniacki
8 Kei Nishikori8 Angelique Kerber
9 Marin Cilic9 Eugenie Bouchard
10 Grigor Dimitrov10 Ana Ivanovic
More: Tennis T-Shirts | Tennis Shop | Live Tennis Scores | Headlines

Copyright © 2003-2014 Tennis-X.com. All rights reserved.
This website is an independently operated source of news and information and is not affiliated with any professional organizations.