Help

loading...

Article

  • Murray meets Gasquet in semifinal

    3/29/13 5:05 PM | Kelli DeMario
    Murray meets Gasquet in semifinal World No. 3 Andy Murray looks to reach the final four in Miami, as he takes on fellow seed Richard Gasquet. The players are scheduled to contest their 8th career meeting Friday evening.

    Second seed Andy Murray holds a narrow 4-3 series edge against 8th seed Richard Gasquet. The players last met at the 2012 French Open, where the Scot won a round of 16 match in four sets.

    Murray is through to the final four after defeating Croatia's Marin Cilic in straight sets. The 25-year-old tallied six aces and 6 service breaks en route to a 6-4, 6-3 victory.

    “I think today was probably the best match for me,” said the World No. 3. “It was a tough, tough match. The second set especially was a lot of long, long games and tough points. I just managed to come through that. Obviously, it took a while to get to the finish line, but I thought I played a solid match- not too many errors and (I) was tough in the important moments.”

    Murray is seeking his third championship finals berth at the Masters 1000 Miami.

    Gasquet advanced to the semifinal by virtue of his straight-sets ousting of World No. 6 Tomas Berdych. the 26-year-old Frenchman came through the match in an hour and 15 minutes, 6-3, 6-3.

    “(Murray) can do everything on the tennis court," Gasquet assessed. He's very clever. He's an unbelievable player, but I know his game. I think we played a lot of times already in the past, but for sure he will be the favorite. I have nothing to lose and I will try to play a good match.”

    Gasquet will attempt to reach his first final at the tournament.

    Prediction: Murray in three sets.



    Find the latest tennis odds at Unibet.com

Tell a friend »

Comments

Muzz in two. Anyone brave enough to pick Gasket?

Muzz SHOULD win. Muzz WILL win.

#HUM3LE

Conspirator , 3/29/13 10:42 PM


What, did Gasquet give up gluten or something?

He's playing by far the best tennis I've seen him play and he's not having his typical mental collapses.

Maybe I should change my pick?

#HelloIsThereAnybodyInThere

Conspirator , 3/30/13 1:08 AM


I am here but have to root for Andy quietly as am not allowed to watch tennis :)). Gotta compromise with kid so it's NickJr. at the moment. Have to save time for when Nole plays :).

danica , 3/30/13 1:21 AM


I have been watching the match. Gasquet started out strong in that first set, continuing the quality of play he displayed against Berdy. However, he injured his foot and had to call the trainer. It does seem to be bothering him quite a bit.

I don't think Andy played his best tennis at all, but he will get the win. He's in the finals with an opportunity to get that #2 ranking.

Nativenewyorker , 3/30/13 2:10 AM


Its Murray Vs Ferru in Miami. It was refreshing to see a good show by Hass and Richard in absence of Fedal this week. Hope to see a good contest in the final and expecting Murray to beat Ferrer in three to get ahead in the ranking and pitting himself in Roger's half in the draws in the rest of the season.

newfangkc , 3/30/13 2:24 AM


I don't understand why Gasquet kept playing with his injured ankle, and not call for the trainer at the beginning of the second set. Obviously, Murray sensed something was amiss, and began putting more pressure on Richard to play long rallies and run from side to side. It paid off, as Gasquet was unable to keep up with his footwork. I wonder how the match would have turned out if Gasquet's ankle was healthy. I think it would have been a closer one, because Murray's game was definitely not great, as it appeared his timing was off. He was makikng a lot of uncharasteric FH UEs.

scoretracker , 3/30/13 2:37 AM


Fed dropping to No. 3 in the rankings does not necessarily mean he'll fall into Murray's half of the draw. he could fall into djokovic's half also. that would make things a lot more interesting in the future. And, with Nadal being No. 5, would mean he could also meet Djokovic or Murray in a QF matchup. Things could become very hectic for the two top players, if one of them were to draw Nadal in a QF, and Fed in an SF. If a scenario like this should occur we could see a Fedal QF many times this season or an SF. The blogsites will light up and the betting bookies will be kept busy, not to mention their fans going absolutely berserk over such events occurring, and would make for great tennis viewing IMO.

scoretracker , 3/30/13 3:07 AM


^^agree with @scoretracker about the unpredictability of future draws with Rafa back at #5 and Muzza most likely becoming #2 after tomorrow and Roger falling to #3. To me, this puts a knock on the presumption that #1 and #2 will have cosy rides all the way to the finals in tournaments.

I think this new scenario will make for very interesting viewing!

rafaisthebest , 3/30/13 6:49 AM


The more I think about this the more I am convinced RG has an obligation to re-think its seeding policy. Rafa is the King of Clay. It is not fair to seeds 1-4 to enter a tournament fearing they will face him in the quarters! He (Rafa) doesn't care, he has said so and I honestly believe it makes o difference to Rafa which position he enters a clay tournament at. Surely the spirit of the seeding system was to avoid precisely the spectacle which is about to unfold: top players meeting before the tail end of tournaments and knocking each other out before then!

RG, Monte Carlo, Madrid and Rome need to do the right thing: seed Rafa first or second and forestall the potential mayhem.

rafaisthebest , 3/30/13 7:37 AM


More fedal matches mean more chances to make it an even twenty...

phoenix , 3/30/13 8:10 AM


Video nasty:

http://www.changeovertennis.com/video-richard-gasquet-gets-a ngry-about-time-violation/

#AnotherTimeViolationFarce

rafaisthebest , 3/30/13 11:22 AM


The ATP has to get a grip and put an end to these fiascos. We now have a situation where some sensible umpires are bending the rules and still using their discretion while others piously apply it disregarding any extenuating circumstances and the appropriateness of a warning.

And let's not forget the trigger happy umpire who issued a warning at 22 secs :-(

It's akin to traffic wardens who receive bonus payments when they reach the target for parking tickets issued and lurk by your car wating for the meter to arrive at the expiry time.

ed251137 , 3/30/13 12:01 PM


^^OMG, ed251137, you could be onto something............is there a bonus points scheme in place for the Umpires related to how rigidly they enforce the time violation rule?

Wouldn't put it past the ATP...................

rafaisthebest , 3/30/13 12:09 PM


Roger has probably promised to fund the Bonus Scheme from his own earnings :-P

ed251137 , 3/30/13 12:24 PM


He made it a condition for casting his vote in favour of the Enforcement Rule.

#HeardItOnTheGrapevine

ed251137 , 3/30/13 12:54 PM


Ah well, the scheme appears to have back-fired spectacularly since target of the said Enforcement Rule is busy enforcing his own presence............with on-court results!

rafaisthebest , 3/30/13 1:34 PM


Just watched the match and thought it was terrific. Both such beautiful shot makers and so good to see Andy getting more and more confident and aggressive as the match progressed.
Lucky, did you watch, if u didn't, a different Andy from the one who played Marin.
More silliness though- they'd played a 30 stroke rally and Richard was just gathering himself together to serve, when he got a time warning! Ridiculous!

deuce , 3/30/13 5:44 PM


Yes deuce I saw the match and the time violation warning to Richard. By now almost all players get at least one time violation warning, the only exception is maybe Fed. I see Rafa, Nole, Murray,Ferrer, Delpo, Marin, Richard, Haas etc and etc all getting time violation warnings these past few weeks. Maybe it's time they revised the time limit or allow the umpires some discretion. The players feel so rushed from point to point, certainly not fun for them and not fun for us when we see them having to argue with the umpires.

Back to the match, Murray played better in the SF, at least he served better, but I've to say Richard's level dropped off a bit in the second and third sets. It seems to me Murray would always have problems against aggressive players who happen to move well. ( not the Delpo of old; or Sod). Murray's h2h vs Richard is now 5-3 but out of those 5 wins, there're at least two or three where Richard clearly had the upper hand but failed to finish the job. The same could be said of Marin, he's now 1-8 vs Murray, but there're at least two or three of them where Marin could actually got his wins but mentally broke down and lost them: Paris Masters 2010; AO 2010; USO 2012. Their h2h could be 4-5 instead of 1-8 now.

The thing with Murray, he couldn't play consistently well a full season, and so if players caught him during his off days, he could lose to them. The problem with Richard and Marin is that they're not playing with much self belief, especially against the top few guys, so Murray could escape even when not playing well. Against Delpo, Murray couldn't escape because Delpo is one who doesn't give up!

It seems to me that Murray now is on the right track, that he's cutting down on the number of tournaments he's playing, just so he can concentrate his efforts on relatively fewer tournaments. If he wins this Miami Masters, he'll have 2630 points from 4 events, compared to 1880 from 5 events same period last year. Maybe he should skip Barcelona and concentrates on the three clay Masters, that may yield better results for him on clay.

luckystar , 3/31/13 9:01 AM


Umpires have always had discretion to enforce the 25 seconds rule. The problem is they never used that discretion.

The new enforcement rule was a a petty, vindictive, knee-jerk reaction to Federer's whining at Indian Wells 2012 about Rafa's poor time keeping on court. So yes, the ATP had to penalise everyone!

I cannot understand how anyone with brains could have thought the new enforcement rule was a good idea. One didn't need a bus-load of players arguing and screaming at Umpires to see that it was always going to fail. Sadly, it is the image of tennis which is suffering from this myopia.

Of course Rafa called it out and he was called self-serving, selfish, the main culprit (begging the question: well, if he is/was, why punish everyone else for his sins?) by his detractors and yes, some of his fans too.

You know there is a problem when enforcement of a rule is championed by a bunch of pundits who do so from the luxury of their air-conditioned press rooms, and boy did the pundits take the lead on this after Federer provided the cue of course!

This is why I am a Rafan. Not only is he a fine striker of a yellow, fuzzy ball; he also has a brain and refuses to be anybody's fool.

rafaisthebest , 3/31/13 9:32 AM


Cheers for that lucky.
Of course my interpretation would be that Andy lifted his level and, in consequence Richard's dropped. Andy did come back very strongly in the first set and, of course, should've taken it.
I'm so impressed by 1) the improvement in Andy's on court demeanor these days and 2) the improvement in his transition game. Comms were drooling over it, not Brits btw, and so was I.
Of course only time will tell if this translates into more consistency, but really feel he'll get there. On song his variety is a thing of wonder and beauty.

deuce , 3/31/13 11:16 AM


I sincerely hope that all who are belaboring the time violation enforcement, know for a certainty that it was Fed who made this happen.

The rule was in place before Fed began playing.

scoretracker , 4/1/13 4:25 AM


I am one of those belaboring the new time violation enforcement rule. To the best of my knowledge, belief and understanding Fed was behind the new rule to enforce the existing rule without discretion. I stand by that knowledge, belief and understanding.

The 25 second rule was in place, WITH UMPIRES' DISCRETION, before Fed began playing.

However, the new rule enforcing the 25 second rule, WITHOUT DISCRETION, instituted through an ATP Board decision in the Fall of 2012, took effect AFTER Fed began playing.

Thank you.

rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 7:30 AM


Let's see the proof. I'd like to see it in writing that for a fact Fed was behind the new rule. Other than that it's just smoke. Knowledge, belief and understanding is just your interpretation. It does not count. Proof is what counts.

Fed is one member of the Board, and there had to have a majority for it to be passed.

Djokovic's take on the new rule:

"Well, I guess Nadal and myself, we're right up there mentioned in that topic as the players who would be always in danger of the time violation because of the time we are taking between the points," Djokovic said on Saturday.

"It is the way it is. I cannot have any complaints when I take more than 20 seconds between the points. If the chair umpire comes to me and said, 'Listen, you should be a little bit more careful about it'. If I do it again, he gives me warning, I can't complain about it.

"It's within the rules and I will respect it."

But yet, he complained this past week.

Had it been Fed who was the chief offender, I suppose we'd be hearing a different tune. it would be down with Fed abusing the rule, how dare he. However, because it's Nadal, we'll hear about it continuously. Very transparent. People can talk as much as they want on blogsites. There's a better alternative, petition ATP Board, write letters, emails etc., if they feel so strongly about it.

scoretracker , 4/1/13 8:41 AM


It was Fed who instigated the enforcement. He tried to rubbish the 2012 AO final because he did not want it to eclipse the Greatest Match of All Time - Wimbledon final 2008 - by saying the match lasted nearly 6 hrs because both players were spending too much time between points.

Frankly, I'm glad that the Wimbledon final remains the greatest because Rafa was the winner.

Federer is scratching around for a way to stop Rafa beating him. He hired Paul Anacone purely for that purpose but that doesn't seem to be working.

nadline , 4/1/13 9:51 AM


Roger want everyone to play at his pace and so far he is one of the few who hasn't had a warning. When Fed needs a breather he challenges calls that are clearly correct; sometimes the ball is about a foot long.

The good news is that it's made Rafa a more aggressive player which is far better for him and I think it's made him a better player, if that's was even possible.

nadline , 4/1/13 9:59 AM


Rafa is hardly the only player who has gone over the time limit between points. We are seeing that now as many players have been called out for time violations.

I don't understand the reasoning that some of us here are voicing are concerns about the new rigid enforcement of the 25 second rule, merely because Rafa has gone over the time limit in the past. It's about being reasonable and using discretion appropriately. That's what we want.

Rafa fans are hardly the only ones complaining about this new non-discretionary enforcement of the 25 second rule. Commentators on ESPN have been critical of how the rule is being enforced, without taking into account crowd noise, long rallies, weather conditions or anything that might interfere with a player strictly adhering to the rule. Other players have also spoken up and expressed their displeasure about it.

Even though Rafa has expressed his opposition to this new policy, he has managed to adjust and has been playing quicker and better. I think nadline is right - this has made him a better player. He seems to get into a good rhythm with his serving when he plays faster.

I like what Darren Cahill said on ESPN when they discussed the new enforcement of this rule. He likes the fact that it has seemed to speed up the men's matches, but also said that it needs some tweaking. He then went on to state that the umpire should start clocking the time after he calls the score. That would allow for crowd noise and also very long rallies. I just think that some discretion in specific instances would be a good thing.


Nativenewyorker , 4/1/13 10:13 AM


Even Sky commies who campaigned tirelessly for the enforcement are now saying it will kill the game. Mark Petchy actually said they would end up having to play in a clinic because of lack of recovery time. I'm afraid all these points were made extensively beforehand but they all chose to ignore the repercussions because they were purely after Rafa. Now they realize that he is not the only one they don't like it.

SKY went to the extent of clocking Rafa's timekeeping and no one else's which just proves that they were witch hunting him. I'm glad they introduced the enforcement because at least they've all been proved wrong that the umpire should not exercise discretion.

If they end up taking into account ball kids, the crowd, the weather, the length of games and any other factors, it will end up where it was in the first place so the only purpose the enforcement would have served would be to show how stupid the 'experts' are for not seeing the pitfalls in the first place.

nadline , 4/1/13 10:36 AM


Please explain to me why I have to explain to you anything, never mind my knowledge, beliefs and understanding. Who are you? Who are you representing?

Thank you.

rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 10:37 AM


nadline, I like your post of 4/1/13 10:36 AM. Well said.

If they're out to catch Rafa, then sorry, now they're catching anyone but Rafa! Rafa adjusted his pace quite well and hardly got a warning. And yes, all these time rule enforcements have made Rafa an even more scarily hard to beat player because it has waken up the aggressive Rafa. In the past people accused Rafa of cheating by stalling, now Rafa has proven he needs no stalling to win his matches. Well done Rafa!

luckystar , 4/1/13 10:47 AM


Thank you @nadline and @nny for getting to the heart of the matter, no smoke and mirrors, no fear or favour, just the truth, which some people cannot handle.

#AFewGoodMen

rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 11:15 AM


Never underestimate TMF, they don't call him GOAT for nothing. He is busy working out another ruse to stop Rafa, as we speak..................

#KnowledgeBeliefUnderstanding

rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 11:53 AM


I've only read ritb's comments and am only addressing this post to her.

@rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 10:37 AM ,

FYI, I'm somebody just like you. I should ask you the same question, who are you and whom are you representing? This is a forum and if you write statements without showing the source, then be prepared to be asked for it. You did the same last week, and when asked for proof you got very irate at the poster who requested it. This is just another time you've made unsubstantiated claims and don't have anything to back it up, but instead has become riled up. Not to mention the upstanding sermon you gave last week , e.g, post IW, your accusing me of something without knowing all the facts. It's unnecessary to be so defensive.

If you know for a certainty that it 's Roger who's instrumental in the time rule, then you should have the proof. It's that simple. Did it ever occur to you that I'd like to see it for myself or maybe those who are reading this thread? There has to be something tangible, for you to make such claims, other than your suspicions.

This is not the first time you've stated something against Fed and his fans without showing proof. I suppose you know what it means to impugn another person's character? Making accusations without substantial proof that's harmful to another's reputation?

"Never underestimate TMF, they don't call him GOAT for nothing. He is busy working out another ruse to stop Rafa, as we speak..................rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 11:53 AM

haha, there you go again, you're now a mind reader also? Knowledge is good if used properly, so is belief in oneself, and understanding that you are not beyond questions, coz no man is an island. And, FYI, I can handle being questioned or to show proof, but can you?

Thank you very much.

scoretracker , 4/1/13 3:17 PM


Federer is president of the players' council so if such a move is made without his consent then he is ineffective. scoretracker, are you saying that Fed would have voted against it?

I don't think proof is needed. Any reasonable person can see Federer's finger prints all over it.

nadline , 4/1/13 3:44 PM


As the president representing the players, Fed should have sought to consult with the players first before going along with it. He is there to representing the players. They didn't even bother to inform the players about the new rule, that the 25 secs should be applied rigidly with no discretion by the umpire. I know Rafa was told by a journalist, and a lot of the players have said they didn't know about it. Delpo even asked who voted for it.

Strange that NO ONE has asked Federer what he thinks about it and every other player has been asked for their opinion on the matter. That's because they know Fed is behind it. Surely, it would be normal for the president to be asked for his views on a subject that is causing so much controversy. It's not because as president he should be neutral, because that's never stopped him from expressing his opinions before.

nadline , 4/1/13 3:58 PM


corr - He is there to represent the players

nadline , 4/1/13 4:00 PM


Bang on nadline.

If it was Fed who was taking some time, then this issue never would see the light of day.

If it looks like an old goat, whines like an old goat, and cries like an old goat, ...

#RafaIStheBest

Conspirator , 4/1/13 4:04 PM


scoretracker , 4/1/13 3:17 PM

Thank you for addressing your post to me only. I am addressing this post to you only:

Here is my response to you:



It was Fed who instigated the enforcement. He tried to rubbish the 2012 AO final because he did not want it to eclipse the Greatest Match of All Time - Wimbledon final 2008 - by saying the match lasted nearly 6 hrs because both players were spending too much time between points.

Frankly, I'm glad that the Wimbledon final remains the greatest because Rafa was the winner.

Federer is scratching around for a way to stop Rafa beating him. He hired Paul Anacone purely for that purpose but that doesn't seem to be working.

nadline , 4/1/13 9:51 AM

Roger want everyone to play at his pace and so far he is one of the few who hasn't had a warning. When Fed needs a breather he challenges calls that are clearly correct; sometimes the ball is about a foot long.

The good news is that it's made Rafa a more aggressive player which is far better for him and I think it's made him a better player, if that's was even possible.

nadline , 4/1/13 9:59 AM

Rafa is hardly the only player who has gone over the time limit between points. We are seeing that now as many players have been called out for time violations.

I don't understand the reasoning that some of us here are voicing are concerns about the new rigid enforcement of the 25 second rule, merely because Rafa has gone over the time limit in the past. It's about being reasonable and using discretion appropriately. That's what we want.

Rafa fans are hardly the only ones complaining about this new non-discretionary enforcement of the 25 second rule. Commentators on ESPN have been critical of how the rule is being enforced, without taking into account crowd noise, long rallies, weather conditions or anything that might interfere with a player strictly adhering to the rule. Other players have also spoken up and expressed their displeasure about it.

Even though Rafa has expressed his opposition to this new policy, he has managed to adjust and has been playing quicker and better. I think nadline is right - this has made him a better player. He seems to get into a good rhythm with his serving when he plays faster.

I like what Darren Cahill said on ESPN when they discussed the new enforcement of this rule. He likes the fact that it has seemed to speed up the men's matches, but also said that it needs some tweaking. He then went on to state that the umpire should start clocking the time after he calls the score. That would allow for crowd noise and also very long rallies. I just think that some discretion in specific instances would be a good thing.


Nativenewyorker , 4/1/13 10:13 AM

Even Sky commies who campaigned tirelessly for the enforcement are now saying it will kill the game. Mark Petchy actually said they would end up having to play in a clinic because of lack of recovery time. I'm afraid all these points were made extensively beforehand but they all chose to ignore the repercussions because they were purely after Rafa. Now they realize that he is not the only one they don't like it.

SKY went to the extent of clocking Rafa's timekeeping and no one else's which just proves that they were witch hunting him. I'm glad they introduced the enforcement because at least they've all been proved wrong that the umpire should not exercise discretion.

If they end up taking into account ball kids, the crowd, the weather, the length of games and any other factors, it will end up where it was in the first place so the only purpose the enforcement would have served would be to show how stupid the 'experts' are for not seeing the pitfalls in the first place.

nadline , 4/1/13 10:36 AM



Federer is president of the players' council so if such a move is made without his consent then he is ineffective. scoretracker, are you saying that Fed would have voted against it?

I don't think proof is needed. Any reasonable person can see Federer's finger prints all over it.

nadline , 4/1/13 3:44 PM

As the president representing the players, Fed should have sought to consult with the players first before going along with it. He is there to representing the players. They didn't even bother to inform the players about the new rule, that the 25 secs should be applied rigidly with no discretion by the umpire. I know Rafa was told by a journalist, and a lot of the players have said they didn't know about it. Delpo even asked who voted for it.

Strange that NO ONE has asked Federer what he thinks about it and every other player has been asked for their opinion on the matter. That's because they know Fed is behind it. Surely, it would be normal for the president to be asked for his views on a subject that is causing so much controversy. It's not because as president he should be neutral, because that's never stopped him from expressing his opinions before.

nadline , 4/1/13 3:58 PM

corr - He is there to represent the players

nadline , 4/1/13 4:00 PM



Bang on nadline.

If it was Fed who was taking some time, then this issue never would see the light of day.

If it looks like an old goat, whines like an old goat, and cries like an old goat, ...

#RafaIStheBest

Conspirator , 4/1/13 4:04 PM

After reading the above helpful posts, I would be grateful if you could provide me with proof that Fed did not instigate the new time enforcement rule.


Thank you.

rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 4:16 PM


No one can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Federer was not behind it.

nadline , 4/1/13 4:24 PM


nadline , 4/1/13 3:58 PM

Conspirator , 4/1/13 4:04 PM

Why am I not surprised? You guys are able to articulate my thoughts much better than I could ever dream of! But I have an excuse..............English is not my first language. I try my best, no?

Thank you both, thank you................

rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 4:27 PM


All Fed has to do is say publicly what he thinks. If he doesn't then it's proof that he is behind it. I'll wait and see what he has to say if asked, but I doubt he will ever be asked, because they are all in it together - that's Fed and his friends in the press and media.

nadline , 4/1/13 4:33 PM


ritb, I'd never have known that English is not your first language.

nadline , 4/1/13 4:35 PM


Don't worry RITB, you can hold your own with the best of them. What is your first language BTW?

Conspirator , 4/1/13 4:35 PM


Conspirator , 4/1/13 4:35 PM

Zulu. I am deadly serious btw. English comes in second, then Kiswahili, French/Creole and Italian.

rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 4:45 PM


There is enough circumstantial evidence to conclude that Federer was behind it.

Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

nadline , 4/1/13 4:46 PM


nadline , 4/1/13 4:46 PM

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 4:51 PM


Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt, including the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused.


#Fed guilty as charged

nadline , 4/1/13 4:54 PM


ritb, you didn't need to post all of those posts, but thanks anyway. I've read a couple of lines by the other posters from your post, and they are pretty much saying the same thing, that Fed is behind it and it's because he wants for his 2008 wimby match not to be eclipsed by 2012 AO, and they are out to get rafa. I don't think that they are on a witch hunt, but merely to speed up the time matches are played. A lot of viewers complained about AO2012. It's got to do with air-time and sponsors, who don't want to pay huge sums of money for matches aired.

The CBS fiasco is an example of how much time is allotted to matches, and the $ amount that's paid for those broadcasts. There are contractual rights and time scheduling that are to be adhered to and for the programming to run smoothly. Even the Academy awards are supposed to run true to schedule. Had Ferrer and Murray's match not exceeded the 2-1/2 hours allotted, which is more than enough for a 3 set final, I doubt that CBS would have had to cut-off and have TC pick up the slack. As it is, they had to do an impromptu back-up with TC at the last minute. TC did not have the final scheduled on their program.

If it's true that Fed did not want for the 2012 AO to eclipse his wimby match, then nadal's fans should be happy for that move on Fed's part supposedly, coz Nadal won that match and lost the AO.I don't think that's the case at all, but only Fed knows for sure, and until I hear it from Fed to be so, I'll say it's just pure conjecture.

If, ATP were to issue a statement that the 25 second rule enforcement was Fed's idea, then I'll believe it to be absolute. However, it's all guesswork from the posts you've posted, and let's not forget that djokovic and other council members were all at the meeting and voted for, not against. Thus, why is fed alone being blamed? I'm sorry, I don't get it.Fed's only got one vote, and a majority is needed to carry the vote. Are you saying Fed hit the other players over the head or threatened them them?Come on!

scoretracker , 4/1/13 4:56 PM


OK, I'm done with this now. you guys have enough material to debaet this for a while. Time for me to get to work.

scoretracker , 4/1/13 4:59 PM


^^^enjoy your day at work, scoretracker! Cheers.

rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 5:04 PM




#Case against Federer proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

nadline , 4/1/13 5:08 PM


I'm loving this debate! Here's what a poster, @Dolores, on queridorafa says:

"...........And does anyone think, just maybe, that the 25 second rule contributed to the number of UFEs and service breaks? Just maybe, after some rediculously long points on freakin? cement, the players didn?t have time for their heart rates to come down. You can argue conditioning; I say the umpire should be using more discretion in enforcing the rule. "

Good question.

#TheTruthIsOutThere

rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 5:17 PM


I can handle being questioned or to show proof, but can you?
scoretracker, 4/1/13 3:17 PM

A lot of viewers complained about AO2012.
scoretracker, 4/1/13 4:56 PM

"djokovic and other council members were all at the meeting and voted for, not against."
scoretracker, 4/1/13 4:56 PM

How do you know a lot of viewers complained? Also, a majority doesn't mean that djokovic voted for this change.

I'd like to see your proof.

So, S/T,since you can handle being questioned, in your own words, "Let's see the proof."

#TennisTalk

Conspirator , 4/1/13 5:32 PM


scoretracker, 4/1/13 4:56 PM
--- let's not forget that djokovic and other council members were all at the meeting and voted for---

Actually, Djokovic is not a member of the player council.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Structure.aspx

Augustina08 , 4/1/13 5:51 PM


^^^I suspected as much but wasn't too sure. Thanks Augustina08

rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 6:25 PM


I dont believe anybody is claiming Federer was responsible for instigating the introduction of the Enforcement Rule even though he was known to be in favour of it. My understanding is that it was the big TV companies putting pressure on the ATP because of the problems caused if a match runs massively overtime e.g. the AO 2012 final.

But Federer, who as president of the players' council is there to represent the players' interests, did not fight the introduction of the new rule. That is on record. What players are enraged about is the way he nodded the change through without canvassing their views.
Search me how the figure was arrived at but we have been told that on average matches are now 9 minutes less since the crackdown. In other words 3 minutes less per set. Big deal.

I'm totally with those posters who are saying: give the discretion back to the umpires to judge whether a player is deliberately time-wasting in order to disrupt the rhythm of his opponent or genuinely needs a second or two more to prepare to serve again after a long, gruelling rally.

At least the AO took a sensible approach:

'Australian Open tournament referee Wayne McEwen told AAP that the tournament will be flexible and that he has instructed chair umpires "to keep it fair, keep it consistent. We don't want players out there being penalized after playing a fantastic point, but then again we don't want players deliberately taking too long and that's what we really look at. We focus on that and tell them to use good common sense, good judgment. ... The players sometimes need a little time to recover, especially in the heat of the day, or in a long match. Last year's final was a classic match, the points were lasting incredibly long. In a case like that, you don't want to be killing it for everyone.'

Let's hope the other Slam tournament directors also use their common sense. If not enforcing the 20-second time limit over zealously will be catastrophic.

ed251137 , 4/1/13 7:45 PM


S/T, no need to provide the facts erquested.

Augustina08 has proven otherwise.

#YoureWelcome

Conspirator , 4/1/13 7:54 PM


Comms were going mad during Andy's match saying umpires were taking away from the crowds enjoyment by cutting short the cheering after a long awesome rally. Said the rigid enforcement of the rule was taking away from the rhythm of the match!

deuce , 4/1/13 8:09 PM


Interesting article from a year ago...

"I just can't recall ever sitting at a big match and thinking to myself, "For heaven's sake, get on with it." There's a unique brand of drama between big points, a time for an exhortation or two, then analysis in a whisper. I think I'd rather watch a measured pace than two guys playing as if their last ride to the hotel is about to depart. (I mention the men because there don't seem to be many complaints about slow-playing women; they've got a death grip on the shrieking issue.)
I always think back to the astoundingly dramatic 2001 Wimbledon final between Goran Ivanisevic and Patrick Rafter, played on a "People's Monday" before a blue-collar crowd in a raw, festive atmosphere seldom witnessed at the hallowed All England Club. As things got excruciatingly tense, the chanting would go back and forth between the factions (Croatia vs. Australia) between points, all within the realm of good sportsmanship and a roaring good time. It became an otherworldly experience to hear the place fall deathly quiet, after all that madness, with the next service at hand. I just can't imagine the chair umpire with his eye on a clock that day, calling "Time" and curtailing all the fun.


Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/20120313/anti-shot-clock/ #ixzz2PEnGHO7N

#RafasRight

Conspirator , 4/1/13 8:29 PM


ed251137, Fed did not help his cause with his comments at IW 2012 and his current silence through this controversy. Okay, maybe he is having behind the scenes conversations and that is okay, that is political astuteness but then where was that political astuteness at IW2012? He specifically pointed at Rafa, in public, as the one being let off on the time rule.

@deuce, that is so sad. So the time rule applies to the paying spectators as well? They have to limit their cheering to 25 seconds. So, what exactly is the point of the sport? Sad.......

rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 8:30 PM


Not a big Chris Chase fan but every dog has his day.

This was the seed planted that led to the rigid enforcement debacle...

http://tinyurl.com/bwox983

"It's all there. He hedges and refuses to take a firm stand in the first sentence. He clarifies that he's not complaining before complaining about Nadal. Then he half-heartedly brings himself into the discussion, explaining that "it's natural" that even he would go over time, as if the mere thought of it is too preposterous to consider."

#AcedIt
#WilyOldGoat
#HUM3LE

Conspirator , 4/1/13 8:34 PM


It's true that the enjoyment of the fans is also being affected by this absurdly strict and rigid enforcement of this rule. Everyone suffers when discretion and common sense goes out the window.

I had forgotten about Fed's comments from the 2012 I/W. That sure says a lot!

I am grateful that Augustina provided that information about Nole. I don't know who is a member and who is not. Also, if Nole initially made comments in support of this new enforcement of the rule, perhaps he didn't fully realize just how rigidly it would be enforced. It's only when a player is out on the court in a match, that he would get a sense of just how problematic this would be.

So many players are complaining about the change. Rafa is hardly alone in his view of this situation. Also, the tv commentators in the U.S. have been highly critical of the way the rule is being enforced. Some of them have been clocking the players.

When Cilic was playing Murray and the score was deuce as he tried to stay in the match, the umpire called out a time violation. The commentators were unanimously critical of doing this at a critical point in the match. I believe that Cilic did lose his service game.

If they continue on this path, we may well see an instance going forward in which a match might be influenced or decided by a time violation call. That would be a worst case scenario. Is that what it will take before reason and common sense will again be used?

Nativenewyorker , 4/1/13 8:50 PM


Ed, the ITF has said it will not take away the umpires' discretion, so the slams are not affected by this.

The Sky commission should just shut up on this because the pursued Rafa endlessly to have enforcement of the rule. Now that Murray is suffering as well they don't like it.

nadline , 4/1/13 8:52 PM


The Chris Chase take is bang-on...........Fed laid out his resentments in that IW2012 interview. And btw, Rafans like me are not banging on about this because Rafa is disadvantaged, NO! Like someone pointed out, Rafa has adjusted, he is now playing aggressive, shortening his points and the rule is not affecting him that much. Boy's still kicking butt.........and then some.

It's about the sport we all love............ATP saw the error of its ways with the blue clay, they need to do the same with this new time nforcement rule.

rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 8:53 PM


I was going to express my support for the AO sticking to a reasonable approach in enforcing the 25 second rule. However, based on what nadline said we can at least rest assured that the slams will not be affected.

That would be a travesty.

Nativenewyorker , 4/1/13 8:55 PM


I meant Sky commies not commission. I was using my iphone.

nadline , 4/1/13 9:03 PM


I don't understand why the world and his wife have been asked to comment on the change but the president of the Players' Council hasn't'.

nadline , 4/1/13 9:06 PM


Rafa said
?The guy who really accepted this rule was not very smart, in my opinion.?

I wonder wh that guy is. Stand up Roger Federer.

nadline , 4/1/13 9:28 PM


Btw, more and more people are beginning to question the wisdom of playing tennis on cement.

#RafaIsRight

rafaisthebest , 4/1/13 10:31 PM


I believe Andy Murray was (at least at one point) in favor of putting a tennis "shot clock" on the court because he kept complaining that Mardy Fish (his opponent that match) was taking too long. So it's def not a one-man show in favor of the rule.

ts38 , 4/2/13 6:25 AM


^^^ But Andy also wanted the time between points to be longer than the 25 seconds now, that's what I read. Also, the umpire already has a stop watch now, so it's a matter of when he starts counting the time between points, eg does it start immediately after a point ends, or after the umpire calls the score, or whatever. I understand that now they're not exercising any discretion so that's the problem.

Rafa is right, with shot clock and hawkeye in place, we can do away with the umpires, for there's no need for any human intervention during a match, and the umpire's job would be reduced to calling the scores, calling time for players to start the match or the game, unless there are unforeseen circumstances happening (which are rare in the first place).

luckystar , 4/2/13 8:33 AM


So, with the shot clock:

1. what do they do with spectators who will start counting the seconds loudly, disrupting the players' concentration: 17, 18, 19......, because count they will, it will be visible to them as well.
2. What happens when the clock strikes 25 seconds, does a buzzer go off? Does the clock start counting from scratch?
3. What happens after players have just gone through a 40 shot rally, the shot clock still counts 25 seconds same as for aces?
4. What happens if they are playing outdoor in hot, humid climate, the shot clock still counts 25 seconds as if players were in a temperature controlled environment indoors?

Why don't we juts say we are tired of tennis as we know it and want to introduce a variant thereof with shot clocks etc, etc?

rafaisthebest , 4/2/13 9:11 AM


I don't think anyone wants a big shot clock on the court. It would make a circus out of matches. If the umpires now have little stop watches, then that should suffice. The key is when they start the stop watch to count down the 25 seconds. I think the point some of us are trying to make here, is that the umpires need to use discretion as to when they start the stop watch. If there is an exceedingly long rally, then the umpire should have the discretion to start the stop watch later or allow a bit longer. If there is excessive crowd noise after a great point or rally, then the umpire should be able to allow a little extra time between points. If the weather conditions are exceedingly hot and humid, then the umpire should allow a little more time between points.


Nativenewyorker , 4/2/13 9:23 AM


^^^Believe it or not, one of the biggest proponents of a big shot clock courtside is Brad Gilbert. Cannot understand him, given how knowledgeable he is about the sport.

rafaisthebest , 4/2/13 9:31 AM


^^^^

Really? That surprises me. I really enjoy listening to his commentary about the matches. I know that Darren Cahill doesn't want a shot clock courtside.

Nativenewyorker , 4/2/13 10:00 AM


Still a deafening silence from the player who wanted this punitive measure to be introduced!

RITB: I love your graphic description of spectator participation if there were to be a clock on court. Imagine the mayhem amongst the raucous crowds at the Slams. There is a huge disparity in the ability of umpires to bring the crowd under control. Pascal Mourier is particularly inept at this.

On Sunday my son-in-law, daughter and I were all yelling at the TV because Mourier seemed incapable of stopping them from yelling out while the players were serving.

As for his 'reminders' to the players to get a move on.......................enough said.

ed251137 , 4/2/13 12:24 PM


A shot clock on court would be so disastrous, it would be funny.
a) would distract the players but
b) I can well imagine the rowdier elements in a crowd counting down, especially if they'd taken against a player. Think of the mayhem then lol. It wouldn't last 5 minutes.
#FickleFrenchCrowd
#;)ed

deuce , 4/2/13 1:40 PM


Ha, Ha. The mind boggles.

ed251137 , 4/2/13 1:53 PM


re: crowd control. I saw Andy swearing in the direction of the stands at one point. I have never understood why umpires don't simply stop play if hecklers are repeatedly calling out while a player is serving.

ed251137 , 4/2/13 2:08 PM


^^^ This alone should be enough to convince a supporter of this new enforcement rule that it is dumb and it makes everybody associated with tennis look dumb. For starters, why didn't the ATP "trial run" this on the Challenger circuit first like they did with the no-let rule?

This is the same stunt they pulled with the blue clay, bam! Straight onto the main tour.......and like now, the players were never consulted.

I bet these ATP Board members are handsomely compensated, they really should hand back their emoluments. I am assuming they have a sense of shame of course....

I am beginning to think there is some deep-rooted malfeasance taking place at the ATP, this is not normal....

rafaisthebest , 4/2/13 2:20 PM



Current ATP-rankings

1. Djokovic 12 500 pts
2. Murray 8 750 pts
3. Federer 8 670 pts
4. Ferrer 6 970 pts
5. Nadal 6 385 pts

Unibet Mobile prematch,live betting

Unibet Mobile betting Unibet Mobile betting

Scan QR code to access Unibet mobile.
Bet on Sports wherever you are and whenever you like, with Unibet's quick and simple mobile client you can place bets, check results and see live odds.
 For more info about QR codes & scanners click here.

ATP Calendar

Date
Tournament

Recommend Tennistalk



Follow us

Follow Tennistalk on Facebook Follow Tennistalk on Twitter

Tell a friend

Your name:

Friend's name:

Friend's email:

Other tennis links