Shot clock

Emancipator wrote:

DEC1M7 wrote:

Slippy wrote:
The real point you should be making on here is that it’s had zero overall impact on Nadal. He hasn’t lost a match yet with a shot clock in operation! Totally putting to rest the nonsense on here that he needed the extra time to recover!

Indeed.
Obviously having extra seconds helps any player in between points, but the key question is now that the extra seconds aren't there, who is harmed more: Nadal or his opponent?
I've always thought it's possible Nadal is actually doing his opponents a favour by taking extra time, and so far it seems the shot clock is helping him.
He is so far unbeaten with the shot clock, and he may lose in the semis or final, but I doubt the shot clock would be a factor in the defeat.

Agree. The introduction of the SC has not dented Nadal one bit. If anything I suspect, in these conditions, if he were to play against Djokovic, the SC would be to his advantage. That match is close to 50:50 for me or maybe 55:45 Screech.

Barry's point about control of play is also a good one.

Yeah I think the shot clock also helps Nadal as it focuses his mind more on being aggressive and taking control of the point, so the opponent suffers more physically.

Barry's point about control of play does sound reasonable, however it's hard to tell whether elite players who are so professional would be significantly influenced by a few seconds here and there. Funnily enough I think with the shot clock the opportunity to use time strategically could be enhanced. Players could be expecting Nadal to serve when the count is below 10, but he could surprise with the serve at count of 15 like he has done a few times.

Daniel wrote:It's on faster surfaces where he would need the extra time to recover from all the running he's doing while attacking players just move him left to right.  Attacking players aren't used to longer rallies and are at a disadvantage on slower surfaces.

Can you expand on this further?
Seems to me to be obviously wrong (the first sentence).

Attacking players don't run nearly as much on fast surfaces.  They serve bombs and move defensive players around more.  It's that simple.  They can play faster and have more energy.  Defensive players then need more time to recover, which fast players don't give them on fast surfaces.

But this isn't a fast surface.  It's a slow surface.  Slower than the Aussie Open - and the shot clock isn't a proper shot clock.  It isn't enforced and it's bags of time.

Nothing has changed.  At all.

Daniel wrote:Attacking players don't run nearly as much on fast surfaces.  They serve bombs and move defensive players around more.  It's that simple.  They can play faster and have more energy.  Defensive players then need more time to recover, which fast players don't give them on fast surfaces.

This still doesn't make any sense to me. Attacking players finish points off quicker on faster surfaces. On slower surfaces there's a greater opportunity for the defensive players to get the ball back into play, and hence they have to run more. Moreover, when Nadal does take control of the point mid rally, on slower surfaces the point will last longer too until he finishes the point off. There's always more running on a slower surface than a faster surface.

I don't care whom it helps, I just like the fact I do not have to wait while they are pondering the meaning of the universe between the points.  For me, shot clock has significantly improved watchability of tennis.

Daniel wrote:

Slippy wrote:
The real point you should be making on here is that it’s had zero overall impact on Nadal. He hasn’t lost a match yet with a shot clock in operation! Totally putting to rest the nonsense on here that he needed the extra time to recover!

5. Nadal has had a piss easy draw again.  Del Potro is brainless, but if he turns up, Nadal will go home.  Slow surface or not.  Nadal is lucky he didnt get Fed's draw.

Oh, look... I was right. Guess it's easy to go back through comments....