Week 35 - US Open Main Draw Hard

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Week 35 - US Open Main Draw Hard

Spectator · All-time great

Tennis is not an easy sport in terms of public relations - and Ms Konta's press conference (edit: previously cited, with link, by ABB!) is a model of handling difficult circumstances well (NB: The US Open has done two things with its interview videos - dramatically improved the quality with closer shots/better audio and also shown the interviewers. As a result, the players' personalities come through much more clearly, and you get much more of a sense of the dynamics of the press room. Well done, US Open. Your live score system is the most unnecessarily confusing thing that I've seen in some time, but the interviews are good)

Bencic isn't exactly the person I'd want to face next were I she, but one has no doubt that she'll prepare well.

-- Edited by Spectator on Thursday 1st of September 2016 10:24:09 AM

DF · Tennis legend

Heather is down to play in her doubles second match on ct 15.
Would have expected her to have pulled out of the tournament because of her illness

Julia Carrot · All-time great

DF wrote:
Heather is down to play in her doubles second match on ct 15.
Would have expected her to have pulled out of the tournament because of her illness

I was really glad to see she hadn't pulled out and is maybe feeling a bit better. It's not like it's an injury that she's going to exacerbate. Sounds more like a chronic post viral sort of thing and with that you have good and bad days and different conditions can dramatically affect you. Doubles is generally less strenuous than singles, or so I am told though it doesn't always look like that.

tony_orient · ATP qualifying

Some good news for Jo in the other matches with Muguruza going out, and of the top 4 seeds she was always the best option to be in the same quarter as going into the tournament. On the other hand, Bencic looks to have found some form after her return from injury after initially struggling. If Jo is able to physically recover, and Bencic has rediscovered her game, it will be an excellent match.

philwrig · Hall of fame

You have to give huge credit to Jo for coming through that match, and I sense from listening to her PC that it's more a fatigue issue, than the actual heat/humidity. Her battery levels are very low at the moment, so when extreme conditions come into play, her body has just shut down. Hopefully lots of rest over the next 24 hours will help her freshen up somewhat.

Jaffa · Challenger level

I hate to say it but a very good article in my opinion below:

www.eurosport.co.uk/tennis/us-open/2016/jo-kontas-distress-was-clear-but-22-minute-break-highlights-glaring-problem-in-tennis_sto5814312/story.shtml

indiana · Tennis legend

It is a good article in highlighting misuse - eg.medical treatment for cramp! and cynical misuse of toilet breaks.

In Jo's case we had the unfortunate ( in many ways for Pironkova ) timing issue of Jo's collapse right before the end of the second set, effectively making it such a long break for her.

But that was a quirk with this match and it is the separate general medical time out and toilet breaks that the authorities need to at least consider.

I believe there is already a maximum medical time-out in force and it us no player's fault the time they have to wait for physics and /or doctors to attend even if say they are meantime partially recovering. So not sure what more can /should be done here though its certainly not the first time treatment for cramp and effectively just massaging tired limbs has been mentioned.

Re toilet breaks while its easy to see that here too there are issues and some cynical misuse the rules are in place and when you have such as Jo's perfectly understandable ( as the article concedes ) need to change out of soaking clothes then it is difficult.

So the article points out issues and raises questions. The answers seem rather more difficult.

Jaffa · Challenger level

Simple answer is have a maximum time limit before points are awarded to the other player. You wouldn't see Nishikori etc going off court for ten minutes then would you?

I remember one match somewhere where the fella came back out and he'd had a shower! That was a clear mickey take!

wimdledont · Challenger level

On a couple of subjects:

1. Heatstroke is potentially fatal. I think the authorities need to examine what needs to happen to avoid the danger of somebody actually dying on court. I think that the on-court doctor should be given the power to suspend play for that day, in that match, if in their opinion, without reference to either player, the umpire, the tournament referee or the television executives, a player is in danger. To leave the decision to the patient, while the patient is delirious (and under severe financial and professional pressure to continue beyond their safe limits) is a recipe for future disaster.

2. If Rafa scratches his behind for 29 seconds between points, then the receiver just needs to wait a long time. If Laura throws the ball up and catches it five times, the receiver needs to crouch down, stand up, crouch, stand, crouch, stand, crouch, stand, crouch and finally receive serve. Rafa is not gaining any advantage; Laura is severely affecting her opponent's concentration and play. There should be a heavier sanction for repeated failed ball-tosses than for time violations, in my view. 3 ball tosses and the third equals a service fault?

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes, the ball toss issue must be awful for Laura, and I do hope she can sort it, but it is awful for her opponents as well, and they are absolutely blameless.

Not just crouch, stand, crouch, stand, but the mental issues of so repeatedly having to be absolutely ready for this might be the time she actually hits the thing. Also, particularly with a second serve the player might have preconceived intentions as to what they plan to attempt to do and pretty well signal them as she tosses the ball. Do they stick to that or change? - though to be fair that probably doesn't matter here as Laura is presumably so intent on the ball toss and hitting it to notice their movements.

The ball toss is part of the serve, the opponent is ready to go, so really something needs done against the ridiculous level of a Laura just now. 3 failed ball tosses and the third is a service fault seems very reasonable to me.

Re the separate heststroke issue, I see where you are coming from but 'suspend play for that day' in a particular match seems not fair to me. The sufferers has been on the roaps, absolutely unfair to the opponent to give them overnight recovery time. Two options for me - play continues or the sufferer is stopped and the opponent wins the match. So it comes down to if and how the doctor can be given that authority, but I see the case in such potentially dangerous situations, and if you are not to allow suspensions then it seems very reasonable for safety reasons that the ultimate authority is given and the players sign up for this.

-- Edited by indiana on Thursday 1st of September 2016 02:49:36 PM

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

Jaffa wrote:
Simple answer is have a maximum time limit before points are awarded to the other player. You wouldn't see Nishikori etc going off court for ten minutes then would you?

I remember one match somewhere where the fella came back out and he'd had a shower! That was a clear mickey take!

I thinks the detail in actually implementing that 'simple' fix makes it virtually impracticable.

Even at modern venues, because it has not been required at all, competitors changing rooms are not designed to be equidistant to all courts. The variation between an outside court and a show court could be quite large several of minutes - which would further be exacerbated on busy tournament days, when packed grounds, full with spectators, could impede free passage from court to changing rooms and back. The upshot of that is that some player would get an extra advantage by virtue of the court they were on. They might have sufficient time to change clothes, where as on the furthest courts, a player may have barely enough time to relieve themselves. From tournament to tournament, and court to court, the experience would not be uniform.

Maybe that's fair. After all, there is already inequality on the courts - even at the Grand Slams, not every court gets the 'benefit' of Hawkeye.
But we should surely be looking to even the playing field, not widen the advantages for some.

You could set a maximum time per venue, or even per court per venue, and rely on the Umpire or Referee to clearly inform the departing player of exactly what their time provision was at this venue on this particular court, as they left for their break. Complicated rules like that tend not to work very well, and as soon as they (inevitably) cause confusion and go wrong, they are lambasted by a load of, as American's say, 'Monday Morning Quarterbacks' - playing the game perfectly on the day after it had occurred with the exactitude of hindsight - who pile in and say it was obvious this would be a disaster, and they should just simplify the rule.

This is to say nothing of the issue of medical transit to a distressed player, and medical time outs, or what is allowed in a comfort break - if you have time spare (you are on a court right next door, and don't need to otherwise use the facilities, is a swift shower forbidden? Is a change of clothes forbidden?

As soon as you allow players to take these breaks, you enter into a whole world of grey. I don't think there are any simple answers that cover all considerations, except removing them; something the players simply won't sanction.

PaulM · Tennis legend

I asked Tumaini a question in relation to that article (which is very good), so I'll add here.

In principle, the notion of saying if you go over allotted time you start losing points is absolutely fine, however, it doesn't take account of the fact that on any tournament site, particularly a large one like a GS, all the courts are varying distances from toilets/changing facilities. In addition, players can get held up coming to/from breaks by moving crowds.

Now this may seem a small, silly, pedantic thing, but in the context of an important tennis match, you can easily see situations arising where a player is trying to get back to court quickly, but starts to drop 1 or 2 points by going shortly over her allotted time, and them losing the plot because (they feel) they were held up due to circumstances beyond their control. Do you run the risk of inadvertently penalising the players who are on the far away outside courts and will need, even on a completely clear run, and extra 30 seconds or so each way to complete their break? How can you enforce that rule fairly, given umpires can't even count to 20 at the minute?

Now you might just say "tough" - be quicker, or don't take the break. And that's totally reasonable, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but if the point is to clarify the rules, modernise, speed up play, or avoid issues, then it seems to be you could inadvertently end up doing the opposite as player and umpire argue about whether or not they should be deducted points after returning, say, 10 seconds late, to the court furthest away from the toilet facilities and having been (in the players view) held up on their route back due to large crowds and narrow walkways (often happens at Wimbledon to the players around courts 5/6/9/10), or having gone into the nearest public toilet to find all the stalls full and having to wait before they could get in.

Similarly, the article misses perhaps the most crucial point. Yes, the total break was 22 minutes, but a fifth of that was waiting on the doctor to arrive in the first place. That is outrageous, it should never have taken that long to get a doctor on court (and it was almost 5 minutes for Heather to get a doctor to her as well). Discount the time waiting on the doctor, and you are in a more reasonable time frame for a break.

Lastly, the solution proposed in that article would not have changed the situation one bit, because the only point that would have been forfeited would have been the set point. I can't see any basis whatsoever for arguing that extending your time would take you ACROSS sets and into the start of the new one, given you are allowed an authorised break between sets. You would have to penalise to end of set, flip into authorised break time, and then only if the player was STILL absent start applying penalties in the new set. But that becomes so unwieldy.

EDIT - I see AliBB has raised pretty much the same point! Great minds!!

-- Edited by PaulM on Thursday 1st of September 2016 02:44:57 PM

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

The article focuses on the fact that JoKo's opponent had not hit a ball for 22 mins and the disadvantage that put her under (rather than the actual unfairness of the time-outs as such).

I suppose one way to minimise that would be to say: if play has effectively been suspended for more than ten minutes (whether due to delay in doctor coming, toilets being miles away, etc. etc. etc.) then a warm-up has to be played (exactly as one does if players are called off for rain for over a certain period of time).

Don't think the crowds would really like it, and it is admitting that the current laid-down rules of time limits are not being respected (so the authorities probably wouldn't like it) but it does have some logic.

theemptyvessel · Club Coach

tony_orient wrote:
Some good news for Jo in the other matches with Muguruza going out, and of the top 4 seeds she was always the best option to be in the same quarter as going into the tournament. On the other hand, Bencic looks to have found some form after her return from injury after initially struggling. If Jo is able to physically recover, and Bencic has rediscovered her game, it will be an excellent match.

Bencic did show some form in New Haven but then completely lost the plot in the 3rd set against Flipkens and ended the match smashing racquets, ranting at herself and her box and generally very out of sorts. I know it's a little unsporting but I rather hope for more of that tomorrow against Jo who quite frankly is a much better player than Flipkens.