Steve,
Don’t you think Brad Gilbert has a point when he says that we need a shot clock in tennis? As he kept saying when Andy Murray was playing, how is the player going to know when 25 seconds is up? What is your opinion?—Callie
There are some topics that never go away in tennis. Actually, to be more accurate, all topics in tennis never go away. Over the last year, we’ve added another to the chattering-class rotation: the shot clock.
As you say, Brad Gilbert was beating on this particular not-quite-dead-yet horse on Thursday during Murray’s match against Marin Cilic. Murray, who isn’t known as an especially slow player, received a time warning, pretty much out of the blue, and never seemed to forget it. He might have thanked the chair umpire at the end, because it definitely lit a fire under him.
It should be noted that Gilbert is, like Billie Jean King and John McEnroe, a man who instinctively likes change, or the idea of change, in tennis—the shot clock is just one of many he'd like to see. But when he asks, “How are the players supposed to know when 25 seconds is up?” he obviously has a point.
So let’s imagine that a shot clock is on the court. I did the same thing in another article on the subject a few weeks ago; here are the questions and reservations that came to my mind:
—On the plus side, it would let players know how long they’re taking.
—On the minus side, a clock could be a distraction. If the players saw that they were running low on time, would they move too quickly and get out of rhythm?
—Would it ring when it hits 25 seconds, or would a light go on, or would nothing happen?
—Would fans start counting down out loud as it gets close to 25?
—If it does hit 25, is the umpire then required to give a warning? If he can use his discretion, what will fans or opponents say when they see that a player took too much time before a certain point and wasn’t called for it?
—When does the clock start? If that’s also at the umpire’s discretion, which it should be, won’t that create as many arguments as it solves? Aren’t we trying to take the umpire’s discretion out of it?
—One of the issues that the players, most prominently Rafael Nadal, have now is that they don't think they can be ready in 25 seconds after a long point. The shot clock, which can't take exertion into consideration, isn't going to do anything to solve that problem. It would only exacerbate it.
I’ve been informed by a number of readers that a shot clock was used at a tournament—perhaps in Australia—in the 1980s and that it worked well. Even John McEnroe didn’t have a problem with it. Maybe it’s time to experiment with one at a special event; maybe there wouldn’t be any issues at all. But for now I still think that good, flexible umpiring—the kind that Andy Murray did not receive on Thursday—is a simpler and better solution.
One additional note on the subject: This, like another recurring topic in tennis, the slow-court debate, is typically only mentioned in relation to the men. The ATP is the one cracking down on slow play. What about the women? It doesn’t seem to be a problem, or at least not one that has forced a change in procedure. In Australia, I timed the woman who I thought took the most time between points, the reliably ritualistic Maria Sharapova. I was surprised to see that she took either 19 or 20 seconds every single time. (The limit at the Grand Slams is 20 seconds.) **She may extend that closer to 25 at tour events, or she may go over, I don't know. But she was like clockwork, and always within the rules, in Melbourne.
Maybe that’s an answer for the men: Forget the shot clock, just do exactly what Maria does before every first serve, and you'll be right on time.