An inquisitive and unskillful question to Rafael

After the first days of the tournament and recovered, as I was saying the other day, the normality of the editions prior to the pandemic, the atmosphere in any of the tracks (with more reason in the Arthur Ashe) continues to be deafening.

It costs the unspeakable for the public to attend to the chair umpire's repeated requests for silence so that the players can concentrate.

At most, a slight decrease in decibels is achieved at the moment when one of the tennis players is about to serve.

And those of us who are sitting in the stands have a hard time even hearing the noise of the ball being hit or the shout of the players.

What has also caused some noise has been the supposedly uncomfortable question from a journalist to Rafael at the press conference following their first meeting, about whether he receives favorable treatment from the judges in the application of the rule of stipulated 25 seconds between point and point.

The question, which came on the heels of John McEnroe's comments during his broadcast of the game, is, in my opinion, as inquisitive as it is unskillful.

What did the journalist expect?

That, if so, Rafael would answer him in the affirmative?

The answer and the arguments were made very clear by my nephew to the press envoy who made a mistake, at least, by directing the question to whom he presumes to benefit and not to the referees, whose professionalism he really questions.

I have no doubt that the intention of these is to be fair and demand all players equally.

Another thing is that, on occasions, they may feel somewhat conditioned by the name of the tennis player or impelled to keep a little more consideration for those who do not cause problems on the court.

And it is precisely in that subtle and imprecise plot, where there is room for the comments that, without any bad intentions, the great American former tennis player made during the broadcast of the match.

More information

Consult all the texts of TONI NADAL

Its task is to analyze the points, the more or less successful execution of each player and to entertain the viewer who follows him from home by talking about other issues without which it would be difficult to fill in all the time.

Another thing is that a journalist wants to get more point than due to an event that is much more anecdotal than significant.

During the many years that I was in Rafael's

, I saw him receive and receive many warnings, and quite a few first-serve losses.

Some of them, in addition, in very committed moments of the match.

This is why I have many doubts that he will receive favored treatment.

I also understand, and precisely guided by the logic of justice, that the spirit of the rule is not so much that the game speeds up, but above all that someone does not intentionally waste time in search of a personal advantage.

The 25 seconds should not be, in my opinion, strictly and unalterably applied.

After a direct serve or a short point, two or three exchanges, the game must certainly be started within that time.

If, on the other hand, there is a point of many hits and great intensity, having to follow the stopwatch without the minimum margin that the judge's baton gives, I understand that it does not favor either the game or the show.

For me in particular, if I watch the game from the stands, I like being able to see a good point repeated on the gigantic screens that surround the stadium.

If I watch it from home I appreciate not only the repetition of the move, but also the explanation, the comments or even the admiring words of the great experts, such as McEnroe or Alex Corretja, a really complicated task if we insist on being so meticulous and severe as the prissy journalist seems to want.

You can follow EL PAÍS Deportes on

50% off

Subscribe to continue reading

read without limits

Keep reading

I'm already a subscriber