“I cannot support that, because for so many facts in my opinion the rule is wrong.  First thing, because the rules go against the great points of tennis.

Because if you see the highlights of the end of the season, I didn’t see not one highlight, the best points of the season, I did not see not one ace.

The best points of the season are long rallies and amazing points.  With this 25 seconds, you play a long rally and you think you can play another long rally next point?  No.  So go against the good tennis.

So the guy who really accepted this rule was not very smart, in my opinion.  Even if you don’t have time for the TV to repeat a good point, and then the referee, I don’t know what he’s doing on his chair.  We can play without referee 100%.  The lines on every line, Hawk‑Eye, now 25 seconds.  He don’t have to analyze nothing.  He just have to put the clock and that’s it.  Then we can play.  Put the clock on court and play without umpire, because it’s not necessary anymore because the umpire is not enough good to analyze if the match is being hard, if somebody is losing time, penalize him with a warning.

If both players are going the same way because you are playing a great point and you need to rest 40 seconds after the point, we don’t need anymore umpire.  That’s my feeling.  You know what I did?  Maybe somebody ‑‑ maybe nobody did at the ATP, but I went back to my matches, great matches, in Grand Slams, playing long rallies in big tournaments, and when you play like a 30 points, you know, 30‑shots rally, 40‑shots rally like final of Roland Garros, like final of Australia, like final of any good tournament, you know, how much time we rested?

You have to see the third set of the US Open 2011 against Djokovic, and you tell me if the crowd was very happy about what happened in that set or not, and tell me if with this new rule that can happen again.  Please.”

Source: Tennis Panorama News / Photo: Getty Images