Time-clock is a must, says Cilic

PUNE: Marin Cilic doesn’t want the basic structure of the game to be tinkered with, but believes ‘time-clock’ is a must to make the rules fair and consistent.
Tennis authorities have been experimenting with a few changes in the game in their attempt to keep the game relevant to the younger generation.
In the Next Gen Finals featuring the top under-21 players, the ATP World Tour trialled a shorter format — best of five four-game sets with tiebreak at 3-3 all — shorter warm-up, shot clock, no-let rule, player coaching and single medical timeout.
“I am still a traditional guy. I like the rules the way they are. Some small changes are necessary (in keeping) with the technology, they are always welcome,” the 29-year-old Croat told TOI during an exclusive chat at the $560,000 Tata Open Maharashtra on Monday.
“For me the changes could be the use of hawk-eye a little more often; time-clock, which we are going to use at the Australian Open. Just small things like that, nothing major that would interfere with the game, interfere with the change of the format of the set.
So with the coaching, the traditional, stays with the way it is.”
The World No. 6 said he felt ‘time-clock’, used to impose 25-second rule between points, was necessary because the umpires have been inconsistent in imposing the code.
“It is where I think the referees are not very consistent. Sometimes, (they are) a little bit harder in their decisions, and sometimes leaner (lenient). And some guys are getting (away) more often than the others,” the 2014 US Open champion said. “For me, the time-clock should be there, but still a referee should be there to see if the crowd is interfering, or if there is a big noise, when he can be a little lenient.”
Rafael Nadal had said earlier that during long-drawn five-set matches, chair umpires should take that into consideration while applying the rule. But Cilic didn’t agree. “No, it doesn’t (warrant leniency). I know that I am also sometimes going over the clock. But if we have a rule and that is consistent, we will all adapt to that rule. For me, if the match goes five-sets, if the points are long, it is upto the players to fight and see who is better. That is part of the game,” he said.
Multiple bodies — ATP, WTA, ITF and Grand Slams Committee — running the sport has been a topic of debate, but Cilic felt the issue was the poor contribution of the four majors to the overall financial health of tennis. “We all need to work for the game, work to be fair. In some cases, I think the Grand Slams are taking the cream … They are on the top and organising those (major) events, but they have to be fair in making contributions to the Tour,” he said.
However, he didn’t agree increased prize share for the doubles. “They are always going to say they require more prize money. I am not sure (how much they get), at the moment they are getting 20 or 25 per cent. I think overall doubles players are earning good money and making good living. ”
Looking ahead, Cilic took heart from his Wimbledon final performance against Roger Federer this year when the latter annexed his 19th Slam with a 6-3, 6-1, 6-4 win over the Croat.
“For me, when I was confronting him, he was a big challenge. But he was also a big drive for me to test how I am going to perform.