"It Happens Every Spring"...

[Camilio Pascual]

...is a very enjoyable baseball comedy.
Anyway, after being on this board for 5 years it is amusing to see the perennial springtime gripes from posters of wintry areas of our country about....
...pushers, slicers, counterpunchers, dinkers, hackers, duffers, old men, etc.
WaaaaH! His strokes are awful and he beat me, but I'm the better player!...ad nuaseum.
I didn't have much else to say or a theme, just a bemused observation, so let's have a poll!

[drakulie]

Well said. If you can't beat pushers-YOU LOSE! I for one enjoy watching people (like on this board) who talk a great game, etc. and then watch them struggle, curse, break racquets while a "dorky pusher" kicks thier ass, and then leaves the court with a big smile. :)

[Ash Doyle]

I was reading a thread yesterday where a user was saying that a pusher he played (and lost to) should learn to play correctly. These guys crack me up. They have totally forgotten tennis is a competitive sport and not figure skating. It's a case of ego distorting reality. Same thing with they guys that talk about being beaten by an opponent using a "granny stick" and say they could have won had the other guy been using a "real" racquet (basically saying that the other guy cheated due to his choice of racquet).

...and on top of that, you know these "pushers" probably aren't hitting winners. These guys are probably losing due to unforced errors because they aren't able generate their own pace off of slow incoming balls and keep the ball under control, and yet they still can't see they lost due to their own problems.

[kevhen]

It's cheap reading entertainment.

[Geezer Guy]

Come on you guys. When tennis was invented back in the stone age, all they had were baseline bashers. So, the only way they knew how to determine a winner was to count points as they went along. We've come SO far since then.

I submit that it's time to scrap the old scoring system completely, and come up with a new system. The new system would be based on type of game (for instance an all court player would get more points than a pusher), clothing atire (someone dressed fashionably would get more points than someone wearing baggy pants and a t-shirt), and of course the actual strokes a person used (someone with picture-perfect strokes would get more points than someone with flawed or unorthadox strokes). And, racquet and string selection would certainly factor in to the score. Finally, mental toughness and strategy would be determined by a pop quiz when contestants arrived at the court. An added benefit would be that tennis matches would be much faster - because most of the judging would take place immediately when people arrived.

At every tennis court an impartial panel of judges would be stationed to determine the winner of each match. Judges would specialized in court surfaces, of course, as a 2hbh might be more highly regarded on clay, while the 1hbh would score more on grass. The weather would factor into the clothing judging as well - show up on a sunny day without sunscreen, and it might just cost you the match.

At any rate, there are some details to work out - but I'm sure everyone would agree that this is a much better system that what we use now.

[ferrari_827]

I think slightly more points should be given to spectacular or difficult shots. Unforced errors, forced errors, or less than spectacular shots get 15 points.

Spectacular shots get 20 points. So hit two of these in one game and you are up 40-0.

The problem is that you would need a reliable third party to determine this since the players themselves are unlikely to accurately assess whether the shot was truly "spectacular". Also, a spectacular shot at a certain level of tennis may not be at a higher level. So this might not work.

As for a player getting a certain amount of points period just for overall style ? I say no. The player has to earn it, point by point.

[papa]

Well, none of us enjoy playing outside our comfort zone - when we encounter someone/anyone/conditions who/that does that we don't like it, its only natural. For instance, I played indoors today on very fast courts - not having played either inside or on anything other that Har Tru for over six months, it didn't feel comfortable. Same thing is true for pushers - if your not used to playing them, you don't feel comfortable and probably don't play you best.

[Geezer Guy]

I like ferrari's idea - if we're going to still play out the points. There was previously a thread about whether or not people clapped or said Good Shot when an opponent made a great shot. Well, in those cases - the "extra" points would be awarded. However, I'm not sure we want to play out the points - that's just what Pushers WANT us to do. Better to go by style alone, I say.

[kevhen]

Would a tweener shot between the legs get you and instant game or at least get you to 40-0????? What about the behind the back shot? Maybe they could put colored spots on the court like short angled that would get you an extra point if you hit the spot and then got a winner. This would help shorten up matches.

[ssjkyle31]

Pusher style is still a valid game style. I do admit I have an A(all courter) game style and pusher-blocker like style of game play (only not very consistent). The pusher style of play kind of develope by playing all the pusher out there. Even though the strokes may not be that great, but they are very consistent with that strokes. Why waste my energy playing them?

[theace21]

Great idea, the russian judge only gave me a 4 on that forehand winner...Cost me the match...

[FREDDY]

there should be because i can play perfectly with all the form and then break against someone who can get the ball over in the ugliest way in the entire world. you dont even understand what kind of suffering i have gone through. =] but the points shouldnt affect the outcome of the match but maybe an award at the end of the tournament.

[tedmeister]

Maybe they could put colored spots on the court like short angled that would get you an extra point if you hit the spot and then got a winner. This would help shorten up matches.
Now we would really be needing shotspot to help our linespeople call these. This would bring out the player's shotmaking abilities and might actually get viewers glued to their seats during 3-4 hour matches on tv. Sudden death with one deft stroke of the racket. Out of a deep hole in one stroke. The three point shot of tennis. Of course, traditiionalists would try to put a stop to this madness.

[Camilio Pascual]

Come on you guys. When tennis was invented back in the stone age, all they had were baseline bashers. So, the only way they knew how to determine a winner was to count points as they went along. We've come SO far since then.

I submit that it's time to scrap the old scoring system completely, and come up with a new system. The new system would be based on type of game (for instance an all court player would get more points than a pusher), clothing atire (someone dressed fashionably would get more points than someone wearing baggy pants and a t-shirt), and of course the actual strokes a person used (someone with picture-perfect strokes would get more points than someone with flawed or unorthadox strokes). And, racquet and string selection would certainly factor in to the score. Finally, mental toughness and strategy would be determined by a pop quiz when contestants arrived at the court. An added benefit would be that tennis matches would be much faster - because most of the judging would take place immediately when people arrived.

At every tennis court an impartial panel of judges would be stationed to determine the winner of each match. Judges would specialized in court surfaces, of course, as a 2hbh might be more highly regarded on clay, while the 1hbh would score more on grass. The weather would factor into the clothing judging as well - show up on a sunny day without sunscreen, and it might just cost you the match.

At any rate, there are some details to work out - but I'm sure everyone would agree that this is a much better system that what we use now.

Pretty good start but could use some tinkering. For example, local rules could allow the inversion of points, where Mr.Baggy Pants gets the most points and Miss Pearl Necklace gets the low points.

[montx]

I voted 'yes' above but on different grounds.

I don't think style points should be literally awarded. But it is always a pleasure to watch people with grace, technique and strategy (tactics). Thats what I define 'style' as in tennis. Those peeps that can create a point with those elements.

I personally give them my vote of thumbs up because it makes tennis a pleasure to watch.

A good example is recently in the Monte Carlo Masters...when Nadal was playing Gaudio.

Gaudio was getting his behind handed to him on a plate, but there were still moments where he played with more style than nadal and worked to create a point. Specifically, to those where he came up to the net and he created openings and chances for himself. Some instances where the monotonous baseline play was ended by some wonderful tactic to change the course of the game.

I appreciated him though he lost. For few of us that might have saw that match, you might now what I'm saying.

Hope I'm right.

[kevhen]

Maybe what they should do is just have the players play like 100 points (to keep the time of match more conistent) and then award up to 10 style points to one player so the loser could still become the winner if he keeps it close enough and makes some beautiful shots.

Why not just have exhibition matches between the stylish players?

[dozu]

plain and simple.... if you can't beat a pusher, your stroke is flawed, no matter how "gracefule" it might look to untrained eyes. and in the game of tennis, that pusher is a better player than you as the score indicates.

[kevhen]

Yes, as most of us know, winning tennis is the name of the game and it doesn't have to be beautiful to be effective. Save the beauty for the female tennis players anyway.