PDA

View Full Version : A PROPOSAL FOR CHANGING THE RULES OF TENNIS


Markus Kaila
02-19-2004, 01:28 AM
Since the 1980's people have been trying to find a means to diminish the dominating role of the
serve in tennis. Probably the most frequently heard propositions are: only one ball per serve,
softer/bigger balls or moving the position of the server further back from the baseline. The option
of allowing only one ball per service has apparently been mentioned most often. Its greatest
disadvantage is that at least on club level it would make the game too stressing and you should
try to avoid a solution where top players and amateurs have different rules. The remaining two of
the afore-mentioned propositions are rather artificial.

Especially during the last few years another defect has attracted attention. Not much has been
said about it and one feels it has actually not been considered a defect. It is the undue benefit the
left-handers achieve because of their divergence . Perhaps it has been regarded as some kind of
law of nature in tennis which nothing can be done about. So today every fourth or fifth of the
world´s top players is a left-hander. The amount of left-handed people is normally around five
per cent of the population. Left-handers do get undeniable advantage of the fact that the decisive
point of a game may be played in the second service court at the certainty of over 75 per cent. In
a way left-handers get their due normal advantage in regular all-court play of the fact that their
spins are more alien and thus more difficult for right-handers than vice versa.

Rule change

The dividing line between service courts will be completely abolished. The area will be divided
into THREE equally large service courts as opposed to the two of the present-day rules.
Respective one-third marks will be made on the baseline. A single service will in practice be
executed quite similarly as today, but the server will be standing between the one-third marks and
the respective service court will be the one-third court exactly opposite. Accordingly, there will be
no deuce or advantage courts in a singles match, the service court will remain the same
throughout the match, only one third narrower than previously. The server will naturally be free
to choose his serving position between the marks.

The doubles application would analogically be that the server will always serve from between the
sideline and the one-third mark, only not diagonally but straight to the opposing service court. It
is a matter of taste whether the first service will be executed from the left or right side. Western
thinking would prefer the logic of the first service being served from the left - as seen from the
server s point of view. In service position the other two players may - for a moment - appear to
be bystanders as regards the action on the court and certainly there would be some adjustments
in the tactics, but they might be even more complex than the present ones. Anyway, because of
the player on guard at the net, a break of serve in doubles is nowadays even harder to achieve
than in singles, and that would facilitated.

The new court is here:
http://www.cs.Helsinki.FI/u/jpheikki/3malli/kentta_etusivu.jpg










Or http://www.helsinki.fi/~jpheikki/3malli/kenttae.htm

Things worth noticing

As a point in singles would usually be started nearer the centre and the service court would be
one third narrower, this would result in aces naturally becoming more rare at least by half and
serving would in general become more difficult. However, this would not entirely be for the
benefit of the returner, which is noteworthy. As the ball would more often have to be returned
from the ( crosswise ) mid-section of the court and never from so far from the side as now, the
narrower return angle would reduce the returner s benefit from the rules change. If it is not the
returner who achieves entirely the server s loss of advantage, then who or what gets the
remainder? The better all-court player and accordingly we as an audience and tennis devotees get
to see a more versatile and action-packed match.

Present rules cause the fact that tennis - at least on the top level - is being played in a slightly
peculiar way, also during the all-court phase ( or what remains of it ). Players are in the
back-court corners and the ball is being hit cross-court. That is the safest way; after all, the court
is broader diagonally than crosswise and of course striking the ball back is less risky than to to
turn the stroke along the line. The player who goes for that first, takes the chance of a) totally
failing in the stroke or b) having a busy time getting to the other corner and so the opponent can
easily strike the ball back along the line behind the back of the initiator. The fact that the match
so often gets settled in the corner-play mould clearly originates mostly in the present diagonal
serve. Changing the rules in the afore-mentioned way the situation would improve. It is to be
expected that even then much of the game will be played cross-court from corner to corner, but
be it so, at least then the situation will have arisen from an iniative of one of the players and not
predestinated as a starting point, which happens when present rules are being applied.

It is also highly likely that serving into one court only at singles play will make the game much
more easier to adopt for a complete tennis ignoramus; the treshold of starting themselves will be
lower and it is hardly much more difficult for a beginner to hit at a 4ft6 (137 cm) narrower
service court than the present one. As an added bonus it is easier to aim lengthwise - or almost
lengthwise - and having to practise serving into one court only.

Top-level tennis has developed to the point where the returner has had to try to invent a
serve-like weapon. Not being so much a retriever - as has been so common - the player has
become a proper returner in the true sense of the word, not just trying to get the ball back but
aiming for a straight point with a risky shot, when at all managing to get the racket behind the
ball. The result is that the server has to take more chances and makes a double fault rather than
puts the ball safely in play. The absurd effect of the diagonal serve with current equipment is the
cause of this vicous circle. Tennis today is so fast that if the returner can get hold of the diagonal
serve, the only chance is to try and hit a straight point because of being outside the court when
returning. Indeed, the essence of the proposition for the change of the rules is a notable loss in
the effect of the cross-court serve and, simultaneously, the left-handers will no longer have their
unearned advantage.

It is unlikely that serving into the same service court would make the game less interesting to
watch. On the contrary, the serving player would hardly give the returner the good of hitting all
the serves from the same spot to the same spot. Even more than now, one could use the entire
serving area, which the returner would have to take account of. In addition, the spectators would
no longer have to watch the returner s leisurely movements between first and second service
courts. This would naturally diminish the amount of dead moments in a match and the rhytm of
the game on the whole would be quicker. This is also true on club tennis level. There is much
more actual playing during a one-hour practice session and you can certainly feel it.

Worth mentioning is that one might also expect fewer injuries ( ankles, knees, back) as the angle
of the first two or three shots will inevitably be narrower. The constant arguments of what is the
right surface material would also be of lesser importance, because one would get to grips with
fast serves and respective returns more easily. The alteration would probably increase the
birth-rate of tennis personalities, as fighters like Jimmy Connors would get a more even chance.

The players to suffer from the rules change would of course be those top players whose game is
mostly based on serve and out of them particularly the left-handers who serve their more
diagonal diagonal serve into the second service court. They would then have every reason to
diversify their game in order to hang on to the prize money. Anyway, there will always be
someone who will suffer from reforms. At least it would not be the audience as has been the case
in the way tennis has developed lately.

Conclusion

This simple and logical change of rules is also relatively easy to put into practice on today s
courts. You do not even have to know the official court dimensions. It will be sufficient to divide
the service line into three equal lengths ( 3 yds or 2,74m ) and have two lines parallel to the
current centre service line marked. During the transition period no one will surely be bothered, if
the old centre line remains between the two one-third lines. You can use it for aiming purposes
and in social tennis either rules would be applicable, but competitive matches should be played in
the above fashion as soon as possible. It is obvious that the rules of such a huge international
game cannot be changed without thorough consideration and due experimentation, but after this
change the rules will not have to be tampered with for a hundred years.

When pondering a little and without prejudice, one in fact starts to wonder why diagonal serving
was at all taken into use at the dawn of tennis. Maybe it was simply because it was desirable to
trample the lawn evenly.

Markus Kaila & Antti Karttinen
Tampere, Finland

amarone
02-19-2004, 08:37 AM
The starting premise is wrong. It is simply not true that every fourth or fifth of the world´s top players is a left-hander

There is not one left-hander in the men's top 30.

borisboris
02-19-2004, 09:00 AM
This is pathetic! Next you'll say NASCAR should have moving targets to make it more interesting for spectators.

Markus Kaila
02-19-2004, 09:05 AM
You are right. It is not true now. But I liked my discovery when there were many lefties in the top 20 (Rios, Rusedski, Korda, Ivanisevic, Muster, Siemerink...). To my mind it was really unfair. Still my statement suits to the whole context so well that I havn't change that point. Any other mistakes?

juu
02-19-2004, 10:20 AM
only one ball per serve
No equipment or markings change whatsoever. I don't see why amateurs couldn't use it. Only problem: the games (and thus matches) would last quicker and you'd be more likely to be broken then hold your serve. In a way, it also rewards serving consistency even more than right now, thus boosting the importance of service skills.

softer/bigger ballsBalls wear out anyway with time, so this is also an OK change. I wonder what it means for S&V style of play. Can be implemented gradually, which is good.

or moving the position of the server further back from the baseline.Not good, makes S&V impossible and requires court markings.

Your suggestion requires drastically changing the court markings all at once, throws out much of existing serving skills of all current players, and also has the problems of the first solution. I don't see it being implemented.

P.S. Yes, the fact that most points are pretty much all decided on serve on some surfaces is sad. As is the (unrelated?) issue that there aren't good S&Vers around at this point. But radical solutions may cause even bigger problems or disbalances.

P.P.S. And we HAVE to do something about these lefties. Perhaps only allow them to make one service, while righties make two as before? :wink:

Camilio Pascual
02-19-2004, 11:11 AM
I remember when it was widely felt that the serve was becoming too dominant. This does not seem to be true today. The dearth of S&V players today may indicate that you have a solution in search of a problem. There is also a much simpler solution if the serve is too dominating. Why not bring back the rule that does not allow the server to leave the ground on the serve?

Shaolin
02-19-2004, 11:23 AM
Markus I will give you credit for your effort and persistence!

polakosaur
02-19-2004, 11:28 AM
theres no need to change the actual playing game its good the way it is

even the lefties can serve out wide on one side the righties can do it also on the other

you are addressing the pro game, the pro game will always be the pro's, pro's have the abilities to play at that high level, the game is proportional from the lowest beginners to the pro's theres no need for change

Ariel
02-19-2004, 11:43 AM
It is the undue benefit the
left-handers achieve because of their divergence

What...??? I can't avoid to feel a little bit injuried here, since I'm a left handed person and I don't feel that I have a 'divergence'.

You've been posting and proposing this change for a long while, my friend, may be it's time to move on.

python
02-19-2004, 12:10 PM
I like tennis the way it currently is. I'm no pro, so none of these complaints really apply to me or to the people I play tennis with.

I really can't imagine having to repaint the tens of thousands of tennis courts in the US. How impractical.

@wright
02-19-2004, 01:29 PM
I agree with Python. A slight rule change would fix the problem and save changing millions of courts worldwide.

jayserinos99
02-19-2004, 03:14 PM
It is the undue benefit the
left-handers achieve because of their divergence

What...??? I can't avoid to feel a little bit injuried here, since I'm a left handed person and I don't feel that I have a 'divergence'.

You've been posting and proposing this change for a long while, my friend, may be it's time to move on.

yup.

Matt H.
02-19-2004, 03:22 PM
yeah, i'm left handed and i'm going to have to disagree with the whole advantage thing.

yes, a lefty can hit the serve out wide on the ad.....big deal.



an arguement can then be made that the right handed player gets an advantage because he STARTS with being able to hit that wide serve, thus theortically being spotted a point.


if it bothers people that much, then they either shouldn't play lefties, or learn to become lefty. :lol:

tennisplayer
02-19-2004, 09:39 PM
Hi Markus, you have a great proposal - but it has one big problem - it's not tennis... :(

andreh
02-20-2004, 03:16 AM
The only rule change suggested I've heard so far that I could get behind is what McEnroe suggested a few years ago: Move the service line in an inch or two towards the net. But I remain a skeptic to all changes.

/André

Markus Kaila
02-20-2004, 05:15 AM
Is Technology Ruining Tennis? by Greg Moran

"There is a feeling among many tennis experts today that the game is not being
played as well as it was in the 60's and 70's. This is not just the grumbling of a
few old-timers. Tennis over the past 15-20 years has become more of a
shot-making contest than a battle of point development, strategy and finesse.

Points are shorter and tennis today seems to be a race to see who can tee off first
and end the point quicker. Many observers of the game feel that this has lessened
the overall quality of the "product." The drop in television ratings would certainly
seem to bear this theory out.

This is clearly not what Major Wingfield had in mind when he patented the game
in 1874. Tennis was designed to be a contest of skill, technique and, what has
also become somewhat of a lost art, sportsmanship."

Greg Moran is a much greater authority than me. Is he wrong?

And you can read the whole article herefrom:

http://www.tennisserver.com/circlegame/circlegame_02_02.html

Phil
02-20-2004, 05:31 AM
Yeah, the Major is wrong-that is when his statements are applied to the game 125 years later. Virtually nothing that is as old or older than tennis stays the same. Things change; technology, society, even the physical size of the players...there will always be reactionaries who want to impose rules on "their" sport-basically ruining something that doesn't need much change. Markus-you got WAY too much time on your hands, writing book-length tones on how tennis needs to change, and how to make it look like the 1950's all over again. Fact is, you're wasting your time, because none of these hare brained ideas of yours will EVER be implemented, either due to cost, their impracticality, or merely because most people enjoy the sport as it is and don't need the b.s.

Markus Kaila
02-21-2004, 04:10 AM
Phil, I am not at all the only one who ponders how tennis needs to change. Even Mark Miles, the chief of ATP thinks that the dimensions of the tennis court are getting smaller.

The whole quotation:
"Tennis players will be bigger and so will the courts
By 2010 most of the top male tennis players in the world will be at
least 6ft 6in tall, prompting the game's rulers to enlarge the court
and raise the net.

So says Mark Miles, chief executive of the ATP Tour, the governing
body of the international men's tennis circuit. He believes the trend
towards bigger, taller players - such as Mark Philippoussis and Marat
Safin, who are both 6ft 4in - will continue, as will the emphasis on
power and pace in the the modern game.

'Over a period of time athletes in all sports have been getting
fitter, faster and stronger and it's common sense that there will a
time will come when all sports, tennis in particular, have to make
some adjustments,' Miles says. 'If you are standing on the baseline,
both the trajectory of the ball and the height of the net look very
different to a player who's 5ft 6in than they do to one who's a foot
taller.

'As players' size has grown, it's as if the net has been lowered and
the lines of the court have been brought closer together. That will
eventually impact on both the way we play and the geometry of the
court, because the dimensions of the court are getting smaller.'"

But does Mark Miles really mean that there ought to be separate courts
for women (or children) and men? That would really be expensive and impractical!

This is suitable for all:
http://www.cs.Helsinki.FI/u/jpheikki/3malli/kentta_etusivu.jpg








Or this:
http://www.3malli.net/kenttae.htm

Markus Kaila
02-23-2004, 12:42 AM
.... The dearth of S&V players today may indicate that you have a solution in search of a problem. There is also a much simpler solution if the serve is too dominating. Why not bring back the rule that does not allow the server to leave the ground on the serve?

Many thanks for your compliment! (But I am not sure if I understood you exactly right.) But as to serve&volley tennis your idea stands in sharp contrast to your aim (and mine, too). For example it would have been impossible for P. Rafter to develop into one of all time best serve&volley players, if he couldn't jump when serving.

But I really believe in the above court also in helping serve&VOLLEYers in tennis. I mean in this just those players who really (mostly) need their volley after serving to win the point. For example M. Philippoussis (and many many others) is not among´them.

Camilio Pascual
02-23-2004, 04:24 AM
Markus - Yes, you did misunderstand, I did not state an aim.

adamzwb
02-23-2004, 04:33 AM
看不懂,太多了

Markus Kaila
02-24-2004, 03:32 AM
Hi Markus, you have a great proposal - but it has one big problem - it's not tennis... :(

And höpö höpö! (That is Finnish: perhaps in English something like "trash-nonsense"). For the sake of comparison I ask you: Do you really claim that if they want to move the service area to another place in squash they ought to change also the name of game for example to spuash.... Because it is then no more squash.... Think of it over!

jayserinos99
02-24-2004, 10:39 AM
http://www.flamehq.com/albums/wpw-09/bush.jpg

Morpheus
02-27-2004, 05:24 PM
Players evolve to develop strategies and strengths to offset dominance, not unlike nature. Changing the rules would only create a different game for awhile, then new players would emerge and you will eventually be at the same place. In the meantime, you unfairly disadvantage certain populations of the game who were brought up under the old rules.

I am certain that eventually a new player will emerge that will change the game again.

Markus Kaila
02-28-2004, 05:18 AM
http://www.flamehq.com/albums/wpw-09/bush.jpg










"Howdy Bill, this is George. It's been a while!

Can you imagine that some crazy Finn claims that making the service
court in tennis smaller, would make it easier for beginners to serve?
Otherwise I think this guy's ideas are very well argued but with this he's probably completely on the wrong track. But I must say this story got me interested and I'd like to try it out. Since you've never really been into tennis I was wondering if you could play the beginner's role.

We could go to the courts from our place. Take a pair of trainers and
shorts with you. I'll give you my old racket. And take also some masking tape for marking the new service court. I don't think I can find any here in White House but you probably had some in your old cache. I don't know THAT area as well as you do but I guess it was possible for you to use also masking tape in your ancient Monica-games?

Oh, there's still one thing. I'm going to get so damn busy soon.
You've probably heard about that Kerry. I'm afraid he's really going to fight back in those elections so would a test mach already next weekend be okay?
Great!
See you then! Say hi to Hillary!"

(Hm...interesting...)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~jpheikki/3malli/kenttae.jpg

@wright
02-28-2004, 06:48 AM
LOL.

NoBadMojo
02-28-2004, 01:13 PM
I dont think the serve is at issue..it's the return of serve. if the serve were so much of an advantage there would be many pros playing serve AND volley rather than a small handful. when rcquetheads were smaller and the returner didnt have an advantage there was much much more all court and s/v play because the percentages were balanced better for that sort of play. now you get dudes that can use extreme western because the headsize supports it and just rip from the baseline and win that way and get many many more returns back in play more effectively w. the larger head. they wouldnt be able to do that (w. maybe only a few small exceptions) with a smaller headed frame, and the game at the pro level would be sweet once again.Ed.

emcee
02-28-2004, 03:24 PM
You think Roger Federer needs any more help returning serve?

Markus Kaila
02-29-2004, 09:45 PM
LOL.
(=Laughing Out Loud)

Fine that I succeeded in making you laugh. It is easy for me to write that kind of short humorous chats but only with my own language. Still it is a pity that you don't probably understand Finnish. Then it would be much better and you could laugh more loud. I can send the orginal text for you if you want!

PS. This is a better translation:

Hi Bill, long time no see…

It´s George here. Could you believe, that some looney finnish claims that the tennis service court could be smaller and that makes the serve easier for the beginner.

Otherwise this fin-fellow seems to be all right, but this have to be a load of grab!

Anyhow I get a bit curious about it.

You haven´t been any great tennis player yourself, but would you like to be a test rabbit in this.

Let´s go to the tennis court and take just sneakers and shorts along, you may use my old racket.

Oh yeah, and take some tape along also in order to mark up the smaller service court. I suppose we don't have it in the White House, but maybe you have some tape left, as you maybe have needed it in your good old Monica-games, but how I know, I´m not real expert in THIS field. You know, I´m just the President of the United States!

And one more thing, I´m going to have a hell of the time soon, as you might have heard of this Kerry fellow. Seem to be that he wants to play some hard ball, fine for me! So maybe we could have the test game already next weekend.
See you later and my best regards to Hillary!

Markus Kaila
02-29-2004, 10:07 PM
You think Roger Federer needs any more help returning serve?

Yes, and Andre Agassi, too. But of course Goran Ivanisevic needs more!

The point is that now even the 500th player in the world can probably still hold his serve against Federer. After the renewal it couldn't be possible any more (maybe sometimes)!

jayserinos99
03-01-2004, 01:42 AM
^^ I'm glad that you find the picture funny.

NoBadMojo
03-01-2004, 12:49 PM
of course fed doesnt need the help.. that is why he doesnt use a larger frame. you can always name an exception. besides he would proably serve worse w. a larger headed frame. i am telling you..if the headsize was limited to 80 or so the cream would rise to the top..fed would dominate much in the way that tiger had in golf, there would be more all court and s/v players. thats what the game needs. the bigger headed frames do not benefit the server..they benefit the returner and the baseliner..have you noticed the straight baseliners are more prone to use larger headed racquets? pls dont give me exceptions..there are always exceptions. golf is a joke..14 year old girls are now hitting the ball nearly 300....nicklas says the same thing in golf...make the sweetspot harder to hit and only those capable of hitting a smaller sweetspot consistantly will excel....the best athletes. Ed

NoBadMojo
03-01-2004, 12:53 PM
but..having said this, the racquet manufacturers would never go for this. they want to give the illusion that hackers can use the same racquet as the pros.....tennis needs to sell current players more stuff..if they can get us to experiment/buy new racquets, most of them will go out of business. there just isnt growth in tennis (tennis ball sales were off again last year), and there isnt a very large number of people that play on any sort of regular basis

Markus Kaila
03-02-2004, 06:54 PM
of course fed doesnt need the help.. (in returning)

You can say so because he is the best one without that help, but
I can think he needs.... According to the statistics he has won 31 % of his return games (10 matches in 2004). He then has won only 4 return games per match on an avarage. To my mind it is quite little from the tennis player who is still the best tennis player just now!


http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/matchfacts/default.asp

(later) More Federer statistics: Just now he lost to Nadal in Miami 3-6, 3-6. Nadal didn't give him even a single break-point possibility. On the whole Federer won 46 points but only 10 he won by returning (+ Nadal's two double faults) . Because both the players served 9 times, we can say that Federer won only one point on an avarage per Nadal's serving game by playing tennis. It is quite obvious that even the best player needs help when returning (trying to return)!

krbo
03-05-2004, 02:28 AM
For now I'll change only two things:

1. one serve only

2. The net is true obstacle.Any contact of the ball with the net is fault anytime in the game.

jcm876
03-05-2004, 09:24 AM
What about making pros go back to using wood racquets. Kind of like professional baseball. On the college and amateur level people use all sorts of bats, but once you move up to the pros it's wood only.

Markus Kaila
03-08-2004, 12:14 AM
For now I'll change only two things:

1. one serve only

2. The net is true obstacle.Any contact of the ball with the net is fault anytime in the game.

1. The taller player the bigger present you are giving to him.

2. ???? Perhaps you like Spanish top-spin tennis very much....

Markus Kaila
03-08-2004, 12:57 AM
What about making pros go back to using wood racquets. Kind of like professional baseball. On the college and amateur level people use all sorts of bats, but once you move up to the pros it's wood only.

Probably breaking would be even more difficult than now! I mean that it would be probable that returning would suffer more than serving. These days we cannot help the server in tennis even in minor degree!

krbo
03-08-2004, 01:36 AM
1. The taller player the bigger present you are giving to him.

2. ???? Perhaps you like Spanish top-spin tennis very much....

1. so ? Aren't they in advance right now? Is it fair ? No, it isn't but you can imagine what will left of their game with only one serve and no let.

2. ??? You think every ball with forward rotation must clear the net few meters high ? Not true.

Markus Kaila
03-08-2004, 01:12 PM
Any contact of the ball with the net is fault anytime in the game.

OK. I take my last comment back, but.... I really don't understand what you have in your mind. Why?

krbo
03-09-2004, 02:43 AM
Any contact of the ball with the net is fault anytime in the game.

OK. I take my last comment back, but.... I really don't understand what you have in your mind. Why?

Simply , I would like to remove "duality" of the net.Once it's a problem (service - let's do it again) , other time it's legal (pig shots during a game) - too much luck in a game of skill.

(Probably many of you didn't see a crazy shot Dupuis made against Ancic in Milan ATP.

Dupuis missed court a big one but the ball hits top of the single stick and bounce like crazy to the other side of the net almost parallel with it right near line inside Ancic's side who was helpless - point to Dupuis who almost shot down umpire :))) )


but anyway nothing will change for a long time until money(audience) drops down .

The proof that something can be changed is a table tennis starting from service , volley ball with idiotic "advance" etc.

We agree on one , most important thing , something should be changed in a tennis rules.

Markus Kaila
03-09-2004, 05:57 AM
"We agree on one , most important thing , something should be changed in a tennis rules."

That is fine! By the way it is not difficult for you to guess who (besides Rusedski) was in my mind when I wrote this....:

"The players to suffer from the rules change would of course be those top players whose game is
mostly based on serve and out of them particularly the left-handers who serve their more diagonal
diagonal serve into the second service court. They would then have every reason to diversify their
game in order to hang on to the prize money. Anyway, there will always be someone who will
suffer from reforms. At least it would not be the audience as has been the case in the way tennis
has developed lately."

The whole article is here:

http://www.3malli.net/index.html

http://www.3malli.net/kenttaf.jpg

WW Volley
03-09-2004, 04:21 PM
Why do you push so hard for this new court? You're radically changing the game. It would force everybody to completely reinvent the style they have been playing.

In other words, it's not going to happen.

As of now, the big servers aren't even dominating. Hewitt, without a big serve, was #1 in the world 2 years in a row. If serving is such a problem as many claim it is, then there's no way he should have accomplished this feat. Agassi is also absent of a huge serve. Federer lacks high speeds.

Reviewing the top players of last year, only Roddick holds a giant cannon. Agassi, Federer, and Ferrero do not win on their serve. And Roddick, while a big server, backed up his serving with plenty of OTHER skill.

Seeing as the top players are a mixture of all styles, I just don't see the problem.

Markus Kaila
03-10-2004, 05:07 AM
It would force everybody to completely reinvent the style they have been playing.


I don't understand, because all the other strokes but the service remain the same. Baseliners will be baseliners (although the amount of serve&vollyers may increase) and big servers will really need their volley more often than nowadays.

Nobody doesn't need to "completely reinvent the style they have been playing", but they can do it if they want. What is wrong with it?

I am even sure that the most pro-players would enjoy their tennis more in the new sitation because holding their serve wouldn't be as important as now because respectively breaking would be much easier than today.

jayserinos99
03-10-2004, 09:53 AM
I am even sure that the most pro-players would enjoy their tennis more in the new sitation because holding their serve wouldn't be as important as now because respectively breaking would be much easier than today.

Prove that last statement. It can go both ways. Holding serve is just as important as returning serve. What you're saying is that you want to "even the odds" and to give players more of a chance to break serve. Do they really need the help? At the professional levels of tennis, players are relatively even strokewise (except for the mental part of the game) and players that have that mental edge can be better in those pressure situations whether or not they return or hold serve.

Markus Kaila
03-11-2004, 09:54 AM
Hi Bill, long time no see…

It´s George here. Could you believe, that some looney finnish claims that the tennis service court could be smaller and that makes the serve easier for the beginner.

Otherwise this fin-fellow seems to be all right, but this have to be a load of grab!

Anyhow I get a bit curious about it.

You haven´t been any great tennis player yourself, but would you like to be a test rabbit in this.

Let´s go to the tennis court and take just sneakers and shorts along, you may use my old racket.

Oh yeah, and take some tape along also in order to mark up the smaller service court. I suppose we don't have it in the White House, but maybe you have some tape left, as you maybe have needed it in your good old Monica-games, but how I know, I´m not real expert in THIS field. You know, I´m just the President of the United States!

And one more thing, I´m going to have a hell of the time soon, as you might have heard of this Kerry fellow. Seem to be that he wants to play some hard ball, fine for me! So maybe we could have the test game already next weekend.
See you later and my best regards to Hillary!



Meanwhile we are waiting for the results of Bill's and George's test match I can tell what was Ray Bowers' ( www.tennisserver.com ) opinion of this:......."the treshold of starting themselves will be
lower and it is hardly much more difficult for a beginner to hit at a
4ft6 (137 cm) narrower service court than the present one. As an added
bonus it is easier to aim lengthwise - or almost lengthwise - and
having to practise serving into one court only."

His feedback:"Would it make the game more difficult for beginners and unskilled
players? An analogy in the U.S. would be the shrinking of the strike
zone in baseball."

I don't know nothing about American baseball, but when he had read "A Proposal" carefully, he answered: "Your
comments on a beginner's difficulty are interesting and plausible."


Now I would like add that also the net is at its lowest in
the middle and theoritically even the serving distance is a little bit
smaller.

I have had also two (very adult and motivated) real beginners as tennis pupils and of course I told about the idea of the narrower service court in the middle. And they experimented....and now I am rather sure that it is even easier to serve and of course easier to return for "beginners and unskilled players".

jayserinos99
03-11-2004, 10:48 AM
So let's say that we shrink the service court much like the strike zone in baseball. Your claim would mean it would lead to better points because both server and returner would start on an even keel. But as I've said before, players adjust to the current surroundings and in this case the returner has a far greater advantage because the area they have to cover is very small. It would be giving someone like Barry Bonds/Alex Rodriguez/any other slugger more of a chance to hit the ball out of the park since the pitcher can only pitch fastballs down the middle of the plate and waist-high to get a strike.

You still haven't proven anything. You said your beginners 'experimented' but then you are completely sure it's easier to serve and return? I don't buy this at all. There has to be evidence (detailed reports from tests, numerous opinions from ATP/WTA/ITF officials, etc.) that prove your court is better. And let's say that you don't get that kind of support from tennis authorities, at least demonstrate and show that your findings support your theory.

Markus Kaila
03-12-2004, 07:07 AM
Last autumn Kuerten and Philippoussis played a historical match in Paris. Three sets, every set ended with a tie-break. None breaks, not even possibilities! I didn't see it but the returner's best achievement was winning three points in only one game. Besides it probably was the 1st match in the whole tennis history where were more aces than return points?

It included 50 aces and only 47 return points (points together 223). Besides 11 from those 47 were double faults (=only one real return point per game on an avarage). To my mind this is a very simple example to prove that serving is nowadays too easy and returning too difficult. Of course this is only an extreme example but no doubt it tells something about the future of tennis if we don't help the returner.

Another point is that I don't think that it would be good for a public picture of tennis as an athletic sport if for example M. Rosset could win still at the age of 40 (or 50!) those players who are best then with so simple " I do nothing else but hold my serve without running even one meter" - strategy!

I believe that at the latest then Walter C. Wingfield would turn in his grave: "What have they done to my sport!"

polakosaur
03-12-2004, 04:13 PM
can we kill this topic somehow, please

Markus Kaila
03-13-2004, 12:07 AM
It sounds like you are afraid of something... Perhaps you are a lefty, but don't worry I can comfort you: If you are not a pro-player your lefty advantage in serving (because of two service courts!) is insignificant.

jayserinos99
03-13-2004, 01:31 AM
from your post prior to polakosaur's:

1. from your statement about the match, one can assume that serving is easy. it's not right? remember that sampras had possibly the greatest serve of all time. true he hit it hard, but he had disguise to it. he can hit it with a variety of spins, speeds and locations from the same motion. it's the baseball analogy again; pitchers are servers and they rely on disguise, speed and location to be effective. your idea basically takes them out of the equation; see my post before that to get my point. by using that match, it's the equivalent to pitchers on both teams pitching a no-hitter for their respective teams. it's quite rare and it makes for exciting baseball to see which pitcher will make the first mistake; much like who breaks serve first in this kind of tennis match. you take away the serve and all you get are returns, great returners will find a way to exploit this and get easier points, not drawn out rallies. it's like my previous baseball example about shrinking the strike zone; hitters would take advantage and all you would see are nothing but home runs more often.

2. i don't know about you, but if Rosset can play great tennis until his 40s effectively, then it actually becomes more of a blessing as it shows that tennis isn't for the young. remember how Jimmy Connors was admired for making the US Open semifinals when he was 39? also, if it were easy (because our courts now facilitate easier serving by your standards) to do this, why aren't guys like rosset, sampras and rusedski (of course barring their personal matters) still playing if they epitomized the big servers you abhor?

however let's not get personal markus. we all have opinions and in this thread we all have differed in one way or another. we've offered points and counterpoints and numerous examples of why we think what we think. but let's face it, this thread is about as dead as Walter C. Wingfield. and regardless if polak or myself or anyone else is left-handed is besides the point. you make it seem that we enjoy some sort of privilege serving if we're left-handed and you try to hold a grudge against left-handers. all it seems that you want to do is get everyone to agree with your opinion and back it up with assumptions and inane jokes. you've said your piece about your proposal; why don't you enjoy talking about other tennis related things instead of pushing your own agenda?

luka
03-13-2004, 08:13 PM
The only rule I feel needs to be changed is the coaching rule.

Davis Cup, college and high school, (developmental grounds for pro players), all have coaches on court.

The excuse of "they might not be able to afford it" is lame.

Coaches on the court can and do make differences in matches.

Would love to see Gilbert vs Segura etc. as an addition to the drama of a great match.

Markus Kaila
03-14-2004, 07:01 AM
It was very nice to bring out Jimmy Connors in this topic. He is the only player mentioned here ("The alteration would probably increase the birth-rate of tennis personalities, as fighters like Jimmy Connors would get a more even chance."):
http://www.helsinki.fi/~jpheikki/3malli

The shorter points (or the more short points) the more difficult it is to see real fighters on the court. The amount of fighters and the amount of skilfull players as J. McEnroe will increase. What else do we want?

Markus Kaila
03-15-2004, 01:20 AM
only one ball per serve
No equipment or markings change whatsoever. I don't see why amateurs couldn't use it. Only problem: the games (and thus matches) would last quicker and you'd be more likely to be broken then hold your serve. In a way, it also rewards serving consistency even more than right now, thus boosting the importance of service skills.

I want to copy here one of my feedbacks (and my reseponse) concerning the above point!

HELLO,

Hello, I read your proposal on repainting service boxes.
I must confess I don't understand it.

The reason I am writing is to respond what you said about
the one-serve proposal:

"Its greatest disadvantage is that at least on club level it
would make the game too stressing and you should try to avoid
a solution where top players and amateurs have different
rules".

I don't agree it would be stressing at the club level. It
appears to me that all it takes is a consistent topspin 2nd
serve, which is already a necessity under today's rules. If the
game switches to one-serve, which I hope it does, it just
means everybody - from amateur to pro - will have to use
significant topspin to serve. There is nothing wrong with that.


My response (to San Francisco, California):

Perhaps "my" club level is much below yours! One serve
ball means no doubt topspin in serving. But a part of my text:
"It is also highly likely that serving into one court only at
singles play will make the game much more easier to adopt for a
complete tennis ignoramus; the treshold of starting themselves will
be lower and it is hardly much more difficult for a beginner to hit
at a 4ft6 (137 cm) narrower service court than the present one. As an
added bonus it is easier to aim lengthwise - or almost
lengthwise - and having to practise serving into one court only."

You are making tennis more difficult to begin(nners).
Besides the main problem in tennis is too much too
short and similar points. Those points consist mainly one or two
strokes (the third is too often a very easy volley and not
interesting therefore) and
they are aces, almost aces, unsucceeded or succeeded "return
aces" and double faults. I think that one serve ball system
would not improve this in practise at all. Of course aces and almost
aces would decrease, but unsucceeded or succeeded "return
aces" and serve faults would increase respectively or EVEN MORE.
And perhaps you understand that in a tight situation one serve ball
would diminish the sense of drama (It is related to the no-ad-rule,
which would shorten games just when they are at their best!).

Of course I can be wrong and you right in this detail
and the majority of those who are worried about
tennis think that the one serve ball is a good solution.
Once I tried to learn the topspin serve but
my shoulder didn't like it. It is not easy! I hope you now understand!

PS. Nowadays I think also in this way: Futhermore it is obvious
that the first service per cent would
increase remarkably because to get into the second service would be
no doubt of very great advantage to the returner. If the first
service percent would be about 80...90 % it is almost the same as the
one serve ball also as for for instance the rhythm of the game.
Not nearly all the servers would not try to get aces always with the
first service at least every time. Therefore that first service
percent obviously would increase. I am sure that you understand
that this renewal could mean the best parts of the present serving
system and one serve ball system!

Yours Markus Kaila

Markus Kaila
05-27-2004, 02:20 AM
You think Roger Federer needs any more help returning serve?

Yes, and Andre Agassi, too. But of course Goran Ivanisevic needs more!

The point is that now even the 500th player in the world can probably still hold his serve against Federer. After the renewal it couldn't be possible any more (maybe sometimes)!

I was wrong: Haehnel's ranking was better (#271) when he just won Agassi in FO. (AA succeeded in breaking only once and there are many who think he is the best returner of these days.)

KFwinds
05-27-2004, 02:29 PM
Just a few things here:

First, if you don't like the rules of this game you need to find another -

Second, as a left-hander I have one thing to say - SCREW YOU!

ClemsonTennis9
05-27-2004, 02:58 PM
what is wrong with the game now? this new "idea" is totally stupic and ludacris

Markus Kaila
05-28-2004, 06:54 AM
We need more serve and volliers...

Patience, patience, please! Perhaps I shall write here someday how this court could really help them:
http://www.3malli.net/kenttae.jpg








Also I would like to see more of them (also on women's side). Meanwhile you can think how that could happen using the above court!


Or as a link:
http://www.3malli.net/kenttae.htm

Markus Kaila
07-07-2004, 02:43 AM
The starting premise is wrong. It is simply not true that every fourth or fifth of the world´s top players is a left-hander

There is not one left-hander in the men's top 30.

But this is the year-end ranking in 1998 ("L" means a lefty). And there were 10 lefties among the best 50.

1. Pete Sampras, United States, 3,915 points
L 2. Marcelo Rios, Chile, 3,670
3. Alex Corretja, Spain, 3,398
4. Patrick Rafter, Australia, 3,315
5. Carlos Moya, Spain, 3,159
6. Andre Agassi, United States, 2,879
7. Tim Henman, Great Britain, 2,620
8. Karol Kucera, Slovakia, 2,579
L 9. Greg Rusedski, Great Britain, 2,573
10. Richard Krajicek, Netherlands, 2,548
11. Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Russia, 2,515
L 12. Goran Ivanisevic, Croatia, 2,137
L 13. Petr Korda, Czech Republic, 2,114
14. Albert Costa, Spain, 1,823
15. Mark Philippoussis, Australia, 1,792
16. Todd Martin, United States, 1,774
17. Thomas Johansson, Sweden, 1,661
18. Cedric Pioline, France, 1,710
L 19. Jan Siemerink, Netherlands, 1,669
20. Felix Mantilla, Spain, 1,643
21. Alberto Berasategui, Spain, 1,556
22. Thomas Enqvist, Sweden, 1,500
23. Gustavo Kuerten, Brazil, 1,472
24. Jonas Bjorkman, Sweden, 1,439
L 25. Thomas Muster, Austria, 1,344
26. Wayne Ferreira, South Africa, 1,285
27. Jason Stoltenberg, Australia, 1,280
28. Byron Black, Zimbabwe, 1,259
29. Michael Chang, United States, 1,242
L 30. Francisco Clavet, Spain, 1,216
31. Magnus Gustafsson, Sweden, 1,187
32. Marc Rosset, Switzerland, 1,169
33. Bohdan Ulihrach, Czech Republic, 1,077
34. Tommy Haas, Germany, 1,044
35. Nicolas Kiefer, Germany, 1,007
L 36. Hicham Arazi, Morocco, 999
37. Nicolas Escude, France, 996
38. Jan-Michael Gambill, United States, 983
L 39. Mariano Puerta, Argentina, 983
40. Richard Fromberg, Australia, 937
41. Fabrice Santoro, France, 935
42. Vincent Spadea, United States, 935
43. Magnus Larsson, Sweden, 930
44. Andrea Gaudenzi, Italy, 926
45. Dominik Hrbaty, Slovakia, 892
L 46. Jerome Golmard, France, 889
47. Davide Sanguinetti, Italy, 853
48. Marat Safin, Russia, 852
49. Younes El Aynaoui, Morocco, 850
50. Daniel Vacek, Czech Rebublic, 842
L 51. Scott Draper, Australia, 819
52. Magnus Norman, Sweden, 818
53. Guillaume Raoux, France, 803
54. Fernando Vicente, Spain, 799
55. Filip Dewulf, Belgium, 789
56. Ramon Delgado, Paraguay, 784
L 57. Fernando Meligeni, Brazil, 779
L 58. Mark Woodforde, Australia, 773
59. Andrew Ilie, Australia, 771
L 60. Franco Squillari, Argentina, 747
61. Andrei Medvedev, Ukraine, 739
L 62. Gianluca Pozzi, Italy, 730
63. Mariano Zabaleta, Argentina, 723
64. Slava Dosedel, Czech Republic, 723
65. Todd Woodbridge, Australia, 722
66. Andrei Pavel, Romania, 722
67. Sjeng Schalken, Netherlands, 712
68. Carlos Costa, Spain, 710
69. Boris Becker, Germany, 688
70. Juan Antonio Marin, Costa Rica, 678
71. Adrian Voinea, Romania, 676
L 72. Jeff Tarango, United States, 675
73. Paul Haarhuis, Netherlands, 674
74. Jiri Novak, Czech Republic, 669
75. Martin Damm, Czech Republic, 657
76. Jim Courier, United States, 635
77. David Prinosil, Germany, 633
78. Karim Alami, Morocco, 631
79. Sebastien Lareau, Canada, 622
80. Justin Gimelstob, United States, 615
81. Arnaud Di Pasquale, France, 613
82. Galo Blanco, Spain, 612
L 83. Kenneth Carlsen, Denmark, 606
84. Albert Portas, Spain, 600
85. Mikael Tillstrom, Sweden, 588
86. Christian Ruud, Norway, 584
87. Hendrik Dreekmann, Germany, 576
88. Oliver Gross, Germany, 570
89. Sebastien Grosjean, France, 568
90. Jan Kroslak, Slovakia, 563
91. Leander Paes, India, 559
92. Nicolas Lapentti, Ecuador, 545
93. Brett Steven, New Zealand, 528
L 94. Stefan Koubek, Austria, 526
95. Wayne Black, Zimbabwe, 518
96. Guillermo Canas, Argentina, 516
97. Martin Rodriguez, Mexico, 516
98. Michael Kohlmann, Germany, 507
99. John van Lottum, Netherlands, 502
100. Sargis Sargsian, Armenia, 534

mikej
07-07-2004, 02:16 PM
Markus Kaila,

I am left-handed and must ask what the hell is so wrong with left-handed people being successful at tennis.

Why single out lefties? Many phyiscal factors give people an advantage. Sampras, Krajicek, Phillippoussis, Martin, Johansson, and Enqvist were all in the top 25 in your above list, in large part due to their huge serves. Yet none of them were lefties. But oh, all of them are tall. Maybe tall people should have to serve out of a pothole behind the baseline to nullify this size advantage? Also, Rios, Muster, Arazi, Draper, Meligini, Woodforde, etc. were all on your list, and given the L of shame. Yet they were all successful mainly due to their speed and outstanding groundstrokes, not a serving advantage.

Being left-handed can sometimes be an advantage in tennis, mainly against inexperienced players who haven't played many lefties, but so what? Sports is mainly about physical ability, a lot of it natural physical ability. Shaq wouldn't be nearly as good if he were 4'2" and 400 lbs. Hell, Randy Johnson wouldn't strike out as many hitters (if any) if he didn't have any arms. We don't need to bring affirmative action to sports, which is what your original post somewhat (well, in my mind, a lot) sounds like. So what if there are a few more lefties in the top 100 for a given year than the general population would suggest. If you're going to have an ATP tour that mirrors the general population, you're going to have a hell of a lot of chinese people don't you think. Bunch of Indians too. A fraction of a percent of people are born without usable legs as well. Isn't it ridiculous that no one without legs has reached #1 in the world? SOMETHING MUST BE DONE IMMEDIATELY.

Lets not try to nullify all of the various advantages people have in sports due to their physical talents. Those various physical talents are what makes athletics so great. And lets not freak out if there are a few more lefties or a few more tall people in top 100 than global demographics would suggest.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot the most important part. You are an idiot, and I take comfort in the fact that your idiotic ideas will not catch on. In the mean time, continue to pity yourself because you aren't successful at the modern form of tennis, and try to find a form of the game where you might compete with more able individuals. You won't find one. You lose.

Morpheus
07-07-2004, 05:22 PM
I was watching McEnroe play Muster (both lefties) last night on the Tennis Channel and I was amazed that when I watched the match in a mirror, they both played just like righties. And the ball didn't seem to be traveling any faster or taking any strange bounces. It was as if they were both right handed.

And I was wondering how many 2HB righties there are in the top 50 compared to 1HBers. They probably have an undeniable advantage and maybe we should outlaw that particular shot since it is easier to return using two hands.

And whites seem to be over represented compared to blacks and asians. Maybe they have an advantage too. And let's not even start on pretty Russians, who seem to have some sort of an advantage.

Chanchai
07-07-2004, 06:47 PM
Anyone seen Rocky II? "SOUTHPAW SHOULD BE OUTLAWED~~~~!!!"

All that aside, I'm happy with the way tennis is.

-Chanchai

Markus Kaila
07-08-2004, 12:07 AM
Markus Kaila,
A fraction of a percent of people are born without usable legs as well. Isn't it ridiculous that no one without legs has reached #1 in the world? SOMETHING MUST BE DONE IMMEDIATELY.

I am sure that they are satisfied enough with their own sport which is called wheelchair tennis.

The link:

http://www.itfwheelchairtennis.com

Coda
07-08-2004, 10:08 AM
The only change that should be implemented is a rule about the size of rackets. Rackets are getting bigger and more powerful and me a classic sort of tennis player always wants to play with a prostaff. I am feeling the need to adapt to get a more powerful racket if I want to compete nowadays with the Hyper Hammers 2.0's I see running around. I can parallel this to baseball, basketball, football, etc. where athletes must start using steroids to be able to compete with players who are already using steroids. If any rule is changed it should be limiting the size of rackets so that the game can change back to be focused on skill and not on brute strength.

Markus Kaila
07-12-2004, 03:57 AM
I have told this before but I am sure that the above idea would help the server to hold his serve more easily than now with the present rackets. (A simple example: Agassi's possibilities against Sampras would have been much worse with a smaller racquet.)

And I really want to emphasize that every solution which would decrease the returner's possibilities to break is a wrong solution! Or are there perhaps some people here who think that there are too many breaks in tennis nowadays?

Morpheus
07-12-2004, 04:39 AM
Yawn...

http://www.sunflowerphoto.com/images/yawn.jpg

Markus Kaila
07-12-2004, 05:32 AM
[quote="Morpheus"]Yawn...







"I really agree with those who think the pace of the game is making tennis boring to watch. In the men's game, serves have become so huge that often a whole set can pass with only a handful of brief rallies."

Later: That quotation is from BBC's website, still little modified:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/tennis/balls.shtml

juu
07-12-2004, 05:42 AM
So this delusional thread is still alive?

Markus Kaila
07-13-2004, 01:24 AM
But why do you read this topic over and over if you don't like it all? I guess: you are interested in it but it is difficult for you to confess it (at least in public).

I believe that this article could be very interesting for you, Mr juu:
"How to reduce the service dominance in tennis?
Empirical results from four years at Wimbledon"

The whole article:
http://www1.fee.uva.nl/pp/klaassen/index_files%5Ctstcong.pdf

Phil
07-13-2004, 02:50 AM
Hi, Markus - We ALL agree with your proposal, wish you the absolute BEST OF LUCK in getting it implemented and congratulate you on your creativity, vision and genius. So, NOW, will you just let this stupid friggin thread die? Please?

djones
07-13-2004, 03:09 AM
How about just having the middle service box.
This way neither a left nor a righthander could serve the ball extremely wide.
This is more similar like bringing the ball into play just as you would when practising.

Markus Kaila
07-13-2004, 04:49 AM
How about just having the middle service box.
This way neither a left nor a righthander could serve the ball extremely wide.

But the above text is just the main point in this!

A part from my 1st mail:
"The absurd effect of the diagonal serve with current equipment is the
cause of this vicous circle. Tennis today is so fast that if the returner can get hold of the diagonal serve, the only chance is to try and hit a straight point because of being outside the court when returning. Indeed, the essence of the proposition for the change of the rules is a notable loss in the effect of the cross-court serve and, simultaneously, the left-handers will no longer have their unearned advantage."

And did you forget this:
"Accordingly, there will be no deuce or advantage courts in a singles match, the service court will remain the same throughout the match, only one third narrower than previously. The server will naturally be free to choose his serving position between the marks."

The whole text as a link:
http://www.3malli.net/index.html

Morpheus
07-13-2004, 04:11 PM
Maybe we should just miniaturize the whole game. Use small paddles with rubber nubs, a little plastic ball, and a 6" high net. But then we'd have to outlaw the "pencil" grip because it causes wicked spin and an unfair advantage, and--oh, darn--we'd have to change the serving pattern anyway, to take away the lefty advantage.

Maybe, instead, we could move everything into a rectangular room with high ceilings and use small rackets with a really bouncy ball. That just might work.

Or, we could just play tennis as it is and just shut the pluck up.

(now get ready for yet another inane post by Markus pointing out how his system would provide an advantage for every racquet sport...)

Markus Kaila
07-14-2004, 02:18 AM
Maybe we should just miniaturize the whole game. Use small paddles with rubber nubs, a little plastic ball, and a 6" high net.........

You are a a great humorist. Probably you think that Scott Murphy ( www.tennisone.com ) is even a much greater humorist because this is his direct feedback to me:
"Dear Markus,
Your concept is an interesting one. Have you actually painted a court as beautifully diagrammed at your website and played like this? In lieu of that I'm going to try it with ropes and give it a whirl. It looks like it could be everything you say! Of course the reality is the powers that be in tennis are a tough nut to crack...

Regards,
Scott Murphy"

Markus Kaila
09-14-2004, 04:04 AM
Perhaps this is a little one-sided but because there is in the original text this:
"In addition, the spectators would no longer have to watch the returner s leisurely movements between first and second service courts. This would naturally diminish the amount of dead moments in a match and the rhytm of the game on the whole would be quicker. This is also true on club tennis level. There is much more actual playing during a one-hour practice session and you can certainly feel it.", I want to continue about how this idea would speed up tennis:

Maybe it was in summer 1998 I heard about allowing the let-serve and ITF told how good it would be in speeding up tennis. I also took
part into a tennis competion where this rule was applied. I was irritated because to my mind the rule was really ridiculous in this respect.
How many let-serves are there in one tennis-match on an avarage. 2,3 or really gigantic 4 (= maximun saved time 1 minute!)?

Therefore I wanted to ponder thoroughly how my idea would work in speeding up the game. I was really surprised how much it could
take away so-called empty time between points. I also sent my calculations to ITF then. I want to copy it as quite the same here:

"In Wimbledon and In French Open last summer there were about 200...300 points to play per match. We can suppose that after every
11th point there were a pause of one minute. Together about almost 20...30 min. They are officiel pauses and it is quite OK (although in
practise they were in general longer). I suppose in this connection that there are 5,5 points in one game in an avarage.

But after all the other points there were pauses, too. The amount of them was about 180...270. What was the real duration of these
pauses (max 30 s)? The server is walking to ball-boys and choosing suitable balls meanwhile the receiver is walking as slowly as possible
behind the right service court. He has time because the server has difficulties to decide which ball is good enough....

And vice versa. The server has time because the receiver is "searching" for the right service court.....If we take into use the model of 3
and when at the same time it is easy to alter the present readiness usage faster (The nearest ball boy would throw two or only one ball
and it would have to be good enough for the server!), I am sure that these pauses after every played point would shorten about 10
seconds. Duration of matches would shorten (180...270)*10 s = 30...45 min! And all this saved time is so called empty time and the ball
is not in play. Without that altering in readiness usage these pauses would shorten perhaps 5 s in an avarage (= 15...22 min during the
match) (if commercial reasons claim that shirt advertisements have to be seen as much as possible). And I believe that even the saved 5
s per point means more in total time than that extra time which is due to the fact that the model of 3 would diminish the amount of one
or two stroke points.

I think that at least the fittest tennis players cannot have anything against it that we shall take away extra 5 or 10 seconds between
points. Besides, the match will end earlier and the following match can begin.

Besides that I think nowadays that the rhythm would increase also therefore that it is possible that the first service per cent would
increase remarkably because to get into the second service would be no doubt of great advantage to the returner. What can this mean?
Perhaps the first service percent could increase about 30 % from 50...60 % to 80...90 %. We can suppose that getting ready for the
second serve lasts about 10 s (P. Rafter needs more but A. Agassi less). If they play 200...300 points per one match that means that
they would begin about 60...100 points more by the first serve than nowadays. That means that the saved time is 10...17 min per
match. And totally (with the above) even ONE hour!

And this hour is so called empty time when the ball is not in play! It would be odd if this were not suitable for all the parties of tennis.
OK. it is not as much because the points of one or two shots wuold diminish, but...

All in all: Everybody knows that we see in tennis matches mainly walking, standing and sitting tennis players and very little running and/or striking players nowadays (5...10 % ?). This idea could mean a significant change to more atheletic tennis!


http://www.3malli.net/index.html

Type40
09-14-2004, 08:46 PM
I'd rather see wooden racquets be made compulsory, and ban graphite and advanced materials, rather than see extra large balls, and other such nonsense, ugh.

Markus Kaila
09-15-2004, 12:25 AM
I don't believe that the audience would like to see worse tennis than today. Besides I am sure that possibilities of good returners would worsen against good servers. It is enough if you think of Agassi vs Sampras!

It is obvious that breaking would be even more difficult than now because it would be probable that returning would suffer more than serving with wooden racquets. These days we cannot help the server in tennis even in minor degree! Or do you think that there are too many breaks in tennis nowadays?

jayserinos99
09-15-2004, 12:51 AM
But why do you read this topic over and over if you don't like it all?

I thought this thread died a long time ago, but seeing as how the subject title was in capital letters, I guess it didn't die.

Please people, stop feeding the trolls.

And Markus, if you're that hard up on changing tennis to whatever kind of mutated form of it you propose, go talk to the ITF or ATP or whoever the powers may be. We on the boards are tired of proving you wrong.

Markus Kaila
09-15-2004, 04:50 AM
I guess it didn't die.



This is not at all the only billboard. You and everybody can use almost any search engine with words like "changing tennis rules no bigger balls" and they can find the original essays easily at the beginning of matches!

callitout
09-15-2004, 08:27 AM
I'm convinced. I've begun teaching my daughter to play shmennis, this new game; I'm repainting the courts all over the US. And, I'm teaching my son to play chess without pawns because many people find pawn battles boring to watch so i think they'll be a future in chess without pawns. Anybody have any suggestions for what type of rule changes in basketball which wont favor tall people, or changes to soccer which might not favor fast people?

Dedans Penthouse
09-15-2004, 08:49 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen: For the moment, let's forget about tennis court surfaces, the size of tennis balls, racquets and "one serve only" rules. More importantly, there is "CIRCUS FINLANDIA" coming to Tempere starting tomorrow at Nalkala Field. Be there or be square~!!

Markus: All I know is that if you played on the outdoor courts at the Kotka Tennis Club in Kotka, Fi., it would not matter what size the tennis balls were, because the court surface was the craziest I ever played on. It was sand on top of a rug (you had to brush the court and sweep the lines when you were done playing). But as crazy as it was, I'm looking forward to playing their again next summer and once again hearing my Finnish friend Ole yell "Perkele!" when I ace him on a big point......so DON'T Markus, change the game and make it harder for me to hit an ace, OK? ;-)

.....but who really cares about tennis when in Suomea on a sunny 20C day during the summer?.........finish playing, sweep the courts, stop at Prisma on the way back to the cottages by the sea (in Hevossaari or "Hastholmon" in Swedish) for food (and the Alko store for Finlandia vodka to put in the freezer!), then to the cottages to take sauna with "minun kaunis suomalainen kuningatar," then a swim, then to grill sausages and drink a very cold Karhu beer (not that Lapin-Kulta girlie-beer!). Forget tennis, let's party!! KIPPIS!!

Type40
09-15-2004, 10:44 AM
How about tennis played on roller skates?

Stinkdyr
09-15-2004, 10:47 AM
yep, time to rest this mission. if you really want to experiment with the idea, just raise the net an inch. see how that goes for you. if it works wonderfully, spread the word, if all like it, the idea will spread organically.

iradical18
09-15-2004, 11:09 AM
Tennis is fine how it is.

Markus Kaila
09-16-2004, 01:58 AM
if you really want to experiment with the idea

I have tested it, of course!

I have marked the service court in two diffrent ways: using small pieces of tennis balls (6 is enough in testing purpose) and with so-called painter's tape. Notice that if you have an ordinary tennis racket (27 in) you can measure 3 yds easily. 3yds is 4xyour_racket. Perhaps the service court looks at first very/too? narrow, but the present service court is exactly only 2 "rackets" broader. The court: http://www.3malli.net/kenttae.htm

It really is obvious that the significance of the serve diminishes on all the levels of tennis. Getting into the second service means also more difficulties for me as for everybody than the present system. Therefore the player must serve with care the first serve and not to try to get aces at least every time (on my level of course "almost aces"). For the same reason there are probably fewer double faults although the service box is smaller!

I even believe that aces would get back their old glory because it would be much more risky stroke than now because it is more difficult and because the returner can attack quite effectively in the case of the 2nd serve.

And, Good Luck on the Court! But be careful with your serves at least if your opponent is a good returner, otherwise he/she will punish....

Markus Kaila
09-21-2004, 05:57 AM
Tennis is fine how it is.

But have you ever thought that it would be possible to develop tennis? At least I would like to see more risky (or serve&volley) clay court tennis in FO, perhaps more baseline tennis in W. And how nice would it be to see the both styles in the same match in W or even in FO. New surprising tactics (return&volley).

And do you like the present amount of injuries in tennis? Those tacky hard courts in USO and AO!
This:
"Worth mentioning is that one might also expect fewer injuries ( ankles, knees, back) as the angle of the first two or three shots will inevitably be narrower."

is here:
http://www.3malli.net/index.html

Bora
09-21-2004, 06:59 AM
If you want to "eliminate" the serve advantage, just put a singles type stick in the middle of the net and raise its height about 6 inches in the middle. This might not work at all for womens tennis though.

Markus Kaila
09-21-2004, 10:08 AM
If you want to "eliminate" the serve advantage,.

I, and probably anybody, don't want that. The question is (and has been 'some' time) to diminish that remarkable advantage of the server.

galahad
09-21-2004, 11:14 AM
This is horse-poop!!
Everyone starts the point serving to the deuce side. I should, as a righty, when playing a lefty be able to swing my serve wide to his backhand, traditionally a weaker side. There I have an advantage in most of the points.
About fixing the game. Obviously in college, they play lets, and making the service boxes shortere would require a new paint job for every court, and give every good kick server a heads up.

I suggest we work on return of serve more. There are very few serve-volleyers in the pro game today, so there are clearly no advantages to that.
Also most rec tennis is played on Har-tru, so that slows down the serve.

Markus Kaila
09-24-2004, 05:25 AM
I should, as a righty, when playing a lefty be able to swing my serve wide to his backhand, traditionally a weaker side. There I have an advantage in most of the points.


That is true only if the total number of serves per your serving game is odd. The only time when this happens is when you win when serving at 40-15 (or lose when serving at 15-40). In every else game you don't have that advantage. And remember that "Left-handers do get undeniable advantage of the fact that the decisive point of a game may be played in the second service court at the certainty of over 75 per cent."

The above quotation is herefrom:
http://www.3malli.net/index.html

The decisive point is always a decisive point!

Phil
09-24-2004, 07:57 AM
finish playing, sweep the courts, stop at Prisma on the way back to the cottages by the sea (in Hevossaari or "Hastholmon" in Swedish) for food (and the Alko store for Finlandia vodka to put in the freezer!), then to the cottages to take sauna with "minun kaunis suomalainen kuningatar,"

Mimun kaunis suomalinen...hmmm, that sounds good. I don't know what it means, but I think I saw this done once in a "film", viewed in a very dark theater with a certain, strange smell to it...

perfmode
09-24-2004, 08:15 AM
of course fed doesnt need the help.. (in returning)

You can say so because he is the best one without that help, but
I can think he needs.... According to the statistics he has won 31 % of his return games (10 matches in 2004). He then has won only 4 return games per match on an avarage. To my mind it is quite little from the tennis player who is still the best tennis player just now!


http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/matchfacts/default.asp

(later) More Federer statistics: Just now he lost to Nadal in Miami 3-6, 3-6. Nadal didn't give him even a single break-point possibility. On the whole Federer won 46 points but only 10 he won by returning (+ Nadal's two double faults) . Because both the players served 9 times, we can say that Federer won only one point on an avarage per Nadal's serving game by playing tennis. It is quite obvious that even the best player needs help when returning (trying to return)!

Federer was sick when he played Nadal. I believe it was the flu or the cold or something like that.

galahad
09-24-2004, 10:16 AM
So,

I am having trouble understanding much of what you are saying. But as English is your second or third language, its not your fault.



"That is true only if the total number of serves per your serving game is odd."
For example, what does this mean? If I win every point of my serving game I have served 4 points, 2 to the deuce side, 2 to the ad side. ..????


The only time when this happens is when you win when serving at 40-15 (or lose when serving at 15-40).

If I lose 1 point, then I serve an additional point to the deuce side, making it 3-2 in favor of right handed players. In fact the number of serves to the ad side can NEVER be great than the number to the deuce side.

In every else game you don't have that advantage. And remember that "Left-handers do get undeniable advantage of the fact that the decisive point of a game may be played in the second service court at the certainty of over 75 per cent."

The above quotation is herefrom:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~jpheikki/3malli

Markus Kaila
09-25-2004, 05:57 PM
So,

I am having trouble understanding much of what you are saying. But as English is your second or third language, its not your fault.



"That is true only if the total number of serves per your serving game is odd."
For example, what does this mean? If I win every point of my serving game I have served 4 points, 2 to the deuce side, 2 to the ad side. ..????


The only time when this happens is when you win when serving at 40-15 (or lose when serving at 15-40).

If I lose 1 point, then I serve an additional point to the deuce side, making it 3-2 in favor of right handed players. In fact the number of serves to the ad side can NEVER be great than the number to the deuce side.


Perhaps you believe more in this:
"By the way, I think this (slice) serve is one of the main reasons that
left-handers have an advantage in tennis. Since they can hit this serve
most effectively into the ad court, to the right-hander's backhand, they
can use it to win games outright on their ad. A right-hander can only
use it to get to deuce or to win at 40-15. For tennis to be completely
fair and symmetrical wrt left and right handed players, left-handers
should have to start serving into the "ad" court, but don't hold your
breath.

John McEnroe was the all-time master of this tactic. His weird service
motion also helped because no one could read the direction.

Steve Barnard "

galahad
09-26-2004, 07:12 AM
look if you consider the poosible game wiining scores, the ad scores of 40-0, and ad-in outweigh the deuce scores of 40-15...

HOWEVER, to get to game winning points one must win points earlier in the game. More points inTOTAL are played to the d euce side,

HENCE its better to be right handed vs. a left hander

VTL
09-26-2004, 04:22 PM
Maybe we should spend more time improving the players than the rules

Markus Kaila
09-29-2004, 12:56 AM
In fact the number of serves to the ad side can NEVER be great than the number to the deuce side.

So what?
"Left-handers have customarily been thought to have a serving advantage because it’s easier for them to hit out wide in the ad court, arguably the more important side."

The whole article is here:
http://www.tennis.com/instruction/fullstory.sps?iNewsid=16180&itype=1481&iCategoryID =292

galahad
09-29-2004, 01:11 AM
can you tell me what it is about left handed physiology that makes them more able to hit a serve wide in the ad box, then a right hander could hit in the deuce box?????????? It doesn't make sense.
The deuce side is more important because more points are played to that side

djones
09-29-2004, 03:37 AM
Why don't they let left handers start at 00-00 to serve to add-side.
Now they could only win 40-15 points or deuce points serving to the add-side.
That's it!

rhubarb
09-29-2004, 04:22 AM
If left-handers have such a big advantage in tennis, wouldn't more of them make the top ranks? Approximately 1 in 5 of the population at large are lefties, yet the only guy who plays left-handed in the top 30 is Feli Lopez, who's 29th.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

galahad
09-29-2004, 08:30 AM
hurrah for Rhubarb!!!!!!!!!!!!

at least someones talkin sense

Markus Kaila
10-04-2004, 01:11 AM
If left-handers have such a big advantage in tennis, wouldn't more of them make the top ranks? Approximately 1 in 5 of the population at large are lefties, yet the only guy who plays left-handed in the top 30 is Feli Lopez, who's 29th.

My encyclopedia told that in this way (my 1st message): "The amount of left-handed people is normally around five per cent of the population."
Anyhow it is of no use to argue about this detail!

Also I am wondering at your fact! And perhaps such left-handed top-players a few years ago like Ivanisevic, Korda, Rusedski, Rios, Muster are wondering at the same thing (Besides there are in the history of tennis some real famous names: Laver, Fraser, Connors, Vilas, McEnroe, Tanner and so on.): Why are the present lefties much worse tennis-players than they were although there is still that remarkable advantage ? You can read my messages concerning this point in the first half of this thread, too. A symmetric tennis-court for lefties and "righties" would finish these useless speculations.
Finally I would like to tell that probably and fortunately there is something more in tennis than only serving into the ad-court!

Max G.
10-04-2004, 01:17 AM
Lefties have their advantage not because they can serve out wide on the ad side; righties can do that on the deuce side, and more points are played on the deuce side. The bigger points are played on the ad side, but more points are played on the deuce side.

What gives lefties an advantage is that their sidespin is opposite what everyone is used to - it's just completely different, people misjudge the ball and the bounce. People aren't *used* to it.

That'll stay no matter how you monkey with the court.

Markus Kaila
10-04-2004, 02:00 AM
The bigger points are played on the ad side, but more points are played on the deuce side.

How many more? The probable/obvious amount is ONE point more to the deuce side in the WHOLE set. And that means.... simply nothing!

And don't forget that the ad-court is easier for left-handers also in returning than for right-handers! Therefore besides holding their serve also even breaking is easier for lefties.

rhubarb
10-04-2004, 04:10 AM
My encyclopedia told that in this way (my 1st message): "The amount of left-handed people is normally around five per cent of the population."
Anyhow it is of no use to argue about this detail!


Perhaps my 20% is quite a high estimate. I've heard figures between 10 and 20%. This UK site http://www.left-handersday.com/tour2.html says 13%. I do think 5% is very low, but as you say, not really worth arguing about :)


Also I am wondering at your fact! And perhaps such left-handed top-players a few years ago like Ivanisevic, Korda, Rusedski, Rios, Muster are wondering at the same thing (Besides there are in the history of tennis some real famous names: Laver, Fraser, Connors, Vilas, McEnroe, Tanner and so on.): Why are the present lefties much worse tennis-players than they were although there is still that remarkable advantage ?

Yes it is strange. As a leftie myself, I was quite pleased in the 1980s to see so many left-handers at the top of the game as McEnroe, Connors and Navratilova (although she's actually right-handed, just plays leftie). I wonder what, if anything, has happened to the game over the last 20 years to reduce the leftie-dominance?

Markus Kaila
10-07-2004, 04:20 AM
"Worth mentioning is that one might also expect fewer injuries ( ankles, knees, back) as the angle of the first two or three shots will inevitably be narrower."

The above quotation is from my first message in this topic. Perhaps it needs some clarification.

Nobody can deny that there are too many different injuries in tennis nowadays.
To my mind every effort to decrease these injuries is worth serious disussion.
Besides I am afraid that these are increasing all the time... Of course I cannot be sure
but it is really at least possible that the proposed tennis court is also healthier than the present one. (Anyhow my orthopedist who is a better tennis player than I told me: "It is quite possible that you are right in that!" Many greetings to you, Heikki!)

My argumentation:

In the top level tennis - specially in the service return - the
acceleration in side direction by the receiver using the new court will be smaller due to
the narrower service court, which of course decreases the risk of
injuries. The human being anatomy: ankles, knees as well as hips, (backs?) has
been planned to stand relatively big acceleration forces, but only to
forward, not so much in side direction. To the both (left and
right) direction the one step narrower service court will, by all
means, remarkably decreases this player´s unnatural exertion in side
direction (Or have you heard that for example sprinters would have
much these injuries?). Players can have more time to use even a
healthier closed stance when returning and there is also a very great
indirect consequence: A need to build more those....more and more
artificial tackier hard courts would decrease remarkably. Now there
is an opposite trend in this respect, I havn't played ever on Rebound
Ace (used in AO) but I can imagine....

This court:

http://www.3malli.net/kenttae.jpg
































COULD decrease those injuries!

And as a link:
http://www.3malli.net/kenttae.htm

DJMK
02-10-2005, 08:19 PM
As has been mentioned...

If negating the speed of the serve is the goal...forget all the other mindless and ill-conceived ideas...

By FAR the SIMPLIEST and least overall disruptive change would be to shorten the service box!!

DID anyone HEAR??

Shorten the service box...

Shorten the service box...

Shorten the service box...

SHORTEN the blinking service box for chrissake!!!!

It's been mentoned here and by The Mac Man several times. It's a marvellously simple and elegant solution.

WHY bother with anything else??

Can ANYONE here tell me WHY?

Shortening the service box would effectively accomplish the goal of slowing down the serve without intruding on ANY other aspect of the game and would require NO rule changes, other than changing the dimension from the net to the service line. Nothing else in the game is changed or disturbed. Players would have to put more spin and less pace on the ball and the amount of speed reduction can be tailored by how much the service box is shortened.

Maybe this just too simple a concept for this complicated techno-generation to grasp.

Before you go mucking with the ball, racquets, and touting multiple service courts, etc...

Repeat after me:

Shorten the service box...

Shorten the service box...

Shorten the service box...


GOT IT??

Any lightbulbs go off in any heads here?

Latah!

DJMK

raftermania
02-10-2005, 08:24 PM
Thanks for the repetition.

Shortening the service box would improve the pro game but, it would make the even harder than already is for beginners.

DJMK
02-10-2005, 09:10 PM
I have coached MANY beginning tennis players of all ages and I will challenge anyone who would suggest that shortening the service box a few inches would make it significantly harder or even noticably harder for most beginners.

Beginners start by "blooping" the ball over the net with virtually no pace. To get it into a shorter box they would compensate by simply learning to bloop it a bit softer. [And less pace on the serve IS the goal, REMEMBER? I hesitate to mention that for fear of being repetitious.] What serves the pro also goes for the tyro.

And sometimes a smaller playing area and target is better. In coaching beginners I often use a MUCH "shorter" court overall, in the form of "mini tennis", as a teaching tool to force them to focus on touch and accuracy rather than power.

It should also be borne in mind that what works against the server works in favor of the returner - which is our goal here, right? So, what you are saying in effect is that, right from the beginner stages, we are making things a bit more comfortable for the returner and harder for the server? Right? Oh, OK!

Using your reasoning, I rest my case - we have achieved our goal right from level 1.0!

DJMK

DJMK
02-10-2005, 09:17 PM
Oh...

And shortening the service box also addresses the injury references here...
A slower serve will require less explosive movement to get to.

DJMK

verdasco67
02-10-2005, 09:53 PM
The starting premise is wrong. It is simply not true that

There is not one left-hander in the men's top 30.


Feliciano Lopez =P (currently ranked 21)

verdasco67
02-10-2005, 09:53 PM
The starting premise is wrong. It is simply not true that

There is not one left-hander in the men's top 30.


Feliciano Lopez =P (currently ranked 21)

juu
02-10-2005, 10:41 PM
Shortening the service box requires repainting the court markings. It is thus a very far-fetched proposition.

It has a few other problems:
1) The game would only be left with one viable serve - the kick serve
2) The serve would be even harder for beginners. There would be less margin of error - floating the serve in means hitting the net more often.

TheNatural
02-10-2005, 10:45 PM
Babe shorten the service box proportionately to a person's height, since it's only the tall people who have an advantage on serve-they could have an adjustable service box line. Or make the tall people stand further back to serve, mabe 20cm further back for every inch they exceed 6 feet. lol

TheNatural
02-10-2005, 10:45 PM
I meant 'Mabe' not Babe

JSummers
02-11-2005, 02:57 AM
Ok, as I lefty myself, I heard so many times about the claim that there is an advantage for lefties because of the scoring scheme and the court serving positions but no one provided solid evidence and I am kind of tired of it. So I did some mathematics using probability (a little rusty, having not done it for years) to prove this .... and interestingly if my math is correct (experts feel free to fix any problems), there is indeed a very very slight advantage, the magnitude of 0.002.

The constraining conditions/assumptions are:
a) everything being equal for a leftly and righty player (skills, techniques, groundstrokes, serves, etc)
b) a certain %chance of the point won by ther server (usually >50%)
c) a certain additional % advantage of the point won by server if able to serve wide for lefty on ad/righty on deuce of equal effect.

Results, considering the permutations & probabilities of most common winning situations:

-The chance for a lefty or a righty winning a love game is equally probable
-The chance for a righty winning @ game-15 is slightly more likely than a lefty
-The chance for a lefty winning @ game-30 is slight more likely than a righty
-The chance of winning after a deuce is almost equal, lefty has very slimly more likely

Adding all these common winning situations they almost balance out equal but lefty has a 0.002 advantage...


http://home.comcast.net/~simony9/Tennis-Lefty-vs-Righty.xls

snowpuppy
02-11-2005, 03:26 AM
omg, changing the rules to rule out the "lefty advantage", buddy r u on crack? First of all look at the % of ppl in the world that is lefty and plays tennis. We are a rare breed and that is the problem, mostly because ppl are not use to seeing us play so is like one big change up for them. As far as the lefty spin are deadlier cause of the earth's rotation (search the forum, someone else posted this), dude do you know how hard it is for us to get there. Most manuals and teachers comes in righty, and most of the instruction we got was "just do every thing opposite". I had one friend who was trying to teach me badminton that just gave up in frustration and told me figure it out on my own. Might was well go to the MLB and ask them to reduce the strike zone for lefty pitchers.

ucd_ace
02-11-2005, 03:27 AM
Talking about digging up a dead dog from it's grave...

joehight
02-11-2005, 06:35 AM
I don't think the lefties are a problem (they add nice variety to the game), but I do think the proposal is interesting. I'd like to see some pro matches tried with this format. There would have to be a lot of trials before anyone could seriously consider altering the game this way. At the club level play, there is absolutely no problem about how the game is played now. But at the pro level, this proposal may be worth an experiment. But I'm not sure the problem is big enough to mess much with the game as it is. If this ever came to be, think how much harder it would be to compare "todays" greats with the greats of yesteryear. No, I doubt that it is worth tampering with the game. But as an interesting experiment, might be nice to see.

chad shaver
02-11-2005, 06:44 AM
Damned thread won't die.....

Brettolius
02-11-2005, 06:48 AM
do we all love tennis? are we here talking about tennis? as it is? what's the problem then? we all apparently dig tennis just fine. AS IS.

TheNatural
02-11-2005, 07:47 AM
Yes we like it as it is. But this thread is just about throwing up a few alternatives.

Since this thread is about trying to 'diminish the dominating role of the serve in tennis'
I have an idea.

What about if the reciever could choose which side of the service box they wanted to recieve serve for each service game. That would make things interesting and take a bit of the advantage away from the server. Although it would be mostly mental.

tricky nicky
02-11-2005, 07:51 AM
oh please man give it a rest will ya

something like this was posted on steve g forum.

it got hammered there too

regards

tricky

raftermania
02-11-2005, 10:31 AM
If you compare a beginner/intermediate game to the pro game you will notice that there is far more breaks of service in the beginner/intermediate game.

If you make serving even harder, then holding serve will be almost impossible for entry level player and thus the game be unable to attract as many players!

You're pretty hardcore about this, what is the impetus behind all this fervor?

HeavyBall
02-11-2005, 11:07 AM
A lefty pro hitting a slice out wide on the ad side on game point is not a distinct advantage. At their level, it could not be used consistently, because the returner would be ready for it, nullifying the advantage.

Markus Kaila
02-11-2005, 12:24 PM
Joehight,
Your thoughts are rather close to my ones, but I don't understand at all this:
If this ever came to be, think how much harder it would be to compare "todays" greats with the greats of yesteryear.

Are you all the time comparing (or even sometimes!) R. Laver to I. Lendl or Lendl to G. Kuerten or Kuerten to P. Sampras or Sampras to... R. Emerson...McEnroe,...N. Fraser... Edberg...Hoad...Tilden... Bueno?

Besides you can read my opinion from another thread:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=257854&postcount=41

joehight
02-11-2005, 01:32 PM
Joehight,
Your thoughts are rather close to my ones, but I don't understand at all this:


Are you all the time comparing (or even sometimes!) R. Laver to I. Lendl or Lendl to G. Kuerten or Kuerten to P. Sampras or Sampras to... R. Emerson...McEnroe,...N. Fraser... Edberg...Hoad...Tilden... Bueno?

Besides you can read my opinion from another thread:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=257854&postcount=41

Yes, it's nice to try to think about how the past greats would play vs today's stars. But I read your previous thread and you make a very good point. The game has evolved and changed in so many ways. Probably the biggest change has been the racquets. Wouldn't it be nice to see some of today's players using wood racquets? Problem is it wouldn't be fair to them to have them play just a few matches with wood racquets, because you would need a lot of time to adapt your game to a totally different kind of racquet - different grip, less open stance, etc.

The next biggest change is probably the surfaces - less grass and clay and more hard and rubberized courts.

All in all though, it's a great game. Was great then and is great now. Still, experimental matches with your scheme might be nice to see.

West Coast Ace
02-11-2005, 07:26 PM
After being a Read-Only user of this board, this thread prompted me to get an id.

First off: there is NOTHING wrong with tennis. Some people seem to think declining rating means there is something that requires corrective action. The game of tennis is just like everything else - some people enjoy it and some people don't. The early 80's excitement was a fluke, not a norm to be measured against - a number of players, from different parts of the world and with varied personalities mixed together to form a very compelling product. Any artificial attempt to change the game to get more fans is going to fail. It may bring some new fans - but it will alienate many long time fans. More on how to make the game more popular later.

Changing the rackets by rolling back technology, limiting the head size, etc... - dead lssue - not going to happen. Don't any of you read the news? The PGA (golf) tried to ban square grooves in irons a few years ago. They got mauled in court. As someone else (mojo) said - they market their product based on the fact that Joe Hacker can play the same racket his favorite pro does. The tennis racket manufacturers would hire the same lawyers and make the same case. I doubt the tennis ruling bodies would even bother - they'd back down.

We just saw the answer to short rallies - it's the TEXTURE of the surface! Even though 'Rusty' didn't like the surface, the Rebound Ace provided some great tennis. Sure JJ aced AA 50 times, but that was an anomoly. Andre was conserving energy - he was willing to give up aces to save energy to win the match - and have enough energy in case he had to play 7 matches (Roger took care of that for him). A medium surface is the answer. I guarantee that once Timmy Henman retires the Wimbledon committee will let the grass grow a little higher to induce more rallies. The US Open will keep their courts fast as long as Roddick and Serena are our top players. But they could easily add some grit to those surfaces to slow them down if they wish after Roddick and Serena retire. The French actually sped up their courts - anyone old enough to remember the finals from the late 70's and early 80's knows this. And with Monfils power game they may scrape those courts even more in the future. And Markus, mentioning the Kuerten - Flip match isn't relevant. Two guys with long strokes who refuse to shorten them to get serves back - not an event to change the sport over.

Now, here's how to improve ratings. Take all the top 50 players to a NASCAR event. No, not to learn how to drive their Porsches and Ferraris better. To see firsthand how to treat your customers! The NASCAR management 'got it' and convinced their drivers that treating your customers with respect will keep them coming back and lead to positive word of mouth that will attract more fans. NASCAR drivers sign autographs, then hop in their cars, risking their lives. So I don't want to hear that the players need their quiet time and can't spend a little free time with their fans. Obviously security would be an issue for the ladies - but that's doable - Playboy Playmates appear at public functions and don't get assaulted. One other thing the tours should do is either sell some of the tickets in the best seats to the 'real' tennis fans - not just give them to corporate fat cats. Or have a certain % of matches with the big names on the 3rd and 4th largest courts.

And Markus, your lefty advantage premise is not well thought out. If valid, John McEnroe would have won the majority of the majors and Pete Sampras would be a distant 2nd. Truth is Mac really didn't win that many - and if the officials had stood up to his poor behavior, he might only have 2 or 3. The only real advantage they have is that because there not as many of them it's harder to adapt to their games. The game itself is symmetrical. Period.

Sorry for the long post...

tricky nicky
02-12-2005, 04:08 AM
A most enjoyable post by west coast ace, very well structured argument.

in particular the bit about players signing autographs and changing surface textures.

Now can we close this thread now

regards

tricky

Ariel
02-12-2005, 10:17 AM
I suggest a change of rules on this forum: No more boring, repetitive and pathetic efforst from Markus to convince us of these nonsense changes.

joehight
02-12-2005, 06:36 PM
If valid, John McEnroe would have won the majority of the majors and Pete Sampras would be a distant 2nd. Truth is Mac really didn't win that many - ...

Seven slams not that many. Dam you have high standards.

Markus Kaila
02-15-2005, 06:47 AM
I suggest a change of rules on this forum: No more boring, repetitive and pathetic efforst from Markus to convince us of these nonsense changes.

Is it nonsense that by means of the narrower service court(s) you could see more baseline tennis in Wimbledon; more volley tennis in French Open (clay); less injuries in AO (and US Open); new surprising tactics (return & volley); new dominating super stars, because by decreasing the game of chance the best would be "more easily" best (Now tennis is the only sport in the world where the best ones can lose easily to the 100-200th (in a single match) ones.); new eager tennis enthusiasts (as players and/or spectators) and so on...?

I know that there are people who are laughing (That is really true!) at tennis because of its lazy pacing up and down between service courts. But if you think that it is the most essential and finest part of tennis I cannot do anything. It is a matter of taste. Besides of course calmly walking tennis players are nicer to see than severely struggling sweaty players...

raftermania
02-15-2005, 12:29 PM
Markus, have you build such a court and tested it yet? I think it is very hard to say who is right in theory - have you tested it rigorously at all with tennis players??? I think that is the only way to solve this dispute.

West Coast Ace
02-15-2005, 06:43 PM
Seven slams not that many. Dam you have high standards.Joe, that comment was relative to Markus' premise is that left-handers dominate the game. Therefore for someone of McEnroe's skill level, 7 isn't that many - according to Markus, the advantage Mac had being a lefty and playing on grass, he should have NEVER lost at Wimbledon.

Bottom line: there is nothing so wrong with the game that requires a major change to the layout of the court, racket material, or rules. A little tweaking here and there (see my previous post) - mostly in the marketing of the game.

Markus Kaila
02-15-2005, 11:51 PM
Markus, have you build such a court and tested it yet? I think it is very hard to say who is right in theory - have you tested it rigorously at all with tennis players??? I think that is the only way to solve this dispute.

If I remember right there is also in this thread something about my experiencies, but I copy here a text (as such it is) which is even today in a quite silent tennis forum. Sorry for my varying level of English! By the way to my mind this is not any dispute but conversation!
**********************
Because I want to prove that the model of 3 is not mere theory I would like to tell about my experimentations with the model of 3. It is really simply and you don't need any ropes or tapes and so on to that. I experimented lastly the model of 3 three months ago. By the way the first experimentation happened in the summer of 1998. And the model of 3 has been all the time getting better since then. Although it has been exactly the same all this time.

Experimentation is also very easy therefore that you probably have a suitable measure with you when you are going to the tennis court. The ordinary tennis racket is 27 in. and the breadth of the service court of the model of 3 is 3 yd. It is the same as 4 times 27 (=108 in.=3 yd.). Thus you only have to measure 2 lengths of the racket from the present centre line along the service line to the both directions and mark these points. I have used small pieces of old tennis balls as marks. (Tennisballs are very durable!) Small pieces don't disturb playing and two halves of a ball I have put under the net. By means of these together 6 marks you can perceive accurately enough the service courts for experimentation use. Perhaps the service courts look at first narrow, but the present service court is exactly only 2 "rackets" broader. There is also a picture at:

http://www.3malli.net/index.html

I played in this way with my semiregular tennispartner one hour session two months ago. I am in general clearly better mainly because of my better and more many-sided serve. That's why I don't have in general difficulties to keep my service. 6-2 is perhaps the most common result. Now the match was very even. OK. perhaps I was not at my best. But it really is obvious that the significance of the serve diminish on all the levels of tennis. Getting into the second service means also more difficulties for me as for everybody in the new system. Therefore I had to serve with care the first serve and not to try to get aces (on my level of course "almost aces"). Maybe for the same reason I served perhaps only one double fault. A couple of times we have a little quarrel about the score and of course the model of 3 causes them at least in the beginning.

About the fastening rhythm of the game it is difficult to tell anything exact. It was the first indoor tennis hour session of the season (carpet) and the tempo was considerable compared to the clay season. Of course we didn't have ball boys and perhaps it was even so that I really want to lengthen the periods between the points at least in my service turn. But maybe it is allowed at my age.... All in all, also on club level you can obtain more with your tennis. Perhaps it is too easy nowadays to get the better of the opponent by means of the serve. Serving is so easy when you have no preassures. The model of 3 requires a much higher degree of concentration as to the service and of course to increasing all round playing. I noticed that I have absolutely improve my backhand if or when they take into use the model of 3. But I don't want to blame the model of 3 for that.

We both were right-handers, but the present scoring system system gives an enormous advantage for left-handers only on pro level, but not necessarily on our level. And we couldn't test that point at all.

The partner's opinion: "Why not?"

http://www.3malli.net/index.html

I of course agree: "Why not the model of 3?"

Until this day I have not heard a single "reasonable" answer!

PS. Perhaps it is not clear for everybody that serving system of the model 3:
The dividing line between service courts will be completely abolished. The area will be divided into THREE equally large service courts as opposed to the two of the present-day rules. Respective one-third marks will be made on the baseline. A SINGLE service will in practice be executed quite similarly as today, but the server will be standing BETWEEN the one-third marks and the respective service court will be the one-third court exactly OPPOSITE. Accordingly, there will be no deuce or advantage courts in a singles match, the service court will remain the same throughout the match, only one third narrower than previously. The server will naturally be free to choose his serving position between the ONE-THIRD marks.

The doubles application would analogically be that the server will always serve from between the sideline and the one-third mark, only not diagonally but straight to the opposing service court. It is a matter of taste whether the first service will be executed from the left or right side. Western thinking would prefer the logic of the first service being served from the left - as seen from the server s point of view.

JSummers
02-15-2005, 11:58 PM
"...but the present scoring system system gives an enormous advantage for left-handers only on pro level..."

C'mon get your facts right!
I disagree.... see my previous post on this thread. I *proved* it the advantage is that oh so very slight 0.002. (since no math experts disputed as of yet, I am assume my calculation is correct :)

Markus Kaila
02-16-2005, 12:56 AM
"...but the present scoring system system gives an enormous advantage for left-handers only on pro level..."

C'mon get your facts right!
I disagree.... see my previous post on this thread. I *proved* it the advantage is that oh so very slight 0.002. (since no math experts disputed as of yet, I am assume my calculation is correct :)

I don't know about your facts, but go and ask B. Borg! Besides also J. McEnroe has confessed that he had an..... (at least remarkable) advantage in serving against B. Borg partlly because of Borg's two-handed backhand. The same problem with the ad-court B. Borg had with R. Tanner, but not so much with J. Connors. I have in my home library Borg's (rather early) memoirs. The book is in Finnish, and I cannot copy these parts for you.

West Coast Ace
02-16-2005, 06:10 PM
"...but the present scoring system system gives an enormous advantage for left-handers only on pro level..."

C'mon get your facts right!
I disagree.... see my previous post on this thread. I *proved* it the advantage is that oh so very slight 0.002. (since no math experts disputed as of yet, I am assume my calculation is correct :)JSummers, this guy's mind is made up - he's right and we're all wrong - you're just wasting your time and provoking him to keep up this silliness and waste space on Tennis Warehouse's web server.

juu
02-17-2005, 09:08 AM
I don't know about your factsWhy don't you read up on them? The statistics posted were quite detailed.

Markus Kaila
02-18-2005, 12:32 AM
Adding all these common winning situations they almost balance out equal but lefty has a 0.002 advantage...


Nice that you have succeeded in proving by calculating what I have only thought of. But your calculation is based on assumption that every point is equal in importance. Still I am sure that the advantage is greater in reality because all points are not equal. Perhaps you can examine this:

http://members.aol.com/Tennis999/situations.html

Phil
02-18-2005, 12:45 AM
Who cares, geek boy?