What would the top 20 look like if players only had only one attempt on each serve? Here are some estimates using second serve/return statistics.

[AlecG]

Mind you, you're not exactly neutral in your phrasing as well. If we don't agree with you, we're conservative, irrational, supporting a "silly" rule that gives "charity points on serve".

My issue with the claims of "insanity" etc is that it was based on claims I didn't actually make or based on claims I did make that were more or less factually accurate (and you later conceded the claim you called insane was perhaps not far off an accurate claim). You don't have to use neutral language when it comes to the two attempts on serve rule, and if you genuinely believe I have an irrational progressive bias, you can say so.

 

[AlecG]

You got plenty of quality responses.

If by quality responses you mean disagreeing with making this rule change accross the whole sport when I never actually said that should be done, sure. I don't consider it a quality response to wrongly assume I have a position that I don't.

If you mean a quality response to my belief that we should try this out at one 250, then where's the quality response?

 

[AlecG]

Btw, football players are also taller than average. 6'0 in the Premier League. 5'11 in La Liga.

Yep. My point is only that the sport doesn't have rules that specifically give charity to taller players, and that it would be a worse sport if a rule were introduced to make it more biased towards taller players without actually making the sport more entertaining like the two attempts on serve does.

The average height in pro tennis & in the top 20 might still be above average but about 6'0" if there were only one attempt on serve, which currently is the *minimum* reported height in the top 20.

 

[AlecG]

Pardon my French, but this shows a basic lack of understanding of the sport.

Only if you're very disingenous in your interpretation, again. Clearly what I meant is that you don't immediately lose the point if you miss on the first serve, which is a fact, and I think it's pretty disingenuous not to recognise that's what I meant.

 

[AlecG]

• It would fundamentally alter the sport. It's not a small change, it's massive.

There are two problems with this.

Firstly, a large change does not mean a bad change. All of the best changes to everything in history have been large changes. This is what I mean by irrational conservative bias. I'm sorry but there's no other accurate way of describing that. It's not a reason that says anything in particular about overall benefit or harm of the change.

Secondly, you're probably assuming that I actually support abolishing two serves across the whole sport, which I never actually said. If wouldn't be massive in my opinion if one 250 per year had the modified rules, which is what I would actually suggest, just to try it out and see what it's like. All of your criticisms are wrongly assuming that I would abolish two attempts on serve from every tournament, which I never said. I did entertain a hypothetical of what the top 10 would like like, but didn't actually say that change should be made.

 

[AlecG]

Here's (part of) your list:
Nadal 2008-2014
Novak 2015-2016
Nadal 2017-2019

2009 and 2012 - Rafa sucked/was out with injury for half the year, so obviously he wouldn't be world no. 1 those years.
2011: Clay: Rafa is ahead 3,5 % in return points won, Novak is 2,5 % ahead in serve points won:
(2011 stats here, Djokovic outperforming Rafa on 2nd serve serve points: https://www.atptour.com/en/stats/2nd-serve-points-won/2011/clay/all/, while Rafa is ahead in the return department. Difference is small enough to make for close matches though https://www.atptour.com/en/stats/2nd-serve-return-points-won/2011/clay/all/)
HC: Novak 3,5 % ahead in RoS: https://www.atptour.com/en/stats/2nd-serve-return-points-won/2011/hard/all/, while being less than 2,5 % shy of Rafa on 2nd serve points won https://www.atptour.com/en/stats/2nd-serve-points-won/2011/hard/all/
Grass: Neck & neck

I.e. pretty darn close overall. Grass could go both ways, while Rafa has a very small edge on clay and Novak has a similar small edge on HC.
So let's look closer.

GS tournaments (i.e. where most points are earned) from QF onwards:
Rafa: 50,9 % & 57,4 %
Djokovic: 52,1 % 57,1 % (i.e. edge Djokovic - source Ultimate tennis stats)

Let's look even closer though. Novak against no. 1 in 2011 (i.e. their first 6 matches, Djokovic became no. 1 after Wimbledon).
Result?

Novak was outright killing him on this metric: 57,4 % behind his own 2nd serve and 55,2 % against Rafa's.
At the US, Rafa was 42,2 behind his own 2nd serve and 55,8 % against Novak's. I.e. Novak would most likely have won the vast majority of their 7 matches (maybe all). And he would have been no. 1.

Side note: He would have beaten Federer in the FO semi and (if we rely solely on the numbers from their 2 clay clashes in 2011) also have beaten Rafa in the final (Novak won 61 % vs. the Rafa 2nd serve in Madrid (Rafa won 48 %) and a whopping 75 % in Rome (Rafa won 53 %).

In short, giving Rafa 11 YE no. 1's under your system is, sorry to say, just wrong.

I agree with all this except that the last paragraph misses the point. I didn't say he would have been number 1 under the ATP points system. I said he was number one under that statistical metric, which is correct. As I've said many times, I'm very aware that the methodology is flawed (but interesting) *if* you're using it to estimate actual ATP rankings.

 

[AlecG]

OK, it tried to explain some of the issues with your theory in a tennis way. It might be more valuable to explain them in a science way. You have an issue with construct validity in your assertion. You are trying to use the statistics gained under one set of conditions to attempt to explain what you believe would happen under another set of conditions. This is scientifically flawed.

OK. Then your statements were also scientifically flawed by that metric. In fact, all estimates have that flaw. That doesn't negate the reasonableness of the estimates.

 

[Chanwan]

There are two problems with this.

Firstly, a large change does not mean a bad change. All of the best changes to everything in history have been large changes. This is what I mean by irrational conservative bias. I'm sorry but there's no other accurate way of describing that. It's not a reason that says anything in particular about overall benefit or harm of the change.

Secondly, you're probably assuming that I actually support abolishing two serves across the whole sport, which I never actually said. If wouldn't be massive in my opinion if one 250 per year had the modified rules, which is what I would actually suggest, just to try it out and see what it's like. All of your criticisms are wrongly assuming that I would abolish two attempts on serve from every tournament, which I never said. I did entertain a hypothetical of what the top 10 would like like, but didn't actually say that change should be made.

Throughout this thread you have repeatedly called the current rule silly, stupid, bad for the viewer, bad for the sport, a free gift for tall people etc so forgive the rest of us for assuming you want one serve only across the board as soon as possible

I don't mind a 250 test run and have said so already

 

[Chanwan]

There are two problems with this.

Firstly, a large change does not mean a bad change. All of the best changes to everything in history have been large changes. This is what I mean by irrational conservative bias. I'm sorry but there's no other accurate way of describing that. It's not a reason that says anything in particular about overall benefit or harm of the change.

Secondly, you're probably assuming that I actually support abolishing two serves across the whole sport, which I never actually said. If wouldn't be massive in my opinion if one 250 per year had the modified rules, which is what I would actually suggest, just to try it out and see what it's like. All of your criticisms are wrongly assuming that I would abolish two attempts on serve from every tournament, which I never said. I did entertain a hypothetical of what the top 10 would like like, but didn't actually say that change should be made.

Tennis is my favorite sport to watch by a mile. So yes, I am not a fan of a game altering rule that I on the basis of available evidence don't see a benefit of - and I have listed what I perceive as severe problems with it. Shoot me

(250 test run, no problem)

 

[AlecG]

Throughout this thread you have repeatedly called the current rule silly, stupid, bad for the viewer, bad for the sport, a free gift for tall people etc so forgive the rest of us for assuming you want one serve only across the board as soon as possible

I have said something similar to those things but haven't said all of them so let me clarify.

I haven't called the rule "stupid" but I have pointed out that it would be stupid to introduce similar rules that give charity to obese people or charity to unfit people or charity to low IQ people at the top pro level. Keeping a silly rule because of tradition is not stupid but introducing a *new* rule that's just as silly would be stupid. I think you probably agree with that last statement.

I have said that I think most spectators, most potential players, most potential pros and most amatuer players would eventually benefit from an eventual rule change at the pro level (or any level where second serves are reliable and first serves are generating many free or boring points). However, I also recognise that changing the rule across the whole sport before trying it out at individual tournaments would be silly. One reason for this is that there are consequences of the rule changes that may need to be adjusted for with other rule changes. We don't know how much more fatigue it would place on the players' legs for example. Another reason is just that there are many fans that would indeed be very annoyed (even if they later came to enjoy it just as much or more). A third reason would be that it might be entertaining at some tournaments, to keep the two attempts on serve, to mix things up.

"I don't mind a 250 test run and have said so already". Then we basically agree on that. I think it would be an amazing thing for the sport if we tried it out

 

[AlecG]

Tennis is my favorite sport to watch by a mile. So yes, I am not a fan of a game altering rule that I on the basis of available evidence don't see a benefit of - and I have listed what I perceive as severe problems with it. Shoot me

(250 test run, no problem)

Sure. I don't think that part is irrational. But I don't think it's a good reason to just focus on the effects on one person (yourself). But anyway, you agree that what I'm actually suggesting, which is to try it at a single 250, would be OK, and I think the vast majority of spectators would be at least tolerant of that and overall it would attract a lot of interest for novelty and many would enjoy it more for reasons other than just novelty.

 

[canta_Brian]

OK. Then your statements were also scientifically flawed by that metric. In fact, all estimates have that flaw. That doesn't negate the reasonableness of the estimates.

No. What I said was consistent with my statement. I suggested that people serve how they currently do within the construct of a 2 serve rule, and therefore you shouldn’t be surprised if changing the rule also leads to a change in the approach of players.

I can see that this is a hill you are prepared to die on and commend you for acknowledging that you only get to see what the results may be by testing it in a 250 tournament. However, you’ve also said other rules might need to be changed to address unforeseen consequences of this change.

Does there come a point where this all becomes a lot of effort to go to just to try and address your personal lack of physical stature? Maybe you could serve from on a box.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Ah, insomnia.

Interesting thread, and my initial thought is that I would like to see this rule put to a test, but it may need more than one 250 (or perhaps, a satellite-type) tourney to learn much from it.
Measured over more time when it's not a novelty - but when players have more opportunities to adjust to it strategically and psychologically - would be interesting.
Who would play it more like they play second serves currently, and who would take more risks.

As for the larger philosophical question this thread teased about conservatism v. progressivism, it's possible to be more progressive socially and politically, yet more conservative when it comes to changing rules of a sport. That may describe me...and some may be the opposite of this.

Anyway, I tend to agree with the OP that this rule could bring more parity and less down time during matches. The first part of this is a maybe, the second part is a little more certain. But some fans may miss what may ensue as a result - fewer aces and even less S&V.

So, is there a compelling reason to institute this change? I don't know. But again, I'd like to see it and see (over time) how players would react to the change.

 

[AlecG]

No. What I said was consistent with my statement. I suggested that people serve how they currently do within the construct of a 2 serve rule, and therefore you shouldn’t be surprised if changing the rule also leads to a change in the approach of players.

I can see that this is a hill you are prepared to die on and commend you for acknowledging that you only get to see what the results may be by testing it in a 250 tournament. However, you’ve also said other rules might need to be changed to address unforeseen consequences of this change.

Does there come a point where this all becomes a lot of effort to go to just to try and address your personal lack of physical stature? Maybe you could serve from on a box.

Nope. It should be pretty clear that's not the case, as I've given my reasons & you haven't provided any evidence against them. It doesn't make much difference to me as a player since I would be an amateur playing amateur matches either way (if I'm even lucky enough to recover from my injuries) & I enjoy the challenge of returning first serves. It would be an big improvement for me personally as a spectator though and have all the other benefits to others that I mentioned. If some tournaments maintained the traditional rules and some tournaments had only one attempt on serve, I think that would be the best of both worlds as a spectator & for most of the most talented potential pro players.

You could oppose literally any change to anything in history using the argument you've used here. Unforeseen consequences were likely for every positive change that has ever been made in any sport or anything else.