Would tennis be better with the following rule changes?

[halbrikj]

I think the sport is long overdue for some rule changes. I'd propose the following:

1) One serve

I don't know about you, but I watch tennis for the rallies. I find little entertainment value watching a fault, service winner, or even an ace. One serve means players will be hitting second serves, which means we'd see more rallies.

Moreover, while I don't have statistics at hand, I would venture to guess that players are holding serve upwards of 85% of the time - because they're winning upwards of 85% of their first serve points. However, if they were only hitting second serves, players would probably only hold 50 - 55% of the time, i.e. games would be more close, more competitive, thus more entertaining.

Lastly, with one serve, you'd see the more talented players rise to the top of the game, rather than 6'5 plus guys who can hold serve by hitting aces at will. I believe the most talented players are the most entertaining to watch. Think of guys like Mcenroe, Rios, Arazi, etc.

2) No ad scoring

One of tennis's biggest challenges has always been gaining new fans. It's never been as popular as baseball, basketball, football, and today it's even taken a back seat to golf, which is pretty hard to do. One reason, I believe, is that those unfamiliar with the sport will be channel surfing, perhaps stop on the USO on CBS, then hear "15, 30, 40, deuce," and wonder what in the heck they're talking about. Point being, most casual viewers will immediately lose interest if they can't even figure out the score, or who's winning. Forget about tradition, dump the deuce and ad scoring and just go with 1-2-3-game.

Also, by dumping the ad, you'd add an element of entertainment missing from the sport, i.e. the simultaneous game point.

3) First to six wins

This rule change would only work if the one serve rule was implemented. Again, with one serve, statistically speaking both server and receiver would have an equal chance of winning the game, thereby obviating the need for a win by two set.

Could you imagine the excitement of a Wimbledon final, 5th set, five all, three all, i.e. simultaneous championship point!!

4) Score like badminton, table tennis, volleyball...

Or... perhaps tennis should do away with the six game set all together and go with straight up scoring, e.g. first to 21 or 25 points wins the set. One of the reasons casual fan watches beach volleyball (apart from the bikinis), is he can understand the scoring. 15 - 15 means both teams have scored 15 points. What a concept!

Also, straight up scoring would ensure that the better player wins the set, whereas under the current rules, a player could be outscored in points but still win the set.
_ _ _ _

Thanks for reading. I look forward to your responses.

[woodrow1029]

I like #2.

Hate the rest.

[vive le beau jeu !]

hate each of those propositions.

try that if you want, but just don't call it tennis !

[sureshs]

Tennis needs to go back to 65 sq in wood and gut and be played on grass or clay only. That is what will make it interesting.

[Jeepers]

I think to reduce the duration of tennis matches and increase excitement the following should be implemented:

At 4:00 hours: Release the Jaguar

[Viper]

I don't know why everyone hates the idea of only one serve. We don't play with 60 sq. inch frames anymore, so getting the ball in consistently is not an issue anymore. It would force players to play more smart first serves, rather than just bashing one down the middle and getting lucky.

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by Jeepers

I think to reduce the duration of tennis matches and increase excitement the following should be implemented:

At 4:00 hours: Release the Jaguar

BAHAHAHAHA, yes this is the one, hilarious!!!!

[NatF]

All those suggestions are horrible. Long games with lots of tension are fantastic viewing for fans.

[Defcon]

The only change the sport needs is speeding up the courts. All these 'rule changes' are horrible and would destroy tennis.

[RF20Lennon]

[Ripper014]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Tennis needs to go back to 65 sq in wood and gut and be played on grass or clay only. That is what will make it interesting.

I like this idea... but there is nothing wrong with hard courts being part of the mix. It would be nice to have distinct surfaces again instead of making everything homogenized.

And going back to a smaller head size would put a premium on hitting the ball in the middle of the racket and not all about power. And for those of you that don't know... you can still hit a ball pretty hard with a 65 sq in racket when you have time.

But I might be convinced to go to 85 sq inches.

[mattennis]

Originally Posted by Ripper014

I like this idea... but there is nothing wrong with hard courts being part of the mix. It would be nice to have distinct surfaces again instead of making everything homogenized.

And going back to a smaller head size would put a premium on hitting the ball in the middle of the racket and not all about power. And for those of you that don't know... you can still hit a ball pretty hard with a 65 sq in racket when you have time.

But I might be convinced to go to 85 sq inches.

Totally agree. The four rules of the OP are terrible.

Just have polarized conditions as it always was and use 65 s.i. wooden racquets or at most 80-85 s.i. graphite racquets from the late 70s and beginning of the 80s.

Then we would see a totally different top-5 (from the current top 5, probably only Federer would still be top 5 in this case).

Seriously, I would love it!

[firepanda]

Get rid of serving I agree with. I could probably play with Raonic, Karlovic etc if you take away their first serve. They are not playing tennis and are a disgrace to the game.

The rest... I'm not sure if you're trolling or not...

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by firepanda

Get rid of serving I agree with. I could probably play with Raonic, Karlovic etc if you take away their first serve. They are not playing tennis and are a disgrace to the game.

The rest... I'm not sure if you're trolling or not...

Two serves are needed! otherwise while under pressure no one would go for a huge serve to save BP's and theres nothing to rely on. Big servers should get rewarded

[Leelord337]

It would be interesting to see a 1 serve match w/the top players though.

[tacou]

Tennis isn't that popular in America, and because of that, you want to completely change the scoring system? No. There rules are all garbage, no offense as you seem to have thought them out. But I don't see them helping anything.

Second serves have won and lost slam championships...you want to do away with them too?

[Alchemy-Z]

When we practice we play a 1 serve rule and while I don;t know if the pro game needs it....it really helps build a well placed 2nd serve and lets you feel like you can go for more on your first serve because you no longer feel that ...okay now for my weak serve.

[gregor.b]

I like the first serve thing, but the rest, um, no.

Maybe use a soccer ball ball for baseball because it would be easier to hit?

Or a baseball for NFL because it would be easier to throw?

Some things are the way they are.

[ChanceEncounter]

[OrangePower]

About the serve thing, we already tried that, in spirit at least... it's called the WTA. For the ladies, serve is generally not a weapon and in some cases is actually a liability. So there you go - you want to watch tennis where serve is not a determining factor, the WTA is your answer.