What I'd do to reform tennis

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

1. Wimbledon would return to the fescue (or fescue mix) and the soil it used in the past (1960s or so), with 100% rye starting at the baseline and moving back. This would help the durability of the baseline, but wouldn't affect the bounce/speed of the court. The balls would also be lower-bouncing, as they were in the past.

2. The US Open would return to grass (something like the current Wimbledon grass and soil, which would differentiate it from the faster and lower bouncing grass of my reformed Wimbledon).

3. The Australian Open would move to fast clay. This would provide a 50/50 grand slam split between grass and clay. Roland Garros would keep its slow clay. (The Australian Open should probably not move back to grass courts because Australia is too dry.)

By making a 50/50 split between grass and clay, the net or all court game will not be dominant over the baseline game and vice-versa. It balances the game while also taking away injury-causing hard courts.

4. In order to be eligible to play singles in slams, seeded players would have to enter the doubles. Mixed would be optional. If a player pulls out of the doubles, then they would also have to pull out of the singles as well. If a player cannot find a partner for doubles, a partner would be assigned. Players may enter the doubles without entering the singles.

This would revitalize doubles by increasing its visibility and importance. Fans would get to see their favorite players in action more often at slams, and the players would get more net practice. The concern over injury and fatigue is minimal or irrelevant, given my other reforms (no more 5 set matches, no hard courts, lower powered racquets).

5. If a player pulls out of the doubles, their partner may choose another player who isn't already in the draw or who has been knocked out.

6. Professional racquets would have the following characteristics:

a) maximums of 80 sq in string area and 55 stiffness, for men
b) maximums of 90 sq in string area and 50 stiffness, for women
c) no other restrictions, except possibly the use of the single shaft form factor

The reduction in racquet stiffness will tone down ball speed and joint shock. (Since female pros have a higher joint injury rate due to stiff racquets and strings, I have set the maximum stiffness lower and given them an extra 5 square inches for reduced shock, to help offset the power loss due to the lower stiffness, and to help them return serve in mixed doubles.) The reductions in head size will make topspin baselining less dominant. Both changes, with the removal of hard courts, are designed to balance the game so that no single playing style has an advantage over another and the reforms also are designed to reduce injury. By reducing the power of racquets, players would also probably be more inclined to use gut, which would also increase joint safety.

7. There would be no dress code at any pro tournament that is more strict than local laws. Players should be able to wear whatever they want to, as long as it's legal in the place they're playing. (This is not a big deal, but it's something I'm in favor of.)

8. Hard courts would be banned and replaced with grass, clay, or indoor carpet. The grass court season will constitute at least 50% of the tennis calendar year. Hard courts are unsafe for professional players. The health of players trumps all other considerations. Tournaments that are "too poor" to afford grass, clay, or indoor carpet will have to cede their professional circuit status to tournaments than can step up.

9. If a player takes an injury time-out, the player is given a one or two point penalty (I'm not sure which number is the best choice yet), in order to reduce abuse of the injury timeout. Players may only take bathroom breaks at the start of one of their service games.

10. No more 5 set matches, or the number of games per set would be reduced. Men would play a maximum of four sets, with a tiebreak. Women would play three sets minimum in the semis and finals of slams, not a minimum of two. *Or, the number of games for men's matches would be reduced so that 5 set matches would not be nearly as long. Perhaps the number of games in the last two or three sets would be cut? Something has to be done to a) shorten matches when compared to traditional 5 setters and b) make women's semis and finals longer, but not absurdly long.

5 set matches cause exhaustion and injury, and lower the quality of slam play/competition. Even the fittest players become exhausted by them. Tennis is not marathon running. Women's semis and finals are too short, in contrast.

11. Get rid of the new "finishing points" in doubles.

mileslong · Jul 14, 2007

i like number one but why would you ban hard courts?

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

mileslong said:
i like number one but why would you ban hard courts?

They're hell on the body, especially for women. Professional tournaments shouldn't be played on them. The only way a hard court might be acceptable is if the total number of hard courts for pro tournaments is very small and if the surface is very fast and low bouncing, like the hard courts of the old days. This would speed up the matches and hopefully limit the impact on the body of playing on concrete.

Eviscerator · Jul 14, 2007

I only agree with about 1/3 of your ideas.

Jimmyk459 · Jul 14, 2007

this is so dumb... hard courts can showcase different styles than the other 3 (grass, carpet, clay). You also act as if the head size will make a huge difference in the game. All players will have to do is loosen their strings or adjust the type of string that they use. While I think that clay is the most fun and most interesting surface to play on/watch, putting a ban on a type of surface is the most ridiculous things i have ever heard.

rod99 · Jul 14, 2007

horrible ideas. grass court tennis is a joke, regardless of the type of grass. and with all the injuries players are having and with the season too long as it is, you to force them to play doubles? doubles is only for players who aren't good enough to play singles. it allows them to hide their weaknesses.

Kobble · Jul 14, 2007

I like the Wimbledon idea.

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

Eviscerator said:
I only agree with about 1/3 of your ideas.

Which ones?

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

Jimmyk459 said:
this is so dumb...

You disagree with everything I noted, then, including some things that are already happening, like the recent Wimbledon decision to only allow players to take restroom breaks at the beginning of their service games?

hard courts can showcase different styles than the other 3 (grass, carpet, clay).

Such as? As far as I know, there is no specific style for hard court play. And, the downside of hard courts (injuries) has to be weighed against the diversity added to the game with the higher bounce. Hard courts have actually homogenized the game, as they've displaced grass to the point where the grass season is miniscule. And, hard courts make groundstrokes too good, which makes serve and volley difficult. We already have a surface that makes groundstrokes good and serve and volley bad. It's clay.

You also act as if the head size will make a huge difference in the game. All players will have to do is loosen their strings or adjust the type of string that they use.

Head size, coupled with racquet stiffness does make a huge difference. A 90 sq in racquet with a stiffness of 45 is not going to play like a Pure Drive.

By cutting down the power and forgiveness of pro racquets, serve and volley will be more viable, especially in conjunction with a longer grass court season. More flexible racquets will reduce injury and lead to more finesse, in conjunction with smaller racquet heads. Navratilova and others have said that large-headed stiff racquets make hitting passing shots too easy, which makes serve and volley not viable. And, players have noted that the high bounce of the grass at Wimbledon, in conjunction with the tiny grass court season, has further homogenized the game.

Cutting down injury is a critical concern in the women's game, and taking the stiffness and head size down will help, in conjunction with the elimination of hard courts. Men will also benefit.

While I think that clay is the most fun and most interesting surface to play on/watch, putting a ban on a type of surface is the most ridiculous things i have ever heard.

It's not ridiculous at all. All sports have regulations. An old regulation is no less "radical" than a new one. Hard courts are destroying tennis players' bodies, in conjunction with the new stiff power racquets. Hard courts have been allowed to displace grass, and that's not good. Pro tennis players play tennis for a living and play a whole lot. Recreational players don't have the perspective of what it's like to have your body falling apart when you're trying to compete for a living and for posterity.

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

rod99 said:
horrible ideas. grass court tennis is a joke,

Why is grass court tennis a "joke"? Is it because the season has been reduced to almost nothing, due to the encroachment of hard courts? Is it because the new grass at Wimbledon plays too much like a hard court? Is it because the power racquets, in conjunction with the new grass, makes serve and volley obsolete? None of those things makes grass court tennis, as a whole, a "joke". The current state of affairs, though, definitely needs to be improved.

with all the injuries players are having and with the season too long as it is, you to force them to play doubles?

Players used to play doubles, back when grass courts existed where hard courts are now, and when players used safer wood racquets and gut string instead of synthetics that ruin the body.

The injury problem is addressed by the following:

1. The elimination of hard courts.
2. The reduction in racquet stiffness.
3. The reduction in racquet power.
4. The reduction in racquet head size.

doubles is only for players who aren't good enough to play singles.

Many of the greatest players in tennis' history, such as Martina Navratilova and John McEnroe, were dominant doubles players. Also, some players who are good at singles are not particularly good at doubles, like Maria Sharapova and Andy Roddick.

35ft6 · Jul 14, 2007

superstition said:
1. Wimbledon would return...

I would be down with making the grass faster again.

2. The US Open would be played on grass once again, which rye behind the baseline and fescue mix for the court.

I'm a big fan of hard court tennis, so I don't like this idea. If they want to be kind to the players' bodies, make it best of 3 until the quarterfinals.

4. In order to be eligible to play singles in slams...

If they do this, I would support only having ONE composite ranking based on singles performance AND double performance. Doubles results won't count as much, but it'll count. Not married to this idea but I would rationalize it as "best tennis player in the world" should mean being good at singles AND doubles. It would also encourage players to develop a wider variety of skills.

But if you're trying to save players' bodies, forcing them to play doubles certainly isn't going to help matters.

5. If a player pulls out of the doubles, their partner may choose another player who isn't already in the draw or who has been knocked out.

Don't think this would be fair. Could definitely see this being totally abused, and it seems contradictory to number 4. "Who isn't already in the draw?" A doubles specialist? But you can't play singles unless you play doubles?

6. Professional racquets would have the following characteristics:a) single shaft form factor
b) maximums of 80 sq in string area and 55 stiffness, for men

Interesting idea but IMO incredibly unfair, basically penalizing players with certain styles while giving a permanent and profound advantage to others. Basically, it would abruptly end the careers of many top players.

I think the way they do it now is as fair as it's going to get. It doesn't reward certain styles. Every pro can play with any racket used by any other pro, the choice is theirs. They can play with any racket they feel maximizes their game.

I don't feel like there's an inherently superior style of play in terms of aesthetic appeal or "fairness" but limiting rackets in the way you propose would penalize and discourage certain styles of play, and would seem to be designed to increase the chances of your favored style of play proliferating.

7. There would be no dress code at any pro tournament that is more strict than local laws. Players should be able to wear whatever they want to, as long as it's legal in the place they're playing.

No more tournaments in Dubai.

8. Hard courts would be banned and replaced with grass, clay, or indoor carpet. ... The grass court season will constitute at least 50% of the year.

I think they should have a proper grass court season, comparable to the clay court lead-up to the French. If this is economically feasible, not sure. At least one Masters Series on grass, even though that would mean moving the date of the French and/or Wimbledon.

10. Players may only take bathroom breaks at the start of one of their service games.

Interesting idea. Seems fair.

I would get rid let of let services. Yes, that means that in theory, a match can be won by a serve and barely dribbles over the net. Who cares? It can already end that way but with a ground stroke.

Change the scoring. I know it's tradition but so many potential fans are lost. I stumble upon a basketball game between two teams I don't care about, but I see that it's 90 to 91 with only 35 seconds remaining, I stay on that channel to see the drama play out. I understand what 90 to 91 means. Same with football if I see that it's 21 to 21 in the fourth quarter with only 1 minute remaining. But for somebody who doesn't understand tennis scoring, and if the people I know are any indication, it's MOST of America, they stumble upon a tennis match and they have absolutely no idea what it means to be down a set and a break and 15-30 on his serve. It's needlessly confusing.

I would make better commercials to promote the players. Do for tennis what Spike Lee did for basketball commercials. Right now, it's like tennis is being run by a bunch of 80 yo. We've gotta attract new fans! The guys who remember the glory years of tennis in the 70's are going to be dead someday, where will the new fans come from?

rod99 · Jul 14, 2007

please. this isn't the 1960s. except for maybe in the UK and Australia, there are virtually no grass courts for people to learn to play on. and you want professionasl to go out and play 50% of the season on grass courts? not going to happen. the grass court season is the correct length as it is.

nobody cares about doubles, including the general public. that's why it's never on tv. the great thing about tennis is that it's 1 on 1 with no help from anyone else. doubles is the minor leagues of pro tennis. things were different when mcenroe/nav played. the pro circuit is so much more deep and physical now. back then players could afford to play both. regardless if they played on hard courts today or not, if you required all players to play doubles in grand slams then they would be playing the finals in wheelchairs.

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

except for maybe in the UK and Australia, there are virtually no grass courts for people to learn to play on. and you want professionasl to go out and play 50% of the season on grass courts?

That wasn't the case in the past and doesn't have to be the case in the future. And, a player doesn't have to re-learn the game to play on grass. Given how short the season is now, suggesting that adding tournaments would make it harder on players when it comes to playing on grass doesn't make sense. It's harder now because the season is so short. Some players don't even play the tune-ups before Wimbledon.
not going to happen.

the grass court season is the correct length as it is.

A lot of people disagree, including some of the most notable former pros. Why is the grass court season the "correct length", in your opinion?

nobody cares about doubles, including the general public. that's why it's never on tv.

Actually, the Tennis Channel has said there is a lot of demand for doubles coverage, and a big reason why people pay less attention to doubles is because big name players usually don't play doubles anymore. That wasn't the case in the past.

doubles is the minor leagues of pro tennis. things were different when mcenroe/nav played. the pro circuit is so much more deep and physical now.

Tennis doesn't have as many grass courts now, has overpowered stiff racquets and poly string, and too much hard court play. Players who hardly play any tennis at all are getting injured all the time in the WTA.

if you required all players to play doubles in grand slams then they would be playing the finals in wheelchairs.

Not if my other reforms are adopted. The flexible low power racquets and removal of hard courts will make a huge difference.

rod99 · Jul 14, 2007

i can't take anything serious that is stated by someone with jan-michael gambill as their avator.

Forehand Forever · Jul 14, 2007

I like the idea of making the grass courts faster once again. I wouldn't ban hardcourts though. I would want Babolat racquets that aren't so stiff, and strings that don't mess with so many parts of your body.

And if I was magical. I'd create people that could cure injuries, but I don't have those powers unfortunately.

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

35ft6 said:
If they want to be kind to the players' bodies, make it best of 3 until the quarterfinals.

I forgot to mention the number of sets, actually. 5 set matches should be eliminated. That is another crucial reform that needs to be made. And, in slams, women should play three sets in the semis and final, not just two.

But if you're trying to save players' bodies, forcing them to play doubles certainly isn't going to help matters.

People held up just fine when tennis was played with wood on grass and clay. If all of my reforms are adopted, the injury problem will decrease tremendously.

Could definitely see this being totally abused.

"Who isn't already in the draw?" A doubles specialist?

Click to expand...

Or a player who didn't qualify. I don't think it's fair to players to be knocked out if their partner gets injured before the quarters. They should be able to get a substitute. Since players have to leave the singles if they pull out of doubles, how will it be abused?

But you can't play singles unless you play doubles? Interesting idea but IMO incredibly unfair, basically penalizing players with certain styles while giving a permanent and profound advantage to others.

Click to expand...

Huh? A player's singles ranking would get them into the doubles draw. I see nothing unfair about having top players play doubles at slams, at least. It would help the appeal of doubles tremendously to have big names play; it would be more interesting for fans at a tournament to be able to see them. Doubles is far easier on the body than singles. Martina Navratilova won tournaments in her 40s and McEnroe won one with Bjorkman not long ago.

I think the way they do it now is as fair as it's going to get. It doesn't reward certain styles.

Click to expand...

It absolutely rewards certain styles. Serve and volley is dead. Navratilova and others have said that the new racquets and strings, in conjunction with hard courts and high bouncing grass have made serve and volley die. The racquets are too powerful, too stiff, and make it too easy to play from the baseline.

I don't feel like there's an inherently superior style of play in terms of aesthetic appeal or "fairness" but limiting rackets in the way you propose would penalize and discourage certain styles of play, and would seem to be designed to increase the chances of your favored style of play proliferating.

Click to expand...

What I did was re-balance the game to take away the huge advantage of playing from the baseline. By decreasing stiffness along with head size, though, I kept service aces from being too good. If you look at the wood composite era, you'll see something similar to what I'm proposing. The racquets were not overpowered, and people could win from the baseline or at the net. Service aces weren't yet annoying, as they became when Sampras and others started using full graphite racquets. If you look at a flexible racquet with a fairly small head, it doesn't give anyone an advantage, especially if we get rid of hard courts. Clay gives an advantage to baseliners. Grass gives an advantage to net players. Having a 50/50 split between grass and clay tournaments (with carpet thrown in) isn't going to result in the homogenized game we have now, where hard court style play is what everyone does, except clay specialists and the sad remains of serve and volley.

No more tournaments in Dubai.

Click to expand...

Huh? My dress code suggestion says the code will follow local laws. Whatever is legal in Dubai becomes the standard. I don't follow you.

I think they should have a proper grass court season, comparable to the clay court lead-up to the French. If this is economically feasible, not sure.

Click to expand...

Everyone seems to forget that tennis was played on grass instead of hard courts for most of its history. Professional tennis can afford grass courts.

I would get rid let of let services. Yes, that means that in theory, a match can be won by a serve and barely dribbles over the net. Who cares? It can already end that way but with a ground stroke.

Click to expand...

It would increase injury, as players flail to try to get wild let serves on hard courts. I could support getting rid of lets if hard courts are eliminated.

Change the scoring. It's needlessly confusing.

Click to expand...

The scoring system makes tennis more interesting than simple cumulative point scoring that you suggested. There is more strategy involved.

We've gotta attract new fans! The guys who remember the glory years of tennis in the 70's are going to be dead someday, where will the new fans come from?

Click to expand...

One troubling thing I've seen is that communities are ripping out tennis courts and replacing them with skate board equipment and other things. And, many schools don't have tennis courts and communities are not repairing their courts. Hard courts, although bad for the body, are all most schools and communities can afford, which is why my idea for banning them only applies to pro tennis. It would be nice for the federal government to give schools money to build courts to encourage fitness.

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

rod99 said:
I'm too lazy to read and respond to your response.

No problem.

rod99 · Jul 14, 2007

superstition said:
No problem.

my words exactly (roll eyes)

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

Forehand Forever said:
I wouldn't ban hardcourts though.

Why? We have a women's tour that has a terrible injury problem, where players who don't play much tennis at all are injured when they do play. Even young men like Murray are getting injured. Wrists are a big problem, because of the racquets and strings, but older players will be harmed by knee and back problems from the hard courts.

Tennis is exciting and good on other surfaces. Hard courts are the most prevalent today, but they weren't in the past, and people enjoyed tennis immensely. People also had longer and healthier careers. It's better for the fans for the injury problem to be solved, too. One of the problems for tennis fans is that players they like are often injured and not playing. This leads to fragmentation for fans, and frustration.

I would want Babolat racquets that aren't so stiff, and strings that don't mess with so many parts of your body.

There would be nothing stopping Babolat or any other company from making racquets that conform to my guidelines.

And if I was magical. I'd create people that could cure injuries, but I don't have those powers unfortunately.

There's no magic needed to prevent them. It is possible for tennis to adopt my reforms for the equipment and courts.

rod99 · Jul 14, 2007

it's the depth of the game and the length of the season more than the court surface that is causing so many injuries. the season needs to end at the end of september or early october as opposed to the beginning of december. players need a chance to recover from the daily grind and travel. players weren't injured as much in the past b/c the game is so much deeper and competitive now. you can't afford to relax b/c any player in the top 50 can trouble most of the top players. this certainly wasn't always the case. 2 slams were played on hard courts since the late 80s and you didn't see the number of injuries then that you see now.

35ft6 · Jul 14, 2007

superstition said:
Or a player who didn't qualify. I don't think it's fair to players to be knocked out if their partner gets injured before the quarters. They should be able to get a substitute. Since players have to leave the singles if they pull out of doubles, how will it be abused?

I can imagine groups of people agreeing that if they meet a certain team in the draw, one will pull out and a player who's had incredible success against said team stepping in. Stuff like that.

Huh? A player's singles ranking would get them into the doubles draw.

You somehow got things jumbled in the quotes. I was saying only allowing a specific type of racket was unfair.

It absolutely rewards certain styles. Serve and volley is dead.

True. But why must the rules be changed just for the sake of serve and volley? If that's your personal preference, that's fine, but I see now objective reason for it.

If you look at a flexible racquet with a fairly small head, it doesn't give anyone an advantage, especially if we get rid of hard courts.

It would give flatter hitters who drive through the ball more a huge advantage. Look at it this way, a guy like Connors could play with a T-2000 because they really went through the ball. Guys who generate angular momentum will be screwed.

Clay gives an advantage to baseliners. Grass gives an advantage to net players. Having a 50/50 split between grass and clay tournaments (with carpet thrown in) isn't going to result in the homogenized game we have now, where hard court style play is what everyone does, except clay specialists and the sad remains of serve and volley.

Okay, I see your main goal seems to be to revive serve and volley. I'm not a huge fan of serve and volley. But I wouldn't mind seeing more grass court tennis and doubles to see more variety, though.

Huh? My dress code suggestion says the code will follow local laws. Whatever is legal in Dubai becomes the standard. I don't follow you.

I'm not absolutely sure, but if Dubai enforces Muslim law, at least the women would definitely not want to play there if dress code follows local law. The men would have to wear hats, too.

In general, don't really have a problem with what they wear aside from the fact that tennis clothing tend to look like crap.

Everyone seems to forget that tennis was played on grass instead of hard courts for most of its history. Professional tennis can afford grass courts.

That era coincided with an era, probably, when there were more tennis clubs with grass courts. I know such facilities still exist, but for there to be more grass court tournaments, there will need to be more grass courts. Not just one or two, but for bigger tournaments, there will need to be a LOT of grass courts. People will have to be willing to commit to the cost of installing grass courts, maintaining it, etc. This will not be trivial.

It would increase injury, as players flail to try to get wild let serves on hard courts. I could support getting rid of lets if hard courts are eliminated.

Haha. That's pretty absurd. It's been used in the NCAA for years, and I haven't heard about injuries from players flailing to get to wild let serves. Likewise, I've never noticed a pattern of injury on the ATP tour from players chasing let chords on groundstrokes.

The scoring system makes tennis more interesting than simple cumulative point scoring that you suggested. There is more strategy involved.

The strategy wouldn't change. I'm simply suggesting getting rid of the 15, 30, 40, and Deuces.

One troubling thing I've seen is that communities are ripping out tennis courts and replacing them with skate board equipment and other things. And, many schools don't have tennis courts and communities are not repairing their courts. Hard courts, although bad for the body, are all most schools and communities can afford, which is why my idea for banning them only applies to pro tennis.

But it's all related. The USTA owns the US Tennis Center, but for the most part, more grass court tennis would mean private and local public facilities having to commit to the considerable cost or installing and properly maintaining grass courts.

Also, the decline of tennis' popularity, I think ties into the scoring. The scoring is needlessly confusing and turns away potential fans. Sports is meaningless without the context of scoring, and when people don't know what's going on, they change the channel. Another important point of context is personality, which the 70's had in spades, which might explain tennis' huge popularity then despite having the same scoring system in place.

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

players weren't injured as much in the past b/c the game is so much deeper and competitive now.

I don't agree. Tennis has been competitive and deep prior to the displacement of grass and the displacement of soft equipment, like wood and gut. Some players of the past used to use 1 pound racquets. They were fit and competitive.

2 slams were played on hard courts since the late 80s and you didn't see the number of injuries then that you see now.

Hard courts, in conjunction with the newer racquets and strings... In 1983, Martina was playing with a Yonex R7, not a Pure Drive. Compare the stiffness of the two racquets. Graf played in 1987 with a 200G Dunlop. Compare the stiffness of that with a Pure Drive. Compare the uncoated gut Martina used to the poly people are using now in stiff racquets. Martina's R7 and Steffi's 200G were a lot more powerful, stiffer, and larger than the wood racquets they displaced.

The racquets are not only stiffer, they're larger. They're more powerful. The courts are slower and higher bouncing. The game has changed. Even the hard courts have changed. In the 1940s, the hard courts were comparatively low bouncing and fast.

People can play competitive matches on soft surfaces with soft racquets and soft strings and the number of injuries will be lower.

The length of the schedule is an issue I haven't discussed because it isn't something I want to reform at this point. However, if people feel the schedule and ranking system should be reformed, I'm interested to hear specific plans.

rod99 · Jul 14, 2007

scheduling is simple:
- have an Australian Open Series (similar to US Open series) during the first 4 weeks of January. have the Australian Open at the beginning of February
- indoor tournaments during February - early March
- keep Indian Wells and Key Biscayne
- keep the clay court season as is
- keep the grass court season as is
- keep the US Open Series and US Open as is
- have 2-3 indoor tournaments following the US Open.
- have the ATP Championships during the first week of October

of course those are just the major tournaments. there would still be minor tournaments (clay season in S American, etc) going on at the same time. i stand by the opinion that the schedule is more brutal on the players than the surface or strings or rackets.

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

35ft6 said:
I can imagine groups of people agreeing that if they meet a certain team in the draw, one will pull out and a player who's had incredible success against said team stepping in.

Anyone who pulls out of the doubles gets knocked out of singles competition, so I don't see a big advantage to this plan. And, the new rule only applies prior to the quarterfinals. The toughest teams are usually faced at that state or later.

I was saying only allowing a specific type of racket was unfair. True. But why must the rules be changed just for the sake of serve and volley? If that's your personal preference, that's fine, but I see now objective reason for it. It would give flatter hitters who drive through the ball more a huge advantage. Look at it this way, a guy like Connors could play with a T-2000 because they really went through the ball. Guys who generate angular momentum will be screwed.

Connors was torn apart by slice and dice Ashe, and beaten by topspinning baseline Borg and serve and volley McEnroe. There was a huge amount of variety, despite smaller racquet head sizes than I mandated in my reform! If the T-2000 was so overly dominating, why was Connors the only pro to use it? Flat hitters would not have an advantage on clay.

Making the racquets smaller and less stiff rebalances the game, not so that it's unbalanced, but so it's more balanced than it is today. Topspin baselining is too dominant now, because of the equipment and courts.

Okay, I see your main goal seems to be to revive serve and volley. I'm not a huge fan of serve and volley.

Serve and volley, net play, all court play. Baselining is too good right now. Even Federer, who is one of the greatest of all time, doesn't even come to net much at Wimbledon anymore. Compare his last match there with his match against Sampras with the other grass and smaller racquets.

But I wouldn't mind seeing more grass court tennis and doubles to see more variety, though. I'm not absolutely sure, but if Dubai enforces Muslim law, at least the women would definitely not want to play there if dress code follows local law. The men would have to wear hats, too.

Well, I said the dress code would be no more strict than local laws. Given the fact that players are playing there now without hats and so forth suggests to me that it's legal to play there without them.

In general, don't really have a problem with what they wear aside from the fact that tennis clothing tend to look like crap.

Yes, but I feel players should be able to wear whatever they want, as long as it's legal, in order to be able to express themselves and also give their sponsors' full latitude. Imagine if tennis had banned Lacoste's original clothing?

That era coincided with an era, probably, when there were more tennis clubs with grass courts. I know such facilities still exist, but for there to be more grass court tournaments, there will need to be more grass courts. Not just one or two, but for bigger tournaments, there will need to be a LOT of grass courts. People will have to be willing to commit to the cost of installing grass courts, maintaining it, etc. This will not be trivial.

Professional tennis can afford it. The US Open plans to provide a winner's check of 1.6 million, or something. It's the single largest jump in tennis history. The US Open is obviously not losing money and can afford grass.

It's been used in the NCAA for years, and I haven't heard about injuries from players flailing to get to wild let serves. Likewise, I've never noticed a pattern of injury on the ATP tour from players chasing let chords on groundstrokes.

Martina Navratilova is in favor of the no let rule, too. I don't think it's a good idea. The wild/erratic behavior of the ball is the server's fault, and the returner shouldn't have to pay for it.

The strategy wouldn't change. I'm simply suggesting getting rid of the 15, 30, 40, and Deuces. But it's all related.

It would flatten the scoring system and would take out some of the interest. Cumulative scoring doesn't allow a play to make mistakes and then get back on track without penalty, like deuce scoring does. There are nuances in tennis because of the scoring. Finishing points, like doubles uses now, and cumulative scoring are not good solutions in my estimation. Finishing points make randomness more important.

The USTA owns the US Tennis Center, but for the most part, more grass court tennis would mean private and local public facilities having to commit to the considerable cost or installing and properly maintaining grass courts.

Tennis has grass courts before. It can again. It's not like tennis wasn't played on grass for most of its history. The financial argument just doesn't add up. Poor tournaments can either get out of the professional circuit or go to clay, making way in the "too crowded" schedule for other tournaments. The notion that players' bodies should be sacrificed to make tennis more profitable for tournament owners is not one I support.

Also, the decline of tennis' popularity, I think ties into the scoring. The scoring is needlessly confusing and turns away potential fans.

That would mean people are becoming less intelligent over time. How can the scoring, which hasn't changed, cause a decline in popularity otherwise?

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

rod99 said:
i stand by the opinion that the schedule is more brutal on the players than the surface or strings or rackets.

Unless the schedule has become a lot longer, I don't see how that argument is strongly supported, especially since many players play a lot fewer tournaments than what's on the schedule and get injured anyway.

Martina Navratilova played a huge schedule (including doubles and mixed) in the early 80s and it doesn't even compare to what the Williams sisters play now, or Myskina, or Clijsters, etc. Chris Evert managed to get a record winning percentage on clay at the same time.

One of the reason tennis is so brutal is because of the racquets/strings/courts. It's impossible to say that the schedule alone is responsible. Even if we humor the argument that tennis is brutal now only because players are more fit (an argument I think is bogus), by reducing the power of racquets by reducing the stiffness dramatically, the ball speed will be lower and the brutality will go down. Further, by getting rid of the hard courts, even if tennis remains athletically brutal, there will be fewer injuries because players will be on softer surfaces. Hard strings like poly will be replaced with gut to get more power from the low power racquets, which will lead to less shock. Finally, erratic bounces from worn grass courts will shorten points.

Steven87 · Jul 14, 2007

Agree with only WImbledon. Other than that, this is a joke

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

Steven87 said:
Other than that, this is a joke

The only jokes are comments like that. Either specifically respond to parts you don't agree with, or refrain from posting belittling comments like that.

pow · Jul 14, 2007

Why force people to play doubles?! Most top 50 singles players will take their singles matches more seriously and you just end up with a lot of unmotivated doubles matches. Besides that, I never see doubles matches on TV. (I don't have the Tennis Channel)

I don't think any surface should be banned because they allow for different aspects of a player to be tested.

Why do women's racquets get less stiffness?
Is less stiffness really that bad? I use a Redondo 93 and it has a 56 flex. It almost sounds like that's suppose to make everyone's shots like the old days.
Also, if these rules were applied, it's very unfair for topspin players like Nadal and would favor flat hitters more.

Lee James · Jul 14, 2007

I couldn't help myself but to drop my opinion. Really the only thing I would change would be the length of the season so that the year end championship would take place in either late september or Early October. I would also consider cutting back the amount of clay court tournaments so that it mirrors the amount of tournments that occur before Wimbledon. This would give players more time to rest, and a couple of months worth of down time between seasons.

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

pow said:
Why force people to play doubles?! Most top 50 singles players will take their singles matches more seriously and you just end up with a lot of unmotivated doubles matches. Besides that, I never see doubles matches on TV. (I don't have the Tennis Channel)

Players will take their doubles matches seriously if doubles begins to matter. Right now, it is treated like a stepchild, where only rarely does a top player enter the draw and may pull out anyway. If top players were to, once again, play doubles, the results would begin to matter more and you'd see the matches on TV. The Tennis Channel said people have said they want to watch the matches, and if top players started playing them, the interest level would rise dramatically.

I don't think any surface should be banned because they allow for different aspects of a player to be tested.

How about a quicksand court, or a court full of knives or three feet deep holes?

Hard courts are not safe for professional play because pros, unlike weekend hackers, must earn their living on them and play on them a huge amount.

There can be plenty of diversity without them. There are different types of grass, for instance. Grass can be made to play quite a bit like a hard court. That's what Wimbledon is doing. Some clay courts can be quite fast. It's possible to put clay on top of concrete. That happens in America.

Why do women's racquets get less stiffness?

Because women are more easily injured due to stiff racquets/strings than men are. If you look at the injury problem, you'll see that it's higher on the women's side. Women are playing with light, powerful, and stiff racquets and their wrists and other joints are being ruined quickly. Bartoli, for instance, had her wrist injured right away simply by returning some of Venus' serves and Venus herself was injured most of last year (wrist).

Is less stiffness really that bad?

Yes. Stiffness is the biggest problem with today's racquets, strings, and hard courts. Tennis used to be played with flexible organic materials like wood, gut, and grass. Racquets are also too light, in general, particularly on the women's side. Less racquet mass = more shock from ball impact that goes into the body. By reducing stiffness and head size, players would be forced to increase racquet mass again in order to produce more power. Players of the past used to use racquets that weighed as much as a pound. And, they used larger grips, which is better for the body because there's more surface area to distribute shock and players don't have to clench as hard. Smaller grips are the fashion now because of the dominance of topspin. Low bouncing fescue made larger grips more useful because the slice was a more important shot.

Also, if these rules were applied, it's very unfair for topspin players like Nadal and would favor flat hitters more.

That's not true. Borg played with topspin with a plain wood racquet. The head size was much smaller than my reformed size, and the racquet was less stiff. Topspin will remain particularly dominant on clay, too.

rum02 · Jul 14, 2007

yep take the fun out of tennis. take the chocolate out of Neapolitan ice cream. take the funbags from women. take the cheese out of pizza. take the troops out of Iraq. take the big screens from the movies. take the cuteness out of little puppy dogs. take the humour out of comedians.
take the graphics from the ps3! take the ridiculous posts from people like me out of
tt. do you really want to live in a world of boredom? do you? you want the truth,
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. And furthermore (more meaningless rambling follows...) in conclusion, this is why whatever you said before shouldn't be applied to modern day tennis.

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

rum02 said:
yep take the fun out of tennis.

False dilemma. Tennis was actually more popular with smaller racquets than the maximums I'm suggesting. Audiences enjoyed tennis immensely when it was played with all-wood racquets with tiny heads and dense string patterns. Audiences even immensely enjoyed the Navratilova-Evert matches when both of them played with wood and the ball speed was about 1/3 what it is now.

People will continue to enjoy tennis with my reforms. In fact, players will have longer and healthier careers. Fans will get to see their player more more frequently, due to injury reduction and increased doubles play. Even recreational players will benefit, because the monstrously large stiff featherlight racquets they're being sold won't be so fashionable anymore and they'll be able to develop decent strokes. I think one of the problems with tennis' popularity today actually is due to such recreational racquets, and possibly due to the brutality of today's game. A lot of people are turned off by the shrieking, yelling, and constant injuries.

theballboy · Jul 14, 2007

superstition said:
1. Wimbledon would return to the fescue mix and the soil mix it used in the 1960s, with 100% rye starting at the baseline and moving back. This would help the durability of the baseline, but wouldn't affect the bounce/speed of the court.

I've no problem with making Wimbledon faster.

2. The US Open would be played on grass once again, which rye behind the baseline and fescue mix for the court.

No. Nearly every American pro learned to play on hardcourts. Switching it to grass would give them a distinct disadvantage. Not only that, you seem to forget the reason people switched to hardcourt to begin with: it was too expensive, and too much of a hassle to maintain grass.

3. The Australian Open would move to fast clay. This would provide a 50/50 grand slam split between grass and clay. Roland Garros would keep its slow clay. (The Australian Open should probably not move back to grass courts because Australia is too dry.)

I could care less what they do at that slam.

4. In order to be eligible to play singles in slams, players would have to enter the doubles. Mixed would be optional. If a player pulls out of the doubles, then they would also have to pull out of the singles as well. If a player cannot find a partner for doubles, a partner would be assigned. Players may enter the doubles without entering the singles.

Doubles isn't the same sport as singles. Everyone knows this. Implying they are isn't going to make it so. That, and the fact that you are forcing them to play with another player. That's absurd, and anithtema to the concept of singles.

6. Professional racquets would have the following characteristics:

a) single shaft form factor
b) maximums of 80 sq in string area and 55 stiffness, for men
c) maximums of 90 sq in string area and 50 stiffness, for women
d) no other restrictions, with the exception of a ban on spaghetti string

What, exactly, is your beef with oversize raquets?

7. There would be no dress code at any pro tournament that is more strict than local laws. Players should be able to wear whatever they want to, as long as it's legal in the place they're playing.

Agree with this.

8. Hard courts would be banned and replaced with grass, clay, or indoor carpet. Tournaments other than the slams may use 100% rye grass instead of fescue if they wish. The grass court season will constitute at least 50% of the year.

No. That'd be effectively reducing grand slam tennis to a country club sport.

9. Players may not indicate a mark by touching their racquet to the ground. If a player touches their racquet to the ground, the mark is considered erased. Players who are playing on clay are permitted to cross the net to check a mark if permitted by the chair and accompanied by the chair, the opponent, and the line judge.

I agree.

10. If a player taking an injury time-out trails in the number of games won in the set being played and/or sets won, the player forfeits one game unless that game would end the match. Players may only take bathroom breaks at the start of one of their service games.

You're penalizing a player based on whether they're winning or losing? That is easily the most ridiculous idea ever.

[/quote]11. No more 5 set matches. Men would play a maximum of four sets, with a tiebreak. Women would play three sets minimum in the semis and finals of slams, not a minimum of two.[/quote]
It should be the same number of sets for every round of a grand slam.

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

theballboy said:
INearly every American pro learned to play on hardcourts. Switching it to grass would give them a distinct disadvantage.

False dilemma. Many of the world's most dominant tennis players on grass have come from America such as McEnroe, Navratilova, and Tilden. People are not incapable of adjustment. If grass replaces hard courts, then more pros will spend time on them.

Not only that, you seem to forget the reason people switched to hardcourt to begin with: it was too expensive, and too much of a hassle to maintain grass.

Just because it's more profitable for tournament owners to make pros play on unsafe surfaces doesn't mean it's right. Ford produced the Pinto with a gas tank that exploded if the car was hit at 25 mph, and the Pinto was inexpensive. Does that mean consumers should buy it?

Doubles isn't the same sport as singles. Everyone knows this. Implying they are isn't going to make it so. That, and the fact that you are forcing them to play with another player. That's absurd, and anithtema to the concept of singles.

The word is anathema, and it's not appropriate. Many top players of the past were dominant in singles and doubles at the same time, like McEnroe and Navratilova.

What, exactly, is your beef with oversize raquets?

Again, they make baseline play too dominant by making passing shots too easy to hit, serve returns too good, and increase ball speed too much.

No. That'd be effectively reducing grand slam tennis to a country club sport.

Only professional tennis would ban hard courts, not recreational or school tennis.

You're penalizing a player based on whether they're winning or losing? That is easily the most ridiculous idea ever.

It's designed to reduce abuse of the injury time-out. Some people, like Brad Gilbert, have called for tougher restrictions, like not letting people take a time-out at all for cramps. I don't agree with such strong restrictions. But, I am tired of people using injury time-outs for gamesmanship, to try to break up a winning opponent's rhythm. If you really are injured and losing, losing one game isn't likely to make the critical difference, anyway.

It should be the same number of sets for every round of a grand slam.

Why? What's the point of getting exhausted players in the later matches where the results are more important?

Max G. · Jul 14, 2007

Of the proposed changes, I'd be for some of them (the ones to do with reducing injuries, the surface and racquet modifications, and ESPECIALLY number 12), ambivalent about some, but there are two that I think are badly done - namely, the ones to get top singles players to play doubles.

#4 - It's a good goal, but I think "forcing" them to play by making doubles a requirement for singles isn't going to work well. It would turn doubles into a "chore" - instead of not playing, players would play to not-look-bad instead of playing to win. And that's worse, IMO - I'd rather see doubles matches with players that actually want to win it, rather than two guys playing half-hearted tennis because they don't want to be there but have to pretend to care to be allowed to play singles.

I think a better way to do this would be to just raise the value of doubles to the players. Requiring a more even distribution of prize money between singles and doubles would do wonders for players caring about it. Alternatively, (and also probably easier to implement) changing around the ranking system a bit would also work - for example, having an "Overall Ranking" for a player be "2/3 of his singles rank + 1/3 of his doubles rank." Players would be accepted into both the singles and doubles of a tournament a tournament based on this ranking, and once the singles filled up the remainder would be accepted into the doubles tournament based on doubles rank.

This would actually make players care about doubles results, since they would matter to their ranking and their earnings - I think that your proposed solution, instead of making players care, would instead require players to pretend to care and go through the motions of caring, which isn't the same thing.

This still leaves room for both singles and doubles specialists - someone could be good enough at singles so that they don't need a doubles rank, or someone could be good enough at doubles to not need a singles rank (since presumably, tournaments would have more doubles players than singles players, they'd still be able to accept a good number of players based on doubles-only rank.) However, it makes it a good bit harder to really be at the top of the rankings without playing some doubles.

#5 (allowing players that lost to keep playing) would, IMO, be really unfair in terms of giving points and money to players that LOST. I can imagine a situation where a doubles team loses early, but then one of them ends up being chosen as a "replacement" later on and would thus get the points/money for getting to a late round. Even worse would be the situation in which a team might have to face the same guy on the opposite side of the net twice in one tournament! It might also cause a situation where a player is choosing a partner based on who he's playing next - "my partner's withdrawn, and I'm playing this dude next who's known to always hit this particular serve, I think I'll ask someone to partner me who's especially good at returning that shot..." I think that allowing players who lost to "come back in" opens up a can of worms that I'd rather keep closed. Maybe it would be okay to keep a couple of "alternates" around, but not to pick them from players who already lost.

For the thing about injury timeouts, I also agree with the sentiment, but don't think the implementation. You say that

losing one game isn't likely to make the critical difference, anyway.

but I disagree. For example, imagine a match played on a fast grasscourt. Player X loses the first set in a tiebreak, and he's down 2-3 or 3-4 (on serve) in the second set. Losing a game in that situation is almost equivalent to giving away the match - it's giving away a break of serve, when in the men's game it isn't rare for a set to be decided by just one break, and whether this is a best-of-five or best-of-three match, being down a set and a break is a heck of a lot worse than being down a set. The second issue with this is that "who serves first" becomes suddenly important - if it's 4-4 or 5-4 (still on serve) then it's "okay" to take a timeout, but if you're serving at 3-4 (also on serve) then you have to win the game before being "allowed" to take a timeout with no penalty. I think the penalty for a timeout should be the same whether you're winning or losing. (Also, if you only penalize the player if he's losing, that doesn't solve the following situation - a player wins the first set, then loses the momentum and is losing in the second set and takes an injury timeout to frustrate his opponent. He's still "winning," but his opponent is on a roll. Or, the situation where you've been acing the opponent all match long, and then you notice that he's starting to get a read on the serve so you take a break to disrupt his rhythm, even if he hasn't yet been able to capitalize on his advantage. Or, really, any situation where you want to disrupt the opponent's rhythm when you're ahead in the score.)

I would think a point penalty would be more appropriate - I think that players would be very reluctant to take timeouts that they don't need if they knew they're actually being penalized for it. The penalty should apply regardless of whether you're winning or losing, since really, you might be using the timeout to disrupt your opponent's rhythm regardless of what the score is. A point penalty isn't a big enough penalty to prevent someone from getting an injury treated if it really is hampering their play - presumably, that injury is costing them way more than one point if they keep playing with it. It's also not big enough to make a significant difference, unless the match really was dead even and it was a critical point. However, I think it would be big enough to prevent someone from taking an injury timeout on the off-chance that it might disrupt his opponent. (If that doesn't working, raise the penalty to two points... I just think that a game is too excessive, and will penalize people who AREN'T abusing the rule way more than is reasonable.)

I'm not sure how I feel about #11. I would much rather be for shortening all of the sets (say, from six games down to five) rather than just shortening one set (from six games to zero). I'm just a little bit opposed to the fact that someone might have to play two tiebreaks in very short succession. Not really any sort of deep criticism though. Maybe shortening all of the sets by one game and then shortening the fifth set down by a couple of more games? Anything to avoid the situation where you have two tiebreaks "in a row". Though maybe that's just me.

...as to the dress code thing, is there even any tournament that has more-strict-than-local-laws dress codes besides Wimbledon? Enacting a global statute just to make Wimbledon comply seems strange. Or are there others.

#9 also seems to be an overreaction to a pet peeve more than anything. I guess the reasoning is to prevent them from influencing the umpire, but I think the chair umpire is more than competent enough to ignore the players' protests if he thinks they're pointing at the wrong mark. There's a million other ways to point out a mark besides "touching the clay with their racquet" - pointing at it with your hand, foot, touching the clay with some part of your body (hand, foot), verbally saying it, and so on... all of which the chair umpire can happily ignore when making his call. I don't see how forbidding the players from touching the clay with their racquet would accomplish anything useful. Or am I even misreading the justification for it, is there some other reason besides an attempt to prevent them from biasing the umpire?

Anyhow, that's my two cents.

rum02 · Jul 14, 2007

superstition said:
False dilemma. Tennis was actually more popular with smaller racquets than the maximums I'm suggesting. Audiences enjoyed tennis immensely when it was played with all-wood racquets with tiny heads and dense string patterns. Audiences even immensely enjoyed the Navratilova-Evert matches when both of them played with wood and the ball speed was about 1/3 what it is now.

People will continue to enjoy tennis with my reforms. In fact, players will have longer and healthier careers. Fans will get to see their player more more frequently, due to injury reduction and increased doubles play. Even recreational players will benefit, because the monstrously large stiff featherlight racquets they're being sold won't be so fashionable anymore and they'll be able to develop decent strokes. I think one of the problems with tennis' popularity today actually is due to such recreational racquets, and possibly due to the brutality of today's game. A lot of people are turned off by the shrieking, yelling, and constant injuries.

sorry my post wasn't really serious at all. next time ignore my opinion.

Steven87 · Jul 14, 2007

superstition said:
The only jokes are comments like that. Either specifically respond to parts you don't agree with, or refrain from posting belittling comments like that.

Listen buddy, I'm not belittling you, I'm acknowledging you. So with that said, step off partner. You and ya whack idea

superman1 · Jul 14, 2007

I don't agree with any of it.

#1 is the only one I partially agree with, but I don't want the lightning fast grass. I'd rather have something in-between, where we can actually have a few rallies, but serve and volley is rewarded.

Changing the racquets is ridiculous and you'd have lawsuits from all of the players that would lose their careers as a result. I'm in favor of having racquet restrictions at a a few select tournaments, though. It would be nice to have an all-wood tournament. Maybe it would give some guy ranked #240 a chance to make some noise.

35ft6 · Jul 14, 2007

superstition said:
Connors was torn apart by slice and dice Ashe, and beaten by topspinning baseline Borg and serve and volley McEnroe. There was a huge amount of variety, despite smaller racquet head sizes than I mandated in my reform! If the T-2000 was so overly dominating, why was Connors the only pro to use it? Flat hitters would not have an advantage on clay.

Dude, I never said that the T-2000 was dominating. You said that smaller racket heads wouldn't give anybody an advantage and I'm saying yes it would, to flat hitters with more level swing trajectories.

Making the racquets smaller and less stiff rebalances the game, not so that it's unbalanced, but so it's more balanced than it is today. Topspin baselining is too dominant now, because of the equipment and courts.

I don't really see this as a problem, maybe that's why I think some of your solutions are unnecessary.

Well, I said the dress code would be no more strict than local laws. Given the fact that players are playing there now without hats and so forth suggests to me that it's legal to play there without them.

You also said:

My dress code suggestion says the code will follow local laws. Whatever is legal in Dubai becomes the standard. I don't follow you.

Right now dress code there doesn't reflect local law.

Professional tennis can afford it. The US Open plans to provide a winner's check of 1.6 million, or something. It's the single largest jump in tennis history. The US Open is obviously not losing money and can afford grass.

Downside for US Open is that it goes from being the world's most important hard court tournament to the world's second most important grass court tournament. And I still think it would cost prohibitive in general to make the tour overwhelmingly grass. Even if US Tennis Center could make the move, doesn't mean smaller, less rich, less profitable tournaments/sites can.

Martina Navratilova is in favor of the no let rule, too. I don't think it's a good idea. The wild/erratic behavior of the ball is the server's fault, and the returner shouldn't have to pay for it.

The net is always there. The potential of making somebody "pay for it" is always there. Lets just slow down play.

It would flatten the scoring system and would take out some of the interest. Cumulative scoring doesn't allow a play to make mistakes and then get back on track without penalty, like deuce scoring does. There are nuances in tennis because of the scoring. Finishing points, like doubles uses now, and cumulative scoring are not good solutions in my estimation. Finishing points make randomness more important.

The scoring would be exactly the same, just get rid of the names.

Tennis has grass courts before. It can again. It's not like tennis wasn't played on grass for most of its history. The financial argument just doesn't add up.

What doesn't add up?

Which court is more expensive to install and maintain?
a. Hard courts.
b. Grass courts.

Take your pick.

Poor tournaments can either get out of the professional circuit or go to clay, making way in the "too crowded" schedule for other tournaments.

I'm sure the poor tournaments will be thrilled by this rationale.

That would mean people are becoming less intelligent over time. How can the scoring, which hasn't changed, cause a decline in popularity otherwise?

Not less intelligent. Just means the people who became fans when tennis had more interesting personalities during the 70's aren't being replaced over time by new, younger fans.

herosol · Jul 14, 2007

wimbledon changes i agree.

but other things.

you obviously don't realize everything in this world changes.
and if you can't deal with change then you must not be doing well in life.

things changes. tennis changes. i think it be some really shyt to watching the same thing for the next 1000 years.

we might as well change every sport.

1. no more good basketball shoes, everyone has to wear regular converse walking shoes once more

2. lets get rid of titanium clubs for gold

3. no more of these light ass stable tennis shoes. back to heavy ones that do nothing.

4. heck lets get rid of everything in every sport that has changes since 500 years ago, then everything will be made well.

wake up buddy. things change. get used to it.

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

Max G. said:
#4 - It's a good goal, but I think "forcing" them to play by making doubles a requirement for singles isn't going to work well. It would turn doubles into a "chore" - instead of not playing, players would play to not-look-bad instead of playing to win.

This is a fair point, but I think it's a cultural shift that can be corrected. Top players used to care about doubles, and not that long ago. But, once the injury problem became critical in the WTA tour, not playing doubles or pulling out became commonplace and doubles suffered. For the men, I suppose doubles hasn't been embraced by top players for a longer time, generally, although Sampras did play doubles at least once in a while.

I don't think we should be terribly concerned that playing doubles is an inconvenience for tennis pros. They're well paid, and without having to worry so much about injury (racquet and equipment changes) and exhaustion (getting rid of 5 sets).

The only way I can see my idea being abused is for players to decide to lose in order to save energy for singles. But, if your suggestion to make the doubles ranking more important is adopted, that would be less attractive. I'm not sold on the idea of making the rankings joined, though. Why should a player, for instance, who is committed to playing well in doubles and singles have their singles ranking affected if their doubles partner doesn't play well? But, joining the rankings somewhat would make the "let's play badly in order to conserve energy" thing less attractive. But, really, how many players are going to do that? As you said, they aren't going to want to look bad. They'll want to earn the trophy, too. And, doubles can be rehabilitated to mean more simply by getting all the top players involved. Money and ranking points are likely not necessary. The doubles trophy will have more meaning if all the top players play for it and there is TV coverage. Accordingly, though, money for doubles will probably increase as its popularity increases.

The real chores of tennis are practicing, traveling, doing interviews, signing autographs, and so forth. Playing doubles is not really a chore, unless you're extremely lazy. We're not talking about couch potatoes. Even Martina Navratilova had enough energy in her late 40s to play singles and doubles at a few tournaments.

I think that your proposed solution, instead of making players care, would instead require players to pretend to care and go through the motions of caring, which isn't the same thing.

Well, the doubles idea should probably be limited to slams. I hope I did that in my list. If not, I'll modify it. Players definitely shouldn't have to play doubles at every tournament.

Players can manage to play doubles four times a year at the slams.

This still leaves room for both singles and doubles specialists - someone could be good enough at singles so that they don't need a doubles rank, or someone could be good enough at doubles to not need a singles rank (since presumably, tournaments would have more doubles players than singles players, they'd still be able to accept a good number of players based on doubles-only rank.) However, it makes it a good bit harder to really be at the top of the rankings without playing some doubles.

It's an interesting idea. I think doubles specialists would be happy to have the top players playing, because it makes doubles more important. Doubles has been said to be dying a slow death in recent years. The finishing point and super tie break are examples of how the matches are being shortened and there was even a suggestion to require players to have a singles rank of a certain level in order to play, which is an attack on doubles specialists and which doesn't solve the problem of top players not wanting to play doubles.

(allowing players that lost to keep playing) would, IMO, be really unfair in terms of giving points and money to players that LOST. I can imagine a situation where a doubles team loses early, but then one of them ends up being chosen as a "replacement" later on and would thus get the points/money for getting to a late round.

It's unfair for a player to lose if their partner makes errors or gets injured, too. Doubles is inherently more unfair than singles because you can't control your partner. But, I don't see how it's fair at all for a player to lose because their partner pulls out with an injury. That is totally bad. I also don't see the problem with an eliminated player being able to substitute for someone who's injured. Why not? Who cares if a team has to face the same player twice. So? If they beat that player before, they'd probably rather face that person again. It would be sad for the player who wasn't chosen from a losing team to not be able to play more, but it's sadder to not have the opportunity at all if you lose a match.

It might also cause a situation where a player is choosing a partner based on who he's playing next - "my partner's withdrawn, and I'm playing this dude next who's known to always hit this particular serve, I think I'll ask someone to partner me who's especially good at returning that shot..."

The toughest teams tend to be faced in the quarters and higher. These things would have no effect on the semis or final, or even earlier. Picking a partner because your partner withdrew to deal with a single opponent is a weak idea. Players who deserve to win the title should be able to beat any team.

The second issue with this is that "who serves first" becomes suddenly important

This is a good point, and the first one I've seen that makes me feel I need to revise one of my ideas. You're right, this is a side effect that's arbitrary. Arbitrary things aren't good. But, a point penalty seems too weak.

Also, if you only penalize the player if he's losing, that doesn't solve the following situation - a player wins the first set, then loses the momentum and is losing in the second set and takes an injury timeout to frustrate his opponent. He's still "winning," but his opponent is on a roll. Or, the situation where you've been acing the opponent all match long, and then you notice that he's starting to get a read on the serve so you take a break to disrupt his rhythm, even if he hasn't yet been able to capitalize on his advantage. Or, really, any situation where you want to disrupt the opponent's rhythm when you're ahead in the score.

Good points. The injury timeout problem does need to be solved somehow. It seems my idea isn't great. I came up with it on the fly while I was writing the list, so unlike some of the other ideas (racquet restrictions, court surfaces) which are the result of a lot of thought, this one does seems flawed.

Perhaps a two point penalty is severe enough and should apply regardless of score.

I'm not sure how I feel about #11. I would much rather be for shortening all of the sets rather than just shortening one set...someone might have to play two tiebreaks in very short succession.

Didn't Djokovic play a match that went 7-6 6-7 7-6 etc.? I recall more than one match similar to that at Wimbledon. The matches progressed on serve until a tiebreak happened. He and Baghdatis were exhausted by the endless 5 setters. Henman was, too. 5 set matches are just too much. I tried to come up with a solution, but I'm definitely not opposed to shortening the number of games in sets instead of reducing the number of sets if that would work better.

Maybe shortening all of the sets by one game and then shortening the fifth set down by a couple of more games? Anything to avoid the situation where you have two tiebreaks "in a row".

Not a bad idea.

...as to the dress code thing, is there even any tournament that has more-strict-than-local-laws dress codes besides Wimbledon?

It just seemed simpler to me to have a single rule that applies to all tournaments. The dress code thing is really minor. I could just axe it from the list, but I don't think it's a bad rule.

#9 also seems to be an overreaction to a pet peeve more than anything.

I've heard complaints about players, past and present, who would obscure a true mark with their racquet. I don't think the clay should be disturbed by a racquet when the mark is being disputed. That's all. I don't think this rule is hard to follow. It also seems aggressive and inappropriate for a player to circle the mark or otherwise gesture by marking the clay, particularly before the chair has come to look at the mark.

The thing about players being able to cross the net... That comes mainly from the Hingis meltdown when she played Graf in 1999 and a recent match with a male pro. John McEnroe, as a commentator, said the rules state if a player cross to the other side, they can be defaulted. And, Hingis was given a point penalty for going over to look at the mark. That caused her to melt down. I think a default is certainly excessive for simply taking a look at a mark, but it is definitely rude to cross the net without approval from the chair. I think the rules should be modified to allow players to do so if the chair approves.

There's a million other ways to point out a mark besides "touching the clay with their racquet" - pointing at it with your hand, foot, touching the clay with some part of your body (hand, foot), verbally saying it, and so on...

Right, so complying with the rule about not using the racquet on the clay shouldn't be difficult.

My two cents

I appreciate your thoughtful analysis.

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

35ft6 said:
You said that smaller racket heads wouldn't give anybody an advantage and I'm saying yes it would, to flat hitters with more level swing trajectories.

I don't really see this as a problem, maybe that's why I think some of your solutions are unnecessary.

This is a contradiction, unless you think topspin should remain so much better than the other shots. And, smaller racquet head and less stiff frames will not unbalance the game more. It will create more balance by de-clawing topspin to some degree and making the other strokes more useful.

Downside for US Open is that it goes from being the world's most important hard court tournament to the world's second most important grass court tournament.

People felt the main tournament in the US was more important than Wimbledon when that tournament was played on grass. Tilden, for instance, didn't even play Wimbledon some years. The US tournament was once on grass and so was the Australian Open. People act like Wimbledon is the only grass slam, period. That was not always the case. And, I fail to see why you're so attached to hard courts. The drawbacks outweigh the benefits.

And I still think it would cost prohibitive in general to make the tour overwhelmingly grass.

I wasn't talking about "overwhelmingly grass". I was talking about a 50/50 split between grass and clay. The US Open can certainly afford grass, since it's now raising the salary of the winners to 1.6 million each or something, the largest jump in history.

Even if US Tennis Center could make the move, doesn't mean smaller, less rich, less profitable tournaments/sites can. The net is always there. The potential of making somebody "pay for it" is always there.

Poorer tournaments could convert to clay, indoor carpet, or move out of the professional circuit. Since the schedule is apparently too dense already, that would make more room for the tournaments that can afford grass or clay.

Which court is more expensive to install and maintain?
a. Hard courts.
b. Grass courts.

Take your pick.

That is not the only thing that matters! Which is more expensive to have and maintain, Roger Federer or Joe Schmoe, local hacker? Which would you rather attract to your tournament. Schmoe is happy to make $15 in prize money. That's definitely going to save a tournament some cash!

The health of players outweighs the cheapness of concrete. You're not going to change my mind on this.

I'm sure the poor tournaments will be thrilled by this rationale.

Like all the "poor" tournaments of the past that were on grass even before tennis was professional and all the "poor" tournaments that are clogging the schedule? Tennis used to be played on grass. People afforded it. Tennis managed somehow. Clay is less expensive and is a better surface for the body than concrete. I'm not suggesting that tennis go 100% grass.

Not less intelligent. Just means the people who became fans when tennis had more interesting personalities during the 70's aren't being replaced over time by new, younger fans.

But that has nothing to do with the scoring system.

Voltron · Jul 14, 2007

Hmmm, I'll give this a shot, take in mind that I don't care what anyone thinks of my "reforms". (AKA, things that would make Voltron win easier)

All matches will be best of 5 sets

Clay courts must be sped up, and all tournaments must "service" each court between matches, even at club level.

Grass would be sped up considerably, so that S&V is usable.

Racquets shall be no larger than 90 sq inches in head size and shall be no stiffer that 65 RDC.

String jobs must be at least 50% natural gut, with the other half being no stiffer than VERY soft polyester (IE, Polyfibre TCS).

Shorts shall fall no lower than the knee, and sleeves are mandatory.

Players will receive a 1 game penalty for "delay of game" violations.

Grunting counts as an immediate default.

"Pushing" is a punishable offense.

Players must S&V AT LEAST 1ce per game.

I'll think of more

superstition · Jul 14, 2007

Voltron said:
All matches will be best of 5 sets

Get out the wheelchairs.

Clay courts must be sped up, and all tournaments must "service" each court between matches, even at club level.

This topic isn't about the club level.

Grass would be sped up considerably, so that S&V is usable.

Good idea, although the bounce is perhaps a bigger issue than the speed, as far as I've heard. Fescue not only is faster, but the bounce is much lower. Apparently the soil used makes a difference with the bounce and speed as well. The racquets and strings of today are actually a bigger problem than the higher bounce of grass and the balls, though. Players of the past could serve and volley successfully on clay and hard courts due to the smaller and less powerful (less stiff) racquets. Navratilova, for instance, said that today's racquets simply make passing shots too easy, even on grass. I believe her. It certainly is easier to pass a net player with a Pure Drive and a poly/gut mix than it was with a wood racquet. Players did hit great passing shots, even with the T-2000, but the game wasn't as unbalanced as it is now.

Racquets shall be no larger than 90 sq inches in head size and shall be no stiffer that 65 RDC.

65 is too stiff, in conjunction with a 90 sq in head to do much to change the problems in the game today. Topspin will still be too good. People will continue to use poly. Passing shots will still be too easy to hit. Ball speed will be too high. Etc. Etc. This reform will only help the wrist injuries a bit by slightly reducing racquet stiffness, and the power level and forgiveness will only slightly be reduced over the popular 100 sq in racquets.

In short, this doesn't do enough to balance the game and prevent injury. The stiffness is too high, and the racquet head is too large for the men's game. For the women's game, the low stiffness maximum will make the 90 sq in head size more balanced for all playing styles and help to prevent injury.

String jobs must be at least 50% natural gut, with the other half being no stiffer than VERY soft polyester (IE, Polyfibre TCS).

I thought about string restrictions, but with my racquet requirements, no one would use poly or kevlar in the first place. They'd have to use gut for power. My system not only does a better job for rebalancing and preventing injury, it makes things simpler by not requiring a string restriction.

Shorts shall fall no lower than the knee

Lol.

and sleeves are mandatory.

These dress code bits are arbitrary to me. I support getting rid of the dress code precisely to avoid dictating fashion to players.

Players will receive a 1 game penalty for "delay of game" violations.

Ack.

Grunting counts as an immediate default. "Pushing" is a punishable offense. Players must S&V AT LEAST 1ce per game.

At least one or two of the suggestions was reasonable.

Steven87 · Jul 14, 2007

Listen to this joke. Go get some sleep

pow · Jul 14, 2007

Voltron said:
Hmmm, I'll give this a shot, take in mind that I don't care what anyone thinks of my "reforms". (AKA, things that would make Voltron win easier)

All matches will be best of 5 sets

Clay courts must be sped up, and all tournaments must "service" each court between matches, even at club level.

Grass would be sped up considerably, so that S&V is usable.

Racquets shall be no larger than 90 sq inches in head size and shall be no stiffer that 65 RDC.

String jobs must be at least 50% natural gut, with the other half being no stiffer than VERY soft polyester (IE, Polyfibre TCS).

Shorts shall fall no lower than the knee, and sleeves are mandatory.

Players will receive a 1 game penalty for "delay of game" violations.

Grunting counts as an immediate default.

"Pushing" is a punishable offense.

Players must S&V AT LEAST 1ce per game.

I'll think of more

From reading this, I can tell that you dislike Nadal-like players with sleeveless clothes and grunts, "delay of game", AND you want to speed up clay courts AND grass courts. I can also tell that you use a Yonex RDS 001 Mid

, the specs you list allows that racquet to qualify just barely. Oh, and would you happen to use the Polyfibre TCS?

How do you judge when a shot has been "pushed"? LOL, better practice blowing winners only I guess.

haha these rules are a little too biased no offense.

rosenstar · Jul 15, 2007

superstition-
why are you so obsessed with bringing serve and volley back? I don't understand why you have such a problem with players who play from the baseline. What wrong with using topspin? And what's wrong with hard courts? Of the hundreds of people I've played tennis with, not one has ever complain that the hard courts have caused them injury. this is the most ridiculous arguement ever.

everything you're proposing is absurd. tennis is an evolving sport, and it will continue as long as the sport's players want to win and tweak their game. most of the things you suggested would completely f**k the game.

I'm sorry, but this really just sounds like someone whining because their game style can no longer be used to win a tennis match. man, you need to get with the times, it's 2008, not 1968.

Phil · Jul 15, 2007

Basically, the only changes that I would make-and that are even realistic to make at this point are:

1. A designated "off season" that would last from November 1 to January 15. This would give players the rest they need to recharge for the next season. And if they choose to play exhibitions during this period, that is the risk they take of being injured.
2. Bring back the fast, skidding Wimbledon grass; the current grass has destroyed grass tennis as it was played before 2001.

No other changes are necessary. The racquet issue is a waste of time...the racquet companies, as sponsors and providers of the equipment, are too entrenched to ever allow drastic changes to the equipment.

Injuries can be prevented by better conditioning (especially among the WTA players) and a little intelligence when scheduling matches. No one HAS to play 20 or 25 matches a season. It's all about greed.

Rabbit · Jul 15, 2007

I agree with part of the OP. I think all Grand Slams should be contested on natural surfaces. The rest of the season's tournaments pretty much serve as warmups to the Grand Slams, so you'd see a change in those surfaces as well; this happened before when the Open went to hard courts. The US Claycourt season suddenly turned to parking lots.

It is true that today's US pros grew up on hardcourts. The USTA is looking at changing that because of the problem(s) with our tennis system. Clay is now being considered as the surface to develop on. And, to clear up a point made earlier, McEnroe did not grow up on hardcourts, rather he grew up on clay. So did every Wimbledon champion prior to Agassi. That's right, according to an article in Tennis some time ago, the first Wimbledon champion who grew up on hardcourts was none other than Andre Agassi. Other pros who developed on clay were Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert, Stephan Edberg, Boris Becker, Pat Cash, and a ton others.

The racket issue is a waste of time. There is too much money and too much in the way of power in the current dynamic. Racket manufacturers aren't going back to wood <end of story>. A 'pro' spec racket isn't likely either. There is no governing agency in tennis that has the cojones to come out and mandate it. Plus, how do you explain it to the players and enforce if fairly? The genie has been out of the box too long.

I do believe that our current crop of pros are more add water and poof instant pro types. If you look at the top 100, France leads the world and Argentina is right behind them. Except for a couple of pros from each country (Grosjean and Nalbandian), they all grew up on dirt.

Back to the OP. I don't care what they wear, except for Wimbledon. IMO, Wimbledon is tradition and shouldn't change too much. I do think that natural surfaces, especially clay (both green and red) is the way to go. Clay offers a variety of speed and playing condition and is easy on the body.

As an edification for those who've never played on grass, a grass court is to a clay court as a clay court is to a hard court in terms of how easy it is on your legs. In other words, you can play all day on grass and not be sore. It is a wonderful surface and should be embraced by the tennis community.

caesar66 · Jul 15, 2007

My Changes...
1) have some sort of "series" before each of the grandslams, with two masters series events at each level, plus regular lower tier and mid tier tourneys. This would help make equal "seasons" for each grand slam...keep AO on rebound ace or make it a slow hardcourt (Rebound Ace is somewhat injury causing), Keep FO on slow clay, Speed up wimbledon, Keep USO on fast hardcourt
2)lower the racquet max. to 105 sq. in. Most pros dont play with racquets bigger than this anyway, but it at least puts somewhat of a reasonable cap on it. Stringjobs cant be full poly, hybrid is fine, but no full polys.
3)create a surface that is truly neutral for Year end championships. maybe indoor rebound ace.
4)everyone (men and women) gets equal prize money. but...all play same structured matches at co-gendered tournaments, whether they be 3/5 or 2/3 set matches. I'd even be ok setting a standard of a 3/5 set match, but instead of a full fifth set, a 20 point tiebreaker or something.
5)singles players must enter a certain amount of mid-top tier tournaments in the doubles competition, to get a certain number of points. If they dont, at the end of the season, but before the Year end championships, they lose a certain number of points. They don't necessarily have to win alot in these doubles matches, but have to enter and play.
6) Have actual rankings for mixed doubles, and have a year end championship for them
7) Hawkeye is available at every masters series and above tournament, with three challenges per set.
8) In the US, allow college champions to enter the US open again

and a final note...all those who are jumping on superstition's changes, they are just superstition's opinions. If you dont like them, ok. If you have your own changes, post them. Superstition, and I as well, are looking at the sport as it is and saying how we would personally improve or change it. you dont necessarily have to agree, it wont really change our minds. To me, if everyone would just post their own changes to the sport rather than not listing them but attacking someone elses, we could have much better discussions (not that everyone who has responded to and debated with superstition has been attacking)

What I'd do to reform tennis

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Banned

Rookie

Professional

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Professional

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Legend

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Legend

Rookie

Semi-Pro

Legend

Legend

Professional

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Similar threads