A PROPOSAL FOR CHANGING THE RULES OF TENNIS

[jayserinos99]

from your post prior to polakosaur's:

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

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

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

 

[luka]

Change in the rules

The only rule I feel needs to be changed is the coaching rule.

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

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

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

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

 

[Markus Kaila]

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

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

 

[Markus Kaila]

only one ball per serve

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

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

HELLO,

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

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

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

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


My response (to San Francisco, California):

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

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

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

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

Yours Markus Kaila

 

[Markus Kaila]

You think Roger Federer needs any more help returning serve?

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

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

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

 

[KFwinds]

Just a few things here:

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

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

 

[ClemsonTennis9]

what is wrong with the game now? this new "idea" is totally stupic and ludacris

 

[Markus Kaila]

We need more serve and volliers...

Patience, patience, please! Perhaps I shall write here someday how this court could really help them:

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


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

 

[Markus Kaila]

The starting premise is wrong. It is simply not true that

every fourth or fifth of the world´s top players is a left-hander

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

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

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

 

[mikej]

Markus Kaila,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Morpheus]

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

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

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

 

[Chanchai]

Anyone seen Rocky II? "SOUTHPAW SHOULD BE OUTLAWED~~~~!!!"

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

-Chanchai

 

[Markus Kaila]

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

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

The link:

http://www.itfwheelchairtennis.com

 

[Coda]

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

 

[Markus Kaila]

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

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

 

[Morpheus]

Yawn...

 

[Markus Kaila]

Yawn...







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

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

 

[juu]

So this delusional thread is still alive?

 

[Markus Kaila]

But why do you read this topic over and over if you don't like it all? I guess: you are interested in it but it is difficult for you to confess it (at least in public).

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

The whole article:
http://www1.fee.uva.nl/pp/klaassen/index_files\tstcong.pdf

 

[Phil]

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

 

[djones]

How about just having the middle service box.
This way neither a left nor a righthander could serve the ball extremely wide.
This is more similar like bringing the ball into play just as you would when practising.

 

[Markus Kaila]

How about just having the middle service box.
This way neither a left nor a righthander could serve the ball extremely wide.

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

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

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

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

 

[Morpheus]

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

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

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

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

 

[Markus Kaila]

Maybe we should just miniaturize the whole game. Use small paddles with rubber nubs, a little plastic ball, and a 6" high net.........

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

Regards,
Scott Murphy"

 

[Markus Kaila]

More tennis during matches

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Type40]

I'd rather see wooden racquets be made compulsory, and ban graphite and advanced materials, rather than see extra large balls, and other such nonsense, ugh.

 

[Markus Kaila]

Wooden racquets help servers not returners. Nobody want it!

I don't believe that the audience would like to see worse tennis than today. Besides I am sure that possibilities of good returners would worsen against good servers. It is enough if you think of Agassi vs Sampras!

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

 

[jayserinos99]

But why do you read this topic over and over if you don't like it all?

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

Please people, stop feeding the trolls.

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

 

[Markus Kaila]

I guess it didn't die.

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

 

[callitout]

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

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

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

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

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

 

[Type40]

How about tennis played on roller skates?

 

[Stinkdyr]

yep, time to rest this mission. if you really want to experiment with the idea, just raise the net an inch. see how that goes for you. if it works wonderfully, spread the word, if all like it, the idea will spread organically.

 

[iradical18]

Tennis is fine how it is.

 

[Markus Kaila]

Something about my experimentations

if you really want to experiment with the idea

I have tested it, of course!

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

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

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

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

 

[Markus Kaila]

Don't you want to get tennis even finer?

Tennis is fine how it is.

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

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

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

 

[Bora]

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

 

[Markus Kaila]

NO!

If you want to "eliminate" the serve advantage,.

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

 

[galahad]

lefty advantage???

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

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

 

[Markus Kaila]

Re: lefty advantage???

I should, as a righty, when playing a lefty be able to swing my serve wide to his backhand, traditionally a weaker side. There I have an advantage in most of the points.

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

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

The decisive point is always a decisive point!

 

[Phil]

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

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

 

[perfmode]

of course fed doesnt need the help.. (in returning)

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


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

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

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

 

[galahad]

So,

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



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


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

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

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

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

 

[Markus Kaila]

So,

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



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


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

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

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

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

Steve Barnard "

 

[galahad]

mac is wrong

look if you consider the poosible game wiining scores, the ad scores of 40-0, and ad-in outweigh the deuce scores of 40-15...

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

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

 

[VTL]

Maybe we should spend more time improving the players than the rules

 

[Markus Kaila]

In fact the number of serves to the ad side can NEVER be great than the number to the deuce side.

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

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

 

[galahad]

just plain illogical

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

 

[djones]

Why don't they let left handers start at 00-00 to serve to add-side.
Now they could only win 40-15 points or deuce points serving to the add-side.
That's it!

 

[rhubarb]

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

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