An idea: in competitive tennis, players should only be allowed ONE serve per point, not two

[patrick graves]

I believe this would benefit tennis, for these reasons:

1. Racquet technology is allowing men to hit so hard, too many points are won on serves - it makes the game boring. Some pros hit so many aces, it's ridiculous - in some cases, players are winning entire sets worth of points (24) just on aces.
2. It would ensure a player can ACTUALLY PLAY, not just function as a serve bot, competing at a higher level than they really should, simply because they never lose a serve game.
3. If they only have one serve, they need to be more creative/thoughtful how they use it. They can certainly still go for aces if they want to, but if they miss, well....there goes that point. But both players have the same challenge/opportunity.
4. It will reduce player fatigue/injuries and match times.

Who's with me???

 

[tonylg]

Why not just ACTUALLY learn to serve instead?

 

[NatF]

No.

 

[MichaelNadal]

How about no

 

[Deleted member 768841]

Nah, players can surprisingly adapt to hard serves.

 

[Breakpointerer]

No thank you.

 

[TheAssassin]

Nope. Margin for error on first serve makes matches more competitive.

 

[dropshotlikeitshot]

I’m guessing you’re an advocate of 4 game, no-ad sets as well?

 

[Enga]

I dont think it would make the game better because instead of botting the serve, players would bot the return. They would just hit the return as hard as they can and hope for return aces, which would be more effective than serve aces because theres a wide open court to hit into.

 

[Bartelby]

All lets ruled as faults would be as far as I would go.

 

[tonylg]

There have been a lot of detrimental changes to the sport of tennis over the past 20 years, this would just be another one.

 

[Bartelby]

No one would even discuss such an idea for classical tennis, and the new tennis formats aren't exactly setting the world on fire.

There have been a lot of detrimental changes to the sport of tennis over the past 20 years, this would just be another one.

 

[chrisb]

They tried that in 50s better servers did better then before not a solution

 

[mike danny]

So basically, instead of letting the opponent figure out a way around the serve, let's make it even easier for him.

 

[ForehandCross]

This will kill the sport.

I understand this is to reduce big server effect, but essentially a huge part of strategical and temperament related aspects in Tennis are linked with second serve.

Do I want to hear no gasps when a player misses a first serve on a important point?
Or when the returner takes two steps forward on second serve on a important point, building tension as to what will happen ?


Not to mention how many faults there will be and how meek the serves will become.

Leading to too many return winners and too many breaks.

We already have WTA for that , no need of it here.

 

[Subway Tennis]

I believe this would benefit tennis, for these reasons:

1. Racquet technology is allowing men to hit so hard, too many points are won on serves - it makes the game boring. Some pros hit so many aces, it's ridiculous - in some cases, players are winning entire sets worth of points (24) just on aces.
2. It would ensure a player can ACTUALLY PLAY, not just function as a serve bot, competing at a higher level than they really should, simply because they never lose a serve game.
3. If they only have one serve, they need to be more creative/thoughtful how they use it. They can certainly still go for aces if they want to, but if they miss, well....there goes that point. But both players have the same challenge/opportunity.
4. It will reduce player fatigue/injuries and match times.

Who's with me???

Too much of a seismic change to the game imo. Having one serve only completely overhauls one of the fundaments of the game. The serve is the only shot in tennis where the player has complete control, can have two alternating play patterns planned, and is not starting from a reactionary position. It limits the tactical opportunities available.

You make a good point RE injury. Definitely interesting to see what sort of impact it would make on repetitive shoulder, rib and back injuries, if players weren't always redlining on that explosive first shot in 3-5 hour matches.

The other concern I would have with such a massive change, is that it would end up giving a huge advantage to servebots who can serve huge with a lot of margin. Have a look at a lot of the big servers with very high first serve percentage. Shorter players, who already have to add margin and shape to their serves more than taller players would end up having to almost develop an ultra safe service to avoid conceding faults. Big disadvantage for shorter players imo.

 

[HuusHould]

The top players are generally already the best returners. Feds the only player right at the top whose serve is in the conversation for the best on tour. I think there'd be less serve and volley than there already is (although it could become the equivalent of chip and charge - which is fairly rare anyway). I'd say it would have a neutral impact as far as prolonging rallies goes and it takes away the tactical element of whether to go for more on the first serve or take the pace off and get more in. (Or mix it up between the two - maybe take pace off and S&V). You could experiment with one serve in fast 4, but I'm not sure how successful it would be. Im more in favour of the less drastic one toss per serve.

 

[tonylg]

The problem with the game at the moment isn't too many serves, it's too many groundstrokes.

Limit the server to 10 groundstrokes per game and see what difference that makes.

 

[magnut]

Great Idea! Lets also switch the slams to best 2 out 3 sets for men with no add scoring. We can also do away with the over complicated scoring system and just use simple numbers. We could also use quick start balls for the men so nobody ever puts a shot away.

As far as the serve... lets just get rid of it completely. It just gives genetic privilage to taller players. Start the point out with a drop hit and eliminate all the ugly lines all over the courts that confuse new fans.

Other ideas...

Start a weight division like boxing to eliminate athletic privilage
All play must be baseline.... no net play allowed due to tactical privilage
If we are to keep the serve make it underhand only to avoid server privilage
Eliminate the rankings system to avoid....obvioussly......ranking privilage through seeding selection
Get rid of the net... its a hinderence
Make grunting illegal as it is court bullying and should be considered toxic masculinity and micro aggression
Formally change the name of tennis to something more welcoming to new fans... call it Funball ...........or Happytime


Its time to progress this game and not be stuck in the past by a bunch of old boomers who want to relive times of youth when the evil capitalist sytem of America tricked them into thinking they were some sort of privilaged group. We need more racial equality in the sport and be more excepting of those in the LGBT community. This discrimination and oppression has gone on long enough. It is a new world and Happytime Funball AKA tennis should lead the charge.

 

[Lew II]

Could be nice. Less pauses in a match.

 

[Lew II]

In other net sports (volleyball, badminton, table tennis) there's only one serve I think...

 

[jxs653]

The problem with the game at the moment isn't too many serves, it's too many groundstrokes.

I was going to say this. I think the endless who-hits-harder groundstroke contest is more boring.

 

[Lew II]

The problem with the game at the moment isn't too many serves, it's too many groundstrokes.

Limit the server to 10 groundstrokes per game and see what difference that makes.

There's no problem with tennis at the moment, it is at its peak of popularity.

 

[magnut]

Just eliminate opponents too. Then you can watch your favorite player just hit on a ball machine. No pauses.... no serves.

Serioussly.... I am starting to think some of you folks dont even play tennis. There is more to this game than what benefits your GOAT player obsession.

You keep changing the entire structure of the game and it isnt long before the game no longer exists. Tennis is not supposed to be like other sports... thats what makes it unique.

 

[magnut]

In other net sports (volleyball, badminton, table tennis) there's only one serve I think...

yeah... lets be like those!

You should seek some help

 

[junior74]

Tennis is perfect as it is.

 

[ForehandCross]

Is nobody going to talk about how it will lead returnbotting?

As soon as serves became weaker, good returners will wreak havoc, heck someone like a good returner top 10er would win like 6-7 return points out of 10.


Rallies will become even shorter because return in most cases will lead to immediate advantage.

Not to mention the free points a serve will donate.

 

[Clay lover]

Again this has been discussed ad nauseam. I remember one poster validly pointed out that players don't get a pass for failing to execute other shots in the game. Even table tennis and badminton , other racquet sports, allow only one serve. This leniency is the only good argument against 2 serves IMO.

In terms of viewership and entertainment value, I think keeping two serves makes more sense as it preserves variety. You can hit a riskier one as your first, you can out-psych your opponent by serving to the same spot, you can do some reverse psychology by going for the slider when opponent is expecting a hard down the T--so many more possible outcomes and mind games are possible with two serves whereas with one it's 90% going to be a safe option.

For people complaining about tall big servers a think the balance is just about right right now. For all the talk about their possible dominance we haven't seen the likes of John Isner or Raonic (he got close) winning any slams yet, so the situation is not as bad as people think.

 

[Tshooter]

There are no new topics only New Users.

 

[magnut]

Again this has been discussed ad nauseam. I remember one poster validly pointed out that players don't get a pass for failing to execute other shots in the game. Even table tennis and badminton , other racquet sports, allow only one serve. This leniency is the only good argument against 2 serves IMO.

In terms of viewership and entertainment value, I think keeping two serves makes more sense as it preserves variety. You can hit a riskier one as your first, you can out-psych your opponent by serving to the same spot, you can do some reverse psychology by going for the slider when opponent is expecting a hard down the T--so many more possible outcomes and mind games are possible with two serves whereas with one it's 90% going to be a safe option.

For people complaining about tall big servers a think the balance is just about right right now. For all the talk about their possible dominance we haven't seen the likes of John Isner or Raonic (he got close) winning any slams yet, so the situation is not as bad as people think.

its never been as bad as people think. Hardly anyone has ever just won with a serve let alone dominate the game. Even at Wimbledon. Goran was probably the closest but he had skills. Now if you have an all court player with a big serve sure... they can be consistent because if the serve isnt working they can still find ways to win matches. But this whole notion of just serving your way to domination is silly.

 

[Tshooter]

...I think keeping two serves makes more sense as it preserves variety. You can hit a riskier one as your first, you can out-psych your opponent by serving to the same spot, you can do some reverse psychology by going for the slider when opponent is expecting a hard down the T--so many more possible outcomes and mind games are possible with two serves whereas with one it's 90% going to be a safe option....

Or you can just hit two first serves.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/sports/tennis/second-serve-vs-first-serve.html

 

[Enceladus]

In other net sports (volleyball, badminton, table tennis) there's only one serve I think...

Yes, but in these sports, player can place the service into a percentually larger part of the court than in tennis. The advantage of two services in tennis is balanced by the small area of the service box compared to other net sports.

 

[Lew II]

Yes, but in these sports, player can place the service into a percentually larger part of the court than in tennis. The advantage of two services in tennis is balanced by the small area of the service box compared to other net sports.

That is true, but volley is a team sport so more people cover the court, and in table tennis and badminton the court is much smaller so it's easier to cover.

 

[Arvid]

I have an idea that i think would definately make tennis more intriguing and serving more interesting. Youre only allowed 2 missed serves per game after that its only second serves. This will still enable players to go for huge first serves but then it will be with a bigger element of risk thus making the game more exciting and less dominated by serve....win win.

 

[magnut]

you want to make tennis more interesting go back to allowing players to speak their minds without giving them all kinds of warning and infractions. Also dump the seperated chairs and make them take their breaks by the cooler under the chair umpire.

Tennis has regressed the entertainment department for a multitude of factors but simply letting the players express themselves would help a lot and not cost a thing. Players would welcome it as would the fans.

 

[Lew II]

Tennis is at its peak of popularity and there's no logic reason to change it by the way, whether it's the rules or the surfaces or anything else.

Who wants a change it is just expressing a personal taste.

 

[Fedr and three others]

The tension of trying to break serve is the best part of tennis. Whereas in the WTA where breaks are far more common the tension just doesn't feel the same.

 

[magnut]

Tennis is at its peak of popularity and there's no logic reason to change it by the way, whether it's the rules or the surfaces or anything else.

Who wants a change it is just expressing a personal taste.

sure it is.... thats why nobody outside hard core fans know who any of the players are anymore. Most general sports fans cannot even tell you who won the US Open last year.

Most new parks are not even putting in tennis courts anymore and many are ripping out courts due to lack of use.

But its at peak popularity..... OK.

Get back on your meds

 

[Lew II]

sure it is.... thats why nobody outside hard core fans know who any of the players are anymore. Most general sports fans cannot even tell you who won the US Open last year.

Most new parks are not even putting in tennis courts anymore and many are ripping out courts due to lack of use.

But its at peak popularity..... OK.

Get back on your meds

Tournaments prize money and endorsments have never been so high. Tournaments/sponsors take their money from people. Therefore tennis has never been this popular.

 

[magnut]

Tournaments prize money have never been so high.

LOL.... thats why you come to these conclusions of tennis being at peak popularity?

 

[Lew II]

LOL.... thats why you come to these conclusions of tennis being at peak popularity?

These are facts. Can you bring facts into the discussion?

 

[magnut]

These are facts. Can you bring facts into the discussion?

LOL.... No.... you have it all figured out.

I guess hollywood is doing better than ever because ticket prices are the highest ever.....
I guess the post office is at an all time high because stamps and postage is the highest ever.....
I guess education is at an all time high because college tuition is the highest its ever been......


You sir.... are a genius!

 

[Lew II]

LOL.... No.... you have it all figured out.

I guess hollywood is doing better than ever because ticket prices are the highest ever.....
I guess the post office is at an all time high because stamps and postage is the highest ever.....
I guess education is at an all time high because college tuition is the highest its ever been......


You sir.... are a genius!

Money is the best objective way to measure popularity, sorry.

 

[junior74]

Tournaments prize money and endorsments have never been so high. Tournaments/sponsors take their money from people. Therefore tennis has never been this popular.

Yes, capitalism is always evolving.

 

[Lew II]

Yes, capitalism is always evolving.

If capitalism brought tennis to more people, tennis is more popular.

 

[magnut]

Money is the best objective way to measure popularity, sorry.

No participation is you dope. Tennis is a sport not a business. If all you care about is money go work at a bank. Real tennis enthusiests want the sport to be around for future generations of all classes of people not just adult 65+ years or older who live on a golf course. If people like you dont get your head out of their rear there will be no sport.... no money..... get it?

Your either under the age of 20 or you work for the USTA.

 

[Lew II]

No participation is you dope. Tennis is a sport not a business. If all you care about is money go work at a bank. Real tennis enthusiests want the sport to be around for future generations of all classes of people not just adult 65+ years or older who live on a golf course. If people like you dont get your head out of their rear there will be no sport.... no money..... get it?

Your either under the age of 20 or you work for the USTA.

Bring data about participation to prove your point then.

Until then, money is the more objective way to measure popularity of the sport, sorry.

 

[JackGates]

Money is the best objective way to measure popularity, sorry.

We have inflation today, same amount of money was worth a lot more than today, so you can't use money without accounting for inflation. Sorry. You out of all people should understand inflation, since you claim Fed's slam count is inflated. Also there is more population today, so that inflates popularity as well. But In US, tennis is not popular as it once was.

 

[Lew II]

We have inflation today, same amount of money was worth a lot more than today, so you can't use money without accounting for inflation. Sorry. You out of all people should understand inflation, since you claim Fed's slam count is inflated. Also there is more population today, so that inflates popularity as well. But In US, tennis is not popular as it once was.

Even adjusting for inflation tennis got richer.

 

[magnut]

Bring data about participation to prove your point then.

Until then, money is the more objective way to measure popularity of the sport, sorry.

right... just market the sport to the upper class private club demographic. Thats just awesome for long term growth and longevity.

Like I said..... genius... pure genius.