When the player takes their phone with them and uses it to receive coaching.
Evidence? Can you prove it? No.
When the player takes their phone with them and uses it to receive coaching.
Says who?Toilet breaks are an interruption of gameplay whereas the underhand serve is a part of gameplay so they are not intrinsically equivalent things. The rulebook says nothing about toilet breaks because if someone needs to go to the bathroom they need to go; it is not reasonable to ban players from going to the bathroom during their match, but it also is impossible for the rules to define what "fair" usage of this privilege looks like as there is a lot of variability in human biology to account for (you can't just say "no breaks longer than 5 minutes" as sometimes someone does legitimately need this long to, pardon my pun, get their **** together). Contrast with a serve, which is entirely a tennis act and therefore entirely governable by what defines the game.
Ok, so stop procrastinatingI would say - please stop the double standards. It stinks.
What I mean is that the act of serving is part of the gameplay of tennis while taking a toilet break is an interruption that is outside the gameplay of tennis. The tennis rules should be able to perfectly define what a legal serve is and isn't so there is no ambiguity, whereas the toilet break is hard to say anything about and therefore is forced to rely on the good faith of the players. I am curious what the rulebook going to say about toilet breaks because I don't see what it can.Says who?
If it is the norm then why don't we see Fed, Novak, Nadal, Waw, Delpo, Cilic ... list goes on.. use it? All grand slam winners. That's because it is shady. It is classed as dirty. It is classed as cheating and disrespectful in the tennis pro world.
Same goes for toilet break. It is not the norm. It is shady. But players like Novak, Fed, Nishikori and Tsitsipas have used it to their advantage.
Both are legal. Both are designed to disrupt an opponent. Tennis is about mind games. However, the double standards on this forum is beyond belief. BTW Rulebook IS going to say something about toilet breaks very soon.
What I mean is that the act of serving is part of the gameplay of tennis while taking a toilet break is an interruption that is outside the gameplay of tennis. The tennis rules should be able to perfectly define what a legal serve is and isn't so there is no ambiguity, whereas the toilet break is hard to say anything about and therefore is forced to rely on the good faith of the players. I am curious what the rulebook going to say about toilet breaks because I don't see what it can.
Both are legal. Both are designed to disrupt an opponent. Tennis is about mind games. However, the double standards on this forum is beyond belief. BTW Rulebook IS going to say something about toilet breaks very soon.
That's exactly it. You can't compare the toilet breaks with the underarm serve. Is the underarm serve design to disrupt an opponent? Absolutely. But it's done within the game itself. It's not dissimilar to throwing a slice after hitting 5 topspin BHs, or hitting a drop shot, a lob, or some other unconventional shot.What I mean is that the act of serving is part of the gameplay of tennis while taking a toilet break is an interruption that is outside the gameplay of tennis. The tennis rules should be able to perfectly define what a legal serve is and isn't so there is no ambiguity, whereas the toilet break is hard to say anything about and therefore is forced to rely on the good faith of the players. I am curious what the rulebook going to say about toilet breaks because I don't see what it can.
Way longer than that. Some players in the wool pants era exclusively served underhand
I am definitely not a fan of Mr grumpy, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with an underarm serve. What is the difference between that and a drop shot?
Serving when the receiver is not ready is a clear violation of the rules. You can try to do it with an overhead or underhand serve; the method of delivery is irrelevant here. The only question is whether or not the receiver is ready. But once they are ready, they can't become un-ready, and should expect the ball regardless of how it's servedI think there is a parallel there to underhand serves! If someone serves underhand instead of overhead, IMO that’s clearly allowed. On the other hand, trying to quick serve someone - serving when they’re not ready - is cheating, because the rules say you have to wait for the receiver to be ready. And underhand serves are often used to quick serve someone.
Serving when the receiver is not ready is a clear violation of the rules. You can try to do it with an overhead or underhand serve; the method of delivery is irrelevant here.
lolThat's because it is shady. It is classed as dirty. It is classed as cheating and disrespectful in the tennis pro world.
It don't really make sense, just because everyone doesn't do it doesn't mean it's a shady tactic.
That must mean Sabr was shady, and Federer is the shadiest of all because he's the only player in the history of the game who has done it.
The real truth of the matter is it's not effective, and it's not effective because if people expected it, it would be ineffective, so no one uses it. But since no one uses it, it's unexpected, and that makes it effective. You see?
Thanks for your great insight into this debate.
Yes, I can comprehend what it's like, and it's not effective. Neither is the underarm serve. If someone can make it work, the credit goes all to them.SABR is done when the ball is coming at you like 140mph. Can you even comprehend what that's like? The ball is in play.
Underarm serve is sneaked in by the serve with a yellow ball in his hand to trick the opponent when he's not ready. The ball is not in play.
It has been explained many times if you care to read. A drop shot is executed when the rally ball is coming at you like 80-90 mph. The yellow ball is in play. It takes a lot of skill to change the grip at the last moment, absorb the pace and impart underspin to land close to the net.I am definitely not a fan of Mr grumpy, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with an underarm serve. What is the difference between that and a drop shot?
Effectiveness depends upon the "sneakiness" of underarm serve i.e. serve underarm when they are not ready. In terms of execution, it is easy. Most club players know how to do it including me. We have a good laugh after doing it.Yes, I can comprehend what it's like, and it's not effective. Neither is the underarm serve. If someone can make it work, the credit goes all to them.
Sounds to me like it's nothing but a good addition to tennis then, since it will rarely ever work on a pro.Effectiveness depends upon the "sneakiness" of underarm serve i.e. serve underarm when they are not ready. In terms of execution, it is easy. Most club players know how to do it including me. We have a good laugh after doing it.
Unfair? It was just the icing of the cake, after having been in the entire match so arrogant, entitled and disrespectful. And her constant trashing of Graf in the previous year and an half. She had it coming.Do you guys remember how Martina HIngis was booed for serving underhanded defending a match point vs Steffi Graf in '99 RG final? So unfair.
Unfair? It was just the icing of the cake, after having been in the entire match so arrogant, entitled and disrespectful. And her constant trashing of Graf in the previous year and an half. She had it coming.
It was my reaction to the nonsense you posted. Just being honest.Thanks for your great insight into this debate.![]()