Big rule changes to come to the ATP shortly

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I think lets should count as faults. You are trained not to hit service lets and the onus should be on the server to serve a clean ball.
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
Why not create a new sport altogether called weeni(e) s and let the whiners play and watch?
Word. Real men play best of 5, no tie-breaks. But even realer men play by the OG 1873 rules. Everything since the golden days of 19th century tennis is honestly just pandering to lazier generations and it has lost a lot of respect and following from the true faithful tennis fans who just can't take it seriously anymore. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it is broke, pretend it isn't. Time will prove me right that all subsequent deviations to the 1873 rules will shrink the sport, reduce its cultural significance, make a mockery of its virtuous history.
 

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
R
Word. Real men play best of 5, no tie-breaks. But even realer men play by the OG 1873 rules. Everything since the golden days of 19th century tennis is honestly just pandering to lazier generations and it has lost a lot of respect and following from the true faithful tennis fans who just can't take it seriously anymore. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it is broke, pretend it isn't. Time will prove me right that all subsequent deviations to the 1873 rules will shrink the sport, reduce its cultural significance, make a mockery of its virtuous history.
Right on, and don't forget the longs. One foot on the ground during serving. These help us older gentleman with wobbly legs and inability to get "air".
 

SystemicAnomaly

Bionic Poster
Nothing about the grunting and screaming? Fans have been complaining about that for at least a decade.

It's been a whole lot more than a decade. Guess you weren't around to hear the high-decibel Seles grunt in the late 80s / early 90s. I remember it being even more obnoxious than the current crop of noisy players.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
This isn't news anymore (re nextgen finals), but I still think most of these changes other than the countdowns and timers are stupid.

The whole reason why deuce was added was to prevent a player from winning / losing a tie with a stroke of good / bad luck.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
This is a classic bureaucratic manoeuvre.

You suggest something is wrong, start up something new with money and trial the new rules there. The thing happens.

Declare the changes, for the most part, a roaring success.

And then start implementing them on the tour while proclaiming their proven success against all detractors.
 

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
Vince McMahon is promoting this.

The NFL has been known as the no fun league and now tennis has fallen to those same depths. How do we make tennis fun again?

We're gonna have live concerts during changeovers and all that good stuff. Sign me up.
 

Contrapuntal

New User
I don't like the idea of this as the future of tennis, but the two different formats could possibly co-exist.

Several people mentioned cricket, where the traditional format (test match cricket) takes five days for a single game to be played (maybe less if one team dominates). This is still the most prestigious form of the game, but shorter forms have been introduced that have brought in a lot more money and new generations of fans. Some arguments notwithstanding, it's been good for the game as a whole.

Having a shorter, sharper version of tennis could be a good thing for events that don't currently get as much attention anyway, maybe even make it standard for doubles. There's already the distinction between Bo3 and Bo5 tournaments, so some further divergence won't necessarily hurt. If it genuinely succeeds in attracting new fans in the post-apocalyptic world we'll be living in when Roger retires, then as long as the slams at least stay sacrosanct, I won't have too many complaints.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Shortened sets, more important points are all good.

I'm just not with the idea of getting away from winning a game/set/match by less than two points. The drama of a deuce is important to tennis - it's often where a set or match is contested. Who wants to see a set hinge on a fluke/error/lucky shot ? Two point differential for the game/set/match drastically reduces the element of intangibles in the outcome.
 

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
With these new rules, tennis would never be the same again. They want exhibition tennis on the professional tour. Not the tennis I know and love. Not gonna be a part of watching such tennis. I may stop watching tennis once Nadal and Federer retire. The ITF/ATP want to kill the sport and mutilate it into something else.
 

toby55555

Hall of Fame
The main goal should be limiting the match time. In addition to shot clock and the above changes, there should be a time limit of 1 hour. Whoever is ahead at that time wins.
yeah who wants a repeat of the 2008 Wimbledon Final, nearly 5 hours ending in near darkness, too much drama lets keep it clinical.
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
I guess we all knew this was coming, especially as the retirements of the big 4 are around the corner. The ITF has decided to dumb down tennis, starting with the Next Gen Finals this year, but will move to the regular tour shortly.

"The tournament will trial a number of rule changes and innovations, to be announced in due course, with a view to ensuring continued growth in popularity of men’s professional tennis. “This event will also act as a launch pad for tennis innovation as we bid to make our sport more attractive to the changing consumer habits of the next generation of fans” said Kermode.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/rule-changes-innovation-for-next-gen-atp-finals-2017

Some rule changes:
First to Four games sets (Tie-Break at 3-All)
No-Ad scoring (Instead a killer point at deuce)
Players and coaches will be able to communicate at certain points in the match


Then there are some changes that might be ok.
A shot clock will be used in between points to ensure strict regulation of the 25-second rule, as well as during set breaks, Medical Time-Outs, and the five-minute countdown from the player walk-on to the first point of the match.
A limit of 1 medical time out per player per match.
No-Let Rule



I really don't like the big change here with TB at 3-3 and no ad-scoring. Think it'll destroy this beautiful sport in the long run.

How about getting some court variation back in the game? Especially fast HC that has been pretty much completely removed. That'll speed up the game.

Will you get a sports psychologist and bag of medical weed too ??

When Federer and nadal retire ... I retire as a fan
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Why not just play one super tie breaker and call it a day

Maybe have a 35 min break after 10 points along with a 25 min massage session and 12 min talk to a psychologist
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Just remember that there was incredible resistance to the TB, and also to allowing players to jump over the baseline serving.

Every change we now like was fought against.

I'm reading a lot of "get off my lawn" responses here. ;)

Of course all these changes aren't going to be adopted, but perhaps one or two might happen. Heck, players still can't wear colors at Wimbledon...
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Word. Real men play best of 5, no tie-breaks. But even realer men play by the OG 1873 rules. Everything since the golden days of 19th century tennis is honestly just pandering to lazier generations and it has lost a lot of respect and following from the true faithful tennis fans who just can't take it seriously anymore. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it is broke, pretend it isn't. Time will prove me right that all subsequent deviations to the 1873 rules will shrink the sport, reduce its cultural significance, make a mockery of its virtuous history.
Bring back long pants! :D
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
Shortened sets, more important points are all good.

I'm just not with the idea of getting away from winning a game/set/match by less than two points. The drama of a deuce is important to tennis - it's often where a set or match is contested. Who wants to see a set hinge on a fluke/error/lucky shot ? Two point differential for the game/set/match drastically reduces the element of intangibles in the outcome.
But that can already happen in a TB. One guy serves first, then the players are on serve. Someone is up 50/49, then returns a ball that hits the top of the net and dribbles over.

Lucky shot wins the match.

A lucky shot can win a major, and in some cases has.

I'm older than almost everyone else here, but I'm open to new things. Then, if they don't work, switch back.

I can very well understand why people who are not passionate about tennis would rather watch mold grow than watch tennis. Nothing really counts until a set is won. Everything else is of no importance to winning from the perspective of a casual viewer.

It's what I hate about soccer, a bunch of guys running:

back and forth back and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forth

Then, when I finally have to use the bathroom, someone scores.

One of the reasons for the great world-wide popularity of basketball is that there is so much scoring, and it all counts. Every few seconds the score changes. But in tennis it can take ten minutes of endless deuces before one game is scored.

Lots of time I think I would be more interested in matches between guys I don't really care much about if there were more constant change in momentum.

Major changes would screw up comparisons between decades and eras, but personally I might eventually enjoy a more streamlined game. The bottom line for me is not the length of matches but rather waiting for a good hour or so to finally get to a TB, like what happened yet again today in the Pouille/Isner match.

I also think such rule changes would give more advantages to ace returners and would take away some of the huge advantage to serving.
 

canta_Brian

Hall of Fame
Seems to me they are looking to solve the problem of declining interest in tennis from youngsters.

Maybe the issue is not the format, rather it's the availability of viewing.

Most tennis used to be in free to air TV. Now it is pretty much all subscription.

Subscription sports TV is for people who are already fans. To get new people to tennis they need to see the sport.

Look at the declining numbers of people playing golf. In the UK even the open is no longer on the BBC. Golf courses are closing from lack of interest. I believe the two things are linked.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Shortened sets, more important points are all good.

I'm just not with the idea of getting away from winning a game/set/match by less than two points. The drama of a deuce is important to tennis - it's often where a set or match is contested. Who wants to see a set hinge on a fluke/error/lucky shot ? Two point differential for the game/set/match drastically reduces the element of intangibles in the outcome.

But that can already happen in a TB. One guy serves first, then the players are on serve. Someone is up 50/49, then returns a ball that hits the top of the net and dribbles over.

Lucky shot wins the match.

A lucky shot can win a major, and in some cases has.

I'm older than almost everyone else here, but I'm open to new things. Then, if they don't work, switch back.

I can very well understand why people who are not passionate about tennis would rather watch mold grow than watch tennis. Nothing really counts until a set is won. Everything else is of no importance to winning from the perspective of a casual viewer.

It's what I hate about soccer, a bunch of guys running:

back and forth back and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forthback and forth

Then, when I finally have to use the bathroom, someone scores.

One of the reasons for the great world-wide popularity of basketball is that there is so much scoring, and it all counts. Every few seconds the score changes. But in tennis it can take ten minutes of endless deuces before one game is scored.

Lots of time I think I would be more interested in matches between guys I don't really care much about if there were more constant change in momentum.

Major changes would screw up comparisons between decades and eras, but personally I might eventually enjoy a more streamlined game. The bottom line for me is not the length of matches but rather waiting for a good hour or so to finally get to a TB, like what happened yet again today in the Pouille/Isner match.

I also think such rule changes would give more advantages to ace returners and would take away some of the huge advantage to serving.

First part ought not to be divorced from the second part of the paragraph. Outcome of a game/set due to externals is drastically reduced when by two successive points.

I can understand soccer, American football, basketball and ice hockey requiring such drama, actual points (goals, or goals expressed as multiples of points) are far and few.

Tennis has a point accorded at the outcome of each rally, it needs a different kind of drama for the best/bravest/hungriest player to forge through.
 

Zoolander

Hall of Fame
Test cricket is slowly dying as the new forms take root.

Thats because the test cricket format is crap. Traditional, yes, but crap. And i hate the big bash 20/20 stuff. But no game should go for 5 days with teams batting for days and just a draw as a result.

My idea is the best. Tests should be played over 4 days, a day per innings, 90 or 100 overs a day. If you can bowl a team out within a day, you get the remainder of their day to bat as well as your next one. This way there will always be a result unless its an actual draw, which is rare. Much better way to do it.
 

canta_Brian

Hall of Fame
Thats because the test cricket format is crap. Traditional, yes, but crap. And i hate the big bash 20/20 stuff. But no game should go for 5 days with teams batting for days and just a draw as a result.

My idea is the best. Tests should be played over 4 days, a day per innings, 90 or 100 overs a day. If you can bowl a team out within a day, you get the remainder of their day to bat as well as your next one. This way there will always be a result unless its an actual draw, which is rare. Much better way to do it.
There are not many draws in modern test cricket
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
First part ought not to be divorced from the second part of the paragraph. Outcome of a game/set due to externals is drastically reduced when by two successive points.
Well, think about this: are the results of majors more random and less fair than back in the days when all sets had to be won by two games?

Was it fairer when an incredible number of games could be played in a SF, while another SF was done in straight sets, and rather quickly? Then the winners had to play the next day?

There are a million ways in which tennis can be unfair, but in my experience the best players generally end up on top no matter how the rules are changed.

What you call drama I might call boredom.

That doesn't mean that either of us is right, but I'd wager that the average person might be more interested in a tennis match if it didn't go on for up to five hours.

Ultra long matches don't mean better quality play, and in fact the most important factor in a major is not top quality of play but rather endurance.

This is why for many decades you would see former #1 players, true ATGS who were aging, still play at near peak level for one match, still able to defeat the best players in the world. Federer is almost there right now. It is likely that he will still be able to defeat the best players in the world on a good day, one match, for a few more years. But he most likely will no longer be winning majors.

The way tennis is right now rewards the guys who can grind forever, and I have (at best) mixed feelings about that.

There is a reason why top players used to be able to play both singles and doubles at majors.

As it is now, that is impossible.
 

moon shot

Hall of Fame
Given that if you are late to the match they only let you in after 3 games, then first to 4 could mean you only see 1 game of a set.

I'd head a commentator say they plan to allow movement is the stands to the sides of the courts during play as well.
 

Adv. Edberg

Legend
Word. Real men play best of 5, no tie-breaks. But even realer men play by the OG 1873 rules. Everything since the golden days of 19th century tennis is honestly just pandering to lazier generations and it has lost a lot of respect and following from the true faithful tennis fans who just can't take it seriously anymore. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it is broke, pretend it isn't. Time will prove me right that all subsequent deviations to the 1873 rules will shrink the sport, reduce its cultural significance, make a mockery of its virtuous history.

I see your point. But tennis at first was a bit broken and needed to be fixed. But for how long now have we used the current rules? 50 years? Even more? So that's what I call 'not broken' as it would have needed a fix way earlier than now.

Maybe it's the Next Gen and the Next Gen Fans who are broken and need a fix?
 

Adv. Edberg

Legend
Given that if you are late to the match they only let you in after 3 games, then first to 4 could mean you only see 1 game of a set.

I'd head a commentator say they plan to allow movement is the stands to the sides of the courts during play as well.

Yep, unless you got yourself a good seat.

"In addition, a ‘free movement’ policy will be applied to the crowd (except behind the baselines) throughout the tournament. The policy will enable fans to move freely in and out of the stadium during matches, providing a relaxed fan-friendly atmosphere and ensuring fans are not restricted entry into the stadium at any time."
 

Adv. Edberg

Legend
Well, think about this: are the results of majors more random and less fair than back in the days when all sets had to be won by two games?

Was it fairer when an incredible number of games could be played in a SF, while another SF was done in straight sets, and rather quickly? Then the winners had to play the next day?

There are a million ways in which tennis can be unfair, but in my experience the best players generally end up on top no matter how the rules are changed.

What you call drama I might call boredom.

That doesn't mean that either of us is right, but I'd wager that the average person might be more interested in a tennis match if it didn't go on for up to five hours.

Ultra long matches don't mean better quality play, and in fact the most important factor in a major is not top quality of play but rather endurance.

This is why for many decades you would see former #1 players, true ATGS who were aging, still play at near peak level for one match, still able to defeat the best players in the world. Federer is almost there right now. It is likely that he will still be able to defeat the best players in the world on a good day, one match, for a few more years. But he most likely will no longer be winning majors.

The way tennis is right now rewards the guys who can grind forever, and I have (at best) mixed feelings about that.

There is a reason why top players used to be able to play both singles and doubles at majors.

As it is now, that is impossible.

Sure, but if you look at the best matches ever in tennis, as voted by experts and fans. All of them are tight 5 setters.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The Fast Four model workshopped before the AO was a lamentable model, but treated as fun, so people had a good time.

Tennis is more like chess than basketball, and it needs the seriousness that silence provides.
 

hugobosstachini

Professional
Sounds like a move aimed to please the short attention span of the younger generations & television networks rather than real tennis fans.

Younger generation who is going to represent a great (%) of the population in next few years.

Luxury companies too are forced to change. They refused e-commerce and are now forced to becoming adepts.

You can't run a business without taking into account the consumer's desires and habits. Frankly, few and few people have time to watch a 5 set 4 hour match. That's a fact. If you have a good time consuming job, have kids or you are an active student or simply just have a very active life outside of arguing about people's records, you just don't have time for that however great your love is for tennis.

Tennis needs to find a way to be shorter and get better referenced on social media and streaming platform where most people are. An NBA match is 48 minutes, a soccer match is 90 minutes... why does tennis need to play 6 hours of game only a small span of the population can watch?

As for the real tennis fans, you can't just run on your base for years and expect growth.

Apple had this same problem. Yes, the core Apple fans used to the products but an even greater amount of non Apple consumers did not. You want to improve revenues and awareness, what do you do? You stagnate and keep pleasing the core fans or you take risks to bring in newer ones? No answer is wrong but the consequences can be disastrous in a world where consumer's do not have the same habits as 30 years ago.
 

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
Not a fan of these two at all:
First to Four games sets (Tie-Break at 3-All)
No-Ad scoring (Instead a killer point at deuce)


How a player handles deuce is one of the key challenges and points of drama in a match.

Perhaps statistically the first to four games goes on to win the set at some high percentage but you never know and this gets into senior tennis territory. Someone like Nadal can always come back from 2-4 down.
 

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
...and I like watching the full warm-up not this 5 minute suggestion.

On-court coaching also sucks. Keep tennis the true challenge that it is. You're out there alone.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Well, think about this: are the results of majors more random and less fair than back in the days when all sets had to be won by two games?

Was it fairer when an incredible number of games could be played in a SF, while another SF was done in straight sets, and rather quickly? Then the winners had to play the next day?

There are a million ways in which tennis can be unfair, but in my experience the best players generally end up on top no matter how the rules are changed.

What you call drama I might call boredom.

That doesn't mean that either of us is right, but I'd wager that the average person might be more interested in a tennis match if it didn't go on for up to five hours.

Ultra long matches don't mean better quality play, and in fact the most important factor in a major is not top quality of play but rather endurance.

This is why for many decades you would see former #1 players, true ATGS who were aging, still play at near peak level for one match, still able to defeat the best players in the world. Federer is almost there right now. It is likely that he will still be able to defeat the best players in the world on a good day, one match, for a few more years. But he most likely will no longer be winning majors.

The way tennis is right now rewards the guys who can grind forever, and I have (at best) mixed feelings about that.

There is a reason why top players used to be able to play both singles and doubles at majors.

As it is now, that is impossible.


But But But, you've now divorced the issue of the two-point system in determining games from the rest of what I wrote.

I'm in agreement with everything else! I especially like 5 sets of 3 [tiebreaker where necessary] games each.
 

sportmac

Hall of Fame
Younger generation who is going to represent a great (%) of the population in next few years.

Luxury companies too are forced to change. They refused e-commerce and are now forced to becoming adepts.

You can't run a business without taking into account the consumer's desires and habits. Frankly, few and few people have time to watch a 5 set 4 hour match. That's a fact. If you have a good time consuming job, have kids or you are an active student or simply just have a very active life outside of arguing about people's records, you just don't have time for that however great your love is for tennis.

Tennis needs to find a way to be shorter and get better referenced on social media and streaming platform where most people are. An NBA match is 48 minutes, a soccer match is 90 minutes... why does tennis need to play 6 hours of game only a small span of the population can watch?

As for the real tennis fans, you can't just run on your base for years and expect growth.

Apple had this same problem. Yes, the core Apple fans used to the products but an even greater amount of non Apple consumers did not. You want to improve revenues and awareness, what do you do? You stagnate and keep pleasing the core fans or you take risks to bring in newer ones? No answer is wrong but the consequences can be disastrous in a world where consumer's do not have the same habits as 30 years ago.
Through the year only a few matches run that long. The AO final had massive viewer numbers.

The WSJ did a study a few years back. Using 3 hours as game time the NFL has an actual ball in play of a little over 10 minutes. Baseball, 17 minutes. Tennis 29 minutes.

The NFL is considering actually removing two commercial breaks, the two sets of commercial breaks before and after kickoffs and reduce in-game advertising.

MLB has required that batters stay in the batters box, no more stepping out and adjusting their gloves, etc., and that pitchers and batters play as soon as they come out of a commercial. They've also eliminated throwing 4 balls for intentional walk, the runner just goes to first.

They're looking at game management to speed it up, and there are more in the pipeline. Even golf is introducing game management rules.
Notice none of them are looking to gut the game.

As I said earlier, the powers that be did nothing to stop the technology march that created this situation. And now they're trying to gut the game because of their own poor decisions.
 
Last edited:

Gazelle

G.O.A.T.
Stupid rule changes. I feel like they mainly accomodate for people who don't bother with tennis anyway. Keep the rules like the fans want them. Surely there are enough tennis fans in the world? Don't ruin the sport for the sake of some uncultured peasants.
 

albertobra

Hall of Fame
How about that boring break when players end a set even (no court change)? Just one more game and players sit down again.
They should go for first game of next set without stop when set sums up even.
 

kaninfaan

Rookie
All of these proposed changes are examples of the old saying; " -YOURE "SOLVING" THE WRONG PROBLEM!"

Changing rackets all the time, running out to change clothes after every set, talking to the coaches in the stands, touching the pacifier-blanket between each point etc are the things that are killing interest in the sport.

If they want to attract interest in the game they need to provide free broadcasts of the big games and have the players act like grownups.

Mutilating the sport to create a backdrop to selling concessions to people with attention-disorders is not in the best interest of Tennis as a Sport.

And if I hear Gimelstob on tennis-channel repeating his stupid mantra about Tennis being an entertainment-industry once more... FFS!
 

Racqueteer

Rookie
The coaching is also really bad. Figuring out yourself the change in strategy you need to make is part of the skill and beauty of tennis. You're there in the ring, alone.

Totally agree with this. It makes the WTA look so bad and I wish they would get rid of it.

The shortened set thing is f*****g stupid.

No let and no ad are ok with me. Both speed up the game a little and add some drama.

Never liked the shot clock thing. What happens when someone hits a tweener winner or some spectacular point happens and the crowd wants to clap for a minute?

Yes. We don't need a shot clock, we need the current 25-second rule to be enforced by umpires. I don't mean penalising a player the first time they go over 25 seconds, but if they are consistently taking too long, give them a warning, then penalise them. They would quickly learn to speed up their routine between points, and leaving it to a human would allow for circumstances that Shaolin has described, or for when there's been a really long point and the umpire is happy to let both players catch their breath.

Funny….I feel the opposite. I think a never-ending deuce game wrecks the flow of the match….not fun to play or watch. I saw a 10+ deuce game once, I think it was Agassi vs Costa, in the middle of the first set, game made me want to take a nap. The thing took like 30 minutes I swear.

Eventually someone has to either choke or make something happen on a big point to finish the game, no-ad just hastens the inevitable.

I know I'm in the minority here by far but I'd love to see no ad.

A possible compromise could be to allow players to go to deuce a certain number of times (10?), then the umpire announces that the limit has been reached and it's next point wins.

Making matches shorter won't help. You either like tennis or you don't. What tennis needs is a new generation of stars for people to get behind. The lack of interestingh personalities post Fedal is really causing the void.

Through the year only a few matches run that long. The AO final had massive viewer numbers.

Even casual fans are seemingly happy to watch a long match if it's an important one between two stars, like Roger and Rafa. MichaelNadal has hit the nail on the head - the ATP needs new stars for people to root for. To be fair to them, that's what they're trying to achieve with this much-maligned NextGen Finals but the only person with any star power is likely to be Zverev. Maybe they should have raised the age limit a bit so players like Kyrgios, Pouille and Thiem could also take part. That would have been more interesting.

I think television wants a regularly spaced match that fits neatly into advertising schedules and time slots. This will mangle the game and make historical records redundant as reference points.

Changing the game to suit television is looking to the past. TV is moving towards streaming, on-demand in all its forms. I'll wager lots of the young fans they're trying to capture don't even watch games on their television. Instead they stream them on their devices when it suits them.
 

mmk

Hall of Fame
I think lets should count as faults. You are trained not to hit service lets and the onus should be on the server to serve a clean ball.
The problem with that is tennis below pro-level doesn't have umpires to call the lets. Relying on an opponent's honesty has proven to be useless in NCAA Division 1 tennis - one school in particular used to call any serve they couldn't return a let, so the NCAA decreed that lets had to be played. While most of the people I've played are honest, cheaters will always exist and counting lets as faults would give them one more tool.
Also, the same argument on being trained to not hit service lets would be true for ground strokes, should shots that hit the net and make it over count against the player that hit them?
 

sportmac

Hall of Fame
Totally agree with this. It makes the WTA look so bad and I wish they would get rid of it.



Yes. We don't need a shot clock, we need the current 25-second rule to be enforced by umpires. I don't mean penalising a player the first time they go over 25 seconds, but if they are consistently taking too long, give them a warning, then penalise them. They would quickly learn to speed up their routine between points, and leaving it to a human would allow for circumstances that Shaolin has described, or for when there's been a really long point and the umpire is happy to let both players catch their breath.



A possible compromise could be to allow players to go to deuce a certain number of times (10?), then the umpire announces that the limit has been reached and it's next point wins.





Even casual fans are seemingly happy to watch a long match if it's an important one between two stars, like Roger and Rafa. MichaelNadal has hit the nail on the head - the ATP needs new stars for people to root for. To be fair to them, that's what they're trying to achieve with this much-maligned NextGen Finals but the only person with any star power is likely to be Zverev. Maybe they should have raised the age limit a bit so players like Kyrgios, Pouille and Thiem could also take part. That would have been more interesting.



Changing the game to suit television is looking to the past. TV is moving towards streaming, on-demand in all its forms. I'll wager lots of the young fans they're trying to capture don't even watch games on their television. Instead they stream them on their devices when it suits them.
You have some good points but the issue we're addressing isn't next gen or streaming, it's the rule changes. The very essence of how the game is played. As I said above, MLB, NFL and Golf are all addressing the game time problem with game time management, not changing how the game is played.
 
Last edited:

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
The problem with that is tennis below pro-level doesn't have umpires to call the lets. Relying on an opponent's honesty has proven to be useless in NCAA Division 1 tennis - one school in particular used to call any serve they couldn't return a let, so the NCAA decreed that lets had to be played. While most of the people I've played are honest, cheaters will always exist and counting lets as faults would give them one more tool.
Also, the same argument on being trained to not hit service lets would be true for ground strokes, should shots that hit the net and make it over count against the player that hit them?

I watched a bunch of NCAA matches over the winter on YouTube. The calls are indeed horrendous. However, I don't get the whole big deal about lets, whether I'm watching or playing my humble rec tennis. I'm okay with a change, it's just not at the forefront of my mind when it comes to problems in tennis.
 

Racqueteer

Rookie
The issue we're addressing isn't next gen or streaming, it's the rule changes. The very essence of how the game is played. As I said above, MLB, NFL and Golf are all addressing the game time problem with game time management, not changing how the game is played.

My point was that the ATP seems to think fans won't tolerate longer matches, hence the suggested changes. I was arguing that fans would, under the right conditions (two big stars playing) and that they should concentrate on creating those conditions (stars beyond Fedal) rather than changing the rules. That is a side argument though but I agree time management should be trialled over rule changes.
 

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
Players Council
* 1-50 Singles: Kevin Anderson, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Gilles Simon
* 51-100 Singles: Yen-Hsun Lu, Rajeev Ram
* 1-100 Doubles: Jamie Murray, Bruno Soares
* At-Large: Marcelo Melo, Sergiy Stakhovsky
* Alumni: Colin Dowdeswell
* Coach: Claudio Pistolesi

“We are all in the same ship basically: the Council people, the [ATP] Board people, and, at the end of the day, tournaments as well… We are all part of the same governing body. We're all part of the same organisation. We're all on the same mission to make this sport better.”

Thanks Murrovic --doing a great effing job.
 
Top