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.Why not create a new sport altogether called weeni(e) s and let the whiners play and watch?
Just bloody AWFUL!!!
DO. NOT. FIX. WHAT. ISN'T. BROKEN.
Enough said.
There used to be sweat bands for that exact purpose.
I use wrist bands and they wouldn't be enoughWe want the return of wrist bands, the ultimate fashion accessory.
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".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.
Nothing about the grunting and screaming? Fans have been complaining about that for at least a decade.
yeah who wants a repeat of the 2008 Wimbledon Final, nearly 5 hours ending in near darkness, too much drama lets keep it clinical.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.
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.
I'll be done with tennis once the big 4 retires. But now it may be sooner with these new rules.
Will you get a sports psychologist and bag of medical weed too ??
When Federer and nadal retire ... I retire as a fan
Bring back long pants!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.
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.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.
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.
Test cricket is slowly dying as the new forms take root.
There are not many draws in modern test cricketThats 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.
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?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like a move aimed to please the short attention span of the younger generations & television networks rather than real tennis fans.
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.
Through the year only a few matches run that long. The AO final had massive viewer numbers.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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
And if I hear Gimelstob on tennis-channel repeating his stupid mantra about Tennis being an entertainment-industry once more... FFS!
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.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.
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?
not changing how the game is played.
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.