Big rule changes to come to the ATP shortly

[Bartelby]

As I wrote at the beginning, the changes are all about the television set:

The ATP's president Chris Kermode has been clear for a while that tennis will have to change within the next 10 years. He says he is not worried where the next generation of players will come from, but has real concerns about the next generation of fans.

The television audience is ageing: so what will those in their 20s and 30s be prepared to sit down and (possibly pay to) watch in future?

A shorter format has served its purpose in cricket, but it is not just the time it takes: it is also about providing the entertainment which has made the Indian Premier League so popular in its first decade.

 

[Roddick85]

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.

Most best of 3 sets matches usually run around 90 minutes to 2 hours 90% of the time. Those 5-6 hours matches usually happen in slams and aren't the norm.

 

[bjk]

Most of these changes would have the effect of creating more upsets. The no add is basically a tossup point. Tiebreakers are also basically tossups. Instead of winning by two, breaking and consolidating a break by two points, all you have to do is get lucky, win a few no-add points and tiebreakers and boom you won the match. I don't know if that helps big servers or not but it probably does . . . it might make it easier to break a big server but it also means fewer points and the less talented player generally wants to play fewer points.

 

[sportmac]

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.

Send them a tweet asking why they're doing this and not trying other ways first.

https://twitter.com/DjokerNole

https://twitter.com/KAndersonATP

https://twitter.com/andy_murray

https://twitter.com/jamie_murray

https://twitter.com/GillesSimonActu

https://twitter.com/RajeevRam

https://twitter.com/marcelomelo83

https://twitter.com/BrunoSoares82

https://twitter.com/Stako_tennis

 

[Pablo1989]

No one who loves tennis will approve these rules.


Kermode, you're a disgusting traitor.

 

[Gary Duane]

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.

It's a different world, faster, more immediate.

I was born in '48, at a time when we still played board games, at most three channels on TV in the 50s. Small black and white TVs. Lots of cards, and lots of time outside running and playing games.

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.

That's better than butt, butt, butt.

I'm all for let's try it, see what happens...

 

[2HBH-DTL]

let the wta have these rules. don't diminish the ATP further but implementing these. (except for shot clock cause that IS the only good idea)

 

[Deleted member 742196]

What if tennis took on a sort of cue from hockey/basketball/football?

4 quarters for a total of 60 minutes of action.

• Instead of games/sets scoring system is total points accrued.
• Winner of serve point continues on serve until the point is lost.
• Towelling, intermissions, breaks etc don't apply to the game clock running down.
• In this scenario a separate time to serve clock would be easier to institute.

If the goal is to bring it down to an hour, why not try something completely radically different so traditionalists and conventionalists won't find issue with it?

Sort of like a 60 minute tiebreaker but where the point totals as high as it gets over the 4 quarters.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

What if tennis took on a sort of cue from hockey/basketball/football?

4 quarters for a total of 60 minutes of action.

• Instead of games/sets scoring system is total points accrued.
• Winner of serve point continues on serve until the point is lost.
• Towelling, intermissions, breaks etc don't apply to the game clock running down.
• In this scenario a separate time to serve clock would be easier to institute.

If the goal is to bring it down to an hour, why not try something completely radically different so traditionalists and conventionalists won't find issue with it?

Sort of like a 60 minute tiebreaker but where the point totals as high as it gets over the 4 quarters.

Heck, if you want to throw us tennis players today a bone make it 5 periods of 12 minutes = 60 total minutes of action.

Borrow from NBA/NFL and make each point = 2.

Winners are worth more points than UFE or something, whatever endless tweaks until the right formula is attained.

 

[Inanimate_object]

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?

Who said tennis was broken and needed to be fixed? I'm sure the advocates of lawn tennis in the 19th century were appalled at the idea that one could win a set without breaking serve. Disturbed that balls could be swapped out after a certain number of games. Mortified that we peasants could play the game and have the gall to show our lower shins while we're at it!

Listen, whether you like it or not, sports are not monoliths. They are creations by and for people. As people change, sports necessarily must change. If a sport such as tennis chooses to serve its own history rather than try and make improvements (as almost every modern sport in history has sought to do), it loses its entire raison d'etre. Most of the comments here are filled with regressive "get off my lawn" undertones by a sect of fans who think that somehow tennis, above all other sports, has come upon the perfect set of rules - that has no flaws. And that to even suggest improvements could be made to these rules makes you a lazy, non-tennis fan that wants to kill the sport and destroy its history and significance. Tennis is not yours. Nor is it some otherworldly institution. Sports are supposed to evolve with society, not be rigid in spite of it. And as a side, the stupidest possible reason (among the many stupid reasons) to refuse to change any rules in tennis is historical continuity. That we're even having this conversation over how progressions in tennis will prevent us from giving dead early 20th century tennis players their proper due and credit goes to show just how self-absorbed tennis is.

 

[Semidios]

Implement tie-break in the fifth at the other 3 slams and make different court speed on tour in general.Those changes should be enough.IMO.

 

[sportmac]

Who said tennis was broken and needed to be fixed? I'm sure the advocates of lawn tennis in the 19th century were appalled at the idea that one could win a set without breaking serve. Disturbed that balls could be swapped out after a certain number of games. Mortified that we peasants could play the game and have the gall to show our lower shins while we're at it!

Listen, whether you like it or not, sports are not monoliths. They are creations by and for people. As people change, sports necessarily must change. If a sport such as tennis chooses to serve its own history rather than try and make improvements (as almost every modern sport in history has sought to do), it loses its entire raison d'etre. Most of the comments here are filled with regressive "get off my lawn" undertones by a sect of fans who think that somehow tennis, above all other sports, has come upon the perfect set of rules - that has no flaws. And that to even suggest improvements could be made to these rules makes you a lazy, non-tennis fan that wants to kill the sport and destroy its history and significance. Tennis is not yours. Nor is it some otherworldly institution. Sports are supposed to evolve with society, not be rigid in spite of it. And as a side, the stupidest possible reason (among the many stupid reasons) to refuse to change any rules in tennis is historical continuity. That we're even having this conversation over how progressions in tennis will prevent us from giving dead early 20th century tennis players their proper due and credit goes to show just how self-absorbed tennis is.

Tennis has changed. Tie breakers for instance. That was a huge change but the game was basically the same.

The argument is not that change is bad, it's the change that's being proposed is bad. It's a fundamental change on how the game is played.

 

[RVAtennisaddict]

I am ok with 4 game sets, IF all matches go to best of 5 and Grands go to best of 7. I actually think this might make the game more enjoyable.

I am mixed on the no ad rule, but if enforced it should not apply in the 5th or 7th set.

The no let rule is primarily for College where there aren't umpires to keep them from calling every ace a let... no needed at the pro level.

I strongly feel that time management between points and for medical issues should be watched. I like the idea of a shot clock and timed medical time outs with hard stops/penalties

I think grunting should be managed too, it is excessive and distracting and not necessary.

I like the concept on only 1 serve on the men's side to get more points played... instead of just serve... serve.. serve.. serve.. but am not sure this is the best way to do it, I would probably prefer to see changes in the court to effect same change (court speeds, net height).

 

[Slice'n'dice]

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.

**** all those rule changes man. No-let wouldn't be too bad but I think I'd keep let too. 1 Medical time out per match maybe, but I dunno. If it means players just have to retire injured when they could've got back to a level of fitness that would enable them to finish the match then that's **** too.

Totally agree with the 3-3 tie break stuff, the worst of the lot, **** that ****, sincerely hope that doesn't get further implemented.

Chris Kermode should **** off.

 

[sportmac]

**** all those rule changes man. No-let wouldn't be too bad but I think I'd keep let too. 1 Medical time out per match maybe, but I dunno. If it means players just have to retire injured when they could've got back to a level of fitness that would enable them to finish the match then that's **** too.

Totally agree with the 3-3 tie break stuff, the worst of the lot, **** that ****, sincerely hope that doesn't get further implemented.

Chris Kermode should **** off.

The medical timeout is a problem. Can you imagine someone slightly injured during a slam final that is forced to retire because they can't get another treatment?

In the '14 AO Nadal had a callous come off and the blister under it burst.

It then becomes an open wound on his playing hand.
With something like that the player can play after treatment but what if it requires continued treatment, longer treatment?

 

[canta_Brian]

I love the fact that you have to win by two clear points. Tennis is a sport you have to win rather than simply be ahead when the time runs out. So whether it's a game, set or match you still have to get over the line and actually win. If you opponent gets to deuce it is excellent that you have to win two in a row before you win that game.

As to how long a set should be, does 4 games allow a set to develop properly? Instead of "the pivotal 7th game" would we end up with a pivotal third? How many of us use the first game or two of a set as a good opportunity to mix the next batch of margeuritas knowing we can still be there when the game gets serious again.

Comebacks: I like to see a player recover a break. Not much chance of that in a best of 4 set.

Edit; first to 4 set. Which btw makes me ask why tiebreak at 3 all not 4 all?

 

[LGQ7]

[QUOTE="Listen, whether you like it or not, sports are not monoliths.[/QUOTE]

In ping-pong, we have a concept called "neighborhood rules". Each neighborhood has their own rules on things. I am adaptable to different rules, and I expect others to be adaptable to mine.

 

[LGQ7]

[QUOTE="Disturbed that balls could be swapped out after a certain number of games.[/QUOTE]

I like that rule. I get my tennis balls from E-bay, from official tournaments where the balls are only played once. I re-pressurize them and re-use them.
https://www.pressureball.com/

 

[TheMusicLover]

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.

Well... that explains a lot. And not in a positive manner.

Bah.

 

[Slice'n'dice]

The medical timeout is a problem. Can you imagine someone slightly injured during a slam final that is forced to retire because they can't get another treatment?

In the '14 AO Nadal had a callous come off and the blister under it burst.

It then becomes an open wound on his playing hand.
With something like that the player can play after treatment but what if it requires continued treatment, longer treatment?

I'd rather a few people occasionally abuse a rule than have loads more matches ending due to retirements. You could do stuff like having to call them before your own serve and things like that maybe, but one per match isn't the answer.

Plus Nadal was very obviously injured in 2014 Australian Open final. That wasn't abusing the rule. Anyone can see that.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

One serve is the dream.

 

[AceSalvo]

Plus Nadal was very obviously injured in 2014 Australian Open final. That wasn't abusing the rule. Anyone can see that.

Obviously Nadal took the MTO out of nowhere and he got properly booed for it.

MTO's should be at the end of the set unless there is blood involved. If you are not fit enough to compete in a set its as good as the losing the set and no need to upset the opponents rhythm just because someone doesn't feel right.

 

[2HBH-DTL]

MTO's should be at the end of the set unless there is blood involved. If you are not fit enough to compete in a set its as good as the losing the set and no need to upset the opponents rhythm just because someone doesn't feel right

 

[jussumman]

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.

This was the worst one from the entire list. They shorten up the game already with the other rules, and this is overkill. But I like, would be into testing, the other proposed changes.

 

[Slice'n'dice]

Obviously Nadal took the MTO out of nowhere and he got properly booed for it.

MTO's should be at the end of the set unless there is blood involved. If you are not fit enough to compete in a set its as good as the losing the set and no need to upset the opponents rhythm just because someone doesn't feel right.

You only had to look at Nadal trying to ****ing serve to see he was clearly injured, only the most blinkered member of the anti-Nadal brigade could say that.

Before your own serve sure, between sets? Nah, what if it happens in the first game, don't fancy watching a player hobbling around on one leg for a set playing **** for half an hour. I'd rather them get sorted then watch some good tennis.

So you're saying Djokovic was right to have the medical time out, it was bleeding after all. Same thing with his foot in the US Open final.

 

[AceSalvo]

Thank you.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Obviously Nadal took the MTO out of nowhere and he got properly booed for it.

MTO's should be at the end of the set unless there is blood involved. If you are not fit enough to compete in a set its as good as the losing the set and no need to upset the opponents rhythm just because someone doesn't feel right.

Out of nowhere? I serve better than he did before MTO.

 

[AceSalvo]

Out of nowhere? I serve better than he did before MTO.

Nadal's first 3 serves were 189, 200 and 191 respectively. You got stuff better than that??

Nadal struggled towards the end of the first set because Nadal didnt know how to respond to hurricane Stan. He had the same # of aces in the first set as Stan and was triple breakpoint up in the last game of the first set.

Ok. Lets play the game "Nadal was injured". ATP has to enforce a rule where "No player should be allowed to be treated during a set if they are coming into a match with an existing injury."

 

[RVAtennisaddict]

I don't have any sympathy for medical time outs. I have been to professional squash tourneys, where you are not allowed to have any active bleeding exposed. They are given a total medical time out of 5 minutes or it is automatic default. They have many more injuries than tennis because of those silly walls, and the no active bleeding/open lesions is strictly enforced. They don't have significant issues with DQs.

I was personally was playing once indoors, hit the curtain... not knowing there was a kiddie net/post behind it. Split my leg, with blood literally spraying.... spent 20 seconds duct taping it. Played out the set with my partner. Re-taped it at set switch because it had bleed through, and then after the match went to the hospital and sewed my leg up 7 sutures. The 5cm laceration did not hurt as much as the ankle/top of the foot from the impact tbh.

MTO are abused in tennis. Period.

 

[Slice'n'dice]

Of all the times Nadal's been injured and called injury time outs, I would've thought Aussie Open 2014 was one of the most obviously not a fake injury time outs I've ever seen, some people will try and fit anything to their narrative.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Nadal's first 3 serves were 189, 200 and 191 respectively. You got stuff better than that??

Nadal struggled towards the end of the first set because Nadal didnt know how to respond to hurricane Stan. He had the same # of aces in the first set as Stan and was triple breakpoint up in the last game of the first set.

Ok. Lets play the game "Nadal was injured". ATP has to enforce a rule where "No player should be allowed to be treated during a set if they are coming into a match with an existing injury."

No you're right. He must've been faking.

 

[AceSalvo]

No you're right. He must've been faking.

Maybe I was wrong since Nadal is the epitome of sportsmanship.

 

[Kozzy]

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.

And yet, Soccer/Football is the most popular sport in the world. Way more popular than basketball. Probably because you can play it anywhere. I think the popularity of tennis has little to do with the rules, but more about the fact that you just can't build legions of fans for an individual the same way you can for a "team" which has a city it can be identified with. Anyway, I'm not against changing some rules (let or no let, who cares, time clock, fine), but no-ad scoring sucks and changing the number of sets in Grand Slams is lame. Tennis is never going to get back to prime-time levels, and that's OK - it'll do just fine anyway.

 

[Kozzy]

Of all the times Nadal's been injured and called injury time outs, I would've thought Aussie Open 2014 was one of the most obviously not a fake injury time outs I've ever seen, some people will try and fit anything to their narrative.

Indeed. I watched that match and he was clearly injured, and it wasn't something he brought into the match. His back seized up. I'm not saying he would have won otherwise, because Stan was playing great, but to say that wasn't a legit injury is pretty rich. I will also say, however, I wouldn't mind if they did away with the MTO except between sets. Any in between is too much of a gray area, and it gets abused more than it gets used well. If you need immediate attention - forfeit the set,or at least your next service game. That does seem fair and would prevent a lot of BS.

 

[Terenigma]

I am very late to the party but these changes are ridiclously stupid and they are pandering to this new lazy generation who don't have the passion to put the work in.

(-) 4 game sets? What is that? Pity? Also the no Ad-scoring is a horrible idea that will make some matches unfair imo. Imagine Isner that scenario, he'd be winning everything. Dumb changes

(-) Shot clock will never work because there will always be errors with it and people will argue and it will turn our sport into a clown circus with the crowd. Also the fact they only wanna change that now when Nadal has been abusing it for years is absolutely hilarious. I look forward to seeing him with it active.

(+) No-let rule is a weird one. I actually think i could be ok with this. Yes there will be a lot of cheap points but i think it could create some drama and show who the truely talented players are with reaction times and shots to adapt to errors.

(+) Player coaching if its during the change-overs, i am actually ok with. It will not delay the match and i have no objections to this and i also have no objections to the single MTO. If you can't heal it in a single MTO, you cant heal it. Get fit or get out.

 

[Roddick85]

And yet, Soccer/Football is the most popular sport in the world. Way more popular than basketball. Probably because you can play it anywhere. I think the popularity of tennis has little to do with the rules, but more about the fact that you just can't build legions of fans for an individual the same way you can for a "team" which has a city it can be identified with. Anyway, I'm not against changing some rules (let or no let, who cares, time clock, fine), but no-ad scoring sucks and changing the number of sets in Grand Slams is lame. Tennis is never going to get back to prime-time levels, and that's OK - it'll do just fine anyway.

Tennis is still seen as a "country club" sport by a lot of people. The same could be said about golf.

 

[Gary Duane]

And yet, Soccer/Football is the most popular sport in the world. Way more popular than basketball. Probably because you can play it anywhere. I think the popularity of tennis has little to do with the rules, but more about the fact that you just can't build legions of fans for an individual the same way you can for a "team" which has a city it can be identified with. Anyway, I'm not against changing some rules (let or no let, who cares, time clock, fine), but no-ad scoring sucks and changing the number of sets in Grand Slams is lame. Tennis is never going to get back to prime-time levels, and that's OK - it'll do just fine anyway.

You are probably right.

When I was growing up, most likely baseball was the most popular sport to play, and I think it is because all you needed was a bat, a ball and a glove. You can really play it anywhere, and we often played in our backyards (bigger backyards decades ago, but probably even more doable in rural regions. Basketball is close, since you only need a place to put up a hoop.

People seem to play soccer anywhere.

I enjoyed playing baseball when I was a kid, but I'd rather be tortured than to have to watch a baseball game.

I also don't think tennis will ever be as popular as it was in the early open era. Even now it amazes me how many public courts there were, lighted too. There was a real craze for awhile.

That's gone now, at least in the US...

 

[Gary Duane]

As I wrote at the beginning, the changes are all about the television set:

The ATP's president Chris Kermode has been clear for a while that tennis will have to change within the next 10 years. He says he is not worried where the next generation of players will come from, but has real concerns about the next generation of fans.

The television audience is ageing: so what will those in their 20s and 30s be prepared to sit down and (possibly pay to) watch in future?

A shorter format has served its purpose in cricket, but it is not just the time it takes: it is also about providing the entertainment which has made the Indian Premier League so popular in its first decade.

To be honest, I don't think I would have ever watched a tennis match if I had not played the game.

You have to love a game and understand it to appreciate points that don't win anything. On that subject, I wonder if the number of TBs per match is going up? It certainly feels like it...

 

[Inanimate_object]

To be honest, I don't think I would have ever watched a tennis match if I had not played the game.

You have to love a game and understand it to appreciate points that don't win anything. On that subject, I wonder if the number of TBs per match is going up? It certainly feels like it...

That tie-breaks are reached at all has somewhat strange implications for the scoring structure of a set because that essentially resets all progress made in the 30/40+ minutes of set play to 0. That being said I think TBs are an example of a very neat rule change that has brought about exciting play.

 

[Gary Duane]

That tie-breaks are reached at all has somewhat strange implications for the scoring structure of a set because that essentially resets all progress made in the 30/40+ minutes of set play to 0. That being said I think TBs are an example of a very neat rule change that has brought about exciting play.

To be honest, in a typical match of guys like Isner and Karlovic most of the time I'd prefer to record, then skip to the TBs.

The only time every game is potentially exciting is when two players are both great returners and threaten to break at any time.

Clay court tennis gets more interesting when you have two players who both break more than 1/3rd of the time. Rafa did it one year, for the whole clay season, 50% of the time.

But most of those matches were there are breaks left and right are against weaker players, so the scores are too lopsided to be dramatic.

Every new set resets the drama. Five shorter sets instead of three longer ones would almost sure add some suspense.

Also, lopsided sets would not last as long. Beat-down-sets would be over sooner, so tanked sets would be over more quickly.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Any player that competes in that NextGen event is effectively debasing themselves.

 

[Bartelby]

... and crying all the way to the bank, as they should. Showcasing young talent is good, the way they are executing it is bad.

 

[TheFifthSet]

... and crying all the way to the bank, as they should. Showcasing young talent is good, the way they are executing it is bad.

Begrudgingly nodding my head . Reaslistivally, I can't fault a younger player for competing in that event. Money talks, and you know the rest. But that it's being hyped up by the ATP when it is, by any conceivable measure, worse than a 250 speaks volumes. No real effort (or, too much misdirected effort?) is being dedicated to improving the quality of the game or tennis calendar. I'm not much of a purist but it is such a desperately transparent grub for money that it's hard to turn a blind eye. Cringeworthy stuff.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Begrudgingly nodding my head . Reaslistivally, I can't fault a younger player for competing in that event. Money talks, and you know the rest. But that it's being hyped up by the ATP when it is, by any conceivable measure, worse than a 250 speaks volumes. No real effort (or, too much misdirected effort?) is being dedicated to improving the quality of the game or tennis calendar. I'm not much of a purist but it is such a desperately transparent grub for money that it's hard to turn a blind eye. Cringeworthy stuff.

Yeah, but it's sad that the IRT feels the need to host such an event in the first place. As Nadal said, it isn't harder for the young kids today to win slams than it was for Nadal to win slams as a teenager.

Kyrgios, if he had the same attitude as Nadal has, would've had at least 2 slams by now. Instead he's only got a couple of Mickey Mouse tournaments.

 

[RiffDaemon]

This will completely turn record-keeping and player-vs-player/GOAT debates on their heads. It's annoying enough when arguments need to factor in tournament surface changes, surface modifications (fast grass vs slow grass), old 5-set Masters versus the current 3-set Masters, etc. After this kind of landmark change, it will be impossible. Might as well rename the sport if these changes go live.

 

[Bendex]

I really hate watching Fast4 matches. 2 good players almost always go to a tie break. But I like the shot clock.

Instead of no-ad scoring, they should remove the second serve to speed things up. That would also lead to more points being longer than 2 shots.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Now that the Next Gen exhibition is over, I think it’s safe to say that the new rules were mostly crap. Really hope they won’t implement it in the real tour any time soon.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

Now that the Next Gen exhibition is over, I think it’s safe to say that the new rules were mostly crap. Really hope they won’t implement it in the real tour any time soon.

 

[Meles]

Now that the Next Gen exhibition is over, I think it’s safe to say that the new rules were mostly crap. Really hope they won’t implement it in the real tour any time soon.

Yes playing best of five sets is garbage, who wants to see that? The new tradition of best of 3 is much better, plus I really enjoy watching players tank parts of sets or whole sets after losing the first couple games. Please don't take that away. My favorite part is watching a player like Simon grind out a player after taking a first set; two hours of pure torture to win a match for any who make such a mistake. Watching Nadal take 40 seconds between points is drama that should not be taken away. Arguing with linesman, getting points replayed from their calls and watching hawkeye make the game so entertaining to watch. If players lose focus from having points stolen from them, I'd match rather see the crash and burn than good tennis.

 

[Sudacafan]

No one who loves tennis will approve these rules.

Agree