Big rule changes to come to the ATP shortly

[moon shot]

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.

Any of the rules you didn’t care for?

Deciding points were my least favorite of the bunch.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

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.

GET OFF MY LAWN!

 

[Meles]

Any of the rules you didn’t care for?

Deciding points were my least favorite of the bunch.

Everything was good, but I did not like the playing of lets. It seemed hardly a factor in the matches, but Rublev in the final had to do a behind the back shot to get the serve back in play. No lets really does not save much time and it is the one change that could really ruin a great match. Rublev was not a happy camper for several points despite the impressive trick shot to get the ball back in play.

Deciding points and TBs at 3 all a requirement really to do five sets. Definitely liked best of 5 and simulations show that feature counteracts some of the variance caused by noad and TBs, enough to make this format as good as best of 3 for determining the best player.

I really, really like the deciding points and no ad for singles. For doubles on regular tour I don't like it (other than the fact it gets the matches off the court faster so singles can get back on.) For singles this is what I loved about no ad:
1. 0-40 becomes quadruple break point
2. 15-40 becomes triple break point
3. 30 all points become real pressure, because if you lose them you face double break point
4. The deciding points become real pressure at 3-2 in the sets; the set is either over or immediately it goes to a tiebreaker

That is a whole lot more pressure situations in my book and it makes for very good matches. The players dare not tank or let up early in a set because they have less time to recover. Just a real pressure cooker of a format. Just watched Federer versus Sock at WTF and both played well, but just a very boring match in comparison. I feel like a crack addict who has just discovered there is no more crack in the world.

 

[moon shot]

Everything was good, but I did not like the playing of lets. It seemed hardly a factor in the matches, but Rublev in the final had to do a behind the back shot to get the serve back in play. No lets really does not save much time and it is the one change that could really ruin a great match. Rublev was not a happy camper for several points despite the impressive trick shot to get the ball back in play.

Deciding points and TBs at 3 all a requirement really to do five sets. Definitely liked best of 5 and simulations show that feature counteracts some of the variance caused by noad and TBs, enough to make this format as good as best of 3 for determining the best player.

I really, really like the deciding points and no ad for singles. For doubles on regular tour I don't like it (other than the fact it gets the matches off the court faster so singles can get back on.) For singles this is what I loved about no ad:
1. 0-40 becomes quadruple break point
2. 15-40 becomes triple break point
3. 30 all points become real pressure, because if you lose them you face double break point
4. The deciding points become real pressure at 3-2 in the sets; the set is either over or immediately it goes to a tiebreaker

That is a whole lot more pressure situations in my book and it makes for very good matches. The players dare not tank or let up early in a set because they have less time to recover. Just a real pressure cooker of a format. Just watched Federer versus Sock at WTF and both played well, but just a very boring match in comparison. I feel like a crack addict who has just discovered there is no more crack in the world.

I agree on the lets, it is a snap reaction and generally favors the server. It seems it would be difficult to adjust to if it wasn’t universal and I would hate to see that appear in slams.

Interesting points about no-ad. As a viewer it feels more arbitrary who gets the game, probably due to the brevity. The increased breaks did make it more engaging for me and appeared more exhausting for the players. I would wonder if players like Murray who wear out their opponent would be able to in this format.

I think the shot clock between points and live Hawkeye would ideally be implemented everywhere. I bet the foot faults wouldn’t be appreciated.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Everything was good, but I did not like the playing of lets. It seemed hardly a factor in the matches, but Rublev in the final had to do a behind the back shot to get the serve back in play. No lets really does not save much time and it is the one change that could really ruin a great match. Rublev was not a happy camper for several points despite the impressive trick shot to get the ball back in play.

Deciding points and TBs at 3 all a requirement really to do five sets. Definitely liked best of 5 and simulations show that feature counteracts some of the variance caused by noad and TBs, enough to make this format as good as best of 3 for determining the best player.

I really, really like the deciding points and no ad for singles. For doubles on regular tour I don't like it (other than the fact it gets the matches off the court faster so singles can get back on.) For singles this is what I loved about no ad:
1. 0-40 becomes quadruple break point
2. 15-40 becomes triple break point
3. 30 all points become real pressure, because if you lose them you face double break point
4. The deciding points become real pressure at 3-2 in the sets; the set is either over or immediately it goes to a tiebreaker

That is a whole lot more pressure situations in my book and it makes for very good matches. The players dare not tank or let up early in a set because they have less time to recover. Just a real pressure cooker of a format. Just watched Federer versus Sock at WTF and both played well, but just a very boring match in comparison. I feel like a crack addict who has just discovered there is no more crack in the world.

Essentially those rules can turn any match into a WTA type of match.

Enjoy.

 

[Mr Feeny]

Everything was good, but I did not like the playing of lets. It seemed hardly a factor in the matches, but Rublev in the final had to do a behind the back shot to get the serve back in play. No lets really does not save much time and it is the one change that could really ruin a great match. Rublev was not a happy camper for several points despite the impressive trick shot to get the ball back in play.

Deciding points and TBs at 3 all a requirement really to do five sets. Definitely liked best of 5 and simulations show that feature counteracts some of the variance caused by noad and TBs, enough to make this format as good as best of 3 for determining the best player.

I really, really like the deciding points and no ad for singles. For doubles on regular tour I don't like it (other than the fact it gets the matches off the court faster so singles can get back on.) For singles this is what I loved about no ad:
1. 0-40 becomes quadruple break point
2. 15-40 becomes triple break point
3. 30 all points become real pressure, because if you lose them you face double break point
4. The deciding points become real pressure at 3-2 in the sets; the set is either over or immediately it goes to a tiebreaker

That is a whole lot more pressure situations in my book and it makes for very good matches. The players dare not tank or let up early in a set because they have less time to recover. Just a real pressure cooker of a format. Just watched Federer versus Sock at WTF and both played well, but just a very boring match in comparison. I feel like a crack addict who has just discovered there is no more crack in the world.

Excellent post, this.

 

[Meles]

I agree on the lets, it is a snap reaction and generally favors the server. It seems it would be difficult to adjust to if it wasn’t universal and I would hate to see that appear in slams.

Interesting points about no-ad. As a viewer it feels more arbitrary who gets the game, probably due to the brevity. The increased breaks did make it more engaging for me and appeared more exhausting for the players. I would wonder if players like Murray who wear out their opponent would be able to in this format.

I think the shot clock between points and live Hawkeye would ideally be implemented everywhere. I bet the foot faults wouldn’t be appreciated.

Exactly right on no-ad. It does ad variance and make it less likely the better player will win. Having these matches in best of five counteracts that theoretically. An impressive poster in another thread said a player like Fed was 97% likely to win at a slam, 92.8% likely in best of 3, 92.1% likely in no-ad best of 5 Milan. The Milan format by the numbers does favor upsets slightly more, but the cost is acceptable in my mind given the gains. I'd also dispute the raw numbers as the top players handle pressure situations extremely well so it would seem to reason that they would benefit from the Milan format.

After evaluating the Milan event's participants stats for the year I will say that the two best players were in the final. Medvedev was a bit of a fluke perhaps, but the groups were imbalanced this year with Rublev, Shapo, and Chung all in the same group. For me the best of 5 and pressure situations bringing out the best play makes this better than best of three set crap shoot that we've learned to accept. My gut says if this were implemented widely we'd find a more consistent group of winners at the top of the game and we'd certainly have much better quality of play in matches.

You've reminded me I need to do a thread on the changes at Milan outside of the no ad/five set thing. I believe there probably is real consensus even here on TTW on implementing the rest of the changes.

 

[Meles]

Excellent post, this.

I saw most of the matches, but probably guilty of not watching every set with rapt attention as posting on TTW. I was against all of the rule changes coming into this event not realizing this was going to best of five sets. Even for the first match I did not like things until the fourth set began and then I realized that the matches were going to go 5 sets which meant double nearly all the expected tennis. Then the whole picture clicked in. The Milan changes were extremely well thought out. One good quality match done at WTF, but I'm getting bored already lol.

Have a thread with poll on the five less controversial changes from Milan here:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...me-to-the-atp-tour-in-2019-or-earlier.603949/

 

[JRAJ1988]

At this moment they could put a Next Gen-esc format for the 2018 WTF's, maybe with a best of 5 set final as the marquee ending to a marquee tournament.

Bring the seeds down to 16 at the slams.

Add a Grass Court Masters???? Trim the load of Clay tournaments.

 

[JRAJ1988]

At this moment they could put a Next Gen-esc format for the 2018 WTF's.

Bring the seeds down to 16 at the slams.

Add a Grass Court Masters???? Trim the load of Clay tournaments.

 

[Meles]

At this moment they could put a Next Gen-esc format for the 2018 WTF's, maybe with a best of 5 set final as the marquee ending to a marquee tournament.

Bring the seeds down to 16 at the slams.

Add a Grass Court Masters???? Trim the load of Clay tournaments.

I may do a thread on it, but I'd like to see the Milan rules in London pronto. It is the perfect expansion of the test bed and most have complained about WTF for a long time. Without getting into the necessary and gory details, I'd like to see schedule changed so the winner of Milan is the 8th seed at WTF. The rarest of doubles would be to win both events in a single year. Zverev deserves this opportunity next year as he got shafted at Milan this year. Imagine him winning Milan yesterday evening and playing London tonight. Good science would demand they change something between Milan and WTF. If they still go with days off they could make the sets a game longer in London. All five sets matches of course. So many possibilities and I like the WTF field being in flux until Milan is complete.

 

[airchallenge2]

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.

Removing the second serve is a very interesting idea. I would like to see how that would change the game. At least at some experimental tournaments like this Next Gen.

 

[Shaolin]

Removing the second serve is a very interesting idea. I would like to see how that would change the game. At least at some experimental tournaments like this Next Gen.

Horrible idea. Tennis would just be a bunch of rallies. Even less net play than now if thats possible.

 

[-snake-]

Horrible idea. Tennis would just be a bunch of rallies. Even less net play than now if thats possible.

It'd turn the big servers into he-Erranis.

 

[vex]

Goodbye tennis. Not watching after Fed retires. Not one player worth rooting

Sounds like you were more of a bandwagon Fed fan than a tennis fan...

 

[fedtennisphan]

Sounds like you were more of a bandwagon Fed fan than a tennis fan...

Why did you only quote this part? That poster went on to say that Federer was the only player worth rooting for and game is being dumbed down. You don’t have to agree with the sentiment but don’t be deceptive with posting part of the quote.

 

[vex]

Why did you only quote this part? That poster went on to say that Federer was the only player worth rooting for and game is being dumbed down. You don’t have to agree with the sentiment but don’t be deceptive with posting part of the quote.

cmon man, if you are giving up on tennis b/c 1 guy is retiring, regardless of who the guy is, you aren't a real tennis fan. Theres some exciting new talent to follow b/w Shap and Zev. Are the rule changes "meh"? Sure. But not quit the sport bad.

 

[Meles]

Essentially those rules can turn any match into a WTA type of match.

Enjoy.

LOL. Milan was so, so much better than the the first day of WTF.

 

[moon shot]

LOL. Milan was so, so much better than the the first day of WTF.

The first match I watched after Milan was a doubles match which left me wondering how it would translate. Would they get to play three sets vs the five in singles? That would clearly be an improvement over how it is currently played.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

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.

Having watched tennis for a while now - that recordkeeping and those arguments already ARE turned on their heads, and it already is impossible to compare generations. People don't realize that and argue anyway.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

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.

Having watched tennis for a while now - that recordkeeping and those arguments already ARE turned on their heads, and it already is impossible to compare generations. People don't realize that and argue anyway.

 

[TheFifthSet]

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.

Reaslistivally? Wtf was I on???

 

[weelie]

Horrible idea. Tennis would just be a bunch of rallies. Even less net play than now if thats possible.

How about removing the second serve for tiebreaks?

 

[Adv. Edberg]

At this moment they could put a Next Gen-esc format for the 2018 WTF's.

Bring the seeds down to 16 at the slams.

Add a Grass Court Masters???? Trim the load of Clay tournaments.

We dont need less clay. We need less of HC. 2 slams and almost every masters is HC. Maybe bring back carpet?

 

[Adv. Edberg]

At this moment they could put a Next Gen-esc format for the 2018 WTF's.

Bring the seeds down to 16 at the slams.

Add a Grass Court Masters???? Trim the load of Clay tournaments.

We dont need less clay. We need less of HC. 2 slams and almost every masters is HC. Maybe bring back carpet?

 

[canta_Brian]

We dont need less clay. We need less of HC. 2 slams and almost every masters is HC. Maybe bring back carpet?

I guess the difference is that hard courts can be a range of different speeds and bounces. Lumping all hard courts into one category is probably a little bit of an over simplification. The Australian open was probably more similar to Wimbledon than it was too the US open.

There are small variances in how 2 different clay courts will play, but they always favour the same skill set.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

LOL. Milan was so, so much better than the the first day of WTF.

#exosaresomuchbetter

 

[Adv. Edberg]

I guess the difference is that hard courts can be a range of different speeds and bounces. Lumping all hard courts into one category is probably a little bit of an over simplification. The Australian open was probably more similar to Wimbledon than it was too the US open.

There are small variances in how 2 different clay courts will play, but they always favour the same skill set.

Sure, but HC these days goes from medium slow to medium. There are no fast HC today like there was in the 80s and 90s. Pretty much all courts today are similar to each other. Even Wimby was slowed down a lot this year.

 

[canta_Brian]

Sure, but HC these days goes from medium slow to medium. There are no fast HC today like there was in the 80s and 90s. Pretty much all courts today are similar to each other. Even Wimby was slowed down a lot this year.

Agreed. I once played on a wood floor. That was fast!

 

[Shaolin]

How about removing the second serve for tiebreaks?

No need to ruin tiebreaks!

 

[Meles]

Delete

 

[Meles]

#exosaresomuchbetter

From one glorified exho to another right now.

 

[diggler]

I think fast4 tennis is a dumb idea. If you want a faster match then just go with a series of tie breaks. It is quicker and every point counts.

 

[clayqueen]

BBC 2 has just played the responses of some players to the new rules tested at h the NextGen WTF.

Thiem likes the shot clock.

Rafa says having the shot clock with 25 seconds you cannot have the best show possible, but, he says, that's his personal opinion. He says if they want to go forward with it, it's up to them he doesn't care because he's achieved everything he wants to achieve.

Cilic doesn't like the scoring system because there is no chance to come back if you lose your serve, but he likes the shot clock.

Sasha likes the hawkeye line calls throughout the match because it's accurate but he thinks the shot clock shouldn't be so rigid.

Roger says the time clock is OK but does it have to be set like that because it's quite stressful that's why a lot of players are cramping because they are stressed. Roger doesn't like the fast 4 scoring system because there is enough stress in tennis already.