TimeSpiral
Professional
Does Tennis have a problem?
Each poll option suggesting a rule-change will be summarized below, articulating it's primary argument. NOTE: As the host of this thread, I will not be taking a formal position on any of these topics in the OP.
By Time Spiral
I live in the United States, so this perspective is largely influenced by domestic organizations such as the USTA, but tennis is international and I can only imagine that some other countries and regions face similar challenges. There are certainly other important issues that are not represented here.
NOTICE: The summary and the poll options below are summarized from the perspective of their argument, and are not necessarily my position on the matter.
The argument, summarized
Televising tennis is specifically challenging because of the wildly variable time it can take to play a tennis match. The variance in a game lasting 90 seconds, 10 minutes, or 20 minutes is simply too long for producers and carriers to account for. Besides the telecasting issues, the rules of tennis are nebulous and difficult to understand for the uninitiated. Bringing in new spectator fans is important. And finally, best of 5 tie-break sets (or god forbid, the final set being an advantage set) shortens the viable career longevity of professional tennis players.
This article will be openly dismissed by meaning. Ridiculed and derided by others. But perhaps some will use this thread as a venue to express their thoughts, opinions, and challenge themselves to at least consider--good or bad--what's being suggested.
No doubt the above suggestions are controversial, heretical, and will likely insult some who hold traditions rightfully close to their hearts. I love tennis--like all of you--and I would like more people to love the game that we love, and like it or not, it is not thriving like it could. Perhaps it's time some meaningful changes are considered?
These changes do nothing to address the stereotypes and connotations that plague the sport in the United States--that tennis is a rich Country Club-only sport--but that is a conversation for another time.
I did not come up with these suggestions. These are conversations being had by players, pro-shop proprietors, consultants, tournaments directors, governing bodies, and think tanks all over the world. Will any of them ever happen? I don't know.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
Each poll option suggesting a rule-change will be summarized below, articulating it's primary argument. NOTE: As the host of this thread, I will not be taking a formal position on any of these topics in the OP.
By Time Spiral
[above] After the five hour and fifty-three minute 2012 Australian Open Final (Djokovic d Nadal 5–7, 6–4, 6–2, 6–7(5), 7–5), the two ultra-fit champions were literally struggling to stand just moments after the match ended. They were brought chairs and bottles of water to relieve the suffering during the trophy ceremony. Some would argue the message that this sends about the sport.
These topics float around, crop up, die away, and pepper our conversation from time to time, but now I want to do a very informal aggregate of TTW members and their positions.
I live in the United States, so this perspective is largely influenced by domestic organizations such as the USTA, but tennis is international and I can only imagine that some other countries and regions face similar challenges. There are certainly other important issues that are not represented here.
NOTICE: The summary and the poll options below are summarized from the perspective of their argument, and are not necessarily my position on the matter.
The argument, summarized
Televising tennis is specifically challenging because of the wildly variable time it can take to play a tennis match. The variance in a game lasting 90 seconds, 10 minutes, or 20 minutes is simply too long for producers and carriers to account for. Besides the telecasting issues, the rules of tennis are nebulous and difficult to understand for the uninitiated. Bringing in new spectator fans is important. And finally, best of 5 tie-break sets (or god forbid, the final set being an advantage set) shortens the viable career longevity of professional tennis players.
All Professional Matches: no ad scoring.
Eliminating advantage-scoring (the "win by two" convention) will stabilize match-length without the implementation of a game, shot, or match clock. Ad-scoring is a difficult concept to understand for newcomers, especially youth. If both players reach 3 points (Deuce) a deciding point is played and the receiver can choose which court his opponent must serve to.
Grand Slam Matches: Bo3 tie-break sets until finals: Bo5 TB sets.
Winning a grand slam--or multiple slams--is considered the primary goal and ultimate accolade of the elite tennis professional. Winning seven best of five matches in a row, in two weeks, versus the best players in the world is too physically demanding. Having tennis stars winning and competing well in tournaments is good for the sport. Having their body's completely destroyed by the age of 30 is not good for the sport.
Secondly, telecasting best of five matches, where one of the sets is potentially an advantage set, creates unique and challenging problems. The variable length of the match would be stabilized by each round being Bo3 tie-break sets, and the finals being Best of 5. No matter how you dice it, winning seven matches in a row in a Grand Slam draw is the ultimate difficulty level. Retaining the Bo5 format in the finals would create a heightened level of importance, difficulty, and necessary change in strategy.
An alternate form of this position is to eliminate all Best of 5 set matches completely, for all of the same reasons as listed above.
Recreational and professional tennis: change scoring to 0, 1, 2, 3, game.
The in-game scoring convention in tennis is--by definition--nonsensical. For instance: Why are some points worth 15, some worth 10, some worth 1, and why are some of the points worth numbers and others referred to by names like love, deuce, and advantage? 0, 1, 2, 3, game, is simple and unambiguous. This will allow the uninitiated a chance to understand what is happening with minimal education about the scoring system.
ATP Matches: permit change-over coaching.
This will eliminate the elephant in the room that most--if not--all ATP players are being coached against the rules from the stand with hand signals, lip reading, and sometimes just overt coaching.
ConclusionEliminating advantage-scoring (the "win by two" convention) will stabilize match-length without the implementation of a game, shot, or match clock. Ad-scoring is a difficult concept to understand for newcomers, especially youth. If both players reach 3 points (Deuce) a deciding point is played and the receiver can choose which court his opponent must serve to.
Grand Slam Matches: Bo3 tie-break sets until finals: Bo5 TB sets.
Winning a grand slam--or multiple slams--is considered the primary goal and ultimate accolade of the elite tennis professional. Winning seven best of five matches in a row, in two weeks, versus the best players in the world is too physically demanding. Having tennis stars winning and competing well in tournaments is good for the sport. Having their body's completely destroyed by the age of 30 is not good for the sport.
Secondly, telecasting best of five matches, where one of the sets is potentially an advantage set, creates unique and challenging problems. The variable length of the match would be stabilized by each round being Bo3 tie-break sets, and the finals being Best of 5. No matter how you dice it, winning seven matches in a row in a Grand Slam draw is the ultimate difficulty level. Retaining the Bo5 format in the finals would create a heightened level of importance, difficulty, and necessary change in strategy.
An alternate form of this position is to eliminate all Best of 5 set matches completely, for all of the same reasons as listed above.
Recreational and professional tennis: change scoring to 0, 1, 2, 3, game.
The in-game scoring convention in tennis is--by definition--nonsensical. For instance: Why are some points worth 15, some worth 10, some worth 1, and why are some of the points worth numbers and others referred to by names like love, deuce, and advantage? 0, 1, 2, 3, game, is simple and unambiguous. This will allow the uninitiated a chance to understand what is happening with minimal education about the scoring system.
ATP Matches: permit change-over coaching.
This will eliminate the elephant in the room that most--if not--all ATP players are being coached against the rules from the stand with hand signals, lip reading, and sometimes just overt coaching.
This article will be openly dismissed by meaning. Ridiculed and derided by others. But perhaps some will use this thread as a venue to express their thoughts, opinions, and challenge themselves to at least consider--good or bad--what's being suggested.
No doubt the above suggestions are controversial, heretical, and will likely insult some who hold traditions rightfully close to their hearts. I love tennis--like all of you--and I would like more people to love the game that we love, and like it or not, it is not thriving like it could. Perhaps it's time some meaningful changes are considered?
These changes do nothing to address the stereotypes and connotations that plague the sport in the United States--that tennis is a rich Country Club-only sport--but that is a conversation for another time.
I did not come up with these suggestions. These are conversations being had by players, pro-shop proprietors, consultants, tournaments directors, governing bodies, and think tanks all over the world. Will any of them ever happen? I don't know.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
