Does Anyone Else Find Matches Boring (but not tennis)?


You know, I read a book by one of tennis's pioneers, and he agreed with you that it should only allow one serve. In the earliest days of the sport, someone would fault and they'd just say, "Oh, that's okay honey, just try again." It was never intended for players to turn the serve into a weapon.

When I play tennis I'm hoping to have some fun, not just get a win. I've tried to convince my fellow players to try "one serve" tennis, but they won't go for it.
just watched the opelka/kyrios match from the other night @ toronto -- picked it up at 3-2 in the 2nd set. could barely get to the end of the set. i think there were like three rallies past 4 shots the whole time...i mean aces are fun but sheesh.


I think the obvious fix, which I think televised tennis must adopt if it wants to survive, is to switch to 1 serve (instead of 2). That way, there wouldn't be nearly as many serve return errors, you wouldn't have to wait 5s after someone faults for their second serve, and you'd only have to get 1 ball to start the point instead of two. Watching Olympic Beach Volleyball renewed my faith that 1 serve is the way: the game is just so much more watchable without all the standing around faulting, and serve return errors aren't very common.
I agree with going to one serve. I actually think it would be way better, but people are just used to 2 serves and dont like change. I play platform tennis and they only have one serve and that is why I started thinking about it. I believe it would be a very positive change for rec and pro play. I know some people like watching big first serves, but I believe the strength of tennis to be the back and forth of a point not just will he/she hit a huge serve that the other player cant get back. When I worked for the USTA they had an internal statistic that out of an hour of playing rec tennis, you are only playing for 6-15 minutes (6 is beginner, 15 is more advanced) They rest of the time you are picking up balls and things. Now I know that just going to one serve would not suddenly make that to 30 minutes of the hour or anything but I think anything to improve that would be good.

Moon Shooter

I think having two serves makes the game more multidimensional. If there was only one serve then the serve and serve return would lose quite a bit of significance. I mostly do clinics where the ball is fed in. But when I switch to a match I feel like the serve and return adds new aspects of the game that are missing in clinics.

Some players are very slow getting the ball and serving and that isn't great, but usually it is not that much of an issue.


highly doubt tennis would be made more entertaining if only one serve was allowed and suddenly all serves on tour took a 10-20mph downgrade. watching a player pull off a clutch first serve, or risking a fast second serve, on crucial break points or match points, is one of the most exciting parts of watching live tennis - watching the player's face trying to decide the best strategy to stay alive.
Wouldn't "risking a fast second serve" be essentially the same situation as allowing only one serve? Players would have to decide when to put more heat on that serve given the single opportunity. With a single serve the risk-reward still is a big part of the equation.

And admittedly nothing is more boring than watching a server fight off triple break point with 3 straight aces. So anticlimactic as the opponent never even got a chance to touch the ball.

In my opinion, the service ace should be a rare event. Not as rare as a hole in one but maybe more like a HR in baseball. Nobody should hit 20 Aces in a match. More like 3.

Advantages to a single serve:
1) Allows more break opportunities for opponents so being down two breaks isn't an automatic loss of set
2) Allows the tennis governing bodies to speed courts back up to bring in more styles of tennis than the baseline topspin game
3) Reduces a major advantage of height so more shorter players can reach higher levels

1) Fewer aces and good bye servebots


When we hit for practice, after 20 minutes rallying we play a match to keep things more interesting, and often it would be in fast format, with one serve and no advantage. You still try to win a point but are given fewer opportunities. I find simple rallying boring, there should always be points to win. Sometimes we play points with restrictions - no point construction until ball makes 20 return trips, or points have to be finished at the net or they don't count, whoever scores more wins. But we play normal matches too. They are the reason we practice