DOES TENNIS NEED BIG RULE CHANGES?

blablavla

Hall of Fame
Eliminate 2nd serve.

That's it. That alone would fix a lot of things.
you are too obsessed with this idea while it is a too big change, so probably won't happen any time soon.
think as well that recreational players play same rules and same court dimension like the pros.
on recreational level, playing 1 service only will increase the frustration level and might in theory endanger the popularity of the sport at a global level.
 

Johnatan

New User
Some rule changes I would suggest:

- ohbh players should start each game with 15:0 advantage... Beautiful ohbh starts with 30:0 advantage...

- Laver cup to be 5th slam, retroactively

- Dirt is not a surface, ban it from calendar, erase all results retroactively

- frame touch which launches ball on upper part of stadium should be considered winner

- 40:15, with two match point, is auto win... No need for another point...
Ahahaha yes you’re right Dirt is not a surface to play tennis on ! Who woke up a morning spilled a bag of sand in their living room, slid and fell on it and be like : WOW That is a GREAT surface to play tennis
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
you are too obsessed with this idea while it is a too big change, so probably won't happen any time soon.
think as well that recreational players play same rules and same court dimension like the pros.
on recreational level, playing 1 service only will increase the frustration level and might in theory endanger the popularity of the sport at a global level.
You are obsessed with comparing pro tennis with amateur tennis, which is a far more useless and silly obsession.

This is what... the 115th time you compare the incomparable?
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
So the police are fans of criminals because they follow their activities?

Great logic from you... yet again.
it all depends on point of view.
to my knowledge, police people receive a salary for following criminal activities.
do you get paid for following my activity? no? then you're my fan :-D
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
it all depends on point of view.
to my knowledge, police people receive a salary for following criminal activities.
do you get paid for following my activity? no? then you're my fan :-D
So historians are all fans of Hitler and Stalin because they follow their activities?

Just one more example to make you understand how flawed your logic is.

Being paid or not is irrelevant, it's like saying "yeah, but cops wear blue and you wear green".
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
So historians are all fans of Hitler and Stalin because they follow their activities?

Just one more example to make you understand how flawed your logic is.

Being paid or not is irrelevant, it's like saying "yeah, but cops wear blue and you wear green".
it might come as a surprise to you, but yes, historians as well often follow such personalities because they have to produce some output, otherwise they don't get salaries, or honorary for writing books or other forms of reward.
But yeah, I can see that you and logic... I'll better skip this part.

congrats keyboard warrior.
you're getting better at typing countless words in texts that shall look smart but in fact bear little to no sense.

P.S.
don't have time to debate with you, as it is a waste of time.
so, I'll ignore your posts till they start bearing meaning
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
it might come as a surprise to you, but yes, historians as well often follow such personalities because they have to produce some output, otherwise they don't get salaries, or honorary for writing books or other forms of reward.
But yeah, I can see that you and logic... I'll better skip this part.

congrats keyboard warrior.
you're getting better at typing countless words in texts that shall look smart but in fact bear little to no sense.

P.S.
don't have time to debate with you, as it is a waste of time.
so, I'll ignore your posts till they start bearing meaning
So ALL historians get paid?

What about hobby historians? They don't exist? Student historians?

(Don't even try to refute this, coz you keep comparing tennis pros with tennis amateurs hence amateur historians are the same as pro historians according to your logic...)
 

Lotus_Island

New User
So ALL historians get paid?

What about hobby historians? They don't exist? Student historians?

(Don't even try to refute this, coz you keep comparing tennis pros with tennis amateurs hence amateur historians are the same as pro historians according to your logic...)

It's all the same. Most history can be found on wiki anyway.
 

davced1

Professional
Tennis and new rules

The best idea is this: Services would be allowed from a level with the shoulder at the highest. That was in use in the very beginning of tennis. The overhead serve was unknown. Back to the roots. Players are much taller nowadays!

My 2nd best proposal is smaller service courts like this:
What about the most obvious change nobody mentioned yet. No jumping on serve as it used to be.
 
2 points for volley winner ...
Be careful! There could be even forces who want some kind of spurt laps as in cycling. For example...[deleted]. I shall delete my example after a while!

Anyway if your volley is a game point at the same where do you put an extra point?
 
Last edited:

van_Loederen

Professional
Good points! But as to this:
"tall players also tend to getting more tired in rallies than mid-sized players.
my main concern with the higher net is that it may lessen that last aspect."

It may be true of current players, but in a long run, literally, your argument is not valid. I believe that you understand!
i meant by making rallying relatively harder for mid-sized players.
you said that the effect on the rallies would be small, but would that still be the case at top 50 level?
net play on the whole would become harder as the defender would get more time. that includes drop shots and even slices, while the latter would cause the tall players fewer problems again.
therefore it would become harder to move tall players around.
shorter balls and hitting from inside the court (inclusive applying power) would become relatively easier for taller players due to their strike zone advantage.
fore baseline exchanges the effect of the higher net would be smallest, at least nominally, but would keeping the tall player at the baseline be enough? they have greater reach and are getting better and better at lateral movement nowadays.

they are actually also better at applying power even from the baseline, but with that the higher net would indeed help, i guess.

i think that higher net would foster top spin baseline tennis even further.
it would have helped a topspin monster like Nadal against Soderling at RG, but i doubt it would help many players against Zverev et al on hardcourt.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Some rule changes I would suggest:

- ohbh players should start each game with 15:0 advantage... Beautiful ohbh starts with 30:0 advantage...

- Laver cup to be 5th slam, retroactively

- Dirt is not a surface, ban it from calendar, erase all results retroactively

- frame touch which launches ball on upper part of stadium should be considered winner

- 40:15, with two match point, is auto win... No need for another point...
Laver Cup is meaningless TEAM exhibition, not a singles slam.
 

Sathya

New User
Regarding the idea of eliminating the second serve, I feel that service is a much more challenging shot for players compared to other shots in Tennis because the permissible target range of service is much less where as it is comparatively much larger for other shots. What I mean is that, for a service to be valid, the player must land that shot inside a small service box where as for other shots to be valid, the player can land the shot anywhere in the entire tennis court giving him a much larger target range. So I feel that it is much more difficult for anyone to hit a valid service compared to other shots. Therefore considering this fact, I feel that it is fair for players to be given two chances of hitting a valid serve rather than just one.
 
I think there should be somewhat better prize winning distribution to encourage more players to go pro. It’s way too top heavy imo. The top players take in money from endorsements and tourneys, while players even 100-200 have a difficult time even staying in the black. Other than that, keep the classic tennis rules. I don’t think we should even play lets or go to one serve. In due time, perhaps there should be some more restrictions on racquet size/tech to prioritize skill. I can’t imagine the racquets they could come up with in 25 years from now. Do not adjust court dimensions or net size. Perhaps add in some more grass and indoor tourneys and have more surface speed versatility.
 
Last edited:
Someone may wonder why I have at least two pretty big rule proposals at the same time.

In a sense they belong together, in a sense independent of each other. Tennis authorities do not seem to have any good plans on how to reduce the importance of the service in today's tennis. That's why we had to try to come up with one.

They only deal with their point calculations. Had to try to come up with something better in that relation, too.

In my opinion, the reduction of the enormous service advantage must not be slowed down by the fact that at the same time the matches will be longer. Therefore, there was also a need to improve the scoring system. The no-deuce does it.

I would estimate, for example, that the narrower service court in the middle would increase with more rallies the length of the matches as much as the no-deuce shortens them. Therefore, the two belong together even though no-deuce does not require any court changes.
 

GuyForget

New User
why? we should be goin the other way and bringin back indoor carpet. who knows how much Isner+ Raonic would have won on this ...
 
why? we should be goin the other way and bringin back indoor carpet. who knows how much Isner+ Raonic would have won on this ...
Certainly less. They would have got their service ball quite often back almost in one second. That's why they would have been in a great hurry with their 2nd shot. Furthermore there would have been some kind of natural upper limit for their hardest serves. They would have needed something else to succeed. Maybe skill.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
I think there should be somewhat better prize winning distribution to encourage more players to go pro. It’s way too top heavy imo. The top players take in money from endorsements and tourneys, while players even 100-200 have a difficult time even staying in the black. Other than that, keep the classic tennis rules. I don’t think we should even play lets or go to one serve. In due time, perhaps there should be some more restrictions on racquet size/tech to prioritize skill. I can’t imagine the racquets they could come up with in 25 years from now. Do not adjust court dimensions or net size. Perhaps add in some more grass and indoor tourneys and have more surface speed versatility.
Sad that I can only like this once.

(y)
 
You can be right with the higher net. That favours tall players even in rallies but only little. Much worse is of course that tall players would suffer from the higher net much less than mid-sized players when serving .

The same thing with the service line closer to the net.
However, some time ago I was investigating what should be the height of the net or the position of the service line so that the present player's serve angles would be the same ones as 137 years ago in Wimbledon. The height of the net should be increased by 8 cm without touching the service line. On the contrary, the service line should be moved 85 cm towards the net without touching the net.

Everyone knows, of course, that the court is divided by the service line. The front court is 7 yd and the back court 6 yd. By changing the numbers, the front court with the service boxes shortens suitably.

Of course, one could also consider retaining the current service line for recreational players and women. And only pros (male) would use the service line which is one (1) yd closer to the net. Anyhow raising the net is worse than modifications with the service line!
 
However, some time ago I was investigating what should be the height of the net or the position of the service line so that the present player's serve angles would be the same ones as 137 years ago in Wimbledon. The height of the net should be increased by 8 cm without touching the service line. On the contrary, the service line should be moved 85 cm towards the net without touching the net.

Everyone knows, of course, that the court is divided by the service line. The front court is 7 yd and the back court 6 yd. By changing the numbers, the front court with the service boxes shortens suitably.

Of course, one could also consider retaining the current service line for recreational players and women. And only pros (male) would use the service line which is one (1) yd closer to the net. Anyhow raising the net is worse than modifications with the service line!
Man, whoever said raising the net is nuts. That would change the entire landscape of the game.
 

morten

Hall of Fame
Higher net is a good idea. More volley because not so easy to pass. Just look at volleyball ha ha. Now it is toomuch like table tennis but on a ground
 
Don't be sure! I don't believe that the higher net would increase volleying although "not so easy to pass" because the attack player needs always his approach shot. The higher net can make it much more difficult. Why to bother! Maybe, even less volley playing than today.

Besides it favours the tallest players unfairly. Furthernore, we already have badminton.

But most of all, the fact that the players, that is to say, all of us, have become accustomed over the years, even decades, to having the net at that altitude and nothing else, makes that change affecting every stroke simply impossible!
 
Last edited:
It is often claimed that it is difficult for the modern man to concentrate on "old-fashioned" tennis. They claim that there are too many long periods of time when nothing significant happens. The so-called important points should be more frequent. They also claim that television companies would like to change tennis in that direction.

The same song was sung in the 1990s, at least as far as television needs are concerned. The lengths of matches were difficult to predict as always before, too. At that time was invented new scoring. The no-ad rule was considered to please television rights holders by making match times more predictable.

For some reason, the actual tennis people were not at all enthusiastic about the idea at the turn of the millenium. The no-ad-rule still lives in some way. Generally, 20 years later, the idea is still justified by the needs of television. There are enourmously different channels and media available today than at the turn of the millennium, so the evidence of the 1990s argument is not valid at the beginning of the 2020s.

The phrase I mentioned at the beginning, about the modern man's poor ability to concentrate on long-lasting and slow-moving events, may be true on a general level. However, I dare to say that the one who first came to think that because of the smartphones traditional tennis is suffering, is either a pathological liar or a fool! It is only in this 2010's that it has become possible to "jump" out of the audience during game pauses or other poor moments. He or she can easily visit biathlon at Holmenkollen or watch an unfinished Norma Shearer's latest movie. Does our example person require some sprint tennis (or his/her colleaque at Holmenkollen)?

The explanation for the failure of traditional tennis in the modern digital world is thus quite misguided. That world is alive and well only with its products. If their quality is compromised for the imagined needs of this new world, they (whoever they are) are lost.
 
The only rule change the tennis need is going back to the root: the continuous advantage set for all 3 sets, meaning, servebot will be too tired for their next match if their match is 12-10, 13-15, 11-9 and will have to play again the next day, increasing the chance of being fatigue or injured. Surely, it will ruin the order of play but it needs to be done. If you have noticed, the servebot didn't exist back in that era when there was no tiebreaker. If the servebot keeps being eliminated early rounds, their ranking will suffer and is taking a serious toll on his body for not able to break others' service games, forcing all players to focus on all aspect of their game, not just service games only and hoping for tiebreaks.
 
The only rule change the tennis need is going back to the root: the continuous advantage set for all 3 sets, meaning, servebot will be too tired for their next match if their match is 12-10, 13-15, 11-9 and will have to play again the next day, increasing the chance of being fatigue or injured. Surely, it will ruin the order of play but it needs to be done. If you have noticed, the servebot didn't exist back in that era when there was no tiebreaker. If the servebot keeps being eliminated early rounds, their ranking will suffer and is taking a serious toll on his body for not able to break others' service games, forcing all players to focus on all aspect of their game, not just service games only and hoping for tiebreaks.
Well that won't happen as they just changed the rules to do the opposite.

But I get your point to some extent, but even the winner if it's not the serve bot will be tired next round. I think for the finals of a slam you played it out, otherwise I am fine with it.

At first I saw it like hockey where you have a shootout during regular season but overtime in the playoffs. But the more I think about it, it is more like soccer and at a certain point enough is enough. In these matches, breaks are very rare in most cases, which means it could get out of hand.
 

Sudacafan

G.O.A.T.
Tennis and new rules

The best idea is this: Services would be allowed from a level with the shoulder at the highest. That was in use in the very beginning of tennis. The overhead serve was unknown. Back to the roots. Players are much taller nowadays!

My 2nd best proposal is smaller service courts like this:

My 3rd best idea "to slow down the game" is to paint service boxes of hard courts with rougher sand paint than the rest of the court. Then slowing would concern only a little while when serving (exactly before returning!). Nothing eise would change but the returner could get hold of the fast serve more easily.

My 4th idea would be to move the service line in the direction of the net with 1 yd. The old service line would be retained for recreational players and women.
No
 
I have introduced in this thread four different ways to decrease the signifigance of the service.

There is still at least one. It is not my innovation. I quote:

'The pro's started using the VASSS (Van Alen Simplified Scoring System) and one of the rules was that the server had to stand further behind the baseline (3 ft). The inventor wanted more baseline rallies because he thought S&V was boring. Pancho Gonzalez gave an amazingly prescient quote:

"If people are bored with a game that has too much emphasis on serving and volleys, then just as many people will be bored with a game that concentrates on ground strokes"

This was in 1965.'
---------------------
That line was called 'Van Alen Line' (VAL). At the same time Bob Dylan sang how "THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN' ". VAL would be useful nowadays.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
The first sensible thing in this thread is a quote from almost 50 years ago.

Pancho Gonzalez gave an amazingly prescient quote:

"If people are bored with a game that has too much emphasis on serving and volleys, then just as many people will be bored with a game that concentrates on ground strokes"

This was in 1965.
Variety is the key.

I used to love watching tennis, because I could watch quality matches and turn if off when the clay court season was on.

Now I turn it all off. Tennis has become as boring as soccer.
 
The 1960s was undoubtedly the golden age of s & v, and the points were short. There was a need to try to extend them...also with peculiar ideas... But it was the crude time that made that kind of changes soon unnecessary.

Now, in top tennis, the distribution of strokes of points is as follows: one third of points means 0-1 legitimate strokes, one third 2-4 strokes and also 33℅ five or more. The distribution would be ideal (to my mind) if the first group had only a sixth part of the points, as well as the second but third 67℅, which is twice the current situation. I want to remind that the most interesting s&v point consists five strokes, not less.

The clear majority of points would be five or more strokes. Then there would be enough of room for variation, even during the same point.
 
Well that won't happen as they just changed the rules to do the opposite.

But I get your point to some extent, but even the winner if it's not the serve bot will be tired next round. I think for the finals of a slam you played it out, otherwise I am fine with it.

At first I saw it like hockey where you have a shootout during regular season but overtime in the playoffs. But the more I think about it, it is more like soccer and at a certain point enough is enough. In these matches, breaks are very rare in most cases, which means it could get out of hand.
You know, if servebot has to play long matches and lose because he couldn't break their serves and it's first round over a long season, it's not sustainable, and inevitable his ranking will fall out of top 100, and that's including challengers, you weed out the servebot that toll all week only for them to lose first round because he couldn't even break their serve and would just rely on tiebreaks to win matches. The bottom line is that it is not sustainable over a long run because eventually his body will break down. I would agree that players who is not servebot will tie tired for next round but you ought to weed them out before it becomes an infestation full of servebots in the ATP all because of the tiebreaks. If you are a world class serve like Dr. Ivo, Isner, or Raonic starting out in the futures/challengers with no tiebreaks, I honestly don't think that they will make it to ATP tour or barely made it but is not good enough because of their returning games is abysmal. You can only hold serves for too long and your arm will get tired while other players may have an easier time of holding their serves as well. If your return games is at about 8-10% and you are a top 20 player for the whole season, that tells me that you are winning your matches through tiebreaks. That means, playing with guys in first few rounds against outside top 30 and still wins your match on tiebreaks, meaning, you doesn't deserve to be on the tour. The guys outside top 30 is not able to break their serve and only majority of top 10 is able to break 8-10 % of servebot for the whole season, not guys from outside top 30. The only reason the ATP allowed tiebreaks in the first place to shorten the match but it was a double whammy for tennis as whole, servebot came in scene in 80's and 90's with better racket technology.

Continuous advantage set forces you to concentrate on your overall game, rather than focusing on service games with tiebreaks in the equation because of your superior serve motions.
 
Servebots and baseline bots..... I don't know who they are. Every pro player is good in serving and bad in returning. OK. there are three very tall players, lets call them 'servebots' if it is a useful expression.

But on the other side there are no baseline bots. Even the best returners havn't won more than about 33℅ of their return games. No doubt they are better in serving than in returning. Still they are no servebots.

A tennis player can be a bad returner even if he is the best. However, a good server even if he is the worst.
 
Last edited:
Now, in top tennis, the distribution of strokes of points is as follows: one third of points means 0-1 legitimate strokes, one third 2-4 strokes and also 33℅ five or more. The distribution would be ideal (to my mind) if the first group had only a sixth part of the points, as well as the second but third 67℅, which is twice the current situation. I want to remind that the most interesting s&v point consists five strokes, not less.

The clear majority of points would be five or more strokes. Then there would be enough of room for variation, even during the same point.
What, then, would it mean for the length of the match or the set if the number of points of at least five strokes doubled to two thirds of all points, and only one third remained at 0 ... 4 strokes?

Here I have presented in another thread the no-deuce-rule which would shorten after six points the game still in progress, at 40-all, but not in such a fatal way as the no-ad rule.

These long games consist on an average of 10 points at the highest level. The no-deuce rule I use would be on an average about 8 points. And the no-ad rule would finish all the games right after the seventh point. It can be seen immediately that the no-deuce would reduce the time it takes to play overtime games and reduce the points played by an average of 20℅. However, the distributions of traditional point calculations are difficult to estimate "on an average"! The no-ad shortens to 30℅.

But what about the set if actual ball rallies would become more common in a thoughtful way? Number of strokes? Playing time?

Perhaps later I shall answer...
 
Last edited:
What, then, would it mean for the length of the match or the set if the number of points of at least five strokes doubled to two thirds of all points, and only one third remained at 0 ... 4 strokes?

Here I have presented in another thread the no-deuce-rule which would shorten after six points the game still in progress, at 40-all, but not in such a fatal way as the no-ad rule.

These long games consist on an average of 10 points at the highest level. The no-deuce rule I use would be on an average about 8 points. And the no-ad rule would finish all the games right after the seventh point. It can be seen immediately that the no-deuce would reduce the time it takes to play overtime games and reduce the points played by an average of 20℅. However, the distributions of traditional point calculations are difficult to estimate "on an average"! The no-ad shortens to 30℅.

But what about the set if actual ball rallies would become more common in a thoughtful way? Number of strokes? Playing time?
The maximum length of sets would increase from 50 minutes only with two or three minutes (5℅) if the ball rallies are allowed to increase as I have told. So it takes as much as a hundred strokes (40℅) more per set. However, the shorter scoring system would alone save twice the same (no-deuce) or slightly more (no-ad) time.

Thus the net effect is in every case shorter matches. Tennis is really a lot of waiting and different preparation for beginning the next point. It doesn't matter much to the total time whether there are 2 or 6 strokes within each point! How many points are played is entirely a different matter.
 
I have introduced in this thread four different ways to decrease the signifigance of the service.

There is still at least one. It is not my innovation. I quote:

'The pro's started using the VASSS (Van Alen Simplified Scoring System) and one of the rules was that the server had to stand further behind the baseline (3 ft). The inventor wanted more baseline rallies because he thought S&V was boring. Pancho Gonzalez gave an amazingly prescient quote:

"If people are bored with a game that has too much emphasis on serving and volleys, then just as many people will be bored with a game that concentrates on ground strokes"

This was in 1965.'
---------------------
That line was called 'Van Alen Line' (VAL). At the same time Bob Dylan sang how "THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN' ". VAL would be useful nowadays.
I almost forgot one, and much newer than the Van Alen line. It is from the early millennium: "Stopping the Rocket Men: Are Big Balls the Answer to Tennis Aces? By Will Tidey for CNN"

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/tennis/03/25/tennis.fastest.serve/index.html

The writing is from 2011.
And it ends in submission as if there were no other alternative. So there are at least five of them taking the above 1960s innovation into account. The bigger balls would be a worse solution than a higher net (alternative 6).

Will Tidey:
'Forget "New balls, please" -- the call for the next generation could well be, "Bigger balls, please."'
 
Top