DOES TENNIS NEED BIG RULE CHANGES?

blablavla

Professional
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

Professional
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

Professional
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

Professional
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:
Top