DOES TENNIS NEED BIG RULE CHANGES?

pcft369

New User
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.
Wow, all of these are incredibly dumb. Good job!
 

a10best

Hall of Fame
1. Only 1 let serve. the next serve that touches net is a live ball.
2. no tossing serve and catching it more than once in a game, and no more than twice in a set (eff the sun and fans)
3. If rally goes beyond 24 shots, person who wins it get two points.
4. if you lose a challenge on a ball that is 12 inches out, you lose two points
5. tweener winners means you win point and the opposing server gets 1 serve, not two chances.
6. tweener misses entire court of opponent, you lose two points
7. two aces out wide at 120mph+ consecutively gets three points; ability to save for next game if you had 30 when you hit aces
8. If you can mimic rafa's serve ritual and grunt like Sharapova on ground srokes and on very first serve, automatic 30 points if you win first point of service game

-- Like someone said earlier; at 40:15 match point on your serve, ...the match is over you win.
 
Last edited:

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
1. All lets are faults.

2. Catching a tossed serve is a fault.

1. Only 1 let serve. the next serve that touches net is a live ball.
2. no tossing serve and catching it more than once in a game, and no more than twice in a set (eff the sun and fans)
 
This is a part of Will Palmer's original text (The link is in my 1st message in this thread.). It includes fine thinking but to my mind: Where is a beef? (the question: Does Tennis Need Drastic Change?)
------------------------
"The question is, do the rule changes increase the excitement for the modern viewer?

If we’re looking at even more radical changes then you will normally see ideas that are designed to make rallies longer and take away the massive advantage the serve gives players.

Making the net higher.
Regulations to take racket and string technology backwards.


Does Tennis Need Drastic Change?

People are so worried about the growth of tennis, but my question is, does the sport have to go through continued and sustained growth? If it drops in popularity for a bit while the sport resets itself after the Federer and co years is that such a terrible thing?

Like any sport, tennis is going to have its ups and downs in popularity, and yet it finds itself in a very healthy position today. Yes, society is changing, but will tennis benefit from appeasing modern preferences, or is it better served to continue to challenge people as it has since its conception?

Sport isn’t just a regular part of life, it’s something that offers an escape whilst allowing us to challenge ourselves in all sorts of different ways. Admittedly, I’m biased here, but one of the greatest challenges there is in sport is winning a Grand Slam, so why would we drastically change it?

After all, it’s tennis in its current form that has brought us the Federer, Nadal, Djokovic era, it brought us the McEnroe vs Borg tiebreak and it brought us the Federer vs Nadal Wimbledon final.

Despite all the magic moments are we going to make big changes because society demands instant gratification or are we going to continue to show the virtues of patience, grit, determination, and concentration that the very best portray?"
-------------
 

chjtennis

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.
These changes will kill tennis. It's great as it is.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
We could see 30 points more rallies (at least 5 strokes) in a long set. Is it 200 strokes more per set than today? Quite lively death, I would say....
So you want boring game of brick walls? I actually would love to see faster court and faster conditions so the player who initiates the aggressive play gets rewarded more. I don't mind current level of serve aces.
 
You may not know that the ideal amount of strokes in S&V tennis is five. The number of these points would double.

It is of course a matter of taste if somebody likes more aces and double faults than living playing.
 
The dumbest rules are 2nd serve, and needing a 2-something difference for EVERYTHING, in games, in sets, in tie-breaks...

In basketball a team can win 93-92 and it's still a win. But somehow in tennis there HAS to be this DUMB 2-difference thing to ENSURE that the better player wins. Which means less upsets, more tedium.

That needs to change. And banishing the 2nd serve.
 
the courts are never going to change.
The tennis court was only a human invention for humans at that time and the result of many compromises 150 years ago.

Rackets and players have changed, balls have changed at least in color, court surfaces have changed. Even the outfits have changed. The rules have also been changed.

All in all, in 150 years the whole world has changed "little". Archimedes once said that everything else changes but not the numbers and the relationships between them. If he were still alive, he would probably be reminded that the dimensions of the service areas of the tennis courts are also unchanged ....
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
The tennis court was only a human invention for humans at that time and the result of many compromises 150 years ago.

Rackets and players have changed, balls have changed at least in color, court surfaces have changed. Even the outfits have changed. The rules have also been changed.

All in all, in 150 years the whole world has changed "little". Archimedes once said that everything else changes but not the numbers and the relationships between them. If he were still alive, he would probably be reminded that the dimensions of the service areas of the tennis courts are also unchanged ....
I admire your dedication, man.
 

WarrenMP

Professional
I wouldn't change anything. I would just add more fun tournaments to draw non-tennis fans. There could be an all star week. There could be an accurate serving comp. A overhead smash competition. This is where a player could do something like a 360 O/H smash or something. Other events that are fun as well.
 
That needs to change. And banishing the 2nd serve.
It is possible but only if the service boxes would be moved to the backcourt. Otherwise the one and only serve is too stressing for the server and too easy for the returner!

Short review: Yes, you also need to lift the net in that situation, maybe as much as 40 cm.
 
Last edited:

Bluefan75

Professional
Why not a simple experiment first: one hand on the racquet to hit a shot. It would seem to me guys would come to the net a little more because most backhands would not be nearly as good.

The 2HBH can be almost as effective as a forehand, especially in the context of keeping a guy from coming to net. Let's see if people can play a 1HBH.
 

bobtodd

Rookie
Take away the lefty advantage by reversing the order for serving. Make them serve to the ad side first, then the duece side.
also, I Agee with eliminating the second serve. It works for most other sports with nets.
 
1) You want difficulties to follow the game (!).

2) Only one serve ball would mean that the tallest players would get a nice present, unfair.
 
We could see 30 points more rallies (at least 5 strokes) in a long set. Is it 200 strokes more per set than today? Quite lively death, I would say....
Maybe some clarification needed:
Let's suppose our players play one long set (90 points). In the current situation, they can be considered a distribution: 30 points are played with 0 or 1 legal strokes, 30 points with 2, 3 or 4 strokes and the remaining 30 points with at least five strokes. This could result in a total of 320 strokes. The set duration would be approximately one hour.

Then let's imagine a match where players have better access to the serve ball. The same 90 points could be distributed as follows: 15 points 0 or 1 stroke, 15 points 2, 3 or 4 strokes and 60 points at least 5 strokes. The total amount of strokes would be about 480. That is 160 shots more than the 1st example (or 50% more).

If that 320 stroke set took an hour, then the 480 stroke set might take only four minutes longer. And using the no-deuce score I have presented here the players would play 480 strokes even faster than the 320 strokes played in today's reality. However, there would be actual live tennis half more!
 

canta_Brian

Semi-Pro
1. All lets are faults.

2. Catching a tossed serve is a fault.
I’d rather see lets being played than be faults if a change is really required. That way they are at least the same as any other point of the match when the ball hits the net and goes over.
 
It is possible but only if the service boxes would be moved to the backcourt. Otherwise the one and only serve is too stressing for the server and too easy for the returner!

Short review: Yes, you also need to lift the net in that situation, maybe as much as 40 cm.
Why complicate? If the serving is too stressful for the server it will be for the returner too in the next game!

AND we get less servebots, less boring one-shot points.
 

Bluefan75

Professional
Of course they can play tennis that way, but worse. Who would be interested in bad tennis?
Who says it's bad tennis? They will have to adjust their tactics. Defense as a complete strategy would be decreased significantly. They can't just hit it back and wait for the other guy to make the mistake.

Just because they suck at 1HBH does not make for bad tennis, it just makes them bad tennis players if they can't adapt, and others will take their place. But there will be more strategic options available...
 

Cortana

Hall of Fame
- Tiebreaks in all sets of all tournaments.
- Lets are in and live.
- No linesmen, just the hawk-eye and a sound effect when the ball is out. No challenges anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bud

Bud

Bionic Poster
Wood racquets only and no poly strings.
There should be one 500 level tournament a year where the players must use a wood frame and gut strings. Points double for the tournament to encourage participation.
 
We need round robin grand slams and replace all deciding sets with match tiebreaks.
It could not be any GRAND Slam without at least 16 players, which is still only one eighth of the current number of players. Using the Round Robin draw, 16 players should play together 120 matches during two weeks. So there would be eight matches per day and everybody has one match in every day.

What a big job for players and viewers! Impossible.
 
Only good things can happen from removing lets.

@Markus Kaila idea that some slam is going to be decided by a net cord dribble is really far fetched. You almost never see lets dribble over as it is so the chances of it happening specifically on a championship point are going to be very slim.

Eliminating lets will speed the game up a lot and also make it more exciting, to watch and play both. This rule change really needs to happen.
The most supported proposal for a rule change seems to be "get rids of lets". That's not a counter-suggestion to my message #1, but one of the NextGen rules.

I have already expressed my opinion on possible drawbacks concerning at least tennis without the umpire. Besides, and of course, my example about the peculiar ace in the end of the GS final is quite theoretical.

But what are the benefits then? Speeding up the game? Apparently, there is a lot of faith in it. How would the current situation change if there were no lets on serve? Nowadays in the long sets are played maybe 90 points. The second serve begins perhaps one third of the points, something 20-40 times.

The let serve is some kind of "unofficial" second serve (just like that!). How many of them are there? I probably overestimate when writing here five in one set. If the "right" second serves would take five minutes (=30*10s 2nd serves) in a set, accepting the let serve would save time one tiny minute per set and per hour!

I don't think that one minute is worth the rule change. But if that is what some say, then I won't bother resisting such a small thing. No doubt it would be the MNRCOAT (most negligible rule change of all time)!
 

HuusHould

Professional
Im sure someones mentioned not being allowed to catch your ball toss as a potential rule change!? The only issue being loud noises during the toss. One interesting old rule Im told existed was that you had to serve with your feet on the ground behind the baseline, going back to this would go a long way toward stifling "servebots" advantage.
 
Last edited:

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
The most supported proposal for a rule change seems to be "get rids of lets". That's not a counter-suggestion to my message #1, but one of the NextGen rules.

I have already expressed my opinion on possible drawbacks concerning at least tennis without the umpire. Besides, and of course, my example about the peculiar ace in the end of the GS final is quite theoretical.

But what are the benefits then? Speeding up the game? Apparently, there is a lot of faith in it. How would the current situation change if there were no lets on serve? Nowadays in the long sets are played maybe 90 points. The second serve begins perhaps one third of the points, something 20-40 times.

The let serve is some kind of "unofficial" second serve (just like that!). How many of them are there? I probably overestimate when writing here five in one set. If the "right" second serves would take five minutes (=30*10s 2nd serves) in a set, accepting the let serve would save time one tiny minute per set and per hour!

I don't think that one minute is worth the rule change. But if that is what some say, then I won't bother resisting such a small thing. No doubt it would be the MNRCOAT (most negligible rule change of all time)!
Lets are just really annoying and it does take time. Sometimes there are 2 in a row. Or sometimes it's a let, then a fault, then 2nd serve...the whole process is painfully slow. Playing the lets would add in an element of excitement because random situations would occur where the returner has to get forward and play a transition shot.

So it speeds up the game and adds some exciting points as well.
 
Im sure someones mentioned not being allowed to catch your ball toss as a potential rule change!? The only issue being loud noises during the toss.
A part of the case list below the SERVICE FAULT is (ITF): "A player, who tosses the ball and then decides not to hit it, is allowed to catch the ball with the hand or the racket, or to let the ball bounce."

We can quite well call it the let toss because we have also the let serve. It was a surprise that in this thread, for example, it hasn't at all been suggested to remove the let toss, but to remove the let serve a lot of times.

I already estimated that removing the let serve will speed up the game only one minute in a long set. Bettet calculations I havn't seen. Of course also the let toss takes its time. Unfortunately I have no numbers but let's guess the same 5 times per set as the let serve and each of them would take about 5 s. Then the wasted time would be about a half of minute. (better numbers are wellcome!)

Why don't these speeders want the same solution in the case of the let toss, although it would take less time? If one minute saved time would be fine then 1 min 30 s is still 50% more.
 

HuusHould

Professional
Why don't these speeders want the same solution in the case of the let toss, although it would take less time? If one minute saved time would be fine then 1 min 30 s is still 50% more.
Yes, it would save a bit of time, it all adds up. I have trouble with my ball toss especially under pressure, so I'm not going to push for the rule to be changed haha, but I think its also more fair than the current rule where a receiver can waste energy concentrating and split stepping only to have to repeat the effort. I have to admit at times under pressure Ive tossed the ball up the first time not expecting to hit it, almost using it as a practice toss to adjust the second time around.
 
So it speeds up the game and adds some exciting points as well.
Hey, one moment! But I had an idea here. Doubles need new refreshing innovations. I think that there ought to be differencies as much as possible between doubles and singles. My idea would be to release doubles from its present straitjacket, and removing the let serve would suit well.

The net person would hopefully have something to clean up...

(afterwards) I have introduced a scoring system for pro doubles in this thread, my message #97.
 
Last edited:
Top