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
You are obsessed with comparing pro tennis with amateur tennis, which is a far more useless and silly obsession.
So the police are fans of criminals because they follow their activities?
So historians are all fans of Hitler and Stalin because they follow their activities?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
So ALL historians get paid?
Only one serve ball would mean that the tallest players would get a nice present, unfair.
What about the most obvious change nobody mentioned yet. No jumping on serve as it used to be.
Please try not to feed or quote the trolls. It messes up the serenity created by my ignore list.
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!
i meant by making rallying relatively harder for mid-sized players.
Laver Cup is meaningless TEAM exhibition, not a singles slam.
Are you real?
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.
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.
Man, whoever said raising the net is nuts. That would change the entire landscape of the game.
Well that won't happen as they just changed the rules to do the opposite.
Agree
Here are my three ideas to end tennis as we know it...
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.
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?
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.
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"
Of course, I also tested my ideas in practice. Here's my old description:
Or metric
I have marked the service court in two diffrent ways: using small pieces of tennis balls (6 is enough in testing purpose) and with so-called painter's tape. Notice that if you have an ordinary tennis racket (27 in) you can measure 3 yds easily. 3yds is 4xyour_racket. Perhaps the service court looks at first very/too? narrow, but the present service court is exactly only 2 "rackets" broader.
It really is obvious that the significance of the serve diminishes on all the levels of tennis. Getting into the second service means also more difficulties for me as for everybody than the present system. Therefore the player must serve with care the first serve and not to try to get aces at least every time (on my level of course "almost aces"). For the same reason there are probably fewer double faults although the service box is smaller!
I even believe that aces would get back their old glory because it would be much more risky stroke than now because it is more difficult and because the returner can attack quite effectively in the case of the 2nd serve.
And, Good Luck on the Court! But be careful with your serves at least if your opponent is a good returner, otherwise he/she will punish....
