How about allowing only one serve?

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
Re Zerev:

The main point should be to clear the net and land the ball in. If that were not the case they would never have invented the let. The serve must do both.

Not landing the ball in penalises you a serve. Hitting the net gives you a do-over. In an era of huge and accurate serves this is just too favourable to the server.
 

Zhilady

Professional
But they don't lose a point which is what you don't want to lose.
Players don't want to lose their first serves, either.

That's why calling a let as a fault is a good idea.

They lose a first serve as punishment.

Playing a let would sometimes reward a server for a bad serve.
Like the shots that hit the net and fall in reward a player for a "bad" shot?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I guess this OP framed it as a time-saving measure. I'd given this issue a bunch of thought previously, and honestly hadn't glanced at it until now.

I see it as more of an intrigue thing. Less of a safety net. Those of us who applaud attacking tennis should be for it, I'd think. Not a direct translation there obviously, but as an approach to maximizing precision.
Why should those who like attacking tennis be for it? There would be no place for S&V for starters and the server would almost always be on the back foot. It would kill the chances of a group of players entirely...
 
Why should those who like attacking tennis be for it? There would be no place for S&V for starters and the server would almost always be on the back foot. It would kill the chances of a group of players entirely...
Yeah. Most offensive players need a powerful first serve.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Yeah. Most offensive players need a powerful first serve.
Indeed, it would be a detriment to the one-two combo. First strike tennis would be all about getting a good hit on the return where as now that's still possible off the second serve but the serve also has a chance to impose himself off the first delivery.
 
I guess this OP framed it as a time-saving measure. I'd given this issue a bunch of thought previously, and honestly hadn't glanced at it until now.

I see it as more of an intrigue thing. Less of a safety net. Those of us who applaud attacking tennis should be for it, I'd think. Not a direct translation there obviously, but as an approach to maximizing precision.
That "safety net" is what enables attacking Tennis.
 
3 serves if they serve with a wooden racquet.
2 serves if they serve with an 85" or smaller racquet.
1 serve if they serve with a racquet bigger than 85".
 
I feel that, at the moment, there are a variety of styles that can be successful. So I'm not sure why you would want to get rid of the second serve.

Obviously, on its own if you did then it would take away importance of the serve, and add to that of the baseline game. It would also kill S&V. As has already been stated, it is not clear that the game will be any faster, and almost certainly it will add even more to the toll on players' bodies. Given that we have so many players out already, I am not sure it is a good idea.

Of course, one could imagine getting rid of the second serve while, say, increasing the size of the service box, restoring some of the advantage that the server lost by losing the second serve. But why bother?
 
I feel that, at the moment, there are a variety of styles that can be successful. So I'm not sure why you would want to get rid of the second serve.

Obviously, on its own if you did then it would take away importance of the serve, and add to that of the baseline game. It would also kill S&V. As has already been stated, it is not clear that the game will be any faster, and almost certainly it will add even more to the toll on players' bodies. Given that we have so many players out already, I am not sure it is a good idea.

Of course, one could imagine getting rid of the second serve while, say, increasing the size of the service box, restoring some of the advantage that the server lost by losing the second serve. But why bother?
There is some small % of people who think tennis needs fixing. Attendance/TV ratings at/for the majors and most 1000s says otherwise.
 
Why should those who like attacking tennis be for it? There would be no place for S&V for starters and the server would almost always be on the back foot. It would kill the chances of a group of players entirely...
Good servers would be less affected than poorer ones; however, they would be forced to get it together with a quickness. Consider the resulting craft. Cuts both ways, also, as no one's exempt from serving duties. While accelerating pace of play does not strike me as a huge boon here—clocks are gonna do that—more compelling mode of play is huge.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
They should make a rule where you're not allowed to serve above 100mph JUST like the ATP tried to implement a few years ago. Unfortunately there was too much backlash from non-Murray fans.
 
I'm seriously of the opinion that most people on here serve 55 miles per hour, and are jealous of anybody who serves more than 65 miles per hour. Why don't we just play rally games were somebody bounce hits and you don't start the point until the 3rd hit?
I am tiny, and my serve was hardly my strong suit, but after over a decade and a half of work it was not a detriment. I would have been embarrassed to have suggested the serve should be eliminated.
 
How about building a Berlin Wall where the net stands? Then we can watch amazing long rallies with glorious unseen before moonballing.

I mean, since we're talking about changing rules in favour of Nadal...
 
Nope, leave it as it is, otherwise the serve just becomes a rally shot - like squash.
The Let rule could be changed though, as we have seen in Fast 4, nothing worse than 2 or 3 Lets in a row on 1st Serve, and another 30 seconds between each delivery.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
Once in play there are no bad shots if the ball goes over and stays in the lines.

Serves have always been treated differently so why confuse a let with a ball that touches the net while in play?

Players get two chances to serve. They don't get two chances to hit the ball. So demanding that serves clear the net is just a new rule.

Some people say play the let, but that probably favours the server and goes against players' instincts given they are trained not to hit lets.

Players don't want to lose their first serves, either.

Like the shots that hit the net and fall in reward a player for a "bad" shot?
 
And have you guys thought about this; No more serve bots.

And nothing would cut down on match times more. Getting rid of lets and instituting shot clocks won’t do a friggin thing to speed up the game.
They should get rid of lets, especially the ones that it takes a machine to detect. Shot clocks are a good idea, unless there was an especially long rally. Getting rid of the second serve is a bad idea.
 
Some people say play the let, but that probably favours the server and goes against players' instincts given they are trained not to hit lets.
It's very easy to change your instincts and play lets. I never played lets growing up and when I got to college, the rule was different and lets were played. It took me about a day to adjust. I'm sure pro players could adjust very quickly as well.
 
Once in play there are no bad shots if the ball goes over and stays in the lines.

Serves have always been treated differently so why confuse a let with a ball that touches the net while in play?

Players get two chances to serve. They don't get two chances to hit the ball. So demanding that serves clear the net is just a new rule.

Some people say play the let, but that probably favours the server and goes against players' instincts given they are trained not to hit lets.
They did just fine with playing lets at last year's Next Gen tournament. The Hawkeye calls the lines was brilliant, saved lots of time and player histrionics too ;)
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
Let's just take as many skills out of the game as possible, ok. It's not fair that Roger can beat me because he's more talented than me, works harder than I do, etc.

Just get rid of all skills in tennis until I beat Fred by my sheer mental superiority
@Red Rick is perilously close to being a Roger Federer fan.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
Why does everyone always want to speed up the game, I actually like tennis and never think, oh it would be so much better if this were only 30 minutes long.

If you want to speed it up, we could always insist they go to a one set match or maybe just play one game. Maybe we could eliminate volleying altogether and just paint targets on the court, serve and hit the target you get the point, otherwise your opponent does.
 
Why does everyone always want to speed up the game, I actually like tennis and never think, oh it would be so much better if this were only 30 minutes long.

If you want to speed it up, we could always insist they go to a one set match or maybe just play one game. Maybe we could eliminate volleying altogether and just paint targets on the court, serve and hit the target you get the point, otherwise your opponent does.
Xena fan? You better slay :)
 
D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
I just realized this post is so contradictory, cause the rules haven’t always bee what they are.
Shhhh don’t tell anyone.

We can come to an agreement, no? Igonnacometoswitzerlandandplayanexhibitionmatchforyourfoundation
 
Top