How I would change pro tennis

[rosenstar]

How I'd Change Professional Tennis​

Play service lets. Doing this would speed up play and occasionally create a very exciting point. We play lets during the rest of the game, why shouldn't we when serving? They play this way in college, and most players prefer it once they get used to it.

Have players wear their names on the back of their shirts. No real purpose here other then too help differentiate the two players, and perhaps help more casual fans learn the names of less well known players. In general, more fan friendly for the more casual fan. May also create some marketing opportunities for different brands.

Shorten the season so there are 6 weeks between the start of one grand slam to the start of the next. This means move the Aussie open to later in the year and put some space between The French and Wimbledon. This goes hand in hand with my next change:

Only a players top 8 tournament finishes go towards their ranking (not including the year end tournament). A player could play 10, 11, or 12 tournaments if they wanted to, but only the 8 tournaments that produced the most ranking points would be used to determine that player's rank. This way, players wouldn't have to worry about playing too many tournaments in one year. I think it would produce more accurate rankings. Those players who finished in the top 8 would be rewarded with a chance to play in the Year-End-Masters, which would be included as a 9th tournament, 2 weeks after the end of the US Open.

Davis cup is a two week event. It would take place every other year, each year in a different location, starting 6 weeks before the start of the Australian open. Consecutive Davis Cups would never be played on the same surface. Dead Rubbers would not be played at all. All of the different brackets could play throughout these weeks. Putting it in the beginning of the year allows time for team practices. This format also gives the event more of a world cup atmosphere. The rule regarding surfaces also adds excitement.

Enforce a ranking point penalty in addition to a fine for players who drop out of tournaments for non-injury related reasons. Since players would be playing less tournaments in this new format, it's more important that they don't drop out. Many of the top players can afford a cash fine, but if the rankings are tight, a point penalty could effect the seeding for a grand slam event, which most players care about. This would motivate players to not drop out of tournaments last minute.

A "shot clock" A clock in every corner of the stadium resembling that of a basketball shot clock or a football play clock, counting down between points would cut down on players wasting time and the fans would enjoy it.

Fan Noise Not 100% sure about this one, but I think the fans should get more involved. I think the fans need to be quiet when a player is serving, but once the ball is in play, fans should be able to make as much noise as possible.

Give the line judges whistles. They whistle when the ball goes out. Umpires in every other sport use whistles, why not in tennis? Plus this way fan making calls from the stands isn't a problem.

One residing body in tennis. One residing body would eliminate a lot of bureaucracy and allow tennis as a whole to function much more efficiently. Instead of ITF, ATP, WTA, create one body that manages Masters Events, Grand Slams, Davis Cup, Etc. This would be crucial if any of my above ideas were to come true.

All in all I feel that these changes are much more attractive to the casual fan, but still benefit more in-depth fans (like many of us). It forces the players to use a strategy when scheduling tournaments and allows them to adjust the size of their off-season. What do you think?

 

[tacou]

outside of your 8 tournament ranking system this is terrible, no offense. and 8 is way too low in my opinion. play service lets? that'd be lamer than winning a match on a df

 

[jman]

I like all your ideas, except for the moving of slams. They should stay as is. As I've said before, moving the AO would mean a lot less crowds. The AO is played during Australia's school holidays, so a lot of kids and parents travel down to watch. Also, January/Febuary are the summer months. Anything after Febuary down in Melbourne actually gets really really cold.
Apart from that, all your points are great, especially the Davis Cup Format.

 

[viduka0101]

How I'd Change Professional Tennis​

Play service lets. Doing this would speed up play and occasionally create a very exciting point. We play lets during the rest of the game, why shouldn't we when serving? They play this way in college, and most players prefer it once they get used to it.

Have players wear their names on the back of their shirts. No real purpose here other then too help differentiate the two players, and perhaps help more casual fans learn the names of less well known players. In general, more fan friendly for the more casual fan. May also create some marketing opportunities for different brands.

Shorten the season so there are 6 weeks between the start of one grand slam to the start of the next. This means move the Aussie open to later in the year and put some space between The French and Wimbledon. This goes hand in hand with my next change:

Only a players top 8 tournament finishes go towards their ranking (not including the year end tournament). A player could play 10, 11, or 12 tournaments if they wanted to, but only the 8 tournaments that produced the most ranking points would be used to determine that player's rank. This way, players wouldn't have to worry about playing too many tournaments in one year. I think it would produce more accurate rankings. Those players who finished in the top 8 would be rewarded with a chance to play in the Year-End-Masters, which would be included as a 9th tournament, 2 weeks after the end of the US Open.

Davis cup is a two week event. It would take place every other year, each year in a different location, starting 6 weeks before the start of the Australian open. Consecutive Davis Cups would never be played on the same surface. Dead Rubbers would not be played at all. All of the different brackets could play throughout these weeks. Putting it in the beginning of the year allows time for team practices. This format also gives the event more of a world cup atmosphere. The rule regarding surfaces also adds excitement.

Enforce a ranking point penalty in addition to a fine for players who drop out of tournaments for non-injury related reasons. Since players would be playing less tournaments in this new format, it's more important that they don't drop out. Many of the top players can afford a cash fine, but if the rankings are tight, a point penalty could effect the seeding for a grand slam event, which most players care about. This would motivate players to not drop out of tournaments last minute.

All in all I feel that these changes are much more attractive to the casual fan, but still benefit more in-depth fans (like many of us). It forces the players to use a strategy when scheduling tournaments and allows them to adjust the size of their off-season. What do you think?

this is a great idea

 

[rosenstar]

outside of your 8 tournament ranking system this is terrible, no offense. and 8 is way too low in my opinion. play service lets? that'd be lamer than winning a match on a df

The idea of using your top 8 tournaments is really meant to help the players set up their own schedule so they don't have to play tournaments they don't want to. Also prevents players who don't post big wins from moving up in the rankings. How many tournaments would you suggest? Or do you like the system the way it is?

As far as service lets, rarely does a ball hit the net and dribble over at the professional level. This happens once out of every 50 service let cords. Have you ever watched NCAA? It's one less things that can go wrong, one less call that an umpire can screw up. I've seen play stopped more times to argue a let call than a service let that dribbles off the net.

I like all your ideas, except for the moving of slams. They should stay as is. As I've said before, moving the AO would mean a lot less crowds. The AO is played during Australia's school holidays, so a lot of kids and parents travel down to watch. Also, January/Febuary are the summer months. Anything after Febuary down in Melbourne actually gets really really cold.
Apart from that, all your points are great, especially the Davis Cup Format.

What if you moved the other 3 slams forward? I'm not sure how that would effect The French and Wimbledon, but that would put The USO in May/June?

Moving the slams closer together gives more of a play-off feel, which is what the fans want. It also helps shorten the season, which is what the players want.

The 8 tournament rule allows the players to pick their schedule. Some players might want to get a tournament or two in between slams, while others may want to spread their season out more.

this is a great idea

I'm happy everyone likes my plans for Davis Cup!

 

[Puma]

How I'd Change Professional Tennis​

Play service lets. Doing this would speed up play and occasionally create a very exciting point. We play lets during the rest of the game, why shouldn't we when serving? They play this way in college, and most players prefer it once they get used to it.

Have players wear their names on the back of their shirts. No real purpose here other then too help differentiate the two players, and perhaps help more casual fans learn the names of less well known players. In general, more fan friendly for the more casual fan. May also create some marketing opportunities for different brands.

Shorten the season so there are 6 weeks between the start of one grand slam to the start of the next. This means move the Aussie open to later in the year and put some space between The French and Wimbledon. This goes hand in hand with my next change:

Only a players top 8 tournament finishes go towards their ranking (not including the year end tournament). A player could play 10, 11, or 12 tournaments if they wanted to, but only the 8 tournaments that produced the most ranking points would be used to determine that player's rank. This way, players wouldn't have to worry about playing too many tournaments in one year. I think it would produce more accurate rankings. Those players who finished in the top 8 would be rewarded with a chance to play in the Year-End-Masters, which would be included as a 9th tournament, 2 weeks after the end of the US Open.

Davis cup is a two week event. It would take place every other year, each year in a different location, starting 6 weeks before the start of the Australian open. Consecutive Davis Cups would never be played on the same surface. Dead Rubbers would not be played at all. All of the different brackets could play throughout these weeks. Putting it in the beginning of the year allows time for team practices. This format also gives the event more of a world cup atmosphere. The rule regarding surfaces also adds excitement.

Enforce a ranking point penalty in addition to a fine for players who drop out of tournaments for non-injury related reasons. Since players would be playing less tournaments in this new format, it's more important that they don't drop out. Many of the top players can afford a cash fine, but if the rankings are tight, a point penalty could effect the seeding for a grand slam event, which most players care about. This would motivate players to not drop out of tournaments last minute.

All in all I feel that these changes are much more attractive to the casual fan, but still benefit more in-depth fans (like many of us). It forces the players to use a strategy when scheduling tournaments and allows them to adjust the size of their off-season. What do you think?

I agree with shortening the season.

I agree with changing the way the ranking system works. Now it is a system that punishes good performance and makes it very difficult to maintain a ranking, especially with such a long season. As the game gets more physical something needs to change.

I agree with the Davis Cup idea

I also agree with incorporating ranking points in the fines they might get. That will hit them where it hurts the most.

good post!

 

[rosenstar]

I agree with shortening the season.

I agree with changing the way the ranking system works. Now it is a system that punishes good performance and makes it very difficult to maintain a ranking, especially with such a long season. As the game gets more physical something needs to change.

I agree with the Davis Cup idea

I also agree with incorporating ranking points in the fines they might get. That will hit them where it hurts the most.

good post!

Thank you!

 

[Camilio Pascual]

I think it would produce more accurate rankings.

I'm not sure what you mean by "more accurate rankings", it seems that any mathematical point system would be as accurate than any other.
There was a big problem that was perceived in the women's game when the rankings were based on a best of 13 (or 14). It was argued that a "fluke" result would have a bigger effect on the rankings. Another argument was that "one surface wonders" would be rewarded more. This does not seem to be a big problem in the women's game, but I could see where it would be a bigger problem in the men's game.
I predict that, under a best of 8 system, there will be many, many more season-interrupting "injuries" to the leaders already in the top 6 or 7.

 

[rosenstar]

I'm not sure what you mean by "more accurate rankings", it seems that any mathematical point system would be as accurate than any other.
There was a big problem that was perceived in the women's game when the rankings were based on a best of 13 (or 14). It was argued that a "fluke" result would have a bigger effect on the rankings. Another argument was that "one surface wonders" would be rewarded more. This does not seem to be a big problem in the women's game, but I could see where it would be a bigger problem in the men's game.
I predict that, under a best of 8 system, there will be many, many more season-interrupting "injuries" to the leaders already in the top 6 or 7.

It would prevent situations where serena is behind safina in the rankings, when safina hasn't won a slam. It prevents situations where Davydinko is in the top 5 after playing 17 tournaments, where everyone else has only played 13 or 14. The system allows a player to shorten his season without fearing a drop in the rankings. Naturally, a player would schedule less tournaments. And as I said, players would be fined both money and ranking points for missing a scheduled tournament.

 

[kishnabe]

If the davis cup idea came true, then It would be much easier to watch in one session, don't have to wait weeks.

 

[sheq]

How I'd Change Professional Tennis​

Play service lets. Doing this would speed up play and occasionally create a very exciting point. We play lets during the rest of the game, why shouldn't we when serving? They play this way in college, and most players prefer it once they get used to it.

Have players wear their names on the back of their shirts. No real purpose here other then too help differentiate the two players, and perhaps help more casual fans learn the names of less well known players. In general, more fan friendly for the more casual fan. May also create some marketing opportunities for different brands.

Shorten the season so there are 6 weeks between the start of one grand slam to the start of the next. This means move the Aussie open to later in the year and put some space between The French and Wimbledon. This goes hand in hand with my next change:

Only a players top 8 tournament finishes go towards their ranking (not including the year end tournament). A player could play 10, 11, or 12 tournaments if they wanted to, but only the 8 tournaments that produced the most ranking points would be used to determine that player's rank. This way, players wouldn't have to worry about playing too many tournaments in one year. I think it would produce more accurate rankings. Those players who finished in the top 8 would be rewarded with a chance to play in the Year-End-Masters, which would be included as a 9th tournament, 2 weeks after the end of the US Open.

Davis cup is a two week event. It would take place every other year, each year in a different location, starting 6 weeks before the start of the Australian open. Consecutive Davis Cups would never be played on the same surface. Dead Rubbers would not be played at all. All of the different brackets could play throughout these weeks. Putting it in the beginning of the year allows time for team practices. This format also gives the event more of a world cup atmosphere. The rule regarding surfaces also adds excitement.

Enforce a ranking point penalty in addition to a fine for players who drop out of tournaments for non-injury related reasons. Since players would be playing less tournaments in this new format, it's more important that they don't drop out. Many of the top players can afford a cash fine, but if the rankings are tight, a point penalty could effect the seeding for a grand slam event, which most players care about. This would motivate players to not drop out of tournaments last minute.

All in all I feel that these changes are much more attractive to the casual fan, but still benefit more in-depth fans (like many of us). It forces the players to use a strategy when scheduling tournaments and allows them to adjust the size of their off-season. What do you think?

Play service lets: It would be exiciting but in a way its like we remove off-side for just fun. You know its a rule made for not giving any unfair advantage to server.

Have players wear their names on the back of their shirts: Well, it is not a big change and among your ideas its the most possible one. There wouldnt be too much objection.

Shorten the season so there are 6 weeks between the start of one grand slam to the start of the next: This is the one ı agree totally. Its the most important thing about the season in these days. Especially grass season and its gap between the clay season is terrible and needed to be arranged

Only a players top 8 tournament finishes go towards their ranking (not including the year end tournament): I dont agree. Not even close, because you should add all the masters so at least it has to be 9+4+1. In fact with this arrangment players would get too much cold and lose their concentration nolens volens.

Davis cup is a two week event: Really nice idea, but again its not possible because of all other tournements. You know while 1 or 2 weeks sliding is tough a couple of weeks sliding and cancel couple of tournements would be a real deal.

 

[Changmaster]

I definitely agree with playing service lets. At first I was skeptical of the idea; I was of the mindset, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But after having the experience of D1 tennis and playing all service lets, I now think having the pros play service lets is a great idea.

1st off, it is clearly more logical to play service lets than to redo the serve; if a let cord happens on any other shot during the pt, the pt continues, so why stop it on the serve? While it is true that sometimes, a serve will dribble over the netcord for an ace, this happens so rarely (remember, I have 1st hand experience) that it is not a significant deterrent. And even though the serve may dribble over, it may also hit the net and pop up into the service box for an easy sitter. It would obviously quicken the pace of matches and make some pts more exciting. And as rosenstar mentioned, it eliminates the possibility of a player arguing over a bogus let call, although this is more likely to happen in unofficiated matches.

In addition, I thought it might be somewhat difficult for players to immediately adjust to playing service lets; but once I started playing with them, it was a lot easier to adjust to than I thought, and obviously the vast majority of D1 players have no trouble adjusting. If they can adjust, clearly the pros can adjust.

 

[rosenstar]

Play service lets: It would be exiciting but in a way its like we remove off-side for just fun. You know its a rule made for not giving any unfair advantage to server.

Again, If you watch any NCAA match, playing lets definitely gives the returner an advantage. A service let cord is far more likely to pop up than dribble of the net. Think of the physics of it: how much force and torque is required to stop a 120 mph serve dead in its tracks?

Have players wear their names on the back of their shirts: Well, it is not a big change and among your ideas its the most possible one. There wouldnt be too much objection.

My thoughts exactly

Shorten the season so there are 6 weeks between the start of one grand slam to the start of the next: This is the one ı agree totally. Its the most important thing about the season in these days. Especially grass season and its gap between the clay season is terrible and needed to be arranged

Happy you agree

Only a players top 8 tournament finishes go towards their ranking (not including the year end tournament): I dont agree. Not even close, because you should add all the masters so at least it has to be 9+4+1. In fact with this arrangment players would get too much cold and lose their concentration nolens volens.

I want to eliminate some of the masters. There's too many of them right now. My new schedule allows for four slams and one 1000 level tournament in between slams. I figure for each tournament, you need at least a half week between, tournaments, and at least a full week after a slam. That's at least 10 weeks off in season. That's the bare minimum, in reality, much more time off is needed. That's a 28 week season that's packed full of tennis, not including Davis Cup. Then if a player needs to make so much money in a year, he has to play more tennis on top of that.

My idea allows players to adjust their season to fit their schedule. A player could play the four slams, and one 1000 level tournament between each of the slams and be done. Other players might want to take time off between slams and choose to play other tournaments later in the year. They could play more than 8 tournaments if they want cash, they just wouldn't get points.

Also, less tournaments could also increase prize money for the bigger tournaments, which could motivate players even more.

Overall, I thought that my plan was the best compromise between the players and the fans. This schedule can offer a 3-5 month off season depending on a player's schedule, Davis Cup, and the Year End Tournament.

Davis cup is a two week event: Really nice idea, but again its not possible because of all other tournements. You know while 1 or 2 weeks sliding is tough a couple of weeks sliding and cancel couple of tournements would be a real deal.

This would only work in my schedule suggested previously, or some other format with an off season greater than 12 weeks (not including davis cup weeks). I think this format has the potential to really entertain fans while, if done correctly, make Professional tennis a lot of money.

PS, I added one new point to my original post, check it out and comment.

 

[rosenstar]

If the davis cup idea came true, then It would be much easier to watch in one session, don't have to wait weeks.

My thoughts exactly.

I definitely agree with playing service lets. At first I was skeptical of the idea; I was of the mindset, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But after having the experience of D1 tennis and playing all service lets, I now think having the pros play service lets is a great idea.

1st off, it is clearly more logical to play service lets than to redo the serve; if a let cord happens on any other shot during the pt, the pt continues, so why stop it on the serve? While it is true that sometimes, a serve will dribble over the netcord for an ace, this happens so rarely (remember, I have 1st hand experience) that it is not a significant deterrent. And even though the serve may dribble over, it may also hit the net and pop up into the service box for an easy sitter. It would obviously quicken the pace of matches and make some pts more exciting. And as rosenstar mentioned, it eliminates the possibility of a player arguing over a bogus let call, although this is more likely to happen in unofficiated matches.

In addition, I thought it might be somewhat difficult for players to immediately adjust to playing service lets; but once I started playing with them, it was a lot easier to adjust to than I thought, and obviously the vast majority of D1 players have no trouble adjusting. If they can adjust, clearly the pros can adjust.[/QUOTE]

Nice to have the support of a DI player, like I said, most players prefer this.

As far as arguing over let calls, I remember seeing windy matches where the let chord was tripped by the wind, and I remember seeing blatant lets that went uncalled. Overall, it makes the game simpler, faster, and more exciting.

 

[borg number one]

I'd like to see a grass court season, so to speak, with more high quality grass court events. The new grass court events could have big prize money on some really nice grass courts. We'd see some great tennis I think, if there were also significant points at stake.

Grass court tennis can be beautiful and also easier on the body. Perhaps some of the events could have grass courts that are a bit faster than present day Wimbledon courts. A couple of the events could take place perhaps during the months following the US Open, when players are "recovering" from hard court play.

Yet, imagine more matches on courts resembling this:

If they replaced at least 3-4 hard court events with grass court ones, it would be a nice change to the present game, with the added variety (shorter points, more offense, more net play). Why not have a better mix of court surfaces, with indoor, hard courts, clay courts, as well as more grass court events? Grass courts can be beautiful, especially with lots of nice trees and surrounding landcsape. I think playing on such courts would be great for all involved, including spectators, players, and even for TV viewers.

It would force some game adjustments from many top players and would be a nice test for them. I think some of the matches would be great to see, with a nice mix of all sorts of points, including more volleying, with matches not stretching too long either.

 

[rosenstar]

Why not have a better mix of court surfaces, with indoor, hard courts, clay courts, as well as more grass court events? Grass courts can be beautiful, especially with lots of nice trees and surrounding landcsape. I think playing on such courts would be great for all involved, including spectators, players, and even for TV viewers.

It would force some game adjustments from many top players and would be a nice test for them. I think some of the matches would be great to see, with a nice mix of all sorts of points, including more volleying.

I'd like to see that too. A larger variety in surfaces would be nice.

 

[35ft6]

Play service lets. Yes, lets do this like yesterday.

The Davis Cup one would make it way more exciting, but who knows what the top guys will say about not making big money for two weeks.

Change the camera angles. Show the TV viewers how powerful and fast the modern game of tennis is.

A Masters Series on Grass. And speed the grass back up a bit.

 

[Ledigs]

I like all your ideas, except for the moving of slams. They should stay as is. As I've said before, moving the AO would mean a lot less crowds. The AO is played during Australia's school holidays, so a lot of kids and parents travel down to watch. Also, January/Febuary are the summer months. Anything after Febuary down in Melbourne actually gets really really cold.
Apart from that, all your points are great, especially the Davis Cup Format.

I agree the Davis Cup format is a great idea. How can you build suspense if all the matches are months apart? Makes no sense. And then the last matches are a letdown cause they can be very short.

I think maybe they should have French, Wimbledon US Open all where they are (with French and Wimbledon a bit farther apart), then have AO be in the fall. Then after that there would be the 2 month break (say Jan-Feb).

 

[Ledigs]

I don't think playing service lets is a good idea. There is a huge service advantage for men, and I think it would cause more unfair breaks in serve, especially on big games.

 

[egn]

How I'd Change Professional Tennis​

Play service lets. Doing this would speed up play and occasionally create a very exciting point. We play lets during the rest of the game, why shouldn't we when serving? They play this way in college, and most players prefer it once they get used to it.

This seems great in theory, but it could result in my problems. Imagine a match point being decided in the finals of Wimbledon because a player hit the tape and it rolled over. The server all ready has a huge advantage no reason to give him more of it. The same time it also could hurt the server greatly if a ball hits the tape and flies out. Not a huge fan of this. Lets are played during the rest of the game simply because your are in the flow all ready but why start off a point on a disgusting note.

Have players wear their names on the back of their shirts. No real purpose here other then too help differentiate the two players, and perhaps help more casual fans learn the names of less well known players. In general, more fan friendly for the more casual fan. May also create some marketing opportunities for different brands.

Some of the traditionalist might jump all over this, but I kind of like this. Of course it would be a bit weird, but I don't see any harm from this.

Shorten the season so there are 6 weeks between the start of one grand slam to the start of the next. This means move the Aussie open to later in the year and put some space between The French and Wimbledon. This goes hand in hand with my next change:

Moving the Aussie is a good idea but will be hard to do. I don't think moving French or Wimbledon will do any good, only if moving Wimbledon creates another week of grass court tennis though =]. The season does need to be shortened, maybe chop a week off the indoor season as well.

Only a players top 8 tournament finishes go towards their ranking (not including the year end tournament). A player could play 10, 11, or 12 tournaments if they wanted to, but only the 8 tournaments that produced the most ranking points would be used to determine that player's rank. This way, players wouldn't have to worry about playing too many tournaments in one year. I think it would produce more accurate rankings. Those players who finished in the top 8 would be rewarded with a chance to play in the Year-End-Masters, which would be included as a 9th tournament, 2 weeks after the end of the US Open.

Hell No. 8 tournaments. Thats a joke. Guys like Fed, Borg, Sampras, Lendl and even Nadal as of late had season where they easily won 8 tournaments. Sorry thats too much..only 10 tournaments a year? WTF? Their tennis players. Guys like Lendl played almost 16 or 17 in every season. Pete Sampras during his 6 year reign played an avg of 19.88 tournaments a year..had it not been for injury and age in the later part of his career he probably would have still been showing up as much. I agree that the season is too long, but a top tennis player should be playing roughly 16-20 tournaments a year. Not a fan of the Serena Williams method of playing..8 tournaments a year. Fed could just show up to the 4 slams, Halle, and his 3 master series of choice plus the year end masters. Thats not really worth watching. You know how many little tournaments will go under. Nadal will just skip the summer hardcourt season, Fed will be like screw you Monte Carlo, Roddick won't play a damn clay court event. Murray...well who knows he would have to..

Players should have to play at least 7 master series events (if eligible) and all the slams. However a player in the top 10 can skip an extra master series event. Then at least 4 other small tourneys. Thats 14 for the top 10 and 15 for the top 30ish. If they can't show up to 14 tournaments thats bogus. Then they don't deserve the ranking they have end of story.

Davis cup is a two week event. It would take place every other year, each year in a different location, starting 6 weeks before the start of the Australian open. Consecutive Davis Cups would never be played on the same surface. Dead Rubbers would not be played at all. All of the different brackets could play throughout these weeks. Putting it in the beginning of the year allows time for team practices. This format also gives the event more of a world cup atmosphere. The rule regarding surfaces also adds excitement.

Yes but this will never happen. However I feel maybe it should be post AO pre Indian Wells. There is enough time there and players will be all ready a bit warmed up. However I have issues with this, because I like the home country advantage, because teams have earned it. Its nice to see a team have to win the Davis Cup on say four different surfaces. Though the two week event would be better it would be so complicated with all the smaller zones that have qualifying etc.

Enforce a ranking point penalty in addition to a fine for players who drop out of tournaments for non-injury related reasons. Since players would be playing less tournaments in this new format, it's more important that they don't drop out. Many of the top players can afford a cash fine, but if the rankings are tight, a point penalty could effect the seeding for a grand slam event, which most players care about. This would motivate players to not drop out of tournaments last minute.

They have it right now a 0 filled in a spot where another tourney could go. Works quite nicely.

One residing body in tennis. One residing body would eliminate a lot of bureaucracy and allow tennis as a whole to function much more efficiently. Instead of ITF, ATP, WTA, create one body that manages Masters Events, Grand Slams, Davis Cup, Etc. This would be crucial if any of my above ideas were to come true.

Agreed.

 

[BMC9670]

I would add to either enforce time rules during a match (time between points and time to challenge, etc) or do away with 5 set matches. Play has gotten so slow that matches are getting to be too long, both for players and spectators.

How about 3 set matches with no tiebreaker in the third?

 

[Andyk028]

One thing I would change in the Davis Cup would be to market jerseys for all the players. If players wore their team jersets with their names on them and we as fans could buy them..I believe it would promote the sport and promote a greater sense of fanship.

 

[rosenstar]

This seems great in theory, but it could result in my problems. Imagine a match point being decided in the finals of Wimbledon because a player hit the tape and it rolled over. The server all ready has a huge advantage no reason to give him more of it. The same time it also could hurt the server greatly if a ball hits the tape and flies out. Not a huge fan of this. Lets are played during the rest of the game simply because your are in the flow all ready but why start off a point on a disgusting note.

Again, this is an unlikely situation. This rarely happens at higher levels of play. It rarely happens in NCAA. A player is far more likely to double fault than hit a let ace.

Hell No. 8 tournaments. Thats a joke. Guys like Fed, Borg, Sampras, Lendl and even Nadal as of late had season where they easily won 8 tournaments. Sorry thats too much..only 10 tournaments a year? WTF? Their tennis players. Guys like Lendl played almost 16 or 17 in every season. Pete Sampras during his 6 year reign played an avg of 19.88 tournaments a year..had it not been for injury and age in the later part of his career he probably would have still been showing up as much. I agree that the season is too long, but a top tennis player should be playing roughly 16-20 tournaments a year. Not a fan of the Serena Williams method of playing..8 tournaments a year. Fed could just show up to the 4 slams, Halle, and his 3 master series of choice plus the year end masters. Thats not really worth watching. You know how many little tournaments will go under. Nadal will just skip the summer hardcourt season, Fed will be like screw you Monte Carlo, Roddick won't play a damn clay court event. Murray...well who knows he would have to..

Players should have to play at least 7 master series events (if eligible) and all the slams. However a player in the top 10 can skip an extra master series event. Then at least 4 other small tourneys. Thats 14 for the top 10 and 15 for the top 30ish. If they can't show up to 14 tournaments thats bogus. Then they don't deserve the ranking they have end of story.

I think that's too much. I'd personally say 12-15 is far more than plenty. Less tournaments puts more emphasis on the ones that are played. You really can't cut the season down if you're requiring 14 tournaments.

I would add to either enforce time rules during a match (time between points and time to challenge, etc) or do away with 5 set matches. Play has gotten so slow that matches are getting to be too long, both for players and spectators.

This is something else I'd like to see. I think something similar to a shot clock in basketball in the corner would be awesome.

One thing I would change in the Davis Cup would be to market jerseys for all the players. If players wore their team jersets with their names on them and we as fans could buy them..I believe it would promote the sport and promote a greater sense of fanship.

Agreed.

 

[BMC9670]

Oh, and while we're at it, let's do something about excessive grunting!

On the woman's side, the shriek volume is getting out of hand and on both sides some players actually "grunt" too long. What I mean by this is if a player is still making noise when the ball crosses the net, they are breaking code by distracting the other player. You've all heard it: "ya-uuuuhhhaaaahhhh..."

 

[CCNM]

Rosenstar-defintiely shorten the season. Names on the players' shirts/dresses-absolutely! I can't tell you how many times I've mixed up Nadal and Fernando Gonzalez.

 

[OliverSimon]

I don't like the rule of the lets so much, but the other propositions sound nice..

 

[clayman2000]

Playing a 10 tourney schedule is so impractical. Remember you have to keep in mind lower ranked players whose living comes 1st. 10 1st round exits doestn give them enough money to earn a a living

 

[35ft6]

About the let drop shot on serve argument... One, when's the last time you saw that happen. Most of the time it hits the net and goes past the service line the serves are hit with so much pace and weight.

And even now the winner of a Slam can be determined by a ground stroke hitting the tape and dribbling over. It can also be determined by a missed return or a double fault, which are even less action packed.

It just slows down the game and watching college tennis, I prefer playing lets. It's more exciting. Watching a guy go through his whole ritual because of a let, or two lets, is just unnecessary.

While we're at it, I would allow a short break 5 minute break before the final set of a match. So before the 3rd set of a best of 3 and the 5th set in a best of 5. During this time, the player is allowed to receive coaching. It would be exciting to see what the players do differently the final set. Of course, this would mean asteriks galore in the history books. Like "before coaching was allowed" and I'm sure the top players would fight this change, but I think it would be cool.

 

[coloskier]

How I'd Change Professional Tennis​

Play service lets. Doing this would speed up play and occasionally create a very exciting point. We play lets during the rest of the game, why shouldn't we when serving? They play this way in college, and most players prefer it once they get used to it.

Have players wear their names on the back of their shirts. No real purpose here other then too help differentiate the two players, and perhaps help more casual fans learn the names of less well known players. In general, more fan friendly for the more casual fan. May also create some marketing opportunities for different brands.

Shorten the season so there are 6 weeks between the start of one grand slam to the start of the next. This means move the Aussie open to later in the year and put some space between The French and Wimbledon. This goes hand in hand with my next change:

Only a players top 8 tournament finishes go towards their ranking (not including the year end tournament). A player could play 10, 11, or 12 tournaments if they wanted to, but only the 8 tournaments that produced the most ranking points would be used to determine that player's rank. This way, players wouldn't have to worry about playing too many tournaments in one year. I think it would produce more accurate rankings. Those players who finished in the top 8 would be rewarded with a chance to play in the Year-End-Masters, which would be included as a 9th tournament, 2 weeks after the end of the US Open.

Davis cup is a two week event. It would take place every other year, each year in a different location, starting 6 weeks before the start of the Australian open. Consecutive Davis Cups would never be played on the same surface. Dead Rubbers would not be played at all. All of the different brackets could play throughout these weeks. Putting it in the beginning of the year allows time for team practices. This format also gives the event more of a world cup atmosphere. The rule regarding surfaces also adds excitement.

Enforce a ranking point penalty in addition to a fine for players who drop out of tournaments for non-injury related reasons. Since players would be playing less tournaments in this new format, it's more important that they don't drop out. Many of the top players can afford a cash fine, but if the rankings are tight, a point penalty could effect the seeding for a grand slam event, which most players care about. This would motivate players to not drop out of tournaments last minute.

One residing body in tennis. One residing body would eliminate a lot of bureaucracy and allow tennis as a whole to function much more efficiently. Instead of ITF, ATP, WTA, create one body that manages Masters Events, Grand Slams, Davis Cup, Etc. This would be crucial if any of my above ideas were to come true.

All in all I feel that these changes are much more attractive to the casual fan, but still benefit more in-depth fans (like many of us). It forces the players to use a strategy when scheduling tournaments and allows them to adjust the size of their off-season. What do you think?

Only allowing 8 tournaments a year for rankings would really suck. Nadal could play in 8 clay court tournaments and not have anything from hard courts count towards his ranking except the slams. Maybe if they said that the rankings will come from 2 "Fast hard courts", 2 "Slow hard courts", 2 "Grass Courts" and 2 "Clay Courts", plus the slams, that would make the rankings fair. In that way only a true all courter could ever be ranked #1.

 

[35ft6]

^ Why should grass courts and indoor courts count for 50% by your logic (fairness) when they probably make up about 15% of the yearly schedule?

 

[dlk]

Don't really agree w/OP's changes, but it is a cool thread. I might tweak points system, but that's about it; add some more grass & mix grass & clay seasons w/hard.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

One rule i would like to see changed. AO/FO/WI/UO arent the only grandslams. Its almost like monopoly. Why should they be the only slams. Traditionalists may not like them moved so as a compromise a new SLAM can be created that can be rotated every year to a new location (perhaps to the highest bidder). Sorry but this cant be Davis cup-- i dont attach a whole lot of importance to Davis cup.

 

[35ft6]

^ I don't think many countries would be down with spending a billion or so to create the type of facility needed to host a Slam only to see it being used as a regular park for 15 years until the city gets to host this rotating Slam you're proposing again.

The US National Tennis Center has 22 courts inside the grounds, 11 in a park nearby, 3 stadiums that can hold thousands including the largest stadium in the world, plus a few smaller courts that can seat hundreds.

I've never heard anybody propose we needed more Slams.

 

[petercoffey]

I'd go for the let thing

 

[fedhingis515]

Disagree with the first two. I think rallies should start off on a clean point. And I'm not really a fan of the whole names thing. The rest seems fine to me though.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

^ I don't think many countries would be down with spending a billion or so to create the type of facility needed to host a Slam only to see it being used as a regular park for 15 years until the city gets to host this rotating Slam you're proposing again.

The US National Tennis Center has 22 courts inside the grounds, 11 in a park nearby, 3 stadiums that can hold thousands including the largest stadium in the world, plus a few smaller courts that can seat hundreds.

I've never heard anybody propose we needed more Slams.

There can be a first but i dont believe i am the first one. I just dont see why only AO/Fo/wi/uo should have slams. Historically there may be some reasons but expecting that to be that way forever makes no sense. There are a few countries that can spend that much money and build a facility that can be on par with the best of the world. I agree with you that , it may not be good economics.

I am assuming that when you meant 'largest stadium', you meant largest tennis stadium. Arthur Ashe doesnt even come remotely close to being a largest stadium when other sports are considered.

 

[LPShanet]

How I'd Change Professional Tennis​

Play service lets. Doing this would speed up play and occasionally create a very exciting point. We play lets during the rest of the game, why shouldn't we when serving? They play this way in college, and most players prefer it once they get used to it.

Have players wear their names on the back of their shirts. No real purpose here other then too help differentiate the two players, and perhaps help more casual fans learn the names of less well known players. In general, more fan friendly for the more casual fan. May also create some marketing opportunities for different brands.

Shorten the season so there are 6 weeks between the start of one grand slam to the start of the next. This means move the Aussie open to later in the year and put some space between The French and Wimbledon. This goes hand in hand with my next change:

Only a players top 8 tournament finishes go towards their ranking (not including the year end tournament). A player could play 10, 11, or 12 tournaments if they wanted to, but only the 8 tournaments that produced the most ranking points would be used to determine that player's rank. This way, players wouldn't have to worry about playing too many tournaments in one year. I think it would produce more accurate rankings. Those players who finished in the top 8 would be rewarded with a chance to play in the Year-End-Masters, which would be included as a 9th tournament, 2 weeks after the end of the US Open.

Davis cup is a two week event. It would take place every other year, each year in a different location, starting 6 weeks before the start of the Australian open. Consecutive Davis Cups would never be played on the same surface. Dead Rubbers would not be played at all. All of the different brackets could play throughout these weeks. Putting it in the beginning of the year allows time for team practices. This format also gives the event more of a world cup atmosphere. The rule regarding surfaces also adds excitement.

Enforce a ranking point penalty in addition to a fine for players who drop out of tournaments for non-injury related reasons. Since players would be playing less tournaments in this new format, it's more important that they don't drop out. Many of the top players can afford a cash fine, but if the rankings are tight, a point penalty could effect the seeding for a grand slam event, which most players care about. This would motivate players to not drop out of tournaments last minute.

One residing body in tennis. One residing body would eliminate a lot of bureaucracy and allow tennis as a whole to function much more efficiently. Instead of ITF, ATP, WTA, create one body that manages Masters Events, Grand Slams, Davis Cup, Etc. This would be crucial if any of my above ideas were to come true.

All in all I feel that these changes are much more attractive to the casual fan, but still benefit more in-depth fans (like many of us). It forces the players to use a strategy when scheduling tournaments and allows them to adjust the size of their off-season. What do you think?

Just a note: It's considered good policy to provide attributions when you use other people's material. While the particular collection of changes may have been assembled by you, many, if not all, are things that have been proffered by various writers (including several at the now defunct Tennis Week) in editorial columns.

That said, while most of the ideas (except the service let thing) have some real merit in principle, almost all of them are impossible in practice for various reasons, the most significant of which is that the players and tournament owners don't want to do them. I'm happy to elaborate on the practical problems with each if you'd like.

 

[Netspirit]

1. I would not allow playing service lets. I would actually make them faults. I would even ban any net touches whatsoever - any time the ball touches the net, the point should be over. No undeserved "free" points, no stupid apologies.

2. I would remove the second serve altogether. One serve attempt per point. This would make tennis matches faster as less time would be spent on serving. The serves themselves would become slower and safer, which would create more interesting rallies.

 

[35ft6]

There can be a first but i dont believe i am the first one. I just dont see why only AO/Fo/wi/uo should have slams. Historically there may be some reasons but expecting that to be that way forever makes no sense.

Why does it make no sense? Why is the Kentucky Derby more important than other horse races? In golf and tennis, the biggest tournaments aren't determined by virtue of logic, they're just the most acclaimed and important tournaments because of tradition. There are plenty of other big tournaments and events in tennis, we don't need more Grand Slams. But I would be in support of holding a Masters Series event in South America. They love tennis there and it seems like a shame they don't have at least one huge tournament.

I am assuming that when you meant 'largest stadium', you meant largest tennis stadium..

Yeah, that's what I meant.

 

[Narcissist]

Enfornce the time between points - there is no need to towl off on each point, examine 3 balls before each serve, pick your arse or bounce the ball 25 times before serving.

Ban unreasonable screaming/shrieking/grunting - point penaties if you do

Pay wta less

 

[Crispix]

1. I would not allow playing service lets. I would actually make them faults. I would even ban any net touches whatsoever - any time the ball touches the net, the point should be over. No undeserved "free" points, no stupid apologies.

2. I would remove the second serve altogether. One serve attempt per point. This would make tennis matches faster as less time would be spent on serving. The serves themselves would become slower and safer, which would create more interesting rallies.

This just undermines the basics of tennis.
Sorry, but this is just stupid.

 

[Changmaster]

1. I would not allow playing service lets. I would actually make them faults. I would even ban any net touches whatsoever - any time the ball touches the net, the point should be over. No undeserved "free" points, no stupid apologies.

So many problems with this idea. If even touching the net with a shot during a rally would cost them the pt, this may cause many players to hit with more topspin, producing less variation in playing style, or favoring certain styles of play.

And while such a rule could be enforced in an officiated match because of the electrical let detector attached to the net, what about unofficiated matches? Sometimes it's unclear whether a shot hit the netcord or not, this would cause many more uncertain calls about a player's shot touching the net, causing them to lose the point. It would cause another degree of uncertainty during matches, which is not desirable at all.

 

[reversef]

Only allowing 8 tournaments a year for rankings would really suck. Nadal could play in 8 clay court tournaments and not have anything from hard courts count towards his ranking except the slams. Maybe if they said that the rankings will come from 2 "Fast hard courts", 2 "Slow hard courts", 2 "Grass Courts" and 2 "Clay Courts", plus the slams, that would make the rankings fair. In that way only a true all courter could ever be ranked #1.

8 tournaments is clearly not enough. Something like 15 tournaments seems correct for me.
Why 2 "Fast HC" and 2 "Slow HC"? It's still HC. Or if we follow the same logics : 2 "Fast CC" (Har-Tru) and 2 "Slow CC" + 2 "Slow Grass Courts" (let's say old AO grass) and 2 "Fast Grass Courts" (old Wimbledon). That would be fair. Actually, right now, with this system, you don't really need to be a true all court player to be number one. Being a great HC player is nearly enough (if there is no prime Federer competing, of course). Great on HC, decent on another surface and mediocre on the third one can make you number one without any problem.

 

[AM95]

How I'd Change Professional Tennis​

Play service lets. Doing this would speed up play and occasionally create a very exciting point. We play lets during the rest of the game, why shouldn't we when serving? They play this way in college, and most players prefer it once they get used to it.


Only a players top 8 tournament finishes go towards their ranking (not including the year end tournament). A player could play 10, 11, or 12 tournaments if they wanted to, but only the 8 tournaments that produced the most ranking points would be used to determine that player's rank. This way, players wouldn't have to worry about playing too many tournaments in one year. I think it would produce more accurate rankings. Those players who finished in the top 8 would be rewarded with a chance to play in the Year-End-Masters, which would be included as a 9th tournament, 2 weeks after the end of the US Open.

i will respect that these are your opinions and try to critique them as nicely as possible...

service lets????!?!! what are you thinking. imagine the 2008 wimbledon final ending on a first serve that clips and barely drops over the net...thats worse than a double fault. think before you post suggestions like this please..

the top 8 tournament finishes..now your thinking like the USTA..and where has that gotten the United States in terms of tennis? exactly. nowhere. im not going to discuss the fact that players would register for minimal amounts of tournaments, and the ranking system would be screwed up.

im ok with penalizing playeres who drop out of tournaments without an injury related reason. however, what about the warm up tournament that Federer skipped this year in Halle because of his greuling french open? once again that suggestion has a major flaw.

the name-on-shirts-idea...thats just rubbish. Why on earth do you need that. Casual fans can simply look at the score on T.V and see that the yellow tick/ball/mark is placed on the person who's serving, and identify him/her.

 

[rosenstar]

i will respect that these are your opinions and try to critique them as nicely as possible...

Thank you for the respect. I appriciate it.

service lets????!?!! what are you thinking. imagine the 2008 wimbledon final ending on a first serve that clips and barely drops over the net...thats worse than a double fault. think before you post suggestions like this please..

Like I've said this RARELY happens. This posters response (below) is very accurate and sums up what I've been trying to say:

About the let drop shot on serve argument... One, when's the last time you saw that happen. Most of the time it hits the net and goes past the service line the serves are hit with so much pace and weight.

And even now the winner of a Slam can be determined by a ground stroke hitting the tape and dribbling over. It can also be determined by a missed return or a double fault, which are even less action packed.

It just slows down the game and watching college tennis, I prefer playing lets. It's more exciting. Watching a guy go through his whole ritual because of a let, or two lets, is just unnecessary.

Like I said, most players prefer it, most fans who have ACTUALLY WATCHED it prefer it. What's the problem?

]
the top 8 tournament finishes..now your thinking like the USTA..and where has that gotten the United States in terms of tennis? exactly. nowhere. im not going to discuss the fact that players would register for minimal amounts of tournaments, and the ranking system would be screwed up.

Playing a 10 tourney schedule is so impractical. Remember you have to keep in mind lower ranked players whose living comes 1st. 10 1st round exits doestn give them enough money to earn a a living

my feelings were that a player could play and collect prize money from as many tournaments as they please, but only collect points from their top 8 or 10 finishes.

Many don't like this, and I can understand this, but again, I thought it was the best way to shorten the season. I felt the least important events of the season were the masters series and that the best way to shorten the season and to preserve Davis Cup and the slams was to trim down the masters.

im ok with penalizing playeres who drop out of tournaments without an injury related reason. however, what about the warm up tournament that Federer skipped this year in Halle because of his greuling french open? once again that suggestion has a major flaw.

Federer is a veteran player who's been on the tour a while. He should be able to estimate things like this. And again, this plan goes hand-in-hand with my shortened season arguement. One is pointless without the other

the name-on-shirts-idea...thats just rubbish. Why on earth do you need that. Casual fans can simply look at the score on T.V and see that the yellow tick/ball/mark is placed on the person who's serving, and identify him/her.

It's done in many other sports. I don't see any problems that could arise from this, only opportunities. Fans may like it, or they may not care for it, but I find it hard to believe that any fan or player would have a distinct problem with it. It also presents potential marketing opportunities to the apperal companies. What's the problem?

While we're at it, I would allow a short break 5 minute break before the final set of a match. So before the 3rd set of a best of 3 and the 5th set in a best of 5. During this time, the player is allowed to receive coaching. It would be exciting to see what the players do differently the final set. Of course, this would mean asteriks galore in the history books. Like "before coaching was allowed" and I'm sure the top players would fight this change, but I think it would be cool.

I'm strongly opposed to coaching during the match. I think it takes away tremendously from the sport. Tennis is such a hard mental game for this reason. This is one thing that would hurt the sport.

Also remember that we're trying to speed up the sport, lengthen it. Adding breaks would make it less television friendly, which is what we don't want.

 

[TheMusicLover]

Playing a 10 tourney schedule is so impractical. Remember you have to keep in mind lower ranked players whose living comes 1st. 10 1st round exits doestn give them enough money to earn a a living

A very often overlooked fact. Tennis doesn't only consist of the Big Names, and this would be an enormous disadvantage to the journeymen/upcoming young players. Remember, nowadays' stars were once 'nobodies' as well...

 

[Kostas]

For everyone that's just completely appalled at the mere thought of a server winning a point by a let dribbling over the net why are you not outraged at forehands, backhands, dropshots and smashes that end the point by hitting the tape and dribbling over?

MY GOD PEOPLE - what if the Wimby 2008 final ended on a Federer forehand that hit the tape and fell over!? The world would end! Tennis would be ruined forever!

For christ's sake it's ALREADY a rule in NCAA! And it works fine!

The poster who suggested hitting any part of the net means the point is over makes more damn sense that having lets on serves only.

 

[AM95]

For everyone that's just completely appalled at the mere thought of a server winning a point by a let dribbling over the net why are you not outraged at forehands, backhands, dropshots and smashes that end the point by hitting the tape and dribbling over?

MY GOD PEOPLE - what if the Wimby 2008 final ended on a Federer forehand that hit the tape and fell over!? The world would end! Tennis would be ruined forever!

For christ's sake it's ALREADY a rule in NCAA! And it works fine!

The poster who suggested hitting any part of the net means the point is over makes more damn sense that having lets on serves only.

you dont get paid millions to play in the NCAA..
thats different though, because for one, its possible to track down a ball thats clips the net on a forehand (its not going 200ks at you)...its not exactly possible to track down a ball that your expecting of going (200ks at you, but clips the tape)..especially if your 15 feet behind the baseline to return.

i dont like the let idea..not one bit. not only is it unfair in the terms of the ball barely dropping over the net..but its pretty ridiculous when you've measured the tragectory of the ball, it clips the net, and thats distracted your return of serve.

i think the let idea is fine. if you want to economize on time, penalize players ll who spend 30+ seconds between points, waits longer to get out of his chair during change overs, and makes the umpire and player wait while the coin is tossed. if you guys need evidence of this..ill be sure to provide this thread with a video.

 

[Psyballa]

How I'd Change Professional Tennis​

Have players wear their names on the back of their shirts. No real purpose here other then too help differentiate the two players, and perhaps help more casual fans learn the names of less well known players. In general, more fan friendly for the more casual fan. May also create some marketing opportunities for different brands.

A little nitpick about this:


As feasible as it sounds to have the top players wear their names on their shirts, it seems a little farfetched to have a player (presumably one with a clothing contract) have to have x many shirts with their name on it. It sort of stifles the creativity IMO.

I mean think about it, team sports are mostly sports where the name of the player is on the clothing is because they all wear a uniform. In tennis, you have two players, one on either side of the net. Who is who? You either listen to the commentators/referee (or watch the scoreboard on TV, whoever is serving is indicated in most cases) or you already know who is whom already.

This wouldn't necessarily alienate fans as much as it would gain them. How much more seriously would you have taken Federer a couple years ago at the USO if he had "FEDERER" draped in white across his Darth Federer ensemble? If anything, make this a new fad and not a mandatory style. Some players are obviously more recognizable than others. Heck, we could see another ''sleeveless shirt'' thing go on here.

 

[JankovicFan]

Would indoor mats be the surface least likely to cause leg and knee injuries? Should the game evolve toward indoor play? The majors already are getting roofs to preserve media schedules, at least for the main court and biggest matches scheduled there..