how to reduce the advantage of big servers

bjk

bjk

Hall of Fame
The usual way that tennis has slowed down the big servers is by making the ball heavier. This had the paradoxical effect of helping boring baseliners by slowing down the pace of play and hurting players like Fed who benefit from fast pace. So here is the solution: eliminate net cords. Make net cord on the serve a fault. Of course, net cords happen to all players, but giving Raonic an extra first serve is like giving him an extra point. And because most net cords happen on first serves, it would hit Raonic & co where it hurts. It would also speed up play. Ordinary rec players could adopt the same rule if they like, or go the other way and call net cords in, doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
bjk said:
The usual way that tennis has slowed down the big servers is by making the ball heavier. This had the paradoxical effect of helping boring baseliners by slowing down the pace of play and hurting players like Fed who benefit from fast pace. So here is the solution: eliminate net cords. Make net cord on the serve a fault. Of course, net cords happen to all players, but giving Raonic an extra serve is like giving him an extra point. Not true for David Ferrer. It would also speed up play. Ordinary rec players could adopt the same rule if they like, or go the other way, doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Who are you talking about here? If it's the Karlovic's, Isners, Andersons, etc, they can't help being tall. Contrary to your beliefs, the balls are slowed by volume of fluff. I don't think your solution is very well thought-through. The fact remains that big servers win more on their 1st serves. Such a rule will only benefit them more because they don't want to play on their second serves anyway. You think you'd be taking a safety net away from them, but you will only penalize the people who already struggle to get cheap points on serve.
 
Let's say Karlovic wins 80% of first serves and Ferrer wins 60% of first serves. Karlovic wins 60% of second serves and Ferrer wins 55% of second serves. It's a net loss of 20% for Karlovic and a net loss of 5% for Ferrer. Ferrer comes out ahead vs. Karlovic.
 
bjk said:
Let's say Karlovic wins 80% of first serves and Ferrer wins 60% of first serves. Karlovic wins 60% of second serves and Ferrer wins 55% of second serves. It's a net loss of 20% for Karlovic and a net loss of 5% for Ferrer. Ferrer comes out ahead vs. Karlovic.
Click to expand...

Uhmm, no? You'd have to look at the probability of each serve going in. So you'd take the probability of an outright service winner for each and multiply that by the new margin of error (as each player will attune slightly to mitigate risk). I guarantee you, Ferrer will be the loser in this arithmetic.
 
This is really simple. The rule would result in fewer first serves. Who would be hurt by eliminating the first serve? Karlovic, by a mile.
 
Maybe not so simple.. :)

Let's take their current stats.

67% 1st serve for Ivo and 64% for Ferrer.
85% 1st serve points won for Ivan and 71% for Ferrer.

Pray tell, how will your rule translate to an advantage for Ferrer?
 
Elmininating net cords makes perfect sense because the server already has a second serve. A net cord do-over is redundant.
 
Why are we trying to obviate the beauty and strength of the first serve? I beg to differ. If the first serve goes in 100%, net cord or no net cord, server going to win the match. But that never happens, its up to the opponent to be there when the first serve is no longer beautiful and strong enough. I found this is the general tactic used - whatever point is won against the first then BONUS. But BE THERE on the 2nd serve and make the server work.
 
Russeljones said:
Maybe not so simple.. :)

Let's take their current stats.

67% 1st serve for Ivo and 64% for Ferrer.
85% 1st serve points won for Ivan and 71% for Ferrer.

Pray tell, how will your rule translate to an advantage for Ferrer?
Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious? It takes the racket out of Karlovic's hand on first serve. That's his biggest weapon.

You could make the argument that Karlovic already wins his service games by a huge margin, and to extent that Ferrer relies on narrower margins, he's hurt more. Tennis is about winning the most games per set, not winning the most points. I don't know, maybe.

But it would hurt Karlovic the most in tiebreakers, which IS about winning the most points. And Karlovic plays a ton of tiebreakers.
 
Last edited:
jga111 said:
Why are we trying to obviate the beauty and strength of the first serve? I beg to differ. If the first serve goes in 100%, net cord or no net cord, server going to win the match. But that never happens, its up to the opponent to be there when the first serve is no longer beautiful and strong enough. I found this is the general tactic used - whatever point is won against the first then BONUS. But BE THERE on the 2nd serve and make the server work.
Click to expand...

Tennis is already adopting tactics to neutralize the serve, so now the question is how to do it most effectively and enhance the watchability of the game.
 
Rock Strongo said:
You want to stifle big servers yet your avatar is that of one of the biggest servers in history.
Click to expand...

But Dent is far more fun to watch than Raonic or Kevin Anderson. If all big servers were like Dent or Groth, it wouldn't be as big a problem.
 
bjk said:
Tennis is already adopting tactics to neutralize the serve, so now the question is how to do it most effectively and enhance the watchability of the game.
Click to expand...


Well, approaching your suggestion and analytically, I say it will add a certain drama to the occasion, especially on the server's 2nd serve where he will have to ensure a smaller margin for error.

BUT

* Gone is the of context first/second serves as we know it.
* Gone will be the comparisons of the players with this new ruling and those of yesteryear that earned their titles under the today's rules.
...
* Gone will be the sport of tennis.

So yeah, I get your point - just change the name of the sport because it won't be tennis.

And you want to increase the 'watchability'? Well why don't you throw a few models between games holding score cards reflecting the number of sets and games.....now thats a good idea :)
 
jga111 said:
Well, approaching your suggestion and analytically, I say it will add a certain drama to the occasion, especially on the server's 2nd serve where he will have to ensure a smaller margin for error.

BUT

* Gone is the of context first/second serves as we know it.
* Gone will be the comparisons of the players with this new ruling and those of yesteryear that earned their titles under the today's rules.
...
* Gone will be the sport of tennis.

So yeah, I get your point - just change the name of the sport because it won't be tennis.

And you want to increase the 'watchability'? Well why don't you throw a few models between games holding score cards reflecting the number of sets and games.....now thats a good idea :)
Click to expand...

You don't remember the Mardrid masters with all the models as ballgirls?

Seriously, nobody will miss the netcord. Nobody.
 
"In over 1,100 points in the charting database, the server began with a let. He eventually landed a first serve 62.8% of the time, compared to 62.0% of the time on non-let points. When he made the first serve, he won 73.3% of points that began with a let serve, compared to only 70.6% of first-serve points when there was no let.

More first serves in, and more success on first serves. The latter finding, with its difference of 2.7 percentage points, is particularly striking."

http://heavytopspin.com/2014/12/08/the-almost-neutral-let-cord/

He doesn't say how many matches those 1100 lets cover, but he says it's almost 200, so let's ballpark that at 5 lets per match, or 2.5 per server. He also says there were virtually no faults on second serve.
 
Why are you taking away the advantage they have, its not their fault they are tall and the others short.
Its like saying, you cannot dunk in the NBA anymore...Opps..sorry Mr Shaq, now you have to shoot the ball..!!
 
I get your point, but the NBA is not giving tall or short players an advantage or disadvantage. You cannot change the game just because a certain aspect of it favors some players over others.
 
slal1984 said:
I get your point, but the NBA is not giving tall or short players an advantage or disadvantage. You cannot change the game just because a certain aspect of it favors some players over others.
Click to expand...

it gives certain styles of play an advantage.
 
I just don't think this would have that dramatic of an effect. You can likely count on one hand the number of times this happens in a match. It isn't going to change anything.

And, another point people fail to take into consideration is that there are also a handful of times when the serve is so fast and close it sets the machine off erroneously...at least the players seem to think so. I don't know how many times I've seen the chair umpire say he has to make the call if the machine beeps. This proposal would also eliminate these occurrences, which almost always negate a big serve.

The impact as far as providing an edge one way or another would be virtually nil. It would, however, speed the game up slightly, by eliminating a handful of do overs in each match.

I would have no problem if they just eliminated it all together and played every shot by whether it lands in or out, regardless of whether it touches the net. On serve, they'd be like any other net clips...some would benefit the server, some the returner. A slight clip that doesn't reduce the speed much, but slightly alters the path of the ball would likely benefit the server...the ones that catch a big piece of net and flutter into the box would likely benefit the returner.
 
Last edited:
bjk said:
The usual way that tennis has slowed down the big servers is by making the ball heavier. This had the paradoxical effect of helping boring baseliners by slowing down the pace of play and hurting players like Fed who benefit from fast pace. So here is the solution: eliminate net cords. Make net cord on the serve a fault. Of course, net cords happen to all players, but giving Raonic an extra first serve is like giving him an extra point. And because most net cords happen on first serves, it would hit Raonic & co where it hurts. It would also speed up play. Ordinary rec players could adopt the same rule if they like, or go the other way and call net cords in, doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

How do you reduce the advantage of big servers????? Learn how to return serve....
 
There's already a version of tennis that has just what you want to watch. It's called Pickleball!

You only get one serve so the server does not have an unfair advantage and the court is really small so the light-and-quick guys don't have an advantage over the slower bigger serving tall guys. :)

http://youtu.be/UwqIav5zGx0?t=9m33s
 
Did big servers suddenly start winning slams back to back? This whole thread is like a solution looking for a problem.???
 
bjk said:
...So here is the solution: eliminate net cords. Make net cord on the serve a fault.
Click to expand...
Terrible idea. It would result in players - servers and receivers - claiming all the time that the net court sensor was malfunctioning.

bjk said:
...Ordinary rec players could adopt the same rule if they like, or go the other way and call net cords in, doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Well it does matter. For practical purposes the rules should be the same everywhere. Id be happy for them to do away with net courts - as-in ignore them and just play on.

I think the big server advantage is very overstated for the most part. If anything the receiver has gained the advantage through strings/court speed and the popularity of standing 3m behind the baseline when receiving.
 
bjk said:
There is no neutral set of rules. The rules always benefit some style of play.
Click to expand...

As far as I can see, the rules are very fair as they are now. No need to change anything there. It's not like tennis matches are decided by serves. If that was the case, Karlovic, Raonic, Isner, Groth, etc. should be at the top. Also, these tall players are slower and that's one disadvantage of being tall. Big serves make up for the loss in speed/court coverage for these slower tall players. No one has everything and part of the fun in tennis is to see how different size, shape of players make out different styles. Do you really want to see 1,000 Nadals or Djokovics playing against each other? That would be boring as hell.
 
chjtennis said:
As far as I can see, the rules are very fair as they are now. No need to change anything there. It's not like tennis matches are decided by serves. If that was the case, Karlovic, Raonic, Isner, Groth, etc. should be at the top. Also, these tall players are slower and that's one disadvantage of being tall. Big serves make up for the loss in speed/court coverage for these slower tall players. No one has everything and part of the fun in tennis is to see how different size, shape of players make out different styles. Do you really want to see 1,000 Nadals or Djokovics playing against each other? That would be boring as hell.
Click to expand...

tennis matches are decided by serves. Karlovic won delray without getting broken. he could have sat in his chair during his opponents service games and still won the tournament. the final vs dy had about as much suspense as a globetrotters game. the sport is called tennis, not service. but again, the powers that be have already decided that big servers are bad for the game. the real question now is how to do it.
 
Last edited:
bjk said:
tennis matches are decided by serves. Karlovic won delray without getting broken. he could have sat in his chair during his opponents service games and still won the tournament. the final vs dy had about as much suspense as a globetrotters game.
Click to expand...

Big serves can win some matches but not all the time. Otherwise Karlovic would've been no.1 by now.
 
bjk said:
tennis matches are decided by serves. Karlovic won delray without getting broken. he could have sat in his chair during his opponents service games and still won the tournament. the final vs dy had about as much suspense as a globetrotters game. the sport is called tennis, not service. but again, the powers that be have already decided that big servers are bad for the game. the real question now is how to do it.
Click to expand...

Its not like he won every set in a tie break...he did break his opponents.

Also, how come Karlovic has never won wimbledon..??? (If this game is only for big servers)

But, if you look at this stat, big server vs best returner: Karlovic has a 3-1 H2H vs Djoka..!!! Hahaha
 
The only logical solution to net calls is to play-on rule like in volleyball. You can't take away their serve if the player was able to place it in the service box, not fair. Play-on will bring more excitement to the game.

This was applied to some junior tournaments a couple of years ago to put it into a test I suppose. Not sure why they haven't applied to the pro level yet.
 
I've actually figured out how to reduce server dominance: no-ad scoring, returner chooses the side. That would end server dominance very quickly and it would also shorten matches by quite a bit and add more interest.
 
Calling net cords as faults is indeed a good idea.

1. It means there will be two serves per point.

2.It places the onus on the server to serve a clean ball.

3. It may slightly slow the advance of the big server.

4. It requires no player adjustment as would playing a net cord.
 
Reduce? What?
I don't think you could any further, given the current tour conditions.

Time to end the grindfest.
Bring back fast grass. Remove the sand from the paint at the HC tournaments. Start getting coaches to focus on net play.
Make tennis great again.
 
If you can't volley you have no business at Wimbledon.
 
And yeah forget calling net cords as faults lol.

Net cords should be played.

If you have a problem with that just get a better serve and more variety, and stop rolling the ball in to start yet another rally.

If you can't hack it in the big leagues go play the South American clay swing instead.
 
1. That would reduce serve variety, which is not something you would want.

2. Lets or net cords which result in wins are always considered lucky so I don't see why lets should be played.

The onus should be on the server to serve a clean ball or a fault, not a third category of ball that excuses failure.

Sport said:
Allow only one serve per point, not two.
Click to expand...

Firstservingman said:
And yeah forget calling net cords as faults lol.

Net cords should be played.
Click to expand...
 
[Sarcasm]
Any serve over 100 mph is a fault.
Any ground stroke over 60 mph is out.
Any ball struck with spin over 2500 rpm is out.
All records achieved with old standards are null and void.
[end Sarcasm]
If you restrict serves, let's restrict others.
 
If there were a neutral set of rules your sarcasm would be justified.

No ad scoring would hurt servers because it would add a lot more randomness into serving. By requiring the returner to win by two points, ad scoring favors more talented servers. No ad scoring adds a big element of chance, reduces the value of serving skill, and helps non-serve bots.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/...coring-players-go-back-and-forth.html?mcubz=0

Nenad Zimonjic, owner of two Wimbledon doubles crowns, said he liked the “extra excitement and pressure” but would change one component of no-ad scoring: At deuce, the receiving team gets to choose the side on which the deciding point begins.

“That is too much of an advantage and leads to quick breaks,” Zimonjic said. “They should let the server decide.”

Soares said servers were so dominant, especially on the men’s side, that “having breaks makes the game more interesting. We need more balance.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

7
Net cord let.
Replies
8
Views
482
SystemicAnomaly
SystemicAnomaly
bjk
how to improve the advantage of the better player
Replies
3
Views
445
vive le beau jeu !
vive le beau jeu !
N
Top 3 servers of the 2013 Australian Open
Replies
5
Views
2K
uncooling
uncooling
D
  • Poll Poll
Are the big servers of this era the best servers ever?
Replies
38
Views
4K
Romismak
R
K
How could Djokovic beat the big servers of the 90s?
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
The Big Foe fan
The Big Foe fan
Back
Top