Limit the number of aces in a game?

How many aces per game?

  • 0

    Votes: 1 3.8%
  • 1

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2

    Votes: 3 11.5%
  • Remove the serve entirely, umpire throws the ball into court at the beginning of every point.

    Votes: 22 84.6%

  • Total voters
    26

NatF

Bionic Poster
I've thought about it and this is the only way to save tennis.

After the atrocious 1994 Wimbledon final between Ivanisevic and Sampras (two glorified serve-bots who could only manage one rally over 6 shots), the tennis establishment took note and slowly transitioned to make the game more friendly towards real-tennis. It took some fine tuning and after a dark period where a midget and a ballerina dominated the top spot finally in 2010 they reached the optimum speed for great tennis.

However the years of watching serve bots rule tennis has scared off the real athletic talents and recently one player has used his influence to start speeding up the courts again, the result? We now have five 6'6+ serve bots in the top 10 and we've been treated to such classics this year as Anderson vs Isner at Wimbledon or Federer vs Cilic at the AO.

There needs to be a drastic change in order to save interest in tennis. The solution? Limit the number of aces and force the players to entertain crowds with rallies. Without their free points the serve bots will quickly slide down the rankings and the real-tennis players will shine.

One ace per game should be sufficient. If a player hits more then one then they lose a serve. The onus being on the umpires to decide what is a legitimate ace and what's a leave from the returner.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
To be honest they should just eliminate the serve altogether. Get each player to start with a forehand or a backhand instead (have the umpire throw them the ball) so we go straight into the rally. That way these serve-bots get exposed and the actual talented athletes get their due. It would also remove the opportunity for bore-fest tactics such as serve and volley and the so called 'net' game (lol).
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I've thought about it and this is the only way to save tennis.

After the atrocious 1994 Wimbledon final between Ivanisevic and Sampras (two glorified serve-bots who could only manage one rally over 6 shots), the tennis establishment took note and slowly transitioned to make the game more friendly towards real-tennis. It took some fine tuning and after a dark period where a midget and a ballerina dominated the top spot finally in 2010 they reached the optimum speed for great tennis.

However the years of watching serve bots rule tennis has scared off the real athletic talents and recently one player has used his influence to start speeding up the courts again, the result? We now have five 6'6+ serve bots in the top 10 and we've been treated to such classics this year as Anderson vs Isner at Wimbledon or Federer vs Cilic at the AO.

There needs to be a drastic change in order to save interest in tennis. The solution? Limit the number of aces and force the players to entertain crowds with rallies. Without their free points the serve bots will quickly slide down the rankings and the real-tennis players will shine.

One ace per game should be sufficient. If a player hits more then one then they lose a serve. The onus being on the umpires to decide what is a legitimate ace and what's a leave from the returner.
Good job. Certainly better than my reverse trolling last month. :-D:laughing:
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
2 aces per game, if you accidently ace more than that, you replay the point with an underhand serve.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
2 aces per game, if you accidently ace more than that, you replay the point with a underhand serve.
I actually think an underhand serve but hit anywhere in the court is best. Spectators pay to see rallies so why not start with a forehand?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
I actually think an underhand serve but hit anywhere in the court is best. Spectators pay to see rallies so why not start with a forehand?
Can the "server" hit the ball wherever he wants or does he have to tell the opponent wich direction he is gonna hit it?
 

oldmanfan

Legend
To be honest they should just eliminate the serve altogether. Get each player to start with a forehand or a backhand instead (have the umpire throw them the ball) so we go straight into the rally. That way these serve-bots get exposed and the actual talented athletes get their due. It would also remove the opportunity for bore-fest tactics such as serve and volley and the so called 'net' game (lol).
Disagree. They should remove all shots except the serve/return. Each point gets 3 serves, instead of 2, allowing only one-shot from the returner. If it's not a winner, the server gets the point.

Tennis saved. :happydevil:
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Disagree. They should remove all shots except the serve/return. Each point gets 3 serves, instead of 2, allowing only one-shot from the returner. If it's not a winner, the server gets the point.

Tennis saved. :happydevil:
Personally I don't agree. If anything, we want to reduce the impact the serve has on the game. Your system would penalise quality players like RAFA while an old cripple like Fedr could coast by on his admittedly decent serve (in spite of his non-existent baseline game). We need to move away from the serve. The last thing we need is another Sampras
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
The speed of the serve should be limited to 50 mph. A speed violation results in a point for the opponent. Also, all courts should be clay. And lastly, the rackets should have a limit of 30 square inches.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Can the "server" hit the ball wherever he wants or does he have to tell the opponent wich direction he is gonna hit it?
Maybe change up the service box so it's a strip covering the middle third of the court, serve can land anywhere in that box.
 

BHud

Hall of Fame
To be honest they should just eliminate the serve altogether. Get each player to start with a forehand or a backhand instead (have the umpire throw them the ball) so we go straight into the rally. That way these serve-bots get exposed and the actual talented athletes get their due. It would also remove the opportunity for bore-fest tactics such as serve and volley and the so called 'net' game (lol).
Your so-called "actual talented athletes" can't serve? Then they lack talent...
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
To be honest they should just eliminate the serve altogether. Get each player to start with a forehand or a backhand instead (have the umpire throw them the ball) so we go straight into the rally. That way these serve-bots get exposed and the actual talented athletes get their due. It would also remove the opportunity for bore-fest tactics such as serve and volley and the so called 'net' game (lol).
That would be a relief tbh, it's not like anyone can play at the net these days anyway so why kid ourselves by making it even a halfway viable tactic.

One of the greatest robberies of the last few years was Mischa Zverev knocking Andy Murray out the 2017 AO. The world #1 expected to be treated with a little respect and for his opponent to try and outlast him from the back like a man, instead Zverev Snr charged the net like a wild animal and ended up giving a semi-retired serve bot a bye into the SF.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
I don't see why players should be punished for having a strong serve. Maybe players should instead be punished for not being able to figure out how to return a serve like Isner's.

Or how about everyone just serve under-handed like 100 years ago.
 

Searah

Semi-Pro
too much hastle to start including umpire as ball thrower and "leave or aced" ect.
it's like how ballboys turned into towel holders.

i think serves should just be an underhand hit. that would create some interesting stuff. sort of like badminton.

can still do hard underarm serves or spin ones.
 

vive le beau jeu !

Talk Tennis Guru
I've thought about it and this is the only way to save tennis.

After the atrocious 1994 Wimbledon final between Ivanisevic and Sampras (two glorified serve-bots who could only manage one rally over 6 shots), the tennis establishment took note and slowly transitioned to make the game more friendly towards real-tennis. It took some fine tuning and after a dark period where a midget and a ballerina dominated the top spot finally in 2010 they reached the optimum speed for great tennis.

However the years of watching serve bots rule tennis has scared off the real athletic talents and recently one player has used his influence to start speeding up the courts again, the result? We now have five 6'6+ serve bots in the top 10 and we've been treated to such classics this year as Anderson vs Isner at Wimbledon or Federer vs Cilic at the AO.

There needs to be a drastic change in order to save interest in tennis. The solution? Limit the number of aces and force the players to entertain crowds with rallies. Without their free points the serve bots will quickly slide down the rankings and the real-tennis players will shine.

One ace per game should be sufficient. If a player hits more then one then they lose a serve. The onus being on the umpires to decide what is a legitimate ace and what's a leave from the returner.
the nadal and Tio Toni like this
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
One of the greatest robberies of the last few years was Mischa Zverev knocking Andy Murray out the 2017 AO. The world #1 expected to be treated with a little respect and for his opponent to try and outlast him from the back like a man, instead Zverev Snr charged the net like a wild animal and ended up giving a semi-retired serve bot a bye into the SF.
Players like Mischa Zverev are a disgrace to the tour. Serve and volley on every point? Not even Fraud goes that far. I agree it was a travesty. I'd rather watch minor-league curling than see Zverev running at the net like a lunatic, distracting his opponent into an error
 

Plamen1234

Hall of Fame
To be honest they should just eliminate the serve altogether. Get each player to start with a forehand or a backhand instead (have the umpire throw them the ball) so we go straight into the rally. That way these serve-bots get exposed and the actual talented athletes get their due. It would also remove the opportunity for bore-fest tactics such as serve and volley and the so called 'net' game (lol).
Thanks for the suggestion Uncle Tony.But you forgot to add " removing fast HC and grass".
 

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
When I look at the currently poll winning option, I see there is a lot of room for improvement in this matter.
 

esgee48

G.O.A.T.
[1] If you can't serve more than 10 MPH, you can serve from the service line instead of the base line.
[2] you cannot hit any winners from the base line.
[3] You must start the next point if serving within 15 seconds of the end of the last point. Your opponent has no say about being ready.
These are my suggestions in response to the original suggestion.
 

TheNatural

G.O.A.T.
1/create a strike zone like in baseball
2/compulsory for the returner to stand inside the baseline
3/make the balls twice as heavy and half the size
4/give the server double points for tagging the returner (if it's already game point, they get the first point of the next game)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I've thought about it and this is the only way to save tennis.

After the atrocious 1994 Wimbledon final between Ivanisevic and Sampras (two glorified serve-bots who could only manage one rally over 6 shots), the tennis establishment took note and slowly transitioned to make the game more friendly towards real-tennis. It took some fine tuning and after a dark period where a midget and a ballerina dominated the top spot finally in 2010 they reached the optimum speed for great tennis.

However the years of watching serve bots rule tennis has scared off the real athletic talents and recently one player has used his influence to start speeding up the courts again, the result? We now have five 6'6+ serve bots in the top 10 and we've been treated to such classics this year as Anderson vs Isner at Wimbledon or Federer vs Cilic at the AO.

There needs to be a drastic change in order to save interest in tennis. The solution? Limit the number of aces and force the players to entertain crowds with rallies. Without their free points the serve bots will quickly slide down the rankings and the real-tennis players will shine.

One ace per game should be sufficient. If a player hits more then one then they lose a serve. The onus being on the umpires to decide what is a legitimate ace and what's a leave from the returner.
Eliminating the 2nd serve would probably do the trick. The servebots would have to be far more wary of trying to serve aces and be forced to practice going for placement instead.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Eliminating the 2nd serve would probably do the trick. The servebots would have to be far more wary of trying to serve aces and be forced to practice going for placement instead.
Too many games would be lost to faults though, which would cut into the amount of rallies.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Too many games would be lost to faults though, which would cut into the amount of rallies.
Well, if they've only got one chance to serve I think that would force them to hold back on trying to serve aces and practice placement instead which would open up the game to the potential for more rallies IMO.
 
D

Deleted member 763024

Guest
Also limit the number of rallies in a point. After 25 shots umpire comes down and tosses the coin to award the point.

Random members of the audience are invited down for the toss and get a pic with the players.

Combine with nice music and lights and we have super entertainment, awesome crowd involvement and tennis can go shove a ball down it’s own fecking throat.
 

Tommy Haas

Hall of Fame
They won't change the court dimensions due to tradition. Tennis is one of the few sports where spectators have to remain quiet. Imagine that in baseball, basketball or football? Ridiculous...

They could change the service box surface to be grittier to slow the ball down. Though that would mean the WTA would probably never have any aces at all. They should also allow lets. It's an archaic rule that should be eliminated.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
When I play casual table tennis with my friends and we play a rally to decide who gets to serve first, there's an unwritten rule that the ball has to go three times over the net for the point to be valid, or else we start it over.

I think this could be a nice solution in tennis too – if the ball doesn't go at least three times over the net, the point is declared null and void. This way we can ensure real tennis, with entertainment value and emotional rallies that the crowd want to see.

 

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
When I play casual table tennis with my friends and we play a rally to decide who gets to serve first, there's an unwritten rule that the ball has to go three times over the net for the point to be valid, or else we start it over.

I think this could be a nice solution in tennis too – if the ball doesn't go at least three times over the net, the point is declared null and void. This way we can ensure real tennis, with entertainment value and emotional rallies that the crowd want to see.

Then you'd get Federer junkballing with nasty slice and drop shots or going for low percentage forehand DTLs on the first ball frequently, not too dissimilar to your club hacker, resulting in many points being replayed much to the frustration of the opponent and spectator alike...

Jokes aside, I think there are only a few actice players who manage to average more than 1.0 aces per gam, remember seeing a list here not so long ago...
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Then you'd get Federer junkballing with nasty slice and drop shots or going for low percentage forehand DTLs on the first ball frequently, resulting in many points being replayed much to the frustration of the opponent and spectator alike...

Jokes aside, I think there are only a few actice players who manage to average more than 1.0 aces per gam, remember seeing a list here not so long ago...
Perhaps it should be 6 a set or something, so players have to be tactical with when they go for the ace.
 

toby55555

Hall of Fame
Remove the serve and 'serving' player has their back to the umpire until the umpire simultaneously shouts 'play!' and throws the ball into alternate service boxes.
 

FedLIKEnot

Professional
They slowed down the courts across all the surfaces to in effect do this. I am not sure if OP is tongue in cheek with this, trolling, or serious. But any rule limiting the skillset a player may have is silly. It runs counter to sport, while 4 shot points may not be eye catching that is just tennis. If it bothers you and others so much just get tennis channel plus and stream clay court matches on a loop.....
 

TnsGuru

Professional
Why not move the service line closer towards the net. The flatter and faster serves will be more difficult to get in play forcing the player to apply more spin to ensure the ball goes in. This will at least slow the serves down a little bit so serve bots will not dominate.
 

big ted

Hall of Fame
its funny how darwinism works in tennis. they slowed the courts down to lengthen the rallies
but now the courts are so slow, the taller/slower players can still compete
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Yes, because the current crop of top American players is so much more exciting to watch. :rolleyes:
Roddick was pretty entertaining and I guess you could consider him a very poor man's Sampras.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Actually I think Sampras would bellow out laughing at his weird ass slice approaches though. Even the worst passer on tour could pass him.

It's actually really funny to watch. And the funniest thing is Roddick was never good at approaching the net. It wasn't his movement, it was the slices he hit every time. :-D
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Yes, because the current crop of top American players is so much more exciting to watch. :rolleyes:
You know I was joking right? The whole thread is basically a reverse troll from NatF. Another Sampras would be a huge bonus for tennis. He was way more than just another big server
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Yes I agree, Roddick and Sampras were both very exciting to watch.

Compare to Isner, Querry, Fritz, Sandgren, Harrison, Kudla - it's no wonder there are so many empty seats when the Americans play :)
I think it will get better.

I mean the Americans now aren't as good as Roddick or Sampras. Nowhere near it. But they are still decent enough.

Querrey made a QF and a SF at Wimbledon and a QF at the US Open too IIRC... that isn't too bad for an American player of today.

Then there's Isner who has a SF and a QF at the majors...

Sampras talked about this in an interview I watched recently. And he said that it's just natural, what can you expect. There's more players and the Big 4 are dominating the sport. The interview was from 2011 but it's still relevant because there hasn't been too much progression since then for American tennis.
 

IowaGuy

Hall of Fame
You know I was joking right? The whole thread is basically a reverse troll from NatF. Another Sampras would be a huge bonus for tennis. He was way more than just another big server
Sorry, I'm used to sticking up for Sampras with all the Fedalovic fans claiming he could have never won Wimbledon if Fedalovic had been born in 1970... :)
 
Top