Serve rules and others that deserve consideration of rules change...

Serve Doc

Rookie
"For server's to have the option to start over on bad tosses...is it fair to return side player? Should the rule be changed?This toss start-over creates further server's advantage and is like a baseball pitcher faking the pitch to the plate and after starting move to plate... instead, chooses to throw out at base runner at first...Not allowed...it's a Balk and batter gets free pass to 1st.

Should we play let serves?....another server advantage as on return, it forces changes in court positioning to defend short court.
 
D

Deleted member 765152

Guest
My opinion:

1. NO do-over on bad tosses. Ridiculous waste of time. If your free throw starts off badly, can you re-do it? I don't know any other sport that allows this. Windy day? So do you get to re-hit a lob that went out due to wind?

2. NO let serve, just play it out. Nobody stops during the point for a let, so why should serves be any different. I hate it when I hit an ace or a winner, and my opponent claims, "LET!!!" even tho the ball cleared the net by a foot.

P.S. Change to 1-serve rule. Do you get 2 serves in table tennis, racquetball, volleyball?
 

Serve Doc

Rookie
Lefty advantage is huge in our sport more so than most other sports...There has been a disproportionate #1s and dominant top players who are lefty considering the MUCH greater % of right-handers vs left-handers in the world...Why is that???

It has everything to do with how games are structured and scored with always starting on Deuce side. Deuce court favors righties strengths... but there are only 2 game ending points on deuce side....40-15, 15-40. The Ad court is host to all the rest of the game ending 40-0, 0-40, 40-30, 30-40, Ad in, Ad out for a total of 6 favoring lefties.

Leveling the playing field between R & L players would be quite simple...
Rule Change- Allow Servers to choose whether to start game on side of choice...Ad or Deuce....no more advantage at least on scoring aspect.
 

zaph

Professional
Two serve rule, make it one serve, giving players two chances is pretty unique to tennis.

To be fair, since I don't have a big serve and I rarely double fault, I am basically changing the rules to favour how I play. Which is what I suspect most people on this thread are going to do.
 

spaceman_spiff

Hall of Fame
"For server's to have the option to start over on bad tosses...is it fair to return side player? Should the rule be changed?This toss start-over creates further server's advantage and is like a baseball pitcher faking the pitch to the plate and after starting move to plate... instead, chooses to throw out at base runner at first...Not allowed...it's a Balk and batter gets free pass to 1st.

Should we play let serves?....another server advantage as on return, it forces changes in court positioning to defend short court.
I really don’t understand how you’re so psyched out by a bad toss. Most of the time, a bad toss is pretty obvious, so it shouldn’t be at all surprising when the server chooses not to swing at it.

Speaking of swinging, you analogy is a bad one. A fake pitch would be like swinging at a serve and intentionally missing. Under the current rules, that counts as a fault, so there’s no advantage in doing it.

In my experience, people who throw up a lot of bad tosses usually do more damage to themselves that to their opponents. They either get self conscious and start swinging at bad tosses or the bad tosses are a result of nerves. Either way, they tend to miss a lot of serves.
 
D

Deleted member 765152

Guest
I really don’t understand how you’re so psyched out by a bad toss. Most of the time, a bad toss is pretty obvious, so it shouldn’t be at all surprising when the server chooses not to swing at it.

Speaking of swinging, you analogy is a bad one. A fake pitch would be like swinging at a serve and intentionally missing. Under the current rules, that counts as a fault, so there’s no advantage in doing it.

In my experience, people who throw up a lot of bad tosses usually do more damage to themselves that to their opponents. They either get self conscious and start swinging at bad tosses or the bad tosses are a result of nerves. Either way, they tend to miss a lot of serves.
Any decent returner split steps and moves in. Do that a few times each game for naught and it gets annoying. The bigger point though is that a fault should be assessed once the ball leaves the hand and doesn't make it into the service box.
 

Serve Doc

Rookie
I really don’t understand how you’re so psyched out by a bad toss. Most of the time, a bad toss is pretty obvious, so it shouldn’t be at all surprising when the server chooses not to swing at it.

Speaking of swinging, you analogy is a bad one. A fake pitch would be like swinging at a serve and intentionally missing. Under the current rules, that counts as a fault, so there’s no advantage in doing it.

In my experience, people who throw up a lot of bad tosses usually do more damage to themselves that to their opponents. They either get self conscious and start swinging at bad tosses or the bad tosses are a result of nerves. Either way, they tend to miss a lot of serves.
Previous post above explains well...the return routine begins before toss goes in air and why should returners be at all penalized because a server with the ball in their hand giving them control over ball...why should they have the freedom to start over as often as they want?...maybe put a limit like with challenges that only so many can happen per game or set. Remember Agassi vs Kucera in US Open..it affected that match greatly and Andre responded poorly to it and ended up doing on it purpose a bunch and he lost.

In Baseball, a balk occurs when they have made a move towards plate...not any later so it is all about the pitcher's motion. In that sense it does equate.

And I agree 100% server often pays price anyway in the end. They screw up their own rhythm which was the point of the post to begin with. Thanks for the feedback.
 
Last edited:

Chas Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Play let serve?

You are watching a future Wimbledon, so far one of the best matches of all time, the score in the 5th set is 7-6, 40-30, match point, the ball hits the net and somehow gets over by a short distance, .......................................ugh!
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 765152

Guest
Play let serve?

You are watching a future Wimbledon, so far one of the best matches of all time, the score in the 5th set is 7-6, 40-30, match point, the ball hits the net and somehow gets over by a short distance, .......................................ugh!
And if the same thing happens on the 3rd shot of the point? Will they call let and replay the point? No.

At college level they already play let serve. 3.0 - 5.0 can do the same. We are not playing in the finals of Wimbledon anytime soon.
 
Lefty advantage is huge in our sport more so than most other sports...There has been a disproportionate #1s and dominant top players who are lefty considering the MUCH greater % of right-handers vs left-handers in the world...Why is that???

It has everything to do with how games are structured and scored with always starting on Deuce side. Deuce court favors righties strengths... but there are only 2 game ending points on deuce side....40-15, 15-40. The Ad court is host to all the rest of the game ending 40-0, 0-40, 40-30, 30-40, Ad in, Ad out for a total of 6 favoring lefties.

Leveling the playing field between R & L players would be quite simple...
Rule Change- Allow Servers to choose whether to start game on side of choice...Ad or Deuce....no more advantage at least on scoring aspect.
I think it's simpler than that: lefties spend most of their time playing righties and thus are accustomed to a righty's game. Righties also spend most of their time playing righties so they are not accustomed to a lefty's game.

I think this advantage would persist no matter what scoring system was used [although perhaps not the same magnitude].
 

Serve Doc

Rookie
I think it's simpler than that: lefties spend most of their time playing righties and thus are accustomed to a righty's game. Righties also spend most of their time playing righties so they are not accustomed to a lefty's game.

I think this advantage would persist no matter what scoring system was used [although perhaps not the same magnitude].
Exactly right about the other advantages beyond serve playing a big role too
 
"For server's to have the option to start over on bad tosses...is it fair to return side player? Should the rule be changed?This toss start-over creates further server's advantage and is like a baseball pitcher faking the pitch to the plate and after starting move to plate... instead, chooses to throw out at base runner at first...Not allowed...it's a Balk and batter gets free pass to 1st.
I don't think the baseball analogy is quite accurate because it involves another element [runner at first] whereas tennis there's only the returner [batter].

Possibly the only way to make the analogy completely accurate is if the server swung at the toss, deliberately missed, and then swang again. But this isn't legal anyway

I think the downside with allowing multiple tosses is that it can tire out and dull the reactions of the returner after so many "sorry, mate"s. I know one guy who almost never hits the serve after the first toss. He tosses 2 or 3 times like he's testing the wind. Someone could definitely exploit this if they were so minded.

Should we play let serves?....another server advantage as on return, it forces changes in court positioning to defend short court.
If we play let points, we should play let serves. Allowing one while barring the other is inconsistent.
 
My opinion:

1. NO do-over on bad tosses. Ridiculous waste of time. If your free throw starts off badly, can you re-do it? I don't know any other sport that allows this. Windy day? So do you get to re-hit a lob that went out due to wind?

2. NO let serve, just play it out. Nobody stops during the point for a let, so why should serves be any different. I hate it when I hit an ace or a winner, and my opponent claims, "LET!!!" even tho the ball cleared the net by a foot.

P.S. Change to 1-serve rule. Do you get 2 serves in table tennis, racquetball, volleyball?
You used to get multiple tosses in VB but they changed that rule some years ago. Amazingly, everyone's toss got better.

You never got 2 serves: it was either a side out [old rules] or in-play [new rules].
 

Serve Doc

Rookie
I think we are over thinking the comparison...it's indicating the point is starting by tossing then not finishing....showing a move that indicates intent to throw to the plate...but throwing to first instead...that's all I am comparing and that it is a balk violation in baseball...without further laboring the point we are talking about
 
I think we are over thinking the comparison...it's indicating the point is starting by tossing then not finishing....showing a move that indicates intent to throw to the plate...but throwing to first instead...that's all I am comparing and that it is a balk violation in baseball...without further laboring the point we are talking about
Good point: many consider the point only to have started when serve contact is made when it actually begins with the toss. [Which is why Isner occasionally is called for a foot fault on the Deuce court because his back foot is over the centerline when he tosses, even though it wouldn't have been once he dragged it forward in his pre-contact motion.]
 

Serve Doc

Rookie
You raise another gray area aspect and that is..."When constitutes the actual start of a point for the server? Is it the release of the toss? Not really because you can start over. So at what point in the motion actually would start it? The action of beginning the racquet ascent towards contact would have to be the official ruling which makes it confusing as to when the umpire considers it starting ...to know when to stop the clock. The Umps are liberal with the clock timing considering the addressing the line and bouncing before toss as the start ...but technically it's not. So players like Sharapova would often game those rules by bouncing a few times then stopping...then to continues rituals... then bounce some more before actually tossing. Rafa dribbles it on his racquet a ton to stay closer within the time limits...Djok wastes a lot of time bouncing ball like 15 times to buy more time. Competitors will find creative ways to get their way.
 
You raise another gray area aspect and that is..."When constitutes the actual start of a point for the server? Is it the release of the toss? Not really because you can start over. So at what point in the motion actually would start it? The action of beginning the racquet ascent towards contact would have to be the official ruling which makes it confusing as to when the umpire considers it starting ...to know when to stop the clock. The Umps are liberal with the clock timing considering the addressing the line and bouncing before toss as the start ...but technically it's not. So players like Sharapova would often game those rules by bouncing a few times then stopping...then to continues rituals... then bounce some more before actually tossing. Rafa dribbles it on his racquet a ton to stay closer within the time limits...Djok wastes a lot of time bouncing ball like 15 times to buy more time. Competitors will find creative ways to get their way.
From my USTA Rules of Tennis 2017 handy dandy booklet, page 11, "The Service":

Immediately before starting the service motion, the server shall stand at rest with both feet behind the BL and within the imaginary extensions of the centre mark and the sideline.

The server shall then release the ball by hand in any direction and hit the ball with the racket before the ball hits the ground. The service motion is completed at the moment that the player's racket hits or misses the ball.
Since the release is the first thing mentioned after the at-rest part, the release [toss] must be the beginning of the service motion.
 

Serve Doc

Rookie
From my USTA Rules of Tennis 2017 handy dandy booklet, page 11, "The Service":



Since the release is the first thing mentioned after the at-rest part, the release [toss] must be the beginning of the service motion.
Yes but does it really technically start it though rules may allow it? Get rid of starting over would further define it more clearly but this is just for discussion....in the end...does it really matter? None of us really care about the time clock cause #1 & #2 ATP players are the worst violators as it is.
 

HitMoreBHs

Semi-Pro
On the topic of other rules that should be changed, can we please:

1) get rid of the stupid 5 minute “warm up” that only becomes an unnecessary time waster. It serves no real warm up purpose for the pros since that isn’t adequate time for them to get properly and safely warm for their muscle exertions anyway. By the time they walk out, set up their stuff on the chair, wiggle their water bottles, have the 5 minute hit, sit down again, wiggle their water bottles some more, run the coin toss and pose for photo with walk-on patron, it’s at least 20 minutes! WTF? Let’s get the real show on the road, please!

2) stop the nonsense of walking past their chairs and having a drink on the end-of-first-game change of ends. No one dehydrates in the typical less than five minute first game.

3) no more abusing the ballkids with involving them with the idiocy of the towel routine (the one thing I am thankful to Covid for). If I had a time machine, I’d go back and shoot Greg Rusedski.
 
Last edited:

Serve Doc

Rookie
@Serve Doc Did you lose a match recently to a left hander bad ball tosser??
Love it!!! I love working with Lefties but don't play much against them anymore...just try to get them to understand how to exploit those advantages! The ball toss issue is just another incidental detail of rules for discussion here because it's the kind of thing that seems appropriate here....but it's something to bounce around.

Another discussion should start around the pluses and minuses of encouraging ambidextrous players to go mostly go lefty route for a variety of justifiable reasons. Like Nadal, what is most challenging is getting someone predominantly right-handed in life has to try to engineer an unnatural "against the grain" of the natural kinetic chain they are born with to serve opposite handed. LOOOONg process that never tends to achieve the same potential.
 

Keendog

Professional
Well, I don't care how many times they toss it up. If they need many do overs probaly not a good serve anyway.

I like the idea of just one serve though instead of two. Or choosing what side to serve from in the beginning. Especially at the pro level
 

spaceman_spiff

Hall of Fame
Any decent returner split steps and moves in. Do that a few times each game for naught and it gets annoying.
Most of the people I’ve played against throughout my life don’t throw up that many bad tosses, and the few times they do back out of a serve in a match aren’t enough to cause me a problem. The few people I’ve played who do throw up a lot of bad tosses usually cause themselves far more problems than they cause me (think Elena Dementieva).

I don’t think I’ve ever faced someone who gained an advantage by throwing up bad tosses regularly, so I don’t really understand why it’s that big of a deal for you.
 

Serve Doc

Rookie
Most of the people I’ve played against throughout my life don’t throw up that many bad tosses, and the few times they do back out of a serve in a match aren’t enough to cause me a problem. The few people I’ve played who do throw up a lot of bad tosses usually cause themselves far more problems than they cause me (think Elena Dementieva).

I don’t think I’ve ever faced someone who gained an advantage by throwing up bad tosses regularly, so I don’t really understand why it’s that big of a deal for you.
Players like Rafter admitted often he would purposely do it to see what returner was anticipating on big points....followed by an obligatory "Sorry Mate!
 
D

Deleted member 765152

Guest
Most of the people I’ve played against throughout my life don’t throw up that many bad tosses, and the few times they do back out of a serve in a match aren’t enough to cause me a problem. The few people I’ve played who do throw up a lot of bad tosses usually cause themselves far more problems than they cause me (think Elena Dementieva).

I don’t think I’ve ever faced someone who gained an advantage by throwing up bad tosses regularly, so I don’t really understand why it’s that big of a deal for you.
I never said it is a big deal. I said if the ball leaves the server's hand, then it should be in play.
No other sport allows for this type of "forgiveness."
I wouldn't want to see a volleyball setter in the Olympics saying, "Oops, that left my hand weird. Let me set that again."
 

spaceman_spiff

Hall of Fame
I never said it is a big deal. I said if the ball leaves the server's hand, then it should be in play.
No other sport allows for this type of "forgiveness."
I wouldn't want to see a volleyball setter in the Olympics saying, "Oops, that left my hand weird. Let me set that again."
If you think it’s important enough to warrant a change in the rules of the game, then that means it’s a big deal to you. I personally don’t think it’s a problem that needs fixing.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
I would make it so you need to get the serve in within the allotted time. So if you have 3 seconds left on the serve clock you better not have a bad toss since you will have no time left to actually make a serve. Right now the rules are not really consistent. From the standpoint of the serve clock you are within the rules as long as you 'start the service motion' before the clock expires. But you are perfectly fine to start it and not finish (like, you do not swing at the ball). Someone on the tour should do it for the fun of it - start the motion so he gets no violation, but then not serve. I do not even know what is the clock rule in the case one did start the motion - so I think clock stops - but is it restarted ever actually?

I would even go further - you have so many seconds to make a valid serve. No matter if that is the first or second serve. If you miss first serve a lot - account for that and start your service routine sufficiently earlier. I suppose the clock could be stopped for the time it takes to clear the ball after missed first serve (per umpire discretion).

I would also adjust medical timeout rules. Everybody knows it is used for non-medical purposes. So you get like maybe 1 per set, you use it for whatever. If you use it up for momentum purposes - fine with me. But if you later have a genuine medical issue - tough luck, you do not get another one. And if you absolutely can't continue without medical attention and you have no timeouts left - you get penalized point/game/whatever the rule would be.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
I'm all for the single toss. It would definitely serve to improve peoples tosses.

The worst for me is the guys that actually hit the bad toss. I'm already relaxing expecting them to catch it and re-toss, and then they quickly swing at it and I'm caught flat footed.

I'm also for playing lets and reducing tennis to a single serve per point.

Tennis never should have evolved to giving such an advantage to a single shot in the game. I think the caretakers were remiss in that aspect and now are stuck playing catchup with slow courts and slow balls to make the game watchable. If they'd had any foresight with the introduction of graphite rackets, they would have rebalanced the serve-return game.

Single serve, lengthen the serve box by a foot and play lets. And no re-toss. Then make maximum racket hoop size 85 inches for all but senior's competition. Then you'll maybe see some finesse and S&V come back to the game.
 
D

Deleted member 765152

Guest
I'm all for the single toss. It would definitely serve to improve peoples tosses.

The worst for me is the guys that actually hit the bad toss. I'm already relaxing expecting them to catch it and re-toss, and then they quickly swing at it and I'm caught flat footed.

I'm also for playing lets and reducing tennis to a single serve per point.

Tennis never should have evolved to giving such an advantage to a single shot in the game. I think the caretakers were remiss in that aspect and now are stuck playing catchup with slow courts and slow balls to make the game watchable. If they'd had any foresight with the introduction of graphite rackets, they would have rebalanced the serve-return game.

Single serve, lengthen the serve box by a foot and play lets. And no re-toss. Then make maximum racket hoop size 85 inches for all but senior's competition. Then you'll maybe see some finesse and S&V come back to the game.
Sounds all good.
Let's speed up the courts a little bit too, so old fogies like me can end points at the net with some decent S&V.
 
D

Deleted member 765152

Guest
If you think it’s important enough to warrant a change in the rules of the game, then that means it’s a big deal to you. I personally don’t think it’s a problem that needs fixing.
Again not that important to me. Since ServeDoc brought it up, I concurred with him.
I don't care about it enough to start a petition to change the rules.
 
And now the world is better after the change, well at least the volleyball world.
All of the major rule changes made for faster games:
- Only one toss
- No unlimited timeouts to wipe the floor
- Let serve is in play
- Speed scoring [you score on both your serve and your opponent's serve vs the old "sideout" model where you could only score on your own serve, leading to many "Isner v Mahut"-type games.
 

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
If you think it’s important enough to warrant a change in the rules of the game, then that means it’s a big deal to you. I personally don’t think it’s a problem that needs fixing.
I've watched some old matches from the 80's and 90's and the tennis is far more compelling than what's being played today. More variety in playstyles. Better net play. I wish we could bring that back somehow.

Almost every sport changes rules to move with the times and account for the changes in athletes and equipment. Just look at the NFL and all the rules changes they've brought in to emphasize offense and safety. There's a reason they are the biggest league in North America. They constantly fiddle with the formula to meet fan expectations.

Tennis has done what? Added a shot clock? Slowed courts speeds?

Golf just did a major rules revision to try to remain more relevant. Tennis should do a bit of soul searching too I think.
 

GuyClinch

Legend
I'm all for the single toss. It would definitely serve to improve peoples tosses.

The worst for me is the guys that actually hit the bad toss. I'm already relaxing expecting them to catch it and re-toss, and then they quickly swing at it and I'm caught flat footed.

I'm also for playing lets and reducing tennis to a single serve per point.

Tennis never should have evolved to giving such an advantage to a single shot in the game. I think the caretakers were remiss in that aspect and now are stuck playing catchup with slow courts and slow balls to make the game watchable. If they'd had any foresight with the introduction of graphite rackets, they would have rebalanced the serve-return game.

Single serve, lengthen the serve box by a foot and play lets. And no re-toss. Then make maximum racket hoop size 85 inches for all but senior's competition. Then you'll maybe see some finesse and S&V come back to the game.
Have you tried pickleball? Serve is totally nullified. Court is so small you can stand outside the kitchen and still dominate at net..
 

spaceman_spiff

Hall of Fame
I've watched some old matches from the 80's and 90's and the tennis is far more compelling than what's being played today. More variety in playstyles. Better net play. I wish we could bring that back somehow.

Almost every sport changes rules to move with the times and account for the changes in athletes and equipment. Just look at the NFL and all the rules changes they've brought in to emphasize offense and safety. There's a reason they are the biggest league in North America. They constantly fiddle with the formula to meet fan expectations.

Tennis has done what? Added a shot clock? Slowed courts speeds?

Golf just did a major rules revision to try to remain more relevant. Tennis should do a bit of soul searching too I think.
I understand changing the rules to improve the game, but I just don’t see that having a 1-toss rule would do that. In normal conditions, I don’t see many bad tosses that are allowed to drop, so I don’t think there’s a problem there that needs to be fixed. If anything, such a rule change might make the game worse by making players hit more bad serves on windy days, and I don’t think many people would find that entertaining.

I’m all for things like electronic line calling and allowing coaching during the match. But I think a 1-toss rule would be about as pointless as a rule banning the use of umbrellas for shade during changeovers.
 

Chas Tennis

G.O.A.T.
Game of Tennis & Players vs TV

Where do new tennis rules originate from? To fix a problem with tennis that people become aware of.

I believe that many rules associated with timing, don't have anything to do with tennis but with things outside of tennis, often TV broadcasting.

1) rule - '25 seconds to the next serve',
2) proposed rule - 'play any served ball that touches the net and lands in'
3) existing rule? - Yesterday at the AO, Shapovalov was denied a bathroom break in the 5th set by the chair umpire. ? Explain.

I assume that TV pays a large part of tennis revenues. I have often heard TV commentators - that speak to very large numbers of tennis viewers - advocating rules to move things along. It seems that moving things along only and not tennis is the purpose. Consequences to the game of tennis or the players are not mentioned vs 'it would take less time'. After players have a long running point or a short point, it's always 25 seconds to the next serve. The 25 second rule between serves seems to be on all TV broadcasts of tennis matches. If there is no TV, is the 25 second rule ever applied?
 
Last edited:

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Have you tried pickleball? Serve is totally nullified. Court is so small you can stand outside the kitchen and still dominate at net..
Again a sport that emphasizes one shot too much. In this case "the dink." Even less variety in pickleball than tennis. Can't stand watching it on TV.

I understand changing the rules to improve the game, but I just don’t see that having a 1-toss rule would do that. In normal conditions, I don’t see many bad tosses that are allowed to drop, so I don’t think there’s a problem there that needs to be fixed. If anything, such a rule change might make the game worse by making players hit more bad serves on windy days, and I don’t think many people would find that entertaining.
I think its more an issue at lower rec levels and to me it's more about maximizing your time on court. Any rule change that shortens the time spent standing around adds up over time. Golf changed the rule to allow putting with the flag in. It seems minimal but it actually saves about 30 minutes on a round.

So minimizing repeat tosses, single serve into a bigger box with no re-do's, etc. will all give you more point play and less standing and waiting or retrieving balls.

Maybe once I'm retired I won't care anymore but these days I like to maximize my rec time.
 

mucat

Hall of Fame
Any decent returner split steps and moves in. Do that a few times each game for naught and it gets annoying. The bigger point though is that a fault should be assessed once the ball leaves the hand and doesn't make it into the service box.
Shouldn't the split step time with the swing instead of the toss? So if a toss goes up without any swing and it was caught, there shouldn't be any split step.
 
Shouldn't the split step time with the swing instead of the toss? So if a toss goes up without any swing and it was caught, there shouldn't be any split step.
It depends on what type of split step you use. Nadal rapidly bounces on his feet prior to taking his split. Some do a double split.

Actually, I split even if the server catches the toss because by the time I figure out he's not going to serve, it's too late to stop from splitting. If I didn't split and then realized he was going to serve after all, it would be too late.
 

sredna42

Hall of Fame
Lefty advantage is huge in our sport more so than most other sports...There has been a disproportionate #1s and dominant top players who are lefty considering the MUCH greater % of right-handers vs left-handers in the world...Why is that???

It has everything to do with how games are structured and scored with always starting on Deuce side. Deuce court favors righties strengths... but there are only 2 game ending points on deuce side....40-15, 15-40. The Ad court is host to all the rest of the game ending 40-0, 0-40, 40-30, 30-40, Ad in, Ad out for a total of 6 favoring lefties.

Leveling the playing field between R & L players would be quite simple...
Rule Change- Allow Servers to choose whether to start game on side of choice...Ad or Deuce....no more advantage at least on scoring aspect.
I made a thread about this and had a horde of TTW zombies go mental at me for the idea
 

Lukhas

Legend
I've watched some old matches from the 80's and 90's and the tennis is far more compelling than what's being played today. More variety in playstyles. Better net play. I wish we could bring that back somehow.

Almost every sport changes rules to move with the times and account for the changes in athletes and equipment. Just look at the NFL and all the rules changes they've brought in to emphasize offense and safety. There's a reason they are the biggest league in North America. They constantly fiddle with the formula to meet fan expectations.

Tennis has done what? Added a shot clock? Slowed courts speeds?

Golf just did a major rules revision to try to remain more relevant. Tennis should do a bit of soul searching too I think.
To be honest, the absurd level of fragmentation of tennis makes it very difficult to get any sort of agreement on rule changes; nevermind any sort of consistency. Another thread on tennis analytics (which you can find here: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/deep-dive-into-tennis-analytics.689740) has had the author of the article in the OP basically stating that among other things, the fragmentation of power and tournaments not willing to provide service to the players is one of the reasons we have so few statistics in tennis.

Personally? I'd ban co-poly. :whistle: As for racquet headsizes, in reality oversize racquets on the pro tour died even earlier than midsize frames with Agassi's retirement in 2006. The 107in² racquet just was gone like that, even though there were still a couple of 93in² and smaller users at the time. The biggest headsize I can remember in either Top 100 is Venus Williams' 104in² racquet; even her sister Serena has gone slightly smaller at 102in²... and both of them turned pro in the mid '90s. I think there's still Gasquet using a 102in² with his LM Instinct XL, but likewise he's also nearing the end of his career. So I don't think bigger racquets are the bogeyman they're made out to be: if anything headsizes have condensed, and anything too small or big is pretty much gone. Co-poly however? Now that's what you call disruptive. It would also lower serve percentages by a not so insignificant margin, so it's not as if it's going to kill baseline rallies either.

You'd also have to get the powers that'd be to agree on having different conditions for different venues, and dare to be different. Which, due to the fragmentation of power in tennis, is way easier said than done.
 

mucat

Hall of Fame
It depends on what type of split step you use. Nadal rapidly bounces on his feet prior to taking his split. Some do a double split.

Actually, I split even if the server catches the toss because by the time I figure out he's not going to serve, it's too late to stop from splitting. If I didn't split and then realized he was going to serve after all, it would be too late.
Watch this in slow motion


The landing happens right after the contact. For us mere mortals, the landing will be quite a bit later :)
Not saying it is not annoying to play against player who re-toss a lot.
 
Watch this in slow motion


The landing happens right after the contact. For us mere mortals, the landing will be quite a bit later :)
Right. And if landing occurs just after contact, takeoff must have occurred before contact. Which means muscle contraction needed to take off has to have fired even earlier. My point was that this time is before I've figured out that the server is going to catch his toss. So I end up split stepping even on a caught toss.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
another one. A player that lost a set has a choice of serving or receiving first in the next set. Not sure yet what teh rule should be if the score is 1:1 (for 2 out of 3 matches) or 2:2 (for 3 out of 5). :)
 

spaceman_spiff

Hall of Fame
I think its more an issue at lower rec levels and to me it's more about maximizing your time on court. Any rule change that shortens the time spent standing around adds up over time. Golf changed the rule to allow putting with the flag in. It seems minimal but it actually saves about 30 minutes on a round.

So minimizing repeat tosses, single serve into a bigger box with no re-do's, etc. will all give you more point play and less standing and waiting or retrieving balls.

Maybe once I'm retired I won't care anymore but these days I like to maximize my rec time.
Again, I don’t think the problem is big enough that a rule change would have a noticeable effect. Even at lower levels, I don’t see that many people who throw up enough bad tosses to take up a significant amount of time in a match. Thinking back to matches and practice sets that I’ve played, I don’t think it even adds up to one per game.

I doubt such a rule change would save you even 5 minutes over the course of a typical match.
 

GuyClinch

Legend
Again a sport that emphasizes one shot too much. In this case "the dink." Even less variety in pickleball than tennis. Can't stand watching it on TV.
The better men just charge the net, camp outside the kitchen and knock off volleys - if we are talking about singles pickleball. Don't think your criticism is valid. Like I said pickleball is tennis your way.

Now back to tennis - no let rule is something they should enforce at the tour level. Thus it would trickle down to league and rec player. The let rule is a dumb rule anyway. Why should the serve not count if it hits the top of the net and goes in.? Must been created by some sore loser brit..

The toss rule change would be fine as well but make hardly any difference in the real world. I have never hit with a player who abused this rule. I am sure I am not alone in this.

Now the serve rule (one serve) - that would change a lot. I would nullify big servers and make it easier for shorter men to compete. It would drastically reorder the world rankings on the men's side. I wouldn't be shocked if only 1 out of the current top 10 was still in the top ten. It would be a drastic game breaking change. It wouldn't bother rec players much but it would pretty much change tennis entirely on the men's side. All of the tall top men would be gone - and tons of the under 6' crowd would start to dominate.

For rec players from what I have seen most of the serves are crappy enough so that only at 5.0 level is serves really a weapon. Serves might be the most important shot at the pro level. But at the rec level guys like MEP are proof that you don't even need a serve to win at 4.5. Would this help the popularity of the game?

I think it might help with rec players - as tall athletic men can smack serves down on short guys and smack overheads down around the net and this would weaken their dominance on the serve at least. But you would need a kitchen like rule to stop tall men from still causing havoc in doubles at the pro level.

But at the pro level it would hurt singles popularity. I don't think people actually like endless rallies. The hard serves are fun to watch - crowd goes ooh and aww with each ace. Once you have seen one 17 point rally - I think the fans would get bored with long baseline rallies. You would need other rule changes to add in volleys - serve would not help. If anything serve change would make things worse because you could not charge the net with a really nice kick.. You would just stay back with a safe kick serve.

One things that they should cancel is the quiet fans between points. This is stupid. Tennis players should learn to screen out hecklers or crowd noise. But I digress..
 
Last edited:

Dartagnan64

G.O.A.T.
Now the serve rule (one serve) - that would change a lot. I would nullify big servers and make it easier for shorter men to compete. It would drastically reorder the world rankings on the men's side. I wouldn't be shocked if only 1 out of the current top 10 was still in the top ten. It would be a drastic game breaking change. It wouldn't bother rec players much but it would pretty much change tennis entirely on the men's side. All of the tall top men would be gone - and tons of the under 6' crowd would start to dominate.
First off, you couldn't change to a one serve rule unless you changed the service box to be longer. Make a deeper service box and a server gets some advantage, but not as much as a free shot to hammer the ball.

But I think most of the top 10 are there because they are some of the best returners in the game, not servers so I don't think it would shake things up at the top. It would definitely drop a lot of folks out of the second tier and move others up.

I think there is a balance to be found where service breaks are more common than they are now and you don't have to rely on slowing courts down to clay court levels and homogenizing the game. I'd like to see a match where being down 2 service breaks isn't an automatic loss of set.

It would be a quantum shift and one tennis might not be ready for, but fortune favors the bold and sometimes quantum shifts are just the thing to shake tihings up for the better.
 
First off, you couldn't change to a one serve rule unless you changed the service box to be longer.
If I only had one serve, I wouldn't need compensation of a longer service box. Then again, I have a mediocre serve.

A longer service box would require re-doing a crap ton of courts. At least the other rule changes don't require changes to something physical.
 
Top