Shorten men's matches, says former Player Council head

jm1980 said:
It works in NCAA tennis
Click to expand...
An evil alternative - turn lets and netcords into faults/UEs.

Treat the net as an obstruction (I'm sure a ball bouncing off the umpire's chair and into play isn't counted as in, is it?)
 
Last edited:
How about not ****ing with the rules that make slams great in the first place. They're called GRAND Slams for ****s sake. Plenty other stuff you can do, but don't **** with the greatest thing about the sport. Nobody is forcing anybody to watch for the whole 5 hours. We already have the 9 ATP 1000's, no need to add 4 others to that. You can't play 4 5 setters? Your own ****ing fault, you shoulda won your matches quicker. Opponent has better fitness? Stop ********, figure it out.

Tennis has problems, but Slams being too tough aren't one of them. You want to see fit people at Slams? Cut down the rest of the schedule.
 
Meles said:
I see this a lot. Tiebreakers at 5 all instead of 6 all, but still play the sets to 6 otherwise would be a small change, but its something

Perhaps play to 5 like we do now to 6, with tiebreakers at 5 all (sometimes a 6-4 set, instead of the current 7-5 set)

Or combine both of these proposals and have tiebreakers at 4 all for first to 5 sets. I really like this third one. For most of the big tournaments like masters 1000, its actually pretty greuling to play perhaps 5 days in a row to win the tournament. If you start having three set matches this is almost the equivalent of playing 6 sets in a major. The problem is not just the slams. For slams it shortens the matches which are just far too long. I believe shortening sets in this manner would increase the number of tiebreakers which fans will like.
Click to expand...
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is. I used to play sets to 4. Back when I was 8 years old dammit. These are trained professionals, if they can't play 5 bo3 matches in 5 day's, maybe they should train harder or not grind 20 shot rallies every point.
 
FFS, how is this even a topic? I would love to see where this "info" came from. Seems people that watch tennis do so at almost no ends. Cable, apps and streaming are popular and allow people to follow more closely and watch from almost anywhere. I don't think think this is a real issue from the fanbase. To alter the scoring so much would be a step in the wrong direction. It was not received well in that offseason crap.
 
Goatios said:
Problem with arguments like this (and there are many in this thread) is that eventually only the fans who post on tennis message boards will be left to watch the sport, and the players they'll be watching will only be shadows of those who came before them.
Click to expand...
I don't care too much for superstars anyway. But yeah, dumb it down for the masses. Convenience food - convenience tennis.
 
tennisaddict said:
That is not fair to the receiver at all. The guy serving ends up with an advantage, for a mistake he commits, as the ball trajectory changes.
Click to expand...

What goes around comes around, it'll all even out in the end, what about the perfect serve that is disallowed because the ball grazes the tape, on the other hand it makes good contact with the tape and the ball sits up for a winner from the receiver.
No different from flunking a match point off a return that dribbles over the net...them's the breaks.
 
Gullyfoyle said:
What goes around comes around, it'll all even out in the end, what about the perfect serve that is disallowed because the ball grazes the tape, on the other hand it makes good contact with the tape and the ball sits up for a winner from the receiver.
No different from flunking a match point off a return that dribbles over the net...them's the breaks.
Click to expand...

I rather prefer a fault on serve or loss of a point on rally should the ball hit the net
 
In his conversation with Murrya, it sounds like it's his idea of how tennis should be and how long. How do f*******s like this get voted to council?
 
tennisaddict said:
I rather prefer a fault on serve or loss of a point on rally should the ball hit the net
Click to expand...
Don't understand, don't you lose the point anyway if your return hits the net? Or win it if it dribbles over..
Just drop the let, if it lands in the service box it can be returned if it lands out then straight to a second serve where the same rules apply.
 
Gullyfoyle said:
Don't understand, don't you lose the point anyway if your return hits the net? Or win it if it dribbles over..
Just drop the let, if it lands in the service box it can be returned if it lands out then straight to a second serve where the same rules apply.
Click to expand...

I tend to view hitting the net as something that happens by mistake of a player and My thought is that the player should not be awarded a point
 
ScentOfDefeat said:
What if the problem was not in the game but in people's attention span? Why do we always tweak the game instead of ourselves?
It's like society has become a spoiled child that yells "I want it/I don't want it" and industry/services/media are the lazy parents that give in to every whim and desire.
No wonder reality TV has triumphed. It's the age-old question: do we want everything spoon-fed or do we want to challenge ourselves (instead of the paternalist "do we want to be challenged?")?
Click to expand...
I reckon the stylings of Rafael Nadal play(ed) a role.
 
Completely against shortening Bo5.

A Federer early round Bo5 match is the equivalent in time to most other's Best of 3.

Speed up the courts to cut it down. It can still remain physical. On faster courts the best will simply cut the ball off earlier or adapt to standing back a bit farther and be quicker in the back.
 
tennisaddict said:
I tend to view hitting the net as something that happens by mistake of a player and My thought is that the player should not be awarded a point
Click to expand...
Don't see the problem. If the server hits the net and the ball doesn't go over then this mistake is rewarded by a second serve just like now, if it does and the ball lands in the service box then it's in play.

Certainly it a far better idea than some who call for no second serve, that would truly ruin the game.
 
Goatios said:
An evil alternative - turn lets and netcords into faults/UEs.

Treat the net as an obstruction (I'm sure a ball bouncing off the umpire's chair and into play isn't counted as in, is it?)
Click to expand...
Ball bouncing into a permanent fixture ends the point, but it counts. It's not a let (ball bounces on your court and hits the chair, you lose the point; ball from your opponent hits the chair on the fly, you win the point)
 
surface homogenization is at the root of just about everything. the short-term view that the atp took in order to mitigate the impact of big serves and volleys . . . that damage won't just disappear overnight. a generation of players have been taught under the status quo as the tour stands now. even if surface change came tomorrow, it would still take years to notice any real impact in players' strokes and styles of play. not to mention the impact that the ultra-baseliners are having on kids today. how many kids right now are on courts all over the world emulating their heroes?

other professional sports have adopted changes in the past 20 years. rule changes almost always have favored the "offense" . . . more goals, more runs, more touchdowns, more points. basketball and the 3-point line. hockey and the doing away of the two-line-pass and tweaking offside rules. football(soccer) awarding 3 points for a win in order to discourage draws. rules protecting gridiron quarterbacks and receivers to encourage the passing game. even a niche sport like volleyball did away with the side-out in order to quicken scoring. tennis is the only sport i can think of that has done exactly the opposite. they have slowed their game down, intentionally!

football (soccer) pitches have variety in their dimensions. the 18 yard boxes and 6 yard boxes are the same, but pitches vary in size a little. some are wider than others, some longer. baseball parks vary, too. infields are the same, but outfields are not. in fact, they vary a great deal. some ballparks are smaller "hitter's parks" and others are large "pitcher's parks". players and teams have to adjust to the dimensions of those fields. this gives these sports some of their uniqueness, their flavor.

tennis used to have variety of surface. in fact, i would say it was the sport's biggest asset, it's most unique asset. football, baseball, gridiron, cricket, rugby . . . traditional grass sports, pretty much still played on nothing but grass. pro hockey and basketball are played indoors. pro tennis is played indoors, outdoors, on grass, clay, carpet, etc. what other sport can claim that? it's most unique characteristic has been killed off by the atp thanks to homogenization. and it's most traditional surface, grass, is almost extinct. it's an afterthought. do you believe that baseball or soccer would ever give up on grass because it is too expensive to maintain? of course they wouldn't. but tennis has. to me, that's just crazy. not to mention that off all the surfaces, grass is the one which would be the most gentle on our pros, potentially extending careers and curbing injuries.

surfaces. it all comes back to surfaces.
 
Cobaine said:
That's a pretty ignorant comment for someone who watches much tennis as you do.

He's been on tour for more than a decade, and has been on the player's council for a while as well. His blogs on the UTR website show that he has a great deal of insight into the ATP tour as both a player and administrator.

Why not keep an open mind?
Click to expand...

In the States tennis is competing with the NFL, basketball, ice hockey, and baseball, all team sports with regular fixtures so a fan is guarenteed to get a regular fix, even if 1,2,or 3 star players are out with injury there are subs so fans still get their fix, their team will still play. Tennis being an individual sport can't replicate this regularity, players are injured or get knocked out early.

In other parts of the world it's competing against football and other more locally popular/national sports. If Eric thinks the match duration is the problem I don't think he's thought things through.
 
Make it faster, stop the toweling!

Towel2.jpg


:D
 
Tennis really needs to be up to 3x faster,
Itf futures needs to be over in 3 days tops ,no one watches this ,no money in it only expenses for players .
Matches until 4 games,no advantage.
 
In regards to the let becoming a live ball, I read on some other thread and heard from some local coaches, the NCAA went to that format because of the number of guys receiving who would call flat hit aces as lets. So server hits a bomb, receiver can't hit it but it was near the net, call a let. Hence they said play lets to not let the server get punished by bad sportsmanship. Obviously in the pros, regular officiating could let you choose either way.

Here is proof that BO3 would ruin tennis. Tonight at the US Open we had Kerber vs. Sevetovasfasaf and then Djoker vs. Tsonga. 2 snooze fests in a row compounded by injuries. If the Men's match was BO3, it would have done nothing to add to the lore of tennis. With BO5 Tsonga at least had a chance to create an opportunity in the 3rd set, play crazy and attack. Unfortunately he got injured. But we've seen this story in tennis. 2 crappy sets then the players come alive. If all you have is 3 sets, you cut all those stories out.

It's also odd to compare it to American Football or Basketball. 2 sports that many folks only wait until the end to watch or if they watch don't focus until the end. What about the American Pastime Baseball? Several games a week lasting several hours often with nothing happen? At least tennis fills all the time with action. In tennis many points are important. in Football and Basketball, the overall accumulation of points can make the first 1/2 or 2/3's of the game almost unnecessary. All the drama is at the end. But with tennis and its set format, we get that drama with any break of serve or set ending games. The best matches are the contested battles that every point and set count.
 
I think that many people here miss point.Tennis doesn't need to make tennis attractive to people on this forum.You gonna watch it regardless.Yes you will complain maybe even boycott couple events but at the end you will watch it.Tennis like every other sport is trying to attract casual fans so they can get bigger TV ratings which is main revenue source these days in any sport.Remember when NFL changed rules I was mad as hell Didnt watch start of the season and then eventually I came back but NFL gain whole new group of fans fantasy football fans who were eating offense and their revenue jumped through the roof.Tennis like any other sport is a business like it or not
 
That is a great comment. So shortening matches I don't think will draw other viewers in, but tennis needs some new hooks to draw the casual fan in.

I mean honestly, watching the Olympics I tried to understand why beach volley ball ladies play in bikinis... then you see the stands- completely full. Other sports (except track/running) they play in shirts and shorts... heck the men wear more clothing. I gotta believe if it made them better players they would all be out their in speedos (thank god they don't). But it clearly helps with viewership, which funds their sport.

BTW- not suggesting that women's or men's clothing become "sexier". Just a comment.
 
Red Rick said:
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is. I used to play sets to 4. Back when I was 8 years old dammit. These are trained professionals, if they can't play 5 bo3 matches in 5 day's, maybe they should train harder or not grind 20 shot rallies every point.
Click to expand...
Losing viewers. I'd rather have shorter sets than less sets. An easy first step is to play tiebreakers at 5 all and still play to 6 otherwise.

No lets and no ad scoring is stupid. If the 5 all breaker works then maybe take a more significant step and just play to 5. The game is incredibly physical now. This might lessen injury issues which are a huge problem today.
 
SprinkServe said:
Eliminate the second serve. :cool:
Click to expand...
Might actually make things slower since there'll be fewer aces and quick points.

ATP tournaments: 5-5 tiebreakers, super TB at 5-5 in 3rd set
GS tournaments: 5-5 tiebreakers, super TB after 2 sets all

That will keep ATP matches roughly the same length on average while shortening 5 set GS matches by half an hour or so.
 
Last edited:
Boyd Clary said:
That is a great comment. So shortening matches I don't think will draw other viewers in, but tennis needs some new hooks to draw the casual fan in.

I mean honestly, watching the Olympics I tried to understand why beach volley ball ladies play in bikinis... then you see the stands- completely full. Other sports (except track/running) they play in shirts and shorts... heck the men wear more clothing. I gotta believe if it made them better players they would all be out their in speedos (thank god they don't). But it clearly helps with viewership, which funds their sport.

BTW- not suggesting that women's or men's clothing become "sexier". Just a comment.
Click to expand...

But the problem is, casual viewers are exactly that. And once the shinyness of the "hook" is gone, so are they. But what you are left with is a product that is watered down that those who are die-hards(ie the ones whom the money chasers assume every time will just bend over and take it without vaseline) start to look for other things because it's no longer what they enjoy.

It's almost like the people on Wall Street. They want to see that you bring in an extra dollar next quarter. They don't seem to care that the things needed to bring in that extra dollar next quarter are very likely to lose not only that dollar, plus a large number of the previous dollars a year later.
 
Tennease said:
Resurfacing slow hard courts would cost more money as you have to mix the paint with sand and also add soft cushioning layer underneath the surface.

The harder the surface the less maintenance it needs and can save us more money. Just make all surface from pure concrete and pure shiny acrylic paint.
Click to expand...

Um, don't they basically pour new courts every year for tournaments? And when you have a prize pool upwards of $10 million, I'm not about to feel sorry for the USTA or other organizer if they have to spend money to make the product better.

And "save us more money"? Who is this "us" you're talking about? Are you USTA, or someone else whose hand can be in the cookie jar? Or are you one of these tooth fairy believers who also thinks that ticket prices would be lowered if they don't have to spend money on the courts?

This "costs money so can't do it" stuff is just a ridiculous strawman....
 
My prediction for the future of tennis is that serve/volley/chip/charge will become a lot more prevalent again. I think peoples attentions spans are shorter now, so the faster pace will really help to hold their attention. Plus players won't need 20 seconds in between each point if there are fewer long rallies where they get out of breathe. Tennis has become horribly watered down in recent years IMO. It's a bit misleading to call a tennis match an "epic" when 2 out of 4 hours is spent on walking back to the baseline, getting a towel, medical timeout, comfort breaks, talking with umpire etc.

Yes, tennis is a very physically and mentally demanding sport, but it should be more about explosive movement in a shorter time frame than about both plays hitting medium pace high-topspin balls from side to side until one player hits the net.

speed up the courts and reward the player who takes the initiative, problem solved.
 
tennisaddict said:
Tennis must consider shortening matches in a bid to engage with a younger fanbase and avoid losing television viewers, according to former ATP Player Council president and doubles specialist Eric Butorac.

The 35-year-old American, who was succeeded by world number one Novak Djokovic as president, said speed of play is high on the agenda for the new board, which also includes two-time reigning Olympic champion Andy Murray of Britain.

"It's too slow," Butorac, who finished his two-year term as president last month, told Reuters at the U.S. Open. "I said to Andy, I would rather you and Novak play for two hours rather than four.

"I’m too busy. I’ve got two kids, I’ve got stuff to do. I love watching you guys play but I don’t need four hours of it."

According to Butorac, who served on the Council for eight years, Murray is not averse to change.

"We need to do some serious research," he said. "We need to look at: what does our fan base want? What does our younger fan base want? Is it too long?

"I said to Andy, I think we could play two out of three sets here (instead of best of five, as played at the four grand slams).

"And Andy said: 'well, is it better to play two out of three or to play fewer games in a set?' That's not a terrible idea."

Murray said he had enjoyed his first meeting of the Council, held on the eve of the U.S. Open.

"The first meeting was four and a half hours long," Murray told British reporters. "A lot of things got discussed. I'm looking forward to doing it.

"How much you can change things, I don't know."

It was the epic Australian Open final of 2012, when Djokovic beat Rafa Nadal after five hours, 53 minutes, that led many, especially television companies, to call for players to speed up between points.

The average length of men's matches through the first six days at Flushing Meadows this year was 2 hours and 31 minutes. That is eight minutes longer than the overall average from 2015.

But 25 matches so far in this year's U.S. Open have gone to five sets and organizers are experimenting with the use of a shot clock in the junior events and collegiate events.

The clock, allowing players 20 seconds between points as per the rules at grand slams, was first used on Sunday but American junior Brandon Holt said he barely noticed it.

"I only looked at it one time and it said 17 seconds," he said. "I don’t think we even got close to it – at the end I don’t think the guy even turned it on.

"Mostly (the juniors) play pretty fast. But the pros, especially in the fifth set, they've got to take a lot of time so I don’t know how that’s going to work.”

Butorac, who played his last professional match at the U.S. Open last week before moving into a role with the USTA, said he knows some people will not want to change but that it might be the best thing to do.

"It’s tough to mess with tradition but at some point we’ve got to make sure we’re putting the best product on the court," he said. "And I don’t always know that more is better.

"It (would be) a powerful movement but if you truly believe it’s best for the sport, then sports have changed scoring before."
Click to expand...
 
How about two out of three sets and 3 out of five for the semis and finals. That would be a start. There are far too many injuries due to such a long schedule. The players need more time off.
 
dew10s said:
How about two out of three sets and 3 out of five for the semis and finals. That would be a start. There are far too many injuries due to such a long schedule. The players need more time off.
Click to expand...

Or finish matches off sooner if you want rest? Kind of like soccer coaches who killed the golden goal because they wanted "the chance to come back." Win it in regulation if you don't want a sudden death goal to ruin your chances.
 
dew10s said:
How about two out of three sets and 3 out of five for the semis and finals. That would be a start. There are far too many injuries due to such a long schedule. The players need more time off.
Click to expand...
players need more time off, sure. the tennis calendar has never had much of an off-season. but best-of-five isn't the reason players are tired and breaking down.
 
I know this is counterintuitive, but I think there needs to be longer breaks at changeovers and sets. They keep coming back from commercial and blabbing commentators with the game in progress (or almost over in some cases). At home I barely have time to use the can or grab a snack during changeovers if I want to watch live play. And if you're there in person, forget it! You will be punished by missing 2 games. I say 3-5 minutes at changeovers, and then let them have 7-10 minutes between sets to cool off, use the toilet, ladies can change their dresses, etc. If they want to stay warmed up, maybe they can hit against a wall or something. But then when they're actually playing on the court, make them play within the time allowance (and preferably on quicker surfaces).

Also, we need a pottycam. If they take an unscheduled break or go over the time allowance, we get to see any mirror conversations and a full accounting of what's taking so long in there. :D
 
MasturB said:
Completely against shortening Bo5.

A Federer early round Bo5 match is the equivalent in time to most other's Best of 3.

Speed up the courts to cut it down. It can still remain physical. On faster courts the best will simply cut the ball off earlier or adapt to standing back a bit farther and be quicker in the back.
Click to expand...

There was a funny video of a side by side with nadal and fed. Fed completed a whole service game by the time nadal was ready to play the 2nd point of the game. Think he took 55 secs in between points
 
NuBas said:
I question if you even play tennis (well). When you against an opponent your mind is racing, problem solving constantly, so that extra time with the towel or self talk is important to the game. It doesn't even take that long, I think tennis is a fast playing sport. Tennis requires utmost concentration so even little distractions can be costly, I can't imagine all the distractions that happen in a gigantic stadium with people moving about, eating, playing with their phone, and chit chatting, that would drive me nuts let alone a professional.

Let serves don't take that long, maybe an extra 30 seconds? I shake my head at you, go watch track and field or something.
Click to expand...

I don't get how a person walking to his seat in a giant stadium is that big of a distraction. In other sports, shooting free throws in basketball you have actual fans dedicated to distracting you and its' totally normal part of the game. the fans are loud and crazy. Here you get one guy walking back to his seat and Murray is all up in arms! Given this is the US Open I think the distractions are part of the slam and deal with it.

They don't take too much time in between points. 5 hour 5 setters are excessive for fans and players.
 
Soooooo...let's cater to the attention deficit disorder of the younger generation that live out of their phones?
You're not going to get any new viewers in younger people or in the general populace by trying to pander to them, especially when they have the attention span of a gnat. If they already like tennis, they'll watch it. If they don't, they won't.
The 2012 AO final was epic. And I'm not a fan of either one of those players, but it was insanely enjoyable to watch and was worth every passing minute. (save for Nadal's OCD hand-on-face thing and butt picking between points)
If Butorac had it his way, he would siphon out the epic of tennis and replace it with some tepid, truncated, half-assed version of a exhibition match that's sped up to a twitter feed.
Wouldn't surprise me if he also used the 11 hour and 5 minute match at Wimbledon as an example (Isner/Mahut). (blame Isner, not the sport itself)
That would be like that gym teacher everybody had in middle school that penalized the entire class for one person's idiocy and incompetence.
 
mr.torrence said:
Soooooo...let's cater to the attention deficit disorder of the younger generation that live out of their phones?
You're not going to get any new viewers in younger people or in the general populace by trying to pander to them, especially when they have the attention span of a gnat. If they already like tennis, they'll watch it. If they don't, they won't.
The 2012 AO final was epic. And I'm not a fan of either one of those players, but it was insanely enjoyable to watch and was worth every passing minute. (save for Nadal's OCD hand-on-face thing and butt picking between points)
If Butorac had it his way, he would siphon out the epic of tennis and replace it with some tepid, truncated, half-assed version of a exhibition match that's sped up to a twitter feed.
Wouldn't surprise me if he also used the 11 hour and 5 minute match at Wimbledon as an example (Isner/Mahut). (blame Isner, not the sport itself)
That would be like that gym teacher everybody had in middle school that penalized the entire class for one person's idiocy and incompetence.
Click to expand...
Butorac is 35 years old, a simple read of the first 2 lines would've told you that. Can you not read?
Clearly not about Gen Y or the millennials. But nice try though by attempting to blame young people, something "old" people seem to be very good at.
 
NuBas said:
I question if you even play tennis (well). When you against an opponent your mind is racing, problem solving constantly, so that extra time with the towel or self talk is important to the game. It doesn't even take that long, I think tennis is a fast playing sport. Tennis requires utmost concentration so even little distractions can be costly, I can't imagine all the distractions that happen in a gigantic stadium with people moving about, eating, playing with their phone, and chit chatting, that would drive me nuts let alone a professional.
Click to expand...

You can't take a stab at a guy about whether he's a player or not and then whine about distractions. Do YOU play any organized tennis? I don't know about you but I come across tons of distractions when playing at various clubs, parks, etc for tournaments and USTA league matches. Heck, I played in a tournament last weekend and the organizers were doing a raffle over a loud PA system right next to the court where the Open division singles final was being played.

That said, I totally disagree with your assertion that "extra time with the towel" is important to the game. The whole "towel between points" thing is a recent development. In my opinion, the pros need to be physically and mentally tough enough to regroup on the fly so the regulated time limits between points are fine and should be enforced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tennisaddict
SI Podcast : Jon Wertheim with ATP Player Council President
Replies
2
Views
775
tennisaddict
tennisaddict
jwjh
Federer steps down as ATP Player Council President
Replies
34
Views
5K
Noleberic123
Noleberic123
Bartelby
Structure of the ATP
Replies
9
Views
1K
Bartelby
Bartelby
Harry_Wild
ATP Players Council and Chris Kermode!
Replies
15
Views
2K
Meles
Meles
clayqueen
Novak Djokovic officially withdraws from ATP player council elections due to ‘conflict of interest’
Replies
25
Views
1K
blablavla
B
Back
Top