solution to the dominance of serving

bjk

bjk

Hall of Fame
Watching the practices during the first day at the Legg Mason tournie, I noticed that the players are getting taller. Berdych, del Potro, Gulbis, Cilic are all big guys. I can't think of a young player under 6'1 in the top 30. But it was the smaller players, like Robredo and Ginepri, who had the more solid strokes and were more fun to watch. Who wants to watch Isner or Ivo blast ace after ace? It could kill the sport . . .

The current approach to the dominance of serving is to make the balls heavier and courts slower. That's fine, but it also hurts the serve and volley game. Good luck with that slice approach shot. It'll sit up on the slow courts with the slow ball and get blasted for a winner.

So here's the solution: change the scoring. For every fault, the returner gets five points. Each point is worth 15, so the server is penalized for faults, even when it's on the first serve. First to 50 wins the game, so three faults would be the equivalent of losing a point. As it stands now, with two serves, servers get a free chance to end the point before it starts. Changing the scoring would also add to the strategy . . . should the player go for a big serve at 45-40? Or just try to get the serve in?
 
ya i can see them i had the same problem though it wouldnt let me post oh ya i think this is a dumb idea
 
As long as there is serving, big guys will always have an edge in that aspect, but smaller players have advantages as well. I don't think changing the scoring would affect much. Being tall helps with power and consistency.
 
Good luck getting rid of the strings. What are they going to do, have sniffing dogs sniff the strings before the match, make sure there are no illegal strings?

If they make changes to the pro game, the change has to be replicated at the rec level. It hurts the sport to play a pro game and then a rec game. But if you change the scoring, the rec players would go along . . . Most rec games spend way to much time serving anyway.
 
bjk said:
Watching the practices during the first day at the Legg Mason tournie, I noticed that the players are getting taller. Berdych, del Potro, Gulbis, Cilic are all big guys. I can't think of a young player under 6'1 in the top 30. But it was the smaller players, like Robredo and Ginepri, who had the more solid strokes and were more fun to watch. Who wants to watch Isner or Ivo blast ace after ace? It could kill the sport . . .

The current approach to the dominance of serving is to make the balls heavier and courts slower. That's fine, but it also hurts the serve and volley game. Good luck with that slice approach shot. It'll sit up on the slow courts with the slow ball and get blasted for a winner.

So here's the solution: change the scoring. For every fault, the returner gets five points. Each point is worth 15, so the server is penalized for faults, even when it's on the first serve. First to 50 wins the game, so three faults would be the equivalent of losing a point. As it stands now, with two serves, servers get a free chance to end the point before it starts. Changing the scoring would also add to the strategy . . . should the player go for a big serve at 45-40? Or just try to get the serve in?
Click to expand...

If you like short players with a weak serve but awesome strokes and net game, look no further than Dudi Sela. Sadly his serve is still hurting him from winning matches.
 
Shorter players would still be at a disadvantage as the scoring applies to them as well. If you really want to make it even, make a wingspan + racquet length restriction so players like karlovic would have to use 10" racquets. That would be funny :)
 
"Shorter players would still be at a disadvantage as the scoring applies to them as well."

That's a good point, but I don't think it applies. Gilles Simon (the only young and short player in the top 30) isn't going to ace anybody, no matter how many first serves he gets. So if everybody is hitting at 3/4 pace, it equalizes the serve. Karlovic can still go for aces, but he's going to be penalized.
 
bjk said:
Watching the practices during the first day at the Legg Mason tournie, I noticed that the players are getting taller. Berdych, del Potro, Gulbis, Cilic are all big guys. I can't think of a young player under 6'1 in the top 30. But it was the smaller players, like Robredo and Ginepri, who had the more solid strokes and were more fun to watch. Who wants to watch Isner or Ivo blast ace after ace? It could kill the sport . . .

The current approach to the dominance of serving is to make the balls heavier and courts slower. That's fine, but it also hurts the serve and volley game. Good luck with that slice approach shot. It'll sit up on the slow courts with the slow ball and get blasted for a winner.

So here's the solution: change the scoring. For every fault, the returner gets five points. Each point is worth 15, so the server is penalized for faults, even when it's on the first serve. First to 50 wins the game, so three faults would be the equivalent of losing a point. As it stands now, with two serves, servers get a free chance to end the point before it starts. Changing the scoring would also add to the strategy . . . should the player go for a big serve at 45-40? Or just try to get the serve in?
Click to expand...

You lost me at Tommy Robredo being fun to watch.

Ambitious idea, but no. Tennis is tennis. The rules shouldn't be changed just b/c you don't like big servers. Serves don't win slams, just look at how many slams or even titles guys like Karlovic, Isner, Ivanisevic have.

You're overstating the importants of serves. Chris Guccione has a huge serve and isn't even top 100.

Look at the top 10. Guys like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko, Simon don't have the huge serves you speak of. Serving isn't killing the game. Maybe for you, but not in general. Changing the scoring is a bad idea, no offense.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, the balls and courts have been changed to slow the ball down. That benefits the grinders like Nadal, Davydenko, Murray, Simon. It hurts the approach the net game (not serve and volley), but there are none left to mention, really, because that style's been driven out of the game.

So with big serves and slow courts, the game has two styles, big serving and big spin/grinder tennis. Reduce the dominance of the serve, and quicken up the courts, and the game would open up in interesting ways.

But the more fundamental reason to change the scoring is that players should not get two chances to hit a shot. What if in soccer players got two chances at a penalty shot? Or basketball players got two chances to hit a three pointer? The ball should be in play from the time the player strikes the ball. IT makes no sense to give each player a "free shot" with every service point.
 
That's dumb. I mean, how can you come in and say we should just go changing the rules of tennis, it's been this way for over 100 years.

Football teams get four downs, baseball players get 3 strikes, just like tennis has two serves. Your reasoning is getting weaker and weaker.

Big serving is part of the evolution of the game, something the rules should not have to be changed to make way for. And no, big servers are not dominating the game. If that was the case, Roddick would have 20 slams. I don't get your point. Is it just that you don't like big servers b/c they're boring? If so, that's not good enough reason to ask for rules to be changed.
 
jamesblakefan#1 said:
You lost me at Tommy Robredo being fun to watch.

Ambitious idea, but no. Tennis is tennis. The rules shouldn't be changed just b/c you don't like big servers. Serves don't win slams, just look at how many slams or even titles guys like Karlovic, Isner, Ivanisevic have.

You're overstating the importants of serves. Chris Guccione has a huge serve and isn't even top 100.

Look at the top 10. Guys like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko, Simon don't have the huge serves you speak of. Serving isn't killing the game. Maybe for you, but not in general. Changing the scoring is a bad idea, no offense.
Click to expand...

I still think the serve is the most important shot in the game, but you're right you can't win the big titles with serve only.
 
bjk said:
Watching the practices during the first day at the Legg Mason tournie, I noticed that the players are getting taller. Berdych, del Potro, Gulbis, Cilic are all big guys. I can't think of a young player under 6'1 in the top 30. But it was the smaller players, like Robredo and Ginepri, who had the more solid strokes and were more fun to watch. Who wants to watch Isner or Ivo blast ace after ace? It could kill the sport . . .
Click to expand...

Rafael Nadal is 6 flat.
 
bjk said:
So here's the solution: change the scoring. For every fault, the returner gets five points. Each point is worth 15, so the server is penalized for faults, even when it's on the first serve. First to 50 wins the game, so three faults would be the equivalent of losing a point. As it stands now, with two serves, servers get a free chance to end the point before it starts. Changing the scoring would also add to the strategy . . . should the player go for a big serve at 45-40? Or just try to get the serve in?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have given this a lot of thoughts, very impressive. If I may offer a simpler solution, which admittedly is not mine but was suggested by Mr. McEnroe a while back (suprised the heck out of me when I first heard it from him). Johnny boy suggested reducing the size of the service box by moving the back line closer toward the net. This will force the servers to spin the ball in rather than just simply whacking down on it.

It always amazes me what comes out of Mr. McEnroe's mouth; I am constantly entertained by the guy.
 
Why is everyone such a traditionalist? The NBA brought in the 3-point shot, the NFL introduced the 2-point score. Nothing is set in stone. The two serve rule was made when the serve was a way to start the point . . . now it dominates the game.
 
"Johnny boy suggested reducing the size of the service box by moving the back line closer toward the net. This will force the servers to spin the ball in rather than just simply whacking down on it

Same reason the NBA doesn't change the height of the basket. You would have to change the size of every court in the world. If you wanted to do something like that, just say that serves that hit the service lines are out.
 
To be honest, the last Wimbly final was boring because of the heavy service game of both players Federer and Roddick. There is nothing graceful to see how two players make ace after ace, no matter how difficult and skillful shot is the service. Every time I just wonder how many applause gets an ace from the spectaculars, it is just boring for me. I appreciate the idea of John McEnroe to shorten the service box, in this case the skills and technique will overcome the height and brute force.
 
if you penalize the first fault, your only hurting the smaller guys even further, roddick ivo and such (the big servers) have as good a first serve % as the smaller guys and usually better
 
Haha, I bet if the big servers dies out, then people in the future are going to miss them. Just like the serve and volleyers. Serve and volley is starting to become less of the norm now and people are missing them.

I say we keep the game as it is. It may force a lot of players to be better returners and may bring back serve and volley.
 
Drago said:
.... I appreciate the idea of John McEnroe to shorten the service box, in this case the skills and technique will overcome the height and brute force.
Click to expand...

If you make the service box any smaller, club level tennis will be double fault festivals.

I think John McEnroe wanted to increase the service box by 3 feet and have 1 serve.

I think laver also was in favor of reducing the number of 2nd serves. No ad scoring, i.e. max 7 points per game with 3 2nd serves. problem with that is for recreational tennis, we have a hard time keeping track of the score.. keeping track of 2nd serve counts will be a nightmare..
 
Not a full solution but...

First serve let = Fault.
Second serve let = redo second serve (as normal).

Sort of like baseball with 2 strikes and a foul ball.
 
I liken it to football becoming a kicking game...relatively cheap points, given field position and a guy who does nothing but kick. It should be more about getting the ball in play. I like the idea about getting only one first serve, whether over the net cleanly or not. Needing to use more care in serving might throttle it back a notch.

I would be more concerned about getting the women to stop worrying about being big and serving big.
 
bjk said:
Watching the practices during the first day at the Legg Mason tournie, I noticed that the players are getting taller. Berdych, del Potro, Gulbis, Cilic are all big guys. I can't think of a young player under 6'1 in the top 30. But it was the smaller players, like Robredo and Ginepri, who had the more solid strokes and were more fun to watch. Who wants to watch Isner or Ivo blast ace after ace? It could kill the sport . . .

The current approach to the dominance of serving is to make the balls heavier and courts slower. That's fine, but it also hurts the serve and volley game. Good luck with that slice approach shot. It'll sit up on the slow courts with the slow ball and get blasted for a winner.

So here's the solution: change the scoring. For every fault, the returner gets five points. Each point is worth 15, so the server is penalized for faults, even when it's on the first serve. First to 50 wins the game, so three faults would be the equivalent of losing a point. As it stands now, with two serves, servers get a free chance to end the point before it starts. Changing the scoring would also add to the strategy . . . should the player go for a big serve at 45-40? Or just try to get the serve in?
Click to expand...

Young or not, there's plenty of guys under 6'1'' in the top 30. You'd be hard pressed to argue that height makes a huge difference if the old, short guys are ranked higher than taller, younger guys.

Players 6 feet and under in the top 30:

Nalbandian, Simon, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Robredo, Ferrer, Kohly, Wawrinka, Andreev, Sela.
 
yellowoctopus said:
Sounds like you have given this a lot of thoughts, very impressive. If I may offer a simpler solution, which admittedly is not mine but was suggested by Mr. McEnroe a while back (suprised the heck out of me when I first heard it from him). Johnny boy suggested reducing the size of the service box by moving the back line closer toward the net. This will force the servers to spin the ball in rather than just simply whacking down on it.

It always amazes me what comes out of Mr. McEnroe's mouth; I am constantly entertained by the guy.
Click to expand...

are you kidding me? that would make it even HARDER for short players.
the way i see it is, theres no way of limiting the service for tall people without in turn limiting it for short people. the service game is becoming more and more like the NBA, but thats life.. we can't change it

trust me, as a 5"5'er, i know it sucks. but its one of those things that can't change. im learning topspin serves atm and slowly phasing out my flat because of its crappy %. it makes it easier for the opponent but at least im not faulting 80% of my 1st serves lol
 
"the way i see it is, theres no way of limiting the service for tall people without in turn limiting it for short people."

Let's imagine everyone had 1 serve, then everyone would hit their second serve. Ok, then look at leaders for 2nd serve points won. It's Nadal at the top, then Roddick, Fed, and Kohlschreiber and Robredo. Nadal, Kohl, and Robredo all have very strong ground games and weak serves -- reducing the importance of the serve would help players like Kohlschreiber and Robredo, who have precisely the sort of ground game that's fun to watch.
 
bjk said:
"the way i see it is, theres no way of limiting the service for tall people without in turn limiting it for short people."

Let's imagine everyone had 1 serve, then everyone would hit their second serve. Ok, then look at leaders for 2nd serve points won. It's Nadal at the top, then Roddick, Fed, and Kohlschreiber and Robredo. Nadal, Kohl, and Robredo all have very strong ground games and weak serves -- reducing the importance of the serve would help players like Kohlschreiber and Robredo, who have precisely the sort of ground game that's fun to watch.
Click to expand...

You haven't given any reason as to why the rule should be changed, other than the fact that you just hate watching big servers play. This whole thread is one big cry fest a/b how much you hate big servers. The first and second serves are both part of the game. You can't make a rule that would put so many players at a disadvantage, just because, in your opinion, you think the big serve style is boring.
 
Every rule puts somebody at a disadvantage. IMO, the burden of proof is on any rule that gives an advantage to anyone over 6'6. \

Sports change rules all the time. The goal is to increase fan satisfaction, which doesn't need a justification. I don't know anyone who'd like to see a Roddick-Isner final. Snoozearama.
 
bjk said:
Every rule puts somebody at a disadvantage. IMO, the burden of proof is on any rule that gives an advantage to anyone over 6'6. \

Sports change rules all the time. The goal is to increase fan satisfaction, which doesn't need a justification. I don't know anyone who'd like to see a Roddick-Isner final. Snoozearama.
Click to expand...

great final. it would be played at a very good pace
 
bjk said:
Every rule puts somebody at a disadvantage. IMO, the burden of proof is on any rule that gives an advantage to anyone over 6'6. \

Sports change rules all the time. The goal is to increase fan satisfaction, which doesn't need a justification. I don't know anyone who'd like to see a Roddick-Isner final. Snoozearama.
Click to expand...

I'm perfectly fine w/ the rules the way they are. Changing the rules just b/c there's tall guys that can serve is short sighted. Did Ivanisevic dominate the 90s? Are Roddick and Karlovic dominating now?

Your main reason for changing the rule is that you think big servers are boring and ruin the game, which is something that [A] not everyone agrees with and not enough reason to suddenly change the way the game's been played forever. Being tall gives you no great competitive advatage, at least not enough of one to go changing the rules of tennis.

It seems like you're just looking for ways to get guys like Robredo and Kohlschrieber more success, at the expense of guys like Roddick and Karlovic, who've earned their spot on tour. Sounds like sour grapes.
 
bjk said:
That's great. Good for them. Doesn't mean I have to buy a ticket. People go to sporting events to admire people who have developed a difficult talent and make the difficult look easy. I don't see much skill or talent in Isner's game, not compared to shorter players, and I won't bother to watch him play . . . And I'm not the only one.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973-2008/4209
Click to expand...

Serving a ball at 130 mph is just as difficult as hitting a great FH or BH. Roddick makes hitting a 140 mph serve look easy. He's one of the biggest draws on the ATP tour, much bigger than Robredo. lol. DIfferent fans like different things, dont paint it as if all tennis fans hate big servers when that's not the case.

And your TV numbers. I seem them and raise you...

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/07/09/wimbledon-mens-final-is-most-viewed-in-10-years/22595
 
I give up. It's impossible to argue with fanboys . . . Tellingly, not a single person agreed that the game is a) more boring than it has to be and b) could be changed for the better. If David Stern were running tennis, the sport would not have sunk into a terminal decline, like boxing . . .
 
bjk said:
I give up. It's impossible to argue with fanboys . . . Tellingly, not a single person agreed that the game is a) more boring than it has to be and b) could be changed for the better. If David Stern were running tennis, the sport would not have sunk into a terminal decline, like boxing . . .
Click to expand...

So anyone who does not have your same exact opinion is some thoughtless fanboy?
 
lawrence said:
are you kidding me? that would make it even HARDER for short players.
the way i see it is, theres no way of limiting the service for tall people without in turn limiting it for short people. the service game is becoming more and more like the NBA, but thats life.. we can't change it

trust me, as a 5"5'er, i know it sucks. but its one of those things that can't change. im learning topspin serves atm and slowly phasing out my flat because of its crappy %. it makes it easier for the opponent but at least im not faulting 80% of my 1st serves lol
Click to expand...

This idea is really not trying to favor short or tall people; it's simply trying to make flat serves that much harder to hit--making them lesser part of the game.

And since this was John MacEnroe's idea, it would be funny if you would have started you post with 'You cannot be serious' instead of 'are you kidding me?' :)
 
bjk said:
I give up. It's impossible to argue with fanboys . . . Tellingly, not a single person agreed that the game is a) more boring than it has to be and b) could be changed for the better.
Click to expand...

Of course changes can be made to a sport to make it more interesting. But I disagree with your plan both in principle and in the way it would executed. The serve is no longer as big a weapon as it was 10 years ago due to increased racquet sizes and the new strings favoring returners. Also think about the fact that if you weaken the serve even more, you'll be completely eliminating the already rare S&V game.
 
I personally don't think a match becomes unbearably boring just because there may be more aces than we're used to.

Look at Wimbledon this year. More people tuned in to watch that than last year and many thought it was a better match than last year's Nadal/Fed final.



Some might have thought it was just ace after ace, but isn't the main objective of tennis to win? Surely it's better to serve an ace than to have to run back and forth rally after rally praying that your opponent is going to make a fault or waiting for an opportunity to force an error? Some players can't serve aces. Don't penalise big servers because you don't like that style of play.
 
bjk said:
Watching the practices during the first day at the Legg Mason tournie, I noticed that the players are getting taller. Berdych, del Potro, Gulbis, Cilic are all big guys. I can't think of a young player under 6'1 in the top 30. But it was the smaller players, like Robredo and Ginepri, who had the more solid strokes and were more fun to watch. Who wants to watch Isner or Ivo blast ace after ace? It could kill the sport . . .

The current approach to the dominance of serving is to make the balls heavier and courts slower. That's fine, but it also hurts the serve and volley game. Good luck with that slice approach shot. It'll sit up on the slow courts with the slow ball and get blasted for a winner.

So here's the solution: change the scoring. For every fault, the returner gets five points. Each point is worth 15, so the server is penalized for faults, even when it's on the first serve. First to 50 wins the game, so three faults would be the equivalent of losing a point. As it stands now, with two serves, servers get a free chance to end the point before it starts. Changing the scoring would also add to the strategy . . . should the player go for a big serve at 45-40? Or just try to get the serve in?
Click to expand...

This is a good thread, a good post, but this would make guys like Isner and Karlovic unemployed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Centered
What makes tennis boring to watch
Replies
32
Views
8K
ttbrowne
ttbrowne
clayqueen
The Numbers Behind The Big Four's Dominance
2
Replies
77
Views
4K
SLD76
SLD76
P
How pathetic has serving become ?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Bryan Swartz
B
M J
Roddick Serving Irrationally
Replies
30
Views
2K
daddy
daddy
V
Tennis Dominance Ratio, a system to settle the GOAT debate ?
2
Replies
65
Views
4K
Tennis_Hands
T
Back
Top