UTS tennis is in trouble

swizzy

Hall of Fame
this ultimate tennis showdown is supposed to solve the problem tennis has with young people. i was just watching some and it was tennis with gimmicks. i can't think of any other sport where it would be suggested to water it down and add a bunch of silly features and think it was an improvement. i am in the camp that the game itself is basically perfect as is and these fast 4 tournaments and no ad scoring are dangerous to the integrity of the game.
 
D

Deleted member 766172

Guest
Agreed. I am fairly young and used to be considered pretty handsome back in the day and have no problem with the way tennis is played. These people don’t understand most of us are not just watching tennis but rooting for a player. We will always watch if our player is winning, but what about if they go down a break or two? Much easier to keep hope with today’s scoring format. No ad scoring is just ridiculous as well.
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
this ultimate tennis showdown is supposed to solve the problem tennis has with young people. i was just watching some and it was tennis with gimmicks. i can't think of any other sport where it would be suggested to water it down and add a bunch of silly features and think it was an improvement. i am in the camp that the game itself is basically perfect as is and these fast 4 tournaments and no ad scoring are dangerous to the integrity of the game.
dump all that. just go on Honor system. that is the best
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
I understand and appreciate all the criticism. BUT we aren’t the target audience really. We’re already tennis fans so of course we will resent radical rule changes geared to make it more appealing to the broader masses. All of the stuff they did is designed to make tennis more television friendly and watchable by casual fans or people that had found tennis too long or tedious before.
 

Robert F

Professional
Glad that toweling off is gone.
Like some of the camera angles.
The gimmicks are no good, it might spice things up at first but then it will make tennis feel like the goofy sports competition we see the networks putting on prime time--Ultimate Tag, Titan Games etc. (These can be fun to watch but we know it isn't sport)

I'm a more tennis classic guy, and I think the 10 minute periods rush the tennis. Takes away some the building drama of a game/match.

I think we need a healthy balance to speed up the game. Fast 4 is probably too short. But, maybe we can learn from these experiments.

I wonder if regular tennis would be fast enough for the younger folks if you did the following:
1.) No toweling off until changeover.
2.) 20 second shot clock enforced, I think UTS showed 15 sec too fast
3.) Maybe 6 game sets but at 5-5 play the TB
4.) Consider only one deuce series per game then deciding point?
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
For all the talk of this new competition it is just ludicrously rubbish right down to the main camera angle which makes it look like some college tennis.

Not getting the camera angle/zoom right for a sport like tennis is basically 25% of your potential audience walking a few mins after you go live. It's basic, basic stuff. To have ****ed up something so fundamental to catering to visual appeal shows how thin on thinking this competition really was. Mouratoglou showing he's too much hot air, not enough smarts again.
 

Fabresque

Hall of Fame
I’m actually very scared that Fast 4 format is going to overtake the traditional format in the future
 

Lleytonstation

G.O.A.T.
I understand and appreciate all the criticism. BUT we aren’t the target audience really. We’re already tennis fans so of course we will resent radical rule changes geared to make it more appealing to the broader masses. All of the stuff they did is designed to make tennis more television friendly and watchable by casual fans or people that had found tennis too long or tedious before.
That is a problem though. Let's say this garners new casual fans. Very few are going to all of the sudden become avid fans. It is not like the actual tennis play is changing. So dumbing it down won't garner as many fans as you think.

However, in the process they will lose their true fans and that will come at a greater cost. I would never devote time and energy to this sport if it was played like this, especially after knowing what it used to be.
 

Cashman

Hall of Fame
i can't think of any other sport where it would be suggested to water it down and add a bunch of silly features and think it was an improvement.
The Twenty20 format (which inspired the invention of tennis’s Fast4) fits this description, and has been a huge financial boon for cricket.

Prior to T20 coming along, cricket matches lasted anything from 8 hours to five days. T20 condensed a match to 3 hours, making it perfect for prime time television. The reduced workload on players also enabled tournaments to be run in a far more concentrated (read: efficient) format.

Most importantly, T20 became a distinctive style of game in its own right. It wasn’t just shorter cricket - T20 strategies and tactics are substantially different from those seen in Test and One-Day matches. Many of the best players today are format specialists. It has evolved into a separate cricket product from the other formats, complete with its own world championship. It has brought huge audiences from key demographics who would not usually be interested in cricket.

Fast4 has many of the same advantages to Twenty20 from an administrative perspective, but given its nature it is unlikely to become a separate tennis product. It is more likely to cannibalise the traditional three-set format.
 

megamind

Legend
Agreed. I am fairly young and used to be considered pretty handsome back in the day and have no problem with the way tennis is played. These people don’t understand most of us are not just watching tennis but rooting for a player. We will always watch if our player is winning, but what about if they go down a break or two? Much easier to keep hope with today’s scoring format. No ad scoring is just ridiculous as well.
What does being handsome have to do with this threat? :-D
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
I understand and appreciate all the criticism. BUT we aren’t the target audience really. We’re already tennis fans so of course we will resent radical rule changes geared to make it more appealing to the broader masses. All of the stuff they did is designed to make tennis more television friendly and watchable by casual fans or people that had found tennis too long or tedious before.
It's true that many of us are tennis tragics, but some of the criticism in this thread is not a value judgment about modernising tennis from that perspective. Some folks are strictly focusing on the failure in execution of the new UTS concept.

And I'm inclined to agree with them. Putting aside the issue of whether it's good or bad to be retooling tennis so radically, there are just basic errors in the way they have done UTS so far that limit it's appeal to younger audiences.

@Bobby Jr mentioned one of the biggest mistakes they have made so far - If they want to visually engage younger audiences a good place to start is high-quality match camera coverage. In the initial UTS coverage they have used a very fatiguing, boring long camera angle for the play-by-play footage which is less visually engaging than what already exists. USTA has been broadcasting hours upon hours of this type of "fence-mounted" footage for years and it is not a good way to showcase the new format.

Another concern is that they are entering a global market without the best global talent. Casual fans will only tune in if they are assured they are watching the best of the best. WE know guys like Gasquet, Goffin, Pouille, Tsitsipas, Thiem are great players, but only because we are tennis nuts. There are no men's singles major winners in the men's playing lineup, and casual fans won't tune in for that.

The other problem is the marketing concepts.......Framing the players as generically as "The Greek God"...... "The Rebel" - you must be joking. Young people have never had more access to sophisticated screen-based narrative content and quality screenwriting / character development / performance etc etc. And if they want silly/boilerplate stuff they have fonts of reality TV to enjoy. Mouratoglou harped on about UTS being a way to magnify personalities and bring new people into tennis, and then presents them like this? It just won't cut it.

Sorry for the rant, but all of the non-sanctioned tennis events that have popped up during the Co-ViD crisis (UTRP / UTS / Djokovic's thing) have all had a bit of a "yucky" quality to them in my opinion. Most of them just seem like land grabs - startups trying to capitalise on the vacuum in tennis and snatch an existing/emerging audience for their content platforms while the real tournaments, and most of the sport, is justifiably still in lockdown mode.
 

chrisb

Semi-Pro
Personally I enjoyed watching the 4 game sets. I got to see more players play. The no add sudden death tennis is more exciting then watching duce add wander to an eventual finish. Tennis is a sport and entertainment for the massesWhat audience is going to watch a 5+ hr final? One of the problem I have always had going to the US open is not being to see that many matches because of the length of each. U want 5 sets, fine, play shorter games and sets, or better yet Play that format that I watched this weekend for the first week then extend to 5 sets with the same format for the second week. I want to see more matches where the quality is high not long
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
It's true that many of us are tennis tragics, but some of the criticism in this thread is not a value judgment about modernising tennis from that perspective. Some folks are strictly focusing on the failure in execution of the new UTS concept.

And I'm inclined to agree with them. Putting aside the issue of whether it's good or bad to be retooling tennis so radically, there are just basic errors in the way they have done UTS so far that limit it's appeal to younger audiences.

@Bobby Jr mentioned one of the biggest mistakes they have made so far - If they want to visually engage younger audiences a good place to start is high-quality match camera coverage. In the initial UTS coverage they have used a very fatiguing, boring long camera angle for the play-by-play footage which is less visually engaging than what already exists. USTA has been broadcasting hours upon hours of this type of "fence-mounted" footage for years and it is not a good way to showcase the new format.

Another concern is that they are entering a global market without the best global talent. Casual fans will only tune in if they are assured they are watching the best of the best. WE know guys like Gasquet, Goffin, Pouille, Tsitsipas, Thiem are great players, but only because we are tennis nuts. There are no men's singles major winners in the men's playing lineup, and casual fans won't tune in for that.

The other problem is the marketing concepts.......Framing the players as generically as "The Greek God"...... "The Rebel" - you must be joking. Young people have never had more access to sophisticated screen-based narrative content and quality screenwriting / character development / performance etc etc. And if they want silly/boilerplate stuff they have fonts of reality TV to enjoy. Mouratoglou harped on about UTS being a way to magnify personalities and bring new people into tennis, and then presents them like this? It just won't cut it.

Sorry for the rant, but all of the non-sanctioned tennis events that have popped up during the Co-ViD crisis (UTRP / UTS / Djokovic's thing) have all had a bit of a "yucky" quality to them in my opinion. Most of them just seem like land grabs - startups trying to capitalise on the vacuum in tennis and snatch an existing/emerging audience for their content platforms while the real tournaments, and most of the sport, is justifiably still in lockdown mode.
Excellent points. I agree with pretty much everything you say here.
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
Personally I enjoyed watching the 4 game sets. I got to see more players play. The no add sudden death tennis is more exciting then watching duce add wander to an eventual finish. Tennis is a sport and entertainment for the massesWhat audience is going to watch a 5+ hr final? One of the problem I have always had going to the US open is not being to see that many matches because of the length of each. U want 5 sets, fine, play shorter games and sets, or better yet Play that format that I watched this weekend for the first week then extend to 5 sets with the same format for the second week. I want to see more matches where the quality is high not long
Agree with you. I like the 4 game set and no ad. I like both playing and watching it.

I especially like no ad. Game point for both players, lots of pressure. The better player is going to get through whether its ad or no ad. I hate long deuce games...I once saw Agassi play Albert Costa and one deuce went about 30+ minutes, just got boring and annoying.
 

beltsman

Legend
this ultimate tennis showdown is supposed to solve the problem tennis has with young people. i was just watching some and it was tennis with gimmicks. i can't think of any other sport where it would be suggested to water it down and add a bunch of silly features and think it was an improvement. i am in the camp that the game itself is basically perfect as is and these fast 4 tournaments and no ad scoring are dangerous to the integrity of the game.
That and the lack of advertisement and difficulty of watching. I saw no ads for it anywhere. I only heard about it from a thread here. It has almost no videos on YouTube. You have to subscribe to their monthly service to watch, and it's expensive.

Why not show the first event for free and really hype it up to generate interest? Why not stream it on YouTube?

The whole thing seems very poorly done. Only hardcore tennis fans could find and watch it, but wasn't the whole point to expand the audience?
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
That is a problem though. Let's say this garners new casual fans. Very few are going to all of the sudden become avid fans. It is not like the actual tennis play is changing. So dumbing it down won't garner as many fans as you think.

However, in the process they will lose their true fans and that will come at a greater cost. I would never devote time and energy to this sport if it was played like this, especially after knowing what it used to be.
No we must **** over long time hardcore fans in favor of appealing to "fans" who will abandon tennis at the first sight of a new shining toy
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
You're a teacher aren't you? What do you think needs to change (if anything) to get future generations into following tennis as a year long sport, rather than just a seasonal thing?
It’s a very good question. I think people old and young have a herd mentality. Tennis here in the US is generally not mainstream anymore. The media doesn’t really glamorize it the way it does with the large team sports.
The lack of a young male superstar in general hurts the game, which is of course why every good young player gets overhyped and generally roasted here.
But when the media does find a POTENTIAL star like Coco Gauff they get way too carried away and set that person up to be a disappointment
 

swizzy

Hall of Fame
tennis in america is a different problem than this argument that tennis needs a re-vamp to garner more interest. playing tennis and watching tennis go hand in hand. many fans of the game i'm sure don't play the game. those who do play tend to watch. and the recreational game of tennis is in a constant decline despite the occasional upticks in popularity because it is a very hard game to learn and it is not a team sport. as long as tennis is played less and less than viewership will follow. no gimmick or speeding along the game will change americans interest in watching. if federer was an american we might have seen a surge in youth tennis here. still with 3 of the greatest players ever all in the game at the same time have done little to increase widespread interest in tennis for america. speeding up the game to the point that squeezing in a instant replay of a great point is impossible actually hurts the product for tv viewers
 

citybert

Hall of Fame
tennis in america is a different problem than this argument that tennis needs a re-vamp to garner more interest. playing tennis and watching tennis go hand in hand. many fans of the game i'm sure don't play the game. those who do play tend to watch. and the recreational game of tennis is in a constant decline despite the occasional upticks in popularity because it is a very hard game to learn and it is not a team sport. as long as tennis is played less and less than viewership will follow. no gimmick or speeding along the game will change americans interest in watching. if federer was an american we might have seen a surge in youth tennis here. still with 3 of the greatest players ever all in the game at the same time have done little to increase widespread interest in tennis for america. speeding up the game to the point that squeezing in a instant replay of a great point is impossible actually hurts the product for tv viewers
Pickle ball is taking the place of tennis in US. more social, easier to learn, smaller footprint. cant stand the noise it makes
 
A bunch of old guys here complaining about changes. LOL. Changes are necessary. Other than ranting about what you don't like, please suggest what you LIKE to change, like what @Robert F did above. I love the 4 points he suggested. They are not as dramatic but progressive enough to control the length of a match effectively. There's no point of going deuce back and forth endlessly, and playing TB at 5-5 is just as good and competitive without dragging it out 2 more games.

I'd like to add that there should be no let on serve clipping the net.
 
Last edited:

citybert

Hall of Fame
Many sports have changed a lot in regards to rules, yes not in scoring. Baseball one of the most “traditional” ones is also on the cusp of major changes to their rules. Tennis has mostly been surface and racquet tech right now. I know some some things like coaching and WTA and also MTO is relatively new. If tennis can change some rules(not scoring) like let on serves(I know some challengers do this), a enforcable serve clock, etc I think the game will take care of itself and become more exciting through meaningful changes. But it will take time.

Small changes to rules in football and basketball changed the game a ton into higher scoring offense minded play. (Not debating here whether that is good or bad just that its a different game than before). And yes I understand analytics played a role as well but the rules drove the analytics in some cases
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
A bunch of old guys here complaining about changes. LOL. Changes are necessary. Other than ranting about what you don't like, please suggest what you LIKE to change, like what @Robert F did above. I love the 4 points he suggested. They are not as dramatic but progressive enough to control the length of a match effectively. There's no point of going deuce back and forth endlessly, and playing TB at 5-5 is just as good and competitive without dragging it out 2 more games.

I'd like to add that there should be no let on serve clipping the net.
Totally agree. The let is the most annoying thing for me.
Who has time to watch hours after hours w tennis during a slam? To make tennis edible for more people matches have to become shorter. Now many people only bother/have time to watch finals. It’s only a certain amount of hours during a day to watch. Being a tennis fan is way more time consuming than for example football. Have to be almost an autistic die hard tennis fans to watch like Ferrer play 5 setters after 5 setters in a slam. I hope 5 sets in slams first week before 3 sets instead.
Players are injury ridden and the tour is long.
 

erikm

New User
I think the core question is what we see as attractive in the sport. The advantage of the current setup, with homogeneous surfaces, scoring, and therefore playing styles, is that you can get all time greats who can dominate throughout the year and at all Slams, racking up the titles as a result. Does anyone here really think than any of the Big 3 would have close to 20 slams each and dozens of Masters 1000s back in the 70s, when the surfaces were really different? Would Serena? Having the 3+1 chase history undoubtedly draws fans who are interested in the horse-race aspect of the spectacle but who really aren't interested in the sport per se. It also obviously creates conditions where "real" tennis fans affectively identify with the historical greats, driving ticket and merchandising sales. The downside, however, is growing inequality, unsustainability in multiple senses, and a lack of variety in the game that arguably lessens its appeal at the rec level and on TV (try watching typical baseline tennis with a non fan). A different vision of the sport might prioritize more variety and resiliency at the local level at the expense of the superstardom of a microscopic minority of players. I lay out most of the arguments in this thread: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/a-proposal-for-reconfiguring-the-professional-tennis-tour.670158/.
I see the UTS as something that can add to the variety of fans (definitely) and playing styles (possibly). With tweaks to the UTS cards, tailoring them to local conditions (weather, playing surfaces), the format can be made adaptable. I see it as a net positive for the sport.
 

Nate7-5

Semi-Pro
Fast 4 is gimmicky and would only lead to more fluke results.

5 set majors only happen 4 times a year and most matches end in 3-4 sets. Try watching some of the smaller tournaments where matches usually end in 2 x 45 minutes sets.

I see people suggesting to get rid of lets. Go ahead and do that and watch a match be decided by a serve that clips the net and barely dribbles over. There is no reason to allow a serve that can randomly change direction that isnt intended by the server - it doesnt happen that often and doesnt make a big impact on the length of the match. I think time considerations have been addressed by serve clocks.

If it aint broke, dont fix it.
 

TennisD

Professional
Fast 4 is gimmicky and would only lead to more fluke results.

5 set majors only happen 4 times a year and most matches end in 3-4 sets. Try watching some of the smaller tournaments where matches usually end in 2 x 45 minutes sets.

I see people suggesting to get rid of lets. Go ahead and do that and watch a match be decided by a serve that clips the net and barely dribbles over. There is no reason to allow a serve that can randomly change direction that isnt intended by the server - it doesnt happen that often and doesnt make a big impact on the length of the match. I think time considerations have been addressed by serve clocks.

If it aint broke, dont fix it.
This. For the most part, it's fine the way it is. The issues that do exist are much more tied into the the actual system of international tennis and how the players are represented. If you want to increase the actual quality of play you need to build real surface diversity into the schedule, have several sustainable levels of actual professional tennis on both sides, and a cohesive international schedule. If people are worried about tennis' long term survival but their proposed solutions include, let's see here, getting rid of lets, futzing the overall format, and taking majors to 3 sets then what are we actually talking about here? If you want to improve the quality of professional tennis (as well as the number of people that watch it) then there needs to be far more money and infrastructure at lower levels of the game.

Also, for the love of god, get rid of the serve clock.
 

Robert F

Professional
If you get rid of lets, and since we actually have technology that can measure lets, I'd make lets a fault, not a playable ball. You want to be tougher, make any ball that sets off the net device a fault or error if in the midst of the point. That gets rid of some odd random shots.

I believe college ball made lets playable because when players called their own matches, any flat serve that was a bomb and unreachable the opponents were claiming it clipped the net and would call a let.

Overall, I lean more as a traditionalist for tennis and could watch it the way it is. But I worry if things don't change we'll have less access to tennis on TV and then have to start buying access through 18 different platforms--TC, ESPN 3, some type of ATP TV, some type of TV for each slam, then some type of channel for the crappy Olympics.

I think the slams are pretty much fine the way they are, except for the excessive toweling. I like the drama and tension that builds in a 5 set match.

I think creating greater disparity between the surfaces could help. Would it make the game more diverse if they set limits on equipment--say 95" sticks poly only in a hybrid? I think this helps bring back some variety of styles to the game. But it still might not solve the problem of how people consume sports now. I don't think it is a good thing, but there is a lot of pressure for a shorter product in most sports.

I wonder if lowering ticket prices and having less reserved seats in stadiums will help keep them full. I'm tired of seeing reserved seats right behind the players being empty. So many matches in the first week of slams are empty. If you reduce the number of reserved seats and instead made if first come first serve, stadiums might have a better occupancy rate. Tennis fanatics would fill many of the empty seats reserved for corporate buddies (who often don't show or appear late and briefly).

I also think in the US when broadcasting matches they have to stop following the big 3 until the 2nd week of a slam. Just show their highlights and start featuring other players, go to a match that is a dogfight and stop showing blow outs especially those led from the big 3. At first, this might hurt the sport, but it might educate new fans on other players besides the big 3 and Serena. I think most American's think Andy Roddick is the current best US Men's player.
 

beltsman

Legend
If you get rid of lets, and since we actually have technology that can measure lets, I'd make lets a fault, not a playable ball. You want to be tougher, make any ball that sets off the net device a fault or error if in the midst of the point. That gets rid of some odd random shots.

I believe college ball made lets playable because when players called their own matches, any flat serve that was a bomb and unreachable the opponents were claiming it clipped the net and would call a let.

Overall, I lean more as a traditionalist for tennis and could watch it the way it is. But I worry if things don't change we'll have less access to tennis on TV and then have to start buying access through 18 different platforms--TC, ESPN 3, some type of ATP TV, some type of TV for each slam, then some type of channel for the crappy Olympics.

I think the slams are pretty much fine the way they are, except for the excessive toweling. I like the drama and tension that builds in a 5 set match.

I think creating greater disparity between the surfaces could help. Would it make the game more diverse if they set limits on equipment--say 95" sticks poly only in a hybrid? I think this helps bring back some variety of styles to the game. But it still might not solve the problem of how people consume sports now. I don't think it is a good thing, but there is a lot of pressure for a shorter product in most sports.

I wonder if lowering ticket prices and having less reserved seats in stadiums will help keep them full. I'm tired of seeing reserved seats right behind the players being empty. So many matches in the first week of slams are empty. If you reduce the number of reserved seats and instead made if first come first serve, stadiums might have a better occupancy rate. Tennis fanatics would fill many of the empty seats reserved for corporate buddies (who often don't show or appear late and briefly).

I also think in the US when broadcasting matches they have to stop following the big 3 until the 2nd week of a slam. Just show their highlights and start featuring other players, go to a match that is a dogfight and stop showing blow outs especially those led from the big 3. At first, this might hurt the sport, but it might educate new fans on other players besides the big 3 and Serena. I think most American's think Andy Roddick is the current best US Men's player.
Good points but doesn't address the problem that western civilisation is being dismembered and tennis is a part of that.

Tennis is dying due to much larger factors.
 

Yamin

Semi-Pro
Just saw the latest October iteration by accident on TV. I thought it was great. Even held the attention of those who don't enjoy tennis. For all the reasons people hate it above, it made for an exciting casual view. I usually just put tennis on in the background while I'm stringing but trying to figure out what was going on was half the fun for this.

I really like UTS now because its clear even the players have fun with it. You see more risk and even matches that you would think would end up in a blow out have potential to be close. I hope this continues and potentially can draw in more casual viewers, but even finding old matches is difficult.

I'm honestly not sure why this exists but I'd like to see more of it.
 
Last edited:

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
UTS is really dumb. I hate all the gimmicks.

If they want to speed the game up and make it more exciting switch to No-Ad and maybe no lets.

Also they really need to do away with unlimited ball tosses. Annoying to watch and play against. If you have to catch your toss it should be a fault.
 

FrontHeadlock

Hall of Fame
That is a problem though. Let's say this garners new casual fans. Very few are going to all of the sudden become avid fans. It is not like the actual tennis play is changing. So dumbing it down won't garner as many fans as you think.

However, in the process they will lose their true fans and that will come at a greater cost. I would never devote time and energy to this sport if it was played like this, especially after knowing what it used to be.
100% this.

I am very involved in a far less popular sport -- amateur wrestling -- and I can tell you that gimmicks and changes made to entice the casual or non-fan almost always never work and just serve to further alienate the more dedicated fan.
 

Yamin

Semi-Pro
UTS is really dumb. I hate all the gimmicks.

If they want to speed the game up and make it more exciting switch to No-Ad and maybe no lets.

Also they really need to do away with unlimited ball tosses. Annoying to watch and play against. If you have to catch your toss it should be a fault.
I think the goal is to be radically different than the standard offering. Not to "improve" for people who are impatient. It's like when people say soccer is boring. I find watching soccer significantly more exciting than watching tennis. I wouldn't like to see soccer shortened at all or to have rules altered for the actual format. Nor would people be more enticed to watch for these changes. Having some mayhem with great players in something completely different would be welcome.

Also seems like it wasn't free to watch? It now is
 

lidoazndiabloboi

Hall of Fame
I wasn't a fan of UTS when it first debuted. But as more and more matches happened and some big name players getting in on the excitement, I've grown to love it. I think it was the Thiem vs Tsitsipas match that really changed my opinion. Sometimes is just fun to see a little change in the game.
 

Robert F

Professional
Tried to watch again. Still don't like it.
I get the concenpt of creating a format to bring in new fans to the sport and then hope a % of them will love tennis and look to the "traditional" format for more tennis.
But for me it robs a lot of the key components of tennis especially the need to win by 2 and the gimmicks kill me.

I think for sped up matches I prefer the Fast 4 format. It's like an intro to tennis, still has the classic feel just sped up.

But, I'm whining on a tennis board, so obviously I prefer the traditional format above all others.
 
Top