N
nikdom
Guest
....And standardized balls for clay, grass and hard courts?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Background:
Over the years, there’s been a lot of discussion here regarding the direction of changes on the tennis tour.
Typically they fall into these broad categories:
The rationale offered is also varied and falls into these concerns-
Rarely do we ever talk about regulating tennis equipment though even as it is clear that tennis has changed a lot in the past two decades from the eras before it by virtue of string and racquet technology.
The idea of regulating equipment isn’t new or unique. Golf for example banned ‘belly’ putters in order to remove what they felt was an unfair advantage and break from the traditions of the game.
Rationale:
I would say my concerns fall across ALL the ones listed earlier A-D. In essence I believe that - Tennis has had a unique blend of skills and athleticism that have stayed stable across generations until string technology in particular, and other equipment changes, completely up-ended it.
I believe that the cause for these zillion-shot rallies, each hit remarkably hard, and the ability of players across the board to have strong baseline games has tilted the balance in favor of brute force (at a high cost to players bodies), decreased variety, increased the incentive to dope, and negatively affected the popularity of the sport outside a couple of top rivalries.
While too much ink is spent on arguing surfaces, officiating and the calendar, this could be a
one shot solution to making sure the sport can return to it’s Skill-based roots and positively affect other aspects such as player health and viewer interest.
What will the changes entail
Primarily, the high top spin employed by players today has made extreme angles and a style of retrieval and high-percentage groundstrokes normal. We do not want to eliminate top-spin completely or punish good groundstrokes as much as constrain the extent to which this has affected the ‘normal’ of the game.
By restricting the type of strings to nylon multi-filament and size of head, we potentially nudge player style back into a range where timing, placement, all-court skills gain back a bit more ground.
By standardizing balls for each surface, we also take out the extraneous factor of tournaments getting as big a say in dictating play; surface, bounce and court speed are plenty for tournaments to decide.
Of course, a big change like this probably has to start juniors and up. What do you guys think though? I feel like there are plenty of aspects here to generate a good discussion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Background:
Over the years, there’s been a lot of discussion here regarding the direction of changes on the tennis tour.
Typically they fall into these broad categories:
1. Surfaces - speeding up courts, more events on a surface, color etc
2. Changes to the game and scoring - no-ad, service lets, no second serve etc
3. Tennis calendar - distribution and type of events over a calendar year
4. Officiating - e.g shot clock, hawk eye, no linespeople
5. Other - prize money, gender issues, doubles etc
2. Changes to the game and scoring - no-ad, service lets, no second serve etc
3. Tennis calendar - distribution and type of events over a calendar year
4. Officiating - e.g shot clock, hawk eye, no linespeople
5. Other - prize money, gender issues, doubles etc
The rationale offered is also varied and falls into these concerns-
A. Player health - preventing injuries, prolonging careers
B. Game style - variety, restricting/promoting a certain type of play (s&v, rallies)
C. Viewer entertainment - better viewing on TV, faster matches, drama
D. Tradition/Future of sport - self-explanatory
Some ideas have already been implemented and others are on the horizon.B. Game style - variety, restricting/promoting a certain type of play (s&v, rallies)
C. Viewer entertainment - better viewing on TV, faster matches, drama
D. Tradition/Future of sport - self-explanatory
Rarely do we ever talk about regulating tennis equipment though even as it is clear that tennis has changed a lot in the past two decades from the eras before it by virtue of string and racquet technology.
The idea of regulating equipment isn’t new or unique. Golf for example banned ‘belly’ putters in order to remove what they felt was an unfair advantage and break from the traditions of the game.
Rationale:
I would say my concerns fall across ALL the ones listed earlier A-D. In essence I believe that - Tennis has had a unique blend of skills and athleticism that have stayed stable across generations until string technology in particular, and other equipment changes, completely up-ended it.
I believe that the cause for these zillion-shot rallies, each hit remarkably hard, and the ability of players across the board to have strong baseline games has tilted the balance in favor of brute force (at a high cost to players bodies), decreased variety, increased the incentive to dope, and negatively affected the popularity of the sport outside a couple of top rivalries.
While too much ink is spent on arguing surfaces, officiating and the calendar, this could be a
one shot solution to making sure the sport can return to it’s Skill-based roots and positively affect other aspects such as player health and viewer interest.
What will the changes entail
Primarily, the high top spin employed by players today has made extreme angles and a style of retrieval and high-percentage groundstrokes normal. We do not want to eliminate top-spin completely or punish good groundstrokes as much as constrain the extent to which this has affected the ‘normal’ of the game.
By restricting the type of strings to nylon multi-filament and size of head, we potentially nudge player style back into a range where timing, placement, all-court skills gain back a bit more ground.
By standardizing balls for each surface, we also take out the extraneous factor of tournaments getting as big a say in dictating play; surface, bounce and court speed are plenty for tournaments to decide.
Of course, a big change like this probably has to start juniors and up. What do you guys think though? I feel like there are plenty of aspects here to generate a good discussion
Last edited by a moderator:
