Tennease
Legend
Poor Tsurubuchi, where else would she go to?
Algo
Hall of Fame
Indeed.Good times!
There has been no one like William Renshaw.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Interesting question. In my view, as a result of equipment and court surface changes, pro matches have become entirely too long. Therefore, I would consider implementing no-ad tennis and tiebreakers in all sets, including 5th sets at the majors.
My understanding is that service lets were eliminated in collegiate tennis due to cheating: calling a let on an ace or unreturnable serve. That's not an issue with pro tennis. On the other hand, it would add a potentially interesting change to the game. I'm not sure if it would favor the server or returner.
Kalin
Legend
First of all, I'm pretty sure 'unforced error' isn't an existing proper term as far as tennis rules are concerned, please see here: http://www.itftennis.com/media/220771/220771.pdf. It's just an ambiguous and very arbitrary statistical category which is easily a subject of interpretation, something rules shouldn't be. You are putting too much pressure on the umpire to decide what error is 'unforced' with the decision carrying huge implications since it always will happen at a crucial point of the game. An absolute non-starter.
And even if implemented, how long before the player who is behind in the score starts hitting UEs on purpose until the other guy double-faults or makes an error of his own which, according to your rule, will be counted immediately thus bringing the score back to deuce. This proposed 'rule' of yours is begging to be abused.
In volleyball, there was a rule that only the serving team could win a point. I liked that rule; it made the game very strategic... but in volleyball, unlike in tennis, the serving team is usually at a disadvantage. The rule has sadly been done away with in order to shorten matches and make them more TV-friendly. The difference is, of course, that rule was subject to zero interpretation and couldn't be abused in any way. It just made matches very long so they had to kill it
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
Ban Poly in the pro game. That is reason No 1. for boring tennis with no parity since the early 2000s.
Duncan Donuts
Professional
On Court coaching for the Women. Shouldnt have that AND a higher salary than the men.
Brauvenklatsch
Rookie
Hitting with two hands should not be allowed. Tennis starts with a serve, and a serve is hit with one hand, and that should continues until the point ends.
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
Lol, f-a-g!
Rock Strongo
Legend
Fast4.
MAKE IT END, PLEASE!
MAKE IT END, PLEASE!
macattack
Professional
Well that's pretty offensive and completely inappropriate.
tennis tom
Legend
Get rid of the tie breaker, it was only invented for TV so length of matches could be more predictable. Tennis used to build and test stamina when there was no limit on how long a set could go.
While I'm at it get rid of the 25 second-no-clock between points. It was also invented to shorten matches for TV. It's crazy not to allow players time to recover after a very long athletic point. Let the chair or the players decide if they need a little more rest between exhausting points. If they're going to keep it, they need to have a shot-clock.
Freddy Cat
Professional
Eliminate the "imaginary line" that your foot can't cross during service. As long as feet are not crossing the imaginary line when the ball is contacted.
tennis tom
Legend
Tennis is the athletic equivalent of classical music, you wouldn't holler and jump up and down during a recital would you?
joekapa
Legend
We should also shoot them in the foot before they enter the court.
Also no water or any fluid of any sorts.
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
Christ, some of these suggestions though. Thankfully, we don't have this power.....
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
I disagree 100%. The tiebreaker exists to make the matches a reasonable length (especially in grand-slam play). And it's not just for the TV audience, it's also for the stadium spectators who pay for a session expecting to see multiple matches. Nobody wants another Isner/Mahut fiasco that lasts for 3 days. I would actually take the opposite approach and insist that a 5th set tiebreaker be instituted at every grandslam. The US Open is the only major that does this, and consequently the only one that has matches end at a reasonable time.
With respect to the shot clock, I agree that they should have one, but they shouldn't get rid of the time rule altogether. That would just encourage players like Nadal and Djokovic to abuse the system and extend matches to "forever". It's fair the way that it is! Allowing them extra time to recover belies the fact that it's an athletic sport and the player who can recover the fastest between points is the fittest player. They should get 25 seconds, and it should be regularly enforced via shot clock.
The only issue with the shot clock is WHEN the umpire starts it. According to the rule, time begins immediately after the previous point ends. Well, when exactly does the previous point "end"? (When a shot is called out/good, or when the umpire calls the score?) And when SHOULD the umpire call the score? (Immediately after the ball is called out/good, after the audience applause has subsided, after a challenge?) What about lets and second serves? After a let, fault, or foot fault does the clock reset at 25 seconds again for a second serve, or is less time given to the server? (only 10 seconds?) What if there is a disturbance in the audience? (Excessive noise, fight in the stands, medical emergency, etc?) Does the umpire pause the shot clock or is the server still penalized? There are a lot of variables that need to be worked out with the shot clock idea. But I still think it solves more problems than it creates.
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
I agree with all of those except the "medical time-outs". Denying a medical time-out is inhumane and makes it very awkward for the audience to watch. This is especially true when there is a visible injury/illness sustained during the match (rolled ankle, vomiting, bleeding wounds, etc). That stuff needs to be treated on court in the interest of public health and the safety of the athletes. I do think that there should only be ONE medical time-out allowed per injury, and the timing of treatment should be more strictly enforced. (ie: 5 minute evaluation, and 5 minute treatment). No more than 10 minutes should pass after a medical timeout. And things like cramping and heat exhaustion should not count as an "injury". That is just lack of conditioning. If they have cramping, they should be allowed to eat a banana, drink some water, and get some massage therapy only during the changeovers. If they can't recover in time, then they either play through the pain, or forfeit the match.
pennc94
Professional
Your concerns can all be reasonably addressed by establishing rules for all scenarios and applying them consistently. The problem is not so much the viability of the shot clock, but the inconsistent application of the current rules and the abuse of time by the players.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fiero425
Legend
They already have done that; still the longest 3 set match I can remember had them going 4 hours in Madrid semi! I'm still trying to recover from their AO final in 2012 going 5 hours, 53 min.! That's obscene! Rafa's always gone to the stall while Nole picked up on it "to give it back!" Players will continue to find a way to abuse the system; no matter what they come up with! I don't watch the team tennis in the East, but was shocked to see that rule of "no bad toss" accepted and you have to swing at it no matter what! I'm probably one of the few it would never come into play! I just never let the ball drop; normally hitting it right out of my hand, bad tosses just wasn't a problem for me!
Fiero425
Legend
I know MTO's have saved Nole in the past, but even I believe it's being abused! I'm old school; tennis is about physicality! If you have cramps, a twisted ankle, or blisters on the bottom of your feet, it needs to be taken care of in 3 min.! It's just too unfair to the opposition having to wait around when they are being penalized for being healthier! That's stupid! Rafa's the worst, pulling out all the stops, even in early round matches when in trouble!
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
I would really like to see two things:
1) Enforce time between points using a shot clock started by the umpire at his discretion. That way players can have some leeway after an exceptionally long point or we have to wait for the crowd to quiet down.
2) Ban excessive shrieking/grunting or whatever you want to call it. Any noise exceeding a certain decibel level incurs a warning, then a point penalty, game penalty, etc.
I don't like changes to the scoring system because it makes it even more difficult to compare different eras. Best of three in majors is a bad idea. No ad scoring is worse.
That being said, I am not entirely opposed to instituting a final set TB at the three other majors. A player who has to win a marathon match in an early round will obviously be at a big disadvantage going into his next match. The current system favors the player serving first in the fifth anyway, which never felt quite right
1) Enforce time between points using a shot clock started by the umpire at his discretion. That way players can have some leeway after an exceptionally long point or we have to wait for the crowd to quiet down.
2) Ban excessive shrieking/grunting or whatever you want to call it. Any noise exceeding a certain decibel level incurs a warning, then a point penalty, game penalty, etc.
I don't like changes to the scoring system because it makes it even more difficult to compare different eras. Best of three in majors is a bad idea. No ad scoring is worse.
That being said, I am not entirely opposed to instituting a final set TB at the three other majors. A player who has to win a marathon match in an early round will obviously be at a big disadvantage going into his next match. The current system favors the player serving first in the fifth anyway, which never felt quite right
Last edited:
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
I think at the current state of technology we could add objective rules and not just umpire discretion. For instance changing the time depending on the rally length or perhaps the distance covered. Once a certain threshold of either variable is passed the shot clock automatically adds a few seconds to the time limit (in a way that the players can easily see).
I do think it is important to ultimately let the game be played to the server's pace however. Returners stalling the server will have to be penalised.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
That has the same problem as Hawkeye. Only some of the courts in the majors track these stats. At this point the technology is still a bit expensive
Noelan
Legend
Imagine if computer warriors actually have some power?
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
True. Center courts will always be ahead of side courts (not to mention Futures and the like) in a technological regard though, so such problems will be inevitable whenever technology is in play.
I don't think the technology is more expensive than Hawkeye though, quite the contrary. The first variable (rally length as an indicator) is incredibly simple to implement. The second I'm less sure of, but I'd think it merely requires a camera dedicated to each player which can track their movement and transfer it to a computer that can apply the movement to the dimensions of the court to come up with a rough estimate of distance travelled.
In the end though, the problem of match time is more of an issue where there are large crowds and significant television coverage, essentially the main courts. Hence I think this is a viable solution for the show courts at least, which is where the need is concentrated.
Albert montanes
New User
If you're up 5-0 serving and lose the game then you lose the set. I'm sick of these gosh darn chokers.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
But that wouldn't really be fair on the other player. Who would want to be handed a set without winning a single game in it?
tennis tom
Legend
Maybe I'm the only one, but I DO! Some folks like watching 100 yard dashes, others prefer marathons. The Isner/Mahut match set an historic tennis record that may never ever be broken and I was a witness to it for THREE DAYS, on TV.. It was EPIC! Why do you call it a "fiasco"? It was a test of human endurance. I enjoyed it immensely, wishing I didn't have to go to work and miss the outcome--for THREE DAYS in a row--and then finally, witnessing the historic ending--Mahut loses, missing a drop-shot--how apropos, his mind gave up before his body--hitting the lowest percentage shot in tennis. If spectators want shorter matches, they should excoriate players to serve and volley, the points will be over quicker then with long boring rallies from the baseline.
Last edited:
Bartelby
Bionic Poster
Tennis already has enough split steps.
I would get rid of the rule that says women must wear clothes while playing
Similar threads
