Would quicker matches improve tennis ratings?

Winners or Errors

Hall of Fame
As a product, professional tennis, to any but those likely to respond to this post, is apparently a snoozer. Simply put, would the changes to the game resulting from shortening the time between points change the game in a way that would improve its marketability?
 

PhrygianDominant

Hall of Fame
If marketability is the ultimate goal, tennis would do well to copy the most profitable sports.

I, for one, hope it doesn't. As far as individual sports go, tennis is a great success.
 
Most definitely. Typical modern tennis game has six 10-15sec rallies, each with 25-30sec break, and a further 15sec break if the 1st serve is out. So for a single game, there's only 60-75sec of action, and 180-210sec of breaks! Add to that a 120sec break between each two games, and we have 120-150sec of action and 300-360sec of breaks. So modern tennis is 75% boring breaks! No wonder all but hardcore tennis fans think our sports is a snoozer!

Limiting time between points to 10sec, and keeping the break after each two games strictly at 90sec would decrease breaks from 300-360sec to 210sec! So yes, shortening time between points would be great for our sport, and it should be strictly enforced!
 
Last edited:

Chico

Banned
As a product, professional tennis, to any but those likely to respond to this post, is apparently a snoozer. Simply put, would the changes to the game resulting from shortening the time between points change the game in a way that would improve its marketability?
No, it would just decrease the quality of the game. Who would want to watch an UE fest of two exhausted players. No one.
 

smash hit

Professional
^^^pseudofed got it right then,

QUOTE.
« Wimbledon Week 1 so far
Time Keeping in tennis

June 28, 2014 by pseudofedblog

Good day from The Wimbledon!

.



"I would like to stress the words I used in the press conferences about My concern for losing viewers if this is allowed to continue. People will get bored and ask their staff to switch the television channel to something else.

Mentioning no names but I will use anagrams to suggest who I am referring to. The first player is, ‘A Land’ and the second is, ‘Jock Void’. They use the most time in between points and also it is no coincidence that nobody wants to see them play. The fact that they are ranked higher than Me is coincidental and neither, here, there or anywhere.

Rolex Wimbledon - Copy
As I said in the interview, it is not acceptable that fans potentially see 2 points every 60 seconds. This is preposterous. Fans want to see at least 35 points a minute. Preferably consisting of Aces and, worst case scenario, Serve & Volley winners. Any more than 3 shots and Mr. or Mrs. Umpire should stop the game and insist on a restart. There is nothing more boring than a 20 or 30 shot rally. There’s nothing more tiring either.

If we adopt this quick strategy think of the consequences! Grand Slam matches could be over in about 20 minutes! Tournaments would last about 2 days and, with the energy I could save, I could play until I retire at the age of 65 and collect My state pension."



I personally love to watch rallies and the srategy used. I find aces and serve followed by winning volley totally boring. I don't mind an occasional ace or serve and volley, but I emphasize OCCASIONAL.

Will we be having more of these outbursts if a shot clock is brought in and the crowd get involved, 5,4,3,2,1. TIME.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd_ISSzxyZk

Or will we be giving Djokovic even more excuses for serving a double fault at a crucial moment.

Leave the game as it is. There is only a problem in the minds of sore losers.
 

smash hit

Professional
No, it would just decrease the quality of the game. Who would want to watch an UE fest of two exhausted players. No one.
For once I find myself agreeing with you. I almost feel like apologizing for the mention of Djokovic in my previous post, although truthfully I wasn't directly criticizing him, rather the commentators that instantly made the noise an excuse.
 

swizzy

Hall of Fame
the big 4 has given tennis it's best chance to catch fire in the ratings game.. it has on the strengths of their spectacular play.. 15 minutes of collective breaks over a match won't do much to make it better.. it could as chico said, make it worse..quality wise. i agree with mcenroe.. it adds to the drama of the moment. and tennis is a series of spectacular moments. 5 hour matches are awesome.. casual tennis fans don't watch tournaments.. even players of the game don't tune in.. i played yesterday and the 6 courts were filled.. i mentioned the rain and the back log for monday and no-one cared..
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
torpantennis
No, I don't think breaks in the action is the problem. ESPN put the stopwatch to a number of (American) football games and found that the typical three hour game has 10 to 12 minutes of actual action, the rest of it being down-time or the clock running between plays. But despite this paucity of action, football is wildly popular. Baseball too has remained very popular, yet look at how much time passes without action. Of the major sports in the US, hockey probably has the most continuous action yet is less popular than other sports. The problem here is that almost none of the action in tennis is crucial. A football game may have 11 minutes of action, but at any moment something can happen that turns the game around. Tennis could hardly be more different. A player can do essentially nothing for two sets in a slam match, then decide to start to play. So little of the play is truly crucial to the outcome, so there's no suspense in watching. Five set matches and deuce scoring add to the problem, always allowing an opportunity to make up for one's poor play. Likewise tiebreak scoring that allows the possibility of the thing going on forever. Even golf has more suspense, as one errant shot into the water with a resultant triple bogey can ruin four days of very good play. That sort of thing really doesn't exist in tennis.
 

pound cat

G.O.A.T.
As a product, professional tennis, to any but those likely to respond to this post, is apparently a snoozer. Simply put, would the changes to the game resulting from shortening the time between points change the game in a way that would improve its marketability?[/QUOTEN



no,no make the game slower. The most popular game in the world is fooball aka soccer where in 90 minutes usually 0-3 or 4 is the usual score.
 

ibbi

Legend
Back in the 90s I remember people constantly moaning about how it was boring how there was never any rallies it was all just serve, volley, serve, volley. Now they've gone to the other extreme, and people are complaining again. You'll never please everyone, if only variety could win out.
 

Crisstti

Legend
What was a snooze fest was servefests. Now there you have much more down time that actual play.

Tennis is more popular than it was before. Maybe people from the US don't notice this though.
 
Back in the 90s I remember people constantly moaning about how it was boring how there was never any rallies it was all just serve, volley, serve, volley. Now they've gone to the other extreme, and people are complaining again. You'll never please everyone, if only variety could win out.
Variety wins, if there's variety in court surfaces. So please make grass as low bouncing as possible (Halle), and make clay as slow as possible (Monte Carlo). Surface homogenization sucks.
 
has interest in tennis been falling to begin with? besides the US? i thought tennis in general has been rising in popularity across the world? my friend works in an international sports TV company, and he told me the 2 fastest growing sports in terms of tv viewing worldwide are tennis and cricket.

i say, forget the US. they just like their silly "BAM! BAM! BAM!" sports of NFL and NHL. let them stick to that. a failing state anyway.
 

Winners or Errors

Hall of Fame
As a product, professional tennis, to any but those likely to respond to this post, is apparently a snoozer. Simply put, would the changes to the game resulting from shortening the time between points change the game in a way that would improve its marketability?[/QUOTEN



no,no make the game slower. The most popular game in the world is fooball aka soccer where in 90 minutes usually 0-3 or 4 is the usual score.
So you're not a football fan? I don't see the comparison, as football games are 90+ minutes of constant action, and a 90 minute tennis match is probably 60 minutes of sitting around watching nothing.
 

Winners or Errors

Hall of Fame
Interesting point about the non-U.S. market. Perhaps people like the pauses in the rest of the world. Of course, if you have a .1% market share and jump to .2%, you're experiencing rapid growth, right?
 

Devilito

Hall of Fame
For one, eliminate net cords and 2nd serves. This will allow points to actually begin at a consistent time after every point.

Also eliminate ad-scoring to make games last a predictable amount of time. This will also keep player a lot more focused on all points instead of having let downs and slowing the game down by not giving %100 on every point.

Play best of 5 but make sets first to 4 instead of 6. This will make players focus right away on points and games as even the early games are critical. Some matches feel like the first 30 minutes are basically a prolonged warm-up as players "work their way" into a match.

All of those changes will make tennis more exciting as a spectator sport.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
Eliminate net cords

but not second serves which are an interesting element of the whole game.

and ad scoring involves considerable drama.

I don't really want to see this, but a tie break at 5 all would work to shorten matches if that was the aim.

I can't see this would do any harm except destroy the record books and therefore it is not to be recommended.

I'm not all that adverse to tie break at 4 either except for the record books.

In terms of my own viewing habits, I have the perhaps unfaithful habit of really only tuning in toward the end of the set.

So short sets would work for me.
 
Last edited:

Chico

Banned
For one, eliminate net cords and 2nd serves. This will allow points to actually begin at a consistent time after every point.

Also eliminate ad-scoring to make games last a predictable amount of time. This will also keep player a lot more focused on all points instead of having let downs and slowing the game down by not giving %100 on every point.

Play best of 5 but make sets first to 4 instead of 6. This will make players focus right away on points and games as even the early games are critical. Some matches feel like the first 30 minutes are basically a prolonged warm-up as players "work their way" into a match.

All of those changes will make tennis more exciting as a spectator sport.
No 2nd serve, no ad?????? No! Just NO!!!!!!!
That would completely destroy the game of tennis. Also other suggestions are all terrible and would not improve anything.

Please leave the game as it is. It is not in trouble in any way. It flourishes and is more popular than ever, all over the world. Much more money is in tennis than ever before.
The fact that US was not able to produce a dominant tennis champion in the last 15 years and due to that popularity in one single country was not what is used to be when Sampras and Agassi ruled the world, has nothing to do with tennis rules and how the game is played currently.

Please don't destroy the best sport on the planet to cater to lazy TV audience. It will not help in any way.
 

Chico

Banned
Eliminate net cords

but not second serves which are an interesting element of the whole game.

and ad scoring involves considerable drama.

I don't really want to see this, but a tie break at 5 all would work to shorten matches if that was the aim.

I can't see this would do any harm except destroy the record books and therefore it is not to be recommended.
TB at 5-5 are OK. Not sure why do they bother to play to 6-6. Also add TBs at 12-12 in 5th sets in slams (or 10-10) - and make it the same at all slams.
 

Mr.Lob

Legend
No 2nd serve, no ad?????? No! Just NO!!!!!!!


Please don't destroy the best sport on the planet to cater to lazy TV audience. It will not help in any way.
Relax Chico. We at TT don't have the power to "destroy" anything... yet.

They'll eventually go to the shot clock. 40 shot ralley? Too bad. Clock starts automatically at the end of previous point... you'll see less towel offs.
 

Chico

Banned
Relax Chico. We at TT don't have the power to "destroy" anything... yet.

They'll eventually go to the shot clock. 40 shot ralley? Too bad. Clock starts automatically at the end of previous point... you'll see less towel offs.
Shot clock is a TERRIBLE idea and will never happen fortunately.
1. I want to see points awarded for quality play, not UE fest from two exhausted players.
2. Again, I want to see points awarded for quality play, not because some arbitrary shot clock expires.
3. Audience would just make a noise until shot clock expires when unfavorable player is about to serve - no way to stop this - one single reason why shot clock will never be implemented.
 

KineticChain

Hall of Fame
probably not. it'll probably drop ratings as there would be less air time. really the only people who watch tennis are already fans of tennis. the people who always have ESPN channel on and occasionally catch a glimpse of that yellow ball going back and forth on their screen do not care how long a match takes.. they'll flip the channel when they get bored of it. ESPN is always switching through all the slam matches during a tourny.. so they keep it "interesting" for the non-fans and make the real fans really angry
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
As a product, professional tennis, to any but those likely to respond to this post, is apparently a snoozer. Simply put, would the changes to the game resulting from shortening the time between points change the game in a way that would improve its marketability?
I don't see why tennis necessarily needs to appeal to the masses. And if only the top 100 players (or whatever it is) are profitable, than so be it.

Reminds me of when Baseball, in an effort to be more popular, instituted the wild card and broke with 100 years of tradition.

Best to leave Tennis basically as it is rather than compromising the game.

Although I am open to shortening the time between points and doing away with the time-killers like the ridiculous towelling after every single point.
 

diggler

Hall of Fame
torpantennis
No, I don't think breaks in the action is the problem. ESPN put the stopwatch to a number of (American) football games and found that the typical three hour game has 10 to 12 minutes of actual action, the rest of it being down-time or the clock running between plays. But despite this paucity of action, football is wildly popular. Baseball too has remained very popular, yet look at how much time passes without action. Of the major sports in the US, hockey probably has the most continuous action yet is less popular than other sports. The problem here is that almost none of the action in tennis is crucial. A football game may have 11 minutes of action, but at any moment something can happen that turns the game around. Tennis could hardly be more different. A player can do essentially nothing for two sets in a slam match, then decide to start to play. So little of the play is truly crucial to the outcome, so there's no suspense in watching. Five set matches and deuce scoring add to the problem, always allowing an opportunity to make up for one's poor play. Likewise tiebreak scoring that allows the possibility of the thing going on forever. Even golf has more suspense, as one errant shot into the water with a resultant triple bogey can ruin four days of very good play. That sort of thing really doesn't exist in tennis.
I agree that running a stopwatch on a sport has no relationship to its popularity. American football obviously. In a darts match, do you only start the clock when the dart is in flight? An ironman triathlon goes for 8 hours. How much would you pay to watch for that? Do you only time when a golf ball is moving. The most popular sport in the world is soccer football. They are averaging 3 goals a game during the world cup and apparently that is a lot. Personally I find it incredibly boring.

I agree that if you had 10 seconds between points, the quality would go down.
 

rh310

Hall of Fame
Relax Chico. We at TT don't have the power to "destroy" anything... yet.

They'll eventually go to the shot clock. 40 shot ralley? Too bad. Clock starts automatically at the end of previous point... you'll see less towel offs.
A shot clock will be followed immediately by a limited number of timeouts per set, and the process of slowing an opponent's momentum used in many other sports (NFL, basketball) will be formalized.

Once formalized, game delay can lose its gamesmanship effect.
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
I dont get all the discussion what is needed to be done to make tennis more popular. The sport especially in men side so far doing pretty well. Tennis can never be as popular as football because it isnt a team sport.Team sports always have higher audience and ratings.The other thing is when you support a team you have a chance to support it all your life. İt is always more difficult to become a fan of an individual and even doing so when that person retires there is high chance that you dont become fan of anybody again. My personal belief is stupid rule changes cant make tennis any popular.İt isnt a team sport and it relies on stars.
 
Last edited:
I dont get all the discussion what is needed to be done to make tennis more popular. The sport especially in men side so far doing pretty well. Tennis can never be as popular as football because it isnt a team sport.Team sports always have higher audience and ratings.The other thing is when you sport a team you have a chance to sport it all your life. İt is always more difficult to become a fan of an individual and even doing so when that person retire there is high chance that you dont become fan of anybody again. My personal belief is stupid rule changes cant make tennis any popular.İt isnt a team sport and it relies on stars.
Agree 100%. No stupid rule changes please. But please do enforce the current rules.
 

m2nk2

Hall of Fame
Tennis has better ratings now than before afaik. At least, the attendance to slams is higher than ever before, in all of the slams. That could of course be due to better accessibility and bigger venues but...

Even if the ratings are down in Sweden and USA doesn't mean they're down all over the world.
 

Winners or Errors

Hall of Fame
I don't see why tennis necessarily needs to appeal to the masses. And if only the top 100 players (or whatever it is) are profitable, than so be it.

Reminds me of when Baseball, in an effort to be more popular, instituted the wild card and broke with 100 years of tradition.

Best to leave Tennis basically as it is rather than compromising the game.

Although I am open to shortening the time between points and doing away with the time-killers like the ridiculous towelling after every single point.
I'm with you on that. The question is whether that would change tennis in a positive way. Many seem to think the quality would deteriorate. I am on the fence. When I play, I don't slow down play because I just chased down a bunch of shots and am winded, and it costs me but I see it as part of the game. Should the pro's pay that cost? Would it improve the quality of the product? Would it make the tactics and strategies more interesting and varied?
 
Is there a consensus that tennis isn't struggling anywhere but the United States? I find that surprising.
i am not sure if there is a consensus. but what i do know is this. my friend works in an international sports broadcasting corporation, possibly the largest in the world. he said that the 2 fastest growing sports in the world based on viewership are cricket and tennis. and the growth is not slowing. in fact its exponentially growing.

based on that, i say, let the americans stay in their deluded world of "BAM! BAM! BAM!" NFL and NHL.
 

Chico

Banned
I'm with you on that. The question is whether that would change tennis in a positive way. Many seem to think the quality would deteriorate. I am on the fence. When I play, I don't slow down play because I just chased down a bunch of shots and am winded, and it costs me but I see it as part of the game. Should the pro's pay that cost? Would it improve the quality of the product? Would it make the tactics and strategies more interesting and varied?
No, no and no! We don't want watch "winners of errors". No thanks.

And to repeat once more: No stupid rule changes please!
 

Devilito

Hall of Fame
No, no and no! We don't want watch "winners of errors". No thanks.

And to repeat once more: No stupid rule changes please!
you say "stupid rule changes" like the current rules of tennis have been passed down by God and written on tablets. Someone just made up these current rules while drunk one day and they stuck. It doesn't necessarily make them better than something somebody comes up with today. Rules are rules. it's not going to change the way a player will hit a forehand or a volley. It's meant to change the structure of a match to make it more inline with a positive TV viewing experience.

Saying tennis is more popular now than ever is totally and completely irrelevant as it's entirely a byproduct of demographics and industrialization in places like Asia. Obviously tennis wasn't popular in China in the 1960s when most Chinese people were living on farms. Demographics contribute to more tennis viewers currently, but it doesn't make it more popular per capita.
 

NaBUru38

Rookie
The best points are those with ridiculous shots back and forth. So how about no second serves? Since servers would be less aggressive, there would be less aces and points would be longer.
 
Top