ATP could trial shorter sets, no service lets and shot clock in raft of potential ref

[Frode789]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2017/04/04/atp-could-trial-shorter-sets-no-service-shot-clock-raft-potential/

Lots of stuff.

- "In-game alterations being debated include no service lets being played, in the same way the point currently continues for mid-point net cords."

Superb. I hate service let calls, it's just dumb. So this is a good thing.

- "The introduction of a sudden-death deuce point where the receiver chooses which side the server serves from, a rule already enforced at doubles events outside the grand slams. This would mean a maximum of only one deuce per game and an end to 'advantage' points for either player."

I really don't like this. Remove the advantage points? It is so exciting when the game is just going from deuce to Ad, back to deuce, then Ad to the other player. Odd that they'd want to kill that.

- "Reduce from BO3 to 6 games to BO5 to 4 games. The logic is that doing so would not necessarily reduce the number of games played per match, but it would dramatically increase the proportion of key games in a match, and reduce the lull period that can take place at the start of sets."

Not sure what I think about this. I guess for all tournaments other than GS, this could be a good change, as it would increase the "key moments" in a match, with more set points/tiebreaks etc. As for GS, I would keep the BO5 to 6 games as it is now no matter what. Though I would not mind a tiebreak in the final set in AO, Wimb and RG, as is the case in USO.

- "To further reduce 'dead time', discussion is being given to having a clock visible to supporters and the umpire during the warm-up to ensure the players do not exceed the allocated 10 minutes. "
- "The clock may also then remain in sight during the match to prevent players from taking more than the allocated 25 seconds (or 20 seconds at grand slams) between points."

Fantastic! Especially the second part. As we know we have a few players that just love to stall endlessly, always using far more than 20-25 seconds between points (Nadal anyone?), so this is a great move.


Thoughts?

 

[Kieran]

RE: ATP could trial shorter sets, no service lets and shot clock

I'd shift the time between points around - 20 seconds for best of 3, and 25 for best of 5. It's a little bit indefensible that the players get less time between points for longer matches than they do for shorter ones.

I dislike all the other suggestions. The service let cord adds tension to a game, I feel. You're keyed up, the player eventually serves - then Let! They have to go again. We have to wait, and also, the server has given away his angle. The opponent knows his favoured play. Fecker was gonna drill me down the T!

But then the receiver has to think, will the server go there again? Or will he switch? Meanwhile, we're all watching Nadal towel his legs down, pull a wedgie, quick sly front wedge, exchange about 27 tennis balls with the ballkids, jump up and down a little, swish his hair, then lean over the baseline again to serve - but then only after he parades his full routine of tics. 48 more seconds have passed and the receiver has forgotten if he's facing a first or second serve...

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

As a tennis-lover, I dislike any changes towards modernisation. I like the classic game. I know changes are bound to happen from time to time in every thing but I just cannot digest it. I am so used to seeing the let cord being called and proper serves go in. I want to see more of that. Why let people have more out of their luck on the let chord. Also, with this rule in place, the way players will think of service differently. The subconscious mind will behave different. All along players have been wanting to get that yellow ball well over the net in the service games and now all of a sudden they will just hope it touched the let cord and falls over. This doesn't happen in rallies but since hitting the let cord is pretty frequent in serves, I think this might give rise to a new art of getting the ball to touch the net cord in a tactful way.

6-game sets have their own beauty right. A player breaks his opponent's serve and has to hold serve 5 times in a row to win the set. In a best of 4 set, the early starter will have a great advantage. Less hard work for him and less scope for his opponent to break back.

Give me more of classic tennis. I won't like these changes.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

I don't like how the world is constantly trying to speed up things. I mean, it has its own pros but come on, how can you compromise with heritage? If you don't have the patience to watch through a 3-4 hour match, why bother coming at all?

 

[Fiero425]

I don't like how the world is constantly trying to speed up things. I mean, it has its own pros but come on, how can you compromise with heritage? If you don't have the patience to watch through a 3-4 hour match, why bother coming at all?

It wouldn't be the 1st time tennis has gone through such historic changes; the biggest being the use of a stick after initially starting out hitting the ball with the bare hand! I think the best thing to do is enforce the rules and speed up these slugs toweling off and stalling in other ways dragging matches out to 3+ hours unnecessarily! :angel: :dodgy:

- - - - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - - - -

 

[DarthFed]

Out of those changes I wouldn't mind seeing service lets being played out and a shot clock to prevent too much time in between points. The problem with that though is the crowd can play a role if there is a long applause after a key point or they are shouting out before the serve, etc. There'd have to be control about when to start and stop the clock.

 

[Kieran]

Out of those changes I wouldn't mind seeing service lets being played out and a shot clock to prevent too much time in between points. The problem with that though is the crowd can play a role if there is a long applause after a key point or they are shouting out before the serve, etc. There'd have to be control about when to start and stop the clock.

What do you like about the let serve being played out, Darth?

 

[DarthFed]

I just think it's a consistency issue, they play out net cords during the rally so why not on serve? Some lets could actually help the server, though many would be easy for the returner. It would speed up the match just a bit too.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Among the things mentioned, the thing that I hate most is the No-Ad scoring. They do it in doubles already. I hate it even in doubles.

 

[DarthFed]

^Agreed, and close behind that in terms of terrible is changing it to best of 5 sets up to 4 games. It'd be a bad change in non-majors and absolutely terrible at majors.

 

[mrzz]

No-let is good. Shot clock is good. No deuce is terrible, ditto to GSM´s post.

4 games best of 5 (would there be a tie-break at 4-4?) sounds strange, but could be tried at a few ATP 250´s.

As I understood you would change only the best of three to this sort best of five.

 

[DarthFed]

The main problem I have with turning Best of 3's into those Best of 5's is that it makes for potentially much longer and mentally grueling matches in the non-majors and the season is already too long. From a spectator POV the best of 5 up to 4 games would be great but the players need some rest over the course of a 10.5 month season, no?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I have been saying the no let thing for years. That is the only change I am 100% cool with. It actually adds to the drama. It can help the server or the returner.

Shot clock is tricky in that when do you start it? It will always be discretionary, no?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If they want to speed up the game, they could put a limit on how many times one can bounce the ball before serving. :lolz:

 

[mrzz]

Shot clock is tricky in that when do you start it? It will always be discretionary, no?

I guess so, and being this way you can counter the argument people will raise about long, grueling points.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

If they want to speed up the game, they could put a limit on how many times one can bounce the ball before serving. :lolz:

Yeah but what if a player is a fast bouncer where he can get 5 bounces in like 3 seconds but the other guy is a slooowwww bouncer that takes him 10 seconds for 3 bounces?

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Tennis has been a game of hitting the ball over the net, not on the net, OMG. With the let cord as a valid serve, the very nature of the game will change a bit. I can see that a lot of players will be forced to play a net game. More passing shots will be there. A much quicker sport it's going to be. The surfaces will matter little lesser than before. Hardly anyone would want to be defensive. Such a fundamental change will be weird very weird. The game will change to some extent alright.

 

[Garro]

^ But they already play out net cords during the rally and nobody has a problem with that. Should that be changed as well?

I don't think the game would change to the degree that you think it would, but I agree that overall players would play more offensively. Stand less far back returning serve, and perhaps serve and volley more often as well. I don't really have a problem with this.

Also, it's often hard to tell if the ball actually did hit the top off the net or not on some serves. That's why we often see players arguing about it. Personally, it's just always seemed strange to me that they have to replay the point just because the ball touched the top part of the net but didn't affect the trajectory of the serve.

Edit: I have mixed feelings about the other changes. The on court time clock is good. Not sure how I feel about playing to 4 instead of 6, and adding the sudden death deuce is a terrible idea.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

^ But they already play out net cords during the rally and nobody has a problem with that. Should that be changed as well?

I don't think the game would change to the degree that you think it would, but I agree that overall players would play more offensively. Stand less far back returning serve, and perhaps serve and volley more often as well. I don't really have a problem with this.

Also, it's often hard to tell if the ball actually did hit the top off the net or not on some serves. That's why we often see players arguing about it. Personally, it's just always seemed strange to me that they have to replay the point just because the ball touched the top part of the net but didn't affect the trajectory of the serve.

Edit: I have mixed feelings about the other changes. The on court time clock is good. Not sure how I feel about playing to 4 instead of 6, and adding the sudden death deuce is a terrible idea.

You don't want to halt a 20 shot rally due to a net cord shot. That's why. On service, the rule is more applicable. Moreover, it was always possible to accept the rules as they were. There are no right rules or wrong rules. They are just there! I am just habituated with the invalidity of let cord and the validity of net cord in a rally. I just accepted the rules without questioning or reasoning and just thought the rules are cool however they are, like how they are supposed to be. And, its been like this for a long, long time right? What has changed apart from the disposal of ad-point in doubles and shortening of the matches (5 sets to 3) in a long time? Leave the rackets. That's technology, not a fundamental change is contained therein.

It's a very subjective topic, mate. I can have a different view obviously. That's why he have a thread here, anyway.

I just like the current rules.

 

[Haelfix]

Yes to shotclocks, but they should be ~27 seconds.

No to everything else, classic tennis works great.