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

[GameSetAndMath]

^ 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.

The main reason they want to change the rules is not something to do with adapting the game to new technology. They are trying to make it shorter to adapt to the following things.
1. They want TV coverage. TV folks like predictability in length of match.
2. They want to attract people with attention deficit disorder to watch the matches.

 

[Kieran]

^ 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.

The main reason they want to change the rules is not something to do with adapting the game to new technology. They are trying to make it shorter to adapt to the following things.
1. They want TV coverage. TV folks like predictability in length of match.
2. They want to attract people with attention deficit disorder to watch the matches.

Basically, that's it. They want to appease the muppets who spend 95% of their day twitching at their phones. These people don't want to think! So let's make it dumb enough that they can follow things without disturbing the old sleepy brain cells...

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Wow, so the proposed rules are putting off quite a few people.

 

[Fiero425]

Wow, so the proposed rules are putting off quite a few people.

Few people like change and they fight it in all walks of life and for all kinds of situations! I know I haven't cared for how things have changed; the tech, courts, balls, inconsistency with time clock, and in general the slow pace of the game! Matches are getting longer and longer and it's not just because of competitiveness; more about stalling, MTO's, toweling off, and challenging calls they know will not be in their favor! The sport needs to tighten up, move it along, and we might have more upsets if we don't allow the good players off the hook! Years ago I never missed a match; now with TCC I barely watch early round matches that are available; they're boring and long! :nono :angel: :cover - - - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

 

[I.Haychew]

Overall, I like the game as is. The only thing I'd change is the tiebreak rule in majors. I'm in favor of the 5th set tiebreak. You can win a match via a tiebreak in sets 3 and 4. So...Why not in set 5? I think the US Open has it right.

 

[Fiero425]

Overall, I like the game as is. The only thing I'd change is the tiebreak rule in majors. I'm in favor of the 5th set tiebreak. You can win a match via a tiebreak in sets 3 and 4. So...Why not in set 5? I think the US Open has it right.

The USO can't be used as an good example about ANYTHING! As long as I've been in tennis, it's been a complete joke! Since '75 it's been the most inconsistent and most controversial of the Slams! They've been an embarrassment concerning the draw conspiracies, going best of 3 early in the tournament; esp. when it was played on clay from '75-77, then having gone through different speeds of HC; sometime slow and gritty, and in '78 considered playing on a pane of glass! uzzled :nono :cover - - - - - - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - - - - - -

 

[I.Haychew]

Overall, I like the game as is. The only thing I'd change is the tiebreak rule in majors. I'm in favor of the 5th set tiebreak. You can win a match via a tiebreak in sets 3 and 4. So...Why not in set 5? I think the US Open has it right.

The USO can't be used as an good example about ANYTHING! As long as I've been in tennis, it's been a complete joke! Since '75 it's been the most inconsistent and most controversial of the Slams! They've been an embarrassment concerning the draw conspiracies, going best of 3 early in the tournament; esp. when it was played on clay from '75-77, then having gone through different speeds of HC; sometime slow and gritty, and in '78 considered playing on a pane of glass! uzzled :nono :cover - - - - - - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - - - - - -

Anything except a 5th set tiebreak. I like the idea of a 5th set tiebreak. Seems that the trend is to try to speed-up the game with serve clocks, no let cords on serves, and whatever else. Yet only three tournaments (four if you count Davis Cup) per year don't have final set tiebreaks. Different strokes for different folks...but I'm in favor of them. What I don't get is why it's okay to win a match via a 2nd set tiebreak, a 3rd set tiebreak, and a 4th set tiebreak, but not a 5th set tiebreak. My view is...Either have no tiebreaks at all, or have 'em for all sets.

 

[I.Haychew]

^ 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.

The main reason they want to change the rules is not something to do with adapting the game to new technology. They are trying to make it shorter to adapt to the following things.
1. They want TV coverage. TV folks like predictability in length of match.
2. They want to attract people with attention deficit disorder to watch the matches.

Change the rules all you want, but tennis will never be a prime sport. Accept it. It just won't. With the exception of us fanatics who appreciate the skill and athleticism of pro tennis players, tennis will never be fully appreciated by the masses. Almost everyone I know thinks that tennis is boring and "gay". I'm constantly made fun of because I like tennis.

 

[Fiero425]

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.

The main reason they want to change the rules is not something to do with adapting the game to new technology. They are trying to make it shorter to adapt to the following things.
1. They want TV coverage. TV folks like predictability in length of match.
2. They want to attract people with attention deficit disorder to watch the matches.

Change the rules all you want, but tennis will never be a prime sport. Accept it. It just won't. With the exception of us fanatics who appreciate the skill and athleticism of pro tennis players, tennis will never be fully appreciated by the masses. Almost everyone I know thinks that tennis is boring and "gay". I'm constantly made fun of because I like tennis.

I think that's maybe the mindset of narrow-minded twits of The United States; esp, early on during the tennis boom of the 70's! We had our cute little outfits with wrist & head bands, buying the best warm-ups, and the latest tech advances from wood! Even when it blew up it always had "soft" connotations even when everyone was getting out there on the court at least once to see what all the "hub bub" was! Things could get tense when there were shortages of courts! I'd been known to get up at 5 am to play early at the club around 6:30 or so! As "gay" as people may have thought about the sport, I personally never had a problem! It would just make them look bad to lose if they acted up! People usually tried to stay on my good side anyway so I wouldn't embarrass them too much! :angel: :dodgy: :snicker

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Overall, I like the game as is. The only thing I'd change is the tiebreak rule in majors. I'm in favor of the 5th set tiebreak. You can win a match via a tiebreak in sets 3 and 4. So...Why not in set 5? I think the US Open has it right.

Come on you know the reason. When the match is tied up two sets all, then it is kind of unfair to decide the fifth set on a tie breaker. However, if someone wins the match in the third set tie breaker, it is not all that unfair as the other guy did not even manage to win a set.

People often quote Isner vs. Mahut as the reason to replace this rule. However, it is actually a huge outlier. Statistically, I believe that more than 75% of matches get finished in less than 19 games in the fifth set and more than 95% of matches get finished in less than 25 games when the fifth set is played without a tie-breaker. So, it is actually much ado about nothing. When something like that happens, it actually makes things interesting.

Perhaps, instead of USO, Wimbledon should have adopted tie break in the last set also rule as a break is more difficult to come on fast cross courts.

 

[Fiero425]

Overall, I like the game as is. The only thing I'd change is the tiebreak rule in majors. I'm in favor of the 5th set tiebreak. You can win a match via a tiebreak in sets 3 and 4. So...Why not in set 5? I think the US Open has it right.

Come on you know the reason. When the match is tied up two sets all, then it is kind of unfair to decide the fifth set on a tie breaker. However, if someone wins the match in the third set tie breaker, it is not all that unfair as the other guy did not even manage to win a set.

People often quote Isner vs. Mahut as the reason to replace this rule. However, it is actually a huge outlier. Statistically, I believe that more than 75% of matches get finished in less than 19 games in the fifth set and more than 95% of matches get finished in less than 25 games when the fifth set is played without a tie-breaker. So, it is actually much ado about nothing. When something like that happens, it actually makes things interesting.

Perhaps, instead of USO, Wimbledon should have adopted tie break in the last set also rule as a break is more difficult to come on fast cross courts.

At Wimbledon when things were lightning fast and the grass was as choppy as your front lawn, I preferred it like the 70's when the TB started at "8 all!" That would just drag it out in today's matches, but I wouldn't be adverse to a 5th set TB at 8 all! That's the best I can do for you kiddies! I gotta hold onto the past! :angel: :dodgy: :snicker - Nole Blog -

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Once upon time actually, tennis was played with no tie-breakers in every set, not just in fifth set.

 

[mrzz]

People often quote Isner vs. Mahut as the reason to replace this rule. However, it is actually a huge outlier. Statistically, I believe that more than 75% of matches get finished in less than 19 games in the fifth set and more than 95% of matches get finished in less than 25 games when the fifth set is played without a tie-breaker.

I guess you meant 13 and 19 games, right? In fact even in this case I would say 90% of the matches end up in less than 13 games and 98% in less than 19 games.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

If there were be fundamental changes to the game of tennis, not sure I would continue watching it. I don't exactly know why I am so negative about it.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

The main reason they want to change the rules is not something to do with adapting the game to new technology. They are trying to make it shorter to adapt to the following things.
1. They want TV coverage. TV folks like predictability in length of match.
2. They want to attract people with attention deficit disorder to watch the matches.

That's how I always interpreted the changes to the doubles scoring. (Which I don't particularly like, particularly the "deciding point" nonsense.)

However, replacing best-of-three with TB at 6-6 with best-of-five with TB at 4-4 actually seems to increase variability of match lengths (in terms of games), so I am scratching my head a little. Not sure it really makes sense.

The thing about net cords on serves is that it can mean the receiver loses the point without having had any chance to return the serve, not because the server served a really great ace that they couldn't reach, but because of pure luck. I guess it wouldn't happen that often, but even so it feels a bit wrong.

I'd be more comfortable if a net cord on a serve was always a fault, I think, if there was a desire to eliminate the let.

 

[mrzz]

I'd be more comfortable if a net cord on a serve was always a fault, I think, if there was a desire to eliminate the let.

Here´s an idea (since I believe your suggestion is a bit too strong). They could make net cords a fault on the first serve (which is were let´s happen the most), and allow let´s only on second serve -- so you don´t add pressure to the server. But if that´s precisely what you want...

However, I am sure that they are in fact keen to introduce the random factor you (understandably) do not like by allowing net cords on serve. However, there is already a random aspect of this right now. In most cases a ball is in or out after a net cord just out of sheer luck -- and being in it´s a let and not a fault.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

I'd be more comfortable if a net cord on a serve was always a fault, I think, if there was a desire to eliminate the let.

Here´s an idea (since I believe your suggestion is a bit too strong). They could make net cords a fault on the first serve (which is were let´s happen the most), and allow let´s only on second serve -- so you don´t add pressure to the server. But if that´s precisely what you want...

However, I am sure that they are in fact keen to introduce the random factor you (understandably) do not like by allowing net cords on serve. However, there is already a random aspect of this right now. In most cases a ball is in or out after a net cord just out of sheer luck -- and being in it´s a let and not a fault.

Well, I'm fine with the rule as it stands.

But in some sense if you hit the net cord on the second serve, then you are already cutting it fine and taking a risk, and it didn't seem entirely unreasonable to call it a DF.

At least it seems more reasonable than having the returner forfeit the point through no fault of their own, just dumb luck.

But yes, they could just keep things as they are ...

I remember​ that they trialed round robin in some tournaments a few years back; that died rather quickly. Maybe these will as well ...

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Frode789]

More often than not, the let doesn't actually change course of the ball, it just ever so slightly touch the net. I have lost count on how many times I've seen a return winner on a let call, and then on the next ball they fail to return it.. So this will be good for both sides, more consistency.
Let calls should go away, end of story.