Should we get rid of the second serve?

[Denis]

Would speed up the game significantly. Don't see what the point is of having two opportunities to put the ball in play in the first place.

 

[huntingyou]

nonsense; in essence you would be getting rid of first serves since players will not gift points by risking missing the box.

 

[Denis]

Most likely, yes. Even better. No more cheap points.

 

[kskate2]

In favor of what Denis? Besides speeding up the game, what benefit would this provide?

 

[Denis]

But the best thing is that we get rid of loss of time. It takes so much time before the opponent serves already, and then you have to wait even longer if he misses. Doubles is worse (if your teammate is serving), I feel I can go to bed then. ZZZzzzzzzz

---

In favor of what Denis? Besides speeding up the game, what benefit would this provide?

Speeding up the game. That's it. No disadvantages.

 

[kskate2]

I think they are already trying to speed the game up w/ the 25 sec rule.

 

[Denis]

I think they are already trying to speed the game up w/ the 25 sec rule.

Its not enough.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

got another idea. let's cut the time between serves down to 25 seconds and enforce the rule, and then watch how that affects the speed of the game for a while before making more decisions in that area

Edit: whoops, someone was quicker with the obvious.

 

[Denis]

Btw, they are not applying that rule here, this is an ITF event. :nono

 

[kskate2]

There are only 5 ITF events each: 4 majors and DC

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ yup. still one of the dumbest differences. my post should've been "let's make the time between serves 25 seconds everywhere and really make it count as well".

i remember in rome.. think it was JJ, who AVERAGED 25 seconds v Roger. how can someone not get penalized when the Average is actually right there at the limit?

---

as for your question. i wonder what the difference would be like, apart from the time. on the one hand, people wouldn't make a lot of serves like todays firsts.. then again, wouldn't the effect be even greater when they did? thinking off second serve aces, a big factor in those is always the simple surprise of going big, for the lines. i actually think it could be rather interesting to have just one.

 

[Denis]

Well because he goes overtime sometimes and other times he goes under. All your serves need to be within 25 seconds, so that makes sense. But if you have the only one serve rule, than you don't even have to count!

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

Well because he goes overtime sometimes and other times he goes under. All your serves need to be within 25 seconds, so that makes sense. But if you have the only one serve rule, than you don't even have to count!

i know. sometimes he goes under = not breaking the rule, but apparently, almost an equal amount of the time, he goes over = breaking the rule each time. the rule doesn't say that you should take an average of 25 seconds, but that you shouldn't ever take More than 25.

 

[brokenshoelace]

LOL sorry, but this is crazy.

I don't care about speeding up the game considerably when such a change would ruin the game. If this were to ever happen, the serve would be at a disadvantage. He can't risk going for big serves since he'll lose the point if he misses, and therefore, most serves would be equal to a second server in terms of pace, or at least a weak first serve.

Again, sorry, but this is utterly ridiculous.

 

[DarthFed]

There is only one or two reasonable ideas to speed up the game. One of which has been addressed more this season yet should still be applied more strictly. The other would be to do away with the challenge system which I think would be terrible too.

 

[JENNIFER_SUSAN]

But the best thing is that we get rid of loss of time. It takes so much time before the opponent serves already, and then you have to wait even longer if he misses. Doubles is worse (if your teammate is serving), I feel I can go to bed then. ZZZzzzzzzz

---

In favor of what Denis? Besides speeding up the game, what benefit would this provide?

Speeding up the game. That's it. No disadvantages.

---

I agree with you Denisovich, we should find a way to stop spending more time.

 

[Asmodeus]

I think we can change the wording of the question to: "Should we get rid of useless threads on this forum?"

I vote yes.

 

[Moxie]

There is only one or two reasonable ideas to speed up the game. One of which has been addressed more this season yet should still be applied more strictly. The other would be to do away with the challenge system which I think would be terrible too.

Some, like Martina, suggest getting rid of the let. I guess the idea is that if it lands in,
you play it, if it lands out, it's a fault.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

There is only one or two reasonable ideas to speed up the game. One of which has been addressed more this season yet should still be applied more strictly. The other would be to do away with the challenge system which I think would be terrible too.

Some, like Martina, suggest getting rid of the let. I guess the idea is that if it lands in,
you play it, if it lands out, it's a fault.

I would be cool with that, since it is a play-on every other time.


Cannot do away with the second serve though...like it was mentioned , it means getting rid of the first serve. People practice for years to get a good serve and use it to their advantage. There are other ways to speed the game up, like enforcing the existing rules...

Plus this is not speed-dating...this game takes some time to play...At least it is not baseball where I can literally see my finger nails grow...

 

[Riotbeard]

Well because he goes overtime sometimes and other times he goes under. All your serves need to be within 25 seconds, so that makes sense. But if you have the only one serve rule, than you don't even have to count!

It would actually slow down the game though. Longer points. I think getting rid of the second serve would borderline ruin the game and turn it all into boring rallying. Would really hurt aggressive tennis.