Should we get rid of the second serve?

[Front242]

Yeah, imagine trying S&V with a limp serve that trickles over the net at 100 kph? Ain't happening. No more aggressive tennis players just boring grinding.

 

[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.

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...

I'm glad you make this point, Murat...it's a game that takes a long time to play. If you're in such a hurry, stick to soccer. It has a clock.

 

[Front242]

Soccer has even more flaws like still no action replays and the embarrassment of grown men flying through the air like they're auditioning for the next Superman all in the hope of a penalty of free kick. Jurgen Klinsmann started off the whole diving craze and Ronaldo and Drogba took it to new levels of embarrassment. I used to enjoy soccer matches till then.

 

[Mog]

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 think it is not a bad idea what Martina says. It is like any other shot.
You can't take away the 2nd serve because it will ruin the game.
Just enforce the 25 seconds rule properly so some players don't keep on bouncing for ever or take undue long time between points. Use the rule wisely and don't let top few get away many times. Rules should be enforced.

 

[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.

I think it is not a bad idea what Martina says. It is like any other shot.
You can't take away the 2nd serve because it will ruin the game.
Just enforce the 25 seconds rule properly so some players don't keep on bouncing for ever or take undue long time between points. Use the rule wisely and don't let top few get away many times. Rules should be enforced.

Agreed, about the second serve. As many have said, if you eliminate the 2nd, you essentially eliminate the first, and that would defeat the purpose, as there would be fewer aces, and more rallies. But why not play the let? It might cause a weird bounce, but tennis is full of them, especially on the natural surfaces. Even if someone eventually develops a technique where their serve tends to clip the net, and move oddly...it would just be another service technique, and advantage is expected to be to the server. Anyway, they'd still be risking a first serve fault.

 

[justapasserby]

eliminate the first serve and tall guys have nothing to show for mostly anything, S&V dies for good, breakpoints become no big deal, rallies become longer, serving becomes a disadvantage, everybody adapts the same style, foot faults automatically become points, the underhand serve becomes popular, the US dies as a tennis country, there would be more return winners than there have ever been aces (the return is a much much safer shot with the whole court in use)... and i bet there are a lot more. i'm not accusing anything, but this thread feels like it was made by a troll.

 

[Moxie]

eliminate the first serve and tall guys have nothing to show for mostly anything, S&V dies for good, breakpoints become no big deal, rallies become longer, serving becomes a disadvantage, everybody adapts the same style, foot faults automatically become points, the underhand serve becomes popular, the US dies as a tennis country, there would be more return winners than there have ever been aces (the return is a much much safer shot with the whole court in use)... and i bet there are a lot more. i'm not accusing anything, but this thread feels like it was made by a troll.

Oh, no...that's not fair (the troll comment.) Denisovich is a fan of the S&V, I believe. It's just that we're talking it out. I actually thought about how much it would nullify the game of the "tall trees" who are big servers, and, TBH, it would favor my guy, Nadal, I think. But no one wants that. The serve is a valid weapon, and no one wants to see it neutered. Still, it's a fair talking-point.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Still, it's a fair talking-point.

Actually, it really isn't. I've yet to see one semi-convincing argument. Speeding up the game? That's it? Then let's do away with television breaks.

 

[Moxie]

Still, it's a fair talking-point.

Actually, it really isn't. I've yet to see one semi-convincing argument. Speeding up the game? That's it? Then let's do away with television breaks.

Not eliminating the 2nd serve, but it brings us to the question of playing the lets. No position on that?

 

[BalaryKar]

The best way to reduce the match time would be to start with the match point itself. Toss the coin and the winner serves for the match. If he fails to convert the match point, obviously he losses the match. And yes, the players should not practice before the match on court, such a waste of time.

And yes, no smileys here as I am serious

 

[Riotbeard]

eliminate the first serve and tall guys have nothing to show for mostly anything, S&V dies for good, breakpoints become no big deal, rallies become longer, serving becomes a disadvantage, everybody adapts the same style, foot faults automatically become points, the underhand serve becomes popular, the US dies as a tennis country, there would be more return winners than there have ever been aces (the return is a much much safer shot with the whole court in use)... and i bet there are a lot more. i'm not accusing anything, but this thread feels like it was made by a troll.

Oh, no...that's not fair (the troll comment.) Denisovich is a fan of the S&V, I believe. It's just that we're talking it out. I actually thought about how much it would nullify the game of the "tall trees" who are big servers, and, TBH, it would favor my guy, Nadal, I think. But no one wants that. The serve is a valid weapon, and no one wants to see it neutered. Still, it's a fair talking-point.

Agreed. While I strongly disagree with him on this issue, Denisovich is miles from being a troll!

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

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...

i actually would have more of a problem with doing away the let court. actually, i think that would make people go for spinnier, safer serves even more drastically than having just one. because while it's a fault if it goes out, it's even more of a problem if it sits up nicely for the other guy to come in and smack it away; and on the other hand, who wants to win a let-cord dribble point right on his serve?

---

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.

you do have a point there, but i reckon Denis wouldn't mind trading time in points for time between points.


tbh, i'd be really interested to see how it works with just one serve. yes, on the majority of points, the serve would be safer.. but think of the thrill of when a player decides to go big. i'm not saying it's better than two serves, but it's more intriguing that i'd have thought at first.

---

But why not play the let? It might cause a weird bounce, but tennis is full of them, especially on the natural surfaces. Even if someone eventually develops a technique where their serve tends to clip the net, and move oddly...it would just be another service technique, and advantage is expected to be to the server. Anyway, they'd still be risking a first serve fault.

actually, i think these balls would favor the returner (unless he's set up camp in the bleachers) just as often as the server. also, as an adjustment you'd definitely need would be to have net-cord tension be the same everywhere.

again, it wouldn't be my preference. doing away with the second would be a drastic change to the game, but the result would be changed strategies and preferences. doing away with the let would just increase the factor of chance/luck.

 

[justapasserby]

eliminate the first serve and tall guys have nothing to show for mostly anything, S&V dies for good, breakpoints become no big deal, rallies become longer, serving becomes a disadvantage, everybody adapts the same style, foot faults automatically become points, the underhand serve becomes popular, the US dies as a tennis country, there would be more return winners than there have ever been aces (the return is a much much safer shot with the whole court in use)... and i bet there are a lot more. i'm not accusing anything, but this thread feels like it was made by a troll.

Oh, no...that's not fair (the troll comment.) Denisovich is a fan of the S&V, I believe. It's just that we're talking it out. I actually thought about how much it would nullify the game of the "tall trees" who are big servers, and, TBH, it would favor my guy, Nadal, I think. But no one wants that. The serve is a valid weapon, and no one wants to see it neutered. Still, it's a fair talking-point.

Agreed. While I strongly disagree with him on this issue, Denisovich is miles from being a troll!

Like i said, i didn't accuse anyone of anything, and i know how good a poster denisovich is (been a lurker most of the time hence my name). it just felt like that given how the idea was presented to everybody. which was not much of an argument.

in any case, sorry if i offended anyone

 

[the AntiPusher]

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.

All due respect , this may be the most insignificant thread I have seen in the past 5,years. It very obvious that you really never played or competed at a high level.in the game of tennis. However, there is hope for you, it's called handball or racketball. Either sport should satisfy your desire to have One serve ,imo.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ true, because it's not like anyone else ever discussed that idea, right?

don't get put off just because he phrases his proposition slightly provocative. and saying "put the ball in play" reminds us that back when the game and its rules were invented, it was probably rather challenging for the players to put the ball in the service box at all (in this context, the effect of string/racquet technology and increased spin rpms, which is usually only discussed in regards to baseline shots, should also be considered. i'd reckon it would have been hard to do a modern style 2nd serve, pace/spin-wise, with a 1960ies racquet).

again, i think it's a valid proposition, albeit one highly unlikely to catch on, and would personally prefer this over the no-let variation. overall, though, i'm still more content with the status quo, tbh.

 

[Ricardo]

There are good ideas and there are bad ones, this is by far the most useless one. Speed up the game? common sense tells you that when players slow down their serves just to get in play, it will only increase the amount of baseline rallies - the time saved from having one serve would not compensate for that. It would take even more time, and takes the beauty away from players who actually have great first serves.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ riot already pointed to this in regards to time/longer rallies, just more respectfully. and i've already pointed out that Denis' might be less worried about match duration and more with "time between points/action".

 

[brokenshoelace]

Still, it's a fair talking-point.

Actually, it really isn't. I've yet to see one semi-convincing argument. Speeding up the game? That's it? Then let's do away with television breaks.

Not eliminating the 2nd serve, but it brings us to the question of playing the lets. No position on that?

That's a completely different issue, one that isn't what this thread is about. I think lets need to go away. They don't make much sense. If a ball can clip the tape during rally and the point continues normally, why not after a serve?

---

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...

i actually would have more of a problem with doing away the let court. actually, i think that would make people go for spinnier, safer serves even more drastically than having just one. because while it's a fault if it goes out, it's even more of a problem if it sits up nicely for the other guy to come in and smack it away; and on the other hand, who wants to win a let-cord dribble point right on his serve?

---

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.

you do have a point there, but i reckon Denis wouldn't mind trading time in points for time between points.


tbh, i'd be really interested to see how it works with just one serve. yes, on the majority of points, the serve would be safer.. but think of the thrill of when a player decides to go big. i'm not saying it's better than two serves, but it's more intriguing that i'd have thought at first.

---

But why not play the let? It might cause a weird bounce, but tennis is full of them, especially on the natural surfaces. Even if someone eventually develops a technique where their serve tends to clip the net, and move oddly...it would just be another service technique, and advantage is expected to be to the server. Anyway, they'd still be risking a first serve fault.

actually, i think these balls would favor the returner (unless he's set up camp in the bleachers) just as often as the server. also, as an adjustment you'd definitely need would be to have net-cord tension be the same everywhere.

again, it wouldn't be my preference. doing away with the second would be a drastic change to the game, but the result would be changed strategies and preferences. doing away with the let would just increase the factor of chance/luck.

---

---

If players don't change the way they strike the ball during rallies (despite the fact that there are no lets, and a ball can clip the tape, dribble over, or sit up nicely for the opponent), why would they change the way they serve just because of the "threat" of a let chord?

---

^ true, because it's not like anyone else ever discussed that idea, right?

don't get put off just because he phrases his proposition slightly provocative. and saying "put the ball in play" reminds us that back when the game and its rules were invented, it was probably rather challenging for the players to put the ball in the service box at all (in this context, the effect of string/racquet technology and increased spin rpms, which is usually only discussed in regards to baseline shots, should also be considered. i'd reckon it would have been hard to do a modern style 2nd serve, pace/spin-wise, with a 1960ies racquet).

again, i think it's a valid proposition, albeit one highly unlikely to catch on, and would personally prefer this over the no-let variation. overall, though, i'm still more content with the status quo, tbh.

Okay, just so that I understand this clearly:

What would be the purpose of taking away the second serve? You touched on the different dynamics it would create, but changing dynamics for the sake of changing dynamics is pointless.

If you're going to do something so drastic (and I realize you're against it, but I'd like to hear an argument as to why it's a valid proposition), you should have a really good reason behind it (this is a general "you" by the way).

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

i actually would have more of a problem with doing away the let court. actually, i think that would make people go for spinnier, safer serves even more drastically than having just one. because while it's a fault if it goes out, it's even more of a problem if it sits up nicely for the other guy to come in and smack it away; and on the other hand, who wants to win a let-cord dribble point right on his serve?

If players don't change the way they strike the ball during rallies (despite the fact that there are no lets, and a ball can clip the tape, dribble over, or sit up nicely for the opponent), why would they change the way they serve just because of the "threat" of a let chord?

from the angle alone (target much closer to the net), clipping the tape is much more likely in serves (and happens more often) than in baseline shots. on top of that, the prospect of the second serve makes it easier to take a risk and get so close to the cord. also, wouldn't it be odd when your first serve hits the tape, the ball starts sailing, and you (server) actually start praying for it to go long so you can re-play, instead of the returner just smacking that slow sitter?

---

^ true, because it's not like anyone else ever discussed that idea, right?

don't get put off just because he phrases his proposition slightly provocative. and saying "put the ball in play" reminds us that back when the game and its rules were invented, it was probably rather challenging for the players to put the ball in the service box at all (in this context, the effect of string/racquet technology and increased spin rpms, which is usually only discussed in regards to baseline shots, should also be considered. i'd reckon it would have been hard to do a modern style 2nd serve, pace/spin-wise, with a 1960ies racquet).

again, i think it's a valid proposition, albeit one highly unlikely to catch on, and would personally prefer this over the no-let variation. overall, though, i'm still more content with the status quo, tbh.

Okay, just so that I understand this clearly:

What would be the purpose of taking away the second serve? You touched on the different dynamics it would create, but changing dynamics for the sake of changing dynamics is pointless.

If you're going to do something so drastic (and I realize you're against it, but I'd like to hear an argument as to why it's a valid proposition), you should have a really good reason behind it (this is a general "you" by the way).

i mainly wanted to point out that i 1) think the idea is nowhere near as ridiculous as some try to make it seem and 2) actually like it better than the taking away the let, because the difference would be something that is controlled by the player (how much risk to take when it's your only serve), not by chance. if you have only one serve, it's up to the player what to do with it, just like with any other shot (or with the two serves he has now), he has to make a decision and try to execute accordingly. no let on the other hand just increases the number of points in which someone has to apologize for the outcome. once the ball clips the tape, it's the tennis gods throwing a coin. for that moment and most likely for the outcome of the point, skill is pretty much taken out of the equation. i don't think it's necessary to have even more of those moments than we have now.

again, i realize that getting rid of second serves would be a very drastic change. but since officials are actually trying and discussing no-let and (even bigger change) no-ad, i think "one serve" could well be an equal in this debate.

 

[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.

All due respect , this may be the most insignificant thread I have seen in the past 5,years. It very obvious that you really never played or competed at a high level.in the game of tennis. However, there is hope for you, it's called handball or racketball. Either sport should satisfy your desire to have One serve ,imo.

Starting a response with "All due respect" is usually a sign of saying something really unrespectful. What is racketball anyway? All due respect.

---

Ok I see my proposition has created quite some hostility. First of all, thanks johnsteinback for your comments, I concur with them. Secondly, those that don’t appreciate this thread, please start your own if you don’t have anything substantively to add to the discussion.

Lastly, my reaction to the substantive arguments against banning the second serve: I understand that it will change the nature of the game. Also, players spend a lot of time investing in their first serves as a weapon. These are two distinct points. The nature of the game will change, and secondly, players will lose their investment in their first serve and will oppose it (or at least those with a low percentage but very good first serve).

Politically, the second point is probably the biggest reason why my proposition will not happen. Too much vested interests will be affected. Fine. But, that doesn’t mean it is a bad idea. Which brings me to the second point. The change of the nature of the game. IMO, what will change is that the receiving player will actually become the more dominant and aggressive player instead of the server. I don’t think as some of you have suggested, that we will only get pushers in the game that will start endless rallies. Yes, there will be more rallies and most likely more baseline tennis. But that doesn’t mean that aggressive play will not be rewarded. It’s just more likely to be the receiver who will start dominating points on serve. I do get that this might be a bit too ‘revolutionary’ for some, but I don’t think it will hurt the entertainment value of the game.

And no I have never played at a high level. I play at a recreational level, watch a lot of tennis and love it. So what? Ad hominem arguments won't get you anywhere.