Should we get rid of the second serve?

[Mog]

We have read so many good posts for and against the idea of getting rid of the second serve. I don't think that the thread is an aburd one. It is just an idea to discuss the pros and cons of it. (I don't think it will happen.)

Said that I do think it is a very drastic change. It will also change game differently for better or worst. By taking away the 2nd serve, the effectiveness of the one serve will be sort of medium paced and will result in more baseline ralleys and will take more time and defeats the purpose.

I think changing from duece to "no ad" makes more sense and will surely save considerable amount of time. Sudden death after the deuce.

 

[I.Haychew]

I think that tennis is just fine just the way it is. Fine with two serves. Fine with let-cords. Fine with deuce/ad. The only thing I might change is the "no 5th set tiebreak" rule. But that's a different topic.

 

[Moxie]

Personally, I would hate it if they changed the ad/deuce rule to sudden-death (the way it is in doubles.) I think it would make singles considerably less-dramatic, and I love the battles to hold/break serve.

 

[Riotbeard]

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.

---

Cheers Denisovich. I actually think it is quite an interesting question, even though I come down on the opposite side of it. Some people seem unable to disagree comfortably (even when discussing tennis, and resort to stupid personal attacks. Keep the threads coming.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think that tennis is just fine just the way it is. Fine with two serves. Fine with let-cords. Fine with deuce/ad. The only thing I might change is the "no 5th set tiebreak" rule. But that's a different topic.

Thank you.

While I wouldn't mind saying the let rule go, it's hardly a pressing issue. Tennis is fine as it is. The only issues are time in between points (and it's getting addressed) and medical time outs (which is a trickier issue). Everything else is fine really. I'm actually a fan of the no tie-break in the fifth set rule.

 

[Riotbeard]

I think that tennis is just fine just the way it is. Fine with two serves. Fine with let-cords. Fine with deuce/ad. The only thing I might change is the "no 5th set tiebreak" rule. But that's a different topic.

Thank you.

While I wouldn't mind saying the let rule go, it's hardly a pressing issue. Tennis is fine as it is. The only issues are time in between points (and it's getting addressed) and medical time outs (which is a trickier issue). Everything else is fine really. I'm actually a fan of the no tie-break in the fifth set rule.

This is roughly where I stand. I would like a few more fast court tournaments, but that is not a rule thing.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

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.

---

I think you have a great point there. it hurts to name him as he's just left the tournament, but think of Berdych - if he were to see only one serve by his opponent, i'd doubt anyone would call the result "less aggressive". and i Really doubt it would lead to prolonged rallies. (similar, although in a more controlled fashion, for Novak. come to think of it, i wonder if he would become close to unbeatable )

---

Personally, I would hate it if they changed the ad/deuce rule to sudden-death (the way it is in doubles.) I think it would make singles considerably less-dramatic, and I love the battles to hold/break serve.

ditto

 

[Denis]

Personally, I would hate it if they changed the ad/deuce rule to sudden-death (the way it is in doubles.) I think it would make singles considerably less-dramatic, and I love the battles to hold/break serve.

I agree, it really adds the mental aspect of the game. Also, I enjoy the 5th set drama's, but I must say it's not great for the next round. The winner will be exhausted. Maybe only finals without a 5th set tie-break?

---

I'd like to add that my problem with the second serve is not so much the length of the game as such, but more the time spent between points. Let's hope the 25 second rule is also introduced in slams. They seem to be enforcing it, but is that the 20 second rule? I saw it at a ladies match and I think Nadal got a warning too.

 

[Ricardo]

^ 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".

ok so i didn't read his or your posts, big deal? at least my last point stands, when there is one serve only, you take away the first serves from people like Isner, Karlovic, Tsonga, Federer, Murray, Del Potro..... guys who have very good first serves, and in turn it gives huge advantage to those with not as good first serves. When a change is made to stir up the dynamics in a way that it disadvantages a group of players who have done nothing wrong, it is not a bright idea. Its as bad as say, let's not allow players to use two hands for backhand.

 

[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".

ok so i didn't read his or your posts, big deal?

not a big deal; that's why i didn't complain, but merely pointed these things out to you.

 

[britbox]

I'm happy with the rules of the sport as they are.

 

[Mog]

We have read so many good posts for and against the idea of getting rid of the second serve. I don't think that the thread is an aburd one. It is just an idea to discuss the pros and cons of it. (I don't think it will happen.)

Said that I do think it is a very drastic change. It will also change game differently for better or worst. By taking away the 2nd serve, the effectiveness of the one serve will be sort of medium paced and will result in more baseline ralleys and will take more time and defeats the purpose.

I think changing from duece to "no ad" makes more sense and will surely save considerable amount of time. Sudden death after the deuce.

After thinking about the noad change, I agree it will take away lot of excitements and drama from the game

The rules now are fine but the time rule between the points should be enforced regularly.

---

I'm happy with the rules of the sport as they are.

Agree with this .

---

I'm happy with the rules of the sport as they are.

Agree with this .

 

[brokenshoelace]

Personally, I would hate it if they changed the ad/deuce rule to sudden-death (the way it is in doubles.) I think it would make singles considerably less-dramatic, and I love the battles to hold/break serve.

I agree, it really adds the mental aspect of the game. Also, I enjoy the 5th set drama's, but I must say it's not great for the next round. The winner will be exhausted. Maybe only finals without a 5th set tie-break?

Yeah, that's pretty much the only drawback of the lack of 5th set tie-break. A match can drag and players will have nothing left for the next round. Still, in kinda of limits the "randomness," so to speak.

 

[DarthFed]

^ 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".

ok so i didn't read his or your posts, big deal? at least my last point stands, when there is one serve only, you take away the first serves from people like Isner, Karlovic, Tsonga, Federer, Murray, Del Potro..... guys who have very good first serves, and in turn it gives huge advantage to those with not as good first serves. When a change is made to stir up the dynamics in a way that it disadvantages a group of players who have done nothing wrong, it is not a bright idea. Its as bad as say, let's not allow players to use two hands for backhand.

This is another part of it which probably wasn't addressed yet. All those players practicing their serves for decades and making them into a big weapon would awake one day to realize they wasted a hell of a lot of time.

I can see doing away with the let rule but the big time-saver is to strictly enforce the 25 second rule.

 

[I.Haychew]

I think tiebreaks, in general, are exciting. One screw-up can potentially result in losing the set/match. In that sense, I think they add suspense. More of an "edge of your seat/nail biting" feeling.
Plus, matches can be won/lost via third and fourth set tiebreaks. Why not fifth set tiebreaks? I like the US Open's system.

 

[Denis]

^ 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".

ok so i didn't read his or your posts, big deal? at least my last point stands, when there is one serve only, you take away the first serves from people like Isner, Karlovic, Tsonga, Federer, Murray, Del Potro..... guys who have very good first serves, and in turn it gives huge advantage to those with not as good first serves. When a change is made to stir up the dynamics in a way that it disadvantages a group of players who have done nothing wrong, it is not a bright idea. Its as bad as say, let's not allow players to use two hands for backhand.

This is another part of it which probably wasn't addressed yet. All those players practicing their serves for decades and making them into a big weapon would awake one day to realize they wasted a hell of a lot of time.

I can see doing away with the let rule but the big time-saver is to strictly enforce the 25 second rule.

It was already addressed by a couple of posters early on. I don't think protecting vested interests is a good argument against it, but I understand that it will impact the probability of the change. Anyway, the second serve abolition has been more or less uninamously voted down. The less drastic version of keeping within the 25 seconds seems to fit everyone just fine.

Other interesting reforms are still fun to discuss though, although I am quite conservative on those. I think you need to earn a 5 set victory through two games difference at the end, not the random point in a tie-break. I do agree with Blue Jay Bill that the suspense part is pretty cool though.

On the let-thing. I saw a couple of challenger tournements (I know) where they actually didn't apply the let rule. You got the point if it clipped the net and fell right on the other side of the net. Seems to work, although the receiver doesn't get a 'fair' chance to return the ball. And people might start practicing on it.

 

[Ricardo]

^ 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".

ok so i didn't read his or your posts, big deal? at least my last point stands, when there is one serve only, you take away the first serves from people like Isner, Karlovic, Tsonga, Federer, Murray, Del Potro..... guys who have very good first serves, and in turn it gives huge advantage to those with not as good first serves. When a change is made to stir up the dynamics in a way that it disadvantages a group of players who have done nothing wrong, it is not a bright idea. Its as bad as say, let's not allow players to use two hands for backhand.

This is another part of it which probably wasn't addressed yet. All those players practicing their serves for decades and making them into a big weapon would awake one day to realize they wasted a hell of a lot of time.

I can see doing away with the let rule but the big time-saver is to strictly enforce the 25 second rule.

It was already addressed by a couple of posters early on. I don't think protecting vested interests is a good argument against it, but I understand that it will impact the probability of the change. Anyway, the second serve abolition has been more or less uninamously voted down. The less drastic version of keeping within the 25 seconds seems to fit everyone just fine.

Other interesting reforms are still fun to discuss though, although I am quite conservative on those. I think you need to earn a 5 set victory through two games difference at the end, not the random point in a tie-break. I do agree with Blue Jay Bill that the suspense part is pretty cool though.

On the let-thing. I saw a couple of challenger tournements (I know) where they actually didn't apply the let rule. You got the point if it clipped the net and fell right on the other side of the net. Seems to work, although the receiver doesn't get a 'fair' chance to return the ball. And people might start practicing on it.

Abolishing second serves is simply a dumb idea, so everyone knows.... and it's not even interesting to start with.

 

[Moxie]

^ 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".

ok so i didn't read his or your posts, big deal? at least my last point stands, when there is one serve only, you take away the first serves from people like Isner, Karlovic, Tsonga, Federer, Murray, Del Potro..... guys who have very good first serves, and in turn it gives huge advantage to those with not as good first serves. When a change is made to stir up the dynamics in a way that it disadvantages a group of players who have done nothing wrong, it is not a bright idea. Its as bad as say, let's not allow players to use two hands for backhand.

This is another part of it which probably wasn't addressed yet. All those players practicing their serves for decades and making them into a big weapon would awake one day to realize they wasted a hell of a lot of time.

I can see doing away with the let rule but the big time-saver is to strictly enforce the 25 second rule.

It was already addressed by a couple of posters early on. I don't think protecting vested interests is a good argument against it, but I understand that it will impact the probability of the change. Anyway, the second serve abolition has been more or less uninamously voted down. The less drastic version of keeping within the 25 seconds seems to fit everyone just fine.

Other interesting reforms are still fun to discuss though, although I am quite conservative on those. I think you need to earn a 5 set victory through two games difference at the end, not the random point in a tie-break. I do agree with Blue Jay Bill that the suspense part is pretty cool though.

On the let-thing. I saw a couple of challenger tournements (I know) where they actually didn't apply the let rule. You got the point if it clipped the net and fell right on the other side of the net. Seems to work, although the receiver doesn't get a 'fair' chance to return the ball. And people might start practicing on it.

Abolishing second serves is simply a dumb idea, so everyone knows.... and it's not even interesting to start with.

I believe the OP has already conceded that. It would be helpful if you would read posts, which you previously admitted to not doing. No reason to be pejorative when you don't even know how the conversation is going. :idea:

 

[Ricardo]

ok so i didn't read his or your posts, big deal? at least my last point stands, when there is one serve only, you take away the first serves from people like Isner, Karlovic, Tsonga, Federer, Murray, Del Potro..... guys who have very good first serves, and in turn it gives huge advantage to those with not as good first serves. When a change is made to stir up the dynamics in a way that it disadvantages a group of players who have done nothing wrong, it is not a bright idea. Its as bad as say, let's not allow players to use two hands for backhand.

This is another part of it which probably wasn't addressed yet. All those players practicing their serves for decades and making them into a big weapon would awake one day to realize they wasted a hell of a lot of time.

I can see doing away with the let rule but the big time-saver is to strictly enforce the 25 second rule.

It was already addressed by a couple of posters early on. I don't think protecting vested interests is a good argument against it, but I understand that it will impact the probability of the change. Anyway, the second serve abolition has been more or less uninamously voted down. The less drastic version of keeping within the 25 seconds seems to fit everyone just fine.

Other interesting reforms are still fun to discuss though, although I am quite conservative on those. I think you need to earn a 5 set victory through two games difference at the end, not the random point in a tie-break. I do agree with Blue Jay Bill that the suspense part is pretty cool though.

On the let-thing. I saw a couple of challenger tournements (I know) where they actually didn't apply the let rule. You got the point if it clipped the net and fell right on the other side of the net. Seems to work, although the receiver doesn't get a 'fair' chance to return the ball. And people might start practicing on it.

Abolishing second serves is simply a dumb idea, so everyone knows.... and it's not even interesting to start with.

I believe the OP has already conceded that. It would be helpful if you would read posts, which you previously admitted to not doing. No reason to be pejorative when you don't even know how the conversation is going. :idea:

No i admit i don't read all the posts, but i get right to the point. There is reason to be pejorative about a lot of things though... you know what i'm talking about .... :laydownlaughing

 

[Moxie]

Under-informed AND snarky is a bad look...and a bad habit. Getting to the "point" is not interesting when the conversation passed you some time ago.