Any idea for a change in tennis rules?

When looking at the some grinding tennis imported from Spain, I am thinking about one change. And here it is:

- in cases of serves when a ball is netting, but still at right part of the court, I would cancel the rule to serve again. The ball is in most cases slowed down so that an opposite player still has a chance to play it.

Similar rule is valid in volleyball. I think that this change would contribute to the atractivity of the game and speed it up serving.

What do you think about it, or another idea?

I wasn't aware of that rule in volleyball.

Even if the ball touches the tip of the net, it always goes fast, it almost always just brushes the net and makes no difference (it doesn't change the direction of the ball). In tennis the ball is a lot smaller so it can change direction and that could be almost impossible to return.

Is that what you meant?

They only need to keep and enforce the existing rules, 20 seonds between the points and no towelling except during changeovers!!!!!!

noleisthebest wrote:I wasn't aware of that rule in volleyball.

Even if the ball touches the tip of the net, it always goes fast, it almost always just brushes the net and makes no difference (it doesn't change the direction of the ball). In tennis the ball is a lot smaller so it can change direction and that could be almost impossible to return.

Is that what you meant?

Exactly, when a ball brushes the net and still lands in right square, why to serve again. It is just a luck when it bounces well or not, so why to repeat it.

paulcz wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I wasn't aware of that rule in volleyball.

Even if the ball touches the tip of the net, it always goes fast, it almost always just brushes the net and makes no difference (it doesn't change the direction of the ball). In tennis the ball is a lot smaller so it can change direction and that could be almost impossible to return.

Is that what you meant?

Exactly, when a ball brushes the net and still lands in right square, why to serve again. It is just a luck when it bounces good or bad, so why to repeat it.

I bet uncle Toni would find the way to abuse even THAT rule

noleisthebest wrote:

paulcz wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I wasn't aware of that rule in volleyball.

Even if the ball touches the tip of the net, it always goes fast, it almost always just brushes the net and makes no difference (it doesn't change the direction of the ball). In tennis the ball is a lot smaller so it can change direction and that could be almost impossible to return.

Is that what you meant?

Exactly, when a ball brushes the net and still lands in right square, why to serve again. It is just a luck when it bounces good or bad, so why to repeat it.

I be uncle Toni would find the way to abuse even THAT rule

Tony would propose to get the net more high, at least by 20cm

He'd train Nadal to actually hit the net at a certain angle....

noleisthebest wrote:He'd train Nadal to actually hit the net at a certain angle....

He´d propose to serve from undeneath

Yes, serve underarm and then volley

noleisthebest wrote:They only need to keep and enforce the existing rules, 20 seonds between the points and no towelling except during changeovers!!!!!!

I was going to say!!!

Ideally, I'd like to see the end of synthetic strings. Only natural gut! Then you'd see for sure who is talented and who is not. The SVing would be back and the end of the too easy passing shot! The end of legs and lungs tennis too!

Tenez wrote:Ideally, I'd like to see the end of synthetic strings. Only natural gut! Then you'd see for sure who is talented and who is not. The SVing would be back and the end of the too easy passing shot! The end of legs and lungs tennis too!

That would e great!

If the ball hits the tape and trickles over, does the returning player standing about 12+ meters away from the net have a chance to return it?

The reaction time required is roughly 0.5 seconds for a 'normal' service. You are expecting a player to run at 24m/second. Bolt runs 100 meters in 9.8 seconds. (~12 meters/second)

You would need a Tennis player twice as fast as Bolt to return such a serve. And such a player would be accused of doping on this forum and many others to achieve such speeds.

Not a very practical idea for singles Tennis.

Perhaps in the doubles, the player at the net can intervene and return such a serve.

Volleybal has six players in the court, correct? Beach Volleyball has two.

noleisthebest wrote:
I bet uncle Toni would find the way to abuse even THAT rule

Do not let your slip show!

Slip?!

paulcz wrote:When looking at the some grinding tennis imported from Spain, I am thinking about one change.

Do you know who was playing Ferrer on the opposite side of the net in the USO QF yesterday? Almost a 4-hour+ match (271 minutes - 4 hours 31 minutes).

Here is something to jog your memory - http://www.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day17/1503ms.html

There was only one grinder in yesterday's match, and that guy was from Spain.

noleisthebest wrote:Slip?!

a woman's sleeveless undergarment, worn as a lining for and to give support to a dress or a woman's undergarment of dress length with shoulder straps.

Look at 6a here - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/SLIP

noleisthebest wrote:There was only one grinder in yesterday's match, and that guy was from Spain.

I would certainly call this prodigious counterpunching.

Admire your ability to defend, like Djokovic last night.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:There was only one grinder in yesterday's match, and that guy was from Spain.

I would certainly call this prodigious counterpunching.

Admire your ability to defend, like Djokovic last night.

I'm no counter-puncher LF, totally against my nature, it takes me a world of self-discipline to send a slice across the net when forced to do it, but defender I am and an impenetrable one when push comes to shove.

Serve is my main weapon, but you know that anyway....which is why you resort to Hawkeye all the time so unsuccessfully

paulcz wrote:- in cases of serves when a ball is netting, but still at right part of the court, I would cancel the rule to serve again. The ball is in most cases slowed down so that an opposite player still has a chance to play it.

I am against that rule for a clear reason: The server has 2 serves.

The server is therefore tempted - on his first serve - to go close to the net and find the best angles/power combination in his first serve knowing he has a second chance in case it doesn't work. We are therefore more likely to see net calls during serves than during a rally where players try to clear the net with some safe margins. If a player takes the risk in a rally to go close to the net, then he is entitled to be compensated with a bit of luck (net call)...but not in a serve where he can mostly benefit from the net call safely knowing he has a second serve in case the ball doesn't go in.

The rule would be ok, like it is in volley if you had only one serve. Then playing the let would make sense. The problem with however is that it woudl turn tennis into an uglier baseline fest.

So sorry Paul, this is a bad idea!

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Ideally, I'd like to see the end of synthetic strings. Only natural gut! Then you'd see for sure who is talented and who is not. The SVing would be back and the end of the too easy passing shot! The end of legs and lungs tennis too!

That would e great!

Gut would make it really expensive for club players and kids - handing the game back to the toffs and snobs.

mikeyM1000 wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Ideally, I'd like to see the end of synthetic strings. Only natural gut! Then you'd see for sure who is talented and who is not. The SVing would be back and the end of the too easy passing shot! The end of legs and lungs tennis too!

That would e great!

Gut would make it really expensive for club players and kids - handing the game back to the toffs and snobs.

The clubs are full of them anyway....which is why the state of tennis here is the way it is: pathetic !

So we should change the rules to make it worse/never make it better?

mikeyM1000 wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Ideally, I'd like to see the end of synthetic strings. Only natural gut! Then you'd see for sure who is talented and who is not. The SVing would be back and the end of the too easy passing shot! The end of legs and lungs tennis too!

That would e great!

Gut would make it really expensive for club players and kids - handing the game back to the toffs and snobs.

True but Pros have many expenses (coach, physio, etc...)we, in our clubs, do not really have to have. Pro change their strings every 10 games on average for instance, it doesn;t mean that in our clubs we have to. We coudl be freer in our choice of strings.

I am aware this is a rule that is very unlikely to see daylight as it woudl kill a big business. But if you think about it, strings have considerably changed the trajectories of balls, so it becomes almost necessary now to change the dimensions of the courts. Those new strings not only help big lung baseliners a lot, it also makes the serve of the giants like Isner, Rao kick like never before.

Different rules/strings for amatuers/pros?

Yes. Or simply forbid string manufacturer to provide strings with shapes and/or too high a coeff of rigidity.

Something the sport woudl benefit. Like in table tennis a special glue was forbiden as it increase the pace of the shots. Sometime a sport needs to take action to keep it watchable.

And if they don;t want to tough the strings, then we could provide balls which do not take the bite as much. ...maybe that woudl be a better solution.

Yeah, change the balls, ban some strings altogether, but you can't have some strings allowed for kids, but at some point they have to stop using them if they want to become pro - not practical.

mikeyM1000 wrote:Yeah, change the balls, ban some strings altogether, but you can't have some strings allowed for kids, but at some point they have to stop using them if they want to become pro - not practical.

well, we've had plastic strings for 20 years and the "kids" still didn't deliver when they grew up, they just turned into gutless ball-bashers (so maybe there is something about gut strings and gutsy tennis, after all!)
I suppose you know that no tennis club in the UK teaches/encourages single backhand.

That's the Brits, not the strings. Other countries do Ok with their kids - umm, Serbia, for example.

mikeyM1000 wrote:That's the Brits, not the strings. Other countries do Ok with their kids - umm, Serbia, for example.

well you were the one that started with toffs....

I don;t think they teach SHBH anywhere nowadays. There are none coming in the new generation bar Dmitrov and that is because he is old enough to have been inspired by the Sampras/Federer years...but look at all the others arriving (Rao, Harrison, Gouffin, Raffin, Tomic....)

Tenez wrote:

paulcz wrote:- in cases of serves when a ball is netting, but still at right part of the court, I would cancel the rule to serve again. The ball is in most cases slowed down so that an opposite player still has a chance to play it.

I am against that rule for a clear reason: The server has 2 serves.

The server is therefore tempted - on his first serve - to go close to the net and find the best angles/power combination in his first serve knowing he has a second chance in case it doesn't work. We are therefore more likely to see net calls during serves than during a rally where players try to clear the net with some safe margins. If a player takes the risk in a rally to go close to the net, then he is entitled to be compensated with a bit of luck (net call)...but not in a serve where he can mostly benefit from the net call safely knowing he has a second serve in case the ball doesn't go in.

The rule would be ok, like it is in volley if you had only one serve. Then playing the let would make sense. The problem with however is that it woudl turn tennis into an uglier baseline fest.

So sorry Paul, this is a bad idea!

Interisting view, Ten. I still think that this could increase atractivity of serving and to keep serving in pretty good rhytm.

From the real tennis, I can estimate that I net every tenth serve and then I can assume that about 60% lands as a good serve. From these 6 balls from 100, I would estimate that 40% is playable. So only 3-4 serves from 100 are hardly playable, which is neglectable. That could represent one lucky netted ball per set. It would be atractive for fans, players did not have to serve 3 or 4^th times in row (on the big day) and game would go more smoothly. I do not think that this could affect the serving approach. I see only Fed could aim first serve to the net with slight touch

But you increase the factor chance of a point. Either in the server's favour if the ball drops dead or to the returner if the ball sits up. Meaning more chance that a big point coudl be sorted by luck. Something a sport should try to eliminate.

Tenez wrote:But you increase the factor chance of a point. Either in the server's favour if the ball drops dead or to the returner if the ball sits up. Meaning more chance that a big point coudl be sorted by luck. Something a sport should try to eliminate.

That is right, but the chance of a dead ball from the net is very low. I can just remember only couples for a season. Luck goes mostly with the better and is it real luck? And what wind, the sun, fans, a surface, a burst string? So many things that have this "lucky" factor. Players must be mentally strong and fans want to roar with delight

Luck goes mostly with the better and is it real luck? And what wind, the sun, fans, a surface, a burst string?

================================

A dead ball from a serve's net call happens quite often.

I love perfect conditions when the hard work and talent can best express itself. So we clearly have different views there. As I said, if it was only one serve, like in volley, I'll endorse it, but 2 serves makes it unfair.

Tenez wrote:Luck goes mostly with the better and is it real luck? And what wind, the sun, fans, a surface, a burst string?

================================

A dead ball from a serve's net call happens quite often.

I love perfect conditions when the hard work and talent can best express itself. So we clearly have different views there. As I said, if it was only one serve, like in volley, I'll endorse it, but 2 serves makes it unfair.

Ten, Fed would surely appreciate that, don´t you think?

It would be interisting to know how many dead balls from the serves came from 1 GS. I do no think that there is a statistics of this.

paulcz wrote:
Ten, Fed would surely appreciate that, don´t you think?

oh yeah!

It would be interisting to know how many dead balls from the serves came from 1 GS. I do no think that there is a statistics of this.

Not sure but a lot of net calls though.

I am not joking atm, but surprisingly ATP got my idea to set a new rule when serving. So for the time of 3 month the men will not serve again when a ball brushes the net. It is valid only for challengers. I hope that they will take this rule also for Masters and GS soon. Finally something good for tennis

http://www.sport.cz/ostatni/tenis/clanek/433932-na-challengerech-nebude-prasatko-znamenat-opakovani-podani.html#article-artcl

paulcz wrote:I am not joking atm, but surprisingly ATP got my idea to set a new rule when serving. So for the time of 3 month the men will not serve again when a ball brushes the net. It is valid only for challengers. I hope that they will take this rule also for Masters and GS soon. Finally something good for tennis

http://www.sport.cz/ostatni/tenis/clanek/433932-na-challengerech-nebude-prasatko-znamenat-opakovani-podani.html#article-artcl

, I have never been a fan of lets (except when I 'm serving )

Me neither! Especially that usually when Fed has a let, it should have been an ace (otherwise it faults...)

I really think it's a bad decision. It's giving mother luck a bigger impact in matches, who woudl want that? I really don;t understand this decision. The purpose is to speed things up, that's good but just apply the bloody 20/25s rule in the first place!!!

Tenez wrote:I really think it's a bad decision. It's giving mother luck a bigger impact in matches, who woudl want that? I really don;t understand this decision. The purpose is to speed things up, that's good but just apply the bloody 20/25s rule in the first place!!!

Well, it's a lot less drastic than to get rid of the second serve completely.
Never thought of net moments as luck for some reason (incl. lets), although they come across as such.
The "perfect", $$$ driven mad, 24/7 instant world does notseem to allow for bad days any more....

Taking the second serve away would be madness. Frankly why change something which works so well?

I think I make a very good case why a let while serving is very different than a let during a rally.

The thing I do not like with lets is a lot of times they seem to have not touched the net but the machine is so sensitive that it beeps. My suggestion would be to calibrate the machine differently so that if the ball really touches the net even the white band it beeps but not if it just flirts with the top of it. I am sure it is possible to calibrate the sensors that way. So effectively we are removing the lets where the net didn't contribute to any change in direction or speed of the ball. We would not be removing the lets where luck changes either direction of the ball or speed. Have you seen how sometimes those sensors are too sensitive!?

sphairistike wrote:My suggestion would be to calibrate the machine differently so that if the ball really touches the net even the white band it beeps but not if it just flirts with the top of it.

That is interisting idea. The chairman of the sensor calibration would be definitely a certain Mr.Toni

sphairistike wrote:The thing I do not like with lets is a lot of times they seem to have not touched the net but the machine is so sensitive that it beeps. My suggestion would be to calibrate the machine differently so that if the ball really touches the net even the white band it beeps but not if it just flirts with the top of it. I am sure it is possible to calibrate the sensors that way. So effectively we are removing the lets where the net didn't contribute to any change in direction or speed of the ball. We would not be removing the lets where luck changes either direction of the ball or speed. Have you seen how sometimes those sensors are too sensitive!?

Yes, it's a good idea but isn;t it the case already? Calibration changes from tournament to tournament and even court to court. to me a let is simply when the ball touches the net. Sometimes the sensor is so sensitive that the air mouvement of the ball is enough to trigger it. Obviously that needs to be addressed..but I think they have in general addressed that.

Exactly, the sensor being too sensitive means it's badly calibrated. I think it should be made not to be sensitive, just be based on some real vibration at the top of the net level...

When seeing such a fight on hard courts as today, I would suggest to do a change for GS match pattern BO 5. I would propose to play the 5th set as a super tie-break up 10 points, as doubles are played today. It would make matches more attractive and gruelling matches would be a little bit shorter.

But I actually would like to see the physical said play a role for those players using it.

Look at the last AO for instance. Federer did not try to rally for ever v Nadal and went for his shots. Make or break he was not ready to arrive in the final tired. Had he won in he would have had less miles in his legs than Djoko after beating Murray.

I quite like the long 5 setters...I just don;t like the long gutless rallies.