If You Could Change Anything....

in tennis, what would it be?

Saw this clip from Popcorn tennis at AO website

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/video/BrZnVqODolNzZTzoyiJzLgQHrlg7hDLu.html#ooid=BrZnVqODolNzZTzoyiJzLgQHrlg7hDLu

and it got me thinking

I'd go for banning DBH

I won't go that far to ban a style of play. DHBH doesn't look very elegant, but its definitely a variety and I won't like if it disappears ( Like SHBH is disappearing ).

A thought cam to mind about removing the modern synthetic strings, but again that would be trying to stop the evolution of technology which isn't good in my opinion. If we try to stop this, maybe we have to change even 100+ years of evolution which actually has improved the sport itself.

The only thing comes to mind is traditionally faster courts should be quickened up again and slow remain slow. This was no evolutionary change, it was purposely done to create 'Fed-Nadal' rivalry to even outside of clay and en cash the rewards. This worked in Nadal's favour a lot and Fed had to be the unfortunate one to bear this expense. Trying to favor a certain player isn't good.


Another very important thing would be that ATP/ITF give off this "tennis is clean" raga they keep on chanting every time. Either they are too stupid or they just don't want to catch any big names. I don't think they are the former, so perhaps the latter. I would like to see some very strict Anti-doping regimes being followed. No silent bans no matter who the player is. Totally 'zero tolerance' to doping.

One more very very important thing I want to change.

"In slams if it goes to the deciding set, the serve pattern must change after 6 games i.e. after 6 games in the 5th set( or the 3rd as in women's), the player serving 2nd should now start serving the 7th game.. and so on"

I see its a massive unfair advantage to the player serving first in the deciding set. He get 2 chances to redeem himself i.e. even if he gets broken, the match isn't getting over for him aytime in the set. Where as the one serving 2nd, serving after 8 games is always under added pressure of serving to stay in the match.

In TT this change is done for the deciding set. Why can't tennis learn from it.

If I recall from memory, I see only a vey small percentage of matches being won by the player serving 2nd in the deciding set including women's matches. It just can't be a coincidence.

Yes good point rotla.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:One more very very important thing I want to change.

"In slams if it goes to the deciding set, the serve pattern must change after 6 games i.e. after 6 games in the 5th set( or the 3rd as in women's), the player serving 2nd should now start serving the 7th game.. and so on"

I see its a massive unfair advantage to the player serving first in the deciding set. He get 2 chances to redeem himself i.e. even if he gets broken, the match isn't getting over for him aytime in the set. Where as the one serving 2nd, serving after 8 games is always under added pressure of serving to stay in the match.

In TT this change is done for the deciding set. Why can't tennis learn from it.

If I recall from memory, I see only a very small percentage of matches being won by the player serving 2nd in the deciding set including women's matches. It just can't be a coincidence.

Unfortunately you are wrong on that one ROTLA. The stats are virtually 50-50 on who wins the final non tie break set between who serves first and who serves second. I cannot recall if this is for both men and women or for men only...

At least that was what the commentators (Darren Cahill, was it?) said during the Nole-Stan the Man match...

sphairistike wrote:At least that was what the commentators (Darren Cahill, was it?) said during the Nole-Stan the Man match...

Commentators say lots of things and many of them are worng as well. I didn't do any statistical analysis but I even from memory I can only see I am correct here. If you have been seeing lots of tennis over many years, its not someting easily missed. ATM I don't have much data ( but will get them ), but if serving first wasn't an advantage in the deciding set, how is is possible commentators ( almost all of them in every match ) bring it up. Why would they even mention it if it was anything like 50-50 which mean no clear advantag of any kind.

It's only an advantage if you hold your serve. So the pressure is equally distributed on both players.
The better the server, naturally the less the pressure, but in general it shouldn't make any difference.
Today in particular, Berd serving first was against him as Nole was all over his serve.
It's not as clear cut.

noleisthebest wrote:
Today in particular, Berd serving first was against him as Nole was all over his serve.
It's not as clear cut.

Did today's match go to the deciding set? If it didn't, this particular case isn't valid.

Interesting read about various more/less successful changes in tennis over the years, as well as the opposition to them.
Hard to strike the balance!

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/04/rip-good-idea/47200/#.UXmklHDRfzI

What I woudl like to see actually is the possibility for the server to choose which side to serve first. I mean on the deuce or van side. A LHer for instance woudl want to start serving on the van side. I do not see why he could not.

Tenez wrote:What I woudl like to see actually is the possibility for the server to choose which side to serve first. I mean on the deuce or van side. A LHer for instance woudl want to start serving on the van side. I do not see why he could not.

Very thoughtful!

I certainly wouldn't like to be having to start serving from the ad side..

I think something shoudl be done for MTOs once and for all.

Djoko taking a MTO at BP down on Dimi's serve is simply not right. I am not accusing Djoko of gamesmanship there but the referee shoudl not have given him the time. It's just too unfair for the server. Tennis is a physical sport (did I say that again?), if you are not fit enough or get injured, it's because your are playing out of your skin, tired or else but whatever the reason you do not penalise the server who is not injured.

SO the rule shoudl be quite clear, if you need the physio "NOW" forfeit the game or at least 2 points but do not break the server's rhythm....he is not responsible for it and if he is (making his opponent twist and turn) then even more so, compensate him.

I really shocked that when Dimi cramped, suddenly not allowed to MTO and worse gets a time warning. 2 similar issues having 2 complete opposite outcomes.

Something is quite not right in tennis now.

Tenez wrote:I think something shoudl be done for MTOs once and for all.

Djoko taking a MTO at BP down on Dimi's serve is simply not right. I am not accusing Djoko of gamesmanship there but the referee shoudl not have given him the time. It's just too unfair for the server. Tennis is a physical sport (did I say that again?), if you are not fit enough or get injured, it's because your are playing out of your skin, tired or else but whatever the reason you do not penalise the server who is not injured.

SO the rule shoudl be quite clear, if you need the physio "NOW" forfeit the game or at least 2 points but do not break the server's rhythm....he is not responsible for it and if he is (making his opponent twist and turn) then even more so, compensate him.

I really shocked that when Dimi cramped, suddenly not allowed to MTO and worse gets a time warning. 2 similar issues having 2 complete opposite outcomes.

Something is quite not right in tennis now.

You are not allowed MTO for cramping, because cramping is not an injury, but do agree that MTOs have been abused for gamesmanship for a long time now and they need to be regulated asap.
Women are particularly bad, Azarenka's case during AO was shocking, she had an MTO because she panicked (literally).

As far as I am concerned, blisters bandaging, massaging, all that should not be allowed for MTOs.

Twisted ankle bandaging, receiving pain-killers (allowed ones) - every time!

noleisthebest wrote:You are not allowed MTO for cramping, because cramping is not an injury, but do agree that MTOs have been abused for gamesmanship for a long time now and they need to be regulated asap.
Women are particularly bad, Azarenka's case during AO was shocking, she had an MTO because she panicked (literally).

As far as I am concerned, blisters bandaging, massaging, all that should not be allowed for MTOs.

Twisted ankle bandaging, receiving pain-killers (allowed ones) - every time!

Yes and this exactly what I am questioning. Well not the fact there isn't for cramping but that there is for other physical impediments. To me an injury is provoked by the opponent too.

I doubt I could have provoked an ankle injury to Djoko or pushed Dimi to cramping had they faced me instead.

It's simply not right to have an MTO without giving up points and games.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/golf/22610307

This is interesting as this will affect some golf players over others. And that made me revisit the idea of banning double handed BHs.

For some reasons I am convinced now that tennis should ban double handed BH. I thought that was not a good idea at first but it certainly would help promote the more talented, complete players again. Whoever plays single handed knows how tough it is to hit a BH consistently with one hand.

It would be a shame as it woudl kill variety but clearly on slow courts as we have everywhere nowadays the variety is already killed. As I mentioned yesterday, if it was not for Federer we would not have had a slam winner for 9 years...and counting. And in those nine years we only had one SHBH slam finalist, again, besides Federer.

With teh same becoming more and more physical, the DHBH is an obvious weapon taking the better over SHBH. Yesterday showed how obsolete Fed's game was.