McEnroe's Radical Reforms to tennis

In an interview with the BBC, McEnroe proposed his new reforms that would help improve tennis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/31894996

Points he raised to improve tennis's popularity:
-Trash talking, saying we don't need to behave as if it's 1955
Could that spice help tennis ?

-No Line Judges
McEnroe said players calling shots in or out would bring more excitement to the game. But surely close calls would mean things got bitter unnecessarily ?

-Scrap the warm-up
McEnroe argued that this was would help the anticipation for a match

-Deciding Set Tie-break
McEnroe talked about the example of Isner Mahut, saying matches physically just go on for too long for players

Personalyl I think the deciding set Tie-break may be a good idea, and perhaps the warm-up can be made a bit shorter. Trash talking I also agree would help the popularity of the sport, as long as it didn't cross any lines.
I think not having line judges is just a silly idea, with so much resting on tennis matches.

mcenros a Muppet

A total idiot.

He said after the Isner / Mahut match that it would prematurely end their careers. He overdramatises.

Just silliness.

he made a comment recently that he seems like the only legend of the game who hasn't had a call to be a coach, might want to have a think about that John!

lost all respect for mac once he became a media wh00re

The line judge idea is the worst, honestly even in my friendly matches with friends things get heated over close line call, in professional matches with huge amounts of power and money lying on one call... it would be carnage.

However I don't mind the idea of a bit more trash talking. Obviously it can't cross the line, but surely it would add some spice and mean more people viewing ?

Never known for his subtlety, I think McEnroe addresses most of the nails with a sledgehammer. Nothing prevents trash talking in the game - there is no rule against it, and unless the umpire deems it unsporting behavior (like racist or other kinds of personal abuse) it goes on now. The difference we don't hear it because the players are not as antagonistic as they were when he played - that may change. Roddick and Fish were always jabbering at their opponents, but these days the top players keep quiet. Nothing needed there.

He is headed in the right direction with the line judges - they will be gone soon. There's no reason for them now, and we could have automatic reviews after every point (in the background) and the umpire could chime in when informed that the an error has been made. But when you think about it - once technology is used on every point, it's only a matter of time before it's used on every shot, so we may as well wait for that.

The players warm up separately anyway, so I don't think it would affect play, but they could cut it in half to allow spectators to settle into their seats. That takes a few minutes, but doesn't need the 10-15 minutes it takes now.

The final set tie-break is an abomination - I think they would have been better off forgetting the tie-break altogether. It will force players to go for more on the return, which is the reason sets go on and on forever. The Isner Mahut match is a rarity - most of the time somebody is able to return serve sufficiently to break when they have to. Also, players would have to decide early on in the set if they are prepared to accept that they're tournament will be over if they don't pick up their socks and really go for a break.

The one thing I think would help tennis would be to put a shot clock - these long drawn out neutral rallies are the result of knowing that you have as much time as you need to recover in between points, even if it's over the 25 seconds. If every point is like that (and it is in some matches) it becomes extremely boring. They should put a shot clock and force players to get on with it. I also think they should ban tournament guarantees - if you want to play, a tournament, you should play - but this business of getting a guarantee that's bigger than the winner's check is idiotic. Players will play with more urgency and won't bag it mentally or physically as often if they know the only check they get is what they earn from progressing through the tournament. The biggest guns on tour make most of their money from endorsements anyway, so they don't lose much, but they couldn't go to a 250 and bag it like many of them often do.

If you see how well Andy Murray played to make London last year, and it's because the guarantees didn't matter to him - it was the points. If we can get everyone to play that way every week, the game would be much better. They should also limit the tour to two tournaments of the same value in any given week. Some weeks there are a couple of 500s and even more where there are multiple 250s - it's enough already. Let them all scrap over a smaller pot and guys will really lay it on the line.

Very good post MMT1, I'll try and address them in order.

1. I know there's no rules against trash talking, so you're right on that front. However I do think it could make things a bit more exciting. Roddick is a good spot, he did sometimes add some spice.

2. I think you may be right about technology replacing line judges. However Mac was arguing for players to call their own lines, which I disagreed with.

3. Agree, keep the warm up, but it doesn't need to be so long.

4. I think you're right, but perhaps at 20-20 or something in the 5th set have a tie-break, or give the players an option for a 1 hour break ?
I know it will be rare, but there could be health concerns I guess.

5. I don't agree with the tennis shot clock. I am a Nadal fan, so may be naturally biased against this, but I personally don't mind if players do go slightly over the time, or if some rallies are longer. Nadal in 2013 in one Masters cut the time he took between points down (Monte Carlo I think, but nor sure), but I didn't even notice until the commentators pointed it out. Also I do love longer rallies, but I recognise many don't agree with me on that.

6. Tournament endorsements though are a good way of getting big guns to play more 250 and 500 events than they would otherwise. I suppose you could make more compulsory ?

7. Doesn't that mean some tournaments have to be cut from the ATP tour ?

Im surprised he has suggested doing without Umpires .. he doesn't  believe they can be serious anyway

Probably HIS idea of an April Fools

I think final set tie breaks are a good idea.

It makes no sense to me that tie breaks are fine for sets 1-4 but not acceptable for set 5.

The logical position has to be that tie breaks are either acceptable for all sets or not acceptable for any.

And as not having tie breaks on any set will wreck scheduling, bore audiences (can you imagine how long an Isner v Raonic match might take?!) and potentially wreck the following match because a player is exhausted, I think tie breaks on all sets is the better option.

To be honest, the current system works for me. You can nick sets 1-4, but if it comes down to a firefight fifth set, then you absolutely have to find a way to break serve. Sounds fair enough for me.

Got to remember the longest male final only went 7-5 in the fifth. Tie breaks don't guarantee short five setters.

Is that longest final at the us open? Wimby 2008 wetnt 16-14 or something if I remember, but it was short anyway

The trash talk part is nonsense, two professional adults should be able to show their competitiveness without acting like 5 year olds. Mcenroes tantrums were funny, but quite cringe worthy

Is he on Kool-Aid?

What a joke.

I wasn't very clear. I meant longest in terms of time (Nadal-Djokovic).

There's nothing wrong with Kool Aid. That's some good drank

King, where you been man? Married?

Welcome back, yes it's better than rain water I guess

I find it better than the Muntan DUU!

As far as it's not Dr.Pepper scheise.

Hi Jahu.

Been around, but my work hours changed for the last two or so months. And I couldn't bother keeping track with the North American. I didn't even know Miami was happening till yesterday

Nice, as far as you are not aware of tennis, means you are enjoying life buddy

I will wait for players to come out from McEnroe's NY Tennis Academy.

hahaha another obvious april fools and you are all apparently missed it

love this quote about scrapping line judges
"Things would get a whole lot more intense, and I'm telling you, 30% more exciting."
brilliant

You obviously never saw my post





I  by Haddie-nuff Yesterday at 9:05 pm

Im surprised he has suggested doing without Umpires .. he doesn't  believe they can be serious anyway Wink

Probably HIS idea of an April Fools Whistle

Who said you cant kid the kidders

If it was an April fool, he was working well in advance.

The interview is from 15th March!

"Even the cricketers are probably going at each
other - something tells me they are trash talking
a bit."

No John, civilised sport we play

https://www.youtube.com/view_comment?v=RtA6laeJBts&hl=en-GB&gl=ZA&client=mv-google

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3c3gg0sqP4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc4F54eWnh8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRTlVVkcTwg

I think asking players to call their own lines is so nuts that I was convinced it was a joke, but good point it does say 15 March, and has comments from 17th March and I now am listening to the podcast from Indian Wells. So I guess the only person making a kind of reverse April fools joke was IMBL posting this on April 1st (deliberately?).

I think Mcenroe judging by this interview will be giving all sorts of crazy interviews into his 80s spouting all sorts of stuff, and the media lappinng it up and of course printing it even if it ends up degenerating into out of touch nonsense

Henman Bill wrote:So I guess the only person making a kind of reverse April fools joke was IMBL posting this on April 1st (deliberately?).

No, not this one !

well you got me whether deliberately or by accident I stumbled into your trap

Henman Bill wrote:well you got me whether deliberately or by accident I stumbled into your trap

Well for one second on the other thread, and this thread too; I believe the scoreline is: IMBL 2-0 HB
Maybe next year you'll get be back

kingraf wrote:I wasn't very clear. I meant longest in terms of time (Nadal-Djokovic).

But that probably only went 3 sets, right?

no, you're not having that, the other one I saw through it pretty much instantly, so I'm calling it 1-1

What an absolute pilchard.

It is not very good for Johnny's respectability if his quotes sound more believable as April fools' quotes than as serious quotes.

It Must Be Love wrote:5. I don't agree with the tennis shot clock. I am a Nadal fan, so may be naturally biased against this, but I personally don't mind if players do go slightly over the time, or if some rallies are longer. Nadal in 2013 in one Masters cut the time he took between points down (Monte Carlo I think, but nor sure), but I didn't even notice until the commentators pointed it out. Also I do love longer rallies, but I recognise many don't agree with me on that.

6. Tournament endorsements though are a good way of getting big guns to play more 250 and 500 events than they would otherwise. I suppose you could make more compulsory ?

7. Doesn't that mean some tournaments have to be cut from the ATP tour ?

Nadal is such a great player, he would adjust his game and routine to play with a shot clock, but a way to handle the extenuating circumstances is that players could be given the right to request a 30-second extension immediately at the conclusion of the point from the umpire after 4 points played. This would allow for crazy points and or genuine questions on application of the rules. If the umpire thinks it's a stall tactic he could refuse the request and instruct the player to serve or take up his return position - if he doesn't do it in time, code violations ensue - that rule is already in place. A shot clock would also minimize frivolous arguments with t he umpires.

As for tournament guarantees, if they committed less money to guarantees and more to prize money, then the money would still be there, they'd just have to earn it. I know some tournaments wouldn't survive, but I don't think that's a bad thing - there are in my opinion too many as it is, and too frequent, resulting in injuries and retirements, which just ruins things for fans. Imagine shelling out big bucks to watch a player like Janowicz retire the final with a cold - I'd be furious.

I know I'm probably in the minority on that, but I'd like to see it. McEnroe is stocked up on crazy ideas and illogical reasoning, but here and there he makes a few good points.

McEnroe's best idea has been to return to wooden rackets. Let see if djokovics great returns, passing shots etc are a result of great timing and skill or a product of advanced string technology and bigger sweet spots. Plus of course we will see the return of volleying as an art, slice approaches etc

greengoblin wrote:McEnroe's best idea has been to return to wooden rackets. Let see if djokovics great returns, passing shots etc are a result of great timing and skill or a product of advanced string technology and bigger sweet spots. Plus of course we will see the return of volleying as an art, slice approaches etc

http://tennis-column.blogspot.com/2008/12/where-tennis-went-wrong.html

'

It Must Be Love wrote:In an interview with the BBC, McEnroe proposed his new reforms that would help improve tennis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/31894996

Points he raised to improve tennis's popularity:
-Trash talking, saying we don't need to behave as if it's 1955
Could that spice help tennis ?

-No Line Judges
McEnroe said players calling shots in or out would bring more excitement to the game. But surely close calls would mean things got bitter unnecessarily ?

-Scrap the warm-up
McEnroe argued that this was would help the anticipation for a match

-Deciding Set Tie-break
McEnroe talked about the example of Isner Mahut, saying matches physically just go on for too long for players

Personalyl I think the deciding set Tie-break may be a good idea, and perhaps the warm-up can be made a bit shorter. Trash talking I also agree would help the popularity of the sport, as long as it didn't cross any lines.
I think not having line judges is just a silly idea, with so much resting on tennis matches.

I like tiebreaker for deciding set as we have seen tiebreakers are as exciting or even more so than regular match play can't decide things. I love the idea of no lines people. It would certainly make the shot spot system even more suspenseful and interesting. Most of the personality and urine and vinegar in tennis contests came from disputes over calls and linesmen before the days of shot spot. Now there is nothing to fight about. But if you catch someone cheating a couple of times now all of sudden it's a rebirth of tension and animosity.