What would you change?

We all know the game is getting faster, more powerful, more physical. Has it brought benefits vs. say tennis of the late 70s?
What is better watching Federer vs Djokovic than say watching Borg vs McEnroe in 1979?

Here are the main changes of last 20 years:
1. Racquets...bigger, stiffer...helps return of serve, accuracy and power of shots
2. Strings...stiffer, more spin...helps returns and keeping the ball in when adding power
3. Surfaces...slowed down but that making players hit even harder
4. Players...getting bigger, stronger and taller...guys are 3-4 inches taller than say 30-40 years ago.
5. Training...technique better in hitting the ball...whippy FHs = more power and spin...aided by 1/2/4 above.

Despite ALL of this NOTHING has changed in the game to kerb the surge in power except surface slowing. We still basically have the same physical parameters - balls, court and net height (hasn't changed since 1880!)- despite everything else changing around it. My concern is that the game is getting too powerful - bigger guys with more powerful equipment. This is meant to be a skill based sport. I don't want to watch 1 dimensional wham-bam,  serve dominant tennis in future. Trust me that's where its going and it will lead to identikit coaching & players. So what gives? Nothing? Something? Here's your chance to state what you would change to make the game better in future. Choose what you'd change from the following:

1. Increase net height by 3-4 inches
2. Increase size of balls by 10%
3. Only one serve
4. Racquet heads no bigger than 95sqin
5. Ban poly strings
6. Make courts longer by 10%
7. Another idea?

What is the easiest way to make a change without affecting the game unduly across the globe...because surely something has to change before tennis is not a primarily skill based sport anymore.

Before tennis is not a primarily skill based sport? It is arguable that it is too late for that and that it is already primarily a physical based sport.

I don't want to see one-dimensional serve dominant tennis OR long baseline rallies where technology allows retrieval to win out over attacking skills OR creativity being stifled because players can rely on the physical aspects.

I'd go for 5, then 4.
6 is out because of the cost to all clubs. 1 would also probably be cost-prohibitive. They would also require too much of an adjustment for anyone used to the current set-up.

I'd just change the speed of the surfaces.

Winning the career grand slam should be a massive achievement. Djokovic is favourite to complete it next Sunday. Not unrealistic to think Murray could win here and then in Aus either.

I like to see clay specialists and faster court specialists.

I would get rid of the prize money.  After each match both players go around the crowd with cap in hand.  The crowd decide how much they will put in their caps.  If the play gets too boring then the crowd have access to one of those lever things they have on Graham Norton's show - with the lever opening a trap door sending the player into the abyss. This will both improve the entertainment value in the matches and will force the players to act like mature adults rather than spoilt brats.  I would also have a gruntometer that electrifies the court to ensure the wimmen keep the noise down.

If the aim is to reduce the importance of power I'd go for 5 and 4.

I think I've said before that the main issue with tennis today is the dominance of serve. Obviously, 3 would be the most radical change to solve that issue but that's too fundamental a change for me to be comfortable and it would also assist giants who can use their height to generate high serve speeds with minimal risk.

5 strikes me as more likely to affect the ability to return, compounding the problem. 1 and 7 appear designed to assist a ball basher, not curb them. I'm not sure about 4 but it could be that would assist.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Before tennis is not a primarily skill based sport? It is arguable that it is too late for that and that it is already primarily a physical based sport.

I don't want to see one-dimensional serve dominant tennis OR long baseline rallies where technology allows retrieval to win out over attacking skills OR creativity being stifled because players can rely on the physical aspects.

I'd go for 5, then 4.
6 is out because of the cost to all clubs. 1 would also probably be cost-prohibitive. They would also require too much of an adjustment for anyone used to the current set-up.

I don't see tennis as primarily physically based at all, unless you mean it's a big advantage to be tall? We know that short rallies dominate tennis and the idea on here that being able to run around a lot trumps actual skill is utterly false. I would say tennis is about 80% skill and 20% speed/fitness.

I tend to agree with that split. At the moment you need to primarily have the skills to be a top pro...but we are seeing that 20% physical get bigger...was probably 5-10% in the 70/80s....10-15% 90/00s...and creeping up to where we are today. Unless something changes then surely the physical side will continue to increase.

Good points JHM on changes affecting clubs all over. So agree 5 & 4 are easier changes...along with ball size (slower through the air).
It would be interesting to try the 1 serve on the doubles tour too, see how it goes.

The question also is - do you actually agree SOMETHING needs to change?

If you reduce the power by degrading the racket technology won't that favour the returners rather than those trying to win the point?  Won't then rallies last longer, matches last longer?

Why isn't women's tennis more interesting, they generate much less power than the men.

The only handle tournament directors have at the moment is the surface condition.

But does something need to change Nore?

It is not clear what is going to happen when the 3+1 have gone?

The only realistic next change will be removing lets then seeing what happens, or going to a one serve format. They would have to test out the change on one of the tournaments.

Otherwise it is all in the surface.

One can increase the size of the court without increasing the size of the court by moving the inner side lines towards the outer side lines --> widen the singles court towards the doubles court. But this would also have the effect of increasing the serving area. The net result would be favouring the servers and favouring the passing shot and attacking shot.

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Before tennis is not a primarily skill based sport? It is arguable that it is too late for that and that it is already primarily a physical based sport.

I don't want to see one-dimensional serve dominant tennis OR long baseline rallies where technology allows retrieval to win out over attacking skills OR creativity being stifled because players can rely on the physical aspects.

I'd go for 5, then 4.
6 is out because of the cost to all clubs. 1 would also probably be cost-prohibitive. They would also require too much of an adjustment for anyone used to the current set-up.

I don't see tennis as primarily physically based at all, unless you mean it's a big advantage to be tall? We know that short rallies dominate tennis and the idea on here that being able to run around a lot trumps actual skill is utterly false. I would say tennis is about 80% skill and 20% speed/fitness.

I'd say more 60/40. Take the line from Patrick McEnroe's 2010 book "...fitness and biomechanics have caught up with technique as critical factors to success" (italics mine). The idea that the argument is simply about being able to run around a lot is utterly false

I hate to be so negative on these well received threads, I honestly do respect the Op and others posters. But these are all horrible ideas. Take number one and two. Make the net higher, that would only increase the advantages of tall players and kill the flat ball hitters. No one could take the ball early anymore. You would encourage even more loopy shots and force players further off the baseline. Or number 2, we already did that, the balls are already 8 percent bigger now than they were in the early 90s. And  guess what there is a massive increase in serving accuracy with NO decrease in serving speed.

I know no one believes SoCal, all though I am pretty much almost always right, well don't take my word for it:

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of the larger diameter (Type 3) tennis ball on performance and muscle activation in the serve. Sixteen male advanced tennis players performed serves using regular size and Type 3 tennis balls. Ball speed, surface electromyography, and serve accuracy were measured. There were no significant differences in mean initial serve speeds between balls, accuracy were measured. There were no significant differences in mean initial serve speeds between balls, but accuracy was significantly greater (19.3%) with the Type 3 ball than with the regular ball. A consistent temporal sequence of muscle activation and significant differences in mean activation of different muscles were observed. However, ball type had no effect on mean arm muscle activation. These data, combined with a previous study, suggest that play with the larger ball is not likely to increase the risk of overuse injury, but serving accuracy may increase compared to play with the regular ball.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pubmed


why? Because newsflash most players don't swing anywhere near as hard as they can on a first serve, but a bigger ball allows them to carve the ball face up more for control and swing harder. 



Even the most popular idea of banning Polys will kill the thermonuclear forehands of today. Sorry most tennis fans really like Roger , Rafa, and JMDP type Fhs and don't want to see less winners from the baseline.

Again sorry if I come off as a dick but these ideas are logically absurd and awful, the worst ideas since filling the Hindenburg with flammable hydrogen for speed as opposed to helium. I mean I smoke some good CA dope every so often but apparently the good stuff is over in the UK and I am angry because you aren't sharing.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Before tennis is not a primarily skill based sport? It is arguable that it is too late for that and that it is already primarily a physical based sport.

I don't want to see one-dimensional serve dominant tennis OR long baseline rallies where technology allows retrieval to win out over attacking skills OR creativity being stifled because players can rely on the physical aspects.

I'd go for 5, then 4.
6 is out because of the cost to all clubs. 1 would also probably be cost-prohibitive. They would also require too much of an adjustment for anyone used to the current set-up.

I don't see tennis as primarily physically based at all, unless you mean it's a big advantage to be tall? We know that short rallies dominate tennis and the idea on here that being able to run around a lot trumps actual skill is utterly false. I would say tennis is about 80% skill and 20% speed/fitness.

I'd say more 60/40. Take the line from Patrick McEnroe's 2010 book "...fitness and biomechanics have caught up with technique as critical factors to success" (italics mine). The idea that the argument is simply about being able to run around a lot is utterly false

So what is the argument then? Most posts I see on this issue seem to suggest precisely that.

Can someone tell me what could possibly induce sports fans to complain that the athletes they are watching are too fast and too fit. I mean I have always been left scratching my head at the illogic of this complaint. It's kind of like complaining that your new girlfriend looks too good naked.

Other than the progeny of the once mighty old 606 world, I have never heard any sports fans, ever, in any sport in person or online complain that world class athletes in the sport they are watching are too fit.

I'm not convinced we want to slow things down. I would like to see more winners than UEs, and some net play. How could we achieve that.

why is winners to UE relevant to a good and healthy game? In isolation it is one of the most misleading stats if used to define the quality of play.

In my mind I think the best and safest change to encourage attack play would be longer grass court season with a grass masters event and quicker indoor surfaces. Also having a majority of matches played on natural surfaces will give you more winner winners to UE, although frankly that stat is highly overated. I'd like to see carpet brought back. I'd also like a couple of experimental tourneys on wood surface and one tournament where everyone goes throwback and plays with wood racquets. This would give you more variety and attack without fundamentally destroying the 130 year rules of the game. Wood can be really fast and it brings in interesting issues like humidity impacting the bounce or method of finishing or the species used. Soft pine will play different to oak for example.

I say 5&4, and make surface speeds vary a little more (which, in practice, means speed some of them up).

Socal, winners from the baseline are overrated in my book. I found 80s tennis far easier on the eye, and there were precious few baseline winners then.

Winners from the baseline, with the opponent not at the net but also at the baseline, strikes me as the most satsifying shot, followed by winners at net or with opponent at net and serve, followed by errors.

Well, it depends on preferences (and maybe me being older too?) but for me volleys are #1, and any sort of baseline shots are well after that. Not that I do not appreciate baseline winners at all, but they do not quite do it for me.

Also, I like quirky plays like the one from the ladies' match on the other thread. Those will never be bread-and-butter plays, but I like tennis that gives more opportunity for those kinds of plays to develop.

So the major criterion is to reduce the effectiveness of baseliner play compared to net play - adjust the game to incentivise players from the baseline to or towards the net.  I remember it being said by some ex professional tennis players commenting on Nadal's style of play and on some of the Nadal - Djokovic titanic battles, that the game was becoming a glorified form of table tennis.

NS, yes I definitely agree with that view.  That said, reducing the effectiveness of baseline play will probably not be the major criterion for everyone.

What initially attracted me to tennis was S&V, with baseline play being almost like filler between "real meat".  And while I came to also appreciate baseline points - especially modern baseline points which are indeed more interesting than baseline points from the 80s - S&V is still the pinnacle of watchability for me.

But obviously there will be those who see it just the other way around.

summerblues wrote:I say 5&4, and make surface speeds vary a little more (which, in practice, means speed some of them up).

Socal, winners from the baseline are overrated in my book.  I found 80s tennis far easier on the eye, and there were precious few baseline winners then.

Noted and I understand fully. When I go back and watch 80s tennis its very hard for me now. I have become used to seeing players blast winners from the back from crazy spots on the court. Of course it is all taste. But if we are discussing taste preferences the game is beholden to find a mix of conditions and a style that makes as many fans happy and grows the game. I think the bosses of the game who have real market research behind their decisions think that a game that favors power baseline and all court players more than a style that favors powerless grinding and S and V. If you want to turn power baseline to powerless baseline, well that is one of the few ways to encourage the return of S and V. Yet, the people whose livelihoods and investments are on the line and who actually research this stuff with hard numbers and real math have come to the opposite conclusion. I tend to side with the more well researched views of the powers at be then the subjective nostalgia of the past represented by many purists.

Again, I mean the assumption has to be that if they felt the style you guys wanted to encourage would not be preferred over the current approach by the majority of their potential and actual market. The purists turn their nose up on the excitement of watching players hit huge shots and then watching his blazing fast opponent get that shot and put his own monster swing on the ball. Hell go back to Connors run in the USO, the most famous point he had in that run was a brutally long point with Krickstein I believe where he ran down 4 straight overhead kill shots to win the point. I mean could you imagine the response on 606v2 if lets say Murray hit 4 straight overheads and Djoko ran them all done to win like 30 plus shot rally? It would become the battle cry for all that is terrible with tennis. But when a point like that was played in the 90s tennis fans went whacko over that point. Today that point, would be decried because in the glory days no real man would ever have 4 overhead kill shots in row and then lose the point.