Tennis is one sport that has remained at a standstill as others have evolved. Somehow the game of love, double-faults and deuces has changed little in its century and half of existence.
The few changes have been the strengthening of racket springs, the introduction of tie-breakers, the removal of amateur status, and the shortening of skirts.
So here are a few ideas to rationalise and modernise tennis.
Firstly, can anyone explain to a tennis ignoramus like me about the strange counting system in tennis? Why does it not start with 1, 2 and 3, but with love, and then proceeding to 15, 30, 40 and deuce?
Also, tennis is a sexist game — best-of-five sets for men and best-of-three for women. It should be best-of-three sets for women and men.
I especially enjoy women playing: perhaps there’s less power, but more grace and sparkle, especially when the Williams sisters strut on the court. But do some of the girls have to grunt and groan as if they are in a labour ward?
Like three strikes and you are out in baseball, three groans in a set and you lose a point (well, 15 points). You may roar after a point but grunts during play should be triple-faulted.
I am no expert, but the game of groans, deuces, aces and double-faults can do with injection of new ideas.
Let’s start with the service. It is either fast or super fast unless it’s faulty. Has anyone thought of a very slow serve as a surprise weapon? Your opponent is on the baseline expecting a 100 mph missive. But imagine his (her) shock when it drops near the net at 25 mph.
He rushes in to return it and you smash on the baseline. 15-love! Nothing illegal, drop shots are perfectly legitimate. Slow services are drop shots in disguise.
The slow serve should be a surprise weapon and be ideally executed only once or twice per set. But your opponent expects it more frequently and this puts him off the game. This is legal, like fast bowler Brett Lee delivering a slower one in cricket.
Also, why not try a tall service?
Can you imagine the ball touching the court from 50 metre height with a bang and bouncing beyond the reach of your opponent? Of course it needs practice to perfect it, but players are warned to select a spot away from airports!
If you serve a net cord, you have to serve again. But it is allowed during the course of play. So why not attempt deliberate net cords during a match? Although extremely difficult to execute, it is achievable if you practice night and day.
A tad unsporting perhaps, but not cheating as there is no rule against it. And your opponent can do the same. Also, who can tell whether a net cord is intentional or accidental?
Also tie-breaks should be allowed in the final set to avoid the marathon match between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut during this year’s Wimbledon, which went on for eleven hours over three days. The final set of 138 games (70-68) is a world record. A tie-break would have avoided this colossal waste of time.
Are some of these ideas smashing or puerile, deuce or dunce?
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Thank you, Plasmodium. I still think that with so much money floating about (players' prize money and endorsements in millions), $700 million is not such a huge imput to counteract the colossal waste of time. What if the rain had not stopped for seven days and the final cancelled? Improbable but not impossible. Spectators would demand a refund. And what about TV coverage and reshuffle? The possibilities are endless.
Plasmodium
Guest
KERSI - It's been discussed ever since Wimbledon announced plans for a new roof which is, of course, now in place. And the rain delay at this year's US Open pushed the debate forward again. But the cost of roofing the world's biggest tennis stadium is wildly prohibitive. Toronto's Rogers stadium was purpose-built with a retractable roof years ago. These days it costs around $7,000 just to open and close it. The original bid on the dome was $160 million. Final bill was close to $700 million. The US Open folks were able to have the airport jets rerouted, but they have less pull with the weather gods than they have with the CAA.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Plasmodium, go east, go west, you know best concerning faking and racqetting (racketering) with coaches new and old!! On a serious note, why can't US Open arena have an adjustable rooftop to avoid rain delays. These rain delays are tending to become traditional.
Jay
Guest
not for the aussie open.
Plasmodium
Guest
VINAY - Are the girls faking orgasms? Check with their coaches. Some women players have openly admitted that "My coach was always my lover until I got a new coach. Then he became my lover." Some players maintain that the loud scream masks the sound of the ball coming off the racquet and that this is done on purpose to give the screamer a small advantage. Whichever, Maria is the loudest of the lot and she makes $20 million a year. Not even Tarzan made that much money.
Richard
Guest
Pretty sure the women prize is usually less than the mens at moat events -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
sheek
Guest
mds1970, And even if what you say isn't actually strictly factual, it ought to be.....! Brilliant!!
sheek
Guest
Agreed, give Plasmodium the laurel wreath for witty writing! Mind you, he's had some stiff competition.....!!
Jay
Guest
Agree with your point about equality. Women get the same pay for less work... where is the masculine tennis movement? I say we start burning our jocks in protest!!!
Richard
Guest
The slow serve was used by Martina Hingis a few times. She would suddenly do an under arm serve that just went over the net and would suprise her opponent . Wasn't overly effective but entertaining! -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Thank you all for your positive responses. Special thanks to mds1970 who explained that the 15, 30, 40 point system derived from 15, 30, 40 serving lines in Royal Tennis. I'm sure this must have benefited many Roar subscribers. I'm happy, and not ashamed, to ask this 'uneducated' question.
Tristan Rayner
Editor
Kersi, the trick with the slow serve might be the difficulty in masking the shot. I'm certain if it was a real mullygrubber it'd cause all sorts of problems even if you hit it once or twice a set - however, the beauty of the slower ball in cricket is that it comes competely unexpectedly. The simulated power of a serve in tennis to actually just gift the ball over the net might require an Academy award winning performance. Also, I'm sure TV stations much prefer the 5 setters which go for an eternity - more ads to run! Ah, the commercial aspects of life.
dasilva
Guest
Personally I think the most archaic thing about Tennis is the fact that the crowd has to be quiet during the game. Players may complain that the crowds may distract their concentration but I believe that is only the case if there is large change in noise (such as it's quite and then somebody started shouting). However if there is continuous crowd noise it should end up becoming background noise. This is because in virtually any other spectator sports, crowd noise isn't considered a significant excuse for disrupting the concentration of the player.
mds1970
Roar Guru
I seem to recall reading somewhere (although it could be my memory playing tricks with me), that in the original Royal Tennis game from which tennis as we know it evolved; there were four service lines. A game started from the original service line; but after winning a point you had to serve the next ball from 15 feet further back, then 30 feet, then 40 feet - and you didn't win the game until you had won a point from the 40 foot line.
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Tsebs,courage under the cloak of anonymity is cowardice in my lexicon. Perhaps Kersi's suggestions are not "educated" enough for you but it would have been better if you took the trouble to enlighten us dullards with your answers. To someone not familiar with tennis the scoring is convoluted.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Uneducated, Tseb? Perhaps. But I have the courage to show my ignorance. Why the scoring system of 15, 30, 40? Can you please explain this to me and to countless tennis devotees? People like you take things for granted. People like me ask questions to get educated from learned people like you. I am like the little child in the crowd who had the courage to say, "The king wore no clothes" when the "educated" ones were saying "How gorgeously the king was dressed." And what, pray, is so stupid about suggesting a very slow serve. It has its merit if you open your educated mind a bit more. Innovators ask questions and are ridiculed but a few years later when every one did what he suggested he is forgotten. I was the first to suggest that we should have an umpire in the TV room to adjudicate doubtful decisions in cricket. And I was ridiculed. I have a letter to the editor published in "The Sydney Morning Herald" to prove it. My knowledge in tennis is limited so am asking questions. But an uneducated person becomes learned when he asks questions. I pity a person without a sense of humour or courage to ask questions.
Tsebs
Guest
Probably the most uneducated load of rubbish I've ever wasted my time on reading... Shame. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Kersi Meher-Homji
Guest
Thank you, Plasmodium. According to me, the second serve is fast (about 60-70 mph), the first serve super fast (85-100 mph). By slow serve, I mean something akin to a drop shot, just landing on the correct side of the net at around 25 mph. And served only as a surprise and very rarely. The receiver then will always be in two minds. Like facing a slower ball from an express fast bowler in cricket. A surprise weapon. Just a quirky thought!
Vinay Verma
Roar Guru
Plasmodium,it is educational for me to read your comments. And entertaining,too. Question for you: Are the girls on court faking it?
Plasmodium
Guest
Kersi - point out the man who called you a dunce and I'll give him a fat lip. The weird scoring and nomenclature in tennis derives from the medieval French originators. The modern-day powers have tinkered with the system over the years but tradition holds as it does, thnkfullu, in the curious naming of cricket's fielding positions. Re slow serves - it used to be a tactic for a player to serve his "second" serve first, but that vanished when the wooden racquet vanished and players were able to murder anything slow. A petition was got up against orgasmic screaming on court but got nowhere. Monica Seles started the shrieking and as Peter Ustinov once said, courtside at one of her matches, "I pity the neighbours on her wedding night." The pro tennis net is strung so tightly that even the colossal top spin imparted by today's players is no guarantee of landing the ball on the right side of the net. As for three sets for men - forget it. The networks run the Slams and they want all the time they can milk for their advertisers. That's why the commentators say "The crowd wants this to go to five sets." Maybe they do, but NBC wants it, too.