As sports lovers, we enjoy a number of sports. However, in watching them there’s a feeling that many of them could be even better with a few rule changes, both minor and major.
Many of the sports that we love are the best part of 100 years old. However, for many of them, their foundation on which they are based, that is, mainly the rules, have tended to stay the same.
While it could be said that this is because the initial creators got the rules and structures correct, the passage of time has seen a great many changes in how these sports are played. Consider the effects of training, nutrition and fitness, professionalism, equipment, preparation and the junior systems and programs that feed up into these sports.
Tradition, acceptance and the passage of time tends to create a resistance to change. While rules shouldn’t be changed without careful thought and debate around the consequences, sometimes it appears that this resistance is the main reason why we don’t change some of these rules.
Consider a scenario where we could start over again with a sport and rewrite and rules and how the game is played. Wouldn’t we do away with many of the rules that don’t serve the sport and introduce others that do?
So, in this series of articles, we will explore a range of sports and their rules. It is not so much as to say that this rule or that rule should be changed, more to ask what would the game be like if we changed this rule? Would it create a better contest, a better product for the fans or encourage the players to be more daring, creative or positive?
Tennis
Let’s start with a game that seems more structured and defined in terms of its rules, and thus less open to the interpretation of officials or referees, namely tennis.
The let
This is a minor one, but why does the let trigger a dead point, where the server is given another serve in its place? When the ball hits the tape in the course of a point, it is play-on. Shouldn’t the ball hitting the tape be play-on irrespective of whether it is a serve or not? Or is there something about the server hitting the ball from a higher position that provides an unfair advantage when serving a let?
Allowing a let play-on on the serve may provide a little more theatre or changes in tempo or shot making.
The serve
In previous generations, the serve was seen as starting the point. It has evolved to be the main weapon in tennis, particularly in the men’s game. If you don’t have a quality serve, then forget about being an elite player. With providing the server with two attempts to start (or should I say win or obtain the upper position in) a point, does the serve deliver too much influence over each point and the match?
On numerous occasions, we have watched men’s tennis matches where 30-plus games in a row are won by the server. On another occasion, the 2009 Wimbledon final, Roddick lost 7-5, 6-7, 6-7, 6-3, 14-16, only losing his serve once, his last serve of the match.
So, what could be done about the dominance of the serve in the game of tennis? I have heard of people suggesting that tennis could change to a single serve. However, in this case, a single fault would provide the point to the receiver and would require the server to treat the majority of the serves like the second serve in the current format. Given the development of the return of serve over the past couple of decades, that rule change would then provide the receiver with too much dominance.
What about a rule somewhere between the current two serves and the single serve suggestion? What if the server is allocated three serves per two points? If the server’s first serve is in on the deuce court, then the player still has two serves left on the advantage court.
Alternatively, if the server needs to use the second serve on the deuce court, the player then only has the one serve on the advantage court. This would create the situation where the server cannot just ‘go’ for every first serve, knowing that they always have the second.
It would also bring a little bit more strategy and theatre to the process as the server cannot just blast himself out of trouble, not without the risk of losing more points.
The current two serve system could stay for the social and junior level of the game.
The grunt
The debate over grunting has seemed to have gone on for more than 10 years. However, the grunting in the woman’s game has continued to increase over the past few years, and it is a challenge watching any more than five minutes at any one time when a known grunter is playing.
What of the argument that grunting is needed to hit the ball hard or is a byproduct of the physical exertion of the player? In my mind, this argument was settled when watching the match between Sharapova and Azarenka at the French Open. During a long rally of shots and grunting, Azarenka grunts on a drop shot. I nearly fell off my chair!
Bottom line, at best, grunting is a habit associated with hitting the ball and at worst, a version of mild cheating.
What can be done to fix this? The players need to be given an incentive to practice non-grunting. As we know, practice will remove the habit. The incentive, or more correctly, the punishment should be that three audible grunts in any point will result in the point being given to the opposition player.
No if, no buts and no grunts. In all seriousness, the grunting issue could be resolved within one tournament if tennis officials had the will (or can I say the guts) to implement such a rule. Knowing there wasn’t any other alternative than to go along with it, players could eliminate the habit within four weeks of practice.
The Coach at courtside
Why not allow the coach to be courtside and provide coaching between the change of ends? They do this in the Davis Cup and it seems to add to the theatre of the match and allows for more tactical changes or insight. This would also remove the stigma of coaching from the supporter box and bring tennis into line with other sports where coaches are either down on the sideline or have trainers running on instructions.
What do you think about the above proposed rule changes? Do you have any other rule changes that could improve tennis?
Dani
Guest
Agree with single serve.. sick of seeing the winner won from cheap point.
Enzio
Roar Rookie
"Do you have any other rule changes that could improve tennis?" Yes I have! This http:/3malli.net
Artvol11
Guest
I have a good one: Remove the challenge and review every close call in the booth. Thoughts? Maybe I'm just a stupid American
Andrew
Guest
Fact 1: Tennis players are first and foremost, like all sportspeople, entertainers. Any rule change that removes something that lessens the entertainment value of a sport should be considered. Fact 2: I will not watch a women's tennis match if there is too much shrieking. Note, not grunting, but shrieking. I have better things to go and listen to. Fact 3: I will not watch a men's tennis match that consists primarily of a server blasting aces or unplayable serves at a receiver. Where's the entertainment in that? You can extrapolate from these facts that tennis is losing a certain percentage of its potential viewing audience.
Marcus
Guest
I agree with the above comment I train in Karate and I grunt when I exhale and I couldn't train properly without grunting so I would agree that grunting is important in sport.
Jennifer
Guest
Fact 1 Grunters grunt when they breathe out Fact 2 Grunting has been scientifically proven to increase the power of the shot if you don't know this I suggest google it. Fact 3 Women grunt higher pitch than men because of vocals. Fact 4 Perhaps you should all stop talking about grunting when you obviously don't play elite level tennis Fact 5 Players do grunt while they train high level elite tennis Fact 6 A small amount of players don't grunt Fact 7 How can you suggest it would take 4 weeks to stop grunting. Players train for at least 10,000 hours before becoming professional and cannot just change. They have also worked their style that they cannot change They cannot stop breathing when they hit the ball. Fact 8 People are just listening to media gossip about grunting they really don't get it. other sports do grunt that need power. Fact 9 Player's need to be respected in professional sport so stop bagging and enjoy tennis!!!!!!!!!!! Hope I have educated someone. Fact 10 It is always funny that the comments are relating to women grunting they find it offensive. What century are you in?
beny iniesta
Guest
Geez! Stop changing the rules - haven't you realised yet that sports fans hate rules changes? Case 1: The AFL!
Scooter
Roar Rookie
Hey Alexander, A thoughtful and great response. This article was all about creating some debate. I don’t agree about the non-dominance of the serve. The top 4 men, in reaching the semi-final stage of a tournament may have only lost their serve 2 to 6 times in around 80 service game. I actually think that my rule change on the serve may actually encourage the serve volley. Think about this, take two evenly match baseliners like Murray and Nadal. In the normal course of rallies they would share the points, but when you then add the aces, free points and dominant position in points that the serve provides, then winning their serve time after time (even against each other) becomes pretty routine. Knowing that they don’t always get the option of the first serve should encourage them to develop different types of serve, like the kick serve, which is linked it with the serve and volley strategy. Bottom line, the players would have to be more creative on their service games.
clipper
Guest
I like your solution to the grunting problem and agree it is more of a habit than physical exertion. The let ruling for serve would result in players using it so the ball dribbles over or steers off to become unplayable - thus negating the advantage it would bring. They really need to do something about time wasting and time between points. The difference between Federer and Nadal and Djokovic is quite noticeable and adds up during a game. Some enforcement on the rules or limiting the number of times the ball is bounced might help, although hard to enforce.
RMC
Roar Pro
Some interesting suggestions Scott. I don't like the idea of three serves per two points - I think it could get a bit confusing. It would encourage players to go for three quarter paced serves rather than full paced. I think the three quartered paced serves are under utilised, setting up for the next point sometimes rather than trying to win the point outright. Moreover sometimes the receiver misses because they get used to serves of a single pace - a bit like a slower ball in cricket. Still I think the idea is a bit too confusing. I also don't like the idea of court side coaching. Its alright in Davis Cup because its a team event, but in usual tournaments it should be up to the individual. The mental side of being alone with the unique scoring system make tennis different from other sports. I think the idea of stopping grunting has merit. I believe players who do it regularly do it out of habit. But sometimes when you have to turn direction suddenly or stretch out you will grunt. But this isn't an issue of spectators or opposition so I think the three audible grunts per rally is a good idea. Another issue I have is time wasting. I think umpires need to crack down on it. I think this would help the fitter players as there would be less rest time. Also mentally stronger players would be advantaged because if they lose a point they can put it behind them quickly. It would also be better for the fans. As far as more serving and volleying goes there should be far more grass tournaments. Look at players who clay court specialists - there are some who get by on outstanding result on clay and average results on hardcourts. We could see specialist grasscourt players if there were more grass tournaments, thus more serve and volleying. These players would likely do it a bit on hard courts as well.
matt
Guest
You serve a double fault, then the next point you get one serve. If you miss that it counts as a double fault and again on the following point you get one serve. Next service game you start afresh. This is a subtle rule change but is dead simple to understand and employ. It is significant enough to change optimal serve strategy and shift the balance a little more to the receiver, but not overly so. And it would put an end to those mindlessly boring service games that go fault-double, fault-double, fault (not sure what happens from there as by now I have stopped watching)
Alexander Grant
Roar Pro
+1 What I wouldn't give to see genuine serve/volley again
Alexander Grant
Roar Pro
To be fair Scott, it's to help cater for all styles. Wimbledon is supposed to help strong servers, though not so much anymore come second week. I don't want every match to be won by defensive baseliners (I wonder who the top five in the world, minus Federer are?), I want things to be mixed up. If every Grand Slam played the same then that wouldn't be fun as a tennis fan.
Alexander Grant
Roar Pro
Want more serve and volley? I do to too. Go tell organisers to make grass courts the way they should do. Nothing stays low enough to justify it anymore. It's killing variation in tennis.
Alexander Grant
Roar Pro
I really need to contest two of these ideas: 1) You can't draw a parallel between a let on serve and one in play and simply say both should be played on. People set themselves in a position during a serve that will counter a hard shot. If the ball clips the net hard and just dribbles over then how is that fair for the receiver. The reason it's played on during a point is because have to be set for a ball to go anywhere, not just into the box. 2) The serve is a lot less dominant now than you think with the major issue of court homogenisation and the slowing of virtually all surfaces (except clay, ironically). Your rule change is amusing (in a good way, it's interesting), but a little impractical and difficult. Seems to challenge the nature of the serve a little too much. People shouldn't be forced to watch a match where potentially half the time players become limited to not being able to play at full potential. Spectators and organisers would have a fit. Agreed a grunting. Don't how anyone can argue that ;)
Gippy
Guest
The last time I watched (and listened) to women's tennis was at an Australian Open some years ago. It was a tight match between Maria Sharpova and someone else (can't remember -- old age!). What I found interesting and instructive was that -- when the match was in the balance -- Sharapova didn't screech or grunt or make any noise at all. She had to concentrate on playing good, winning tennis. That told me that the screech is a deliberate ploy ("mild cheating"). Outlaw it. Then I might go back to watching tennis again.
Griffo
Guest
Hey Johnno. They did slow down the tennis balls a while ago to make rallies last longer, This was done when guys like Sampras and Ivanisevic were dominating their service games. THis basically killed off the serve volley. Whilst i'd like to see a resurgence of the serve volley I don't think we'll see it if they slow the balls more
Scooter
Roar Rookie
Hi Peeko, Yes, guys winning matches or even tournaments with little more game than their serve isn't great for the sport. Isner is a little like this. If you remember, Goran won Wimbledon with his serve, at the expense of our Pat!
Scooter
Roar Rookie
Hi Demers, Interesting point about the grass tournament experiment. I wasn't aware of that. Yes, these big guys would still have the serve as a weapon with the structure I suggested, but wouldn't it pull them back enough that service games would be more of a contest and would lead to more service breaks?
James P
Guest
The problem I have with tennis is that the advances in racquets have resulted in a dramatic shift towards back court power play. Personally I find that it has made the game one dimensional and unfortunately the governing body did not start to impose clear restrictions on the racquet technology before it was way to plate. I think a limit to wooden racquets would have maintained variety in the game and made tennis more interesting overall.