Radical Rule Changes For Tennis

As I was reading a newspaper article proposing outrageous rule changes in soccer, I could not help thinking that the same for tennis rules has to be one of the most entertaining topics of conversation in clubhouses, and how often it comes up with the commentators on TV during televised tennis matches. Anyone from John McEnroe and Mary Carillo to the hardly-known radio sports talk show hosts love bringing it up, whether they know tennis inside out or have never watched a full-length tennis match before in their lives (sadly, nowadays, those people consider themselves an expert on tennis, too).

In the new millennium, one of the biggest criticisms of tennis is how powerful the serve has become and how the big serves negate other skills by keeping the rallies to a minimum of one or two shots. What to do about it? The title says "radical," so let's begin with a suggestion: move the service line closer to the net by an inch, or maybe two inches. I do not have any statistics to back it up, but I presume most of the aces are landing on the line or an inch away from the line, unless in the case of a well-placed wide serve, which does not require power. This would force the players to add more spin to the game to bring the ball down quicker, and thus, take off the pace by reducing power. The gap between the power of a first serve and the finesse of a second serve would be reduced, putting more balls into play.

Let's move on to the tiebreaker. I love the tiebreaker. Obviously most fans love it, too, because during matches the excitement and the involvement of the crowd usually reach their peak during a close tiebreaker. But must we have it so soon, at six games all? Was it not fun to watch some of the sets going past six games all to eight-seven or nine games all in the fifth sets of French Open and Wimbledon, including the epic Wimbledon final match between the two best players in the world? I definitely would want to cancel the tiebreaker for all the reasons mentioned above. But how about a compromise? In the men's draw of all of the Slams (hear that USTA?), let the fifth set play out past six games all, yet do play one, when the score is eight games all (hear that, London and Paris?).

You can have your tiebreaker at six games all in the first four sets; otherwise some matches would last too long. Equally, since all other tournaments are limited to best of three sets, install the tiebreaker at eight games all in all sets. Do the same with the women's draws, too. It will reward the players who put the times into getting in shape, and make the return of serve a bit more valuable since the players will have a couple of more chances to break before playing a tiebreaker.

Let's take this radicalism a bit further. Don't make the fans be completely quiet during rallies. They should be quiet when the player serves at the start the point. But once the rally begins, let the fans yell after a good shot, or even allow a quick clap or two during a long rally filled with great shots. Let them "ohh" and "ahh" when Rafael Nadal runs down an incredible shot to lob it back. I know some are thinking, "Well, they already do that." Yes, but not to the extent that they would do it if they knew it was allowed, because they know that once the point is done, the referee will make an announcement telling them, "Now, now children, let's not make excessive noise during the rallies so the precious players can concentrate better, let's keep the noise to a minimum, okay? Hmmm?” Well, okay, they don't use those words of course, but that's what their announcement sounds like to the fan who is appreciating the wonderful rally.

Nobody can convince me that a tennis player needs total silence during a rally while a basketball player can hit a free throw for the win with deafening sound in the last second of a game, or while a pitcher can throw a strike in the ninth inning of a close game with thousands of fans screaming. They do it, because it is accepted that the norm does not involve silence by the fans. If in baseball, the norm was that it was required from the fans to be quiet during a pitch, and that was "how it's always been," I bet pitchers would then complain at the slightest yell or scream during a pitch, like tennis players do if it happens during a rally. Let the fans loose during rallies, everyone will adjust; fans will have more fun, players will learn to live with it.

Allow a group of fans, who are willing to pay a fee, to spend time with the players in the player lounge area prior to a match. It does not have to be up to the moment they walk out to start the match. Require the players to arrive to the match site 30 minutes before the match. For the first 10 minutes, let a small group of fans casually converse with them, under the supervision of officials to make sure that nobody acts out of line. Following this session, the players can still have 20 minutes to do their routine, go to the locker room, etc.

I can already hear people saying that some players have certain routines before a match that require more than 20 minutes. My answer to that is the following: the players, especially the ones who just came off the court on the losing side, would like their routine to involve leaving the grounds and not deal with the press people, while they are fresh off the disappointing loss. But they don't do that, do they? They face the music and answer the questions (some questions being obnoxious at times), because they are required by the ATP or WTA to do so. Same can be established for this proposition, too. I suspect that not all players will hate it, some may enjoy a 10-minute of relaxing talk with a small group of fans, and it will provide, at least to some fans, access to the personal side of players, and provide some increased revenue for the tournaments.

Give each player a "mulligan shot" per set, à la golf. In other words, give them a second chance to win a point. They can basically take back one point that they have played badly, in each set. In terms of when to use it during the match, they would have to work that into their strategies. Imagine a player having to win the match-point twice to win the match. It may allow a player who has not used his mulligan point to go for a spectacular shot for one point, knowing that he or she may get to repeat the point again if he or she misses the shot. At first glance, some may find it ridiculous, just as the challenge rule idea for a call was found by some when it was first installed. Overtime, it may add to the excitement.

All that being said, I recently saw two of the finest matches of the year in the semifinals of the ATP Masters Series tournament in Madrid. The two underdogs defeated the top two players in the world. There were some fine long rallies and plenty of high quality shot-making. So perhaps, tennis is doing just fine in its current state. Nevertheless, I hope the readers still had just as much fun reading this article, as I had writing it. I would love to hear some of their ideas. Remember to stay faithful to the title, be radical! Until next time, enjoy your game, everyone.