Mens Tennis Forums banner

What say you?

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Read Only
Joined
·
11,640 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I know, I know, don't roast me because this has been discussed to death before at MTF, I was here indeed. the verdict was 'it will benefit servebots even more' but hell, I can't see why, with some of those posters being ancient and new posters arriving, I thought our current MTF may discuss and re-think about the possible outcomes?

Pros: easily the rthym of the game, I just get soo bored waiting for second serves all the time, especially at matches where the first serve ratio is sooo low and I am not a casual fan, imagine them, how we may be losing potential fans.

Cons- other than the previous verdict as stated above, can't really think anything else. What could it be?
 

·
justice for all
Joined
·
17,959 Posts
As for the idea itself: I agree this change is too fundamental.
 

·
justice for all
Joined
·
17,959 Posts
And just for the record. It should rather be „getting rid of 2nd serve”. You can’t get rid of first serve unless you get rid of serve at all.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
11,640 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
And just for the record. It should rather be „getting rid of 2nd serve”. You can’t get rid of first serve unless you get rid of serve at all.
well should not the phrase 'first' be self-explanatory? there cannot be something as first, if there is only one? but I agree it may confuse some people, I will edit.
 

·
justice for all
Joined
·
17,959 Posts
meaning players cannot adapt? can you elaborate?
They could but I think that would change the dynamics of the game completly. Players would play it safer in general (being afraid of a fault) and I personally am not a fan of playing safer. The game nowadays favours more defensive players rather than attacking (hence success of Rafa and Novak) due to slowing down the surfaces and improved technology resulting in improved ROS and more topspin. Getting rid of one serve would make the game even more defensive.
 

·
justice for all
Joined
·
17,959 Posts
With the way he was serving this last week or so, that might be scary.
Not really. It’s all psychological. Once knowing he doesn’t have another serve in store he would start making tons of faults with his first (and only) delivery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,122 Posts
With the way he was serving this last week or so, that might be scary.
Yeah I know, 80% 1st serves...but would he be able to reproduce that if he would know he has only got 1 serve? I highly doubt that. Karlovic also got one of the highest winning % on 2nd serve overall, yet he double faults a lot in crucial moments. If he has just 1 serve he wouldn't even win anything on the Challenger tour probably.

I think Djokovic, Wawrinka and Thiem would benefit the most.
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
11,640 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
They could but I think that would change the dynamics of the game completly. Players would play it safer in general (being afraid of a fault) and I personally am not a fan of paying safer. The game nowadays favours more defensive players rather than attacking (hence success of Rafa and Novak) due to slowing down the surfaces and improved technology resulting in improved ROS and more topspin. Getting rid of one serve would make the game even more defensive.
Mm. So you don't agree that it would favour big servers? I am pretty sure that was the conclusion MTF came up with, older posters would approve, but I can't work it out myself. But I remember Rafa was asked re this, and he said Isner and co would benefit more, interesting.

Imagine Zverev with just one serve :ROFLMAO:
Or Murray
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Mm. So you don't agree that it would favour big servers? I am pretty sure that was the conclusion MTF came up with, older posters would approve, but I can't work it out myself.
Depends on how you define "big servers". Somebody that has low percentage first serve bombs and high percentage second serve creampuffs would obviously suffer a lot from this rule change since neither of their serves would be good with the new rule. Somebody that has good percentage very good first serves (but not 220Km/h bombs) and excellent percentage good second serves would benefit quite a bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Too severe change of rules. Players and their teams are making game plans, sometimes based on quality of second serve, besides, the first (and only serve in that case) will be much easier for good returners. 5 mph slower (for safety), and Djokovic will take next 6 - 8 slams...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,838 Posts
Nadal used to just ball the first serve in many years ago. His serve was used to just start the point. He would just destroy people off the ground on clay. If you take the second serve away, Djoker and Nadal would be even more dominant. Makes no sense. Players like Diego, along with RBA and Goffin would benefit, so that is a positive. I'm not in favour of this idea, as it would make the game even more physical. That is not good for the long term health of players. Some of these players have health issues after they retire. You don't want to see that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,091 Posts
Its absolutely stupid idea on so many fronts. Its a drastic change that would change the game completely. First of all, we love history of the game and measuring our favorite players dicks, but with such change it would be impossible to objectively compare future generations to old ones. Also in no way it would benefit big serves, no idea who and how came up with that conclusion. Someone Like Nishikori would definitely benefit from such change more that someone like Cilic... It would also shorten time between points while increasing rallies, which in turn would make game even more physical, likely would be an end of best of 5.

I mean this would make a game look worse than WTA. I imagine breaking opponent would become easier than holding your own serve for majority of players. Would we change break point to servers advantage lol? I do hate serve bots (Kyrgios excluded) but this would be a terrible idea.
 

·
justice for all
Joined
·
17,959 Posts
Mm. So you don't agree that it would favour big servers? I am pretty sure that was the conclusion MTF came up with, older posters would approve, but I can't work it out myself. But I remember Rafa was asked re this, and he said Isner and co would benefit more, interesting.
I don’t buy this consensus. With two serves a big server has two opportunities to use his main weapon - his big serve. With one serve he can less use his main weapon. So his position vs tour on average gets worse. I think that’s pretty simple but maybe there’s something I don’t know.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top