Service lets and sudden death: a few simple changes to give the pro game a shot in the arm

Like America’s national pastime, tennis is steeped in tradition. Tinkering with the game is invariably met with derision by the traditionalists who represent the game’s perennial support base. Propose eliminating the second serve, for example, and the legions respond with a gasp: “Good God, man, have you lost your mind!” Suggest that the best three-of-five sets in the Grand Slam championships should give way to the best two-of-three, and risk being railroaded out of town. Do not pass Go! Do not collect 200 dollars.

Little does it matter that racquet and ball manufacturers, as well as court surface technicians, have been tinkering with the game for years. That’s the way the ball bounces, one hears. Can’t stop progress, you know. And for once they’re right. The pro game has benefited enormously from changes engineered by entrepreneurs like Howard Head, whose oversized metal and graphite racquet frames virtually created the baseline power game. Even John McEnroe, that purist and critic of baseline bashing who once vociferously proposed that pros compete only with wooden racquets, has been quiet of late.

The introduction of the instant replay is cause for optimism. A purist and optimist myself, I believe a few small changes are in order. (A realist, too, I have my bags packed and a ticket on the Silver Streak just in case.)

First, let’s get rid of the service let, as has been done at the collegiate level. This would bring several positive results, not the least of which is that matches would be shortened by several minutes. Since a let is called whenever a player’s first or second serve touches the net cord before landing in, it stands to reason that eliminating it would also reduce the number of double-faults. I don’t know precisely how often a player miscues after one or more serves is played over due to a let, but I’m certain it’s commonplace. The service let is an anomaly; all other lets occurring once the ball is in play are disregarded — play continues. Eliminate the let rule and kill three birds with one stroke!

Second, make stalling nonexistent by strictly enforcing the 20-second rule between points. Let’s go a step further, make it 18 seconds, and insist that play not begin until 10 seconds have passed, thereby eliminating quick-serve gamesmanship, too. According to tennis’ code of conduct, the receiver is expected to “play at the reasonable pace of the server,” which is practically meaningless and entirely unenforcible. After all, what is a reasonable pace? Andre Agassi played extremely quickly, and while no one ever leveled the charge of gamesmanship on Agassi, his was an unreasonable pace by many standards. Simply allow the receiver a full 10 seconds to prepare for the serve, with 18 seconds as the maximum allowed the server to put the ball in play or receive a warning. The receiver should be allowed four seconds before the second serve, with the ball put in play within eight.

One other area that could use a quick fix is the first-round scheduling of the week-long 32- and 64-player tournaments that are sprinkled between the slams and that occupy the greater part of the calendar year. At present, the singles player who wins five or six matches to claim the title on Sunday afternoon must hop on a flight to the next city to face a first-round challenger the very next morning. Let’s give byes to those singles players who competed in semifinal and final matches the week before. This small change will eliminate a fistful of first-round upsets and withdrawals by marquis players. Tournament directors will have their main attractions live up to their commitments and fans will get what they came for.

While we’re at it, keep the best three-of-five set matches for the second week of a Slam. This will not only ease scheduling during the early rounds in rainy London and New York, but it will ensure that players have something left to give in the final rounds of play. We’ll miss the occasional first- or second-round barnburner, but those matches rarely make the history books. Save the best for last and give the people paying top dollar for seats on Centre Court and in Arthur Ashe stadium their money’s worth.

Am I the only one over the 12-point tiebreak? Let’s face facts: it’s not sudden death, as players must win by two points. The pro game should adopt the 9-point tiebreaker that the late James Van Alen left to the game. Fast, furious, full of suspense, the first to five points wins and at four points apiece the receiver chooses where to take the serve — deuce court or ad. Just five to nine points of gutsy tennis in under three minutes. That’s sudden death.

As for coaching during matches… good God, never!

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This article first appeared in the December 2006 issue of TENNIS WEEK Magazine. The author has requested and been granted permission by the editors of TENNIS WEEK Magazine to reproduce the article in its entirety on this blog. This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.