Tennis has introduced very few rules since its creation, to date. From 1877 onwards, passing from Suzanne Lenglen, to Bjorn Borg and Roger Federer, there are not many technological innovations in the game, as well as the rules, which have basically remained unchanged.
The introduction of super tie-breaks starting from the fifth sets, as in Wimbledon, are rare exceptions. Today tennis has stopped due to the global pandemic, but the return to competitions is close, despite the cancellation of some events and all the doubts related to the health emergency.
So this could be the time to start changing some rules of the Game. Which would you change if you had the chance? The New York Times asked the same questions, also proposing a series of answers to the dilemma. Is it possible and convenient to change some tennis rules? Are today's rules too outdated for modern times and the younger generation of fans and crowds? Or should centuries-old traditions and rules be preserved?
Six proposals for change: what do you think are the right ones?
Here are six proposals to change the rules of the game, trying to modernize a sport that is still growing steadily and exponentially in popularity.
Only one service: if you want to take a risk, roll the first of serve, otherwise put it in as if it were a second. The game would have more options, there would be more exchanges. Bonus: the matches would be faster. Take the net and score a point? Don't apologize, you're laughing inside yourself.
And if you take the net to serve and the ball goes beyond you play. Five sets for everyone, men and women, but super tiebreaks instead of the fifth set. A good match is not defined by how long or how tired the players are. Coaching: a rule for everyone.
Enough with the confusion, women yes (but not in the slams), men no: it is time to go back to the old world, everyone manages himself, without outside help. Towel: you don't need kids ready to shoot between one point and another.
It is vulgar and elitist. And then it could transmit the virus now. Players call the ball out, to technology the task of defying these calls. No line judges, who are wrong, but there is still the human element. They are called challenges, the pathos increases.
Can these six proposals, or provocations, be practicable to modernize the game, making it even more appreciable by fans and crowds of the last generations? Or is it a blasphemy to change the rules that have fomented generations and generations of fans?