Fast4 tennis/playing lets

GBJ · Club Coach

Fast4 tennis/playing lets

GBJ · Club Coach

Nice point at 1hr48 min in the above match. Not noticed any lets so far after the first set though :)

GBJ · Club Coach

I've always wondered how well hawkeye picks up let chords - could it be used to challenge a let call? It must be detectable to a fairly good level surely?

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

I'm a bit confused by the poll. At the moment, it is a "let" on serve but not in a rally, where the point is continued now anyway. Is the suggestion that there should be no "lets" on serve - and tough luck on the receiver if it still lands in the box? Or that it should be an error, whether on serve or in a rally, if it touches the net? I can see the latter causing a lot of controversy as to whether the ball actually did touch the net or not.

I do get a bit irritated when there are several "lets" in a row on service.

I'm afraid I haven't read anything about the Fast4tennis, so if knowledge of that makes this poll clearer, my apologies.

indiana · Tennis legend

I took it ( and I have been known to get things wrong ! ) that the poll was just about serve.

I voted to keep the current system just over continue the point. I think dead net-chords or even particularly diverted ones are pretty unusual on serve ( much more in general play ), it's much more net skimmers, clearly at pace with most servers, although I guess certain players' serves ( more in lower standard ) may plop off the net, so continuing the point was a pretty close second for me and I believe has worked pretty well in trials.

I wouldn't want them counted as an error on serve ( I agree for one thing with the potential for controversy ) and I would most certainly not count them as errors during general play - fundamentally would change things and often very lucky net-chords should remain part of general play quite apart from all touches of the net having to be detected and often being disputed. Just imagine a great rally being stopped because a ball flicked the net - no way, so surely just has to be a serve consideration.

GBJ · Club Coach

To save people having to look it up: Fast 4 tennis is a format with similar aims to 20 20 in cricket - it speeds things up, focusses on the most exciting parts and makes match lengths easier to predict by making the following changes:
- Sets are first to 4 games.
- If 3-3 is reached a decides the set.
- Tiebreaks are first to 5 points without having to have a 2 point advantage.
- There are no breaks at change of ends except for a 90 sec sit-down at the end of each set.
- If a serve hits the net then play just continues - as seen here at 2hr42min17sec: www.youtube.com/watch (theres also a really enjoyable interview with hewitt and federer at 3.05.00).

GBJ · Club Coach

Overall I really like the fast4 format.
Tennis is a pretty difficult sport to follow as a fan in that most of us don't have time to watch everything we would like to when we would like to. I therefore end up watching a matches on replay after they have finished and desperately trying to avoid finding the result out whilst skipping the early stages of sets knowing that the best bits are at the business end after the first 5-10 games have been played. I had always thought it would be nice if some matches had sets that were only up to 4 games like this.

I like the fact that this format makes then length of a match a little more predictable - making knowing when to watch more easy...though this comes at a price - we would never have the drama of a long game with multiple deuces (like in the classic 20-plus minute game at the end of the 1995 wimbeldon final between Graf and Sanchez Vicario).

I am a little unsure about the tiebreaks being so short and not needing to be 2 points ahead. I think part of the drama of the sport of tennis is in the way the scores sometimes do sometime are so close and keep going back and forth setpoint-even-setpoint-even-breakbackpoint-even etc.

I think one way this format could be tested more is to have it at earlier rounds of say one of the masters 1000 tournaments. Also it gives the option of making the early rounds best of 5 and the later rounds best of seven (even a long best of 9 set match would only be a max of 63 games whereas the max for 5 normal tiebreak sets is 65) - imagine seeing Rafa come back from 4 sets to love down to avoid an upset etc.

GBJ · Club Coach

As for the poll:
I hope that explanation of Fast4 above clears things up Madeline - 'continue the point' is what they do in Fast4.

I was actually talking about all points not just the serve - tough I agree with Indiana in some ways: it would perhaps seem a shame to end a great point on a marginal let but then again you could argue the same for a marginal line call - what i am proposing is that since everyone is trying to avoid hitting the net anyway why not say 'if you fail to avoid the net you it counts as out' why is it we would rather let chance decide what happens?!

The other effects this would have I guess are firstly making serving a little bit harder (maybe more so the shorter the player too) and maybe slightly discouraging players from being aggressive and flattening their shots out - neither of which seem good to me but I'd like to know what others think of the idea still.

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

Thanks for the explanation. I think, like the IPTL, it could be a fun thing to have now and again, but I would hate to see it take over the entire sport! I would possibly be in favour of no "lets" on service - that can be a real time-waster. You don't get a second chance in a rally, so why on serve?

indiana · Tennis legend

In general play, most certainly to my mind, the point should continue. The point about tennis is to get the ball in between the lines on the other side of the net, never has been about necessarily doing so without the ball touching the net. I could never ever go with touching the net and still falling in being a fault, even before you get to the real practicalities of monitoring and potential controversy. Awful idea, IMHO, sorry , and I appeciate not part of Fast4 tennis.

The various aspects of Fast4 tennis are very interesting, but to me they shouldn't be going anywhere near a Masters 1000 tournament, just early rounds or not. These are not tournaments for cutting out the 'boring' bits. Maybe could have two or three 250s ( and / or some challengers ) played right through in such a format then try and step back and assess things. I'd have extreme difficulty ever imagining Slams at least ( the test cricket of tennis ) ever going to shortened sets.

Finally, generally on no ads ( as applied in most doubles nowadays ) and any no two point margin proposals for any games, just hate it in any pro tournament of any standing. Tennis has a great scoring system, and to me TBs were a great introduction and should apply to all sets ( Wimbledon ! ) But like GBJ said the two points ahead in games, the fluctuating GPs, deuce, BPs, deuce ( clearly sometimes involving set and match points ) for however long is drama and part of tennis, most certainly not boring. TBs are a much more crucial part of controlling match length ( Karlovic would hardly be off a court without them ! ) than restricting games in this way.

There certainly are things to be considered re speeding up general play, but I think more generally the proposals of Fast4 tennis fit for an alternative different market as a sort of Twenty 20, so maybe times and places. But best not to infringe them on the 'Test' stuff.

GBJ · Club Coach

I do see your points Indiana and in many ways agree with them. I can see it frustrating/annoying a lot of people if they really started to mess with the much loved traditional elements of the sport (I like the test match - grand slam analogy) and in some ways I don't think they should.

I really just wanted to air some thoughts I had as to me following tennis is largely about dreaming of what might be possible and how exciting it could be without holding necessarily having much any real hope of it really happening.

indiana · Tennis legend

No problem, GBJ, it can be good to toss ideas about. And no change comes about without someone mentioning it first and other getting behind it.

As I indicated things such as short sets may have a place, just not for me in Slams or Masters.

I don't mind change if I think it is for the better. But, however we came about the scoring system it really is good and as I mentioned I really like Ad and win games by 2 points. TBs, now of course so familiar but an introduction during my time in watching tennis, I do really like and wish Wimbledon and Davis Cup ( and anyone else holding out ) would introduce for final sets as well. To my mind all sets should be on the same basis and we avoid those occasionaly pretty ridiculous or one totally ridiculius / epic ( depending on your point of view ) one, which can kill the winning player for his next round. Final set TB ( to be won by 2 clear points ! ) to win Wimbledon - fine by me.

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

I can't agree totally, Indie. A tiebreak has such a large element of luck in it, and it seems a shame if a closely fought match should be decided by one player winning by pure luck. However I think maybe there should be a tiebreak if the scores are reaching ridiculous proportions, such as the Isner/Mahut match: the difficulty would be in deciding when the scores should be considered ridiculous. 10 all? 12 all? 15all? I could be in favour of a TB then.

Sim · County player

Madeline wrote:
I can't agree totally, Indie. A tiebreak has such a large element of luck in it, and it seems a shame if a closely fought match should be decided by one player winning by pure luck. However I think maybe there should be a tiebreak if the scores are reaching ridiculous proportions, such as the Isner/Mahut match: the difficulty would be in deciding when the scores should be considered ridiculous. 10 all? 12 all? 15all? I could be in favour of a TB then.

I agree with your final set tie break idea Madeline. If the final set, especially the 5th set in a slam, goes much beyond 10-10 it puts the winner at a big disadvantage in the next round. I would vote for final set tie-break at 9-9 or 10-10

Jan · Hall of fame

When they first brought in ties breaks I seem to remember they were at 8-8, not 6-6 (possibly just at Wimbledon??).