Jaggy1876 wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

Don't agree. I actually see age as something more tangible and worthwhile as a race than points gathered in a type of tournament ie. challenger.

---

 Im not sure if you are meaning age as in all tournaments or because my post says Challengers and futures. Id keep the age for that and make it under 20s. So in that way age would be tangible. By the time a player like Zverev is in the top 20 or top 4 as is his case there isn't really any purpose for him in a race as he's chasing the main one.

So to simplify a race for under 20s for anything below ATP level. That would give a snapshot of what's coming through NextGen or whatever people want to say. 

---

I mean an age limit race and finals based on all tournaments as opposed to an open age race ( or age limit race ) and finals based on specific tournaments like challengers or challengers plus futures.

One could argue re U20s, U21s of U22s though let's not get over hung up about when some players are really making their breakthrough at a particular time. It might be interesting to look back and see what sort of fields different age limits would have produced in previous years.

Jay should now be top 300 on Monday week

If so, it will be not long after his 19th birthday (27/07) though a bit longer after than both Evo and Kyle were but all very close for age at reaching that particular rankings mark. Andy was a bit ahead !

Yes, Topemp, I wonder who the tennis authorities are consulting with re no Ad other than talking to themselves. I have not seen anyone here that likes it at all, with it taking away the dynamics and tensions of deuce, ad to x, deuce, ad to y etc and that includes many folk open to some change. For instance I have no such degree of problem regarding MTBs ( although I know some folk don't like them ) but players know the deal, share two sets and you have a MTB which has interest in its own right and is not really quite the lottery some make out. It also thankfully retains the win by two clear points concept. It does what it's evidently intended to do, saves time and helps with scheduling, sometimes to doubles players' good. Now no Ad will save time in some games, but yes the potentially really interesting ones, That comes at too high a cost. Yes, I'd be for 30-30 being deuce in some matches before no Ad. Though I do prefer ( and tournaments can surely cope with ) 40-40 deuce and ads even in doubles.

Anyway I highly doubt our thoughts are significantly different from tennis followers in general. So what say do the players in general think of no Ad? Players and supporters must be a huge part of what drives or indeed stops change. Sponsors and / or TV will have views of course, and are hugely important to the game, but not to just fundamentally change matches' dynamics and enjoyment, maybe often with no true understanding that that's what they are doing.

Remember Andy's final game of his Wimbledon final vs Djokovic. Serving for it, 40-0 became all to soon deuce and then we had further ongoing epic drama before the deal was finally clinched. Maybe better for stress levels if they'd gone straight to no Ad, but better for tennis, surely not ! ( quite apart from I think from memory Novak won the first deuce point though anyway you'ed be in a different scenario with different pressures at play and not better ones ).