August 17, 2001 - Keep it shut!

The code and rule of the game says that a player with the exception of the first serve should call against himself any ball that he clearly sees out regardless whether he is requested to do so by his opponent. Which means that a player can overrule a call, only if such a call will be in favor of his opponent, but this act of fair play is not required on 1stsereve deliveries. The thinking here is that this shot is struck too fast to require a overrule.

In the pro game, all the shots are too fast, the umpire is too far away, badly placed and his head is moving with  the ball and therefore has the worst possible angles to make a decision on line calls.

On surfaces other than clay where the ball clearly leaves a mark, all umpire overrules on first and second serves should be eliminated, along with any shots landing on the far side or the exact opposite side of where the chair resides.

It's extremely irritating when a player asks an umpire to overrule a call and the umpire says, it's too far away, I can't change it, and soon thereafter the opposite happens, the umpire overrules a call form the far side, and the player, yells it's too far away, how could you do that, the umpire then says, I saw it clearly, it was out.

The only lines that the umpire should be allowed to overrule are the near sideline and near baseline and only on groundstrokes, never on serves.

The Umpire is there to enforce the rules, keep play moving, maintain order, keep the proper score, settle disputes, he is not suppose to impose his judgment and will on a match and reverse calls i.e. overrules that will have an impact on a match. 

When play begins, the players are advised that the calls of the line judges will stand no matter what, an umpire yelling overrule is one of the ugliest incidences in our game. Just keep it shut guys, near sideline and baseline groundstrokes and only if it's clearly out.

What's your point?

August 16, 2001 - Forced labor

The top players are being forced to play the super 9 tournaments without appearance guarantees, while in all other non-grand slam tournaments, the guaranteed purse is much larger than the actual prize money given away. 

I don't see anything wrong with guarantees, the players are the reason why the fans attend the event, without their marquee names, tickets are not sold.

The players need a union and they need one now, if they had proper representation and a unified front, they would even challenge the grand slams to give out appearance money.

Although no one player is bigger than the game or bigger than a respective grand slam event,  collectively their might would bring any event to its knees.

Remember the years when very few of the top players traveled to Australia, their lack of participation made it the least respectable grand slam.

Every major sport has guarantees, they come in the form of signing bonuses and perks. If you want me to play for your team, give me a signing bonus that's completely separate from the actual contract. The player is in fact giving a guaranteed income without playing a single game.

Perhaps its better for the sport that the players remain in the dark and do not fully realize their collective strength, or is it?

Everyone is calling for a shorter season, if the players were united and demanded larger guarantees only the large events would be able to afford their services, thus eliminating minor tournaments in minor cities.

Player power would result in a shorter season, stronger fields and more money for the top players.

What's your point?

August 15, 2001 - If you build them, I will take them

Larry Stefanki is supposed to be the best coach on the planet, he takes players up to number one. It is commonly believed that Marcelo Rios and Yevgeney Kafelnikov played their best tennis under his leadership and coaching - But why do players let him go, better yet, why can't he build his own prospects, why can't he train players who have not yet made it, have not yet perfected their game and put his stamp on them?

He would have many more players, and far lees down time traveling the tour, and having more impact on our game.

He's not the only one who's guilty at being a scavenger tennis coach, the practice goes on from the juniors and all the way to the pros. Most coaches are not willing to build a pupil from the beginning, not willing to put in the hard time of instilling the proper fundamentals, but instead are looking for players ready made prospects.

If coaches had the Richard Williams, and Melanie Molitor mentality and loyalty, perhaps, they'd spend less time out of work, less time scheming to take other coaches players away and perhaps the game would benefit by their long term dedication to the sport and their respective athlete?

I would have more respect for Larry's coaching talents if he was able to take the number 500 in the world all the way up to the top 10.

What's your point?

August 14, 2001 - Calling all cheaters

We are looking for competitors who do not want to play against anyone who has a chance to beat them, we want competitors who will lie about their true level, we want competitors who will hold back not to show their true level so they could continue beating on lesser players.

We want competitors who will quit the game if they have to move up to a higher level after beating everyone in their division.
We want competitors who love beating everyone 6-0,6-0, gloat about it even if their opponent started playing the game two months ago.

We know it's wrong, but what can we do, we have to grow the game, we have to keep the players playing, and the only way to reach that goal is to make sure the players are happy, we can't have players losing matches, they have to win or else they will drop out, if by chance they happen to lose a match, let's make sure they don't do so by too wide of a margin.

We have to protect our interests and our players are our biggest assets, yes they are cheating, but we don't see it that way. Normal age group events are too demanding, their popularity has dwindled in the last 10 years, the NTRP system is our best chance to maintain a competitive player base.

Please destroy this note after you've read it, everyone knows that the NTRP system is being abused, but we can't publicize it. You must defend and maintain the system, remember it's your job.

And don't forget to rate as many players as we can.    Go to it!

DSTA
(Discombobulated States of Tennis Airheads)

 
What's your point?

August 13, 2001 - Shrink it

To keep kids in the sport, to make it easier to learn and to help smooth the transition process to a more mature game, Basketball, Baseball, Soccer, Football, Hockey and even swimming has done it, but the one sport who so badly needs to keep its young players playing has not done it. What you may ask? 
Conduct competition of kids 10 and under on a miniaturized court.

If you have not seen young kids as young as 6-7 years old playing tennis on full length professional, standard courts, you have not yet seen sporting torture.
Even kids 10-11 who have recently picked up the game have trouble getting the ball over the net and covering the whole length and width of a professional tennis court.

It is practically impossible for a youngster under 4 feet tall to serve the ball over the net on a regular sized court. Another practice that is making it even harder is the fact that the young kids are no longer playing with junior sized racquets, they are using adult racquets similar to the ones used by their favorite pros.

Kids under 5 feet tall will find it difficult and frustrating to have a consistent serve, as a result they are being thought to put the ball in the box any way that they can, they continue this process for at least 2-5 years and somewhere along the way, the coach says, "you're ready for a normal service motion", by then, they've learned and perfected the bad way of serving, of pushing, lobbing and guiding the service in the box that it's virtually too late for them to go back to square 1 and learn the delivery properly.

Here's my recommendation:
1) A lower net
A shorter, young junior player who does not have to worry about the net will have more confidence and acquire the right form. Getting the serve over the net will be less of an obstacle.

2) A smaller surface 
Use half of the court, turn each side of a traditional court into its own respective court, going the opposite way, place a rope/net with one end tied to the top of the regular net at the center strap and the other end tied to the back fence, hence cutting the regular court into two miniature playing areas.

3) Emphasize proper technique
Now that the court is smaller, net is shorter, coaches and teaching pros should demand the proper form from their students. They should not teach and should get away from the "get the ball over the net at all costs" mentality.

I strongly believe that if a student has the right form and fundamentals, he or she will enjoy the game more, stay with it longer, decrease the frustration level and even create more champions. 

Far too often junior tennis players get burned by the sport, its demands and lack of consideration by the coaches and governing bodies for the fact that they have not yet grown into the ability to properly play the game. 

Let's keep our biggest asset on the court, make it easier for our juniors to learn the game and stay with it.
 
What's your point?

(c) 1stserve