PDA

View Full Version : Do you miss pre-2000 changeovers?


Leo_DFP
Jan 6th, 2009, 08:57 PM
I'm gearing up for the Aussie Open and currently watching some old tennis tapes. I put in the classic 1999 USO SF between Hingis and Venus, and was reminded that changeovers used to occur after an odd game, always. For instance, at 1-0 at the start of each set was a changeover. This also meant that a set could end after an even number of games, so another game would have to be finished before the players got a rest. Thus, one set could be finished and the next started all before a new changeover.

I'm not 100% sure when the switch occurred and who proposed it, but I think it began with the start of the 2000 tennis season. Maybe someone could confirm that for me. I bet there was a lot of confusion during matches before players got used to sitting down at the end of a 6-2 set or a 6-4 set and not sitting down after the first game of a set!

My question to you is, which style/format do you prefer? I definitely prefer the current format. I think it's better for fans and also for the players. It's a bit tedious to stop play after the first game of a match - players shouldn't need a 90-second sit-down then. Which is why there are now 2-minute breaks between sets so the players get a little extra rest before doing 3 games in a row. I also think it must have sucked in the past for a player to be serving down 4-5 in a set and think to themselves, "Okay, let's play a solid couple of games and come out of it 6*-5 ahead, or at least in good position for a tiebreak"... and then be down 4-6, 0*-1, just like that. Ooops!

ViennaCalling
Jan 6th, 2009, 09:12 PM
I prefer the current format for sure.

^bibi^
Jan 6th, 2009, 09:14 PM
I do prefer the current too, but it's indeed funny to see it on old tapes... I'd say it started at the begin of 2000 too... It was already used in RG 2000 for sure...

charmedRic
Jan 6th, 2009, 09:17 PM
it's funny. 'cus I follow the old format when I play recreationally.

good catch Leo.

Leo_DFP
Jan 6th, 2009, 09:23 PM
it's funny. 'cus I follow the old format when I play recreationally.

good catch Leo.

Really???

CrossCourt~Rally
Jan 6th, 2009, 09:27 PM
it's funny. 'cus I follow the old format when I play recreationally.

good catch Leo.

:lol: If i'm just playing with my friends then we usually just stay on the same side the whole match or change after a set:angel:.

Direwolf
Jan 6th, 2009, 09:31 PM
:lol: If i'm just playing with my friends then we usually just stay on the same side the whole match or change after a set:angel:.

hey COco
you in HK??

Mattographer
Jan 6th, 2009, 11:11 PM
I attended the Sydney tournament for the first time in 2000 and watched a match between Alexandra Stevenson and Anne-Gaelle Sidot. Stevenson won the first game and straight to her chair and sit down. The umpire told her to get her ass up and playing the game :lol:

I prefer the current format. I remember the 1999 French Open final, Hingis won the first set and still playing the next game without have a break. I don't like it.

Shvedbarilescu
Jan 6th, 2009, 11:15 PM
I'm gearing up for the Aussie Open and currently watching some old tennis tapes. I put in the classic 1999 USO SF between Hingis and Venus, and was reminded that changeovers used to occur after an odd game, always. For instance, at 1-0 at the start of each set was a changeover. This also meant that a set could end after an even number of games, so another game would have to be finished before the players got a rest. Thus, one set could be finished and the next started all before a new changeover.

I'm not 100% sure when the switch occurred and who proposed it, but I think it began with the start of the 2000 tennis season. Maybe someone could confirm that for me. I bet there was a lot of confusion during matches before players got used to sitting down at the end of a 6-2 set or a 6-4 set and not sitting down after the first game of a set!

My question to you is, which style/format do you prefer? I definitely prefer the current format. I think it's better for fans and also for the players. It's a bit tedious to stop play after the first game of a match - players shouldn't need a 90-second sit-down then. Which is why there are now 2-minute breaks between sets so the players get a little extra rest before doing 3 games in a row. I also think it must have sucked in the past for a player to be serving down 4-5 in a set and think to themselves, "Okay, let's play a solid couple of games and come out of it 6*-5 ahead, or at least in good position for a tiebreak"... and then be down 4-6, 0*-1, just like that. Ooops!

Good post. This is a good example. Not all changes are changes for the worse. With hindsight some actually turn out to be good ideas.

Dave.
Jan 7th, 2009, 09:24 AM
It was in use at the start of 2000 so I think you're right.

I'd much prefer the current one. Players and fans need time to regroup after a set. It builds up the drama more if it's a close match going into a 3rd set.

Although saying that, the quality of tennis isn't exactly better this decade than before so who knows which one is actually better for the game.

charmedRic
Jan 7th, 2009, 02:23 PM
Really???


...yeah. *hangs head in shame* ...am I disgracing recreational tennis?

:p;)

charmedRic
Jan 7th, 2009, 02:24 PM
:lol: If i'm just playing with my friends then we usually just stay on the same side the whole match or change after a set:angel:.

fair enough :wavey:

doublespartner
Jan 10th, 2009, 08:26 AM
Although saying that, the quality of tennis isn't exactly better this decade than before so who knows which one is actually better for the game.

The changeover change is probably for the better, but in the great scheme of things, is a small change. I don't know why the quality of tennis was better in the 90s.

dave1971
Jan 10th, 2009, 10:41 AM
changing that stupid rule of sitting down for 90 seconds after the first game is the best the thing the ITF ever did. At Wimby they'd go out and Sampras would hit 4 aces in the opening game and then they'd go sit down for a rest. :retard: