The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[lunababy_moonchild]

I'd just like to point out that Andy Murray - from Dunblane, Scotland - has won his match against Andy Roddick - from Nebraska, USA - and is now in the fourth round. This is further than any of the other Male British players got this year.

Luna

[udosuk]

Glad you opened this thread... I was going to post some comments on this too...

It's a terrible day for the Americans... Agassi, Roddick and Venus Williams all bowed out, leaving only 1 woman in the 2 main singles draw (Shenay Perry)... The same total as Australia, China and Japan... (Yay! )

Hud would know I'm a big fan of Martina Hingis... It's a pity she lost the other day... I'm sure many (male fans) would like to see her more with that outfit...

[Hud]

I hate to take the thread in this direction, but I was thinking that she was looking pretty well in the newspaper the other day. She must be getting pretty "long in the tooth" though; probably around 25 lol.

OK, another "dirty old man" observation: Michelle Wie seems to be maturing pretty quickly. Johnny Miller actually complimented her game today, and compared her to Tiger Woods in several areas.

I'm naming Maria Sharapova an honorary US Citizen since she has lived here long enough to qualify.

[udosuk]

Michelle Wie was already 6'1 a couple years ago... I wonder if she'd grow even taller... A few years back people compared Tiger to our Karrie Webb too (who sadly is out of contention in the US Open)...

I think Maria Sharapova will one day become an US Citizen probably, following Navratilova, Lendl & Seles... But Anna Kournikova will probably beat her to that...

Martina Hingis will be 26 this September... I wonder if she will win another slam in the near future...

[Cec]

Tennis is another of my favourite sports and this new thread is welcomed. Don't know what it is but there's something special about "Wimbledon". I hope I'm not going in the wrong direction with these two comments but they do intrigue me. If I am "offside" I'll accept the consequences without picking up my racket and going home.

During each "game" of a set, I often wonder why the server gets two serves as opposed to the receiver who only gets one chance to return the first serve. I realize both players get equal opportunity when serving but it just seems too much of an advantage to the server. Having only one serve would make the server think twice before attempting the "Ace" serve. I also think one serve would reduce the length of matches where some go to four or even five hours.

My next query is why should "let" serves be replayed. "Net" calls are not replayed during rallies even though an opponent is left unfortunately stranded when the ball hits the net and drops vertically down in the opponent's court with usually no possible chance to reach it.

In the case of serving, a ball hitting the top of the net but not landing within the service court is rightly a fault serve. However, an "ace" serve, just clipping the top of the net and leaving the receiver stranded, purely by the sheer pace of the serve penalizes the server because of the "let" serve rule. On the other hand, if the serve strikes the top of the net and the ball "pops up" high in the air giving the receiver an easy volley or smash to hit a winner then this is no different to what is allowed during the course of a rally.

The "let" serve was abandoned years ago in badminton. This eliminated the contentious argument, both for players and the umpire, particularly if occurring at a crucial stage of a match when a player claims a serve touched the net.

Cec

[udosuk]

I'm no expert in tennis, but here are my thoughts regarding your 2 queries:

1. Why the server gets 2 chances:

He/she has only a small square equal to 1/4 of the court area to hit to, while the returner has the whole court as a target. Which is why a strong groundstroke slugger (e.g. Nadal) would more than often win the point against the 2nd serve of a not-so-strong server (e.g. Hingis)...

2. Why the "let" is replayed:

With enough practice (and determination), I'm sure a player can master a serve that would just clip the net with pin-point accuracy that would make the ball just "drop" next to the opposing side of the net. This would make the receiver impossible to return. I believe that's the same situation in table tennis. In badminton/volley ball they dropped this rule because it is relatively easier for the receiving players to scramble it back...

They're only my speculations but I guess they're not too far off the mark...

[lunababy_moonchild]

During each "game" of a set, I often wonder why the server gets two serves as opposed to the receiver who only gets one chance to return the first serve. I realize both players get equal opportunity when serving but it just seems too much of an advantage to the server. Having only one serve would make the server think twice before attempting the "Ace" serve. I also think one serve would reduce the length of matches where some go to four or even five hours.

John McEnroe has been saying this for the last two years (that I remember)

My next query is why should "let" serves be replayed. "Net" calls are not replayed during rallies even though an opponent is left unfortunately stranded when the ball hits the net and drops vertically down in the opponent's court with usually no possible chance to reach it.

I would imagine that the reason for this is not to interrupt the flow of play. When the ball clips the net it doesn't always result in the end of the point and makes it very exciting to watch.

In the case of serving, a ball hitting the top of the net but not landing within the service court is rightly a fault serve. However, an "ace" serve, just clipping the top of the net and leaving the receiver stranded, purely by the sheer pace of the serve penalizes the server because of the "let" serve rule. On the other hand, if the serve strikes the top of the net and the ball "pops up" high in the air giving the receiver an easy volley or smash to hit a winner then this is no different to what is allowed during the course of a rally.

Actually an ace is regarded as a serve that gets over the net and into the service court but is impossible to return. If it clips the top of the net as it goes over it's a let.

For more : Wikipedia

Luna

[Cec]

1. Why the server gets 2 chances:
He/she has only a small square equal to 1/4 of the court area to hit to, while the returner has the whole court as a target.."

This is true. A "good" serve needs both accuracy and ball speed. Allowing only one serve would require the server to compromise .. either choose increased speed and sacrifice accuracy or improve accuracy by reducing speed. In having two serves, the server can "go for broke" on the first serve knowing the've got a second chance. However, when the receiver can't even reach the first serve then the size of the target doesn't really matter.

2.Why the "let" is replayed:
With enough practice (and determination), I'm sure a player can master a serve that would just clip the net with pin-point accuracy that would make the ball just "drop" next to the opposing side of the net. This would make the receiver impossible to return.

With due respect, this would seem an extremely high risk shot to attempt in serving so much so that I can't recall any professional players who have attempted to master this pin-point accuracy either when serving or in general play. I agree that such a shot, whether deliberate or not, is virtually impossible to return which is why I see the current rules conflicting in allowing replay of a "net" call on serving but no replay on subsequent rallies.

"..In badminton/volley ball they dropped this rule because it is relatively easier for the receiving players to scramble it back..."

Not sure what you mean by "dropped this rule". I don't know the rules in volley ball but to my knowledge there is now no "let" serve in badminton. I believe the "let" serve was dropped for two reasons (a) because it wasn't considered to adversely affect the receiver who position themselves usually on the front service line and (b) removes doubt as to whether the shuttle touches the top of the net on service.

Cec

[udosuk]

However, when the receiver can't even reach the first serve then the size of the target doesn't really matter.

It does matter. Imagaine the server doesn't have to serve to that particular small square, but to any part in the opposing court. How could the receiver return it? But the rules as of now allow the receivers to be able to stretch to reach virtually any serve in any directions, provided they could guess right which direction it is coming. And if they guess right many good stroke players will just hammer it hard into the corner and win the point directly, even if the ball is fast and wide...

In fact, I reckon most aces happen because the receivers guess wrong, rather than they guess right but cannot reach the serve which is of maximum speed and clip the lines (i.e. the perfect ace). It's similar to saving a penalty shot in soccer, which English soccer fans will have a hard time contemplating for now...

Imagine if you take away the 1st serve. Then all serves become 2nd serves now and players like Martina Hingis would have no chance to hold serve. And the game will become (even more) dominated by power monsters who just whack the returns hard and serve reasonably fast.

With due respect, this would seem an extremely high risk shot to attempt in serving so much so that I can't recall any professional players who have attempted to master this pin-point accuracy either when serving or in general play.

Most servers as of now go for the lines and the middle of the "T" to try to hit a serve that "skips" on the chalk/paint of the lines. I don't see how this pin-point accuracy is less demanding than the one I described... With 2 chances to serve I wouldn't hesitate to run that risk in the first serve.

Also, no professional players attempt to master this particular serve because it's illegal as of now (let call). If it's legalized you bet some freak will start drilling on it and you don't have to make it everytime, if only 50% of times they come through you'll have a huge advantage on serve... And you don't even need to hit the serve with 200kph speed, since if you hit the "spot" you'll win directly... So only accuracy is the issue here which makes the task somewhat easier than say to hit a 200kph serve down the middle of the T....

I agree that such a shot, whether deliberate or not, is virtually impossible to return which is why I see the current rules conflicting in allowing replay of a "net" call on serving but no replay on subsequent rallies.

In subsequent rallies, where you're hitting the ball which is moving towards you and with spin, it's virtually impossible to attempt delicate control shots like that. But when you're serving, you have the ball stationary in your hand and you can toss it anyway you like (provided no excessive wind movement) and spin it anyhow you want. That's two completely different situations. You can practice a serve a million times with similar circumstances, but in actual rallies the ball can come at you in a million different ways, and that's virtually impossible to simulate in practice.

Not sure what you mean by "dropped this rule". I don't know the rules in volley ball but to my knowledge there is now no "let" serve in badminton. I believe the "let" serve was dropped for two reasons (a) because it wasn't considered to adversely affect the receiver who position themselves usually on the front service line and (b) removes doubt as to whether the shuttle touches the top of the net on service.

In volleyball the serving team used to lose the right to serve when the ball touches the net. That's before the current 25-point system started where every rally results in a point... And you're right in volleyball and badminton the receivers generally stand pretty close to the net so the "let" rule is not really necessary...

[Cec]

My next query is why should "let" serves be replayed. "Net" calls are not replayed during rallies even ......"

I would imagine that the reason for this is not to interrupt the flow of play. When the ball clips the net it doesn't always result in the end of the point and makes it very exciting to watch.

It seems I haven't made myself clear. I totally agree Luna that "net" calls during a rally should not be replayed precisely for the reasons you mention.
My above full quote was merely to highlight the inconsistency where "net" calls for a serve (which is a "let" serve) are replayed but not replayed during a rally. I only used the example of where the ball drops vertically at the net giving no chance for the player on that side of the net to reach the ball and this unfortunate (or lucky) "net" call is not replayed yet a serve striking the top of the net and landing within the service court is the basis for replaying a serve. IMHO this is not consistent reasoning.

However, an "ace" serve, just clipping the top of the net and leaving the receiver stranded, purely by the sheer pace of the serve penalizes the server because of the "let" serve rule.

Actually an ace is regarded as a serve that gets over the net and into the service court but is impossible to return. If it clips the top of the net as it goes over it's a let

Again it seems I wasn't clear and still unsure if I can explain this properly but here goes...... My above reference to an "ace" serve was not well worded as I do understand what a (correct) ace serve is. There are occasions when a receiver is clearly beaten by a serve which lands within the service court but is fortunate that the ball slightly touches the net with neglible deflection but gets a reprieve, courtesy of the "let" call rule. The problem arises every so often and can become quite "nasty" when a "let" call is disputed at a crucial stage of a match. Yes, the umpire has the final say but doing away with the service "let" call would remove this problem and I suspect be welcomed by umpires.

However, when the receiver can't even reach the first serve then the size of the target doesn't really matter.

It does matter. Imagaine the server doesn't have to serve to that particular small square, but to any part in the opposing court. How could the receiver return it?..."

Looks like we're confused here The "target" I was referring to is the opponent's court where the receiver returns the serve to - not the target (service court) the server aims at.

Imagine if you take away the 1st serve. Then all serves become 2nd serves ..."

Both servers have the same choice of deciding how fast they want to serve..so one chance for the server and one chance for receiver. Yes, some players can serve faster than others and some return serves better than others and some players volley better than others and some etc. etc.

"..And you don't even need to hit the serve with 200kph speed, since if you hit the "spot" you'll win directly... So only accuracy is the issue here ..."

I'm assuming you're suggesting some players could master serving so the ball strikes the top of the net and drops into the receiver's court. If that was possible then I would expect they would also be able to learn to play similar shots during rallies.. IMHO such a player would be extremely rare.

Cec

[udosuk]

Obviously Cec hadn't read my full message when he last replied, so I'll go to the trouble to "requote" some of the words... Hopefully they won't go unnoticed/ignored this time!

However, when the receiver can't even reach the first serve then the size of the target doesn't really matter.

It does matter. Imagaine the server doesn't have to serve to that particular small square, but to any part in the opposing court. How could the receiver return it?..."

Looks like we're confused here The "target" I was referring to is the opponent's court where the receiver returns the serve to - not the target (service court) the server aims at.

It does matter. Imagaine the server doesn't have to serve to that particular small square, but to any part in the opposing court. How could the receiver return it? But the rules as of now allow the receivers to be able to stretch to reach virtually any serve in any directions, provided they could guess right which direction it is coming. And if they guess right many good stroke players will just hammer it hard into the corner and win the point directly, even if the ball is fast and wide...

In fact, I reckon most aces happen because the receivers guess wrong, rather than they guess right but cannot reach the serve which is of maximum speed and clip the lines (i.e. the perfect ace). It's similar to saving a penalty shot in soccer...

(I suggest you to read these 2 full paragraphs before you (hastily) come to the conclusion that I misunderstood your meaning of "target", just based on the first 2 lines of my first paragraph... )

Imagine if you take away the 1st serve. Then all serves become 2nd serves ..."

Both servers have the same choice of deciding how fast they want to serve..so one chance for the server and one chance for receiver. Yes, some players can serve faster than others and some return serves better than others and some players volley better than others and some etc. etc.

And the game will become (even more) dominated by power monsters who just whack the returns hard and serve reasonably fast.

(I just don't like the idea of tennis to resort to a power/physicality dominated game, and the thinking/brain players get no chance to win at all. But that's only my personal preference and I decline to make any more arguments on this...)

"..And you don't even need to hit the serve with 200kph speed, since if you hit the "spot" you'll win directly... So only accuracy is the issue here ..."

I'm assuming you're suggesting some players could master serving so the ball strikes the top of the net and drops into the receiver's court. If that was possible then I would expect they would also be able to learn to play similar shots during rallies.. IMHO such a player would be extremely rare.

In subsequent rallies, where you're hitting the ball which is moving towards you and with spin, it's virtually impossible to attempt delicate control shots like that. But when you're serving, you have the ball stationary in your hand and you can toss it anyway you like (provided no excessive wind movement) and spin it anyhow you want. That's two completely different situations. You can practice a serve a million times with similar circumstances, but in actual rallies the ball can come at you in a million different ways, and that's virtually impossible to simulate in practice.

(Since you're familiar with the AFL, how about this analogy... You're awarded a free kick from the umpire about 40m away from goal, and you try to kick the 6-pointer... Next scenario: Same distance, your teammate hand-ball to you from about 45 degrees at your right. You're not allowed to catch the ball, but must kick it directly (soccer-kick?) at goal.

Which way is easier? )

[Cec]

Sorry for slow reply....other matters to attend.

Obviously Cec hadn't read my full message when he last replied, so I'll go to the trouble to "requote" some of the words... Hopefully they won't go unnoticed/ignored this time!

Well, I can only ask you to take my word that I did read all your replies and that they weren't ignored. Leaving aside your "net-drop-serve" idea which I'm commenting on below I simply didn't respond to some of your other comments because I considered they were not relevant to my initial post.

(I suggest you to read these 2 full paragraphs before you (hastily) come to the conclusion that I misunderstood your meaning of "target", just based on the first 2 lines of my first paragraph... )

Well I didn't hastily come to this conclusion and hopefully this will explain my confusion. I've "bolded" the word target.

He/she has only a small square equal to 1/4 of the court area to hit to, while the returner has the whole court as a target.

OK, so "the target" you referred to at this point is the opponent's whole court (not just the opponent's service court). Whilst what you say is true it's interesting that most "games" during a match are generally won by the server.

However, when the receiver can't even reach the first serve then the size of the target doesn't really matter.

Again, the target I referred to here is still the opponent's whole court. In hindsight I could have explained myself another way by saying that when the receiver of a serve is aced then the target area to hit to (again meaning the whole of the opponent's court) is no longer relevant because the receiver of the serve no longer has a ball to hit!

No offence udosuk but your following quote introduced a scenario that I never suggested (nor ever likely to suggest) whilst you also referred to "that particular small square" which is a different target to that which we were discussing above.

It does matter. Imagaine the server doesn't have to serve to that particular small square, but to any part in the opposing court. How could the receiver return it?

It's obvious the receiver couldn't return such a serve but I just can't see any relevance to this scenario.

With enough practice (and determination), I'm sure a player can master a serve that would just clip the net with pin-point accuracy that would make the ball just "drop" next to the opposing side of the net. This would make the receiver impossible to return. .."

You're entitled to this opinion but I simply don't agree any player would risk such a low percentage (high risk) serve. However, conceding some freak player mastered this art, then a "short service" line, similar to badminton, would eliminate this possibility. I concede one downside is more lines on the court.

"..And you don't even need to hit the serve with 200kph speed, since if you hit the "spot" you'll win directly... So only accuracy is the issue here ..."

I'm assuming you're suggesting some players could master serving so the ball strikes the top of the net and drops into the receiver's court. If that was possible then I would expect they would also be able to learn to play similar shots during rallies.. IMHO such a player would be extremely rare.

In subsequent rallies, where you're hitting the ball which is moving towards you and with spin, it's virtually impossible to attempt delicate control shots like that. But when you're serving, you have the ball stationary in your hand and you can toss it anyway you like (provided no excessive wind movement) and spin it anyhow you want. That's two completely different situations. You can practice a serve a million times with similar circumstances, but in actual rallies the ball can come at you in a million different ways, and that's virtually impossible to simulate in practice.

I agree your "net-drop" shot would be far more difficult to attempt during a rally when the ball travels at different speeds. However, occasionally players already attempt drop shots from back or mid-court, some times successfully, when their opponent is well back but such shots are intentionally played to just clear the net rather than attempt a high-risk drop shot to strike the top of the net and hopefully fall into their opponent's court.

I've again read through your other comments and, to save further forum space, rather than quote all of them and comment individually, I can't see how any of them relate to my initial post. In particular, the AFL analogy baffles me.

Just for the record I posted an earlier reply to this forum last night when I was tired and which may have been seen. Although I did preview the reply before posting it I quickly deleted it after not being happy with my wording.

Unfortunately my post didn't attract attention that I thought it might and I won't be responding further.

Cec

[lunababy_moonchild]

Before this goes any further, I'd just like to point out that the subject matter of this thread is Andy Murray/Wimbledon and ask that members confine their comments to this subject and not comment upon each other.

Andy Murray is now out of Wimbledon anyway, having played a somewhat lacklustre match against Marcos Baghdatis yesterday.

Luna

*spelling correction luster to lustre*

[udosuk]

Yeah, I decide to stop discussing about Cec's queries publicly... Obviously we have a lot of different opinions (and ways of interpreting things) and I'm happy enough that he addressed my points which I've made quite an effort to explain... Whether he agrees to or not doen't matter...

Bad luck for Andy Murray. I watched part of the match and he made some really fancy shots... But we Aussie are not unfamiliar with Baghdatis, with his amazing run in Melbourne earlier in the year (also his gorgeous girlfriend who seemed hadn't made it to London). Next he meets our Lleyton... Great match-up, great expectations!

If any consolation to the British citizens, you guys have the same number of 4th round singles (men+women) participants as USA (1), and the same number of quarter-final participants (0)... It's commented that the last time USA didn't have any representatives in the quarters was in 1911...

Well even China has a player in the quarters this time...

[lunababy_moonchild]

Ach, I know, failure is a habit with us British, that's why I commented on the fact that Andy Murray got into the fourth round at all - play that good from anybody British is very unsual!

Discussion here seem to concentrate on his mental/attitude rather than his game but he's young yet so we'll see if he gets a coach and a new attitude!

Luna