Talk:Tennis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tennis article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is part of the "Olympic events" set of articles nominated for Version 0.7. Discuss this nomination, or see the set nominations page for more details.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 -- beginning-Mar 9 07


Contents

[edit] Featured article

Featured article in other wikis (French and Esperanto) {{Link FA|fr}} {{Link FA|eo}}

I would suggest that the article be renamed Lawn Tennis as Tennis a general term and which, according to Merriam Webster, actually lists the first definition as Court Tennis (Real Tennis). Also the British organising authority is the Lawn Tennis Association. Typing Tennis should redirect to this article, which would be renamed Lawn Tennis. --Pokology (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

(I've archived the page, since none of the discussions appeared to be active.)

I added some picture that were available on Commons. I tried to find the most representative ones for each shot, and get a balance of men and women. I don't really like the forehand one, but there weren't too many there. Here are some others that I liked, feel free to change them up:

Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of pictures, why is the first one of Federer and Davydenko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skislope15 (talk • contribs) .

The first one is of Federer and Davydenko because it is one of the only pictures in Wikipedia or Commons(that we know of), that successfully shows how tennis is played and what it looks like. --DarkFalls talk 08:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article drive

We at WikiProject Tennis are starting a drive to improve this article to Featured status. We will soon assess the article against FA standards and provide notes for improvement. Let's show the Wikipedia community what we can do! Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional citations are needed for improvement, especially in history section. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 09:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

I was wondering at the verifiabilty of "Other rules of play used in American high school tennis" and the one after that. Seems to be an unverifiable sub-topic to be placed in the article? Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 05:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the info in the section deserves to be here, but maybe in a section called "alternate rules" or something. The stuff about Canadian/American/Australian doubles and wheelchair tennis could go there, too. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 06:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful players of the past

I've tagged this section for violation of WP:NPOV. Both "great" or "successful" are entirely subjective terms. As it sits now, it also places WP:Undue weight on pre-open era men's players. I'll allow that it's a good debate, but it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. There's really no way we can stop this from being a soapbox, other than completely removing the section. Parts of it (and one section in 'history') look more to be link farms to "my favorite player".

Anyway, let's discuss this and try to get a consensus before this turns into a revert war. --Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 07:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete non encyclopedic. Non of the other featured articles have this section. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 21:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic-if there's a tennis wiki, put it there, but not here Bluebrody7 03:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Having seen no objection here, I've struck the section. >Radiant< 13:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not violating NPOV to compare the documented opinions of others, as this section is doing. The great players of the sport are a huge part of the appeal and history of the game, and should be mentioned. I agree, though, that undue weight is given to pre-open era players. This is a section to be trimmed and correctly balanced, though - not deleted. Squeezing five contrived links to vaguely relevant WP guidance pages into one paragraph is not the same as justifying a point. Dybeck 15:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Opinion The section as it existed seemed to be more of a list of players (many without any references) than encyclopedic content, and as such doesn't really fit in with the article, although the The greatest male singles players of all time section came close. It also looks like you have several appropriate lists linked in the See Also section; if someone wanted to split this list into such an article or articles, that's where I would put the links. If that is done, be careful not to be redundant with the other lists there and to not violate the list content guidelines. Anomie 12:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A mention for great tennis players is appropriate for an article on tennis. A discourse debating whether a player who won all four majors in a year is better than one who won more majors in his career is not appropriate for this page. Create pages for "Greatest Male Tennis Player" and "Greatest Female Tennis Player" and let those pages hash out the details of "modern era", "pre-open era", and "best player during any single year". On the main tennis page, talk about the pre-open era and the open era in general terms (define what a Grand Slam is) and give a couple of links to get to the discussion on who's greatest. Robert.vandyk 03:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] history

Just wondering if the history section couldn't be expanded to include more about the middle ages and other early periods. I know that Shakespeare mentions tennis balls in Henry V, and that in the The Second Shepherds' Play the shepherds give Christ a tennis ball as a gift, so clearly tennis existed then, though in what form I don't know and am curious to find out if anyone knows. Wrad 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that... Be bold and add the information yourself, if you have a source. Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was just worried it might be trivia-like without more historical context behind it. If anyone does know more, please add. Wrad 22:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serving

Just wondering, can you jump before you serve? 68.157.129.237 19:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. According to rule 18 of the ITF Rules of Tennis 2007, one or both feet may be off the ground when the ball is served. --Runner5k 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succesful players

As suggested earlier on this talk page (including outside opinions), the section of "succesful players" is both original research and trivia, and most people don't want it here in the first place. User:Tennis expert keeps replacing it stating "there is no consensus to remove it". First, this is a misstatement of how Wikipedia works - original research is not kept pending a consensus to remove; and second, he doesn't WP:OWN this page. >Radiant< 08:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was a bit bold. I agree with removing them, but would have preferred to see some cross checking done against Category:Tennis players to be sure useful information isnt lost. Im sure we have most of this information in the lists like List of male tennis players and World number one male tennis player rankings (and hopefully there are female equivalents), but there were a few sources in the sections you removed. I think we should keep the text that User:Radiant! removed off the article for the moment, but some of it could go back with a bit of discussion here, if anyone is interested. John Vandenberg 08:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
You can see my opinion about this here: [1] Tennis expert 02:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have more clearly distinguished and renamed the factual Grand Slam winners section from the discussion on greatest player of all time. I have changed the tag to one that suggests the section, though based on quotes and polls, may be itself a piece of original research in pulling these sources together to form a hypothesis on who may be the greatest player. I am not saying that I think that the section is original research, but it is possibly debatable. SilkTork 22:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest the Greatest Male Players section should be moved to a seperate article about "professional tennis players" since this article is more about the game itself and not just the professional aspect of it? Serogi 05:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


The Synthesis tag on this section needs consideration. It alerts readers to the possibility that the section as it stands may be a selected synthesis of published material, and as such may reflect the views of the editors of Wiki rather than a balanced summary of world opinion. I would like to see at least an explanation of how the choices where arrived at before the tag is removed. A section like this needs to be above reproach as it borders on opinion.

I have again removed the introduction of this section as it contains weasel words. The wording is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, as it has a casual, chatty air about it. The section is already questionable; the introductory wording weakens the case for keeping the section. True or not, there is no need to tell the reader that people are having conversations about tennis. To make the point clearer, it would be like starting the whole article with the words "People often chat about the history of tennis, and the actual rules of the game. Some people get it right, though not everyone." It adds nothing to the facts about to be presented, and makes the article look rather foolish. SilkTork 15:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, perhaps tennis observers are foolish and chatty. Like it or not, the "greatest ever" question is a frequent subject of conversation and debate among tennis fans, tennis experts, and tennis media. This subject is integral, i.e., important, to the sport, probably for at least the last 80 years. If you would like a more "balanced summary" of the greatest ever discussion, feel free to add material with appropriate citations. Tennis expert 06:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I am still uncomfortable with this section. It reads like original research. The opening sentences are still there despite questions about them. I would prefer them to be removed as it weakens an already questionable section, but Tennis expert prefers them to remain. If the sentences are to remain some external source should be found to indicate that this is a serious point of debate other than casual chat in a pub. Indicate a credible source which indicates the frequency of the conversations. The rest of the section strongly suggests original research. Is there a reliable source which has the same overview as this section? SilkTork 15:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added a new article of Tennis week from 14.9.2007. The author gives an good overview about the question and its history. His model of statistical analysis is debatable, but its in my view the best source for the whole question. Maybe on should write the opening lines of the section in another form (referring to different circumstances, equipment,amatuer-pro split etc.), to make more clear the speculative element in the whole question. (german friend, 14.7.2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.188.255 (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to write some introducing remarks about the speculative nature of the goat discussion, regarding the dramatical changes in tennis history and the poor official record-keeping. It was deleted by someone called rachel as "good points but, unnecessary". I don't know why. I wanted to give a history of goat rankings from the 50s to 2007, from leading experts Allison Danzig to Bud Collins, with citing all the important polls and expert rankings. But if there is no real interest in tennis history here and some will delete these sourced informations, i'll better let it be.(german friend 21.9.2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.189.19 (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let description

The description of a let includes the sentence "Usually, there is no instance of where there are more than one let service."

It might be me being daft, but what is this trying to say? It doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Jsutherland 15:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What this is trying to say to you: Yes, lets can be made, but it never happens more than once and/or. In other words, they're trying to explain to you that another let usually doesn't happen after one let.
66.174.93.102 15:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this piece really necessary? Que? 16:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Where is that part? -- #29 (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

I am trying to add a criticisms section explaining that tennis is often criticised for being a boring sport. This keeps getting deleted.

I'm not a Wikipedia expert, but I'm guessing you'd need some kind of source. I could criticize it for using such a bright color for tennis balls, but it would need to be a documented, somewhat mainstream idea to be worthy of an encyclopedia. --Hjkelly 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


I believe that the serve provides too much of an advantage for players. Players like Roddick have such an advantage over other players. I think the game could be made more interesting maybe if players were only allowed one serve rather than two. This could force players to reduce the power on their serve and force a rally to be played. Any other suggestions or comments?

This discussion is irrelevant to the 'pedia, but one of the Grand Old Men Of Tennis (possibly McEnroe) has suggested that tossing the ball for service and failing to hit it (a la Dementieva, among others) should be a fault. "You threw it up, you should have to hit it", he said. El Ingles 14:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Left-hand advantage?

During Roland-Garros, there was discussion about Nadal's "fake left-handedness". The story was that he's a natural right-hander, but his coach made him play left-handed because of some advantage southpaws are supposed to have. I can't think why, in a laterally-symetrical system such as a tennis court, there would be any advantage. If there is, a paragraph about that would be a good addition to this article. El Ingles 16:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading something about how a coach made someone play ambidextrously (which I presume is the advantage)... but I remember it was about Maria Sharapova though... --Dark Falls talk 09:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe the advantage is that your backhand (which is usually the weaker) is still your dominant hand, so it's a lot more natural, especially for one-handed backhands. Maria Sharapova is a good example, as her dad/coach made her switch when she was younger, and now she can switch hands in the middle of a point, rather than having to do a two-handed backhand (which has less of a reach, and usually less power). --Hjkelly 10:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)



Okay, I'll clear up the "lefty advantage". This is assuming the players in question are fairly skilled, as this is where the advantage really starts to show. These are applicable in lower levels, but not as drastically. This may be extremely long winded, as I often ramble about tennis. So, knowing this, I bolded the main advantages. Also, I refer to rightys as the opponent the lefty is facing.

There are several advantages left-handed players hold over right-handed players:

A lefty has the opposite spin on his serves/groundstrokes. When a right handed player hits a slice serve, it will curve to the left. When a lefty hits the shot? You guessed it, it curves to the right. This throws off the righty because: -Its the opposite of the normal spin rightys see. This throws them out of their comfort zone. -The lefty spin curves into the opposite player's backhand, (assuming he is a righty) which is often a player's weaker groundstroke.

Leftys have their forehands and backhands on opposite sides compared to rightys. This has several advantages within itself. -Leftys have what is often a player's highest percentage groundstroke (the forehand) on the opposite side rightys do. This means their forehands can pick on the right handed player's backhand easily, forcing an error. Rightys can do the same to leftys, as their forehand lines up with their backhands. However, this is not as much as an advantage as leftys have on this matter, as rightys often place shots to the lefty's FOREHAND, going by memory to where the opponents backhand (often weaker groundstroke, remember?) often is. (If they are a righty.) -Leftys serve facing the opposite direction rightys face, which can make a large difference outdoors. When players are serving outside, their service is often hindered by the sun's placement (if it is near their toss). If leftys are facing the opposite direction righty's do? They don't have the sun in their eyes, taking away that aspect.

Leftys force rightys out of their "safe zone". Leftys force rightys to play a different game, due to their other advantages. This is a key factor to victory for the lefty. -Tennis is a game of muscle memory and perfection. Top players spend hours drilling their shots and learning which shot to hit in certain situations. When a lefty comes around, the actual differences in the game often cause a player to make many unforced errors, forfeitting points. Also, since leftys have opposite shots, this causes rightys to have to mirror their strategies to have the desired effects that they have on rightys. -Tennis is also 75% mental, 25% physical. If a player knows these advantages over the lefty, and these advantages "get in his head", it will destroy his game for the match, often causing undesired results for the player.

Basically, the lefty has all of these advantages without doing any extra work. But, this can backfire on the lefty. -Leftys can begin to rely on these natural advantages, and may have no clue what to do when a player is unaffected by them. -Leftys are used to playing rightys. When leftys play leftys, they fall victim to their own advantages.


So, Leftys have: + Opposite spin + Opposite location of shots + Mental advantage - Possible overreiliance. (The advantages overweigh the disadvantages by a lot)


On the issue of Nadal's unnatural lefthandedness? Nadal is an exception. Anyone who has played tennis can tell you how difficult it is to play lefty. Its almost like writing lefty: all the muscles and muscle memory that you have writing righty are gone. Since he has been playing lefty from an early age, he has cleared these away, and can play exceptionally. Due to his right hand dominance, his backhand became a weapon because it is guided by his dominant hand. His forehand is also a weapon due to the increased training of his off hand.

Basically, Nadal now has the advantages a lefty has, along with a killer backhand, but most people cannot make the switch, or if they do, their forehands are much, much weaker than their backhands.


Thanks for reading, I'd love to add a more refined version of this to the article.

TheSui (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, I think it's interesting. --El Ingles (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tie-Breaker

In the scoring section it says that the tie-breaker is not played at Wimbledon but I am watching a match right now (at Wimbledon) where they used the tie-breaker. Que? 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The scoring section only says that a tie-breaker is not played in the final set at Wimbledon (3rd set for women, 5th set for men). A tie-breaker can be played in all other sets. --Runner5k 18:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In the Tennis rules article on the history of the tie break(see final sentence in article) it says that Wimbledon allows tie breaks also in the final set (or at least, that's how I interpreted the sentence). Which is correct? Edit: there is no tie break in final set. Rules article should be edited. Nilenico 16:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As there are fewer left handed players in the game they do have the advantage of being able to serve out wide to the right handers' generally weaker shot the backhand on the advantage side.

[edit] Difference

What is the difference between an ace and an unreturned serve?

An ace goes past an opponent without being touched. An unreturned serve happens when the opponent manages to hit the ball in some way, but the return lands out of bounds. AffirmationChick 16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martina Navratilova/Navrátilová

What is the correct form (in English), and if the accents are not always included, should they be?

[edit] Tennis on TV, anyone?

I have some knowledge of the technical aspects of TV coverage and I'm willing to write it up if there's support for the idea here. It would cover:

  • Camera positions
  • Advent of the lightweight camera, able to follow the ball in close-up during play
  • Slo-mo replays
  • Use of Shot-spot and Hawkeye well ahead of their official use
  • Statistics tracking
  • Different styles of commentary, Commercial TV vs. Public Service TV
  • Experiments with graphics
  • Capturing off-hand comments by players and umpires

El Ingles 13:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an excellent idea, although I would recommend a change of name to Tennis culture if there is a lack of available information. Otherwise, Tennis on TV or Tennis in Media are excellent, remembering that all information needs to be cited. --Dark Falls talk 10:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help please

who won the 2002 los angeles women's open? have been searching the net for hours and can't seem to find it

Waspii 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)waspiiWaspii 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Picture

The picture main/first picture is missing. Please add one.Bdodo1992 21:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear origins need clarifying

Both this article and the 'History of Tennis' one are vague about the origins of lawn tennis. Both state that two sets of people developed similar games, but are silent on how they differed and how the two came to be merged. I think we should be told! APW (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Officials Subheadings

I removed Match Play and Juniors from the Officials heading, spun off into their own headings. I didn't think either really fit under Officials, and assumed this was just a formatting error made at some point along the way. Any objections feel free to change back, discuss reasoning here.--Greenguy1090 (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] coaching violations

I'm trying to get information about "coaching violations". So far as I can tell, tennis is the only sport in the world that says a player and their coach can't communicate...which, to be perfectly honest, is bizarre. Does anyone know what the history of this is? 70.20.169.235 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] reverse singles

can you tell me what is the difference between singles and reverse singles.--Wisdombug (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the answer is this: in Davis Cup competition, assume country A and B offer players A1 and A2, and B1 and B2, to play singles against the other country. In the first match:
A1 plays B1, and i think
A2 plays B2.
Then, in "reverse singles", they reverse the two matchups, so that:
A1 plays B2, and
B1 plays A2.
Bo99 (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis Ball felt color

If a tennis ball is not yellow then that means it is not a regulation tennis ball. This should be included in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumstring (talk • contribs) 03:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Switching

Maybe I missed it, but the article needs to point out the rule for switching ends after odd-numbered games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.23.184 (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)