Latest Posts

Do Clay Courts Develop Line Calling Accuracy? Are You Sure? More Bad Line Calls Rummo Pasta Won Me Over (Tennis Sponsorship In Action) An Unappealing New USTA League Rule for 2026, Effectively Starting Now Train Like Alcaraz: Why Lateral Dumbbell Raises Should Be in Your Arsenal Tennis Beyond the Headlines: May 12, 2025 The Truth About Bad Line Calls: It’s Not Why You Lost

Losing a Point: Permanent Fixtures

If it seems like I have already written about this rule, it is because I actually have. In “Permanent Fixtures, Again” I wrote a lot about how the ball striking a permanent fixture is a point loss. There is good reason for that. It is because the section we were covering at that time basically says the exact same thing.

More on the Net-Cord Stroke

A mere two weeks after the stock market crash that heralded the start of the Great Depression, the Maryborough Chronicle in Australia carried an editorial on net cord strokes credited to the pseudonym “Court.” The author was strongly in favor of the net-cord shot being declared a let, though conceded that the majority of players preferred inaction on alteration of the rule.

The Net-Cord Stroke

This seems like a good time to inject a topic that is not in the ITF Rules of Tennis, but nevertheless is apparently debated from time to time. We have recently discussed the fact that if a service clips the net cord and falls in, then a let is played. On all other shots, a net-cord strike is basically tough luck. Once again… wait for it… we really don’t know why the distinction even exists.

Two Serves or Not Two Serves, That is the Question

In the “History of the Service Let” we discussed that there really isn’t a satisfactory reason recorded as to why the service let even exists. One speculative reason is that the rule is in place because the server already has too much of an advantage with two opportunities at first strike of the ball. This brings us to the obvious question as to why the server is granted two serves at all.