An engineer overthinks tennis in a daily journal.
In 2020, this site published “NTRP Horror Story: When the Carrot becomes a Stick.” That post was my own personal account about abhorrent player behavior in a USTA League match. A the time, I made the assertion that the incentives attached to the NTRP system were a contributing factor in the unsportsmanlike conduct. Today I have a tiny coda to that saga.
A shockingly high number of tennis players can’t articulate the difference between the USTA and Universal Tennis. In fact, Universal Tennis sometimes doesn’t even ring a bell for players. Most tennis players have heard of the the Universal Tennis Rating (UTR) system and use that acronym as a stand in for Universal Tennis. For the sake of simplicity, I sometimes refer to Universal Tennis as UTR. When in Rome.
Remember that time when Andy Murray couldn’t keep his balls in his shorts? In 2012, there was an issue with Murray’s clothing that resulted in tennis balls accidentally falling out of his pocket during points. The recurring hindrance calls forced Adidas to make a mid-tournament update to his shorts to address his issues. It is an interesting case study in a hindrance caused by something that is within a player’s control yet still unintentional.
1 response
In 2020, this site launched into coverage of the hindrance rule in tennis with the post “Hindrance in Tennis: A Conceptual Description.” As it turns out, hindrance is one of the more subjective and controversial items encoded in the ITF Rules of Tennis as published within the USTA Friend at Court.
Fiend At Court spent a virtual six weeks with Dennis Ralston in 2020. To be more precise, this site spent six weeks on a structured improvement program inspired and derived from Six Weeks to a Better Level of Tennis, a book he authored with Barry Tarshis. Unfortunately, Ralston passed away last month following a long battle with cancer. Revisiting the Fiend at Court “Six Weeks” project became compulsory with his passing.
There are no rules specific to the control of infectious disease in the 2020 ITF Rules of Tennis. The same can be said for the USTA Friend at Court. That is not a surprise because when both of those publications were released last year, COVID-19 was not yet a major concern. As a result, COVID-19 has the distinction of being the first content on this site that was completely unrelated to the ITF Rules of Tennis.
When I first embarked on the project manifested by the Fiend at Court site, I would have asserted that I have little personal interest in the early history of international and professional tennis. The first appearances of early tennis stars in what was published was in the context of newspaper articles summarizing proposed changes to the ITF Rules of Tennis of their time. I am embarrassed to say, that some names that I did not initially recognize are now turning up repeatedly in the tennis books of their era.
The method of deciding the choice of ends and server was a detail that brought me to a full stop during last year’s march through the ITF Rules of Tennis. I was surprised that a particular method of deciding the choice is codified directly into the rules.
The choice of ends and the choice to be server or receiver in the first game shall be decided by toss before the warm-up starts.
Modern tennis fans might be surprised to learn that providing on court chairs for the players during professional tennis matches is a relatively recent development. The fact that on court chairs were introduced at Wimbledon in 1974 was mentioned as a casual aside in conjunction with a post on some proposed rule changes in 1994. In retrospect, it was worthy of a separate post.
1994 was a profoundly important year for Coco Gauff. It is an odd claim to stake for a player that wasn’t born until 2004. The events that unfolded in Women’s professional tennis in 1994 triggered a cavalcade of commissions and panels to study the long term effects on the lives of girls who played on the professional tennis tour while still in their early teens.