(2000) “New Balls Please”: Tennis, technology, and thechanging game

Miah, A. (2000) New Balls Please: Tennis, technology, and the changing game. In S. Haake and A.O. Coe Tennis, Science, and Technology. London: Blackwell Science, pp.285-292.

“New Balls Please”: Tennis, technology, and the changing game Andy Miah School of Physical Education, Sport & Leisure, De Montfort University, UK.

ABSTRACT: The decision of the International Tennis Federation (July, 1999) to approve trials of different ball types represented a clear admission of the need for tennis to adapt to the enhanced competence of elite athletes. However, such action brings into question to what extent tennis is evolving beyond its modern appearance and how far such change is desirable. Over the last 30 years, advanced technology and athletic capability has resulted in male players having outgrown the structure of the game, which can be seen as having promoted the ITF’s reaction. The need to ensure that tennis remains a challenging game for players at all levels and an exciting game for spectators appears to reflect an interest and concern for the practicecommunity of the sport. However, it is problematic to conclude that such changes are in the interests of all concerned. This article argues that any such changes to the structure of the game must be preceded with some admission about what future is sought for tennis and thus, where limits might be drawn on the changes made within the game. Furthermore, it is recognised that by invoking the ‘new balls’ proposal, a clear statement is made about what aspects of the game are considered worthy to preserve or not. This article addresses the implications of technological change for tennis, identifying upon what basis such change should take place to ensure a credible future for tennis.

INTRODUCTION On 12 July 1999, the International Tennis Federation (ITF) announced proposals to introduce two new kinds of tennis ball to tournament level tennis on an experimental basis. The new balls have been designed as a result of a decade’s debate about men’s tennis and how it has become increasingly boring for spectators due to the power of the athletes. This effect, it is argued, underplays the more charismatic aspects of tennis, such as the long rallies (Arthur, 1992; Bierley, 1998). Scientific research has demonstrated that, with the new kinds of ball proposed by the ITF, it is possible to alter the pace of the game on non-hard court surfaces (i.e. grass, clay, indoor grass), primarily from the point of view of the service receive. As is outlined in the ITF announcement in This Week (1999, July 12), (1) New Ball Type 1 is a faster ball for use on slow surfaces such as clay. These balls will be harder and lower bouncing than standard tennis balls.

(2) Ball Type 2 will be used on medium paced surfaces such as hard courts and will be made to existing specifications.

285

Miah, A. (2000) New Balls Please: Tennis, technology, and the changing game. In S. Haake and A.O. Coe Tennis, Science, and Technology. London: Blackwell Science, pp.285-292.

(3) New Ball Type 3 is a slow pace ball for use on fast surfaces such as grass and some indoor carpets. Type 3 Balls will be about 8% larger in diameter than standard balls.

(ITF, 1999) From the introduction of new ball Type 3 it is intended that there will be a slight, though significant, reduction in the speed of a serve, thus allowing the receiving player more time to react to the ball. Presently, service speeds are reaching in excess of 140 mph, which is argued as approaching the limit of human reaction time for the receiving player (Coe, cited in Cislunar Aerospace, 1999). Consequently, if serves start to tend beyond this limit, then the elite game will become merely a serving competition since no player will be able to return a serve. As such, it is argued by the ITF that something must be changed within tennis to try to reduce the dominance of the serve and prevent a future for tennis that could comprise of only serving.

Deciding to introduce new balls is but one of numerous proposals that had been made to combat this dominant-serve effect, such as going back to wooden racquets or making the service box narrower (Gray, 1999).

Despite these other proposals, the decision to alter the tennis ball has been chosen to curtail the serve of the male tennis player. This decision is remarkable for numerous reasons. Firstly, the decision reflects the responsibilities of governing bodies to define what shall be considered as the nature of a sport and how it is played on a global scale. Furthermore, the willingness of the ITF to make a change to the rules of tennis sets a pioneering decision for governing bodies of sport around the world. Recognising that tennis is a dynamic enterprise comprising uncontrollable factors that do influence the ‘balance’ of competition is to the credit of the ITF, where in some sports, tradition and a reluctance for change might well be suffocating the flourishing of a sport. Indeed, this characteristic is typical of the ITF in their interest to address the impact of tennis racquet technology over the last 30 years. Secondly, the ITF’s decision is remarkable for what it means historically for tennis and what it means for the future of this changing game. In contrast to the technological development of racquet technology that has resulted from a player’s interest to enhance performance, the ‘new balls’ proposal intends to circumvent performance enhancement and individual choice. Indeed, it might be argued that the proposal hopes to reduce the capabilities of an athletic to perform well. As such, the proposal is explicit in stating that the capabilities of athletes are surpassing the limits of tennis to its detriment.

This paper will address the ITF’s ‘new balls’ proposal by investigating these two kinds of implications and articulating the implications of change more generally.

Throughout these analyses, it is important to recognise that, implicitly, they deal with the justifications given by the ITF for making such changes and are thus, directed specifically at the ITF’s decision to experiment with new tennis balls. However, the ideas are also more generally interested to identify concerns about technological change in sport and will thus draw upon examples of technology in other sports to inform the appropriateness of the present proposals in tennis. It will be noticeable by its absence that the paper does not articulate what might be given as suitable justifications for introducing change in the structure of tennis. Such a task would extend beyond the limitations of this paper. Rather, the current thesis intends to provide an argument for the need to reconsider what is valuable in tennis.

286

Miah, A. (2000) New Balls Please: Tennis, technology, and the changing game. In S. Haake and A.O. Coe Tennis, Science, and Technology. London: Blackwell Science, pp.285-292.

WHAT IS VALUED IN TENNIS? In explaining the ‘new balls’ proposal, the ITF claims to be acting so as to “preserve the nature of the game” (Coe, cited in Cislunar Aerospace, 1999). Yet, it seems uncertain how the ITF can make such claims about the nature of tennis given that what is regarded as valuable within a sport is a function of one’s relationship with the particular sport in mind. For example, one might assert the interest of the media to ensure a version of tennis that is exciting or interesting for spectators to watch.

Indeed, one might even assert the interests of tennis upon such a premise, given that for tennis to thrive it requires some degree of media exposure and the sponsorship such exposure generates (Gelberg, 1998). This very argument is evident from the ITF’s decision to alter tennis and is reflective of the opinion in recent popular press (Arthur, 1992; Bierley, 1998; Blake, 1996). However, it is certainly not the case that such aspirations speak for other parties, such as players, referees, or, indeed, spectators. Nor is it clear that tennis will benefit from such decisions. As such, it is necessary to consider in what sense the term ‘benefit’ is appropriate. This point is recognised by Kew (1987), where it is discussed how rules and laws are altered within games. Kew identifies how power is distributed within an institution or governing body and the effect of this on how change occurs. If, as might be said of tennis, the authority to alter how a sport is played is determined largely by the legislating governing body, then it cannot be claimed by the governing body that it is able to know what is valuable to a sport. This is not to say that its claims are necessarily wrong. Rather, it is to argue that, unless there is the possibility for other parties to be represented in the decision making process, then such change can, at best, only be an approximation of the interests of these other parties.

A similar assertion is made by Morgan (1994) where he argues that decisions about reforming sports on the basis of, for example, a market rationality will inevitably be to the detriment of a sport. Indeed, the very suggestion that such external concerns as media exposure are of value can be some guide to identifying how much a sport might be in danger of jeopardising its internal goods. Moreover, Morgan advocates that, “all substantive policy matters regarding the conduct and reform of sport be turned over to practice-communities” to ensure that any such reform is for the benefit of the sport (Morgan, 1994, p.237). Morgan argues that it is the practice-community that should be the primary determinants of change in sports, since it is the community who will seek solely to maximise the internal goods of the competition without consideration of external interests such as financial benefits.

That an interest in such external goods is reflective of the present issue is implicated by the comments of the ITF. As Andrew Coe, Head of the ITF Technical Commission states, the new larger ball (Type 3) will “reduce the dominance of the serve, which will make tennis more attractive to spectators. It will also offer greater visibility – both for the players on-court and for television viewers” (ITF, 1999).

Clearly, it seems important for governing bodies to ensure media exposure that will generate sufficient sponsorship for the sport. However, this need not imply that simply because such sponsorship might be in jeopardy, that this is a reasonable basis for advocating change. In making such a statement, the ITF must justify why it is that the interests of the media are the primary concern rather than, perhaps, simply ensuring good competition. In so doing, Morgan suggests, governing bodies must ensure that the practice-community is in a position to articulate its interests in a way

287

Miah, A. (2000) New Balls Please: Tennis, technology, and the changing game. In S. Haake and A.O. Coe Tennis, Science, and Technology. London: Blackwell Science, pp.285-292.

that will convey influence. As Morgan states, the challenge is to “turn differends into litigations” to change disputes where parties are victimised by not being able to make their case, into litigation where “both parties agree on how to phrase the issues that led to the dispute as well as the means for resolving them” (Morgan, 1994, p.238).

Whilst one might accept the need for change, it is necessary to precede changes by first formulating ideas about what kind of game is sought. Why, for example, is it argued by the ITF (Gray, 1999) as a benefit that the new balls would make tennis an easier sport to play? Surely this might also be seen as effectively devaluing the excellence required of an athlete to be proficient in the game and thus, devaluing tennis. In the context of the new specifications in ball design, the ITF does not seem to have embraced discussion between parties of different interests within tennis so as to establish what is important. As such, it does not seem reasonable for the ITF to claim it is in a reasonable position to decide what kind of practice is of interest and thus, what kind of changes (if any) ought to be made to address the dominant serve problem. This is not to say that the decision to introduce new balls to combat the power serve is necessarily a bad one. Rather, it is to recognise that the process by which the decision has been made and the prima facie reasons given to justify this choice might be misguided if the practice of tennis is, indeed, the primary concern.

WHAT FUTURE FOR TENNIS? Asserting a particular kind of ideal about tennis as being valuable to preserve commits one to prioritising that particular kind of game over other, equally valid ideals.

Integral of the ‘new balls’ proposal is an interest to equalise various differences that occur among different kinds of court surface. Thus, new ball Type 1 will hope to speed up such surfaces as clay, whereas ball Type 3 will slow down surfaces such as grass. Yet, it is not at all clear why this is regarded as valuable. Such aspirations will render tennis impoverished of the creativity and variety that it presently has by there being different kinds of surface upon which different kinds of athletes can excel.

Consequently, making things too equal might be a problem insofar as it creates uninteresting parity among playing styles in tennis. Whilst the aspirations of the proposal are to equalise the conditions of play and gain a true portrayal of who is the best tennis player, there might be more value in sustaining the differences and simply having a variety of best players on different surfaces. Arguably, variation in surface type is part of the excitement in tennis and is to be cherished rather than removed.

Alternatively, Andrew Coe states that “Tennis is about having rallies” (Chaudhary, 1999, p.9). Yet, it is unclear exactly how prescriptive this statement intends to be. Coe acknowledges that there are limitations to this ideal and that too many rallies can cause problems as well as can too few. However, the very basis of this concern would seem necessary to articulate in order to justify the valuing of rally games over serving games. It would be misleading to assume that this essence is at all static and the ITF does seem to be sensitive to this given that it is recognised how tennis must move with these changing times (Gray, 1999). By identifying what kind of values are purported by the asserting of any specific aspects of tennis as valuable, a more in-depth articulation of the kind of game tennis should be would enable a greater understanding of how the future of tennis should look. Thus, if it is argued that tennis should be about establishing the best serve, then it must be argued why it is that this particular kind of performance is the priority.

288

Miah, A. (2000) New Balls Please: Tennis, technology, and the changing game. In S. Haake and A.O. Coe Tennis, Science, and Technology. London: Blackwell Science, pp.285-292.

Supposing that it is clear what kind of game might be worthwhile to preserve, it remains to be understood what could result from implementing change in tennis.

Consequently, the remainder of this paper will articulate some considerations about the effect of changing technology in sport.

PRIORITISING PERFORMANCE OVER PERFORMANCES Perhaps most significant about change in sport is that any such action can dictate the future of that sport in a way that makes difficult any possibility for reversing such changes. Thus, if tennis is altered on the basis of wanting to preserve some notion of its ideal, such as the rally game, then upon making such a change, it becomes difficult to reappraise such a change. Perhaps most illustrative of this effect is the evolution of the tennis racquet. Fundamentally, tennis racquet technology has been developed to enable a legitimate performance enhancement for athletes. Yet, the rationality of performance enhancement by such means cannot be seen as valuable in itself.

Furthermore, its prioritising can have serious implications for what options are available to tennis. Indeed, one might argue that the current predicament facing tennis is partly the consequence of the lack of constraints that had been placed on racquet technology. Had the rationality of performance enhancement been questioned prior to the development of modern racquets, then the dominance of the serve might currently have posed less of a problem.

That the ‘new balls’ proposal seems merely to lessen the impact of the serve does not seem to challenge this dominant thesis about performance enhancement sufficiently. As such, it would seem that embracing the changes suggested by the ITF merely postpones a further inevitability: that athletes will learn to adapt to these new kinds of balls and, eventually, learn to outplay their constraints. Consequently, presuming a similar rationality as the present circumstances, tennis would then be forced to consider, again, altering other components of tennis to remove the recurrent dominant serve problem. Problematic of this is that if tennis is to continue embracing such changes, then it might find itself on a very slippery slope to a kind of game that is only vaguely memorable as the game of tennis.

A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO TECHNO-TENNIS? Embracing changes to the constitution of any sport has the potential to bring about an accumulation of changes over a period of time, the end result of which might have been wholly undesirable if it had been known at the beginning of these changes. This is not necessarily to conceive of things as being a slippery slope whereby allowing one kind of alteration (such as new balls), will necessarily render the implementation of further changes to the game of tennis. Rather, it is to recognise the potential for minor alterations to the rules of a game to bring about a major change in the way a game is played. Thus, if seemingly minor changes are made to tennis, such as the proposed alterations to the tennis ball, then an accumulation of such changes could yield a form of tennis that challenges the ideal upon which these changes are based.

Tennis has already seen the transformation of the tennis racquet and the enhanced athleticism of elite athletes. The current proposal to alter tennis balls begs the question at what point tennis will become unrecognisable because of such changes. It seems probable that players will learn to adapt to the new balls and continue to increase their serving speeds. As such, it must be addressed what will be the strategy

289

Miah, A. (2000) New Balls Please: Tennis, technology, and the changing game. In S. Haake and A.O. Coe Tennis, Science, and Technology. London: Blackwell Science, pp.285-292.

if such circumstances transpire. Perhaps ball sizes will get bigger and bigger until tennis is played with balls the size of a volleyball in the name of some ideal game that is being preserved. Alternatively (and more likely), the ITF might conclude that, in fact, the size of a tennis ball is also an essential character of tennis – the very characteristic that is being changed in the current proposal. To reiterate, it is problematic of this continuous reappraisal and change that it can lead to a sport that is only vaguely identifiable as current versions of tennis. Furthermore, it is possible that if some future version of tennis were to have been posited as the end result of all such, seemingly small, changes, then it might not have been chosen at all. As such, the ITF must account for the possibility that increasing ball sizes might simply delay the inevitable and must thus, question the ends of such changes. An accumulation of changes, potentially, permits an anything-goes climate for change in tennis.

Consequently, it becomes problematic to argue anything as being essential to tennis, which is the critical justification given by the ITF for introducing new balls.

Such determinism might seem improbable of tennis, where decisions about change are neither made too frequently nor all too willingly. Furthermore, the current thesis might appear somewhat traditionalistic in as much as it appears to be rejecting change in favour of inaction that preserves the original form of any sport as if it is timelessly applicable. However, this is most certainly not the case. Rather, this paper questions the reasons given by the ITF in asserting the essence of tennis that it seeks to preserve. Its one question may be summarised thus: If tennis embraces change, then is it also possible to have any sense of essential values that transcends all changes to its structure? It is suggested here that such change is not possible and that, in asserting what is the true nature of tennis, the ITF might find itself simply romanticising what it regards as essential. Moreover, in producing the new balls proposal, the ITF might neither reflect the values of the contingent majority, nor what is independently valuable about the game of tennis.

ANYONE FOR ‘NEW’ TENNIS? In addition to difficulties raised by identifying what kind of game is sought, it is important to recognise that change in sports inevitably projects new circumstances and the values they sustain onto future participants. Thus, if new balls become accepted into the formal rules of tennis, then players of the next generation must train with such balls if they hope to reach their optimum level of performance. The significance of this may be understood by considering the tennis racquet and how its specifications have altered present day tennis. Whilst it might be argued that alterations to the tennis racquet (from wooden to the latest composite) accounts for only 4% of the difference in service speed (Gray, 1999), it seem reasonable to suggest that tennis has changed substantially as a result of new technology in racquet design.

The wooden racquets of yesteryear weighed nearly double the latest titanium racquets, with Head’s T1.S6 weighing in at a mere 8.5 ounces unstrung. Furthermore, contemporary racquets are far stronger than previous designs, which has had an influence on player’s ability to improve aspects of his/her game, whether it is ground strokes or service speed. Thus, the technological development of the tennis racquet can be said to have had an irreversible effect upon the way in which tennis is played.

Indeed, to some extent one might attribute the ITF’s ‘new balls’ proposal as having being provoked by the way in which tennis racquet technology has influenced the game. It is important to learn from this that any subsequent alteration (such as new

290

Miah, A. (2000) New Balls Please: Tennis, technology, and the changing game. In S. Haake and A.O. Coe Tennis, Science, and Technology. London: Blackwell Science, pp.285-292.

balls) will also have an impact on the future playability of tennis. Furthermore, future players inherit the rationality underpinning any alteration in tennis. For example, where the modern racquet has instilled an interest to seek performance enhancement through technological alterations to equipment, the ‘new balls’ proposal will instil its own values upon the next generation about what is important for tennis. As such, in making a decision that will alter the future of tennis, it is important to consider what will be left for future generations of athletes in providing some possibility of reverting any such change that might not fit with the values of future generations.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES The significance of unintended consequences is addressed in depth by Tenner (1996), where it is recognised that technology has a tendency to effect change beyond that which was its purpose. In the context of sport, Tenner identifies that endeavouring to provide greater safety the result can be a trade off against a degree of risk that could be argued as constitutive of that sport. For example, the proliferation of new innovations in climbing and mountaineering has provoked a perception of there being much greater safety whilst climbing. Such technologies as Global Positioning Systems has allowing increased certainty of location. However, such ‘benefits’ can also be argued as detracting from the experience of climbing since climbing is partly about mastering risk in extreme conditions (Miah, 2000). Moreover, that such security is, perhaps, only a perception can have the effect of complacency in dangerous climates.

Perhaps the most probable unintended consequence of the ‘new balls’ proposal will be a change in the hierarchy of tennis players in the elite, men’s game. Thus, in a similar way to how the Németh javelin brought success for the more technically proficient thrower to the prejudice of the power throwers, it could be argued that the more capable ground stroke player will surpass the big hitting server. Indeed, one might even make this same point with reference to how new racquet technology provoked a new emphasis on power, which allowed younger players to adapt and become better than the senior players who were used to older, heavier racquets (Galenson, 1993). Again, this begs the question as to whether such change is fair to athletes and calls for a justification of why the big hitting server, who has spent years developing his serve throughout his career, should be prejudiced by such change.

CONCLUSION This paper does not wish to suggest that the ITF is mistaken in its decision to experiment with new balls in tennis, far from it. That the ITF recognises the need for an experimental period is evidence of its willingness to reflect upon the impact of change in tennis. Furthermore, that altering the balls within tennis has been a strong proposal for the past decade is testament to the degree of consideration that the proposal has received.

The arguments herein intend to provide some framework for reflecting upon the very consequences of this experimental period that might be useful to guide discussions about the appropriateness of change in tennis. The present thesis does not wish to allow a situation to arise where tennis consists only of serving. However, to justify this perspective on the basis that it would make tennis more interesting to

291

Miah, A. (2000) New Balls Please: Tennis, technology, and the changing game. In S. Haake and A.O. Coe Tennis, Science, and Technology. London: Blackwell Science, pp.285-292.

watch, or that it would make tennis easier to learn, does not seem a reasonable position to adopt.

It is paramount that governing bodies are clear about what kinds of experiences are being prioritised when implementing new technology that seeks to alter specific aspects of the game. It cannot be assumed that seemingly inconsequential innovations have little or no effect upon the tennis experience as it has been shown how such innovations do not exist in isolation - it is necessary to recognise each of the altering technologies that combine to change tennis significantly. Historically, tennis has been a game requiring perseverance and determination to do well and by making the game easier it would seem to devalue this technical pursuit. By opting to use various technologies, the ITF is choosing a particular kind of tennis experience over another and might even be infringing upon the experience of another tennis player’s experience. Consequently, such decisions would do well to involve the entire practice-community within tennis and must be clear about what kind of game is preserved by such change.

REFERENCES Arthur, C. (1992, May 2) Anyone for slower tennis? New Scientist, 234, 24.

Bierley, S. (1998, June 29) Tennis: A game in search of a savoir. The Guardian, 6.

Blake, A. (1996) The Body Language: The Meaning of Modern Sport. Lawrence and Wishart, London.

Chaudhary, V. (1999, June 26) Tennis stars set for revolt over ball change plans. The Guardian, 9.

Cislunar Aerospace. (1999) Technology and Tennis - The Balancing Act. Aerodynamics in Sports T e c h n o l o g y , Hypertext Document: http://wings.ucdavis.edu/Tennis/Features/coe-01.html [Accessed: February 2000].

Galenson, D. W. (1993) The Impact of Economic & Technological Change on the Careers of American Men Tennis Players. Journal of Sport History, 20(2), 127150.

Gelberg, J. N. (1998) Tradition, Talent and Technology: The Ambiguous Relationship between Sports and Innovation. In: Design for Sport (Ed. by A. Busch), pp. 88110. Thames and Hudson, London.

Gray, B. (1999, October) Bigger, but Better? Tennis, 12-14.

International Tennis Federation. (1999, July 12) ITF AGM Adopts tennis ball rule change. This Week: The News Bulletin of the ITF, Hypertext Document: http://www.itftennis.com/html/new/this_week/archive/1999o7/12th/newballrule.html [Accessed: 11 July, 1999].

Kew, F. (1987) Contested Rules: An explanation of how games change. International Review for Sociology of Sport, 22(2), 125-135.

Miah, A. (2000) Climbing Upwards of Climbing Backwards? The Technological Metamorphoses of Climbing and Mountaineering. In: The Science of Climbing and Mountaineering [CD-ROM]. (Ed. by N. Messenger, W. Patterson, & D. Brook), Human Kinetics, London.

Morgan, W. J. (1994) Leftist Theories of Sport: A Critique and Reconstruction.

University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Tenner, E. (1996) Why Things Bite Back: Predicting the Problems of Progress.

Fourth Estate, London.

292