Bigger Balls - PopSci Investigates Tennis
There’s a lot more to policing tennis technology than you think
The science of tennis:
In case you haven’t noticed, tennis balls are getting bigger. The theory is that bigger balls result in a slower game, which in turn makes for a better television spectacle. The idea was first floated a few years ago as big servers and big hitters began dominating the pro circuit. This, coupled with growing competition from other sports and a sheer increase in the number of available channels, convinced the game’s powerbrokers to act before any decline in the sport’s popularity took hold.
After an 18-month trial, the International Tennis Federation opted to sanction four types of balls. This saw the introduction of the ‘Type 3’; a ball usually reserved for high-altitude matches played more than 1,219 metres above sea level and measuring around seven per cent bigger than the others.
While increasing ball size does not sound as dramatic as increasing the height of basketball rings to make it harder for NBA players to dunk, or as ridiculous as increasing goal size to make soccer more attractive to American audiences – it was the first time official specifications had changed since 1966 when standard ball diameters were 2.575 to 2.675 inches. Now, diameters can measure between 2.575 inches and 2.700 inches, with the exception of the ‘Type 3’ (2.750 to 2.875 inches).
While slowing the game remains one of the chief concerns of the International Tennis Federation, their Technical Centre’s current experiments are quite intriguing. With an estimated million dollars’ worth of equipment at its disposal, the Technical Centre has an in-house ball-testing lab and sound-proofed wind tunnel room.
4 Comments
To comment, please Login.
Popular Tags
SciTech
Regular Features
Featured
SciTech
Science Confirms the Obvious 2008
The findings may be no-brainers (yes, you do get sick in winter), but these studies uncover hidden truths in conventional wisdomBuilding the Real Iron Man
While audiences flood theaters this month to see the comic-book-inspired Iron Man, a real-life mad genius toils in a secret mountain lab to make the mechanical superhuman more than just a fantasy with the XOS Exoskeleton
Popular on Popsci
Most Viewed
Most Commented
SciTech
- High Speed Rail Link to Make Canberra Sydney’s Second Airport
- Tilt Train Technology
- Are You Going to Eat That?
- Bigger Balls - PopSci Investigates Tennis
- Cheap Supplements Relieve Migraines
- An Apple By Any Other Name
- Stay Healthy or Go Blind!
- We Are What Our Parents Ate
- Eyewitness Testimony Takes a Few More Hits
- Eye Muscles Avoid Paralyses
Most Emailed
SciTech
- The Science of Snobbery
- Puzzling Together Human Origins
- Eye Muscles Avoid Paralyses
- Tilt Train Technology
- Limbs, Prosthetics, and Tusks, Oh My!
- High Speed Rail Link to Make Canberra Sydney’s Second Airport
- Birth Order Can Affect Relationship Compatibility
- Delay (Anew) for the LHC Restart
- Weighing the Costs
- Stay Healthy or Go Blind!
Today on PopSci.com
Copyright © 2009 Popular Science
A Bonnier Corporation Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Comments
Sounds fascinating, though I'm not sure that it will change the game in any drastic way. In terms of crowd attraction and viewing numbers, its a matter of who is playing and the tournament being played, not "how long can we make this match go for".
Also, the match itself will also draw in the spectators, since many more people rock up to the finals of a competition simply to see who wins the tournament, and don't care too much about who is playing in it.
0 out of 0 people found this comment helpfulYeah, bigger balls really won't make much difference to match play and therefore most likely won't affect the crowd drawing capabilities of matches.
The only thing that will make the sport more entertaining is if there are more dramatic matches, like the recent Nadal vs Verdasco semi-final match, or even the Nadal vs Federer final. Those are the games people want to see, with some 15000 people watching the finals live in the stadium.
So what they should do is instead of focussing all the effort on improving the science behind the sport, fund the training of players so that there will be more talent in the pool and thus many more exciting matches to come!
0 out of 0 people found this comment helpfulI hear ya there boy. Those matches in the recent Aus Open will definitely go down as some of the most intense and exciting matches played. Its not often that a game will go for 4 or even 5 hours straight.
I think its the womens matches that have lost the wow-factor, what with power players there dominating the circuit. The finals there was most disappointing, lasting only a little over an hour. I'd feel a bit cheated if I spent that much money to see a final that didn't even go the length of a movie!
0 out of 0 people found this comment helpfulI don't think we really need to make the games longer. Although the semi-final match mentioned was probably an exception to the rule, it was still a damn long match.
It may be good for us dedicated fans, but if you're trying to capture more people from the casual audience, a lengthy match isn't the way to go. Just look at what's happened with the cricket. Matches are getting shorter and shorter in an attempt to keep the casual viewer amused.
0 out of 0 people found this comment helpful