Fast Starters On Return

In the last article, we looked at those players that are proficient at defending their serves well in the early stages of matches. However, what really separates the top players from the rest is the ability to break serve. Without the ability to break, you are relying on tiebreaks and no matter how good a player you are, there is a significant element of luck in a tiebreak. In this article, we will look at those players that are able to take advantage of their opponent's serve in the early exchanges of matches and get off to a great start.

Robin Soderling's ability to break serve early on was almost unparalleled

From a trading perspective, the ability to identify players that have a strong ability to break serve early on could be invaluable. While the price may move slightly on a hold of serve, it is breaks of serve that provide the opportunity for more significant profit. Picking early breaks of serve gives the ability to build a good book within the first few games of the match providing greater margin for error later on.

Although no long active on the ATP circuit, this table shows how good Robin Soderling was at getting off to a lightning start. His 26 breaks of serve from 62 opening two return games in matches is extraordinary and no other player comes close to this 41.9%. Andrey Rublev is an interesting one to keep an eye on here as well. He is still very young and if he can improve his stamina to the extent where he can keep up his quick starts, he could become a very good player.

At the other end of the scale, there are some truly awful performances here. Peter Luczak has failed to break in his opening two return games in any of his 11 matches in the sample, while Alex Bogomolov's performance early on is poor compared to his improvement later in the match.

One particularly interesting name to note here is Victor Estrella, who is the only player to appear in the bottom 15 for both serving and returning. It would certainly seem to suggest that if you are looking to back Estrella, it is worth waiting until he gets past the early stages of the match, at which stage, if he has managed to keep it on serve, you are likely to still be able to get virtually the same price as at the start.

Here, we look at a number of top players and some of those that we identified in the previous article on serving. In terms of the young pairing of Borna Coric and Hyeon Chung that stood out as good starters on serve, there is a interesting difference here. Coric's strong start on serve is needed to cancel out his early difficulties on return, which could suggest that he requires a few games to really start to read the serve of his opponent. However, Chung also starts very strongly on return as well as serve, which raises an interesting question of whether he is simply very strong out of the blocks or whether there is an issue with stamina that causes his game to deteriorate from its initial high level.

Once again, we see the Italian pair of Andreas Seppi and Fabio Fognini at the bottom of this list, just as they were on serve. It certainly suggests that for whatever reason, they both struggle in the early stages of matches, which is definitely something to bear in mind if you are looking to trade matches involving either of them.

Fast Starters On Serve

It is no secret that some players excel at racing out of the blocks quickly, whilst others often need time to build themselves into matches. At the top level, Andy Murray is often regarding as a relatively slow starter, while further down, the likes of Fabio Fognini and Jiri Vesely are seen as players that do not exact start rapidly.

If we could identify those players that start matches quickly and those that struggle to get out of the blocks, we may be able to use the information in terms of betting. If you are looking to get onside with a player that tends to start slowly, maybe it is worth waiting a game or two before entering the market rather than backing him from the start. Similarly, if you are looking to back a quick starter, backing him from the very start may lead to early chances to build a good position. So, how are we to find the quick and slow starters?

Nikoloz Basilashvili is very effective at protecting his serve in the early exchanges

The obvious place to begin is to look at the percentage of holds of serve and breaks of serve in the opening games of the match and compare it with the percentage for the rest of the match. Those players that start quickly are likely to show up with high percentages of holds and breaks in the opening two service and return games, while slow starters will probably have much higher statistics later in the match.

Using the excellent point-by-point data from Jeff Sackman (@tennisabstract), we can break matches down to gain this data. We have point-by-point data from 11,663 ATP matches, which represents the majority of matches from the start of 2011 until the end of the 2015 US Open, and should give us a reasonable sample size for a number of ATP players. We shall calculate the service hold percentage for each player for their first two service games of the match and the service hold percentage for all other service games, and the same process for return games and break percentages. Players with less than 20 service games in the 'Opening Two Games' category will be excluded.

This table shows the top 15 players in terms of the difference between their service hold percentage in their opening two service games compared to the rest of their service games. Nikoloz Basilashvili tops this list with an impressive 19 holds of serve from 22 games, given him a service hold percentage early on of 86.4%. For the rest of service games, this drops to just 67.7%, which suggests that players should not panic if they struggle to make a breakthrough against his serve in the early stages.

We can also see the talented young pairing of Hyeon Chung and Borna Coric on this list. Over time, it will be interesting to see whether they remain toward the top of the table here or whether it is just a lack of stamina that causes their service game to drop as the match progresses.

It is certainly worth considering that if you are looking to oppose any of these players in the market, you might be able to get a slightly bigger price by waiting a couple of games until we get past their strong starts.

At the other end of the scale, we can see some players that really struggle to get out of the blocks. Yannick Mertens has held just 12 out of 24 of his opening two service games, which is pretty horrible when you consider it. It certainly suggests that if you are looking to oppose Mertens, it is worth doing it from the very start, rather than waiting, or if you are looking to back any of these players, you may want to wait a couple of games to see whether they are able to limit the damage in the early stages.

Here, I have listed a few of the bigger name players in the ATP as a comparison. For all the notion of Andy Murray being a slow starter, on serve there does not appear to be much of a difference. Whilst he does hold serve on very slightly fewer occasions, it is a small difference. However, the French pairing of Gilles Simon and Gael Monfils do appear to start relatively slowly, although this is nothing compared to the Italian pairing of Fabio Fognini and Andreas Seppi. If you are looking to back these players, you may benefit by waiting for a slightly bigger price after a slow start.

On the flip side, we can see that Stan Wawrinka is a very strong starter on serve, while the duo of Milos Raonic and Roger Federer are both very proficient at protecting their serve immediately from the start of the match.

The next article will look at those players that have the ability to break serve effectively in the early stages and those that take time to get a read on their opponent's serve.

Luton v AFC Wimbledon: Betting Preview

Since taking over at AFC Wimbledon in December 2012, Neal Ardley has built the club into a solid mid-table outfit in League 2, but there are signs that the club could mount a playoff push this season. They are arguably slightly unfortunately to only find themselves in 12th position in the table after eight games - they should have beaten Plymouth on the opening day and will feel aggrieved to have not taken at least a point against Cambridge. On their travels, they have had three consecutive 1-1 draws, but could easily have taken three points against both Mansfield and Yeovil based on the stats.

This weekend, they face a Luton Town side that was tipped for a title push before the season began, but who have struggled and find themselves in 19th position at this stage. Home defeats to Bristol Rovers and Portsmouth and away defeats to Yeovil and Notts County are not results that will have pleased John Still and the statistics do not give them any great areas for optimism.

One major area of concern for Luton will be the number of chances that they are conceding in central areas of the penalty area, particularly in the air. The graphic below shows all of the chances that Luton have conceded at home so far this season.

As we can see, there are plenty inside the penalty area. Only Dagenham & Redbridge and Hartlepool have conceded more than Luton's 2.00 headed chances per match from 'Centre of Box', which will be a concern for John Still with AFC Wimbledon and Adebayo Akinfenwa heading to Kenilworth Road. Indeed, only Cambridge's Leon Legge and Leyton Orient's Paul McCallum have had more headed opportunities this season than Akinfenwa's six. However, Akinfenwa is not the only danger for Luton's defenders as 6`4 striker Tom Elliott has also had five headed chances from good areas this season. On the ground, Andy Barcham is also a danger with his eight chances only being bettered by two other players this season. As we can see, AFC Wimbledon are very capable of creating chances in the areas where Luton struggle.

However, the concern for Luton could be going forward. While they have scored 12 goals, their xG of just 8.83 suggests that they have overachieved in an attacking sense so far. Their three goals from seven shots on target from outside the area is unlikely to continue and, even if you include shots off target and blocked, they have a conversion rate of just under 10% from outside the area, well above the league average of 3.7%. They also have a conversion rate of almost 30% from shots from Centre of Box compared to a league average of 16.4%. They could have good strikers, which could lead to a slightly above average conversion rate, but both these numbers are likely to regress slightly.

It will not help that they come up against an AFC Wimbledon defense that has performed well according to the stats. The 8.5 shots conceded per game puts them in a group of teams that are just behind the elite defensive trio of Oxford, Portsmouth and Northampton and the only area that they show up poorly in is headed chances inside the box. However, only three sides have created fewer headed chances this season than Luton, so one wonders whether they will be able to take advantage. With both Craig Mackail-Smith and Josh McQuoid comfortably under 6`, it is unlikely that they will be putting crosses into the penalty area too often.

Recommended Bets

AFC Wimbledon +0.25 @ 1.77 (Pinnacle)
Adebayo Akinfenwa To Score First @ 7.25 (10Bet)
Tom Elliott To Score First @ 9.0 (Bet365)

League Two Stats: Eight Games In

The League 2 season is now eight games old for the majority of teams and some of the narratives for the season are beginning to be drawn up.

It is a division that is often talked about in terms of the unpredictability, but the league table is currently suggesting otherwise, even at this early stage. Three of the top four favourites for the title pre-season currently find themselves in the top five in the standings, while the two relegation places are currently occupied by two of the three shortest-priced pre-season relegation favourites. With almost a fifth of the season already completed, let us take a look at some of the statistics from League 2 and try and draw out any interesting discoveries that are not immediately obvious from the league table.

Paul Cook's Portsmouth team appear to be living up to their pre-season title favouritism thus far

ATTACKING

The table shows the five best attacking teams and the five worst attacking teams in League 2 thus far based on their expected goals, not including penalties. We can see that Plymouth Argyle have accumulated the greatest expected goals with 13.7, which is a full goal ahead of Carlisle in second position. This is driven by two interesting aspects.

Firstly, their 12.88 shots per game is the most of any side in the division. This is not a huge surprise - more shots generally equals more expected goals - but this is not necessarily the case, as Notts County prove. Notts County have taken joint third most shots in League 2 per game this season, but rank just tenth for expected goals, with over half of their shots coming from outside the penalty area.

Secondly, Plymouth are not only having more shots than any other team, but they are also creating shots in good areas. Their 0.75 chances per match from Very Close Range with either left or right foot (worth 0.59 xG) is almost twice as high as the second highest in the division and shows that they are generating shooting opportunities in the most dangerous area at an impressive rate. Indeed, these chances mean that their attacking duo of Jake Jervis and Graham Carey are currently 1st and 3rd in terms of xG for individual players with 4.1 and 3.2 respectively, which roughly reflects their actual tallies of 5 and 4 goals.

In terms of individual players, it is also no surprise to see 2nd and 4th on the list coming from Carlisle United. Jabo Ibehre and Jason Kennedy have 3.5 and 3.1 in xG this season, although this is not quite reflected in their actual goal tallies with Ibehre having scored 8 goals and Kennedy still yet to get off the mark from open play.

At the other end of the scale, Yeovil Town are in disarray and are being forced to consider the possibility of consecutive relegations down from the Championship into non-League. Their 6.25 shots per match is comfortably the lowest in the division and even their 8 non-penalty goals so far is potentially an over-achievement.

It is interesting to note that Leyton Orient are the only one of the top nine pre-season title favourites to feature in this list and just two of the top five teams in the list are currently in either promotion or playoff places.

DEFENDING

Oxford United finished last season with nine clean sheets in their last fifteen matches and have continued their excellent defensive record into the current season. They concede just 7.0 shots per match, have not conceded a single shot from Very Close Range, concede a league low 0.88 shots with the foot from the Centre of Box and tend to force teams to shoot from wide areas of the penalty area. With just 4.8 xG conceded in eight matches so far, their seven actual goals conceded is actually a bit high compared to what we might expect. Five of these seven goals have come from 17 shots in Centre of Box with a conversion rate of almost 30% compared to a league average of just under 16.4%. This may come down, but interestingly it mirrors last season where they appeared particularly vulnerable in this area. Time may tell whether there is a systemic weakness in their defensive system or whether this will simply revert back toward the mean.

AFC Wimbledon also appear highly in this area, which combined with their third-place in the attacking stats suggests that maybe they should be higher in the table than their current 12th place in the table.

The presence of Barnet and Carlisle in the bottom five for defensive ability in contrast to their top five ranking in attacking ability explains why they have combined for 24 and 34 goals respectively in the league so far. Yeovil Town will be seriously concerned about their position in the bottom five for defensive ability, given their struggles in attack that we looked at earlier.

ACCRINGTON STANLEY

One team in particular is notable in comparison to the pre-season expectations - Accrington Stanley. They were the joint favourites for relegation according to the bookmakers, but currently find themselves in 6th position in the table. This position appears deserved thus far, given their 5th position in the defensive stats and 8th in attacking stats. While they may not be able to keep this up for the rest of the season, they are already looking in an excellent position to stay in the division and can seriously eye up a top-half finish. They have been aided by the good form of Josh Windass, whose 2.1 xG places him at 13th in terms of individual players.

How To Fix a Tennis Match (by Nicolas Kicker)

If you were to ask people what they knew about the city of Barranquilla, which is located on the northern Caribbean coast of Colombia, the answer is likely to be very little. Some may know it for the Carnival, the second largest in the world behind Rio de Janeiro, while others may recognise it as the birthplace of singer Shakira or actress Sofia Vergara. Some of the more cultured may know it as the city where the legendary author Gabriel Garcia Marquez was based for much of his life. However, I can guarantee that nobody will have heard of Barranquilla for its tennis.

However, last night saw Barranquilla join locations, including Meersbusch, Dallas and Scheveningen, to have seen match fixing scandals in ATP Challenger Tour matches in the past 18 months. While this article will focus predominantly on the match between Nicolas Kicker and Giovanni Lapentti, it will also touch on another match from Barranquilla between Facundo Mena and Patricio Heras.

Nicolas Kicker is a 23-year old player from Argentina, ranked at #171 in the world. He has three ITF titles in 2015 and ten in total in the past three years. Before heading to Barranquilla, he had reached back-to-back Challenger finals in Biella and Todi, which marked a real breakthrough for his career having previously failed to pass the second round at that level. Going into his match against the veteran Ecuadorian, Giovanni Lapentti, he was the eighth seed and might even have been mentioned as a dark horse for a good run again. As the pre-match odds show, he was priced at 1.53, which relates to an implied probability of around 65% of winning the match.

There was nothing suspicious about these pre-match odds. It has been mentioned that Kicker might have been a fraction short based on data, but in general, these odds look to be about right.

The match did not start particularly well for Nicolas Kicker as he went down an early break at *2-1, but he was able to break back straight away in a long game. He then held to love and broke Lapentti again in another long game and held serve to go 5-2* ahead. At this stage, you would expect Kicker to be pushing toward a price of around 1.25. However, as we can see, this was far from the case.

Rather than being a strong favourite, for some bizarre reason, Nicolas Kicker has actually drifted way out in the betting to a price of 3.3, implying a probability of just 30.3% of winning the match. For a player that was 65% to win before the start, it is entirely nonsensical for him to now be only 30% to win the match, despite being ahead by a break in the opening set. Unless there is a major injury concern, this is highly suspicious.

Kicker would break the Lapentti serve for the third time in the set to win it 6-2, but the market did not seem to care at this stage. As the second set began, Kicker held serve and the market drifted out slightly to around 1.69 on Lapentti as the graph from 6-2, 1-0* shows:

However, Lapentti would break and consolidate to take a 4-2* lead in the second set by which time the market had decided how the match was going to play out. At this stage, we can see that Bet365, who would have been reflecting the Betfair movements had Giovanni Lapentti at 1.12 to win the match, implying an 89% chance. Given the initial match price and the fact that he was still down a set, this is just farcical.

Indeed, despite only being down a single break, Nicolas Kicker is rated as having just a 9.1% chance of winning the second set. Given that at this stage of the match, he had broken the Lapentti serve three times in seven games and had only been broken twice himself, this is quite simply beyond belief.

To the surprise of nobody that was following the match, Lapentti won the second set and went on and won the match in the third set. The fact that Lapentti was playing so poorly, particularly in the third set, actually made this all the more obvious to watch. Indeed, you almost get the impression late on in the third set that Lapentti, who was on the end of another questionable match earlier in the year against Jimmy Wang, had figured out what Kicker was doing and did not quite know what to do. The clip below from Kicker's service game at 4-4 is a perfect example. Kicker throws in two double faults to bring it to deuce, but Lapentti then puts one into the net and then hammers a return wide to the frustration of the Argentinean.

In the decisive game at 5-5, Kicker loops his first serve in for Lapentti to hit an easy return winner on the first point. The second point sees a first serve that almost bounces before it reaches the net followed by an unforced error into the net during the rally.The third point is an almost carbon-copy backhand into the net and it was finished off by a decent point by Lapentti, who by this stage, almost looked disinterested as he knew what was happening.

I would stress at this stage that, while he may have gained an idea toward the end of what was happening, there is no evidence to suggest that Giovanni Lapentti had any part in any wrongdoing in this match. The finger is pointed at Nicolas Kicker and Kicker only. By the end of the match, there was almost £700,000 matched on Betfair on the match market.

As with all of these suspicious matches, there is virtually no way to explain the movement of the betting odds other than that someone knew the outcome of the match before it happened. An injury might have moved the odds to an extent, but there was no indication of any injury. The full video of the match is below, so you can check it out yourself.


I mentioned another questionable match earlier as well - Facundo Mena against Patricio Heras. This was also in Barranquilla.

Facundo Mena started as a slight favourite in this match and there appeared to be little between them as they reached a first set TB. Patricio Heras went up a mini-break, but this marked the influx of a large sum of money into the market backing Facundo Mena. As the image below shows, by the time that Mena had recovered the mini-break and the score was 4-4, Mena had been backed into a price of 1.1, implying a 91.0% chance of winning the match. This seems unlikely given it was not far off a 50-50 match at the start.

Facundo Mena would win the tiebreak and would not lose another game, eventually winning the match 7-6, 6-0. However, there does not seem to be a stream available for this match, so it is difficult to tell whether there was an injury concern around Heras during this tiebreak.

It has been suggested that Heras took a MTO between sets, which suggests the presence of an injury. However, even if this is the case, given there were no pictures of the match, it seems strange that someone with large amounts of cash just happened to be live at this match in Barranquilla. Is it plausible? Just about. Is it likely? Maybe. However, there is probably not enough evidence to say for certain that the match was fixed. Instead, it must be filed in the highly suspicious pile for now.

The concern for tennis is that the Challenger Tour is simply becoming a hive for match fixing, whether it be obvious fixes like this, more sophisticated fixes that are tougher to detect or simply spot fixing. As each blatant fix passes without the player(s) involved being sanctioned, the temptation for other players to fix matches grows. If they know that nothing will happened even if the fix is so obvious, what is there to put players off fixing matches?

Update 1

Patricio Heras withdrew from the doubles with a left arm injury lending some credence to the theory that he was actually injured during his match against Facundo Mena.

Nicolas Kicker also withdrew from his doubles match, citing a lower back injury. While this could partially explain the odds movements, it seems unlikely to be able to completely exonerate Kicker in this particular match... 

The Rules of Tennis: A Few Thoughts

Although it does not mark the end of the season by any means, by virtue of being the final Grand Slam event of the year, the US Open tends to be the point that people often start to wonder about what the future may hold. The off-season will again be littered with exhibition matches, chief among them being the IPTL, and it is these exhibition matches that often lead to discussion around potential rule changes in tennis.

Now, tennis is clearly not broken. It continues to be a popular sport in many countries, albeit with a slightly ageing audience, but it does not need wholesale rule changes. Indeed, wholesale changes would probably damage the sport, both as a contest and as a spectacle. However, there are a number of areas in which rules could be tweaked or adjusted to improve the sport for various parties, whether that be the players, the spectators at the event itself or the audience watching televised pictures or streams. I thought I would put down a few of my thoughts as to what these changes might entail.

1. Injured Players and Lucky Losers

Given the recent situation with Vitalia Diatchenko and Serena Williams bringing this issue to the foreground, it seems an obvious place to start. Players, particularly those lower down in the rankings, rely on money from slam first rounds or even standard ATP/WTA events to finance large portions of their year. Over 50% of Vitalia Diatchenko's prize money this year has come from first round exits at the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the US Open. So while people question why they do not just withdraw if they have a slight injury, it is not really a sensible decision from a player's perspective.

You also see people suggest that you scrap prize money for first round losers - the idea being that you do not want to reward failure and stop players just turning up for the money. However, given the number of players that rely on this money, this does not seem to be a smart idea. For the majority of professional tennis players, merely reaching a grand slam is seen as success - a first round defeat is certainly not seen as a failure.

However, injured players playing matches below their ability and being forced to retire is clearly not good for spectators. So, how does one solve the issue?

My suggestion would be that if a player is in the draw, but is forced to withdraw on-site before their first round match, they would still collect the prize money for having lost in the first round. They would be replaced in the draw by a lucky loser. However, the lucky loser would not receive any prize money or ranking points if they lose this first match. Rather, the incentive for the lucky loser is gaining the opportunity to reach the second round at which stage, they would start to collect prize money and ranking points.

This would mean that an injured player could withdraw and not have to worry about losing out financially. The lucky loser would benefit by gaining the opportunity to reach the second round, but does not immediately gain financially purely on luck. The tournament would not be paying any extra prize money, but would be guaranteed a match between two fit players. The spectators get a full match between two fit players. It feels as though everyone benefits.

I would also be fully in favour of the lucky loser system at all tournaments being determined by the four highest ranked players to lose in qualifying being entered into a random draw and whichever player is drawn out of a hat gets the place. This prevents the issue with players tanking qualifying matches because they know that they are already in the draw.

2. Hawkeye Challenges and Technology

In a perfect world, tennis matches would be decided by the two players on court and no external factors. We do not want matches to be decided by calls by the umpire or the line judges. The challenge system was introduced to improve the accuracy of calls and has arguably been a big success. More decisions are correct and it is popular with crowds.

Ultimately, the point of the system is to ensure correct calls. It is ridiculous when a player has no challenges remaining and loses a point on a clearly incorrect call. It is also occasionally being used as a stalling technique by players to give themselves an extra few seconds to recover or compose themselves. We also see controversy over whether players are challenging in an appropriate time frame. Thus, I would propose that challenge system is taken away from the players and shifted to the umpire. The umpire would have the power to request a review on any call that he deemed to be marginal.

In the future, there is certainly the potential for technology to replace line judges completely. It is already being trialled in certain competitions and if that is successful, there are few arguments against it as a long-term solution. The major issue admittedly would be cost, but at the bigger events, it is certainly something to look at.

I also see no real reason that instant replays could not be used to rule on issues such as foot faults or double bounces. These can often be very controversial issues and can affect the whole flow of a match when a player is upset with a call. The use of instant replays would solve these issues almost instantaneously and remove the controversy allowing players to concentrate on the actual tennis.

3. Medical Timeouts

There has been plenty of debate around MTOs and their use as strategic timeouts to disrupt an opponent's momentum. Now, there is little doubt that they are sometimes used for this reason. However, there is also little doubt that players do often legitimately need to call for one to treat a genuine medical issue.

Scrapping them completely has been mooted, but this seems as though it would just lead to increased retirements and fewer completed matches. We may also see players playing through injuries without adequate support or strapping and exacerbating that injury. Neither of these are outcomes that are positive for players or spectators.

However, there does seem to be potential for a slight change to ensure that they are used for their intended purpose. We do not want to penalise a player too seriously for a medical issue, given that the mere presence of a medical issue is arguably penalising the player as it is. However, it does interrupt the game and momentum of an opponent for no fault of their own.

Thus, I would suggest that we keep MTOs as they are, but if you call one either during a game or that extends beyond the normal changeover period, then you are given a two shot penalty. So, if you call one before your own serve, you would start the next game at 0-30, and similarly, if you call one before your opponent served (a time that is often criticised for being for strategic reasons), you would start 30-0 down in the next game.

This should hopefully be enough of a penalty to prevent people from simply calling them for strategic reasons, but does not penalise a player too heavily if they have to call for a MTO for a genuine injury.

4. Left-Handed Servers

Left-handed players tend to have an inherent advantage in that their stronger serving side tends to coincide with game points or break points. It means that on the big points on their own serve, they have an advantage that a right-handed player does not have. A simple change to rectify this would simply be to have left-handed players start serving from the ad-court. This is not a major change, but it helps to level the playing field.

5. Warm-ups and Towels

Two fairly small issues, but as far as I am concerned, the warm-up is entirely pointless in tennis. The players will have been warming up before their match in the locker room and they will have been on the practice courts earlier in the day. All it achieves is to bore the crowd.

The practice of taking a towel to the back of the court and using it after every single point is also pretty ridiculous. Ignoring the fact that it is pretty unpleasant and unhygienic for the ball kids that have to handle the towel all the time, I cannot imagine that players cannot go more than a point without having to towel off. They should either be restricted to using it after games or simply during changeovers.

6. On-Court Coaching

Recently, I had a discussion around on-court coaching on Twitter. It stemmed from the fact that people were arguing that the ATP did not have on-court coaching, so the WTA should scrap it because it suggested that women were unable to manage without a coach helping them through. However, rather than assuming that the ATP is always the way forward, I would suggest that the ATP allow on-court coaching and it be permitted at all tournaments, including grand slams.

Most individual sports have an element of in-play coaching these days. Boxing has coaching between rounds, motor-sports have team radio and golf has caddies to provide advice. I see no reason why tennis should not embrace on-court coaching. If it leads to more competitive and interesting tactical matches, then what is the issue with it?

It could also be interesting for television audiences. Hearing a coach talk about the match and the tactics that a player should employ, then watching to see how and if those tactics are utilised appeals to certain people.

7. Shot Clock

Another issue that is regularly debated is the time taken between points and time violations seemingly being issues at the most inappropriate moments. Adding a shot clock in the corner of the court that is controlled by the umpire would take away any debate. It would count down from the end of the previous point and if a player has not served by the time it counts down, it would simply make a noise and the player would automatically lose the point. To establish continuity across the board, I would simply make it a 30-second limit for all tournaments.

However, I would also give the umpire the power to add time onto the shot clock if he felt it appropriate after the previous point or under other extenuating circumstances. Obviously after a long and strenuous rally, it would be acceptable to give the players a few extra seconds to recover. The idea is not to force players to rush, but simply to keep the match flowing and stop players taking long periods between points.

8. U21 and Junior Tour Finals

The final one is not a change to tennis in itself, but more an addition to the calendar. At the moment, there is an empty week between the final Masters event of the season and the World Tour Finals. This could be filled with a combined U21 and Junior version of the World Tour Finals. The eight highest ranked U21 players in one event and the top eight juniors in another.

In a sport that is becoming tougher and tougher to break into the top echelons for young players, this would help to highlight the young talent that is coming through and give them the opportunity to play on a big stage. In terms of the quality of player, if we look at the current rankings, then the two fields would consist of the following players:

ATP U21 - Dominic Thiem, Thanasi Kokkinakis, Borna Coric, Nick Kyrgios, Alexander Zverev, Hyeon Chung, Lucas Pouille and Kyle Edmund

Junior - Taylor Fritz, Michael Mmoh, Mikael Ymer, Seong Chan Hong, Reilly Opelka, Orlando Luz, Marcelo Tomas Barrios Vera and William Blumberg.

For the U21 event, that is a pretty solid field full of players of whom big things are expected. Whilst the junior field consists of names that are probably fairly unfamiliar to many, it would provide the opportunity for fans to see the potential future stars of the sport.

It is currently a week in which there is no major tennis and it marks the end of the season, so the likelihood is that most of the players would be happy to play and it would have the spotlight on it for the week. It could help tennis market some of its future stars and it could even be used as a trial event for new rule changes in a competitive atmosphere.